Sexual discrimination or not?

I have just watched a news cast that made me think a bit. As this case is probably very country-specific to Norway, I list this here instead of in the Politics forum:

A substitute worker in our country has the right to get a tenure if that sub has been filling the same position for four years or more.

A mother has the right to take an extended, paid, leave of absence after she has given birth.

The specifics of this case was this: A female substitute teacher had been working a while in her position when she gave birth. She took the extended leave of absence. Now she has been working again for some time, reaching the limit of four years or more needed to be granted a tenure. But the employer, in this case the commune/county says she has to work nine more months to be eligible for tenure due to her leave of absence since the first rule says she has to have been performing her duties continuously for four years. Obviously she hasn't done this, so on one hand she isn't being discriminated (in the legal sense), on the other hand, she has been employed for four years, so she is eligible for tenure.

It really made me think. Is this really a case of the decision-makers seeing her as a substitute (filling in for one worker) then taking an extended leave of absence (creating the need for yet another substitute) and fearing that they might end up in this situation once more, therefore saying she has to catch up with her employment record/work an additional nine months to be eligible for tenure just to be sure they get what they pay for? Or is it just plain and simple old-fashioned thinking that women shouldn't be working?

However, my question to this forum is: Do you see this as being discrimination, or just common sense?

I see both sides of this case, but I am unable to make up a decision on it.

Tough one, and really depends on one's outlook on the facts. I would say that it is not discrimination as long as a man can take an extended leave also if he becomes a father. In other words, if a man is allowed paternity leave then theis women is not being discriminated against because of sex because the employer can argue that it would treat a man in the exact same way.

It doesn't seem to be working very well, but I had forgotten the fact that a father actually has that right. To take a paternity leave when he becomes a father. Now that would really be a pure philosophical reasoning if he would be treated the same way, as I have seen no such cases as this involving men. That may be dependent on a few things: We don't think it's discrimination because the argument in this case, although it may be formulated to hide sexual discrimination, does have a valid logic. Combine that with the fact that we don't necessarily have to think about whether or not we are being discriminated (I don't think most men do) and this case may have happened to a man, but because we as men are thinking in a different way compared to women, noone has voiced any concern about it.


DISCLAIMER: I really don't know how to say this right when referring to this case, so I decided to give a little explanation on my view concerning women working.

I don't see women as inferior workers for the most part. It's a physiological fact that men in general have the more developed muscles, so for heavy work it's generally a good idea to hire men instead of women. However, if you are an industrial employer/heavy-work employer, you don't have the right to say you won't hire someone just because they are female. (That goes for both the legal and the moral side of the case) You have to judge the individual, not the gender.

The same goes for employers in what are considered female professions, whereas most of these are taking care of other people, e.g. nurses, kindergarten teachers. They don't have the right to reject to hire someone just because they are male.

To recapitulate: There are some areas of professional life where you as a person, due to your physiology, might not be suited as an employee. But I would say that that concerns probably 1-2% of all jobs out there. I have seen cases where both women and men use the "sexual discrimination"-card to get the job no matter what because they want it regardless of whether they are fit for the job. I think you have to look at the job before you and look at yourself and see whether you truly are fit for a job before you play that card. If you want that job solely to prove a point in the gender issues, you are not fit for the job.

PS: This might evolve into another discussion, so if you want to discuss the difference of men and women in the workplace with me, give me a PM and I will start a new thread regarding that. This one is for this particular case.

Being a female, with children, i can understand the woman's feelings on the fact that she has been with them for 4 years and therefore deserves the tenure.

However, if the law clearly states, 4 years of active continuous employment, then i would say that is pretty well covered and the employer is safe. That is the business HR side speaking.

As to if it is discrimination... i do not think it should be directly related to why she was out. The issue is, how would (has) the rule been applied if she was out 9 months due to a medical condition/trauma? How would (has) the rule been applied to a man who was out due to a heart condition or other such item? The reason for the absence isn't the issue. The issue is, how has the company dealt with employees who were out for whatever reasons in the past? If their refusal of the tenure is constant with all of the cases (and there had to have been someone else with them out for a period of time at some point... ) then it is policy/interpretation of the law and nothing more...

As to men and discrimination. i believe it does happen at times. i live in the states and when my youngest was born my husband asked for 2 weeks off to help with the twins and the new baby. A lady at the office, who had just given birth was out for 6 weeks paid, but he was told that he couldn't take the 2 weeks (paid or unpaid) unless he took vacation/leave time. THAT in my mind was discrimination... personal opinion.

It's just logical to me that she would have to work those days. I don't think it was discrimination. It's true that there are certain things that suck about being a woman as far as unequal treatment. I agree we are different, but we are not unequal (hopefully).

Unless of course you're my man...then perhaps I'm a little less equal (*giggles at Orewellian reference*).

Here's a suggestion. It's not discrimination, only two laws that aren't compatible with each other. Discrimination implies intent. Maybe it's simply down to, somebody at the state department should have done a little bit more homework.

Both Norway and Sweden have the same problems regarding laws that cover employment. They are far too complex. It takes years before a worker has understood the intricasies of the system. We really need to belong to a labour union or we could never reap the full extent of the state guaranteed benefits. For the simple reason that they have full time employees who's only job is to inform it's members of available options.

I wouldn't know where to look for similar cases regarding policy on a leave of absence during Substitution. I know where to find the law, but that doesn't mean that my interpretation of the text in the law is the same as what's being done. (This is just my mind playing tricks on me I think, but I seem to remember a case regarding one of my teachers in elementary school going through something like this on medical, not maternal, grounds. I believe she was given tenure four years after she was employed, regardless of her leave. Or maybe she wasn't, but just didn't make an outcry of it being discrimination. I must have been about 8-10 at the time and didn't think about these things, so the chance is, I am completely wrong altogether.)

It is a simple fact of the matter that these are two laws that isn't very compatible. But which one to look more to? For me, not being a part of either side of this case, I would choose to follow the law that benefits the community more than it benefits the individual. After all, that's what we have rules and regulations and laws for: To benefit the community over the individual.

As far as the discrimination issue I started with, I don't know if we can ever know if that was the case starting this off. After all, I am no psychic and can't read minds, so I don't know the inner-most thoughts of the person making the decision in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OttifantSir

As far as the discrimination issue I started with, I don't know if we can ever know if that was the case starting this off. After all, I am no psychic and can't read minds, so I don't know the inner-most thoughts of the person making the decision in the first place.

---

Without being a psychic I'll now magically read the minds of Scandinavian policy makers....they're right now all thinking...."I better not do anything that can in the slightest way be interpreted as discrimination of women or imigrants, or my job is fucked".

Our laws aren't discriminatory against women in the least. For the reason I stated just above. Scandinavian feminists are extremly active, powerful and quick to judge. Whether that is in every way a good or bad thing I'm not so sure, but it's aparently needed. We all know that under law, being a woman can really suck ass in the world. The system USA has with giving tax benefits to married couples...ie gearing the system toward making it easier for women to be house-wives, could never survive in Scandinavia. Our feminists would pick it apart and make a short job of the polititians suporting it.

Why the Scandinavian countries in spite of this have inequalies between the sexes is a seperate debate all together....and a lot more complicated one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OttifantSir

I have just watched a news cast that made me think a bit. As this case is probably very country-specific to Norway, I list this here instead of in the Politics forum:

A substitute worker in our country has the right to get a tenure if that sub has been filling the same position for four years or more.

A mother has the right to take an extended, paid, leave of absence after she has given birth.

The specifics of this case was this: A female substitute teacher had been working a while in her position when she gave birth. She took the extended leave of absence. Now she has been working again for some time, reaching the limit of four years or more needed to be granted a tenure. But the employer, in this case the commune/county says she has to work nine more months to be eligible for tenure due to her leave of absence since the first rule says she has to have been performing her duties continuously for four years. Obviously she hasn't done this, so on one hand she isn't being discriminated (in the legal sense), on the other hand, she has been employed for four years, so she is eligible for tenure.

It really made me think. Is this really a case of the decision-makers seeing her as a substitute (filling in for one worker) then taking an extended leave of absence (creating the need for yet another substitute) and fearing that they might end up in this situation once more, therefore saying she has to catch up with her employment record/work an additional nine months to be eligible for tenure just to be sure they get what they pay for? Or is it just plain and simple old-fashioned thinking that women shouldn't be working?

However, my question to this forum is: Do you see this as being discrimination, or just common sense?

I see both sides of this case, but I am unable to make up a decision on it.

---

Basedon what you posted, I would not view this a Sex Discrimination, but more on simply not complying with therules and regulations of her job.
If the rules says specfificly 4 years or more of cotinuos servce, and she leftbefore that for her pregnancy, then no, she did not complete the time frame required for her tenure
But my reply is based soley on the remarks you posted, I do not based on this feel sex discrimination has anything to do with this, to me it is simply am tter of her taking early time offand being told shen eeds more time to qualify for tenure based on her early request for leave of absence
If she was fired or let go due to this yes then it could be view as discrimination, I do not believe any court would say she was discriminated against simply because she elft early to give birth and had to work an extendned period of time for her tenure

I have read the entire law regarding the inter-play between employer and employee, commonly called Arbeidsmiljøloven (direct translation: Work Environment Law) of Norway, and I cannot see this woman's accusation being anywhere in there. I even read the entire old law (They have changed the wording and added a few words here and there, therefore they must exchange the whole law (Huh?))

Not once in my several readings and re-readings of this law did I see anywhere mentioning four years of substitution equals tenure. This leads me to think she was going by some local regulations, not the law, even if she said that it was in the law.

I have tried to keep an un-biased eye on the text of the law while reading it for the sake of this argument, and even re-read it several times, however, my conclusion is still the same: The law states no timeframe after which a substitute is given tenure regardless.