Women Employees

The discrimination factor cannot be applied in most cases because,

How would you know the other applicants ?
or who eventually if anyone was taken on ?
What qualifications the others had ?


Under what circumstances would you feel justified in complaining ?

Just think of the system as it is today with agencies involved and the processes you
go thro before getting to the final interview.

Wouldn't the majority of failed applicants just accept it and apply elsewhere ?

I think there are bigger discrimination issues after you get the job.
 
So many things are stacked against the employer nowadays and so much red tape. If I ever had someone through my door demanding to know why I didn't employ them.... I would be glad that my gut reaction about not employing them in the first place was correct. You can normally tell alot from a CV, and first impressions. For me first impressions count for an awful lot. I have just taken on an ex assistant pub manager and within 2 mins of the interview, I knew he was the person for the job. He is only 26 years old but he has every chance of earning fairly good money here, plus a company car if he carries on the way he has been. He had few relevant qualifications, but the right personality and came across brilliantly in the interview. The girls in the office think he looks like Justin Timberlake, so he has settled in with them just fine! :D
 
"So many things are stacked against the employer nowadays"
Click to expand...
As someone who once ran a business with over 2,500 employees I would argue that nowadays there is more fairness towards the employee. While the odd person will try to abuse the system, that is no case for saying that we should revert to feudalism.
 
To give another side of the debate, my wife was a personal sec for many years and was privy to all job applicants CV's but when the bosses son in law took over it became so obvious that the person who was going to get the job was the most attractive one and it was rarely a man !

The co eventually went bust !
 
Originally posted by Kathy@Mar 1 2005, 11:51 AM
If I ever had someone through my door demanding to know why I didn't employ them.... I would be glad that my gut reaction about not employing them in the first place was correct.
Click to expand...
What would your line of reasoning be there Kathy? The only things that I can think of are fairly poor and I don't like to make assumptions.
 
Originally posted by Kathy@Mar 1 2005, 01:37 PM
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!
Click to expand...
Just so long as you keep your criteria legal or you leave yourself open to prosecution. The fact that an employer pays the wages does not entitle them to be sexist, racist, ageist or dicriminatory against any other factor.


There are other factors I also take into consideration, but with you take on employing staff, these will remain a secret!
Click to expand...

"my take on employing staff" happens to be the same take as the law, I'm afraid. If you see that as a big company mentality then fine, but I can assure you it is not. For most of my working life I have been employed by small companies, all of which have had different ways of doing things but have in the main done things properly & without discrimination. I am well aware of the difficulties small companies face having handled the accounts and day to day running for small companies on a daily basis in the past. Workers have rights as well as employers & it is only fair that if the employee is going to abide by the rules & do their job to the best of their ability then the employer should abide by the rules also, regardless of company size.

You are right, I have not run my own company but should I be in that position I am confident that I would be able to run it without needlessly discriminating against people & keeping within the law.
 
Originally posted by Kathy@Mar 1 2005, 01:51 PM
If I ever had someone through my door demanding to know why I didn't employ them.... I would be glad that my gut reaction about not employing them in the first place was correct.
Click to expand...
An applicant is perfectly entitled to enquire as to the reasonings behind not being hired for a job - in fact many employers would see that as a good thing as it gives the individual an idea on what areas to improve on for future applications. I have always wanted feedback on job interviews or applications - in fact I got my current job for that very reason, I asked why I was unsuccessful & which areas I could improve upon. The company were impressed that I had made the effort & got back to me within a month or two asking me to attend a further interview upon which I was offered my job. It is not necessarily about "demanding to know why" someone was not offered employment. If an applicant then thought they had a case for discrimination all they have to do is take it to ACAS who would advise whether they felt they had a case or not & in the case of ACAS believing the person had a good case they would take the company to tribunal & handle most of it themselves.
 
Shadow Leader,
why this sudden conversion to obeying the Law.?

Oh,i forgot,you choose which laws to obey,according to your perspective of right or wrong. :D :D :D
 
I always give feedback if asked SL. I would never want to be in charge of a company with 2500 employees Brian. I wouldn't want the hassle with the staff and believe me, the staffing issues are one of the most difficult in business from my point of view. I am lucky with the staff I have employed and thankfully have never had to sack anyone.... yet!

Brian we all know what a successful businessman you were, I am certainly not in your league and personally would never wish to be.

SL, agree to differ on this one. I will continue to use my methods for employing MY staff, and I suggest you adopt your own methods should you ever decide to run a company of your own. It is probably more difficult than you imagine.
 
Simmo,

I used the expression "demanding" as like I have said before, first impressions are so important to me during an interview. If someone doesn't get the job for other reasons, I am more than happy to tell them if they ask. I am also one of the few people that writes back to everyone that shows an interest in any job advertised ie. if they send their CV in.

You get those that start quoting "Acas" and demanding their rights during an interview, they personally won't get a look in with me. In a small business the last thing you need is someone who has (in my modest opinion) the wrong outlook to start with. Each to their own, in a company the size of Brian's was, their outlook was probably quite different.

One girl I interviewed about 6 months ago, brought in all her certificates etc. and kept telling me how good she was. I knew within 10 seconds she would not fit in. She was brash, loud and opinionated. Peoples attitudes during interviews are so important. She talked at me for no less than 2 hours, having turned up late for the interview. She was over qualified, had a big company attitude and basically told me I wouldn't find anyone better for the position. How wrong she was. She phoned back to ask why she hadn't been offered a 2nd interview - so I told her, politely. B)

At the end of the day the decision about employing someone is that of the employer and however anyone wants to slag me off about my methods of employment it will not change a thing. As much of someone of you would like it I will never be prosecuted.

Anyone else what to jump on the bandwagon? :unsure:
 
I wasn't arguing with you Kathy, merely pointing out to you that if within your methods of employing someone you would look at whether or not you think you may have to pay maternity to a potential employee as a major consideration to whether or not you should employ them then you may leave yourself open to prosecution as you would then be guilty of sexual discrimination.
 
The difference is that a very small company can be seriously affected by one employee even after that person seemed the right one at the time.

Costs and disruptions that can be bourne by a larger company can destroy a small
company but the same rules and regs apply regardless of size so these new rulings will be felt more by the minnows.
 
Yep, and I am certainly in the Minnow league 221bar21!

The maternity issue is maybe not a major one SL, but it is certainly something some smaller companies may now have to consider very strongly when recruiting staff.

Imagine you are in an office with 4 - 5 people, all on a fairly good wage (18k-20k a piece), and two of the staff (females) both go off on maternity leave at a smiliar time. You have to leave their job open for them, pay them, and get someone else in to cover their job too! When, as a company you are desperately trying to make a profit, this can be a major factor in whether it was the right thing to do in employing them in the first place. I am sure you can see that if the company was yours - you may (just may) consider this at the interview stage!
 
For information purposes - (taken from the ACAS Advisory Handbook which can be found at ACAS Advisory Handbook


Equal opportunities
By law employers must not discriminate on the grounds of race, sex, marriage, disability, sexual orientation or religion or belief (the law will be extended to cover age discrimination by December 2006). All stages of the recruitment process must treat all races and both sexes equally. The Commission for Racial Equality (CRE), the Disability Rights Commission (DRC) and the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) have produced codes of practice, available from JobCentres, which explain how to avoid discrimination. It is unlawful under the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 for an employer to treat a disabled person less favourably because of a reason relating to their disability, when applying for or during employment, without a justifiable reason. Employers are required to make a reasonable adjustment to working conditions or the workplace where that would help to accommodate a particular disabled person. Disability is defined under the Act as a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on a person's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. Further guidance may be found in the Code of Practice for the elimination of discrimination in the field of employment against disabled persons - available from The Stationery Office.
Click to expand...

Another good site is Equal Opportunities Commission
 
Originally posted by Kathy@Mar 1 2005, 04:28 PM
The maternity issue is maybe not a major one SL, but it is certainly something some smaller companies may now have to consider very strongly when recruiting staff.
Click to expand...
That is my point exactly, Kathy - to do so is to be guilty of sexual discrimination which is against the law.

I fully appreciate how difficult it is for small companies which is precisely why all these things have to closely scrutinised and taken into account when thinking of setting up a new business - people simply cannot ignore whichever laws they find convenient to ignore because they may make life difficult for them. It is all part of the trials and tribulations of setting up and running a business - it's a hard world out there!
 
Kathy, I wasn't jumping on the bandwagon of disagreement. Personally I secretly agree with you on the young women thing - it is something that has to be taken on board along with all of the other factors under consideration.

The bit that jumped out at me was the suggestion that by returning to demand to know why they were not employed would reinforce your gut reaction. IMHO it would provide no further evidence as to whether or not they were actually any use to you. I make a reasonably good living from having a job which demands that I tell my employers that they are shit and keep telling them that they are shit and they need to change until they do so. Again IMO, one of the reasons that I provide this service to the levels that I do is precisely because I am the type of person who is quite happy to be upfront and tell them so and not pussyfoot around them trying to make sure they are happy with what I am telling them. This attribute could potentially manifest itself in my storming through their door demanding to know why I hadn't been given a job if I felt that this was warranted.

The inference which I took, rightly or wrongly, from the posting, was that a person who argues with you is no use to you. That might not be the case.

As you say, it's your business and you can run it any way you like and good luck to you in that. But it's a thought.
 
Simmo, sorry, no we may be talking at cross purposes. Argumentative (in some cases) is not a bad thing, but "demanding" to know why someone hasn't been employed to me, is a no, no.

I welcome any of my employees to tell me how shit I am at some things, in fact I encourage them too. The whole company is very laid back from that point of view. Everyone in casual clothes, and flat shoes for walking the puppy. I could never go back to working in a large company, been there done that, and never again. It's horses for courses, and for me, someone that is loyal, loves animals, hard working, personable and a laugh will get the job everytime irrespective of their formal qualifications. I may have got it completely wrong, but it seems to work for me! B)

PS I don't argue enough at work (only with suppliers), which is why I do it on here! :P
 
I'm confused as to where the "person demanding to know why they didn't get a job" came from in the first place....
 
The current scene in the office, is 3 staff (plus the MD) trying to change one of the long lights in the main office (1 member of female staff balancing on the desk - health and safety :rolleyes: !!!) and the puppy running around with a brown banana skin in his mouth leaving a trail of mud in his wake as has just been for a half an hour walk in the rain! :blink:

I have just been to Sainsburys to stock up on Wine Gums and Vanilla coke as the staff needed a sugar fix! :)
 
Originally posted by Shadow Leader@Mar 1 2005, 05:12 PM
I'm confused as to where the "person demanding to know why they didn't get a job" came from in the first place....
Click to expand...
Personal experience SL!
 
Incidentally, although it would be a major disruption to a small company, surely the financial implications of paying an employee who is on maternity leave wouldn't be huge as the Inland Revenue refund companies Statutory Maternity Pay up to 100% if you are a small company (paying less than £45,000 per annum in NICS) & refunds most (92%) of the SMP paid if your company pays more than £45,000.
 
Where have you copied that from SL? :D Those figures are correct.

SL, it is not just the financial side, you still have to keep their job open for them, and pay someone else to do their job during their absence. This usually means retraining an existing member of staff, re-employing completely (and what do you do with them when the lady returns unless you take them on a maternity cover only basis) or get in a long term temp which can be expensive . The lady having the baby can still, turn around and say they are not returning having changed their mind. In a small company you don't always have bottomless amounts of money to spend if you are trying to keep the company in profit and the continuity of staff is a major plus point. I feel sorry for those companies that have more than one lady go off at the same time - but it does happen.
 
Aha, I have kept the books for a few different companies in my time....

As I said, I realise the disruption would be great & that extra money would have to be spent but the Inland Revenue do at least give some assistance. Many companies recruit for temporary materniy cover also so the extra expenditure need not be astronomical, although I appreciate that it isn't all easy or straightforward.
 
You can probably see then SL, that IF you were in a position to employ staff for your own company and had the choice of two people for a particular job (both ideally qualified) you may (rightly or wrongly) air towards the person that would possibly cause you less disruption in the long term. Possibly agree? B)

I have already, as stated previously, recently employed two pretty young ladies but they were so perfect for the job, them falling pregnant will be a risk I am willing to take. In fact I would natually be happy for them - as long as they are not both off at the same time. B) I just hope they don't start both making eyes at the Justin Timberlake look a like! :nerd:
 
Originally posted by Kathy@Mar 1 2005, 07:01 PM
You can probably see then SL, that IF you were in a position to employ staff for your own company and had the choice of two people for a particular job (both ideally qualified) you may (rightly or wrongly) air towards the person that would possibly cause you less disruption in the long term. Possibly agree? B)
Click to expand...
No, Kathy - you've missed the point entirely there - I was representing another reason why young women should not be wrongly discriminated against in the workplace. I would not favour someone who possibly would cause less disruption (that theory being discriminatory in itself - who is to say that because a young person is female, they will automatically be taking time off to have babies?? :rolleyes: ) as it would be sexual discrimination & thus, against the law.
 
Back
Top