Hiring Men or Women
- Thread starter Mr Giles
- Start date
I hope this thread is not serious. And I am a man.
Edit: Perhaps that sounded rude.
My opinion is that hiring someone because of their gender is sexist and discriminative.
Edit: Perhaps that sounded rude.
My opinion is that hiring someone because of their gender is sexist and discriminative.
If you feel someone is better suited for your business as an employer then hire them. If you hire them for any other reason you are a bad employer.
Sorry, i should have been more descriptive.
It was about paternity leave, which i was heavily disagreed with on the (abortion) thread.
Basically, if you feel a woman that you were employing getting pregnant would be a problem for you if you were running a business.
Would it be easier just to hire a man(assuming they are roughly as qualified as each other)
It was about paternity leave, which i was heavily disagreed with on the (abortion) thread.
Basically, if you feel a woman that you were employing getting pregnant would be a problem for you if you were running a business.
Would it be easier just to hire a man(assuming they are roughly as qualified as each other)
I think it was obvious that this was your question. The main reason people hire men and not women is not because of prejudices about skills, but because employers feel that a woman can be a burden as soon as she gets pregnant. It's awful to hear about stories where employers make a woman employee sign a blank resignation letter, or where women are asked personal question like "Are you engaged?" or "Are you planning to get pregnant?" during job interview.
Well, that's sexist and discriminative and it's not ok "for the sake of productivity". I understand the the employer seeks for profit and gain, but this is simply not acceptable. The government has to make laws to prevent this kind of behaviour and to allow women to be hired just as men are.
Well, that's sexist and discriminative and it's not ok "for the sake of productivity". I understand the the employer seeks for profit and gain, but this is simply not acceptable. The government has to make laws to prevent this kind of behaviour and to allow women to be hired just as men are.
EvilWillow
Scooby
It shouldn't matter if they have the potential to get pregnant or not. Hiring someone based on their gender is discrimination. It's not only illegal, it is also wrong, no matter what the situation is.
S
sisterofmercy
[No message]
Of course it would be easier. That doesn't mean it should be done.
It's ridiculous not to employ a woman because she might have children. Not all woman want children.
In my opinion the 'women might get pregnant, so its safer/easier to employ men' is just a way for people to try to justify sexism.
EvilWillow
Scooby
white avenger
white avenger
I agree. But my father ran a construction company up until the middle 70's and hiring one person in preference to another simply because they happened to be the most capable of doing the job simply wasn't enough. Sex wasn't an issue at that time, but, in order to be considered for certain government contracts, which composed a large portion of his business, he was required to maintain what was referred to as a "racial balance" on all of his crews. That meant that, rather than employ the best trained, most capable people to do the work, he had to hire poorly trained and inexperienced workers. Naturally, the quality of our work suffered, and, as a result, we lost business, and, ultimately, my father was forced to shut down his company, putting all if his employees out of work, and retire early himself. So much for the land of free enterprise.
Race and/or gender should never be the deciding factor in awarding a job. Unfortunately, if an employer hires strictly on the considerations of training and experience, he (or she) can face the very real threat of being labeled a racist, sexist, or both. Until some totally impartial method is found, and agreed upon by all concerned, to allow employers to hire the best people to do their respective work, there is always going to be some group, whether based on race, sex, age, religion, sexual orientation, political affiliation, or any of a dozen other criteria, whether valid or imagined, who are protesting the fact that someone else was chosen over them. And the final result is going to be highly skilled people either working in menial jobs, because the less capable get preference in job placement, or being unemployed altogether, which will result in poorer work quality and more goods being imported, a suffering economy, fewer jobs ... Well, you get the idea.
And that's my rant for the evening.
Ok, so say you hire a woman, that gets pregnant 3 months later, and she takes a years paternity leave. So you hire someone else to cover for her, while still paying for the other women on leave. That means (even as a small struggling business) your paying for 2 people to do the one persons job.
Say she comes back for 3 months, and gets pregnant again! Then your still legally obliged to pay her. Is that fair on the employer?
Say she comes back for 3 months, and gets pregnant again! Then your still legally obliged to pay her. Is that fair on the employer?
Z
zobothehobo
*maternity leave.
I have to say I understand this from an employers point of view, but I also don't care. It's the law and if they're not prepared to follow it, and find it unfair then they should not be running a business.
It's not fair for a woman who has no intention of having kids not to be employed just because she is a woman, neither is it fair for a woman who does want to have kids to be turned down for this reason.
At the end of the day, life isn't fair.
That's where the government and it's welfare policy strikes in, [MENTION=11237]Mr Giles[/MENTION]. To allow women to have kids and keep their economic independece/personal satisfaction/whatever its her reason to work, without forcing the employer to force the woman to choose between work or kids.
Last edited:
EvilWillow
Scooby
I don't know how it is where you are, but most companies in America only allow you up to 6 weeks maternity leave, and most of them don't pay you unless you have vacation pay saved up.
Regardless, it's morally wrong to fire someone for have a baby.
xfivebyfive
Because its Fate.
Its sexist and wrong to hire or not hire someone based on their gender or race/ethnicity/disability for that matter. You should hire whoever is the most qualified. End of story.
That said it didnt stop Joss Whedon from firing Charisma for getting pregnant.
That said it didnt stop Joss Whedon from firing Charisma for getting pregnant.
E
EvilWillow
Yep, I lost much respect for him after that.
ashleigh
[No message]
I preface this post by confessing that I am a woolly-headed liberal...
[MENTION=6758]white avenger[/MENTION] [MENTION=11237]Mr Giles[/MENTION]
I live in the UK where affirmative action isn't enforced nearly as harshly as it is in the US and other countries. I appreciate that I may have a rose-tinted view of the reality of the situation, but it seems logical that you hire the best person for the success of your business.
That doesn't necessarily mean the best qualified person. It might mean the person who has the brightest, morale-lifting personality which increases productivity or the harshest taskmaster who rules with an iron fist, which has the same effect. It may also mean hiring the woman with the fruitful womb because even if she misses 26 weeks of work, the long term benefit of having her in the business outweighs the short-term hassle and expense.
[MENTION=6758]white avenger[/MENTION] [MENTION=11237]Mr Giles[/MENTION]
I live in the UK where affirmative action isn't enforced nearly as harshly as it is in the US and other countries. I appreciate that I may have a rose-tinted view of the reality of the situation, but it seems logical that you hire the best person for the success of your business.
That doesn't necessarily mean the best qualified person. It might mean the person who has the brightest, morale-lifting personality which increases productivity or the harshest taskmaster who rules with an iron fist, which has the same effect. It may also mean hiring the woman with the fruitful womb because even if she misses 26 weeks of work, the long term benefit of having her in the business outweighs the short-term hassle and expense.
I'm not quite sure I understand what you're trying to say 🙁
I don't run a business and never will, so I find that an irrelevant question.
I'm curious - do you run a business?
Its the law in Britain to take up to 1 years leave. And i agree, honestly i do, that its totally unfair, to judge a potential employee based on the fact she 'might' get pregnant. But, for the simple fact it is the law(which is a joke and the government should pay) then you can understand an employers sceptasism.