Konami Employee Fights Discrimination

[angryscotsman93]

Life is a series of extremely depressing events that eventually lead to death.

We have a pessimist here!
The glass is both half full and half empty!
Agreed? Ok.

Actually, I was making light of my dour view of things.

But yes, I am a peppermint.
Pessymist.
Pissymint.
Whatever.

Like I give a shit about whether or not it's half-full or half-empty, it's a fucking beverage to me.

 

[minarri]

I know that, I am aswell, but I still think she would've sued them even if she would get a "better" reason.

I wouldn't be so sure. After all this is a Japanese woman--not American. We Americans do love flaunting our ability to sue, but I think that the Japanese culture is a little different regarding matters of the sort. Hell I'm even surprised she had the courage to fight against the sexual discrimination.

 

[yeah_so_no]

It's not Konami's fault that she had a child. The company is not liable for their employee's reproductive habits. Knocking her pay down does seem odd, to me, being an American male and used to having much more job security (before I got laid-off.) But she should be happy they didn't pink slip her instead, something that does happen and is completely legal in the US.

They can't fire her for that; it's illegal in Japan. In fact, she is specifically accusing them of discrimination against her for taking maternity leave, which is illegal under Japanese labor law and against the equality under the law in the Japanese Constitution.

Uh well you dont really know if they demoted her because she had a child,maybe she was a bad worker and someone worked harder? and i fail to see the part where Konami decides how the child should be brought up,they are simply the employers of the mother,lately people will make any excuse to get money,racial/sexual/homophobic discrimination regardless of there being any signs of it

Uhh, how about going by what they told her, which is that they had decided to demote her because her "original position will be detrimental for [your] health and child-rearing? ("Kore made no busho de ha kenkoumen ya ikuji no fudan ni naru") They flat-out told her they were making decisions FOR her.

 

[LewsTherin]

I would at least have waited to see if having a child actually would have negatively impacted her productivity, then perhaps brought it up in a less harsh manner.

 

[asinann]

She would've sued them even if they demoted her with a more reasonable explanation, because that's how it works.

That may be so, but is irrelevant in this case, because they didn't even offer such an explanation. They've quite plainly stated that this was done because of her child.

I'm with Max on this one.

I know that, I am aswell, but I still think she would've sued them even if she would get a "better" reason.

In most first world countries this is illegal.

 

[Cekil1]

Konami handled this one very badly. If the young lady came back to work and evidence arose of a dip in quality this would make more sense. The devil's in the details though and who knows what else went on with this story.

 

[Arkhangelsk]

They should have offered first, and giving her less money won't help the child. At least have the courtesy to ask before you discriminate her.

It's not necessarily about discrimination just because she is a woman.

The problem is that they have to hire somebody to do her job while she is gone. That person doesn't want to lose HIS job either. And it's hard to find someone who wants to take a career type job just as a temp.

Don't hold me to this, but IIRC, they have to give her A job when she comes back, but I don't think it has to be the SAME job she had before.

If that's the case, they have no right to give her lower salary just cause she haves a child. In fact, she should get higher for participating in the human reproduction, plus the extra costs of having a child.

 

[kawligia]

They should have offered first, and giving her less money won't help the child. At least have the courtesy to ask before you discriminate her.

It's not necessarily about discrimination just because she is a woman.

The problem is that they have to hire somebody to do her job while she is gone. That person doesn't want to lose HIS job either. And it's hard to find someone who wants to take a career type job just as a temp.

Don't hold me to this, but IIRC, they have to give her A job when she comes back, but I don't think it has to be the SAME job she had before.

If that's the case, they have no right to give her lower salary just cause she haves a child. In fact, she should get higher for participating in the human reproduction, plus the extra costs of having a child.

I think the lower salary is because she has a different job within the company now and that's what her new job pays.

 

[RheynbowDash]

i hope she wins. Sexual discrimination is not tolerated now a days.

 

[Arkhangelsk]

They should have offered first, and giving her less money won't help the child. At least have the courtesy to ask before you discriminate her.

It's not necessarily about discrimination just because she is a woman.

The problem is that they have to hire somebody to do her job while she is gone. That person doesn't want to lose HIS job either. And it's hard to find someone who wants to take a career type job just as a temp.

Don't hold me to this, but IIRC, they have to give her A job when she comes back, but I don't think it has to be the SAME job she had before.

If that's the case, they have no right to give her lower salary just cause she haves a child. In fact, she should get higher for participating in the human reproduction, plus the extra costs of having a child.

I think the lower salary is because she has a different job within the company now and that's what her new job pays.

That's the problem, she gets lower salary cause she gets another job cause she was gone for having a child. It all leads to them giving her new terms cause she decided to have a family. And 2000$ is a lot of money. What if her economical plan already was on the border of bankruptcy, then her budget would fall apart, just cause of a new job. They may have have done what they should have done, but it's still unfair in the manner that she can't have her old job back. I'm not questioning their choice that they had to let someone else have the job, but to give her a crappier job when it's shown that she deserves the previous one. If that other guy deserved it more, she'd already be without a job before the birth.

 

[kawligia]

They should have offered first, and giving her less money won't help the child. At least have the courtesy to ask before you discriminate her.

It's not necessarily about discrimination just because she is a woman.

The problem is that they have to hire somebody to do her job while she is gone. That person doesn't want to lose HIS job either. And it's hard to find someone who wants to take a career type job just as a temp.

Don't hold me to this, but IIRC, they have to give her A job when she comes back, but I don't think it has to be the SAME job she had before.

If that's the case, they have no right to give her lower salary just cause she haves a child. In fact, she should get higher for participating in the human reproduction, plus the extra costs of having a child.

I think the lower salary is because she has a different job within the company now and that's what her new job pays.

That's the problem, she gets lower salary cause she gets another job cause she was gone for having a child. It all leads to them giving her new terms cause she decided to have a family. And 2000$ is a lot of money. What if her economical plan already was on the border of bankruptcy, then her budget would fall apart, just cause of a new job. They may have have done what they should have done, but it's still unfair in the manner that she can't have her old job back. I'm not questioning their choice that they had to let someone else have the job, but to give her a crappier job when it's shown that she deserves the previous one. If that other guy deserved it more, she'd already be without a job before the birth.

I think you are misunderstanding the application of the law here. At 2 grand less, the job is probably NOT a "similar" job. Ordinarily, they would have done something wrong by not giving her the same or similar job and would be required to fix that.

BUT, some jobs can't wait around. Imagine a job that is highly technical so not just anybody could do it. Imagine that job related to safety, say at a nuclear power plant. You can't just hire somebody off the street to do that job and anybody who would want it isn't going to want to be a temp. But you can't just leave the job undone until the person comes back to work. Somebody has to fill the job permanently. There is no way around that.

It doesn't matter if the person takes leave for having a child or because of injury in a car wreck. They would have no choice but to hire someone else and nobody would take the job unless it was a permanent position. That sucks, but it has to be done which is why it's an exception to the rule.

Was this lady's job a "key" position that required the company to hire someone else? I have no idea. Maybe, maybe not.

 

[Gyrefalcon]

They should have offered first, and giving her less money won't help the child. At least have the courtesy to ask before you discriminate her.

It's not necessarily about discrimination just because she is a woman.

The problem is that they have to hire somebody to do her job while she is gone. That person doesn't want to lose HIS job either. And it's hard to find someone who wants to take a career type job just as a temp.

Don't hold me to this, but IIRC, they have to give her A job when she comes back, but I don't think it has to be the SAME job she had before.

If that's the case, they have no right to give her lower salary just cause she haves a child. In fact, she should get higher for participating in the human reproduction, plus the extra costs of having a child.

Temporary jobs even to the point of being one-day positions are common enough in Japan. Even here we know if we take a temporary job, even if it pays well, that it is just that-temporary. If the woman in question was expected to return after her maternity leave then the man or woman hired to fill in would be told from the get go (if the work wasn't simply distributed to the rest of the staff).

And I haven't seen any discussion about whether or not she has a husband and if HE plans to rear the baby because his wife has a better paying job. And as previously stated, we have become very disconnected from extended families in the past 30-40 years. She may have grandparents or sisters who are willing to watch the child while she is at work.

The bottom line is that she feels she has been dealt with unfairly. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.

 

[Dorian Cornelius Jasper]

Uh one of the reasons i posted,and my main problem is all that 100 k for spilling coffee,this topic reminded me of those situations,but yeah i guess Japan works differently

No. Just, no.

http://www.vanosteen.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm
EDIT: In plainer speak, http://everything2.com/node/1107150

Firstly, there's actually some logic behind the jury's decision. This fact the media, and people spreading the anecdote, like to leave out. Mentioning "coffee lawsuit" when complaining about a need for tort reform is the easy way to try to build one's case--it's also wrong. Remember that the judge who presided over the case reduced the damages award because, while McDonalds was clearly negligent in the matter, he knew that the original award was clearly overreaction on the jury's part.

(And if you read the article, you'll see why the jury was so ready to make McDonalds foot the bill. Third degree burns, even from a mere morning beverage, are no laughing matter.)

Secondly, it's pretty obvious Konami screwed her over pretty bad. Judging by the context it's likely that they're actually pressuring her to leave work and become a housewife. (Remember, the article on the Escapist about Koei tackling Japan's low birth rate? [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.118362])

However, bear in mind that Koei is giving incentives to have children, Konami seems to be taking the rather less helpful approach of discouraging employees to have children--though they appear to be placing priority on the well-being of the child.

But the ethical implications of this hoopla could've been avoided if they'd bothered to offer the demotion instead of forcing it. (The associated pay cut wouldn't be very good for her child, either.)

 

[Therumancer]

Kwil? Prince Corum/Michael Moorcock referance?

That said, I guess we will have agree to disagree since this is the kind of debate that is not going to be resolved either way on the internet. Frankly I think blood/family counts for a lot when raising children, and it should be done by at least one parent. A failure to recognize this and the assumption that dumping kids in daycare is a good idea is one of the things that is causing so many problems throughout society.

I at least feel that the policy is both fair, and practical. Of course to be honest I'd have to look at the exact terms of what happened. I am gathering they did like a bunch of other companies and gave her more or less a cart blanche to do whatever she needs to do. It happens a surprising amount with valued employees. Sure she's losing $2,000 a month, but what kind of benefis is the company providing to pregnant employees/executives (and I'm guessing this is an executive or at least upper management position). On top of this what kind of allowance are they making for her not to come to work? I mean if she can pretty much take 2 weeks out of every month "off" and get paid for the time, that is a blood good deal (and trust me, it happens).

Agree or disagree, this sounds an awful lot like someone wanting to have their cake and eat it too.

>>>----Therumancer--->

 

[SirCannonFodder]

I'm surprised she isn't suing for more, seeing as how after this case, regardless of the outcome, she'll likely never be able to work anywhere ever again. Companies don't want someone they think might sue them, and they probably also don't want someone that's not afraid to stand up for their rights. I wish her the best of luck