I am so mad!!!

Savvy_Sue

JoolzS wrote: »

If I was every fortunate enough to be in a position to employ other people I can guarantee that I would never even consider employing a woman aged between 18 and (around) 40.

But women are now having children well over the age of 40, some by accident, some by design. Wouldn't it be simpler to only employ men?

Of course NO man ever needs long term sick leave, do they?

IF the government ever brings in improvement to paternity leave, it will be interesting to see if men of a certain age face the same amount of discrimination. That would be quite entertaining, because of course men carry on fathering children far far longer ... and in some cases far more prolifically!

And it is quite ridiculous too: just because you may WANT to have children soon doesn't mean it's just going to happen. Are women who WANT to try to start a family supposed to just take themselves out of the job market for the 2, 5, 7, 10, 15 years it may take to get there?

ShaShaSha wrote: »

She got a week before her wedding off, three weeks after for honeymoon and she booked a two year period when she was 'most likely to be trying', so that they could be ready to start looking for someone to cover he may have not told you very well why he was asking, but it could have been why - u never know!

That's a very generous employer, have you ever encountered another one like it? And generous or not, the employer would STILL be in breach of equalities legislation for asking those questions today, regardless of the reasons, and unless they were also offering the same 'perks' to men who got married then that's a breach too.

SnowMan wrote: »

Skint catt, it sounds very much that the employer has asked you these questions in order to discriminate against you on grounds of sex (i.e. not employing women who might become pregnant). And that is awful and is discrimination for which legislation protects you.

It's not limited to sex discrimination though, is it? Although one might assume that he's trying to find out if she's likely to have children any time soon, he might equally not like employing women OR MEN over or under a certain age, on principle. And that is age discrimination.

MaxTheDog_2

Isnt it sometimes better to sometimes ask these questions rather than just dismiss you soon as you walk through the interview door?

venus_in_furs

Gosh....i have a looooooooooooooong time to wait before i become employable!! A good 16 years by what Joolz writes!! Heaven forbid i ever to decide to commit the crime of having a family AND wanting to support them by working!!!!

Somehow i don't think it is equal and fair, they wouldn't think twice about hiring an excellent prospect if they were male and about to start a family etc, they probably wouldn't even ask in the first place. I know he wants the best for the company, but us woman of child baring age have to be given the chances of being able to work and support ourselves!! Talk about being made to feel a liability!! All for being female and having a life outside of work! He may as well just of cut the c**p asked if she was planning to get 'up the duff' any time soon!!

Savvy_Sue

You see, that's the thing. You might just as well ask every applicant if they have or intend to get a pet, or if they have any other friends or relatives for whom they currently give care or might think about giving care in the future.

Or, indeed, if they already have children. How long is it since being a single parent was an astonishing and shocking thing? I've never admitted to mine on my cv, so the periods when I haven't worked full-time could be down to any of the life circumstances in my first paragraph.

Because I have known people come to work late because the dog ran off on an early morning walk, or need time off because the dog is sick / has died etc.

And then there are those caring for partners or elderly parents who find their needs increase so that they have to reduce their hours / request flexible working.

I'm not saying the government fully reimburses employers for the cost of maternity leave, but at least there's SOMETHING goes to the employer for that, whereas AFAIK the emergency dependents leave which ANYONE can request is both unpaid and non-reclaimable.

It's time employers came out of the dark ages and took potential employees at face value. If you're applying for a job, you're presumably given some thought to the fact that you'd like to do it for at least the next year, and for any period longer than that all bets are off for both men and women!

JoolzS

I do wonder if those people who disliked my previous post have actually considered what it costs an employer to employ a pregnant (or perhaps soon to be pregnant woman). After a mere 26 weeks of employment, they can be forced to pay you something for at least another 26 weeks, if not longer, even though you don't contribute one single thing to the company during that time. I have no comprehension as to why an employer should be forced to pay for an employee who isn't working due to a personal choice.

I will also add that I have worked with women who were just "sooooo pleased to have found a job" just in time to claim full maternity benefits and had no intention of ever returning to work for that employer.

IIRC it used to be that a woman could take 11 weeks off (some weeks at full pay, most at benefit pay) and then a further 15 weeks at zero pay if they'd worked for the company for long enough (maybe two years, but I honestly don't remember). That to me, as a woman who was considering having children at that time, seemed fair(ish) - both to me and the employer.

Companies that want to retain their female employees have always offered maternity incentives - forcing those incentives on small businesses is just stupid politics IMHO.

Julie

Zazen999

JoolzS wrote: »

I do wonder if those people who disliked my previous post have actually considered what it costs an employer to employ a pregnant (or perhaps soon to be pregnant woman). After a mere 26 weeks of employment, they can be forced to pay you something for at least another 26 weeks, if not longer, even though you don't contribute one single thing to the company during that time. I have no comprehension as to why an employer should be forced to pay for an employee who isn't working due to a personal choice.

I will also add that I have worked with women who were just "sooooo pleased to have found a job" just in time to claim full maternity benefits and had no intention of ever returning to work for that employer.

IIRC it used to be that a woman could take 11 weeks off (some weeks at full pay, most at benefit pay) and then a further 15 weeks at zero pay if they'd worked for the company for long enough (maybe two years, but I honestly don't remember). That to me, as a woman who was considering having children at that time, seemed fair(ish) - both to me and the employer.

Companies that want to retain their female employees have always offered maternity incentives - forcing those incentives on small businesses is just stupid politics IMHO.

Julie

So, did you not work between the ages of 18 and 40, bearing in mind your principles?

I take it you did work, as you haven't confirmed that you didn't which makes your statement from before 'If I was every fortunate enough to be in a position to employ other people I can guarantee that I would never even consider employing a woman aged between 18 and (around) 40...'...completely hypocritical.

I completely fail to see how you can make such a statement, and still work between those ages.

cazziebo

It's not about whether someone is male, female, fertile, funloving whatever. It's about the value that someone brings to an organisation. If someone does a fab job, adds to the team, contributes to the company's aims then as an employer I can thole out maternity leave, expensive training, justified absence and even sabbaticals. If someone doesn't contirbute, swings the lead, demotivates everyone around them, then it doesn't make sense to employ them.

It's not about gender, it's about hiring the right person for the job and you can't do that blinded by assumptions and prejudice.

lynzpower

JoolzS wrote: »

Good on him, the interviewer, for asking (even in a roundabout) way. I think more companies should be able to ask whether or not they are going to have to pay for one of their employees to take between three months and two years off on their (the company's) income.

So many people think that "the government" (i.e. the tax payer) pays for maternity leave. They are just so ignorant to the truth.

If I was every fortunate enough to be in a position to employ other people I can guarantee that I would never even consider employing a woman aged between 18 and (around) 40.

In case anyone thinks I'm a woman-hating man - I will mention that I'm a childfree-by-choice woman.

Julie

So you wouldnt consider another "chid free" woman then.
What if you did and she changed her mind
What indeed if you employed a man and he would do all childcare

It seems you are not in a position to hire and fire- isnt that a good thing- likely you bum would be hauled up in court and every chance youd have to justify why you feel you are able to discriminate but others are not.

I wouldnt bother to try to break the law when it comes to employment, it will all come out in the wash..

Skint_Catt

That's ok - I'll take great pleasure in knowing that Joolz's income tax is paying for me to stay at home on benefits instead! :rotfl: (I hope they increase it too!)

Savvy_Sue

I'm not in any way dismissing the inconvenience and difficulties faced by an employer when a woman gets pregnant. I'm just trying to point out that trying to discriminate against women who might get pregnant is completely pointless. Far better to concentrate on hiring the best person for the job applying at the time the vacancy exists. Being a good employer means staff turnover is likely to lower than if you're not a good employer, thus reducing the need to keep recruiting. And generally, good employers comply with the law. Don't they?