Babies V career

Bren1609

An employer has one position available. There are two potential candidates, one man and one woman, same qualifications, both married and in their early thirties. Who would you give the job to?

With so many couples having babies at the moment I think the odds are stacked in favour of the man. Its a stark choice for women that they potentially have to choose between having a family or a career.

Are employers wrong for choosing not to give a job to a woman on the basis that she might decide to have a family and go on maternity leave?

3DataModem

It is logical for an employer to choose the candidate (all other things being equal) that is more likely not to require maternity leave. This is a natural and understandable predjudice.

However, we thankfully have legislation in this country that does a pretty good job of trying to prevent this sort of discrimination.

And I think employers are more broad-minded (particularly larger employers).

ChocolateSauce

I'd give the job to the woman if she were very attractive. If a very attractive woman, who could have been a model or a trophy wife, instead elected to fight against the odds in a male-dominated society to apply for a job which she wouldn't give up if she became pregnant, then it says a lot about her character and ability and drive. A man in a similar position wouldn't have had to work so hard.

Kooli

Of course you would hire the man. I know the anti-discrimination laws are there, but I don't see how they could be enforced in such a circumstance. It just wouldn't make sense if they were equally qualified to hire someone who might leave for 6 months.

simu

All things being even, I would give the job to the woman to counteract this stupid sexism that exists in the world.

But the real solution is for the govt to bring in paternity leave for men.

Malari

A large employer is one thing, but for a small company with only a few staff it would seriously impact the business if a newly employed woman was to go on maternity leave as soon as she was hired. It has to be a consideration.

Zulu

Bren1609 wrote: »

Are employers wrong for choosing not to give a job to a woman on the basis that she might decide to have a family and go on maternity leave?

No, employers aren't wrong for choosing the man. As it stands men have very poor paternity leave in this country, so it would be madness for the employer (representing the business) to choose the woman.

The real issue here is paternity leave. If men had equal rights when it comes to children (and associated leave) the man and the woman in the given example would be equal in terms of employment, and the choice wouldn't be weighted.

It's a disgrace how fathers are treated in this country. Sexism at it's worst.

jimmyendless

Paternity leave for men is the best solution.

In the working world families are a hindrance to production. People aren't supposed to be in offices all day, its just not natural, so no wonder family life and working life clash. The way we live is completely wrong but its gone so far now there is nothing to do about it.

metrovelvet

While paternity leave should be put in place it is still not the solution. What about when leave is over? The hospital appointments, the sick child at home, the this the that, the blah blah blah that impedes someones commitment to the workplace. The employer will always see the woman has having to do all that stuff. Why? Because she usually does.

simu

metrovelvet wrote: »

While paternity leave should be put in place it is still not the solution. What about when leave is over? The hospital appointments, the sick child at home, the this the that, the blah blah blah that impedes someones commitment to the workplace. The employer will always see the woman has having to do all that stuff. Why? Because she usually does.

Well, the answer there is for women to insist on their men helping out more. Not always possible for single women, though.

Zulu

metrovelvet wrote: »

While paternity leave should be put in place it is still not the solution. What about when leave is over? The hospital appointments, the sick child at home, the this the that, the blah blah blah that impedes someones commitment to the workplace. The employer will always see the woman has having to do all that stuff. Why? Because she usually does.

Perhaps you are right, but you won't progress by looking backwards.
The reason the employer might think that, is because perhaps it always was the woman who took the leave. Perhaps the woman always took the leave because they were the ones getting the maternal leave and the rights to do so in the first place. What we need to do is create the opportunity for men to be able to take this leave. A child has two parents, and should have equal access to both.

Look to Sweden. They have excellent parental leave. Note, they don't distinguish between maternal/paternal. The parent (any parent) is also entitled to sick leave if the child is ill. They have it sorted.

metrovelvet

Zulu wrote: »

Perhaps you are right, but you won't progress by looking backwards.
The reason the employer might think that, is because perhaps it always was the woman who took the leave. Perhaps the woman always took the leave because they were the ones getting the maternal leave and the rights to do so in the first place. What we need to do is create the opportunity for men to be able to take this leave. A child has two parents, and should have equal access to both.

Look to Sweden. They have excellent parental leave. Note, they don't distinguish between maternal/paternal. The parent (any parent) is also entitled to sick leave if the child is ill. They have it sorted.

Ok that is fair enough. I dont know anything abut Swedish culture, but is it the case in general that the men are hands on and in the front lines of childrearing even after parental leave is over, as in throughout childhood?

Joey the lips

If this is how the op makes decisions on how to hire people I cant wait for PI to show us how the op fires people

Zulu

metrovelvet wrote: »

...is it the case in general that the men are hands on and in the front lines of childrearing even after parental leave is over, as in throughout childhood?

Like anything else Metrovelvet, some parents are good, some bad. In general, they are more socially conscious than any other culture I've knowledge of.

Noffles

There are 3 women in my office that are literally baby machines and have had the majority of the past 3 years off work... they are either off having them or in some stage of pregnancy.... useless to an employer if you ask me!

metrovelvet

Zulu wrote: »

Like anything else Metrovelvet, some parents are good, some bad. In general, they are more socially conscious than any other culture I've knowledge of.

Right but for example from what Ive seen in Ireland men over the age of 35 seem to "let" the women do most of the childrearing, whereas in the US this age ceiling is a lot higher. How much paternity leave do you need for example, if you are in the next room getting full nights sleep while your other half is doing all the night feeds?

I guess youd want paternity leave for the single dads too?

So in Scandinavia the paternity leave, sick leave, etc probably emerges from a wider context where there is more fatherly involvement from the getgo till the end.

miec

I couldn't vote on this because the question is somewhat redundant, although as things stand it is economically more viable to hire a man but as some excellent posts have pointed out in this thread the paternity leave for men should be improved and the way child rearing is viewed in this country needs to change whereby both sexes become responsible for childrearing and this needs to be reflected in our policies via the government and workplaces. When hiring it has to come down to appointing the best person for the job.

Zulu

metrovelvet wrote: »

Right but for example from what Ive seen in Ireland men over the age of 35 seem to "let" the women do most of the childrearing, whereas in the US this age ceiling is a lot higher.

Well in fairness that a completely subjective observation. I think that is a little unfair, and frankly a little sexist.

How much paternity leave do you need for example, if you are in the next room getting full nights sleep while your other half is doing all the night feeds?

I sleep with my partner. What you are suggesting above is particular to a personal relationship. I don't really see its relevance here. And again, it's a sexist attitude.

Parental leave is Sweden is awarded to the parents. The decision is to the parents to decide what way to take that leave. Thats what I'd like to see here.

I guess youd want paternity leave for the single dads too?

Of course I would. You make that sound like a bad thing?!?

So in Scandinavia the paternity leave, sick leave, etc probably emerges from a wider context where there is more fatherly involvement from the getgo till the end.

Scandinavia isn't without it's own social problems. It has it's fair share of bad parents. I think the difference is that they don't prejudge either sex, which is a fantastic thing.

metrovelvet

Zulu

Are you under 35?

Zulu

metrovelvet wrote: »

Zulu

Are you under 35?

Metrovelvet
Are you over 30?

metrovelvet

I asked you first. And it's not ok to ask a woman her age.

As sexist as what Im saying might be, it doesnt make it untrue, a bit like complaining that saying the Irish like to drink is racist. It may be, but it's not a lie.

Zulu

Well, what I have a problem with is the implication: that

men "let" the women do most of the childrearing.

This suggests that the man solely decides with no consideration to the woman. I don't think thats fair. I think that it's a decision a couple could make for various reasons.

I also don't think it's fair to judge a previous generation against todays standards, or, conversly, to judge "men" on the actions of an older generation.

This thread was about people in their early thirties. Not late thirties. Not forties.

metrovelvet

Zulu wrote: »

Well, what I have a problem with is the implication: that This suggests that the man solely decides with no consideration to the woman. I don't think thats fair. I think that it's a decision a couple could make for various reasons.

I also don't think it's fair to judge a previous generation against todays standards, or, conversly, to judge "men" on the actions of an older generation.

This thread was about people in their early thirties. Not late thirties. Not forties.

I think if you asked most parents about this they would say that there is still the underlying assumption that the woman will do most of the work.

What I am trying to say here, is comparing the Irish paradigm of parental rights, paternity leave, etc to the Scandinavian one is moot as their paradigms evolved out of a different set of cultural assumptions on parental involvement.

Zulu

I don't believe it did "evolve out of a different set of cultural assumptions" at all. Do you have anything to suggest it did?

What we all do know is that the concept of parental leave dosen't exist legally in this country, and unless we do look to other as examples, and compare ourselves, it's not likely to ever exist.

I suggest something else: holding on to sexist opinions certainly won't change anything.

Also, it's worth noting that, in my experience, the reason a person does most of the house work in a relationship, would be because that person has the lower threshold. Let me explain: I lived for years in rented accodomation. I've a low tollorance for "dirt". This meant that more often than not, I was always cleaning. Why? Because the others didn't feel the cleaning was required just at that point. While this was fustrating for me, and while I felt hard done by, I recognised why this was happening. It wasn't personal, it was just tollorance. It's personal dynamics.

metrovelvet

Zulu wrote: »

I don't believe it did "evolve out of a different set of cultural assumptions" at all. Do you have anything to suggest it did?

What we all do know is that the concept of parental leave dosen't exist legally in this country, and unless we do look to other as examples, and compare ourselves, it's not likely to ever exist.

I suggest something else: holding on to sexist opinions certainly won't change anything.

Also, it's worth noting that, in my experience, the reason a person does most of the house work in a relationship, would be because that person has the lower threshold. Let me explain: I lived for years in rented accodomation. I've a low tollorance for "dirt". This meant that more often than not, I was always cleaning. Why? Because the others didn't feel the cleaning was required just at that point. While this was fustrating for me, and while I felt hard done by, I recognised why this was happening. It wasn't personal, it was just tollorance. It's personal dynamics.

I can see what you are saying and I understand well here - you are talking about enabling to some extent coupled with different levels of tolerance/intolerance, but a child is on whole different scale f work, its not only cleaning, but pick ups drop offs, school meetings, hospital appointments etc, getting up in the night, etc. it's not as id one party can refuse to do it if the other one refuses to come home or leave a meeting in a crisis or change their schedule. Things have to be done, because if they arent, then the child is neglected or maybe even endangered. Plus you have the dynamics of a relationship involved, in which it gets even more complicated, and Im sorry to say this, but more often than not, the woman is left holding the baby, married or not, working or not.

This is not to say there arent fathers who pull their weight, of course there are, but we are talking about a widespread paradigm here. Believe me even I was shocked to hear that on eitherside of me where I live are two fathers, both of whom refuse to change a nappy. Now, no mother in her right mind is going to let her child walk around in a ****ty nappy to have a stand ff with the father.

Zulu

True, a child is a totally different ball game - I was strictly talking about household "chores"/tasks.

I don't buy into what you are saying about men not being as active in childcare though - at least not men in their early thirties. And on the nappies, (I was under the assumption you are living in the US no?) there isn't one single father I know, in Ireland, that would get away with not not changing a nappy.

...now, maybe, it's just the people I'm happy to call friends, are just all decent, and everyone else are crap parents, but I doubt that. I think, by and large, men under fourty, are very active - even when the law, and employers don't support them.

Nevyn

Zulu wrote: »

...now, maybe, it's just the people I'm happy to call friends, are just all decent, and everyone else are crap parents, but I doubt that. I think, by and large, men under fourty, are very active - even when the law, and employers don't support them.

I think that could be the case Zulu, but your personal experiences aren't everyone else's,
would that they were,
but while I can say I do know some such good and hands on Dad's ( my broinlaw for one)
they are out numbered by those which seem to have very little interest in learning the skills needed too look after their own children competently unless forced to and then they will only do the bare minimum until the mother gets home and she ends up on point again as the default parent tending the children's needs.

Zulu

I'm really sorry Thaedydal, but, what? Sorry, I can't make sense of your post.

I get your general gist: that men don't pull their weight, but I don't believe that. I believe that men, in todays Ireland, in their mid thirties, are doing their fair share. "Fair share" being an amount agreeable to both parties in the relationship. That's my experience, but I accept that that is totally subjective.

metrovelvet

No Zulu I am in Ireland. And Im talking about Ireland. And I did qualify it by the mid thirty divide.

Although saying that, there are plenty of young men in their late teens, early to mid twenties who also manage to avoid the burden of care.

And Im not saying they are not "active" but when it comes down to it, the women are still expected to do most of it. And the women are expected to cancer their meetings, drop their plans, give up their friday nights, and do the compromising on their time.

And that is why employers will hire a father before they would hire a mother, all else being equal.

Zulu

Sorry, I understood (incorrectly) that you were state side. Apologies.

I think the reason they empoly the father over the mother is soley maternity leave, and serial maternity leave. I don't think it goes any futher than that tbh.

(And for what it's worth, I'm an employer)

metrovelvet

That is definitely part of it. But it happens when there are candidates who are past the maternity leave stage, with small kids, etc.

Zulu

I think it's the important part of it; the crux of the problem. I'd be surprised if other employers are too concerned of a day off here & there due to a sick child. I really feel that that pales in comparison the the "serial maternity leave". I think the biggest concern for the employer is the "serial maternity leave", you know the one, where a couple decide to have their family of 3/4 one after the other!
All that said, again it's only a subjective opinion. I couldn't possibly prove it.

The Corinthian

Employers will look at family men/women (that is employees who have children beyond infancy) differently to childless couples. Primarily there is both good and bad in this assessment; the bad is that you are less likely to get 110% from such an employee - they won't do the same crazy hours as single people or childless couples. The good is that they are less mobile and thus more stable - they have mouths to feed, so are less likely to change jobs or locations.

So both genders are affected to some degree by this.

Of course, outside Scandinavia, this affects women far more than men as the onus of child care is traditionally a woman's role. But again, it's a double edged sword, women have a close to unasailable monopoly on their children and if they want to retain this monopoly they realistically would have to accept the role of primary child carer.

Otherwise, you would need to redress this imbalance to the point that both parents would have equal rights to the child(ren) based on merit rather than gender - i.e. that even outside wedlock a mother would not automatically get custody in a single parent scenario.

You can't have your cake and eat it.

metrovelvet

Zulu wrote: »

I think it's the important part of it; the crux of the problem. I'd be surprised if other employers are too concerned of a day off here & there due to a sick child. I really feel that that pales in comparison the the "serial maternity leave". I think the biggest concern for the employer is the "serial maternity leave", you know the one, where a couple decide to have their family of 3/4 one after the other!
All that said, again it's only a subjective opinion. I couldn't possibly prove it.

And I can understand that too. You just wait till theres serial paternity leave, wait till gay and lesbian couples can adopt, blah blah blah. No one will get any kind of leave because no one will be able to afford it.

censuspro

I cant understand what basis you would vote for the woman on this poll other than in spite?

Also, with all the talk of "parental leave" for both parents, who is out working to provide for the family if both parents are at home?

I think that a mans role in providing for a family is taken for granted, a man is expected to work full time and also have an "equal" role at home.

Zulu

metrovelvet wrote: »

You just wait till theres serial paternity leave, wait till gay and lesbian couples can adopt, blah blah blah. No one will get any kind of leave because no one will be able to afford it.

Now that's just silly.

censuspro wrote: »

Also, with all the talk of "parental leave" for both parents, who is out working to provide for the family if both parents are at home?

Parental leave, at least in Sweden, doesn't mean both parents leave at the same time. (Although if only...) Leave is allocated to both parents (I'm not sure but I think it's about 6 months with the option of more at a lower pay rate), and the parents decide which way to take it. Most couples opt for 3 months each, one after the other, however, a mother/father could split say 5 months vs 1 month, 4v2 or whatever. This affords both parents and new born, a greater opportunity to bond, which can only be a good thing.

metrovelvet

IN Sweden who covers the cost of the leave, the employer or the government? And by cost I also mean the cost of hiring a fill in while the parent is on leave?

You also said "couples" - does that mean the system applies to married parents?

The Corinthian

censuspro wrote: »

I think that a mans role in providing for a family is taken for granted, a man is expected to work full time and also have an "equal" role at home.

I think that is unfair. I do think that some women think this way, but they tend to be in the 'cake and eat it' category I touched on above. I also think that some think that men should have equal parental rights and then expect the woman to do the lions share of the work.

As things stand though, the division of rights and responsibility (from the moment of conception) in Ireland is weighted in favour of women though. While they may have 90% of the responsibility, but they also have 99% of the rights - certainly in the case of unmarried parents, where the father has no automatic rights and those that he may fight for are not enforced, while often being used as little more than a financial resource to the tune of often hundreds of thousands of Euro during the dependency of the child.

My point ultimately is that it becomes a vicious circle; fathers will not see themselves as equal parents because they are not in terms of rights and women will not see them as equal parents either because they are not in terms of responsibility. And until this imbalance changes, nothing else will - and given that the imbalance presently favours mothers, then the first changes will probably have to begin there.

Zulu

metrovelvet wrote: »

IN Sweden who covers the cost of the leave, the employer or the government? And by cost I also mean the cost of hiring a fill in while the parent is on leave?

Wikipedia wrote:

Sweden is one country which provides generous parental leave: all working parents are entitled to 16 months paid leave per child, the cost being shared between employer and the state. To encourage greater paternal involvement in child-rearing, a minimum of 2 months out of the 16 is required to be used by the "minority" parent, in practice usually the father, and some Swedish political parties on the political left argue for legislation to oblige families to divide the 16 months equally between both parents.

metrovelvet wrote:

You also said "couples" - does that mean the system applies to married parents?

I'm sure it applies to married parents; I don't see why they'd be excluded.

metrovelvet

Does it apply exclusively to married/cohabitating parents was how I should have phrased it?

Thats a lot of leave to start with. How does it affect small business? WHat are taxes like in Sweden?

schumacher

Stupid question here but the op refers to a married man and woman looking for the same job. How can an employer tell if you are married? Or can they ask that question? Obviously you can have children outside wedlock.

Just because you are a woman doesnt mean you want children. Its so unfair this bias exists and no one can really prove it. I think maternity leave laws should be changed to less maternity leave and if someone takes too much their job should be gone. I dont understand why people need so much. And its not like the government can afford it. I think that would be another solution to the proble. Its unlikely to happen though.

The Corinthian

There appears to be some confusion with regards to Sweden.

Sweden is a heavily taxed welfare state, this is how they afford things like maternity/paternity leave. This has naturally affected entrepreneurship negatively as it becomes very expensive to hire people if most of what a company is paying for them is going to the government.

Of course, it's not as simple as that, because unlike many other heavily taxed welfare states, job mobility is elastic - you can lose your job a lot faster there than in most of Europe - and this does redress the balance somewhat.

Nonetheless, hiring a temp while someone is on maternity/paternity leave is costly in both terms of human and financial resources. This additional cost can be absorbed by many companies, but if you are very small (under five employees) it can be the straw that breaks the donkey's back.

The Corinthian

schumacher wrote: »

Stupid question here but the op refers to a married man and woman looking for the same job. How can an employer tell if you are married?

They don't need to is the short answer.

Legally, employers do not have to worry about paternity leave because it does not exist in Ireland, only maternity leave does.

Demographically, while marital status is somewhat irrelevant, women are more likely to have have children within marriage than out - especially in the first three years of so.

Also there are certain dangerous age groups; the chance of a woman having children increases slowly during her twenties (she's more likely to have an abortion when younger as there is still plenty of time to have one later). By her thirties, but to about forty, a childless woman will become a much higher risk. Many are affected by the biological clock and will have a far higher chance of having a child if they do not already, regardless of their marital status. After forty, the danger decreases rapidly, reaching close to zero by 45.

At least this is how it was explained to me once by a HR manager who certainly discriminated when hiring. A woman, I might add.

Zulu

TC you seem to be a man that knows something about something, do families in Sweden really pay all that much more tax than us?
I also wonder would it cost us a whole lot more, if we could only sort out the tremendous waste in our own coffers.

The Corinthian

Zulu wrote: »

TC you seem to be a man that knows something about something, do families in Sweden really pay all that much more tax than us?

I just happen to have a Swedish ex, is all.

Also the Economist did a good piece on it a few years back.

SeekUp

schumacher wrote: »

Just because you are a woman doesnt mean you want children. Its so unfair this bias exists and no one can really prove it.

Good point. But then it becomes, if I'm a woman in my early 30s interviewing for a position and don't want/can't have children, has it gotten to a point where I should bring it up during the interview? I mean, that certainly crosses some lines, but is that what I'd have to do in order to be given a fair bite at the apple?

Nevyn

They can't ask you martial status or if you have children or if you are going to have children as it is illegal.

Malari

Thaedydal wrote: »

They can't ask you martial status or if you have children or if you are going to have children as it is legal.

I presume you mean illegal. But you can let them know if you weren't interested. If you were able to do it in a clever, appropriate way! I certainly would bring it up.

The Corinthian

SeekUp wrote: »

But then it becomes, if I'm a woman in my early 30s interviewing for a position and don't want/can't have children, has it gotten to a point where I should bring it up during the interview?

Well, if we redress both the rights and attitudes that make child baring a woman's job, so that either gender could end up taking maternity/paternity leave, then you won't have to worry about judged by your gender - only by your age.

Thaedydal wrote: »

They can't ask you martial status or if you have children or if you are going to have children as it is legal.

You don't need to ask such questions. There are lots of indirect ones you can ask, and much is understood from what is not written on a CV.

SeekUp

Thaedydal wrote: »

They can't ask you martial status or if you have children or if you are going to have children as it is illegal.

Exactly! They can't ask the questions because it's illegal, but if they assume (possibly incorrectly) that they're going to have to worry about me popping out babies and hire the man instead of me because of this, that's also illegal!

The Corinthian wrote: »

You don't need to ask such questions. There are lots of indirect ones you can ask, and much is understood from what is not written on a CV.

This is true, of course. But it still doesn't change the fact that in order not to be discriminated against in the situation described in the OP, it might help for a woman who doesn't want/can't have children to volunteer that information. Which shouldn't have to be the case.

Zulu

The Corinthian wrote: »

I just happen to have a Swedish ex, is all.

Yea my brother is married to a Swedish lady. TBH, I don't think they pay a whole lot more tax than us, but it is, from what I can see, far better organised. Plus they don't have our particular type of cowboys. :rolleyes: