Women Employees

2

221bar1

At the Start
Joined
May 31, 2004
Messages
284
Much in the news today is the proposals etc re maternity leave for both parents.

There are two sides to the argument, one which gives a lot of benefits to the parents and the other that can cause problems for employers especially the ones who run small companies.

Having been self employed since I was 26 and known many who also ran small companies, the subject of employing younger women was often brought up because of staff becoming pregnant and leaving.

Now they have all sorts of rights, the question I would like to ask is,

Would the new rights be a factor if you were seeking new employees ?
 
A very topical subject for me as having a small company we have asked this question a few times. The female, young staff are fantastic BUT I have to bear in mind that at any time they could be leaving to have children which would be very disruptive to me and a financial nightmare. Having said that, I recently employed a 19year old and 20 year old female and they are both brilliant. Neither has had a day off sick, always in on time, and very loyal. If either of them announce they are preggers, then I will have to face that problem at the time - but fingers crossed I will have made my million and sold the business before this happens. :unsure:

It certainly is a serious issue to me - I keep telling them men are useless and that they should avoid long term relationships at all costs. :P
 
One impact of the regulations, even before the new additional proposals, is that many small companies are now employing older women with grown-up children on the basis that there is less chance of the situation arising. Whether this is good or bad depends on where you view it from

Btw one of my own companies employs my wife and if she is typical of these 'older women' then they can find plenty of excuses as to why they shouldn't risk getting into a situation where they would claim maternity rights.The wife would also not allow me to employ some pretty young female as a secretary in a small business.
 
"Btw one of my own companies employs my wife and if she is typical of these 'older women' then they can find plenty of excuses as to why they shouldn't risk getting into a situation where they would claim maternity rights"
Click to expand...
:lol:

Small company employers - you'd have to be careful about discriminating against a younger woman when recruiting though.
 
We tried to employ some of the "older" women Tout, but from the point of view of being "keen" the youngsters excelled in the interviews. I may live to eat my words, but so far so good. I was very worried employing the "youth of today" but speak as I find, I have been extremely impressed with their politeness, and eager to please attitude, and common sense which in this day of drugs and binge drinking (if we believe everything we read in The Mail) is very refreshing. I actually enjoy going to work nowadays, and know so much more about what youngsters do in their free time than I ever did before. They are also very happy to take my puppy for regular walks too! :D

I don't discrimate Brian against "older women", I just don't currently employ them! As an employer it's my choice.
 
I would refuse to employ anyone who belonged to the

C :D UNTRYSIDE ALLIANCE

would I in breeches be infringing the discrimination laws ?
 
Many of the older lads i know in racing always say that they wouldnt have women in racing and that they didnt need them 20 years ago etc and that they are making the game worse. :lol: it makes me chuckle.
 
I'm all for trying to be as flexible as possible as an employer of some 14 staff and, as we certainly have an extremely low staff turnover, we muct be doing something right.

But I really do think matters are getting to be a pretty pathetic state with all these so-called 'rights' and it is very unfair to expect smaller companies to be able to operate efficiently when it comes to these extended maternity/paternity leave 'benefits'

Especially when the time period before they kick in is being reduced more and more. All very well to 'owe' this type of flexibility to a loyal and valued employee who's been with you for a few years but not for those with just a year or so's employment.

Sorry but this is just another vote-catching ploy that is going to cost both employers and employees dear.

Nanny State in every sense of the word!
 
So these old gits would have passed up on any chances of riding for the Queen, the Duchess of Westminster, Dorothy Paget, or popping over to France for Mme. Volterra, fudge? Really, what utter pillocks. Just because men refused to allow women to train under their own names didn't mean it didn't happen, and from considerably longer than 20 years ago - and you're citing MEN who are too harrassed to be able to personally train their own horses? :rolleyes:

I do hope, additionally, that these pea brains aren't going to ever apply for a job with Mesdames Knight, Williams, Lavelle, Davison, West, Herries, Nicholls, Perrett, Jewell, Dutfield, Smith, Liddiard, Sweeting, Wadham, Dalton, etc., etc., etc.? :brows:

Back to 22's point, though! I'd imagine that small businesses which traditionally employ women more often than men (such as therapy clinics, hairdressers, certain types of shop, beauticians) will struggle a bit. The best biz to have now is the temporary staff agency which will now have many more opportunities to provide short-term replacements.

In some cases, you don't have the luxury of picking who to hire, especially in isolated areas and, conversely, where there are plenty of competing businesses, and hiring someone who may or may not require extended maternity leave at some future date is a minor matter compared with not getting anyone at all!

On a matter of curiosity: the USA still provides no 'right' to paid pre-delivery leave. Isn't that fascinating, compared to Saudi Arabia, which enshrined, back in the 1970s, the right to full pay for six weeks prior to delivery, eight weeks after, and then TWO YEARS after that on full pay for six, instead of eight, hours work per day? Now, let's hear that one about being civilized again, Mr Bush...
 
Hmm. Actually, I do think there is an alternative viewpoint on this.

In my view, it is far more difficult to cover short-term absence than long-term. If you have someone off for, say, three months, you have a) the problem of actually trying to find someone willing to take a contract to cover for that length of time and B ) the issue that you have barely trained them into a post before it is time for them to go. If someone is off for a year, a temporary contract to cover is far more attractive and the investment in training is more worthwhile.

As for PATERNITY leave, well, I don't know about that - right pain in the proverbials for an employer if you ask me .. :D

(But, then, men usually are .. :P )
 
Originally posted by 221bar1@Feb 28 2005, 05:36 PM
Now they have all sorts of rights, the question I would like to ask is,

Would the new rights be a factor if you were seeking new employees ?
Click to expand...
By law, an employer is not allowed to discriminate against anyone, so in answer to your question, anyone who answers yes is breaking the law and open to prosecution for sexual discrimination.

As a young woman, I'd love to know why it is considered that there is a high likelihood of me leaving my job to have a child? As far as I'm concerned, there is no chance of me doing that for the foreseeable future & to look at every young woman with this viewpoint is grossly unfair, not to mention illegal.
 
If a young man and a young woman went for a job and the man was selected for reasons best known to the employer, the employer has done nothing illegal.
 
I have been employing staff for many years and have never been called into question about discrimination. I give the job to the person I feel is best suited to the job but a factor now is should I employ a young woman, or a woman of a certain age, who may soon be off on a years maternity leave which in a small company can be very disruptive and expensive.

Shadow Leader if you ever start up your own company your viewpoint about who you would employ and the reasons why might well change - especially when you are footing the wages bill.

In an interview you can certainly not ask a woman if she is intending to fall pregnant in the forseeable future but as an employer you have to be aware if you employ a certain amount of women, that should they all sit on the same chair and leave to have children it can be a factor that can cause problems. Obviously, in companies of 50 employees plus and multinationals, this is not such an issue, but in companies of less than 20 employees it can have a massive financial impact.
 
"If a young man and a young woman went for a job and the man was selected for reasons best known to the employer, the employer has done nothing illegal"
Click to expand...
As stated, you are, of course, correct but these days those reasons can be challenged and tested.
 
Kathy - I didn't say you were guilty of discrimination, my point being that in answer to 221bar1's question, anyone who answered yes would be guilty of discrimination. You may well not wish to employ young women for fear of them leaving to have children but if you take this viewpoint it is against the law and you may run into trouble over it if it can be held up in a court of law that this was your reason for not employing a woman who was otherwise qualified for the job.


If a young man and a young woman went for a job and the man was selected for reasons best known to the employer, the employer has done nothing illegal.
Click to expand...

As I have put above - that is all well & good assuming that the reasons are legitimate; if an employer is taken to court on an accusation that the female was better qualified for the job that was awarded to the male then there could well be a case for discrimination.
 
SL, as in my previous posting, I have recently employed a 19 year old and a 20 year old female, and employed them as they were qualified to do the job in question. I will have to worry about them going on maternity leave if and when that ever happens.

My point is, it has to be a major consideration, for me anyway, when interviewing for new staff.
 
Again, Kathy, I did not say you are discriminating, merely that you would be if you find it a "major consideration" when interviewing. Again, my point is that if it can be held up in court that you do find it a "major consideration" when employing new staff you can be prosecuted for it.
 
Incidentally, how would you have felt 10 years ago if you were overlooked for a job in favour of a man because your prospective employer thought you were going to leave to have babies?
 
Let us be more specific re being qualified.

You can have all the academic skills known but have poor communication skills with
disastrous effects in the workplace.
There are so many who have spent 3 years gaining a mickey mouse degree and think that that will give them a distinct advantage over someone who has already had 3 years work experience.

An employer should be able to use their own judgement when taking on staff, after all, it is their money that they have invested.
If no one invests, there are no jobs.

Over the years employers have told me that new legislation acts have put them off employing extra staff because if they for instance, turn up pi**ed on Monday that you have to give verbal and then written warnings before finally sacking them.
Then you have to go to tribunals to justify sacking them.

Part time workers are being widely used which can offer women with young children more scope but, there are so many instances where they without notice fail to appear because their child farted twice in the night and were rushed to the doctors.
They turn up at all hours and ask to leave at all hours for similar reasons.

It is amusing to hear some of the gripes of employees who when they leave at 5pm or whatever time,actually do LEAVE work.
The employer ( I can only speak for the smaller co) in a lot of cases never leave work and have many things to worry over, not least his overdraft and his accountants review, the last thing he wants is to have to attend a tribunal because someone wants to test the system.

Being self employed and it's pitfalls is a broad subject.
 
That's all well & good but the fact remains, nonetheless, that ALL employers must act within the law - the rules & regulations are in place to protect both the employees and the employers.

For all the employees that create the hassles you outline above there are probably another two employees at least that are good workers, there is no need to tar every employee with the same brush.

An employer should be able to use their own judgement when taking on staff, after all, it is their money that they have invested.
Click to expand...

Yes, just so long as their judgement is not discriminatory of an employee's sex, race, diabilities or whatever & is within the law.

With regards to a person being qualified for a specific job, that is precisely what I meant - not necessarily academically but qualified in suitability for that position, taking into account academia & experience as relevant.
 
I still don't think you understand what it is like to run your own company Shadow Leader. When you start paying the wages bills you can then decide what criteria you use to employ your own staff. I am afraid on the face of it you appear to have a big company mentality. I employ my staff on their suitability for a particular position but other factors also have to be taken into consideration - I am sure many other company owners do the same. There are other factors I also take into consideration, but with you take on employing staff, these will remain a secret! :P

I would never know if I was overlooked for a position due to my age or gender. In fact I have been lucky enough to have been given every job I have ever applied for ie. two! B)
 
Back
Top