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

ann-mariewoking

There are several points to consider here:
how long has he been looking and how wide has his search been for comparison candidates?
has the waitress been asked about her career plans over the next year or so?
when does the colleague come back from her maternity leave, or will she be replaced if/when she decides not to go back to work if this is so.

The obvious solution is to employer her immediately for her experience, however take into consideration current market conditions so for example he could take her on a six month contract to make the most of her experience, and then reassess his circumstances then such as if the other colleague is back off leave. The otehr thing to bear in mind is that typically waitresses dont stay for many years in these roles as career people, so to take on someone who has potential or is seemingly overqualified is also reasonable as he should be able to provide adequate quick training if he picks the right person for the role...

As for the matter of discrimination, he needs to jsut take the best person for the role and if that means waiting or advertising to get the right person so be it. As many waiting staff are women of child bearing age, he would be there for a long time to find someone who doesnt fit into this category!

andrewsavedexpert

Imagine Ian was looking for a machine, he had the option of two at the same price - one was generally reliable, the other he knew would be prone to being temperamental each month, and he also knew there was a risk it would spend periods of up to a year broken, possibly on multiple occasions.

You could understand why Ian might even pay more for the first machine!

David_Cameron

The_Ubiquitous_Mrs_Smith wrote: »

Yeah, because homosexuals all wear a pink triangle badge don't they. Hate to break it to you but you probably have been waited on by a gay person and even (shudder!) sat on the bus next to someone who is gay and do you know what, they haven't "contaminated" you have they? And furthermore, it isn't a choice to be gay, in the same way as it isn't a choice to be straight.

Furthermore, if you choose to not employ someone becuase of their sexually you are breaking the law. Pure and simple and actually you are under an obligation to justify your decision not to employ someone if asked.

I wonder who would be left to wait on you once you've picked off all the "undesirables"...

I think people like you were the reason these so called "pc laws" were implimented in the first place.

Well well Mrs Smith, plenty of venom there! I hate to break it to you, but you missed my point altogether .......
I have edited the original post so that it is not so easy to misinterpret, I hope.

georgemcghie

This is an absolute no brainer! Its all very well for the many people who have quoted employment law and how it is wrong to discriminate, but all small businesses have to live in the real world. They do not have the resources of larger companies where absence can be planned and costed.

If I were Ian I would simply network and look for a nice attractive (I know its sexist) lady whose child producing days were past. In so doing I would probably get an employee who would be conscientious and a pleasure to employ.

In a previous life as a sales manager I employed women because at interview they were the best person for the job. After many experiences of this I reached the conclusion that on balance I was better of with blokes who may well have been less talented but in the long run were less of a problem. I will admit that this conclusion was reached because of things like maternity leave. In my old company we even had to let them keep the company car while they were off.

Ebenezer_Screwj

Who needs a great CV or great looks to be a waitress in a cafe ? Ian should interview older women and then judge for himself which one would be the most presentable and efficient.

flikkerty

I was a waitress and was sick so couldn't bear the smell of food therefore off for all of my pregnancy. Also if you are pregnant you have some health and safety issues like not carrying heavy stuff, sitting down for rest etc. Not everyone who gets pregnant has it straightforward. This is tricky, as what I am saying is discriminatory but he could just as well hire a teenager and pay him/her minimum wage which is cheaper. Then he could mould them and train them as he wants without all the faff. I am digging myself deeper here aren't i! Oh i don't know!

Katie-Kat-Kins

andrewsavedexpert wrote: »

Imagine Ian was looking for a machine, he had the option of two at the same price - one was generally reliable, the other he knew would be prone to being temperamental each month, and he also knew there was a risk it would spend periods of up to a year broken, possibly on multiple occasions.

You could understand why Ian might even pay more for the first machine!

What a load of Sh*te!!! Do you even work with any women???? Do you know any????? Utterly blinkered and prejudiced.

I can't believe some of the views expressed on this site! Like something out of the dark ages.

As a soon to be married woman of childbearing age I would be horrified to be turned down for a job because the employer thinks I might have children in the future. I have made an active decision not to have any children and will be of no additional burden to an employer.

Accidents don't happen if you take sensible, responsible precautions. And if they do happen they can be dealt with.

Women don't spend one week of each month being a tempremental liability as this poster suggested. I like many other women, use a form of contraception that regulates hormones so that there is no fluctuation, no mood swing and no menstruation. It is also exceedingly reliable. On that basis I am less likely to have time off than a man with children and no more likely to have time off than a single man (in fact probably less likely judging by the way they are all bedridden with manflu in our office).

I know many women in a similar position and if employers persist in believing that marriage marks the end of a woman's useful working life then they are risking their own businesses by failing to employ the best candidates.

Incidentally I would be interested to know how Ian came to know that Diane was recently married, I believe that questions as to martial status are discriminatory and should not be raised. If Diane has any sense she will not put her marital status on her application forms.

David_Cameron

KatP wrote: »

.......
I can't believe some of the views expressed on this site! Like something out of the dark ages.

Most of the views have been expressed by people of 'employee' status, rather than by those of 'employer' status. Most people have a somewhat distorted view of what an employer is like, far less how he/she might reach various decisions. However, the nice thing about the UK is that everyone (almost) is free to express (almost) any opinion they choose to put forward.
It would be interesting to know if the ones you don't like are the same ones that I don't like !

KatP wrote: »

....... a soon to be married woman of childbearing age I would be horrified to be turned down for a job because the employer thinks I might have children in the future. I have made an active decision not to have any children and will be of no additional burden to an employer.

Well young lady, you wouldn't get to know ! However, if you have made the decision you express here, why would you not proffer that to a potential employer to simply clear it off the desk. If you are otherwise the best candidate, you would have removed that apparent obstacle to obtaining employment.

KatP wrote: »

....... On that basis I am less likely to have time off than a man with children and no more likely to have time off than a single man (in fact probably less likely judging by the way they are all bedridden with manflu in our office).

I don't agree. My experience tends to show that the sexes have similar time off for all kinds of reasons. No children doesn't mean that you don't have a sick mother. In any case, if someone needs time off whether because they are ill or because there is something they need to take care of, then its simple, they need time off. A decent employer will grant that time off because a sick or worried employee is not being effective at work anyway.
Exploitation of that goodwill by the few can lead to an employer 'tightening up' on what is allowed. Understandably in my opinion, but I would simply 'clean house' and keep the good.

KatP wrote: »

..... I know many women in a similar position and if employers persist in believing that marriage marks the end of a woman's useful working life then they are risking their own businesses by failing to employ the best candidates.

WOW !! Isn't that a sexually discriminatory remark ? The 'best candidates' are NOT woman as you state, they are simply THE BEST CANDIDATE of whatever sex the best candidate happens to be !! One of the best welders I ever saw was a woman --- they called her 'Aunty'. However, since 99.9% of welders are men, clearly almost ALL the good welders are men. Statistics are wonderful --- you can make them say anything you want ! .. hahaha

KatP wrote: »

... Incidentally I would be interested to know how Ian came to know that Diane was recently married, I believe that questions as to martial status are discriminatory and should not be raised. If Diane has any sense she will not put her marital status on her application forms.

Hmmmmm. Was Diane YOUNG? Was Diane wearing a WEDDING RING? Did the Ian need to be a genius to work it out? Maybe she took off the wedding ring as an act of deception --- the mark on her finger exposed her to be devious and therefore would have marked her down --- not the fact of being married !! My belief is that employers want to employ HONEST PEOPLE. People who are pleasant to work with and who do their work properly.

I don't employ anyone who smokes -- or is any other form of junkie for that matter. I don't ask them. There is an ashtray on my desk and a cigarette box and lighter. Partway through the interview I will offer them a cigarette. If they take it and smoke it, they don't get the job. Simple ! If their fingers are stained with nicotine, I don't even need to be that devious. Did you know that many more young women smoke than young men ? Did I reject her because of her child-bearing age and the wedding ring? NO, I rejected her because of the nicotine stains on her fingers !! I employ people with SHARP brains and NOT those with drug befuddled ones! It is MY COMPANY and MY MONEY and MY CHOICE --- and my employees AGREE WITH THAT POLICY !! Is that legal or not? I don't care !

My point is that we don't need to ASK the questions to arrive at the answers.

Applicants are available by the hundred (maybe thousands !) so, when you are granted an interview, YOU are ALREADY SELECTED as being potentially BETTER than the majority. Getting the job is up to you. You need to be THE BEST CANDIDATE. So, best advice is to be the very best you can be and go for it. YOU got the interview and only YOU can fail to take the job !!

Gavin83

I guess the flipside to this is that the potential employee can be as devious as the potential employer and then it simply comes down to who is the best liar as to who gets the job.

I would be very careful to not show anything or inform the interviewer of anything I feel they could take in a negative light. I don't smoke but I certainly wouldn't accept a cigarette off an employer and I've been advised of such in the past. I do enjoy going out on the weekends but I'd never express this just incase they saw me as someone who potentially took Monday mornings off or wasn't able to do the job until 12.

At the end of the day you need to look after number one and if that means a few white lies or being devious to get a job then so be it. I'd have no issues with lying to a potential employer.

David Cameron, how would you react if someone refused your cigarette, therefore by your logic was a non smoker and then when they started their employment made it obvious they were a smoker?

Taffybiker

David_Cameron wrote: »

It is MY COMPANY and MY MONEY and MY CHOICE --- and my employees AGREE WITH THAT POLICY !! Is that legal or not? I don't care !!

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.