Posted By Glyn Atkinson Only 8 hours in a day, only got one pair of hands, can only be in one place at once! Fully plan your day, and then wait for the exceptions to occur - deal with them in turn ! Use these three phrases in turn to each enquiry, and they will realise that doing someone else's work will have to sacrifice some of yours ! I've been without an assistant for four monthes now, and this is what I tell people. I have a list of priorities - director driven at the top, working down to shop floor problems. Accidents and incidents stop everything else, and legal paperwork on a time scale for reply comes second. Phased training cannot be avoided - ie new starter induction training definitely on the first working day. I am never bored, but will appreciate the second pair of hands when they arrive !!

Posted By Tommy Cooper Oh dear Jim! Be careful about shouting that comment too loud on here! You will have them all after you!

Posted By mark limon JIM tut tut, ps dont tell anyone but I agree with you.

Posted By JEB Glyn "Working down to "shop floor" problems", I hate to think what the HSE or your "shop floor" would make of your list of priorities

Posted By mark limon In an ideal world we would all love to be able to not judge people on anything other than ability We dont live in an ideal world though, If I was a small businessman and had to choose between 2 exactly, equally ,just as good as each other ,same qualifications in fact indentically suitable people and one was a women of childbearing age and capability and one wasnt,finanacial implications for the future would make me choose the person not of child bearing age or capability . That may offend some,but if I had a business to run ,quite frankly I wouldnt care.

Posted By Whojoe I don't think there are many women out there 'of child bearing age' who would take these comments as a joke...

Posted By Homer I know the feeling but its all part of being a Manager, I am in a similar job and we had a lot of staff on leave, we were all multi tasking, never mind it's Friday, chill and have a beer.

Posted By JEB Surely if this is a small/medium company and everybody is expected to muck in then has all of this lady's work been shared out equally. A simple meeting is all that is required with all of the people involved to discuss the issues/tasks and share the work out to the most competent to undertake the particular tasks. And don't forget to speak to people do NOT use e-mail to air your frustrations with your boss.

Posted By Andy Peters I just wouldn't employ women. Reel em in!

Posted By B Oh for goodness' sake! *rolls eyes* Clearly I’m about to not follow my own advice! Andy - too obvious mate, no-one is going to rise to that (watch me be wrong now!) Mark - It's not about having a 'high horse', as you put it. By stating that you would not employ a woman of childbearing age you are essentially saying that you will not employ women full stop (see my original post). Frankly the mind boggles at how you would determine whether they had the ‘capability’ to have children! I am sympathetic to the fact that small businesses find it very difficult to cover the costs of women who take maternity leave, but you are as well to say that you want to check my family's medical history to make sure that there’s no genetic predisposition to illnesses that might make me need time off work. There is no guarantee that I will or won’t get ill, just like there is no guarantee that I will or won’t get pregnant. Circumstances change – for men and women! If you think I’m on my high horse about this then so be it – although I don’t think it can be a stampede if there’s just the one of me. Beth, 25, not planning on having children any time soon.

Posted By mark limon Sorry B ,I was frantically attempting not to say a person who is not capable of bearing a child would probably be a man,I wasnt talking about doing a fertility test . I meant I would employ a man if the theoretical 2 people were a man and women. I should have realised by now that some people on here just love to dissect posts to find offence where none is meant or meanings that arent there . I will pay more attention in future to try and be clear what I mean.What a minefield these forums are,always someone ready to trip you up

Posted By Andy Peters "What a minefield these forums are,always someone ready to trip you up" Would that claim be against IOSH or the person direct? Regards :)

Posted By B I think you are misunderstanding me: I was aware of what you were implying - I just thought it was a funny way of putting it. I did not take offence at your comments - I just think they are very sad, and I'm grateful that not every thinks like you, otherwise I would not be in a position to write this post at all. If you notice, I also said that I understood why businesses find it a struggle when women go on maternity leave. I did not imply any meaning that was not there - the only thing I took from your post, and responded to, is that you would, personally, not employ women. I apologise to Lee for the hi-jacking of this post - rest assured I have said everything I intend to on this subject. B

Posted By mark limon b you posted I did not imply any meaning that was not there - the only thing I took from your post, and responded to, is that you would, personally, not employ women. where did I write I wouldnt employ women full stop.I was talking about a specific situation. I think youve most certainly implied a meaning that wasnt there. I refer to the post I made some moments ago, regards,sad Mark.

Posted By Merv Newman This thread is imploding. So many apologies ! (I got here to late to see why Jim had been locked away) Just a reminder, early legislation banned women of "child bearing capability" from being exposed to certain metals and chemicals. So, to keep their jobs, some women had themselves sterilised. Fortunately the legislation was changed to "of child bearing age" Small employers (read that as small companies, not tiny managers) now have an additional burden which will lead to women being less employable. And they will do their level best to avoid the additional costs of employing temps. Everyone else has to take up the load. For a while. You do get used to it. Like it or not. Hey, it's a chance to show just what you are capable of ! if you are in H&S you have already shown that you are capable, intelligent, good at admin, maybe run a team, can absorb and digest large quantities of unreadable bumf and turn it into user freindly text, have good interpersonal skills and, and, and (I've run out. What else are H&S people good for ?) So, if they want you to take over maybe 10% of someone elses job, you can handle it and maybe even find a better, less time consuming way of doing it. YOU know you're that good. Either it works or it doesn't. If managers find that the rate of through-put is becoming unacceptably low then they will be forced to find another solution. Either do it themselves or go for temps and pay the cost. Or they shout at you. I do fear though for the unemployment rate of young(ish) women. I did work for one company where the manager had adopted a policy of hiring young couples whenever possible, hoping to develop a long term stable work force. With the double income they were also able to develop large families He now bitterly regrets it. Merv