Women vs Men in Promotion

Shades799

Right, here I go.

I am not sexist, (You know this is gonna be good when I start with that statement!) I do believe that in all aspects that make a good employee some women are better than men and some men are better than women.

However, myself and my girlfriend were talking about work and promotions etc... and this discussion point came up:

I feel that managers can be justified in promoting a man, who might not deserve it as much as the woman, if that woman is of child bearing age and especially if she is just after getting married.

My logic is that as a manager, if I have an employee that I can be pretty sure will be working for me all year round, compared to an employee who is very likely to be gone for 6 months in the next year, 12 months in the next 2 years or even 18 months within the next four years, I will employee that person because I would rather have that stability.

Now there are a few arguments to my thinking and I'm not single minded or unable to be swayed, I can see the arguments against, but I just thought I'd throw this grenade and see how much I regretted it afterwards!

Welease

Shades799 wrote: »

Right, here I go.

I am not sexist, (You know this is gonna be good when I start with that statement!) I do believe that in all aspects that make a good employee some women are better than men and some men are better than women.

However, myself and my girlfriend were talking about work and promotions etc... and this discussion point came up:

I feel that managers can be justified in promoting a man, who might not deserve it as much as the woman, if that woman is of child bearing age and especially if she is just after getting married.

My logic is that as a manager, if I have an employee that I can be pretty sure will be working for me all year round, compared to an employee who is very likely to be gone for 6 months in the next year, 12 months in the next 2 years or even 18 months within the next four years, I will employee that person because I would rather have that stability.

Now there are a few arguments to my thinking and I'm not single minded or unable to be swayed, I can see the arguments against, but I just thought I'd throw this grenade and see how much I regretted it afterwards!

Great plan if you want an upper organisation full of less than qualified people

Apart from leaving you open to descrimination claims, you miss the opportunity to develop your best employees. Organisational suicide.

You may be concerned about a woman leaving for maternity, but you have no assurance that a man won't take a job elsewhere if a better offer comes along, so why bother promoting the lesser employee when it realistically offers you no benefit.

Shades799

Welease wrote: »

Apart from leaving you open to descrimination claims

Well you see my point is that the managers shouldn't be left open to descrimination claims if what he or she is making the decision, not because the person is a woman, but because they're is a strong probabilty they wont be there for long stretches at a time leave the team in consant "flux" as manager might say!

Welease wrote: »

You may be concerned about a woman leaving for maternity, but you have no assurance that a man won't take a job elsewhere if a better offer comes along, so why bother promoting the lesser employee when it realistically offers you no benefit.

You also have no assurance that a woman won't take a job elsewhere so on that note one isn't any better than the other.

I agree with you that it might not be what the manager wants, obviously they would want to put their best people in the positions they are needed but I think that's the crux, if they are needed in a position then you would want\expect them to be there all year round for at least 2-3 years.

jameshayes

Big can of worms just got opened in here!

Nasty_Girl

I am a woman of child bearing age.
I have been married for a year and a half.

This sickens me.
You're saying someone who is not as good at the job should be promoted just because he won't accidently drop a sprog ?


What if the woman is infertile?
Maybe she should promise to have her tubes tied eh?

I hope I never work for you.

the_syco

Welease wrote: »

Apart from leaving you open to descrimination claims, you miss the opportunity to develop your best employees. Organisational suicide.

Organisational suicide aside, the only people who will think of doing this will often be the ones that got burnt.

If you have a small team of 5, you and 4 others, and you promote one woman so that you can work on other stuff, but who then goes on maternity leave a few months later, this will mean that all your plans will need to be put on hold.

Thus, whilst large organisations may be able to take the hit, some small businesses may not.

=-=

On a side note, this is discrimination. As opposed to positive discrimination which would be hiring the woman over a man purely on the basis that she is a woman, and allow you to say your business is modern as it has an equal ratio of managers. Positive discrimination is seen as "good"...

Welease

Shades799 wrote: »

Well you see my point is that the managers shouldn't be left open to descrimination claims if what he or she is making the decision, not because the person is a woman, but because they're is a strong probabilty they wont be there for long stretches at a time leave the team in consant "flux" as manager might say!

But you can't discriminate based on sex becuase a woman has the potential to get pregnant.. I have the potential to go "postal" in the office place, but I sure wouldn't accept being locked up in advance because there is the potential ...

Sleepy

I've never been in the position where I'm managing staff but all other things being equal in that position I'd promote the man due to the lower likelihood of him requiring maternity / parental leave.

However, no two candidates are ever entirely equal and I'd promote the better of the two regardless of gender.

If the OP's view enrages women, the best advice I'd have is to start campaigning for mandatory paternity leave. If both sexes have to take a minimum amount of parental leave when baby is born and the remainder is left to be divided however the parents see fit, the reasoning behind the OP's thinking is removed.

As far as I can see there is no other manner in which we can ensure equal treatment of the sexes in the working world than in granting men the same parental rights as women. There is no way of legislating that maternity leave cannot be factored into promotion or hiring decisions as, given that no two candidates are ever equal, an employer with the same bias as the OP (which I believe to be a somewhat genuine one tbh) can claim that the male candidate while weaker in experience/talent etc. is a 'better fit for their team' or use the areas the male is better as the excuse for hiring/promoting him over the female.

MagicMarker

Don't hire either, keep searching for someone you'd be happy with.

Welease

the_syco wrote: »

Organisational suicide aside, the only people who will think of doing this will often be the ones that got burnt.

If you have a small team of 5, you and 4 others, and you promote one woman so that you can work on other stuff, but who then goes on maternity leave a few months later, this will mean that all your plans will need to be put on hold.

Thus, whilst large organisations may be able to take the hit, some small businesses may not.

I don't see that..

If the woman did get MLOA, then the man you would have promoted is in a position to take over the plans and push on.. If they had to be put on hold, then he was in no way able to take the job anyway. So from a promotion perspective, it should make no difference..

Nasty_Girl

Sleepy wrote: »

If the OP's view enrages women, the best advice I'd have is to start campaigning for mandatory paternity leave. If both sexes have to take a minimum amount of parental leave when baby is born and the remainder is left to be divided however the parents see fit, the reasoning behind the OP's thinking is removed.

Not really.
Then he'll just be prejudiced against a young married man vs a non attached one or an older one who already has kids.
Afterall if your married and young then you must want kids right away apparently ...

Even if there was mandatory paternity leave, I'd still be discriminated against by this guy if it was a choice between me (a recently married woman of child bearing age) and a single guy.

Sleepy

Welease wrote: »

I don't see that..

If the woman did get MLOA, then the man you would have promoted is in a position to take over the plans and push on.. If they had to be put on hold, then he was in no way able to take the job anyway. So from a promotion perspective, it should make no difference..

Not quite, someone taking over a project will always need 'hand over' time which can delay the project, particularly if the person they're replacing is more senior and has received some extra training to get to grips with the more senior role.

Sleepy

Nasty_Girl wrote: »

Not really.
Then he'll just be prejudiced against a young married man vs a non attached one or an older one who already has kids.
Afterall if your married and young then you must want kids right away apparently ...

Even if there was mandatory paternity leave, I'd still be discriminated against by this guy if it was a choice between me (a recently married woman of child bearing age) and a single guy.

Have you a better solution?

The logic behind the OP's thinking is sound assuming nothing else differentiates the candidates.

Nasty_Girl

Sleepy wrote: »

Not quite, someone taking over a project will always need 'hand over' time which can delay the project, particularly if the person they're replacing is more senior and has received some extra training to get to grips with the more senior role.

But if she's pregnant for 9 months, she'll have a fairly good idea when the matenrity leave can start and then that hand over time can be arranged in advance, it really depends on the project though I suppose

Sleepy

Nasty_Girl wrote: »

But if she's pregnant for 9 months, she'll have a fairly good idea when the matenrity leave can start and then that hand over time can be arranged in advance, it really depends on the project though I suppose

I suppose my thinking is coloured by my own position. I'm a software consultant on a particular ERP system. The next logical progression in my career is project management which is quite a different skill-set to the one I have at the moment and would take me at least 6 months to transfer to. That's a lot of time for someone to be operating below norms for and if you wanted to avoid duplicating that effort / cost I wouldn't blame you for it.

Sleepy

Sleepy wrote: »

Have you a better solution?

The logic behind the OP's thinking is sound assuming nothing else differentiates the candidates.

This is the essential part

Nasty_Girl

Sleepy wrote: »

Have you a better solution?

The logic behind the OP's thinking is sound assuming nothing else differentiates the candidates.

Apart from the woman being better at the job???


have you any idea how offensive that is?
Just because I am a married woman I am automatically going to get pregnant and therefore deserve to not be promoted even though a) I might have no desire to ever have kids or b) be incabaple of ever having them and c) I'm better at the friggin job??

mood

Not all women want children or can have children so how is this fair to them (not that I think your opinion is anyway fair)?

Sleepy

Nasty_Girl wrote: »

Apart from the woman being better at the job???


have you any idea how offensive that is?
Just because I am a married woman I am automatically going to get pregnant and therefore deserve to not be promoted even though a) I might have no desire to ever have kids or b) be incabaple of ever having them and c) I'm better at the friggin job??

That's why I added the 'assuming nothing else differentiates the candidates'. I said in my first post in this thread that I'd hire the better of the candidates regardless of gender.

In a tight call where there's little to separate two candidates, a risk of the possibility of maternity leave would colour my decision tbh.

Sleepy

mood wrote: »

Not all women want children or can have children so how is this fair to them (not that I think your opinion is anyway fair)?

It's not. That's why I'm in favour of enforced paternity leave.

Nasty_Girl

Sleepy wrote: »

In a tight call where there's little to separate two candidates, a risk of the possibility of maternity leave would colour my decision tbh.

Well I hope I never work for you so.

MazG

Ehm... Even if you know that one of the candidates is already pregnant at the time of selecting someone for promotion, you are simply not allowed to discriminate against her under The Employment Equality Acts 1998 and 2004. While you may feel 'justified', acting in this way would quite simply be illegal.

http://www.equality.ie/index.asp?docID=48#q2

Iago

mood wrote: »

Not all women want children or can have children so how is this fair to them (not that I think your opinion is anyway fair)?

Business has very little to do with fairness and a huge amount to do with practicality.

The reality is that the potential for a candidate to need to take an extended break having being appointed to a role is likely to be a factor in the overall decision making process.

It's no different, in practice, to having two candidates who have identical experience and do an equally good interview but one of the candidates happens to have a 1st class degree rather than a 2.1. It's a factor, but not the most important one.

Welease

Sleepy wrote: »

Not quite, someone taking over a project will always need 'hand over' time which can delay the project, particularly if the person they're replacing is more senior and has received some extra training to get to grips with the more senior role.

They have about 9 months to work a plan

I have 2 staff on MLOA at present, and it causes minimal impact becuase it is planned leave.

MazG

Iago wrote: »

Business has very little to do with fairness and a huge amount to do with practicality.

The reality is that the potential for a candidate to need to take an extended break having being appointed to a role is likely to be a factor in the overall decision making process.

It's no different, in practice, to having two candidates who have identical experience and do an equally good interview but one of the candidates happens to have a 1st class degree rather than a 2.1. It's a factor, but not the most important one.

It is different because promoting or hiring one canditate over another because his/her qualifications is not illegal, while promoting/hiring one candidate over another based on any of the nine grounds of discrimination listed in the Equality Act is illegal.

Sleepy

MazG wrote: »

Ehm... Even if you know that one of the candidates is already pregnant at the time of selecting someone for promotion, you are simply not allowed to discriminate against her under The Employment Equality Acts 1998 and 2004. While you may feel 'justified', acting in this way would quite simply be illegal.

http://www.equality.ie/index.asp?docID=48#q2

Unfortunately that type of legislation is utterly unenforceable.

Even if Candidate A is vastly superior to Candidate B but is 6 months pregnant there are limitless reasons one could use to hire Candidate B instead: cheaper hire, better 'team fit', better suited personality to the client base, better presented CV, etc. etc. etc. all of which are subjective.

Iago

MazG wrote: »

It is different because promoting or hiring one canditate over another because his/her qualifications is not illegal, while promoting/hiring one candidate over another based on any of the nine grounds of discrimination listed in the Equality Act is illegal.

prove it...



If things are that close it would be nigh on impossible, if not impossible, to prove that there was any discrimination at play rather than just a preference for one candidate over another.

Sleepy

Welease wrote: »

They have about 9 months to work a plan

I have 2 staff on MLOA at present, and it causes minimal impact becuase it is planned leave.

But a candidate who doesn't require maternity leave has no impact at all.

There's also the fact that if you take two equal candidates and one of them works for you for 2 years whilst the other takes 6 months of those 2 years off, the first candidate should, by all reasonable measure be better at the job having 33% more experience in it and no need for time to 'get back to grips with things'.

I'm not by any means suggesting that what the OP is suggesting is right or fair. I'm saying that the legislation in place is unenforceable and unless a different strategy is taken (one which would also benefit the children being born) the fact is that, all other things being equal, a male canidate is less of a risk than a female candidate when both are of child bearing age under the current system. Logically, you can't argue against that.

MazG

Difficult to prove, perhaps. But hardly impossible. According to this article from The Irish Time last summer, 36% of cases brought before the Equality Tribunal were upheld.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0825/1224253193640.html

Your challenge to 'prove it' does not make the discrimination legal. it is still illegal to discriminate based on gender or family status, if you get away with doing so, it does not mean that you have acted legally.

Welease

Sleepy wrote: »

But a candidate who doesn't require maternity leave has no impact at all.

There's also the fact that if you take two equal candidates and one of them works for you for 2 years whilst the other takes 6 months of those 2 years off, the first candidate should, by all reasonable measure be better at the job having 33% more experience in it and no need for time to 'get back to grips with things'.

I'm not by any means suggesting that what the OP is suggesting is right or fair. I'm saying that the legislation in place is unenforceable and unless a different strategy is taken (one which would also benefit the children being born) the fact is that, all other things being equal, a male canidate is less of a risk than a female candidate when both are of child bearing age under the current system. Logically, you can't argue against that.

BUT (big but !! lol) the OP specifically stated that the woman was the better employee in his/her case... not equal..

If they were equal, then yes it practically impossible to prove discrimation, but i was responding to the OP's case.

Iago

MazG wrote: »

Difficult to prove, perhaps. But hardly impossible. According to this article from The Irish Time last summer, 36% of cases brought before the Equality Tribunal were upheld.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0825/1224253193640.html

Your challenge to 'prove it' does not make the discrimination legal. it is still illegal to discriminate based on gender or family status, if you get away with doing so, it does not mean that you have acted legally.

So 1 in 3 cases that were brought were upheld, 2 in 3 weren't and god knows how many never even got to that stage.

If you were interviewing as an external candidate to a company with no knowledge of who you were up against and ultimately got a letter/call saying "Sorry, you were very good but we've hired another candidate" you're not going to challenge that unless you had a very good reason to believe that you were discriminated against.

Nobody is saying that any such discrimination would be legal, but nobody should think that discrimination doesn't happen either.

MazG

Iago wrote: »

So 1 in 3 cases that were brought were upheld, 2 in 3 weren't and god knows how many never even got to that stage.

If you were interviewing as an external candidate to a company with no knowledge of who you were up against and ultimately got a letter/call saying "Sorry, you were very good but we've hired another candidate" you're not going to challenge that unless you had a very good reason to believe that you were discriminated against.

Nobody is saying that any such discrimination would be legal, but nobody should think that discrimination doesn't happen either.

Oh don't get me wrong, I quite agree with you that such discrimination does happen. As you say, it's very likely that many complaints under this legislation don't even get as far as the Equality Tribunal. My point to the OP remains though, that however he may feel that it can be 'justified', the fact is that it is illegal.

Getting away with it is another thing entirely

shoegirl

First off anybody who promotes the less competent candidate on the basis of a second guess as to what the better candidate might do in 2 or 3 years time is the sign of a manager who is making huge assumptions, has little communication skills and poor foresight.

The bloke might jump ship, and if he's not as good then there is no real reason to promote him aside from prejudice and stupidity. In fact it says a lot more about the manager making the decision than it does about either candidate.
"Child bearing years" for many women now are a narrow few between 35 and 40, but women that age are often the best in the workforce so I find them particularly good at that age. If they go they generally come back anyway and can pick up well enough.

pookie82

I have to say, I'm a woman and women leaving on maternity leave in my company are driving me absolutely crazy. A few of them are having serial babies, i.e. they're back three months after a baby and are announcing the next one, after which time they're out sick for on average two days a week, sending in cert after cert.

Due to the economic situation, it's not even possible for the company to replace these women, so their work loads are often shared out between the rest of us each time they leave, adding to our burden and leading to a nightmare of to-ing and fro-ing with plans, projects and general communications.

Some take extended leave and then keep sending in certs to put off coming back, meaning that no one else can be offered their job.

Obviously not all women act like this and most will take the recommended amount of time with least hassle possible and be back in 6 months..... I'm just relaying how badly some of the women in my company have played the system and how much of a nightmare they have caused for others. Part of it is down to bad management too and under resources, but at the end of the day, if there were males in their positions, the likelihood is (apart from maybe one leaving for another job) there would be no disruption whatsoever to the work flow or burden on the rest of the company.

If I were a manager I have to say a woman who could potentially be interested in child bearing in the near future would not be on an equal footing with a guy going for the same job.

Sucks, but that's my take on it. There's fair and then there's practical.

discus

It seems the broads of boards are throwing out the "man could leave in 2 years time" line. But if the man leaves, does the company have a legal entitlement to pay him his wages for 3 months whilst he is at home, not working?

AARRRGH

This is a very emotive topic so people need to try to keep their emotions in check.

Here's a little analogy...

There is a manager in a company. He chooses to work for 12 months, then travel for 12 months, then work for 12 months, then travel for 12 months, then work for 12 months, then travel for 12 months. So he's only in the office 3 years out of 6.

Most people would likely be of the opinion that his choices are very disruptive and he probably shouldn't be a manager.

Of course, change "travel" to "have a baby" and you can see what I'm getting at.

The reality is maternity leave IS a genuine problem. It is disruptive. I worked in a company where one of the female managers was off every second year (over a peroid of 6 years) due to having three children (just like our travelling friend). This messed up her department. Luckily it was a wealthy multinational so they could throw money at the problem, but if it were a small business it could have had serious consequences.

I also know a number of women who left their job after having a child.

So I understand why some people are cautious about putting women "of childbearing age" into important positions in their organisation.

Godge

It is illegal to discriminate and lots get .

But there are other entitlements - unpaid carer's leave (13 weeks), unpaid parental leave etc. which can be taken by either men or women. Do you discriminate against anyone who has a child under 8 and therefore might disappear on parental leave or someone who has sick parents and might need to take carer's leave to look after them.

What about someone with a disability whose condition might make him/her more likely to take sick leave?

Where does it all end? You hire the single 45-year old male, only child, never married with no living relatives, no steady relationships and then in six months time, you wonder why you hired someone with no empathy for others and who has disrupted several teams. Yes, yes, I know that looks like another stereotype but the point I am making is that if you ignore the best candidate, you might not like the result.

Nasty_Girl

I don't care what " some women" do or if a manager travels for 3 years out of 6.
Yes those things fook everything up work wise.
If I got a promotion tomorrow I wouldn't take it if I was hoping to have a baby in the next 2 years at least.
If I took it, I would do my damnedest to make sure I didn't become pregnant until it was the right time to move on personally or whatever.
I just think it's disgusting that I don't get to make this choice, that I'm just written off automatically because of my
gender, age and martial status.
It's kinda like insurance rates for young guys except if no guy between the age of 17 and 25 was allowed to have a full licence and own a car.
Bigger risk of crashing or such.

dudara

Right, here's my thinking...

I am an ERP/management consultant, working in a management position. I am PhD educated (in science & engineering) and I also happen to be female. To date, being a female has had no impact on work and promotions. At least, none that is noticeable.

However, I've moved into the 30-40 age bracket. In other words I am of child-bearing age. I personally have no intention of having children. As someone who wants to work, I dislike being tarred with this 'child-bearing age' brush... but it is a fact of life that I will be perceived in this light given my age.

To all the *angry* women on here who are trying to knock this idea on the head - stop for a minute and really think about it. It can be hell on departments and small businesses who try to manage when a woman leaves on maternity leave. I've seen it first hand on numerous occasions. Especially when the woman returns for 6 months and then leaves again for another round of kids. Quite simply, it is hugely disruptive.

It is of course, our right as women to have children and maintain a career. But we should be mindful of how that affects employers etc.

RedXIV

the thing is, even if you don't plan to have a baby in the next two years, doesn't mean you won't get one. I'm gonna have to side with the likes of Sleepy in this. If I was a manager and there was NOTHING else differentiating the two candidates, I would take into consideration the maternity leave thing. It sucks but as stated above, it's practical

AARRRGH

Nasty_Girl wrote: »

I don't care what " some women" do or if a manager travels for 3 years out of 6.
Yes those things fook everything up work wise.
If I got a promotion tomorrow I wouldn't take it if I was hoping to have a baby in the next 2 years at least.
If I took it, I would do my damnedest to make sure I didn't become pregnant until it was the right time to move on personally or whatever.
I just think it's disgusting that I don't get to make this choice, that I'm just written off automatically because of my
gender, age and martial status.
It's kinda like insurance rates for young guys except if no guy between the age of 17 and 25 was allowed to have a full licence and own a car.
Bigger risk of crashing or such.

It's a fact of life that a lot of senior managers are risk averse so will pick the man over the woman. Their logic is understandable, but I appreciate how it must be frustrating for you and many women.

But hey, life isn't fair. If we both applied for a job involving children, 9 times out of 10 you'd get it because you're less likely to be a paedo. That's just the way it goes.

Nasty_Girl

RedXIV wrote: »

the thing is, even if you don't plan to have a baby in the next two years, doesn't mean you won't get one. I'm gonna have to side with the likes of Sleepy in this. If I was a manager and there was NOTHING else differentiating the two candidates, I would take into consideration the maternity leave thing. It sucks but as stated above, it's practical

And what would you take in to consideration iif it was two guys of equal status you had to choose between. How would you decide then?

Welease

I'm wondering how many people responding actually manage people for a living.. it can give a slightly different perspective.

Descrimination does take place, and yes it does hurt smaller companies, but some of the reasons being given here really (imho) are not applicable in the real world.

- My experience of management is that in reality you never get 2 people who are exactly equal. People are unique and have different skills, they may be both worthy of promotions, but if you can only promote one then there are usually enough distinguishing factors to select one.
- The situations of people who have 3 babies back to back does happen.. But I have never come across a situation whereby that person is being considered for promotions against somone who has done the full 6 years. It is impossible (unless they are far far far better than the man) for them to have contributed anyway near the amount of the person who has been there for 6 years. If it's that close a call, then either the woman is exceptional or the guy sucks and probably doesn't need to be promoted.
- From a managers perspective, it is vitally important that you visibly display integrity and maintain the respect of your employee's. Not promoting women who deserve a promotion in favour of men who don't (as per the OP's original question) is guaranteed to be noticed by staff and to undermine your respect. At best, you have some disgruntled employees, at worst they decide to take their talents elsewhere as they view a glass ceiling on their careers.. either way, it's not a great result for your company..

Just my 2c.. but as many posters have said.. it's not an easy situation for smaller companies, and sadly some women do abuse the maternity rules.

MazG

While it is true that maternity leave can sometimes cause disruption to a business, I believe we should all be considering which holds more value in our society, the right of adults to have a family and not be discriminated against for doing so, or the right of a business to have minimal disruption to their operations?

My opinion is that family should come first. The notion that a business's right to undisrupted operations outweighs their employees' rights is one that has been slowly erroding over time and (I hope) we will eventually get to a place where maternity/parental leave is seen as a normal, everyday part of doing business. It wasn't all that long ago that the idea of paying employees for their holidays, or for working over-time, or for public holidays, or allowing sick leave was utterly 'impractical' and therefore rejected by employers. Employee rights have been hard fought and while I sympathise to a certain extent with smaller employers where extended periods of leave can have an impact, I believe that good planning can minimise this and that it would be a mistake (along with being illegal! ) to promote or hire an inferior candidate out of fear of maternity leave.

Shades799

Well this post achieved the desired objective anyway! Worms Everywhere! But never-the-less I do think it is good to talk about it.

Nasty_Girl wrote: »

Apart from the woman being better at the job???

have you any idea how offensive that is?
Just because I am a married woman I am automatically going to get pregnant and therefore deserve to not be promoted even though a) I might have no desire to ever have kids or b) be incabaple of ever having them and c) I'm better at the friggin job??

I had no intention of being offensive, I think the key part of my point, and others (including some females have made) is practicality. No it's not fair, I never said it was, but my original question was should a manager be blamed for making the best practical decision for his business.

Sleepy wrote: »

I'm not by any means suggesting that what the OP is suggesting is right or fair.

Either am I but I think you understand the question\point I was making.

pookie82 wrote: »

I have to say, I'm a woman and women leaving on maternity leave in my company are driving me absolutely crazy.

I should have also made this point because it’s true. The manager could be another woman and also the co-workers\future employees could be women too. I'm not saying it has a negative impact on men, I'm saying it has a negative impact on business.

AARRRGH wrote: »

This is a very emotive topic so people need to try to keep their emotions in check.

Exactly

AARRRGH wrote: »

There is a manager in a company. He chooses to work for 12 months, then travel for 12 months, then work for 12 months, then travel for 12 months, then work for 12 months, then travel for 12 months. So he's only in the office 3 years out of 6.

Most people would likely be of the opinion that his choices are very disruptive and he probably shouldn't be a manager.

Of course, change "travel" to "have a baby" and you can see what I'm getting at.

I know what you're saying but the flip side is, taking a wider view on things, that socially we need children for the country to survive and I for one think that women in the home are totally undervalued by our society for the amazing job they do, but that's beside the point.

Nasty_Girl wrote: »

I don't care what " some women" do or if a manager travels for 3 years out of 6.
Yes those things fook everything up work wise.
If I got a promotion tomorrow I wouldn't take it if I was hoping to have a baby in the next 2 years at least.
If I took it, I would do my damnedest to make sure I didn't become pregnant until it was the right time to move on personally or whatever.
I just think it's disgusting that I don't get to make this choice, that I'm just written off automatically because of my
gender, age and martial status.

OK and in that case there would be no reason not to hire you but the problem is as a manager I'm not allowed have that conversation with you! If I could ask you what your family plans were and you told me that you didn't want to start for a couple of years then bingo, you're automatically on level pegging with your twin male. If then you were to have a child well that's just life, you can't control everything in life, but as an manager I would like to at least know what your plan is so I can make an informed decision (which I can't do because it's discrimination)

Nasty_Girl wrote: »

It's kinda like insurance rates for young guys

Once again, fair Vs practical.

dudara wrote: »

Right, here's my thinking...

I am an ERP/management consultant, working in a management position. I am PhD educated (in science & engineering) and I also happen to be female. To date, being a female has had no impact on work and promotions. At least, none that is noticeable.

However, I've moved into the 30-40 age bracket. In other words I am of child-bearing age. I personally have no intention of having children. As someone who wants to work, I dislike being tarred with this 'child-bearing age' brush... but it is a fact of life that I will be perceived in this light given my age.

To all the *angry* women on here who are trying to knock this idea on the head - stop for a minute and really think about it. It can be hell on departments and small businesses who try to manage when a woman leaves on maternity leave. I've seen it first hand on numerous occasions. Especially when the woman returns for 6 months and then leaves again for another round of kids. Quite simply, it is hugely disruptive.

It is of course, our right as women to have children and maintain a career. But we should be mindful of how that affects employers etc.

I was hoping that someone like you would post. An educated, driven woman that can see the situation for what it is, a f*cking nightmare for all concerned. It's not that a manager wouldn't want to pick the best person for the job, it's just that their hands are forced somewhat.

P.S. I didn't mean the "child bearing age" to be derogatory term. Obviously women are of child bearing age from when they begin menstruation to when they stop, whatever age bracket that is, but I was just talking about the likely hood for when a woman would decide to have a baby\babies.

--

I think what I'm trying to say is this. If I'm a manager, I have a decision to make between two employees. I took out my old style weighing scales and I've put in the pros and cons for each employee and the scale is tipping slightly (but undeniably) towards the woman who's just been married and is in her early 30s. I have one ball left and that ball is "Probability to leave the team for extended periods in the next 2-3 years". Without being allowed to ask that question I have to assume that the probability is high. And when I put that on the scales the scales tips back towards the man. It's not fair but it's what's best for the company.

The solution to this could be that there be split parental leave between both parents or allow the manager to at least ask the question.

Iago

Welease wrote: »

I'm wondering how many people responding actually manage people for a living.. it can give a slightly different perspective.

I do, and from working in business for the guts of 12 years now across a range of companies I can tell you that maternity leave and the allowances around it are hugely disruptive to business.

When you're hiring someone you factor everything in; experience, education, personality, confidence etc.

You're also, without asking a question or intending to factoring in gender, age, family status, nationality etc

The first list is the definitive list for choosing the correct candidate. The second list becomes relevant if you have two candidates of similar ability and experience.

Iago

MazG wrote: »

While it is true that maternity leave can sometimes cause disruption to a business, I believe we should all be considering which holds more value in our society, the right of adults to have a family and not be discriminated against for doing so, or the right of a business to have minimal disruption to their operations?

My opinion is that family should come first.

As an individual I kind of agree with you, kind of.

As a businessman, I say that you're welcome to have a family and the very best of luck to you with it but you're not suitable for the position I have.

The biggest issue that this generation faces is the requirement for both parents to work in order to provide a decent standard of living for their family. In an ideal world one parent, be it male or female, should be able to raise the children and be a stay at home parent. This isn't the case and is, in my view anyway, the key contributing factor to the increase in relationship break-ups and child delinquecy issues we have. That's a debate for another thread though.

From a business point of view, all that matters is the bottom line and in terms of reducing disruption and issues there will always be cases of discrimination for a variety of reasons, one of which will inevitably revolve around potential maternity leave and focus.

Shades799

Iago wrote: »

in my view anyway, the key contributing factor to the increase in relationship break-ups and child delinquecy issues we have.

Agreed but I didn't want to p*ss anymore women off by saying your children are little roughians because you're too busy concentrating on your career to raise them properly!!

*JOKE!*

MazG

Shades799 wrote: »

The solution to this could be that there be split parental leave between both parents

Now this I actually agree with. While I accept that we have traditionally assumed that the mother would be the one to stay home with a small baby, I don't believe that this is necessarily the case anymore. I for one, agree that it would be a very positive change if a mother wished to return to work soon after the birth of her baby and could transfer the remainder of her leave to her partner.

However, you are still arguing that the business's right to minimal disruption outweighs the right of women to considered as an equal when it comes to hiring and promotion and I cannot agree with you there.

I accept that in the real world, managers will do whatever they think is best for business, but that still doesn't make it right.

Eoin

MazG wrote: »

Now this I actually agree with. While I accept that we have traditionally assumed that the mother would be the one to stay home with a small baby, I don't believe that this is necessarily the case anymore. I for one, agree that it would be a very positive change if a mother wished to return to work soon after the birth of her baby and could transfer the remainder of her leave to her partner.

I also agree with this. I think that a German colleague of mine was able to take paternity leave when his second child was born, and his wife went back to work quite soon after the birth.

Unfortunately this is just one area where fathers' rights in Ireland are quite unfair.

MazG wrote: »

However, you are still arguing that the business's right to minimal disruption outweighs the right of women to considered as an equal when it comes to hiring and promotion and I cannot agree with you there.

Do you think that a woman who has been on maternity leave should be just as eligible for promotion as man or woman who has not been off for such a long time?

I don't agree with discriminating because a woman might get pregnant at some stage in the future, but at the same time I can see how it might be a consideration for small businesses.A "minimal of disruption" can understate the impact that it might have on a small business. It's not just the 6 - 9 months leave, it's the multitude of sick days that accompany it before as well. Again, I don't think it's fair, but I can see how and why it might happen.

Sleepy

Godge wrote: »

Do you discriminate against anyone who has a child under 8 and therefore might disappear on parental leave or someone who has sick parents and might need to take carer's leave to look after them.

I have to admit, even though my partner is a stay-at-home parent, I still don't advertise the fact I'm a father in an interview.