MONEY MORAL DILEMMA. Should Ian hire a waitress who may want kids?

Taffybiker

David_Cameron wrote: »

Well, interesting ... maybe we have someone building themselves up to a pinnacle of mediocrity in their own mind here ! You do not know what business my company is in, so you don't have the remotest clue about the kind of experience we look for !



Again, you demonstrate your UNFITNESS because you have no idea what ALL my criteria might be.



Which field is that, Taffy? Sheep? Like electric fences, Boyo?

A higher level? Up the Welsh Mountainside?

Rewarding me? WOW !! It would be such a reward to find that you suddenly became employable, but I won't hold my breath, if you don't mind.



You have already dug yourself into a pretty deep hole of uninformed and ridiculous unfounded claims. I don't wear loose topped boots, chase sheep up mountains, or dream of anything else to do with fleece !



IF you got an interview, you are correct. It IS a two way thing and just because you asked for one, you are not under any obligation to accept any job offered. However, Taffy, you didn't manage to get the interview on this occasion, so the rest is all in your mind !! I hope there is space for it !

EXACTLY the kind of response I expected. You don't like people who are better than you, do you? Believe me, there are billions of them! Incidentally, I do not intend to reply to any more of your pathetic garbage. Ever heard of DNFTT?

hundredk

David_Cameron wrote: »

Like everyone else, you are entitled to your opinion.

Thanks David and in your own words...

David_Cameron wrote: »

Thank you for allowing me to be entitled to my opinion and you are absolutely correct in what you say.

David_Cameron wrote: »

The only question in my mind would be just how carefully did you study and consider FACTS prior to arriving at it.

:confused:??? I studied your comments below carefully enough to realise that I cannot determine them to be fact or otherwise. Forums are also a place for posters to express opinions and make observations.

David_Cameron wrote: »

Just for information, I have been managing director of my company for thirty years. We do business in forty countries. The only 'discrimination' is that you won't even get through my door for interview unless you already have a first class honours degree in a SENSIBLE subject such as chemistry, physics, mathematics, English, etc. That tells me something about your intelligence level, your dedication to your personal development and your commitment to the task in hand. Don't bother to apply if your degree is in a 'soft option'. Those who are qualified know EXACTLY what I mean by that. Being better than average just isn't good enough.

If you get the job, you will start on at least £45k plus bonus plus profit sharing plus seven weeks annual leave (plus statutory). You get FULL SALARY on maternity leave, plus anything else we can do to help --- maybe a car and driver to run you to hospital appointments. We aim to be better than just complying, so most 'benefits' go much further than the legal requirement. In every aspect of the business we comply with legislation.

BECAUSE I am so selective about who works with me, my company has the kind of profit levels which permit it to be generous in various ways when an employee's child is sick, for example. Time off with full salary --- NOT use some of your holidays !

So, Mrs Smith, if you would kindly read my words a little more carefully and get your talons out of the back of my neck, I would appreciate it.

Likewise I studied Taffybiker's comments and could not determine them to be fact or otherwise.

Taffybiker wrote: »

Are you seeking to employ someone "David"? If so I have all the qualifications and experience your company would ever need, and I fit all of your criteria. I am the best in my field, never sick, never late and totally efficient. I can take your company to a much higher level, rewarding you with profits you have only dreamed about.
Oh by the way, an interview is a two way street and I have decided against being employed by you! That is MY choice. YOU have failed the interview.

I also studied your response to Taffybiker and commented on the FACTS (ie what both Taffybiker and yourself have posted on this thread). Neither of your comments in this thread have been factually supported, hence your reply about "uninformed and ridiculous unfounded claims" is no more or less relevent than your posts, hence pot, kettle, black.

David_Cameron wrote: »

You can say what you like about me, I file it under 'don't care'!! :rotfl:

Me too, see the signature:rotfl:

David_Cameron wrote: »

but what you express in a public place tells EVERYONE a great deal about YOU !! :rotfl:

Indeed it does

Gavin83

wildthing01 wrote: »

and as for the people that think it's fine to behave outrageously and hide it from their employer, in my profession, if i were to be found doing anything that could bring my profession, my employer or my organisation into disrepute, i could be suspended, sacked or even struck off. i have pride in my work, i want to do it as well as i can and i'm very grateful in this day and age to have a job. this quality seems to be sadly lacking in many people today.

With all due respect what an employee does in their own private time has nothing to do with the employer and as long as it has no effect on their work they have no right to know. It's not the employers responsibility to control your life or be judgemental.

As it happens my manager knows about most of my lifestyle choices and I often tell stories of my weekends but at the same time I may not be as open with future employers. That doesn't make me a bad employee.

psdie

The_Ubiquitous_Mrs_Smith wrote: »

Martin Money Saver I am shocked that you ask such a question! Tut tut!

Rubbish - thank you Martin (?) for posing this one! :money:

It's the most controversial questions, the ones that are normally shied away from out of fear of offending PC sensibilities, that are the most important ones to have open discussion on.

Saying that there is only one possible legitimate viewpoint on an issue is closed-mindedness. And no, looking at the law's viewpoint on a subject matter is not the be-all-and-end-all on right and wrong .. it was illegal for women to vote in the UK until 1918. It is also apparently perfectly legal today for MPs to claim ornate duck pond expenses from the public purse. :rotfl:

In this case, there are two perfectly reasonable points of view. On the one hand, small employers cannot afford to have key members of their staff disappear off for 6-9 months; both in terms of having to find and train a replacement, and in the cash-flow impact of the long delay in recouping the cost (presumably excluding employer's NI?).

On the other hand, of course women in circumstances that are statistically more likely to have children in the near future (e.g., young newly weds) do not want to be discriminated against. That's a pretty wide category, so I can understand why Mrs Smith is angry. In particular, there is a definite risk that a wider range of female candidates become tarred with the same brush (e.g., all women under 40 or so).

The issue needs to be discussed more in the open; not just because I personally believe current employment rules are too demanding on small employers (such as Ian's cafe), but also employers may assume the situation is worse than it actually is. I hadn't realised there are means to recoup the full PML cash, albeit with the other discussed problems.

One thing that definitely seems to me to be totally unreasonable is the fact that a new recruit can get immediately pregnant (or even be pregnant at the time of their interview) and expect to cheerfully disappear off on maternity leave. And yes, it does happen with frightening regularity: I know a friend whose wife did exactly that recently, taking PML within a month of starting her new job.

I also understand that the government recently extended PML from 26 weeks to 39 weeks, and plans to further extend it to 52 weeks, both in the face of strong opposition from the CBI. Why does the government think that small businesses suddenly have more available cash-flow to cover a period of disruption twice as long?!

There is no point in hiding heads in sand on the issue; you can introduce all the discrimination laws you like, employers will just continue to spin the usual excuses for not hiring a "riskier" candidate and carry on before, unless employer obligations are fair and reasonable. The employer is providing paid work, not taking on a nanny role.

In my personal case, I've experienced both sides of the issue. My lovely GF is frantically searching for work near me at the moment, but at 26 is considered a red flag to many. I'm afraid I've told her I'm not surprised though: under current laws, I would certainly be put off hiring a woman of child-bearing age.

It has to be said that this extends beyond maternity leave though; given the weight of responsibilities from employer to employee (including significant direct costs like Employer's NI), I have avoided hiring anyone for my small consultancy firm. Instead, I outsource work on a job-by-job basis to freelancers. This trend has been echoed through business right up to the very largest corporations, and will only continue if the burden on employers is set too high.

Phew .. sorry for the length, definitely a topic close to home!

JuliaJolie

David_Cameron wrote: »

if all your waiters are white male homosexuals with blond hair, you might want to shy away from a sixteen stone heterosexual bald black body-builder with fifteen piercings around his nose and mouth. That isn't racial, its simple common sense ! Put another way, the fault was his for applying for a job for which his personal choices render him unsuitable. He could be the best waiter ever to hoist a tray, but that is only one of many factors relating to his employability in YOUR particular business. This isn't the workplace for him and you would NOT break the law by rejecting his application.

Secondly, what kind of customers do you have and what would they find acceptable? Personally I don't like being served by homosexuals, so I would avoid the cafe cited above.

Wow...

Racist, homophobic, and redundant!

Congratulations on your multiple fails.

JuliaJolie

David_Cameron wrote: »

I DON'T have anything against homosexuals, other than that I don't wish to participate. Several of my neighbours are homosexuals and I have to say that they are good neighbours and I actually like some of them.

Okay. This falls into the trap of "I'm not racist. Some of my best friends are black!"

Please stop making yourself look so stupid. You're embarrassing yourself. Really.

JuliaJolie

David_Cameron wrote: »

As a white man, I choose not to employ a black man

Oh my God.

Just SHUT UP.

!!!!!!.

Just stop it, okay? Lead you back into the toilet? Need a new catherter?

The interwebz are for grown-ups.

Go over to the BNP website where trash like you belong.

I can't believe sick ***ts like you are capitalising on whatever's left of the economy in that country. So glad I left.

Tigsteroonie

To all of you who think Ian shouldn't employ Diane in case she falls pregnant at some stage and takes maternity leave .... I just wish the DWP & JCP agreed with you. I actually am pregnant, but am still expected to apply for all the jobs going - whether small business or large corporations - otherwise my JSA will be stopped. So off I waddle to interviews, not blaming my interviewers for the negative thoughts buzzing round their heads when they look at my bump

Yes I'm aware that they cannot use my pregnancy as a reason for turning me down for a job, but I'm guessing I'd have to be miles better than the next candidate for them not to find some other reason to turn me down :rolleyes:

JuliaJolie

Leroy_Joe wrote: »

You don't realise that David was making an illustration of points about how silly some of this PC stuff is. So the fails are yours, not his. It is so childish to snip out little bits so that they let you make them seem to say what you choose.



Actually you silly little girl, I work for David and I AM BLACK. I assure you that he is not racist. He runs a great company and I love my job there. My wife says he is the nicest man who ever visited our house.



If its for grownups, what are you doing here?

Strange kind of 'trash' who paid every penny of putting my grandson through university, including renting a flat for him and two of his friends.

Sounds like you did us a big favour by taking your sick prejudice/jealousy to some other country. When you leave school and apply for a job, you might like to remember this advice. Engage brain before opening mouth.

Honey, unlike you, I read all of his posts in their entirety.

David, if that's really you, I wouldn't be surprised. What you're doing has gone beyond trolling. It's downright sociopathic. Perhaps YOU ought to engage EYES before typing. Your failboat has sailed.

Taffybiker

hundredk wrote: »

:confused:??? I studied your comments below carefully enough to realise that I cannot determine them to be fact or otherwise. Forums are also a place for posters to express opinions and make observations.

Likewise I studied Taffybiker's comments and could not determine them to be fact or otherwise.

My post was never intended to be factual, it was offering DC a hypothetical situation. This is after all a hypothetical thread. However, he was unable to grasp the concept and simply resorted to insults, just as I suspected would be the case considering his earlier ramblings. I found that to be highly amusing. :rotfl: