I am so mad!!!

Skint_Catt

Savvy_Sue - I agree with you completely!

SomeBozo

Skint_Catt wrote: »

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!)

See, I was kind of with you until you made that stupid post.

As a business owner, mat leave can be a knightmare to cover. I can understand (though not endorse) small companies that don't want to take on women.

I have a larger company than that so we can cope, and having them off for a period of time is fine by me because they are that good and I will wait for them!

Bozo

pinkshoes

As we're in a recession, people have a good choice of candidates, so it comes down to statistics. Who is most likely to have long periods of time off work; a 32 year old male, or a 32 year old woman who is just about to get married.... If both were equally good candidates, I would employ the man.

I'm approaching 30, unmarried, and wanting kids one day. I can't lie about my age (doh!), but in an interview there's nothing stopping me from pretending I can't stand kids, and never want them, and that I'm career focused instead.

Large companies are much better when it comes to employing women, as they have the funds to soak up maternity pay etc...

Skint_Catt

SomeBozo wrote: »

See, I was kind of with you until you made that stupid post.

As a business owner, mat leave can be a knightmare to cover. I can understand (though not endorse) small companies that don't want to take on women.

I have a larger company than that so we can cope, and having them off for a period of time is fine by me because they are that good and I will wait for them!

Bozo

It was actually tongue in cheek, but not that I care what you think!

I've never claimed a penny before and don't really want to now but if people don't want to employ me because it might put them out then I'm entitled to find funds from somewhere. I can give years of excellent work for many more to come but no-one seems to want it!

And by the way you're missing out on some prime candidates by no longer advertising through the jobcentre - the agencies round here can't even be bothered to talk to me after I spent over an hour filling in their forms - I've been promised a phone call from them several times over the past fortnight which haven't happened. JobcentrePlus/direct to company applications for me every time!

JoolzS

Zazen999 wrote: »

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

Of course I worked between some of those years. Forunately I was educated enough to understand that having sex did not equal getting pregnant! Therefore I never asked an employer to pay me to stay at home and have a baby.

Julie

dktreesea

I find it a bit bizarre that a small business owner with only a few employees would even bother to interview a woman of child bearing age for a role in his or her company. It's a waste of the employer's time (they presumably already knows that women of child bearing age are not on their prospective employee "list") and the interviewee's.

Zazen999

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.

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

Julie

JoolzS wrote: »

Of course I worked between some of those years. Forunately I was educated enough to understand that having sex did not equal getting pregnant! Therefore I never asked an employer to pay me to stay at home and have a baby.

Julie

So, that makes you a hypocrite; it's ok for YOU to work between those ages but all other women on the planet are too stupid to employ.

Zazen999

dktreesea wrote: »

I find it a bit bizarre that a small business owner with only a few employees would even bother to interview a woman of child bearing age for a role in his or her company. It's a waste of the employer's time (they presumably already knows that women of child bearing age are not on their prospective employee "list") and the interviewee's.

I find it bizarre that some people manage to tie their shoelaces up and leave the house; but they still hold down a job.

Let me make this quite clear; small businesses can lose much more money by employing stupid people, or people that are potential long term sick candidates, or shirkers, or druggies, or alcoholics, or a man with children in case he needs time off if the relationship breaks down; or menopausal women in case they get hot and bothered and press the wrong button...I could go on.

And, I'm not sure whether you have heard - but not all women have babies. That's right - they don't. Some don't even like children. :eek:

Instead of all this fussing about women between a certain age, employers' time would be better spent on choosing the best candidate for the job; if they put their talents to use in better recruitment strategies which delved deeper into the people that they were employing; then they will limit their chances of taking on people who are a liability to the business. Regardless of their gender.

Fly_Baby

cazziebo wrote: »

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.

But if a woman of child-bearing age is never offered the job on SUSPICION that she might become pregnant then she will never get that chance to prove what an asset she would have become to the company.

So it is just presumed that she would be demotivating, require maternity leave, retraining etc. How can it be fair? She hasn't done anything yet!

Fly_Baby

JoolzS wrote: »

Of course I worked between some of those years. Forunately I was educated enough to understand that having sex did not equal getting pregnant! Therefore I never asked an employer to pay me to stay at home and have a baby.

Julie

So why are you assuming that everyone else is not that educated and doesn't know how to use contraception? Career is important for many women, you know.