.... interview for one position. Both are excellent candidates with regards to education, work experience, etc. Pretty much a coin toss as to who you hire based on interview and creditials..... However.... Candidate #1 - a male Candidate #2 - a female who is noticeably pregnant.... Does a private business owner (or even a school hiring a teacher, ect) have the right to hire the male because he's not pregnant (and thus, won't have to take an extended amount of time off in less than a year due to giving birth)? i mean this is an economic factor that many businesses need to be aware of (an employee hired to do a job being out for an extended amount of time in the near future) and if you don't believe the business can do that.... why must they hire the female over the male in a cointoss decision anyways? Just to reduce the risk of being sued for discrimination and either settling out of court, or facing a public trial and social media smear campaign that can kill a business? That's nothing more than a strong-armed bully tactic. What if the busy time of the year, or most important time for your company coincides with when baby is due? Why can't I hire the male over the pregnant female in this case? Also, if I do hire the male, and the female suspects the real reason was because she was pregnant, how can it be 'proven' I didn't just do a coin toss to ultimately decide? That's my problem with discrimination laws..... In a hypothetical situation like above... the MAN has one more hurdle to overcome in order to get the job.... he has to be SO MUCH better than the pregnant female candidate, that it's clear why he got the job otherwise, "tie goes to the minority" Now I think a clear cut case of discrimination would be if the female held a higher degree, more work experience, etc, over the male, but the male still got the job.... but even then.... why should a company be forced to hire her, train her, only to have her leave temporarily, have to then either bring in a temp replacement, train them, etc (which is money tossed out the door when the temp leaves as the woman returns) when the company could just hire the non-pregnant man, and not have those other economic risks. I realize that ANY new hire could be an economic dud... even the man. But that's an equal economic risk. What isn't equal is a baby being born in under 9 months, taking an employee away both could end up sick and out both could end up leaving for personal reasons or better job opportunities both could steal and get fired either one could be bad at their job despite looking good on paper but one thing is for sure.... it's garanteed that the woman will miss work in the near future
But it's actually equal. The man can get maternity leave as well. It doesn't matter the gender. So wouldn't that mean your entire argument is false?
trying to swerve the question posed though.... What if it's a single guy in the above situation? No pregnant wife. Again, it's possible he could miss for the same reason.... but MUCH MORE UNLIKELY. But it's GARANTEED the pregnant candidate will.
Doesn't matter. Next day the guy could get laid, or has to take of his sisters baby, or perhaps he knocked someone up in the past, and is now coming fourth. It doesn't matter, both canadites are equal, regardless if they have a womb.
and yes, I know you can't "ASK" those kind of questions.... but I have given, and even sat through MANY interviews where the "get to know you" portion where this info is volunteered. I applied for a job recently where they mentioned the strange hours and how future steps in the hiring process were contingent on if you were still interested in the job after discussing with your family, the strange hours since it will affect them. I made it clear.... I'm a single male, no kids so that was not an issue at ALL. I wanted them to be sure I could be available from the 8-8 Monday - Sunday
I applied for a job recently where they mentioned the strange hours and how future steps in the hiring process were contingent on if you were still interested in the job after discussing with your family, the strange hours since it will affect them. I made it clear.... I'm a single male, no kids so that was not an issue at ALL. I wanted them to be sure I could be available from the 8-8 Monday - Sunday[/QUOTE] Your interviews don't represent all the interviews that actually occur. Different people have different constraints. For instance, I need to make sure my work has a place to put my bike, preferibly inside. If not, then I need to know where the closest place is.
Doesn't matter. I know all of my employees will get sick, even one that looks sick today, will still be working tommorrow. Why shouldn't I apply this logic to maternity leave?
all equal as preggo woman and non-preggo man can both get sick.... you're right.... but the +1 factor here in risk is it's GARANTEED she's going to be out for an extended period of time.... the male may or may not be.... If it's important that I have someone there.... I'd rather risk it on the equally qualified man who doesn't have a preexisting condition that will make me have to find someone to cover for an amount of time. Plus, with all this talk, everyone is assuming that the female should just get hired in this hypothetical case. WHY? Why can't I pick something I like or don't like to "break the tie" for equal candidates in my business? I mean, I could just say "hire the male because females belong in the kitchen" and just be sexist about it, or racists, or base it on religion...etc, but the point is on this post is showing an economic factor to discrimination laws that punishes companies trying to staff for a particular time of the year with a little risk as possible, and it punishes the guy in this scenario because he is equally qualified, but he doesn't get the job because it may LOOK like discrimination if the company doesn't hire the minority. Hiring BECAUSE of they are female, different race, in a wheelchair, ect. over a male is just as much discriminating against the male as it would be if the company DIDN'T hire the female, different race, in a wheelchair, ect is to that person. HIRE THE BEST candidate isn't always politically correct
I can't take this thread seriously until you can spell "guaranteed" A typo is one thing, but three different posts is just too much. I am pretty sure you've never been in a position to hire people
Many hiring managers would not hire someone who is obviously pregnant. Some hiring managers would also not hire someone who is of child bearing age and circumstances (married, no kids yet, and young). I do not believe male or female has anything to do with it. A woman in her 40s beyond childbearing age can be just as reliable if not moreso than a male. Who would have thunk it?
Instead of beating around the bush (get it?) with your threads, perhaps you should just post one asking if it's fair that Poor White Males get no breaks at all and affirmative action type policies screw over this particular demographic? Particularly i've seen how you post about double standards. Yes, it's terrible. And yes, if somebody makes a big deal about how the system plays favorites (Rich White Males > Minorities > Poor White Males), to which if you are that last group, you're basically ostracized. However, sounding callous to other groups' troubles does not win them over for our own problems.
well, I'm not so much poor, but it's not because I got any breaks in life for stuff my ancestors had happen to them centuries before I was born. but I digress
which is why laws requiring both sexes to equally get maternity leave promote equality in the work force
never made a claim about a woman being more or less valuable at all. I'm just factoring in the extra risk in hiring a pregnant woman over a man when both are equally qualified. Noone wants to hear that pregnancy is an economic risk to companies. And since only women can get pregnant, it makes them more risky. Every hire is a risk, and any hire can cost a company by leaving at an inopportune time.... I'm just pointing out it isn't sexist when a woman comes in with a pre-existing condition like pregnancy....it kinda garantees that person will miss, as opposed to the male who only MAY miss if his company offers paternity leave. The paternity leave argument is simply meant to distract away from the topic I started. such a small amount of companies actually offer it it's kinda pointless to bring up other than to try and avoid thinking rationally that yes, it's a risk. But I agree 100% a woman of any age can be a very productive hire. That's not what this thread is about.
as far as affirmative action, I think it is still needed, BUT, I think if a job requirement for the position is being of a certain minority class, they should list that as a requirement so people not meeting that requirement can make better use of their time .
just because paternity leave is granted, still does not mean that now things are equal. Woman in this case is GARANTEED to have to miss, where the man may or may not.
