My Status

Proc

SueC wrote: »

If you look for discrimination anywhere you can find it.

This is single-handedly one of the best sentences I've read on this board.

Employers need to put their business first. Given the option of someone who is more likely to take a lot of time of, or someone who probably won't, I know which one I take every time.

It's only the government that thinks we should pander to the needs of every single person, no matter how detrimental it is for a company.

Pretty much all companies will discriminate in some form or another. Whether they don't like the person's gender, looks, race, religion, family commitments, pregnancy, etc etc, it will always be sat in their minds. Some interviewers are just better at hiding it than others.

I'm not saying that all pregnant women should automatically be declined a job, but I'm saying that employers should be given absolute choice on the reason why they would or wouldn't take a specific person. Ultimately, this will just lead to more honest feedback, and not giving smokescreen excuses like employers do now to cover their backs.

If you got declined a job because you were pregnant, what would you rather:
a) The employer lies to cover their back and says you're not relevant for the role and gives you some bullcrap to improve upon.
b) The employer is honest with you.

SueC_2

Proc wrote: »

This is single-handedly one of the best sentences I've read on this board.

Employers need to put their business first. Given the option of someone who is more likely to take a lot of time of, or someone who probably won't, I know which one I take every time.

It's only the government that thinks we should pander to the needs of every single person, no matter how detrimental it is for a company.

Hear hear! And I'm so glad that suddenly I'm not alone in this!

If we want to be treated equally then we need to act equally.

That means reliably turning up to work and doing the job we are paid to do, with no exceptions. We shouldn't demand the exceptions that are in our favour (time off for maternity / child illness / school appointments etc etc) without being prepared to accept the ones that are less favourable to us.

Over the last 25 years I have worked through junior positions and onto more senior positions, and have been employed by large companies and small companies. I can honestly say I have never once felt discriminated against as a woman. I don't think I have been particularly lucky or skilled in my selection of employers. I think it is purely and simply down to the fact that I have acknowledged that what I am paid for is to do a job, and to do it well.

wontfallforit

poorgrad wrote: »

I had an interview for a administration position a few months ago and I wore my engagement ring. The interviewer asked me if I was engaged and when I planned to get married. I never got that job.

So I wised up and have never worn my engagement ring to an interview again. I had a subsequent interview for a retail position and was really surprised that they asked whether I was married, living with a boyfriend or have any kids. I told them no to all of the above. I was even more shocked to hear the interviewer say 'we don't judge you on it but we need to understand how flexible you are - as we need someone who can work late at night and if you have kids you can't really do that.' Now, if i'm applying for a job and I really really want it and have small kids surely I would find a way to get around this??! I just find the entire process really shallow when it comes to women and how they fit into the workplace. Rant over.

I'm wondering if they were put off by the fact that you were young and presumably fertile, why they would interview you in the first place?

I know you don't have to put your age on application forms anymore, but there's a very easy way of checking the approximate age of a candidate - looking at the year they left school.

So these companies are armed with the knowledge already that you're a young female. The fact that you're engaged shouldn't have come as a massive surprise to them, as many young females are.

An engagement ring is just that...a ring. Many people get 'engaged' and never marry (let alone have kids), whereas many people intend to marry their partners soon, yet don't wear a ring at all. Other people already have a flock of kids, but aren't married and perhaps will never bother.

Anyone (including employers) who surmises that engagement = marriage = tons of kids is a bit old fashioned, not to mention wildly assumptive.

They're probably not worth working for if you truly think that your marital status has put employers off.

And as some other posters have pointed out, I'm pretty sure employers aren't supposed to ask questions on your marital intentions anyway.

Just be honest and upfront about your future intentions for marriage/children. I'm not saying to talk your way out of a job, but an honest question requires an honest answer. If you do in fact intend to put your career on the back burner for a short while whilst you have kids, it's in their interest to know. If you're the right person for the right company, arrangements will be made to cover your work in your absence. And if you feel they're digging too much, don't be afraid to (politely) point it out.

paulwf

poorgrad wrote: »

I was even more shocked to hear the interviewer say 'we don't judge you on it but we need to understand how flexible you are - as we need someone who can work late at night and if you have kids you can't really do that.'

As it happens some of the women with kids I work with are the most flexible when it comes to working nights. It works well for them...they can be home during the day with the kids and whilst the kids are sleeping at night their partner can look after them with minimal fuss. With proper planning by the employer they might find that employees can be very flexible.

jazzyman01

Fact - it is discrimination.
Fact - it happens and unless you have it recorded or witnessed it will be denied.
Fact - it has got worse because of the length of maternity leave and the impact/constraints on the company.

Skint_Catt

I've had this in a couple of interviews I've had recently and I've lost all my confidence in applying for jobs now. I'm even just targeting temporary work so that the question may not figure in their thinking, but I haven't been successful there yet (even when I was willing to take a £7k pay drop) either. I want to work and have many years ahead of me to give my best for a company.

hothothot_3

I feel really sorry reading discrimination like this still exists.

iceicebaby

hothothot wrote: »

I feel really sorry reading discrimination like this still exists.

Theres nothing stopping a gay female having kids either!

elfen

My sister and her wife plan to have kids when they can afford the IVF to have them. They both work for the same company and have done so for a good few years, and from what others with kids/got pg/had kids whilst there, the employer is pretty good with it

lisamummytoarchieplusbump

i got asked a question like that as i mentioned i got made redundant while on maternity leave as i have a 2 year work gap on my CV so thought this would be best to explain it, he then asked how many kids and what their ages was

i never got as far as an interview