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

purplegaily

Squidworth

I think as a 'normal' white male, you have the hardest task to try and convince any employer that you are worthy of a job in the current climate.

With all the anti discirimination, and the 'pro-minority' employment brigade on the warpath, it seems an employer has to employ every type of person before Joe Average!!

maffism

Why should any man risk his business for the complications of maternity leave when we only get 2 weeks paternity leave. SAY NO TO MATERNITY LEAVE.

Obukit

maffism wrote: »

Why should any man risk his business for the complications of maternity leave when we only get 2 weeks paternity leave. SAY NO TO MATERNITY LEAVE.

:rolleyes: In fact, why give her any time off at all - you didn't spend all that money on tiled floors for employees to waltz off to some fancy-schmancy hospital!

whodoitaketocourt

The non-employers here seem to be missing the point. the ever-so-helpful "rights" of extended maternity pay, eligibility for part-time workers, those on fixed contracts etc. and the human rights act/political correctness brought in by this government, has meant that most small employers would not even consider employing any female of child-bearing age. The risks are too great. Well done Labour - a great own goal !

Those saying that the governemnt will pay the employer back and that they would "just" have to cover the cost of replacement do not understand that re-advertising for a new member of staff can cost something like 30% of the first year's wages and that the money you have paid out does not get paid back (or your tax bill reduced) until the end of the tax year - by which time a precarious business may have gone under.

In the current environment, I know many other business owners who have been made ill (one has died from the stress), have lost their homes to make sure they can cover staff wages etc. The continual "pushing" by the government for more taxes, more employee rights and more regulation on small businesses at a time of recession with no real help from either the government or the banks means that business owners are doing everything they can to simply survive. Anything which risks this would be suicidal to even contemplate, so, no, I'm afraid that I would not employ her (anyone who has watched the Apprentice will know that sir Alan has similar views on this !)

hannahh_3

As a fairly recently married woman who was made redundant and had to go out and find another job, I'm truly horrified to think that people might have not employed me on the offchance that I might end up having children. More children are born out of wedlock than to married couples these days, so being married doesn't make you any more likely to have children.

Any job should go to the best person for it. I have sympathy for small businesses but surely their beef should be with the government and the processes of HMRC - not with women! All sorts of things can happen to employees - they can go on long-term sick leave, they can have accidents, family bereavements etc, all of which can lead to them taking long periods of time off work. Unless you're planning to employ a hermit with no family whatsoever this is always the risk you take when you employ someone.

PhiltheBear

hannahh wrote: »

More children are born out of wedlock than to married couples these days,....

Where did you get that gem of untrue information?

I have sympathy for small businesses but surely their beef should be with the government and the processes of HMRC - not with women! All sorts of things can happen to employees - they can go on long-term sick leave, they can have accidents, family bereavements etc, all of which can lead to them taking long periods of time off work. Unless you're planning to employ a hermit with no family whatsoever this is always the risk you take when you employ someone.

But in the real world the small business owner doesn't have the luxury of fighting the government over policies while waiting to employ someone.

It's simply down to risk. The potential employee is young, newly-married and female. The chances are reasonably high that she's going to want children. Probably much higher than an older woman. Or someone unmarried. It's higher than a bloke getting run over by a car - or breaking his leg crossing the road, simply because it's fairly predictable. That's a clear risk to his business if it happens. It's a waitress's job - not a rocket scientist - so of course he's justified in hiring someone else.

The Labour Government, being Trades Union based, is used to dealing with big business. It's screwed up many small businesses by stupid and onerous legislation - like extended maternity leave, IR35 tax, etc - which make little or no difference to big companies.

hundredk

SarahJay55 wrote: »

As a woman 'of child bearing age', albeit one not interested in having children, and as an HR professional, I find this a very tricky topic!

I am glad we no longer live in an age where marriage spells the end of a woman’s working life, but I definitely believe that maternity provisions are becoming financially and practically unbearable.

This is exactly the point - its all well and good the PC brigade harping on about rights, equality and discrimination but what good is all of this when a small business is struggling to survive. Even if smp can be reclaimed what is the cost in time and bureaucracy to administer all of this and find a replacement - no govt scheme to cover that. Good to see this point of view from a HR professional.

SarahJay55 wrote: »

In my professional capacity my advice has to be that, unless Ian has a genuinely better suited candidate for the job, he must select Diane. Not to do so would be infinitely more costly if he were taken to, and lost, an Employment Tribunal…

Selection process for a small cafe is probably a 5 minute chat about the equipment and what the applicant has done before then hired or not. A selection matrix with some scoring methodogy completed during/after interview should allow the owner to select who he likes. And there's always the get out of "sorry but we had a very high standard of applicants - you were good, the sucessful applicant was exceptional"

tracethereader

I think that the employer should hire the woman (if of course she is the best candidate for the job) usually it would be for a trial period so that he can see how commited she is to the job & get to know her. Small business' like these tend to run almost like a family working very closely together & getting on very well with each other as this is neccessary for the business to work well, so the chances are that they could eventually both look at the financial implications (where help would be available & what they would both need to claim in the way of financial help as employer & employee) if she were to have to leave due to pregnancy they would both have confidence in the fact that they were both going to be ok. The fact that she is a newlywed doesn't really mean anything anyway as they could have been living together for years! Also who's to say that a woman in her 30's/40's who has been married for years wouldn't decide to get pregnant? You could employ a man who will never become pregnant but may decide to take time off with his family, become ill, travel etc. Sometimes you just have to take a chance!:A

robpw2

sorry no he should employ whomever is best for the job regardless of his assumption wether she wants children ..

i

David_Cameron

If Ian has fewer than five employees then he has certain exemptions from various rules which apply to larger businesses. He needs to study those carefully.

As to the dilemma posed, my advice would be to employ the best person for the job, but how Ian decides that is ENTIRELY at IAN'S discretion ! No one can come along and tell Ian that he rejected a better candidate and therefore has a problem. He DOES NOT have a problem because they are simply using THEIR definition of 'better', NOT IAN'S !! Ian is under NO OBLIGATION to explain HIS definition of 'better'. Ian is however under certain constraints as to the reasons he might proffer for rejecting them. Again Ian needs to study those carefully and make certain that he complies with the law.

Firstly, Ian has an obligation to his business to employ people who get on well together, so, if all his waiters are white male homosexuals with blond hair, he might want to shy away from a sixteen stone heterosexual bald black body-builder with fifteen piercings around his nose and mouth (and who should have researched Ian's business before applying for the job!). 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 IAN'S particular business. This isn't the workplace for him and Ian would NOT break the law by rejecting his application.

Secondly, what kind of customers does Ian have and what would they find acceptable? Some people (heterosexuals, maybe?-- its hypothetical) don't like being served by (blatantly obvious) homosexuals, so would avoid the cafe cited above as it might appear to be FOR homosexuals in the main. Many prefer being served by a lady of child-bearing age, or an older lady (they are often more polite than their younger counterparts). Some ladies like to be served by a young man. Some people don't like being dealt with by a pregnant female, so Ian might want to change her duties if such an event arose. The choices are Ian's as it is his cafe.

Thirdly, Ian is not under any obligation to provide employment in the first place, so if someone doesn't like his choices, let THEM go and hawk themselves up to the eyeballs in debt to start their own business --- then let's see if they follow the choice they want Ian to make and go bust, or do they now operate their business in the best interests of its proprietor, its employees and its customers --- which is exactly what Ian should be doing.