Employers in 'Dark Ages' with 'antiquated' views on recruiting women

[Direpenguin]

Asking about children is definitely a valid question. No one takes more time off work than someone with a young child either in day care, or school. If they are in a position where attendance is important, I can see why an employer would ask about this.

Co-workers I've been around with children are constantly out of the office due to "my child was sick", "the school called about my child", "it's a school holiday", "my kid hit another kid at daycare", etc etc etc. All this is above and beyond the personal time taken for illness and holidays.

[d00mGuArD]

This is a story I once heard: (I do not support, just telling a story I heard here - anecdotal)

Imagine I hire a man for 5 years. He does 10000 reports in those five years and gets paid 100.000e total
Imagine I hire a woman for 5 years. She leaves on pregnancy leave for one year. She does 8000 reports in the other four years, for and gets paid 100.000
It is 8000 vs 10000 reports, for the same money.
Either I would have to pay the woman 20% less, or ask her to work enough to make 10000 reports equal amount to the guy
Now imagine if she has 2 babies, and leaves for 2 of the 5 years.... the number becomes 6000vs10000
And in some companies where the turnover is less than 5 years, it is even worse

Anyway just a story I heard, but may give some insight how some people think

Note the number is not accurate, I don't recall exact, since the government will cover part of the 20k of the leave year. But still one of the two will get paid more per report

[Dangg]

Men are scared about getting metoo'd by some crazy bitch.

[Flarelaine]

Co-workers I've been around with children are constantly out of the office due to "my child was sick", "the school called about my child", "it's a school holiday", "my kid hit another kid at daycare", etc etc etc. All this is above and beyond the personal time taken for illness and holidays.

Now my experience is as anecdotal as yours, but it's quite the opposite. I only have one woman among my coworkers whose job actually impacts mine. She is, in fact, at home a lot on account of three kids... but that does not stop her from doing the job. She actually puts in quite a few extra hours, even on weekends, whenever there's something with the system she admins (like when someone experimented with uploading the inventory through a script which caused every item to appear in 72 copies).

[Deleted]

/snip

ITV is just one step above the daily mail, but not that far.

Stop using bad news websites.

[Video Games]

You can't really act like that on the west coast anymore. But also for restaurants we don't have interviews here in Oregon

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

You can't really act like that on the west coast anymore. But also for restaurants we don't have interviews here in Oregon

You just get the job?

[Enthusiastic Steward]

And ofc I am not advocating for something like the US where the state itself doesn't even guarantee a basic maternity leave. Keep those rights, maybe augment them. Just spread the cost on the state level and off my back.

Mostly this. The onus of cost should be borne by the state, not the business. The business has a vested interest in generating capital, the state has a vested interest in ensuring its own survival.

[Video Games]

You just get the job?

You go in for like an hour or so and work and if they like you they'll offer and give you paper work to sign. For compensation, you get foooooood

[msdos]

I feel like there is a war going on between people's feelings and necessity.

Things need to be done. You need to cast your feelings aside. We need to start looking at necessity as necessity and stop letting feelings cloud everything.
People are getting butthurt because they' getting denied and they're pulling these new social cards, "racism, sexism, sexual harassment," etc, etc.

Stop being so emotional when something must be done is all I'm saying to these people.

[Kiri]

"Antiquated" view? Or just, realistic and practical because it affects the bottom line, which is what literally every business is about, you know, to stay in business?

Bias in favor of someone based on sex is also a realistic thing.

It's not a judgement or a denial of rights of women to hire men to do things that require brute strength or reliability.

It's also not a judgment or a denial of rights of men to hire women to do things that require patience, emotional and psychological understanding, and tolerance.

All posts like this does is help leftists virtue signal and pat themselves on the back for acting like they have 'less antiquated' moralities.

How to post a topic as a liberal leftist on this forum:

1) Post inflammatory attention seeking statement, labeling things "backwards, neo-nazi, hatespeech" that you simply disagree with

2) Assume moral highground by pretending your views are 'progressive' and 'new' when they aren't, whatsoever, and are not solely shared by just your viewpoint

3) Bash and label and demonize those who disagree with you based not on their argument, but on your own assumed morality.

4) "Profit"

I personally think this is just an illustration of one of the bigger issues in play here - namely, that in the name of capitalism, an impasse is created.
You say that business needs to stay in business. That is a fair thing to say. However, business is only one side of the equation, as our old pal economics rears its head.
Let us take three statements that I think most people here would agree on.
1) In order to maximize profits, firms do not pay high enough wages for every family in the US to be supported by a single bread winner. It is expected nowadays that women also work.
2) In order to maximize short term profits, relying on mothers is a bad thing, due to maternity leave etc. Basically what you outlined. As such, companies are incentivized to invest in male employees or females that do not wish to have children.
3) In the long term, the US population needs to either grow or at least not decline strongly to keep the economy going. This requires women to give birth to children.
You are absolutely correct that capitalism pretty much requires the first two statements to be true. However, the third one is often forgotten, mostly because humans are notoriously bad at looking beyond their own life-span. However, statement three is also true (especially if one wishes to have little immigration, but that would go OT). As such, in order to ensure long-term growth in the US, a great deal of women are simply required to both work and to give birth at some point. We would have much fewer mothers working today if this was not the case. The US economy has normalized the working mom in this regard - but not on the one where it would actually benefit mothers. Hence the issue being discussed here.
Again, you are correct that companies need to look out for their bottom line. And capitalism is a good system. I would not argue against it, or even have an alternative. But there is a conundrum that needs to be resolved, if we want the US population to not decline.
That is where the government would come in, since the free market cannot regulate births. Well, that is not technically true, actually. If we let the market reign freely, it would swiftly act more harshly on prospective or existing mothers, only hiring them in the absence of any alternatives and paying them worse than others. That would eventually lead to a population decline, which in turn would spur companies to pay better, etc. etc. The free market could likely resolve this externality at some point, but doing so might cause great damage to the US economy, at least temporarily.
Hence, government action is required, which has led to the existing provisions, and possibly future ones if these do not prove sufficient.

What I am trying to express here is the following: the US wants women to work, but also at least a sufficiently high number of them to give birth. Companies don't like hiring those who give birth due to the short-term loss they incur, in order to keep the economy running in the very long term. The US needs to intervene in order to allow mothers to work, if it wants them to give birth.
But companies need to potentially be compensated better for employing mothers. Currently, companies and society are just passing that particular buck back and forth.

I feel like there is a war going on between people's feelings and necessity.

Things need to be done. You need to cast your feelings aside. We need to start looking at necessity as necessity and stop letting feelings cloud everything.
People are getting butthurt because they' getting denied and they're pulling these new social cards, "racism, sexism, sexual harassment," etc, etc.

Stop being so emotional when something must be done is all I'm saying to these people.

Just because I dislike the whole 'use logic, not feelings' rhetoric that always crops up: there are logical reasons as to why you would want to allow women to both work and have children. Ostracizing them is rooted in the feeling of egoism, where people only care about their own current generation.

[Lazuli]

You go in for like an hour or so and work and if they like you they'll offer and give you paper work to sign. For compensation, you get foooooood

Well here in Medford OR we definitely have interviews lol never heard of being compensated food that sounds shady as fuck, possibly illegal..

All jobs I've worked you get interview, orientation which you get paid for, then hire but you're basically hired @ orientation.

[Antiganon]

Food for thought:

A 20 something man might be a single father with just as many childcare obligations, but will almost never be asked these kinds of questions in an interview.

I missed more days of work due to sick children last year than my wife did.

Also, while my wife did take maternity leave last year, she was required to use her entire PTO allotment for the entire year towards it. Her leave began in January. She returned to work in March, and did not have a single paid day off for the rest of the year.

[LedZeppelin]

If you are expected to pay for pregnant leave or w/e its called, I think its a fair question

[Deleted]

Have any of you experienced this?

Nothing wrong about that. Women with young children should not work. If a woman is pregnant she's about to become a burden to your business. If I see a baby bump she could be way overqualified, but I'll tell her to come back in 6 years.

[msdos]

Just because I dislike the whole 'use logic, not feelings' rhetoric that always crops up: there are logical reasons as to why you would want to allow women to both work and have children. Ostracizing them is rooted in the feeling of egoism, where people only care about their own current generation.

What are you even talking about? Let me just stop you before you jump to the conclusion that this is somehow about not wanting to have women work, ostracizing women, egoism, this isn't about any of that. You're applying the damn sexism card before a conversation can even be had.

Putting your emotions aside doesn't mean become Spock, putting your emotions aside means stop over-reacting to things that must be done.

[Antiganon]

Nothing wrong about that. Women with young children should not work. If a woman is pregnant she's about to become a burden to your business. If I see a baby bump she could be way overqualified, but I'll tell her to come back in 6 years.

What about men with young children? They are fine, they bear no responsibility for raising the children whatsoever?

I guess single fathers don't exist or something?

[Elegiac]

Nothing wrong about that. Women with young children should not work. If a woman is pregnant she's about to become a burden to your business. If I see a baby bump she could be way overqualified, but I'll tell her to come back in 6 years.

Women with young children shouldn't work, but you'll vehemently oppose any and all means of public assistance to support women with young children financially. Smart.

Unless you're planning to introduce some sort of system to ensure that motherhood is a financially viable option then the state has a compelling interest in ensuring that women with young children can acquire employment. Which means banning hire discrimination against mothers.

- - - Updated - - -

What about men with young children? They are fine, they bear no responsibility for raising the children whatsoever?

I guess single fathers don't exist or something?

In before "men shouldn't be single fathers because women raise children."

[Deleted]

Women with young children shouldn't work, but you'll vehemently oppose any and all means of public assistance to support women with young children financially. Smart.

Unless you're planning to introduce some sort of system to ensure that motherhood is a financially viable option then the state has a compelling interest in ensuring that women with young children can acquire employment. Which means banning hire discrimination against mothers.

- - - Updated - - -



In before "men shouldn't be single fathers because women raise children."

Stop being so sexist. Damn.

[Kiri]

What are you even talking about? Let me just stop you before you jump to the conclusion that this is somehow about not wanting to have women work, ostracizing women, egoism, this isn't about any of that. You're applying the damn sexism card before a conversation can even be had.

Putting your emotions aside doesn't mean become Spock, putting your emotions aside means stop over-reacting to things that must be done.

You do not need to be Spock to see the conflicting statements here:
- Society requires women to work
- Society requires women to give birth at some point
- Society does not want to hire potentially pregnant women

I don't like people instantly playing these cards either. But helping potentially pregnant women or young mothers to become/stay productive members of society is logical, not feeling-based.