Is this wrong/illegal/discrimination

[Deezlar]

Society is comprised of people who've never had to deal with business, and the lawmakers and politicians who implement these laws are nothing more then school children who have no business knowledge.

The Business Secretary for the UK is Vince Cable, an old man who has extremist liberal views and has never run a business in his life, yet he is the one making foundations for laws and requirements of business.

Because of this, I tend to ignore the majority of the society says about business. Going to work and being paid $5.75 an hour is not business.




Because the pregnant women will have to take time off of work to go and have her child, recover from the birth and take care of the child. The Black person doesn't need nor is it guaranteed they will still stuff.

One is ignorance, the other is a fact.



It isn't really a personal opinion. A pregnant women is going to have to take time off of work to deal with her child, and as someone who might be involved in the daily operations of the company, and is new to the whole thing, it would be hard to integrate someone, only to have to find a temporarily replacement, so they can go have a child.

In every business I have run, I have done it with absolute respect for the rights of my employees, and that includes managing maternity leave.
If you do not have a mechanism in place to facilitate leave for life events for your employees, then maybe that is a level of contingency that you should look at adopting, then you would really be able to employ the right people, not just the right men/childless women.

I have worked those shitty jobs, pre-minimum wage, and built up a very healthy disdain for what it is to be employed by companies/bosses that see me as nothing more than a resource and as a result, all of my businesses have been profitable, and I am incredibly proud that I have managed to do that with my integrity intact.

The law is there for a reason. And Women deserve the same rights to employment as Men. There is no leeway on that point if you are truly a considerate employer, or indeed a considerate human being.

[Windfury]

*snip* A pregnant women *snip*

Why exactly are you putting all of the responsibility for child raising on the woman? The father should be doing their share as well, and should equally be missing days to take care of sick kids, and leaving early to pick them up from school and so on. a man having kids should also have an impact on your business, yet it's the woman that gets singled out for the discrimination.

Your attitude is part of the huge social problem that leads to things like the wage gap, and the things you guys complain about on these forums constantly like how child custody cases favour women. You want it to be ok that business assumes all child rearing should be done by the women, but think it's totally unfair when courts reflect that in their decision making.

It really is a damaging attitude to have and has actual negative repercussions for society in general if it's allowed. Which is obviously why it isn't (at least legally - as you're proving laws are not good at changing underlying social attitudes). It's absolutely right to stop it, yeah it might be inconvenient a little for businesses, but it's less inconvenient than it would be if women were driven out of the workforce entirely or the birthrate drastically dropped. Your thinking is very short term.

[Deleted]

So the business i work for just signed a few new contracts which would allow us to expand. Now we are in the process of hiring some new employees and in a meeting we were discussing what we would be looking for. One of the things that came was we didn't want to hire anyone that currently has children or planing to have them(both male and female). We want this because the parents that work are constantly having to leave early to do stuff for their kids and generally think they have the right too. We feel in the management they do not pull their weight at all compared to the single/childless employees.

So is this wrong/unethical/discrimination practise to not hire parents, because as far are we are concerned for that 8 hours a day while you are at work you should be working, not doing stuff for your children or ducking out to pick them up, and we deny and reprimand them for doing it they normally go off on a ramble of the modern stresses parenting which we are quite frankly sick of.

Its discrimination....but its understandable.

Companies, esp small ones, get shafted when they hire people who then take maternity/paternity leave. Also, parents seam to think they are a special class of society, they can leave early, get in late, bugger off because little timmy forgot his PE kit, and take leave every school holiday and christmans. When in reality, all they have proved is they cant use birth control.

The myth of modern society is that you can have it all. you cant. You can either have kids and be a good parent, or you can have a career. you cant do both. So choose.

The ONLY criteria for hiring should be ability to do a job, and being a parent negatively impacts on that. You cant do a job if you have to take excessive leave or not committ to it like every one else does.

[Deleted]

id say it shuld be illegal..

[Deleted]

You cant do a job if you have to take excessive leave or not commit to it like every one else does.

In theory, that's correct.
In practise, it's bullshit.

I took loads of time off in my last job, not because I'm a parent (I'm not, and never want to be), but because I have depression and anxiety issues that I sometimes need time off to deal with.

I was still the best employee there. I topped every performance table. I brought new ideas and efficiency to my department. I single-handedly set up a remote office and set the company as a whole down a very profitable path of international expansion.

Needing time off doesn't make a bad employee. Being a lazy ass makes you a bad employee. The two have nothing to do with each other.

[Deleted]

In theory, that's correct.
In practise, it's bullshit.

I took loads of time off in my last job, not because I'm a parent (I'm not, and never want to be), but because I have depression and anxiety issues that I sometimes need time off to deal with.

I was still the best employee there. I topped every performance table. I brought new ideas and efficiency to my department. I single-handedly set up a remote office and set the company as a whole down a very profitable path of international expansion.

Needing time off doesn't make a bad employee. Being a lazy ass makes you a bad employee. The two have nothing to do with each other.

And while you were not there everyone else had to pick up the slack and so got more and more stressed, as they compensated, or the business had to employ someone at their expense to cover for you.

There are more impacts then the direct ones.

[Deleted]

And while you were not there everyone else had to pick up the slack and so got more and more stressed, as they compensated, or the business had to employ someone at their expense to cover for you.

There are more impacts then the direct ones.

...except that's all your assumption, and none of it is true.
Nobody picked up any slack, because there wasn't any. The work I did brought us ahead of schedule, so when I was off the company didn't suffer at all, and neither did any of the other employees. Nobody was ever hired to fill in for me, either.

The fact that I'd do more work in an hour than most others did in four simply meant that my time off wasn't detrimental to anyone in any way. If it were, then I would have probably been refused my time off.

[Deleted]

...except that's all your assumption, and none of it is true.
Nobody picked up any slack, because there wasn't any. The work I did brought us ahead of schedule, so when I was off the company didn't suffer at all, and neither did any of the other employees. Nobody was ever hired to fill in for me, either.

The fact that I'd do more work in an hour than most others did in four simply meant that my time off wasn't detrimental to anyone in any way. If it were, then I would have probably been refused my time off.

Sorry, should have made it clear, I dont do specific people's situations, I was making a point that people who leave will have impacts beyond their personal experience.

When I say "you" I dont specifically mean you, but people who take the time off in general.

I did not mean to apply this to you personally, I discuss things in teh abstract where possible as bringing individuals circumstances just gets things emotional and seldom results in productive discussion.

[Magpai]

So the business i work for just signed a few new contracts which would allow us to expand. Now we are in the process of hiring some new employees and in a meeting we were discussing what we would be looking for. One of the things that came was we didn't want to hire anyone that currently has children or planing to have them(both male and female). We want this because the parents that work are constantly having to leave early to do stuff for their kids and generally think they have the right too. We feel in the management they do not pull their weight at all compared to the single/childless employees.

So is this wrong/unethical/discrimination practise to not hire parents, because as far are we are concerned for that 8 hours a day while you are at work you should be working, not doing stuff for your children or ducking out to pick them up, and we deny and reprimand them for doing it they normally go off on a ramble of the modern stresses parenting which we are quite frankly sick of.

Making it clear that you demand they stay at work and pull their weight and the consequences when they don't is fine. Refusing to hire them based on their family status is shitty, and almost certainly illegal.

[Thes]

Because the law is against you. That's all there is to it. Do you want to know why there is a law against fireing pregnant women for example? Because in general before such a law existed, the pregnant women were fired as soon as they got their maternity leave. And from this moment on the women had two choices:
- get a job right after their pregnancy, thus meaning their children were not cared for properly, their development was bad (due to them not being fed right and cared for) and a lot of accidents
- not get a job and sit with child, thus meaning the children would not develop properly (because of lack of money means less food, vitamins, clothes etc) and because of the huge money needed while there were none made the women either dependant on a man or it forced them to take money from other things, like electricity and stuff, meaning the companies cut the electricity and stuff, ensuring like this poverty for a long time.

You may have worked to build your company... but these people worked to make their family too while working for you as well for X years. They are not machines to be replaced when you're bored. They are humans and you should treat them as such, as they work for you hard so you can accomplish your dream of the company, so too should you understand their dreams of having a family. If you can't understand that you're being ignorant and selfish.

State/country/whatever should provide the financial aid, not the fucking company that hired them just to have them take paid vacations.

And I don't mean people that have already worked for the company a good deal, but those that are about to or are already pregnant / about to become parents when applying for a position.

[Lastlivingsoul]

1) You made a Assumption that all people with or planning to have kids are irresponisible and could not dedicate themselves to a single job. There are plenty of single parents who find the time to perform two jobs and raise their kids.

2) It is discrimination if you choose one person over another for ANY reason besides qualifications. If you have to ask, it probably is.

3) Most of all you asked this question to a on a Wow forum. Most of the answers on this page will come from kids and trolls. Never having kids themselves they will find reasons to hate the idea until they are rejected from earning a living because of little Timmy.

So are you asking this just to ease your conscience? If so just know that the first point still stands. Your employer is wrong, based their ideal worker from an ignorant assumption and is going to lose good people with families to singles with less work ethics. Keep this in mind.

Edit: I am single and I can think of 50 reasons to get out of work right now. Going to use one for my birthday. Just used one for the superbowl. "Ooooh my stomach Boss... <Click> Pass the Nachos." Good thing I don't have any kids right?

[Zangeiti]

Even though the person who posted the thread is banned i agree on what hes saying and i also dont agree

some parents leave early maybe be cause they need to get them out of school or something

[Deleted]

Sorry, should have made it clear, I dont do specific people's situations, I was making a point that people who leave will have impacts beyond their personal experience.

When I say "you" I dont specifically mean you, but people who take the time off in general.

I did not mean to apply this to you personally,

Fair enough, it appeared otherwise but things are easily misconstrued in plain text.

I discuss things in teh abstract where possible as bringing individuals circumstances just gets things emotional and seldom results in productive discussion.

I disagree. In some circumstances, that's true - but in this discussion individual circumstances and emotion play an important part. They're central to the issue, and driving forces behind the rules that try to prevent discrimination and preconceptions in the workplace.

[blackblade]

I have no idea why this is an illegal question. It doesnt matter anyways, if they want to figure it out they will. "Let me walk you to your car" essentially translates into "I want to see if you have a baby seat in your car". Just making things like this "illegal" is just one further loophole people have to jump through, or lie about. Don't want to hire a deaf person? Make sure you find a different reason to not hire them.

Making things "Illegal" and having people discriminte against you regadless makes me want to cry. The government should just add extra benefits to hiring people with children/the disabled.

It's illegal, because, really, it's not your employer's business.

It's also to protect people with "Abnormal" sexual preference.

You're also not allowed to ask about religion, or racial background to name a couple more.

[Sunseeker]

Society is comprised of people who've never had to deal with business, and the lawmakers and politicians who implement these laws are nothing more then school children who have no business knowledge.

The Business Secretary for the UK is Vince Cable, an old man who has extremist liberal views and has never run a business in his life, yet he is the one making foundations for laws and requirements of business.

Because of this, I tend to ignore the majority of the society says about business. Going to work and being paid $5.75 an hour is not business.

You're right, on every count. But here's the trick: They vastly outnumber you. There are more workers, more employees, and more unemployed than you by millions of times over. They win. If you think you can discount their views because they don't have the same knowledge you do, you are going to be in for a rude awakening when those workers decide they want to discount your views. Historically speaking? The working class always wins in the end. The wealthy, the elite, the prideful who think their knowledge, skills or wealth makes them more important, they are torn from their throne and tossed in the fire.

That is the result in any society where people think wealth and knowledge make them superior and give them the right to treat others poorly.

Oh, it might take them a while. Maybe it won't be you they put to the fire, maybe it'll be your kid, or their kids. Maybe you're OK with your kids being killed for your actions. I really can't say. But the fact of the matter is that history has shown it over, and over, and over. The oppressed always outnumber their oppressors, and once they realize that, they are powerful.

One does not need to run a business to understand that the way some businesses are run negatively impact their life, their family, and their country.

[FathomFear]

I suspect laws vary by country, but in Canada you cannot discriminate against someone for being a parent or expressing interest in becoming one.

Of course, this often doesn't stop people from discriminating and covering it up with BS. But doing that is risky.

[Ashnazg]

Working in consulting, I can't imagine hiring a parent.

We have more than a few on our staff, but about 80% of them are divorced / separated, and don't have custody of their children, so kids aren't an issue. The work lifestyle doesn't lend itself easily to having a family. Not that we work heavy hours, but they're highly irregular. One day I can be at work 9 to 5, another I have to work 5 am to 2 am non-stop. Sometimes I have to fly out across the country on less than a day's notice. Would have to have one hell of an accommodating spouse if I were to have a kid in this situation.

[Symphonic]

Symphonic ... 4 hours leave per pay period? You sure don't live in the United States. I've had jobs it took 10 years of service to get 3 weeks vacation. 5 years to get 2 weeks.

Well, I do live in the states, and my time off goes up that much each pay period... like, 8 hours a month. I can't have more than 15 days a year though of paid time off, if I have, say, 20 days, at the beginning of the new year it gets cut back to 15. It build pretty quickly and I'm happy for that in case I need it.

[inboundpaper]

It isn't nice, but I understand, when your running short on staff the last thing you need is someone calling out or leaving early.