Employing women of 'baby-making' age
Discussion
drivin_me_nuts said:
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?
We have done in the past. These days I would say they'd be more likely to gain employment with other larger concerns better able to meet their needs. Thoughts anyone?
As an owner of a few small businesses it is my duty to the shareholders of the company to employ the people who could offer the most to the companies that I represented. Therefore employing someone who may take time off other that annual holidays and reasonable sickness would have a significant effect on the performance of any business.
Of course, you cannot expect anyone to admit to it, but you need to choose who you employ very carefully. In a female orientated business I always prefer to employ more mature women who have the experience and capabilities to deal with our customers in a professional way
In bigger companies this is not an issue as other colleagues can usually cover the workload but in a very small business i.e less that 5 people in the department it is a huge issue and one which is best to avoid it at all possible.
Of course, you cannot expect anyone to admit to it, but you need to choose who you employ very carefully. In a female orientated business I always prefer to employ more mature women who have the experience and capabilities to deal with our customers in a professional way
In bigger companies this is not an issue as other colleagues can usually cover the workload but in a very small business i.e less that 5 people in the department it is a huge issue and one which is best to avoid it at all possible.
deadslow 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.
Agree. Employ the best available for the job. Do anything else and you're selling your business/customers short.Absolutely. Then understand the criteria. Srebbe64 may make no distinction and I laud him for it. Others may need to think carefully about the job criteria, what is really important, and choose the best candidate taking those factors into account. Clearly neither gender nor age could possibly be part of those criteria as that would potentially be illegal.
It all depends doesn't it. I can see situations where an employee is so damn good you'd do concede all kinds of odd working hours and conditions to keep them. I can also see situations where absolute reliability is an issue and you'd have to think carefully about the likely result. Its another area where employment law creates ridiculous situations that don't do employees any favours IMO.
Horses for courses. Plenty of situations could accept part time working and general unreliability as part of the working conditions. Others can't. If it was legitimate to accept that and pay accordingly you wouldn't get the awful bo
ocks, sexual discrimination cases and ill-feeling that you get now.
I employed a part time secretary with a young child once. She was forever taking time off to look after the child but she never came in on other days to make the time up. In the end I employed another girl at the same time and shuffled the hours between them. I'd think twice before doing it again.
On reflection and having thought twice (took all of 10 seconds) a MILF would be the way to go.
On reflection and having thought twice (took all of 10 seconds) a MILF would be the way to go.
Edited by Boosted LS1 on Saturday 17th November 22:59
Boosted LS1 said:
I employed a part time secretary with a young child once. She was forever taking time off to look after the child but she never came in on other days to make the time up. In the end I employed another girl at the same time and shuffled the hours between them. I'd think twice before doing it again.
On reflection and having thought twice (took all of 10 seconds) a MILF would be the way to go.
Don't mean to sound coldhearted or anything but if she was doing it on a regular basis and wasn't doing her contracted hours then why not dock her pay or give her notice for breach of contract?On reflection and having thought twice (took all of 10 seconds) a MILF would be the way to go.
Edited by Boosted LS1 on Saturday 17th November 22:59
It makes no differance in reality, some of the best workers I have employed have been single mums, some of the worst older Women who then start gyno problems. It is how you manage all staff that counts. Not easy to get right, even the hint that you may operate a policy favouring on age or sex may well see you in trouble
It's a really tricky one. We have had some bad experiences with some (one went on maternity leave, applied for a career break while on leave then came back two years later and told us on day one that she was preg again - when she finally restarted she went on 3 short days / week - very expensive and an absolute p.take of our felxible working; another applied for and got a job with us and told us on day 1 that she was (by then) 6 months preg - again she got preg again while on leave and now works short days).
However, the two best people I work with are now 'of baby-making' age - and the 4 to 5 years we're likely to get out of them prior to baby time will more than make up for time off. In addition with have some very good part time mothers who are committed, work really hard and flex their hours as needed.
Recruit good people and don't worry about it (unless you employ < 20 ish people in which case the loss of 1 staff member can be hard).
However, the two best people I work with are now 'of baby-making' age - and the 4 to 5 years we're likely to get out of them prior to baby time will more than make up for time off. In addition with have some very good part time mothers who are committed, work really hard and flex their hours as needed.
Recruit good people and don't worry about it (unless you employ < 20 ish people in which case the loss of 1 staff member can be hard).
deadslow 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.
Agree. Employ the best available for the job. Do anything else and you're selling your business/customers short.I'd never discriminate of course, it's just highly likely I would find someone more suited from a different demographic.
I can see the view from both sides here as I have to wear 3 hats: one as an niche HR adviser/consultant, one as someoneone who has used part time working which came about because of mainly working mothers and one as the owner of my own very small business. Obviously choosing not to emply someone for being female and of a certain age is illegal and the buden of proof isn't very high at an ET.
When I have worked for big organisations they have been able, alebit not without some pain, to absorb the impact of someone going on materinity leave and even use it as a chance to offer some temporary promotion or sideways development. As an employee I went part time in 1994 to go back to studying and although at that time that was quite unsual I obviously benefitted, and I think so did the organisation as I was able to be the 'flexible' resource who just filled gaps left by others going on holiday, training etc. It was mutually beneficial.
Since I started my own small business my take on this has changed a little and my views are not quite so black and white. We worked with a woman who had 3 kids, one after another who openly admitted that the planning of their family was based around maximising the materinty leave and minimising the working time. Of course she asked for flexible working on hwer return each time who impacted how the business could use her as she couldn't work the late or early shifts, and someonbody had to: more shifts for the others.
Shortly afterwards a friend of ours got pregnant and despite the fact that she knew she had no intentions of going back after maternity leave from a small business she deliberrately said she was so that she kept the company car and other benefits which they are allowed to retain whilist on ML. Her employer lost their employee and one of the the two company cars which they were buying, insuring and paying anycompany BiK NI contribution on and had to replace both. Alos they had problems recruiting a temporary replacemnet. To prospective empoyees not really knowing if a permanant job was on the end of it did I thionk reduce the calibre of pepple applying to fill the gap. As the job had some niche product knowledge it wasn't worth training up someone new so the boss ran himself ragged and took on her job as well ( expecting it to be just for a few months).
I know the vast majority of working Mum's do a great job and are flexible but the risk of employing someone who could cause us some severe damage if they adopted either of the attitudes above (and you can't ask the questions at interview), coupled with all the other crap that comes with employee made us decide to stay as a 2 wo/man band. No nobody got a job.
When I have worked for big organisations they have been able, alebit not without some pain, to absorb the impact of someone going on materinity leave and even use it as a chance to offer some temporary promotion or sideways development. As an employee I went part time in 1994 to go back to studying and although at that time that was quite unsual I obviously benefitted, and I think so did the organisation as I was able to be the 'flexible' resource who just filled gaps left by others going on holiday, training etc. It was mutually beneficial.
Since I started my own small business my take on this has changed a little and my views are not quite so black and white. We worked with a woman who had 3 kids, one after another who openly admitted that the planning of their family was based around maximising the materinty leave and minimising the working time. Of course she asked for flexible working on hwer return each time who impacted how the business could use her as she couldn't work the late or early shifts, and someonbody had to: more shifts for the others.
Shortly afterwards a friend of ours got pregnant and despite the fact that she knew she had no intentions of going back after maternity leave from a small business she deliberrately said she was so that she kept the company car and other benefits which they are allowed to retain whilist on ML. Her employer lost their employee and one of the the two company cars which they were buying, insuring and paying anycompany BiK NI contribution on and had to replace both. Alos they had problems recruiting a temporary replacemnet. To prospective empoyees not really knowing if a permanant job was on the end of it did I thionk reduce the calibre of pepple applying to fill the gap. As the job had some niche product knowledge it wasn't worth training up someone new so the boss ran himself ragged and took on her job as well ( expecting it to be just for a few months).
I know the vast majority of working Mum's do a great job and are flexible but the risk of employing someone who could cause us some severe damage if they adopted either of the attitudes above (and you can't ask the questions at interview), coupled with all the other crap that comes with employee made us decide to stay as a 2 wo/man band. No nobody got a job.
It must have become a real issue as Mrs Mighty now makes the positive steps to point out at all job interviews that we don't have children and have no intention what-so-ever of ever changing that. Its amazing how many people still do the "you'll change your mind" thing though... Er...NO we won't thank-you.
I know a company who is in rather hot warter over this at the moment. They employed a women who in her 2nd week announced she was 4 months pregnant. They sacked her because she failed to declare this on the questionaire they give out which clearly asks about any existing medical conditions.
I'm female and work in a department where there are a number of part time workers who have small children. We are having quite a lot of problems at the moment as the part timers refuse to job share (can't make it work between them despite the days working out). They are now canvassing that the full timers should cover their case loads on the days when they aren't in as well as their own full time case loads.
Whilst we all appreciate the need for flexibility, this is something that is only offered to the part timers (the rest of us have no realistic flex options), they seem to regard it as perfectly OK that everyone else just picks up the pieces. They object to the concept of file sharing that would enable everyone to cover everyone else. They want their own cases on the days they are in but want everyone else to deal with them when they aren't (but they don't want to cover others when they are in).
It's a shame as decent flexible working would be good for everyone but the fixed nature of those who currently have the benefit (but expect others to carry the burden) is a huge problem.
Whilst we all appreciate the need for flexibility, this is something that is only offered to the part timers (the rest of us have no realistic flex options), they seem to regard it as perfectly OK that everyone else just picks up the pieces. They object to the concept of file sharing that would enable everyone to cover everyone else. They want their own cases on the days they are in but want everyone else to deal with them when they aren't (but they don't want to cover others when they are in).
It's a shame as decent flexible working would be good for everyone but the fixed nature of those who currently have the benefit (but expect others to carry the burden) is a huge problem.
If a small business had somebody on maternity leave then it really would hit hard. The company my dad works for has 3 members of staff working in his role and usually there are 2 of them in on any given day and the odd day has all three of them in. I know that when one person is on holiday it does make it difficult for the 2 left behind because it is very difficult during the week and Saturday to cope with only 1 member of staff so during these periods they do have to work harder.
Now out of the three one is a lady in her late 20's and I dread to think of the stress my dad and his other colleague will have to bear if and when she goes on ML. The role requires a lot of product familiarisation and training on new software etc so I doubt it is viable for somebody to come in on a temp basis.
At the moment I do think the law doesn't take into account the effect that the ML regulations have on smaller businesses.
Now out of the three one is a lady in her late 20's and I dread to think of the stress my dad and his other colleague will have to bear if and when she goes on ML. The role requires a lot of product familiarisation and training on new software etc so I doubt it is viable for somebody to come in on a temp basis.
At the moment I do think the law doesn't take into account the effect that the ML regulations have on smaller businesses.
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.
Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff