Employing women of 'baby-making' age

[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?)

[NorthernBoy]

drivin_me_nuts said:

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?)

What next, though? Not taking on any scots as they are likely to thieve from you and not be able to mentally keep up with the English?

Not taking on anyone over 50 in case they get a dodgy hip?

Not taking on anyone who is gay in case they get a dose of aids?

Restricting your workforce in this way is just poor business sense. My desk only has a handfull of workers, and would suffer badly through any losses. I would still happily take on people irrespective of their sex, though. I just do not agree that it makes business sense to take on the second best candidate on the basis of what might happen later, through picking very, very selective things to worry about.

[Retard]

My personal view is that the whole thing is a terrible shame and everyone: women, other employees, and the employers all have to suffer a bit so that the gainfully employed, and therefore probably better gene-carriers carry on making babies.

An exemption for firms with less than, say, fifteen employees is perhaps a good idea though.

[Don]

NorthernBoy said:

drivin_me_nuts said:

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?)

What next, though? Not taking on any scots as they are likely to thieve from you and not be able to mentally keep up with the English?

Not taking on anyone over 50 in case they get a dodgy hip?

Not taking on anyone who is gay in case they get a dose of aids?

Restricting your workforce in this way is just poor business sense. My desk only has a handfull of workers, and would suffer badly through any losses. I would still happily take on people irrespective of their sex, though. I just do not agree that it makes business sense to take on the second best candidate on the basis of what might happen later, through picking very, very selective things to worry about.

In your environment this may well make excellent sense. In reliability critical environments it well may not. There are plenty of roles where young parents/parents to be can show their mettle and their personal flexibility needs are entirely acceptable to their employers. There are other roles where this would not be the case. Employment law makes little or not distinction - where both employers and employees would happily do so. A few high profile cases (e.g. B.A. pilot lady etc) and you create an atmosphere in which empoyers become reluctant to take a percieved risk.

Then there's the situation of the genuinely "little" firm. Just a few employees. These businesses can often barely afford to pay the wages - let alone pay benefits for an employee that isn't present.

The issue is not so clear cut as one would like it to be. Taking the "best candidate" may well involve criteria in small businesses that aren't an issue in larger ones. Saying one's department can ill afford to do without a good employee is very different to understanding that the entire business (given its so small) simply doesn't have the money to do so...

[Ordinary Bloke]

NorthernBoy said:

What next, though? Not taking on any scots as they are likely to thieve from you and not be able to mentally keep up with the English?

NB, is this true, I sit next to a 'Scotch' bloke and I don't think he stole anything from me yet???

As for women of a certain age, if it's your business and you may have to find 12 months maternity cover for one of you 5 employees, can you afford a 20%+ increase in payroll? No, I didn't think so.

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? Well it's tolerable but depending on the skill-level, it could be a pain in the behind.

If your employees are 'Minions' (I love that word, sounds like pickled onions) and you have thousands of them, then it's fine to sponsor childbirth, and I'm completely behind you. I need them (the offspring) to pay my pension...

Edited by Ordinary Bloke on Sunday 18th November 22:06

[Boosted LS1]

H_Kan said:

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.

Edited by Boosted LS1 on Saturday 17th November 22:59

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?

I gave her hours to the other part timer who was pleased to do them so the other girl just earnt less.

[srebbe64]

NorthernBoy said:

drivin_me_nuts said:

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?)

What next, though? Not taking on any scots as they are likely to thieve from you and not be able to mentally keep up with the English?

Not taking on anyone over 50 in case they get a dodgy hip?

Not taking on anyone who is gay in case they get a dose of aids?

Restricting your workforce in this way is just poor business sense. My desk only has a handfull of workers, and would suffer badly through any losses. I would still happily take on people irrespective of their sex, though. I just do not agree that it makes business sense to take on the second best candidate on the basis of what might happen later, through picking very, very selective things to worry about.

I don't know where one draws the distinction between small and, say, medium sized companies. I currently employ about 140 people and I guess that 25% of our staff are female and in the 25-35 age range. Some have children others don't (yet). However, it's my view that to attract the top talent that you employ the best people regardless of their age or gender (or anything else). As such, we intend to buy a local house and open a creche facility (charging a nominal amount), whereby the mother (or father) can spend their lunch time with the child. (You wouldn't believe the amount of red tape involved but that's another story.) Anyway, by doing this:

1) I hope to attract and recruit top staff (both female and male);
2) I hope to retain good staff;

My view is that the world is changing and laws are heavily weighted in favour of the employee. The choice is I can either winge about it or be one step ahead and use it to try and become a more attractive employer to top performers.

Years ago I was Governor at a local primary school (Don will know of this school) and it was infuriating. 90% of the techers were young females and they'd be real stars for a year and then they'd get married and have kids. Because they weren't paid much they couldn't afford childcare so they left. We spent a fortune on (a) recruitment and (b) temporary teaching staff. So, as head of recruitment and finance, I had an idea which all the teachers loved. Specifically, we would divert half the funds allocated for recruitment and temps and start up a small creche for the teachers. Everyone said they'd use such a facility and would not leave. However, the LEA in their wisdom blocked the idea! Probably because it was an idea based on a sound business practise and a well prepared financial model - which would obviously be foreign to Local Government. I left shortly after this - bunch of muppets!!!

Edited by srebbe64 on Sunday 18th November 22:26

[NorthernBoy]

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.

[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..

[Ordinary Bloke]

drivin_me_nuts said:

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..

Hey Northern Boy, if you don't mind paying over the odds I'd happily come and run your deep fat fryer. I only have 4 stars (so far) but hey you can grow the business and pay me a bonus...

[H_Kan]

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.

One thing you are missing is that not everybody wants to grow businesses etc. I know people who run small shops etc. who are happy working their 9-5 and earning a comfortable living from the place. The reason they do this rather then try to expand to a chain of shops etc. is because they are happy with what they have. In this instance they may run the place with help from 2 staff, so in this instance they can ill afford to pay for temporary cover and pay the wages of somebody not physically working for them. This is where the law falls down as it is quite indiscriminate about the resources a company or employer can call upon.

[NorthernBoy]

drivin_me_nuts said:

... 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..

They are more than an option, they are the only morally right view, and the only legally allowable one.

I happen to believe that they make good business sense too.

I think the sort of views expressed on here about employing women will become as unacceptable as not employing people with black skin in case they scare the customers". Clearly we hav some way to go, which I find sad.

Do those on here who support this discrimination claim that they would say to their wife, when she was rejected in favour of the less qualified man "It's fair enough, love, you might have a baby, so best you stick to the dishes, eh?

[NorthernBoy]

Ordinary Bloke said:

Hey Northern Boy, if you don't mind paying over the odds I'd happily come and run your deep fat fryer. I only have 4 stars (so far) but hey you can grow the business and pay me a bonus...

That makes no sense at all, as I do not have a deep fat fryer.

I do happen to be recruiting, though. If you are up to the task, there's a nice six figure salary waiting, and no frying experience needed at all.

[Ordinary Bloke]

NorthernBoy said:

Ordinary Bloke said:

Hey Northern Boy, if you don't mind paying over the odds I'd happily come and run your deep fat fryer. I only have 4 stars (so far) but hey you can grow the business and pay me a bonus...

That makes no sense at all, as I do not have a deep fat fryer.

I do happen to be recruiting, though. If you are up to the task, there's a nice six figure salary waiting, and no frying experience needed at all.

I'm 11 months preganant, does that matter?

Oh, and I'm an elephant. You don't discriminate do you?

PS: I'm betting those six figures start with a couple of zeroes...

[NorthernBoy]

H_Kan said:

One thing you are missing is that not everybody wants to grow businesses etc. I know people who run small shops etc. who are happy working their 9-5 and earning a comfortable living from the place. The reason they do this rather then try to expand to a chain of shops etc. is because they are happy with what they have. In this instance they may run the place with help from 2 staff, so in this instance they can ill afford to pay for temporary cover and pay the wages of somebody not physically working for them. This is where the law falls down as it is quite indiscriminate about the resources a company or employer can call upon.

Yes, it can be hard for a small business, but it can be hard for them paying for staff insurance, too, or paying taxes, but we do not exempt them from these. There are costs that we all accrue by being part of a civilised society, and not being allowed to discriminate against certain sections of society is one of these.

[srebbe64]

H_Kan said:

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.

One thing you are missing is that not everybody wants to grow businesses etc. I know people who run small shops etc. who are happy working their 9-5 and earning a comfortable living from the place. The reason they do this rather then try to expand to a chain of shops etc. is because they are happy with what they have. In this instance they may run the place with help from 2 staff, so in this instance they can ill afford to pay for temporary cover and pay the wages of somebody not physically working for them. This is where the law falls down as it is quite indiscriminate about the resources a company or employer can call upon.

In some ways it's no easier for a larger company than a small one because the proportions are likely to be similar. If a small company employs four people, one of whom was "in the child bearing zone" so to speak, there's there's a chance that the company will be without 25% of its staff for a period of time at some future date. Equally, if a large company of, say, 1000 had the same breakdown then there's a chance that 250 people will leave for a period of time. It's called "running a business".

Edited by srebbe64 on Sunday 18th November 23:37

[ATG]

NorthernBoy said:

H_Kan said:

One thing you are missing is that not everybody wants to grow businesses etc. I know people who run small shops etc. who are happy working their 9-5 and earning a comfortable living from the place. The reason they do this rather then try to expand to a chain of shops etc. is because they are happy with what they have. In this instance they may run the place with help from 2 staff, so in this instance they can ill afford to pay for temporary cover and pay the wages of somebody not physically working for them. This is where the law falls down as it is quite indiscriminate about the resources a company or employer can call upon.

Yes, it can be hard for a small business, but it can be hard for them paying for staff insurance, too, or paying taxes, but we do not exempt them from these. There are costs that we all accrue by being part of a civilised society, and not being allowed to discriminate against certain sections of society is one of these.

That neatly illustrates the problem. "We" don't pay the price. The small businessman does. If we want a fair society then we should all foot the bill. The problem at the moment is that the burden of subsidising people through pregnancy falls largely on the employer when it should fall entirely on the state so that the benefit derived for society is paid for by society.

Edited by ATG on Sunday 18th November 23:38

[Ordinary Bloke]

Look, if you just need a monkey to press a button/answer the phone/put things in boxes then it's just a matter of how generous you are on maternity pay.

If you are recruiting a delicious female rocket scientist, recently married to John T Stud, maybe you're taking a risk.

Big companies hide it in the figures. Small companies (<15 people) can't really afford it. But either way, given two equally capable candidates, 9/10 male employers will go for the man one with the biggest t1ts...

[srebbe64]

ATG said:

NorthernBoy said:

H_Kan said:

One thing you are missing is that not everybody wants to grow businesses etc. I know people who run small shops etc. who are happy working their 9-5 and earning a comfortable living from the place. The reason they do this rather then try to expand to a chain of shops etc. is because they are happy with what they have. In this instance they may run the place with help from 2 staff, so in this instance they can ill afford to pay for temporary cover and pay the wages of somebody not physically working for them. This is where the law falls down as it is quite indiscriminate about the resources a company or employer can call upon.

Yes, it can be hard for a small business, but it can be hard for them paying for staff insurance, too, or paying taxes, but we do not exempt them from these. There are costs that we all accrue by being part of a civilised society, and not being allowed to discriminate against certain sections of society is one of these.

That nestly illustrates the problem. "We" don't pay the price. The small businessman does. If we want a fair society then we should all foot the bill. The problem at the moment is that the burden of subsidising people through pregnancy falls largely on the employer when it should fall entirely on the state so that the benefit derived for society is paid for by society.

What has fairness got to do with anything? When was the last time Government was fair? Gonvernments are intrisically unfair - it's what they do best (well after waste and stupidity). However, that's the lay of the land and all businesses (ie (UK) competitors) have to play by the same rule book.

[NorthernBoy]

Ordinary Bloke said:

Look, if you just need a monkey to press a button/answer the phone/put things in boxes then it's just a matter of how generous you are on maternity pay.

If you are recruiting a delicious female rocket scientist, ..

A decent proportion of the people working with me at CERN were female. Fortunately, the people there were reasonably enlightened when it came to employment practices.

I suppose this is why they lag so far behind the other scientific institutions.
Oh, wait, hang on. Sorry, no, you go that one completely wrong too.

You're consistent, I'll give you that.