FCHouse A blog about our lives, our passions, our photos

oh yes! I predicted that time ago :-)

http://katy.dimono.com/blog/?p=60#comments

good for Sir Alan

Posted by frank on 30 September 2006 @ 3pm

yes i mean we all saw it coming and im sure there is more to this than we the public know.

Posted by Katy on 30 September 2006 @ 5pm

Hi guys!
I completely agree with you Katy: surely there is more and we never know what it really could be!!! :)
However, I sincerely hope that my words haven\’t been misanderstood, and I\’m referring to Frank and his reply on Katy\’s site about the risk management of hiring women in child bearing age.
What I mean is that I can understand Sir Alan\’s concern about Michelle not because she got pregnant, but because, thanks to that Tv program, Michelle can\’t be considered a common person anymore, and furthermore, she\’s now tightly linked to Sir Alan and his firm image. This is fundamental: she\’s part of Sir Alan\’s staff. So, if she behave in an improper manner, he is, in some ways, negatively stroke by a bad publicity as well. In addition, he has spent a lot of time to choose publicly the \”right\” person, and her behaviour is showing that perhaps she\’s not as reliable and stable as he could reckon when he hired her. If she is capable to put at risk her career for one night stand, what about the tasks she will manage?
Personally I don\’t agree with the idea that a person like him could really mind her maternity leave in terms of \”risk management\” because we must not forget that not only employees are protected by the law, but also company owners.
This is what it is stated by the law with regard to this matter:
Employer reimbursement level
* Employers recover 92 per cent of the Statutory Maternity Pay they pay by deducting it from their next payment of NI contributions, PAYE and other payments to the Inland Revenue.
* Small employers (those whose total NI liability is £45,000 or less in the previous tax year) may recover 104.5 per cent (April 2004) of the Statutory Maternity Pay they pay.
* Employers may claim money in advance to help with their cashflow.
I can\’t say this is a bad treatment for a company!!! This has probably been created in order to avoid possible discriminations and problems to both parts.
Besides, I believe that it\’s highly unlikely for a wealth person and a good manager like Sir Alan to be concerned about one single maternity leave, it\’s more probable that he is worried about his image and the future of his companies, don\’t you think? ;)

Posted by Faby on 30 September 2006 @ 7pm

im sorry i disagree on some part i think he WAS worried about the pregnancey and im sure this is a big part of why Michelle no longer works for Alan especailly as she has already said that Syded was not just a one night stand to her and they were thinking of marrying (this was in a magazine in which they were both interviwed). Im not saying he pushed her out or even sacked her i just think talks took place she was offered a deal she couldn’t say no too. I might be wrong but .. i wouldn’t be surpised if in the future if came out something like this had happened.

Posted by Katy on 1 October 2006 @ 5am

I do really think with the idea that a person like him could really mind her maternity leave in terms of “risk management”. risk management is not about money, is about facts, facts that affect results,
and you yourself said in the end what i wanted to say now: “it\’s more probable that he is worried about his image and the future of his companies, don\’t you think?”

ta luego

Posted by frank on 1 October 2006 @ 10am

Hi Katy, hi Frank!!!
I\’m really very happy for these comments because it\’s usually very hard to create a discussion about posts!
I\’m happy also because we all have different points of view and I love hearing different theories! :)
I didn\’t know that Michelle and her lover were thinking about getting married…but basically, this doesn\’t change the situation so much, in the sense that she had no intentions of creating a family so early, regarding to what she had said about her career plans. You know, sometimes people change their mind, or perhaps they say things they don\’t really believe in… But let\’s assume that the real problem had been her pregnancy for Sir Alan. Now that she has lost her child, the problem doesn\’t exist anymore… So why? Because she, in some ways, has tarnished her reputation as a focused manager? Because she has realised that what she really wanted was to have a child and start a family? …Who knows?
I\’m sorry Frank! It has been me that probably I have misanderstood the meaning of what you were intending… But even if we start from the same assumptions, we have two slightly different ideas. I think that the term \”risk management\” involves a lot of factors: deep knowledge of the market, running the risk of investments, human resources, their career plans and so on. I think you know better than me this kind of subject where I admit my complete ingnorance! :(
What surprises me more is that, according to what you\’re saying (on Katy\’s website), having a baby for whoever (men or women) is something that may affect parents\’ efficiency at work because of their concern about their children. If this is true, don\’t you think that this is taken into account as part of risk management that every company runs? Company owners have to consider that once hired, human resources can resign, get ill, get pregnant and even die. This is a natural process that involves life as well as work. If you take too seriously these kind of thoughts, as a manager, you shouldn\’t hire anyone! All you can do is to make the best choice you can and nothing else. This is a really competitive society, so a company can\’t afford to remain stuck, you must make a decision because it will always happen something you haven\’t foreseen. I can be wrong, but this is what I think.
However, I\’m confident that we all agree with one point: they have made an agreement and now both Michelle and Sir Alan must be satisfied about this deal, whatever it has been!!! :)

Posted by Faby on 1 October 2006 @ 11am