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

[Oneirophobia]

I am neither a pregnant woman

Not for lack of trying, of course.


--

On topic, "paternity" leave should become just as standard so employers really wouldn't get an option because regardless of who they hire, if kids happen your employee is going to end up with time off.

[judgementofantonidas]

Ok. So why exactly is it fair to the employer to be forced into a position where their employee is guaranteed to not be productive for an extended period of time? Specifically pregnancy. There are laws against it but I have personally found myself without a job upon return from a military school. Same contcept. I was told "sorry but we need our managers here the whole year". Even when there are supposed to be laws agains that kind of thing. As an individual I want the protection, but I am not stupid enough that I don't understand the employer's viewpoint when it comes to productivity and availability of thier employee.

[Deleted]

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..

Is "exceptions prove the rule" proper English? It's a saying we have here. Of course there are exceptions. There are women with children that never miss an hour of work, there are men who take care of the children and miss countless hours, but most of the time it's the other way around.

[Elegiac]

Ok. So why exactly is it fair to the employer to be forced into a position where their employee is guaranteed to not be productive for an extended period of time? Specifically pregnancy. There are laws against it but I have personally found myself without a job upon return from a military school. Same contcept. I was told "sorry but we need our managers here the whole year". Even when there are supposed to be laws agains that kind of thing. As an individual I want the protection, but I am not stupid enough that I don't understand the employer's viewpoint when it comes to productivity and availability of thier employee.

Firstly, because the current hiring standard operates on the assumption that women will 'inevitably' become pregnant; which is bullshit, as there's about equal likelihood that a new employee might be hit with a bad flu season and be unproductive for a significant period.

Secondly, because the state has a compelling interest in encouraging reproduction and unless you're proposing some sort of public assistance to cover the costs of parenthood then they -have- to be able to seek employment.

[msdos]

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.

Have you heard of the term paradox? If you need help you're at the mercy of society, we can choose not to give it. If you don't get it, you can't have an emotional reaction, you need to just deal with it.
This is more along the lines of what I'm talking about.

Maybe their families need to be helping them out first? Everyone needs help, I need help, but we can't have an arbitrary help system for every single thing. It's ridiculous.

[ItsRainingMetal]

It's very expensive for a business when this happens. So, I always decline applications from women, that I deem in the "danger zone" of getting pregnant.

Ofcourse, that's not the reason they will be told, that would be discrimination.

[Deleted]

It's very expensive for a business when this happens. So, I always decline applications from women, that I deem in the "danger zone" of getting pregnant.

Ofcourse, that's not the reason they will be told, that would be discrimination.

Same case for me. Sometimes I think it would better if they heard this reason instead of some bullshit reason, but that would damage the business.

[Elegiac]

It's very expensive for a business when this happens. So, I always decline applications from women, that I deem in the "danger zone" of getting pregnant.

Ofcourse, that's not the reason they will be told, that would be discrimination.

And pray tell, what is the "danger zone" of getting pregnant?

Because chances are your reasoning is going to be interchangeable with "has a vagina".

[MatadorMedia]

It's called casual conversation to break-up the interview questions. Males get the questions, too. "Are you married? Oh yeah, you have kids? Thinking about it? Yeah, I have two kids myself. ..." Normal human people talk about their lives.

[Video Games]

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.

Well like i said this is for local restaurants in Portland

[LMuhlen]

We need to invest on professional breeders to free women from the shackles of their natural role in reproduction. Want kids? Hire someone to have them and keep working as normal.

Once that is done, we can evolve into properly splitting parenting equally between genders and suddenly all this becomes a non-issue.

This subject needs more revolution and less evolution, can't focus on improving on something that is essentially flawed.

[Kiri]

Have you heard of the term paradox? If you need help you're at the mercy of society, we can choose not to give it. If you don't get it, you can't have an emotional reaction, you need to just deal with it.
This is more along the lines of what I'm talking about.

Maybe their families need to be helping them out first? Everyone needs help, I need help, but we can't have an arbitrary help system for every single thing. It's ridiculous.

I have. But just because there is a paradox does not mean one cannot try to resolve it.
But yeah, the issue here is that society chooses to not help with an issue it created, by essentially not rewarding a necessary service provided for it. In previous generations, wages were high enough to allow a single bread-winner to support his whole family. While this is still true for certain sections of the US, a majority of households requires both parents to work. Your current society, your standard of living, is in part propped up by this change.

Ultimately, not hiring mothers or prospective mothers ceteris paribus leads to: lower spending of a household, higher likelihood that someone becomes dependent on government aid, higher likelihood that the resulting child will have a worse education, which in turn lowers productivity in the next generation. Assisting mothers to become productive members of society again is ultimately in society's interest. Heck, whatever your personal problem is, in the long term it would very likely be in society's interest to help you (as long as the issue is a legitimate one, of course).
It has been shown time and time again that a society that treats its members well is more productive. However, it often does not happen due to feelings-based reasons, such as cultural division, cause-effect diffusion, time preferences (expenses today valued more strongly than gains next year or even next generation), etc. Of course, there are some arbitrary help systems that would be superfluous. But it is often for feelings based reasons that we do not do things that would be beneficial for society at large.

That is why I get 'triggered' (I hate that word), if the 'logic, not feelings' thing is used in threads about how society could treat certain members better. Oftentimes, doing so might be the logical thing to do. I may have misjudged you initially due to said trigger. And my position is certainly one that could and should be discussed and even opposed since I am human and can have faulty reasoning, or just because discourse breeds improvements. It is just that the above line is usually used to end proper discussion, as it basically implies 'anyone who favors that position does not use logic, just feels, and can therefore be dismissed'.

[Pooti]

In the name of equality, I believe that people of all sexes must have the option of a 26 week paid time of from the workplace. If everyone is expected to get it, then women will not be singled out for needing/wanting it. That is how things are "supposed" to be right? Things work EXACTLY the same for both men and women. /endsarcasm

[Antiganon]

Is "exceptions prove the rule" proper English? It's a saying we have here. Of course there are exceptions. There are women with children that never miss an hour of work, there are men who take care of the children and miss countless hours, but most of the time it's the other way around.

Most of the time? How does that work?

Excepting cases of single parents, there are two parents involved. This year, (since she has time available), whenever one of our kids are sick, my wife and I play Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock to see who calls out of work.

In cases of single parents, the one parent is going to call out of work. I will grant you there are probably far more single mothers than single fathers, but that doesn't make single fathers just stop existing.

Again, my point isn't that fathers can miss just as much work, it's that men aren't even asked these same questions.

If the concern is truly over efficiency and the business being forced to deal with absences, the question should be "Are you or do you intend to become a parent?" and it should be asked of EVERYONE, not just women.

[Player Twelve]

In the name of equality, I believe that people of all sexes must have the option of a 26 week paid time of from the workplace. If everyone is expected to get it, then women will not be singled out for needing/wanting it. That is how things are "supposed" to be right? Things work EXACTLY the same for both men and women. /endsarcasm

Men get parental leave here in Sweden at least, parents get 480 days of parental leave that can be split, some of it is mandated for each of them and can't be split though. Not sure why they wouldn't in your country. Maybe you should change your laws.

[Antiganon]

In the name of equality, I believe that people of all sexes must have the option of a 26 week paid time of from the workplace. If everyone is expected to get it, then women will not be singled out for needing/wanting it. That is how things are "supposed" to be right? Things work EXACTLY the same for both men and women. /endsarcasm

I'm going to unironically agree with your sarcastic statement.

Men should get 26 weeks paid paternity, just like women should get 26 weeks paid maternity. I was able to bank vacation time and spend about 6 weeks at home with my son when he was 3-5 months old, and it was a wonderful bonding experience. I was not able to do the same with my daughter due to a new job where I hadn't built up my vacation allotment yet, and I really feel that I missed out on a once-in-a-lifetime experience. I still feel bad that she has had essentially zero time to herself with either parent, since birth, while her older brother had about 18 months of undivided attention.

[oplawlz]

It's literally illegal to even hint at asking about this in the U.S., so it's a non-issue here. It does piss me off when agencies from India instantly fire women who get pregnant though, even when it's a telecommute job that they could do from home.

[Antiganon]

It's called casual conversation to break-up the interview questions. Males get the questions, too. "Are you married? Oh yeah, you have kids? Thinking about it? Yeah, I have two kids myself. ..." Normal human people talk about their lives.

I have never been asked any of those questions in a job interview.

[Pooti]

I have. But just because there is a paradox does not mean one cannot try to resolve it.
But yeah, the issue here is that society chooses to not help with an issue it created, by essentially not rewarding a necessary service provided for it. In previous generations, wages were high enough to allow a single bread-winner to support his whole family. While this is still true for certain sections of the US, a majority of households requires both parents to work. Your current society, your standard of living, is in part propped up by this change.

Ultimately, not hiring mothers or prospective mothers ceteris paribus leads to: lower spending of a household, higher likelihood that someone becomes dependent on government aid, higher likelihood that the resulting child will have a worse education, which in turn lowers productivity in the next generation. Assisting mothers to become productive members of society again is ultimately in society's interest. Heck, whatever your personal problem is, in the long term it would very likely be in society's interest to help you (as long as the issue is a legitimate one, of course).
It has been shown time and time again that a society that treats its members well is more productive. However, it often does not happen due to feelings-based reasons, such as cultural division, cause-effect diffusion, time preferences (expenses today valued more strongly than gains next year or even next generation), etc. Of course, there are some arbitrary help systems that would be superfluous. But it is often for feelings based reasons that we do not do things that would be beneficial for society at large.

That is why I get 'triggered' (I hate that word), if the 'logic, not feelings' thing is used in threads about how society could treat certain members better. Oftentimes, doing so might be the logical thing to do. I may have misjudged you initially due to said trigger. And my position is certainly one that could and should be discussed and even opposed since I am human and can have faulty reasoning, or just because discourse breeds improvements. It is just that the above line is usually used to end proper discussion, as it basically implies 'anyone who favors that position does not use logic, just feels, and can therefore be dismissed'.

I would have to say that if willing to make some sacrifices for things that are not really necessary to live, such as cable TV, new cars, smart phones, high speed internet, name brand tags on your clothes, dining out etc, you could support a small family on one median income most places in the US. The problem is that all of those things are for some reason considered to be "necessities".

[Allenseiei]

The question that should be raised is if people want to compensate companies (public subsidies) for the pregnancy(maternity and paternity included) of their employees so that its removed from the profiling when adquiring a new job. If the answer is no, then no one can be surprised if the company puts the success of their business as first priority.