40% of managers avoid hiring younger women. Your thoughts........
moobly
Posts: 281 Forum Member
✭
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/aug/12/managers-avoid-hiring-younger-women-maternity-leave?commentpage=1
Was pretty infuriated by this and was wondering what your collective opinions are on the subject.
If the article/research says 40% of managers, do you think it would be much higher in reality?
Was pretty infuriated by this and was wondering what your collective opinions are on the subject.
If the article/research says 40% of managers, do you think it would be much higher in reality?
0
Comments
Not saying it's right but a hard fact of the small business in these hard times.
According to the link you posted, they would be "generally wary". Why are you claiming they would "disregard them completely"?
^^
This - I'm female and even I acknowledge it is difficult for small businesses when a female member of staff takes a year off for maternity. It either puts extra pressure on the remaining staff or extra expense organising cover for when they are away
Employers want staff they can rely on, attendance wise. It's not good economics to spend a lot of money training somebody up, put them in an important team based post, only to find they get pregnant and need however long maternity leave, plus all the other pregnancy related sick leave that often seems to occur in the pre natal period.
Also, some subsequently decide to leave or want to do part time hours.
Seen it many times over in my own organisation.
Bad that they asked, but good on you for convincing them! Teaching is the world's greatest contraceptive anyway! (Well I think so)
I agree. And I'm a woman in my 20s. I worked in a small business for a few years and saw someone start and within months was pregnant, took the years maternity leave and then was pregnant again soon after that with another years maternity. It does cause problems for smaller companies, but saying all this I would not be happy if my age was held against me in a job interview, especially considering I am definitely not having children any time soon.
What about female managers who only like to hire other women because they want to work with someone they can get on with on more than just a professional level.
I've worked in a couple of offices where our office manageresses would show a blatant preference to recruiting other women. One quite openly talked about hiring women over men as they were more sociable and easier for her to get on with because they had more in common and one day while they were all sat at their desks chatting about Corrie to which I had no interest in joining in the conversation, our office manageresses said, "I knew we should have hired a woman. At least she could chat about soaps and come for lunch with us." She may have been joking but it had an underlying element of truth in that remark.
Surprise surprise, after I left they hired a woman.
Do you not have to work for a company/organisation for a year to get maternity benefits? Or is that just the enhanced benefits that some companies do? I guess everyone would get the statutory (?) payment.
But yeah. Makes it harder for the rest of us. >:(
One thing I have noticed is that female managers never seem to have male deputies.
I much prefer working for female managers though. Always seem to get on better with them than blokes. They get more involved and don't overlook things. Plus they don't miss the undercurrents on teams.
I either clash with male managers, or find they frequently disappear, absolve responsibility, delegate all they possibly can, and are never there when you want them.
I don't understand why anyone would apply for a job if they knew they were pregnant/trying to get pregnant (obviously accidents happen).
Again - ruining it for the child free!!!! ;-)
We're going through exactly that at the moment - I've even had a bet with another member of staff that the person who's currently off on maternity leave will come back ask for flexible working and if it's refused leave and sue us for constructive dismissal
It does annoy me though – I don’t plan on having children in the near-middle future, and I want to focus on my career. But to be disregarded just because I have the plumbing required to make babies (regardless of my intentions) is not fun. I know I know, employers “aren’t allowed” to ask about my plans or if I would take the time off for pregnancy etc., but it still sucks.
I don’t know what the answer is, to be honest. Even if as a young woman you take the pro-active approach of Psychosis and explain outright that you’re not going to be having children any time soon (or at all), that could all go pear-shaped – things happen, plans change and I’d be damned if my words at an interview 3 years ago would be held against me if my circumstances changed in the interim with regard to children & pregnancy. Some people I know floated the idea that young women should have the option to sign away their maternity leave entitlements for a particular employer, meaning they’ll be a more attractive candidate, but that sounds too draconian (and much like opting out of the EU working time directive, it will be a standard clause in most employment contracts, effectively doing away with maternity rights by the back door).
I know personally, in the I have sent in CVs and covering letters using a shortened version of my full name which is unisex (Sam rather than Samantha), so that I am evaluated by my achievements & merits, and not immediately dismissed because I am a female. Of course when I get to interviews it’s obvious I’m a woman, but by then I like to hope that I’ll impress them with my qualifications and suitability for the job, which will overcome any issues with potential maternity leave years later.
It will be interesting in the coming years when shared parental leave comes into force (next April I think?), whether similar discriminations will be made against men, or whether the assumed bias would remain that women will take off all/most of the parental leave entitlement.
Whoever it is going for part time working, they all want Friday as one of their non working days, which also presents problems.
A business can claim 92% of maternity pay from the Govt, 103% in some cases. I do understand that it can be disruptive for some businesses trying to find cover but what is the answer? For women to never be employed "just in case" they have kids? [As the article states, do we just potentially cut out 50% of the working population?] Or women only be employed in certain roles?
I would suggest it is in society's best interests that women are employed and supported by their employers because I think the alternative is worse.