Employing women of 'baby-making' age

[drivin_me_nuts]

Anyone have any views on this subject. I have seen plenty of stuff recently from companies that will positively not employ women 20-40 as they seem them as a real risk to their (small) business.

Thoughts anyone?

[drivin_me_nuts]

NorthernBoy said:

srebbe64 said:

Makes no difference to me. If they're the best person for the job then they get the position, regardless of their gender or age.

That's the only way to go. Employ the best person, train them well, ad you do your company the world of good.

The dinosaurs who refuse to take on women are unlikely to see their business go places.

.... It's not about refusing to take on women, it's more about the risks to a small business of taking on women who go on ML that may well put the company at risk. I am sure it at least crosses the mind of a potential empolyer and it has to form part of the risk assessment of someone taking on a new (female) employee.

( I wonder, is there a 'critical' company size at which this becomes less of an issue?)

[drivin_me_nuts]

NorthernBoy said:

Ordinary Bloke said:

If you're a Manager in a large Multi-national business (like me), can you tolerate the inconvenience of losing an employee for 12 months?

Hard to tell, really. Reading that job description, it sounds like you have progressed to having all five stars on your badge, and are ready to step away from the deep fat fryer, and delegate this mission critical task. In which case, I can see that you can rotate the staff and thin them out a bit.

On the other hand, in a business like mine, I'd take on someone to cover the gap, and grow the business sufficiently in the year that there was a role waiting for the happy mother should she wish to return.

Clearly such an attitude sits poorly in the realms of some of the managers on here.

... so patronising and so completely uneccessary within this thread. I used to work for a 35bn business and even they had issues when key staff left for ML. For smaller businesses the issues are real and (positive) attitures like yours, whilst commendable, are really not an option..

[drivin_me_nuts]

NorthernBoy said:

Mrs Trackside said:

If you were interviewing for a job, one man or the above five women, some of you would pick the man because of maternity leave issues, but you may not have picked the best candidate for very wrong reasons.

I suspect that those who discriminate like this are not exactly in the running for businessman of the year for all sorts of reasons, this being only one of them.

..you have a tendancy to assume way too much. What people here are voicing are genuine and real concerns about the financial stabilility of their businesses. If you fail to see that then NB, your ability to risk assess is not what it should be

I can't afford (in any sense of the word) to pay multiple ML. I realise the risk - do I have a choice as to what my next action is ? Yes, I do, as do many others. It's not about being sexist, short sighted or anything like that at all, it's actually about being highly pragmatic and recognising where the business risks lay.

Now if you care to tell me otherwise, then bye all means do. But remember it's my business, my risk, my home, my security on the line and for matters financial I tend to be somewhat risk averse.

Of course I could claim back from the govt the £1300 investment they made in Northern Rock on my behalf. Seems that not even the big boys and girls fully appeciate the term risk assessment - trouble is I don't have the oaf at No 10 to bail me (or the countless thousands of other small businesses for which a safety net would be very welcome indeed).