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

BigMikeyG

[QUOTE=jools0001;21910303
Apart from the fact it's illegal, it's just morally wrong.
[/QUOTE]

You can't prove he turned her down because of this. If it was me and someone said I turned them down for that reason I would ask them to prove it as I would not be silly enough to give this as the true reason. I would lie and say the person I hired was just better than you.

I sure this has happened countless times.

laughing_cow

I manage a small business which is often 'up against the wall' financially' and I'm a woman (without kids) so I think I can see this from both sides. We've recently had two staff on maternity for the first time (not at the same time) and in reality it wasn't as difficult as we'd anticipated. As others have pointed out, the goverment refund SMP to the employer, so the costs can be neglible . I think it very much depends on the job in question. One of our staff was relatively senior so it was difficult to replace her and we needed to employ a recruitment consultant at our own expense. The other was the receptionist - to put it bluntly receptionists are ten a penny in London so maternity cover was easy to arrange and we actually saved some money on her usual salary (and the temp was a joy in comparison, but that's another story )

Re the original question - I don't think it's going to be difficult, or expensive to temporarily replace a cafe waitress, so I'm not sure why Ian has such an issue with it?

jools0001

You're right that it would be morally wrong to take a job dishonestly with the intention of fleecing your boss, and if the question was "should Sharon take a job with Ian, a small business owner who could really suffer if she went on maternity leave, when she knows that she wants to get pregnant soon" then I'd say no, she shouldn't.

That doesn't make it OK to discriminate against a whole group of people on the basis that one of them *might* turn out to be dishonest though. That would be like saying Sharon should take the job, because small business owners are sometimes skinflints who cheat their staff out of overtime. She has no basis for thinking Ian is like that (and if she suspects his character, why would she want to work for him anyway?)

I believe that if you assume the worst about people and behave accordingly then you become as bad as the worst of them.

JOANNESAPHINE

If it was my business I would want to hire the best person for the job and if I felt she was then I would offer her the job. I got married at 19 and then waited 9 years to have a child. I think perhaps it is old-fashioned to expect people to get married and then instantly start a family. That may have been the case years ago but things are very different now.

amoura12

He would be mad to emply someone who may want children. Small companies just cannot cope with this problem.

Back in the 70's I always said I would not employ a girl who may want children, and I still say that today even though I am a girl myself.''

Pregant women get too many benefits, and as for men also getting time of, that is rediculous.

Primrose

NO (and I say this as a female). If you own a small business your first commitment is to keep your business afloat and profitable, and in these difficult times a pregnant employee requiring maternity leave could make the difference between surviving and going bust.

JayD

Business sense has to come before what is considered PC.
The man cannot risk putting his restaurant into a position where it close down.

He has a right to earn his living and needs to make legitimate, financially sound decisions.

Maternity leave can cripple small buisnesses. He is already bearing the brunt of one employeed claiming this, whi should he risk two?

Give a pensioner the job instead.
They are generally extremely reliable and conscientious and many badly need the opportunitiy to earn some extra money.

marjrappers

He should certainly NOT hire one that is likely to get pregnant - Financially its a killer for small businesses plus the extra burden it puts on the other staff when they are one member down - they are not compensated at all??

liz545

It's completely ridiculous to rule out women of "childbearing age" from the labour market. These days that's pretty much any female between 14-50! If his business is rocky, then I would suggest taking her on a fixed term contract or part time basis, and he can review whether he can afford the staffing contracts at the end of the term.

pineapple

Aren't we getting ahead of ourselves? Has he actually met her? If her CV is impressive, he should shortlist her. If, in interview, she is on equal footing with another, her status may well be a deciding factor. I don't blame any small business person for feeling that way. Sorry but women do go for jobs knowing they are pregnant even.
On the other hand, if she is streets ahead of the others in the interview, he should employ her.
But I don't know the rules about maternity benefit. Is there not a way round it? Ie by taking her on as a temp or on an intial fixed term contract.