Employing women of 'baby-making' age

[Mrs Trackside]

Why do so many of you assume that women of child bearing age actually want children?

From my friends : one is a lesbian with no interest in having children; one doesn't know if she wants kids yet; another is single and enjoying the way life is, pregnancy to her would be a nightmare; one has had a hysterectomy; and one would like a child. And me, I don't want any more children.

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.

[tinman0]

Mrs Trackside said:

Why do so many of you assume that women of child bearing age actually want children?

i think the point is that a woman having children is statistically higher than a man having children.

[NorthernBoy]

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.

[tinman0]

NorthernBoy said:

BliarOut said:

I'm sure that if you had to pay for someone to be on maternity leave directly from your own pocket you'd think twice about it. Either that or you're a fool.

Of course I pay for it out of my own pockets. It comes out of the bottom line, and the bottom line is shared between me and the others.

And it is funny that you call me a fool. I do things the right way, and it seems to have worked very well. You seem to have not exactly shot for the stars, yet seem to think you can sit there and give lessons on how to run a business.

The problem is NB is that you earn and awful lot more money than most people, so if you have to sub someone, its probably not a great deal in the grand scheme of things.

If your previous postings are anything to go by, you live in a very different world than the one that a small business man/woman lives in, and have very different considerations.

[NorthernBoy]

tinman0 said:

[
The problem is NB is that you earn and awful lot more money than most people, so if you have to sub someone, its probably not a great deal in the grand scheme of things.
If your previous postings are anything to go by, you live in a very different world than the one that a small business man/woman lives in, and have very different considerations.

If the first part was ever true (I do not know how what I ear compares to other businessmen on here), it may well not be this year, as there is a many billions of dollars hole to fill.

On the second point though, each desk in a bank runs much like a small business. Mine runs quite like a small startup, in terms of the growth it needs to survive for the next few years, so although I get access to capital easier than most, I don't think that my situation is so different from anyone else starting out.

[NorthernBoy]

tinman0 said:

Mrs Trackside said:

Why do so many of you assume that women of child bearing age actually want children?

i think the point is that a woman having children is statistically higher than a man having children.

And I think that you will find that virtually every child has a male and a female parent, so the chances are actually the same of each.

Either parent can do the bringing them up part nowadays, too. The pushing bit generally does not last months, after all.

[srebbe64]

Without wishing to get utterly boring and repetitive, it's just entirely logical to me that you employ the best person for the job regardless of gender or age. Who's to say a bloke won't leave after six months? Who's to say a woman will leave to have kids? Who's to say a bloke won't get ill after a year? If I ran my company based on "ifs and maybes" I couldn't make any decisions objectively. You have to make decisions based on the "here and now".

[superlightr]

srebbe - a little while ago I posed the question of did you start up with a small number of staff or if you took on 140 staff in a lump? If you started small of under 6 would you or did you feel the same as you do now?

Can you see where small business are comming from? I think the limit is 6 before more regulations kick in but why should the same restrictions apply to small business for Maternity leave (not sex)? If they cant do the job, fine, leave and we will employ another. But to tie our hands with ML for a small business actually hinders us and restricts us from perhaps offering the job to the best person. It would creat a more dynamic job environment and opportunity for small busineses to start up and take the risk (of their owners hard earnt cash) of investing in a new business.


If I employ 6 staff half of which are women over 2 offices, and 3 go on maternity leave this would a nightmare for me, ie consistancy and training.

Edited by superlightr on Tuesday 20th November 10:49

[BliarOut]

NorthernBoy said:

BliarOut said:

I'm sure that if you had to pay for someone to be on maternity leave directly from your own pocket you'd think twice about it. Either that or you're a fool.

Of course I pay for it out of my own pockets. It comes out of the bottom line, and the bottom line is shared between me and the others.

And it is funny that you call me a fool. I do things the right way, and it seems to have worked very well. You seem to have not exactly shot for the stars, yet seem to think you can sit there and give lessons on how to run a business.

So it's like I thought, you don't take the full hit, you're protected by someone else's company.

As for "shooting for the stars", I own everything I have. My home, two cars, a bike (which is bigger than yours ) and I only need to work a few hours a week now to cover my overheads. I've got two years salary sat in investments and I fully intend to coast through the next twenty years or so stress free knowing the economy can do what it wants.

I don't know how you define success but by my terms I'd say I've got the balance spot on.

:flicksthevees:

[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).

[Olf]

NorthernBoy said:

tinman0 said:

Mrs Trackside said:

Why do so many of you assume that women of child bearing age actually want children?

i think the point is that a woman having children is statistically higher than a man having children.

And I think that you will find that virtually every child has a male and a female parent, so the chances are actually the same of each.

Either parent can do the bringing them up part nowadays, too. The pushing bit generally does not last months, after all.

This is a load of old cock and shows a complete lack of understanding of the real issues.

If a man 'has' a child he gets his 2 weeks paternity leave. When a woman has a child you get 9 months of pregnancy with all that entails, i.e. reduced performance, sickness, more time in the loo, HSE reviews of her workspace and condition etc etc, then she has the baby, so for most Mum's this means 6 months off work at least. All the time she is off, she can, under current regs, keep her employer hanging, waiting to find out if she'll take the whole year off or not. Then she returns to work has full right to take up her previous position and a full right to try to negotiate alternate working conditions which as an employer you have to consider.

THEN...

I think in her first 3 years or something she can take up to 3 or 4 months carers leave, admittedly unpaid but still very difficult to plan for.

THEN...

The cycle starts again...!

Don't get me wrong. I'm actually all in favour of these rights for Mum's but you can't deny it's a right bstard to plan around for the SME.

[srebbe64]

superlightr said:

srebbe - a little while ago I posed the question of did you start up with a small number of staff or if you took on 140 staff in a lump? If you started small of under 6 would you or did you feel the same as you do now?

Can you see where small business are comming from? I think the limit is 6 before more regulations kick in but why should the same restrictions apply to small business for Maternity leave (not sex)? If they cant do the job, fine, leave and we will employ another. But to tie our hands with ML for a small business actually hinders us and restricts us from perhaps offering the job to the best person. It would creat a more dynamic job environment and opportunity for small busineses to start up and take the risk (of their owners hard earnt cash) of investing in a new business.


If I employ 6 staff half of which are women over 2 offices, and 3 go on maternity leave this would a nightmare for me, ie consistancy and training.

Edited by superlightr on Tuesday 20th November 10:49

Don't get me wrong, of course the law's unfair - I posted that earlier in the thread. Government ALWAYS get laws wrong as far as business is concerned. If I had my way I'd have government pay companies compensation for performing a social service. However, the law is what it is and I don't see it changing any time soon (except I reckon paternity leave might be increased, thus continuing the Government's trend of cocking up law). You have to make a decision based on what the law is, not what it should be. As such, I employ the best person for the job regardless of age or gender.

[superlightr]

So most here view the law as unfair on the smaller business. Its not suprising that when a law is viewed as unfair/unjust people wont obey it try to get around it. where have we heard that before?

Not worked out yet if Northernboy agree it is unfair for small bussinesses but you have to suck it and smile as rules are rules, or just views them as fair for all irrespective of size, or views that it works for him in his team in a bank as an employee thus is must work for selfemployed who employ a few others.

Edited by superlightr on Tuesday 20th November 11:17

Edited by superlightr on Tuesday 20th November 11:23

Edited by superlightr on Tuesday 20th November 11:25

[Olf]

superlightr said:

So most here view the law as unfair on the smaller business. Its not suprising that when a law is viewed as unfair/unjust people wont obey it try to get around it. where have we heard that before?

Not worked out yet if Northernboy agree it is unfair for small bussinesses but you have to suck it and smile as rules are rules, or just views them as fair for all irrespective of size, or views that it works for him in his team in a bank as an employee thus is must work for selfemployed who employ a few others.

Unfortunately it has to be read in the context of NB's basic and intransigent discussion position exhibited over many many threads that the banking industries sh1t don't stink.

For such an obviously well educated person, his views refuse to acknowledge that there is a very wide 'grey' band in which many companies, not just banks, work. Whether it's Northern Rock savers being stupid for not trusting that the banks have their best interests at heart or his bank being a employer beyond reproach when it comes to workers rights I can't help thinking he has a very rude awakening coming his way one day. On that day, when, as they always do in the end, his employer shafts him or forces him into a morally questionable position I hope he comes out the other end of the mincing machine with the same unerring optimism!

[Griff Bitch]

Olf said:

THEN...

I think in her first 3 years or something she can take up to 3 or 4 months carers leave, admittedly unpaid but still very difficult to plan for.

First 5 years and actually Fathers can take the same 13 weeks of unpaid leave aswell as the Mother, can only be taken in blocks of 1,2 3 or 4 weeks at a time and no more than 4 weeks in a year, and you have to give 3 weeks notice that you intend to take the carers leave. (Different rules for disabled children.)

[JustinP1]

NorthernBoy said:

BliarOut said:

I'm sure that if you had to pay for someone to be on maternity leave directly from your own pocket you'd think twice about it. Either that or you're a fool.

Of course I pay for it out of my own pockets. It comes out of the bottom line, and the bottom line is shared between me and the others.

And it is funny that you call me a fool. I do things the right way, and it seems to have worked very well. You seem to have not exactly shot for the stars, yet seem to think you can sit there and give lessons on how to run a business.

OK, so the cost doesnt *quite* come directly from your pocket, but *some* of it is as it is shared.

What about if the next person you took on went for maternity leave in the next two years you wouldn't get paid *at all* for a years work? May you then think differently?

That is the quandry for small business owners. I have no issue with the choice of a larger business as the risks and costs are completely different. With a small business the odds are higher due to the smaller number of employees and the cost can be catastrophic for a small business owner.

[Olf]

Griff Bitch said:

Olf said:

THEN...

I think in her first 3 years or something she can take up to 3 or 4 months carers leave, admittedly unpaid but still very difficult to plan for.

First 5 years and actually Fathers can take the same 13 weeks of unpaid leave aswell as the Mother, can only be taken in blocks of 1,2 3 or 4 weeks at a time and no more than 4 weeks in a year, and you have to give 3 weeks notice that you intend to take the carers leave. (Different rules for disabled children.)

But it's a question of what is likely. If Mum is back at work full or part time it's generally not as a hobby, i.e. cash is needed, therefore the chances are that it's going to be Mum that takes the unpaid leave and not Dad.

I understand what you are saying though, I was brought up by a househusband as a child. Very unusual it was then.

[Griff Bitch]

Olf said:

Griff Bitch said:

Olf said:

THEN...

I think in her first 3 years or something she can take up to 3 or 4 months carers leave, admittedly unpaid but still very difficult to plan for.

First 5 years and actually Fathers can take the same 13 weeks of unpaid leave aswell as the Mother, can only be taken in blocks of 1,2 3 or 4 weeks at a time and no more than 4 weeks in a year, and you have to give 3 weeks notice that you intend to take the carers leave. (Different rules for disabled children.)

But it's a question of what is likely. If Mum is back at work full or part time it's generally not as a hobby, i.e. cash is needed, therefore the chances are that it's going to be Mum that takes the unpaid leave and not Dad.

I understand what you are saying though, I was brought up by a househusband as a child. Very unusual it was then.

Generally not a hobby, although I happen to know a fair few women who would rather work than raise kids.(Makes me wonder why they had them.)

It's possible men might start taking off the unpaid leave, particularly if the wife earns more than the hubby, or if they have older children, and it works out cheaper for the hubby to take time off than have to fork out for childcare for extra kids during the holidays.

I personally think Mums should be banned from working until their youngest starts school. More should be done to keep them at home.

[Plotloss]

Nannies solve a lot of working with kids conundrums, unless of course they get pregnant, you're an employer like any other even as a family, you pay their maternity like any other employer.

[Mrs Trackside]

Olf said:

Griff Bitch said:

Olf said:

THEN...

I think in her first 3 years or something she can take up to 3 or 4 months carers leave, admittedly unpaid but still very difficult to plan for.

First 5 years and actually Fathers can take the same 13 weeks of unpaid leave aswell as the Mother, can only be taken in blocks of 1,2 3 or 4 weeks at a time and no more than 4 weeks in a year, and you have to give 3 weeks notice that you intend to take the carers leave. (Different rules for disabled children.)

But it's a question of what is likely. If Mum is back at work full or part time it's generally not as a hobby, i.e. cash is needed, therefore the chances are that it's going to be Mum that takes the unpaid leave and not Dad.

I understand what you are saying though, I was brought up by a househusband as a child. Very unusual it was then.

But the chances are that if a mother finds an employer who is a sensitive to her needs, (in my experience) she is far more likely to cause him the minimum of disruption by taking large blocks of time unless it's absolutely necessary.

If you work for a small company, you realise just how much your absence is noticed. I've found that when my daughter was ill in the past, it caused me more stress to stay off work with her because I worried about how it would affect the company/employer I worked for. I'm lucky in that my parents have been quite local since Little Trackside was six years old, so my Mum has ended up babysitting and where possible I've taken half days or left work early when I can with the minimum inconvenience to my employer. It's not something I'm proud of because I feel I've let my child down on occassion when she really has just wanted her Mum.

Most mothers don't choose to work, they do it because they have to pay the bills and with household expenditure being what it is, their income is necessary to survive.