Boss under fire after texts to pregnant employee revealed
UK career expert Ben Askins, known for calling out toxic workplace behaviour on social media, shared the exchange with his followers, branding the employer 'one of the top three of the worst bosses I've come across'.
The TikTok video, which has been viewed nearly 590,000 times, features Ben reading aloud the highly uncomfortable text conversation.
It all began when the employee messaged her manager to confirm receipt of her email about taking maternity leave from February.
The boss' response immediately raised eyebrows.
'I saw it, and I wanted to talk to you about it. Is there any way you'd consider reducing how long you want to take? If you are sure you are going to go ahead with it, would you be open to discussing it all? I am just a bit worried about the costs from our side,' the boss said.
Taken aback, the woman tried to explain why she wanted to take her full, legally entitled leave — even offering to help ease the transition for her replacement.
'Oh OK, um I was kind of hoping to take as much time as possible. This is my first child and I wanted to get as used to being a parent as possible, especially as my family lives quite far away,' she replied.
'I will ensure all my responsibilities are handed over seamlessly and help interview for mat cover but I really do want to take the full amount.'
But her boss doubled down, insisting her leave would place a 'burden' on the small company.
'The challenge is that this is a small company, and it's quite a burden to have to pay both your mat leave and your mat cover. I am just not sure how we can cope.'
Remaining polite, the woman stood her ground.
'I appreciate that but this isn't fair to put on me, I am happy to support but I am well within my rights to do this,' the employee said.
'I will try and support however I can, make sure everything is in place for a smooth handover and can also be on call for emergencies if that helps?
'Is my pregnancy going to be a problem for my role in the company?'
Sensing he may have gone too far, the boss back-pedalled.
'Not at all! Your pregnancy is absolutely fine by me, we are a family company.'
But he couldn't resist adding another guilt trip: 'Just not ideal timing for me that is all. But if you are not going to help out and reduce the time then nothing really further for us to talk about I guess.'
Ben was appalled, telling viewers the exchange was 'disgusting'.
'He's trying to use guilt to basically get her to kind of waive her rights … because you can then sort of go, 'Oh no, she agreed with it,'' he said.
'That is not her f***ing problem, that is your problem. If she's not an equity holder, she's not a director in the business, it's not her company, that is your problem.'
Ben then praised the employee for making a 'reasonable' request, even going above and beyond to offer extra help despite being entitled to her full leave.
The video has since been flooded with furious comments, with many calling out the 'manipulative' boss and others even suggesting legal action.
'This is not her problem,' said one viewer.
'This is a lawsuit waiting to happen,' said another.
'She should not have to explain herself,' wrote a third.
It seems the incident struck a chord because many had similar horror stories.
'I had a line manager refuse to discuss it with me because 'your baby could still die right up until the end,'' shared one user.
'My old manager tried to convince me to have an abortion … they wondered why I didn't want to go back after having my baby,' wrote another.
In Australia, the Fair Work Act guarantees eligible employees up to 12 months' unpaid parental leave after 12 months of continuous service. Some also qualify for government-funded parental leave pay or employer-funded leave — sometimes both.
And as many pointed out, maternity leave isn't a 'favour' — it's the law.
'Wow …. save this, go to an employment lawyer. Get settlement, enjoy!' one commenter advised.
'This is a slam dunk mat discrimination case. Employers need to understand that claim awards are potentially unlimited,' added another.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
AU Financial Review
4 hours ago
- AU Financial Review
Roundtable must reform the super performance test
Last week, French pharmaceutical company Sanofi announced a deal worth over $1 billion to buy a biotech firm with exclusive rights to a unique vaccine technology developed by Australian scientists. This is great news. The global player will buy into Vicebio, a London-based group, which is developing vaccines for two respiratory viruses using the molecular clamp technology invented by University of Queensland professors Paul Young, Daniel Watterson and Keith Chappell.
News.com.au
2 days ago
- News.com.au
‘All smiles': Prince Andrew wins fight against King Charles
Prince Andrew can finally breathe a long-awaited sigh of relief. After years of digging his heels in and refusing to leave his sprawling royal residence, the disgraced Duke of York is celebrating 'having won the Royal Lodge row,' the Express reports. According to the outlet, Andrew has been 'all smiles' since finding out that his brother, King Charles, has given up trying to evict him — a stark contrast to his downcast outings earlier this year. 'Charles tried his best to get his non-working royal sibling to move to a smaller premises elsewhere to free up the royal home,' the outlet notes. As for how Andrew, 65, managed to emerge victorious in the fight over the royal digs, the duke presented Charles with 'a lease document that states he is legally entitled to stay there,' the outlet adds. The feuding brothers have been locked in a bitter, yearslong spat over the property, located on the grounds of Windsor Castle, since 2019. The Post has reached out to Buckingham Palace for comment. Andrew was poised to leave the Royal Lodge after Charles refused to continue financially carrying his brother's weight. However, it sensationally emerged in November that the shunned royal had found a mystery financial backer at the eleventh hour — allowing him to remain at the royal digs. As a result, Charles responded by removing priceless items from the plush property over maintenance and security concerns. Andrew has been living off a hefty allowance from the king's personal wealth for more than six years — ever since he was linked to disgraced late financier Jeffrey Epstein. His weighty list of expenses includes $4 million (AU$5.9 million) worth of personal security per year, as well as a regular cash allowance — both of which Charles stopped providing in October 2024. As a result, Andrew was ordered out of the 31-room property into the smaller Frogmore Cottage — but he refused. The latter property has been sitting empty since Prince Harry and Meghan Markle handed over the keys in 2023. It was previously reported that Charles had tried his all to downsize his scandal-scarred brother so that the Royal Lodge would free up for the Prince and Princess of Wales, as well as their three children. However, the future king and queen later decided that the property didn't quite offer what they were looking for, much to Andrew's relief, as it meant there were no rivals for the home. Prince William and Kate Middleton, for their part, have recently kick-started their search for their next family abode — meaning they are finally ready to bid adieu to Adelaide Cottage. Andrew has resided at the lavish home since 2004. He currently lives there with his ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson. Since finding an anonymous financial backer late last year, Andrew has faced recurring calls from the UK government to reveal the source of his mystery funding. Exactly where the duke found the cash that enabled him to remain at the property is still unclear, as his only known steady income source is a Royal Navy pension.
News.com.au
2 days ago
- News.com.au
Heathrow unveils £49 bn expansion plan for third runway
London's Heathrow Airport on Friday unveiled a £49-billion ($65 billion) expansion plan, including the costs of building a long-awaited third runway, approved by the UK government after years of legal wrangling. The runway would cost £21 billion, with flights expected to take off within a decade, while the rest of the privately-funded investment will go toward expanding and modernising the airport. Heathrow, Europe's busiest airport by passenger numbers, said the expansion would provide at least 30 new daily routes, more domestic connections and improved flight times. The increased capacity would almost double the number of annual passengers from 84 million currently to up to 150 million passengers annually. "It has never been more important or urgent to expand Heathrow," said chief executive Thomas Woldbye. "We are effectively operating at capacity to the detriment of trade and connectivity," he added. Despite fierce opposition from environmentalists and local residents, the London mayor Sadiq Khan and some Labour MPs, the Labour government backed the new runway in January in a bid to boost UK economic growth. It would be a rare expansion in Europe, where countries are split between efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the needs of a strategic sector that has seen demand grow. Heathrow has submitted its proposal for the 3,500 metre runway to the UK government, which has also invited a rival proposal. - Green trade-offs - Heathrow's proposal includes £12 billion to fund a new terminal and £15 billion for modernisation. "A third runway and supporting infrastructure can be ready within a decade, and the full investment across all terminals would take place over the coming decades," Heathrow said in a statement. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer is determined to deliver major infrastructure projects to revive the UK economy that has struggled to take off since the party came to power a year ago. The government is expected to also back expansion at Gatwick airport, south of the capital, in October -- having recently approved upgrades to London's Stansted, Luton and City airports. Britain's Supreme Court ruled at the end of 2020 that Heathrow could build the third runway, overturning a legal decision to block construction on environmental grounds. Local residents "will see their lives put on hold for a few more years while more money and time is wasted on a doomed scheme," said Douglas Parr, policy director for Greenpeace UK. He added the plans "export more tourism wealth out of the UK in the most polluting way possible." Arora Group, one of Heathrow's largest landowners, on Thursday said it will submit a rival bid to build a shorter third runway, promising lower costs and less disruption to local residents and the environment. "This is the ï¬�rst time the government has invited a competing proposal for Heathrow expansion," the UK-based property and hotel firm said in a statement. Airport-owner Heathrow's latest investment proposal comes in addition to plans to invest £10 billion over the next five years in upgrades to boost passenger numbers, which would be largely funded by higher charges on airlines.
