I don't see anything unfair about it.
Humans reproduce, ergo employers employing humans have to structure around that.
It's hard to argue against it being good for society for people to be supported in having children.
At what point will gender equality stop
- Thread starter fez
- Start date
I don't see anything unfair about it.
Humans reproduce, ergo employers employing humans have to structure around that.
It's hard to argue against it being good for society for people to be supported in having children.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 16,943
Hypo
Man and Woman doing the same job. Woman goes off for a year to have a baby. During this time the man works his backside off at the company. Woman returns to work. There's a promotion coming up to a senior role. Both apply, who gets it.
Man and Woman doing the same job. Woman goes off for a year to have a baby. During this time the man works his backside off at the company. Woman returns to work. There's a promotion coming up to a senior role. Both apply, who gets it.
We've got just that sort of situation at my company. The bloke's getting the spot.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 16,943
I told a white lie. This actually happened at a company I worked at years ago. Bloke got it as well. Surprised me as the woman had a fling with someone very high up at the company. Rumours were the baby was his, but it wasn't.
Tell that to the person having to pay them.
I'm not arguing that people shouldn't be supported in their choice to become parents at all. I'm simply stating that its not fair on certain companies and that the system is there to be abused at the moment.
If you are a small company and it takes 6 months to train up a new member of staff, how do you do that without significant cost to the company.
Potentially you could train someone for 6 months, the new mother comes back, you let the other person go because you cannot keep both and then the new mother heads off again 3 months later and you now have to do the same thing again.
I am simply offering the other side of the argument that parents are hard done by in the employment sector.
It's the price of doing business. If you can't deal with people taking maternity leave (or being unable to work long term for any reason) then you're doing something wrong.
The government?
Companies only actually contribute 8% of statutory maternity pay. Any other payments they make on top of that are down to company policy.
It's been just a few decades since we ended patriarchy in the Western World. Let's not forget that just ~40 years ago women were denied loans without a male vouching for them. The change is not yet complete, we need more women in politics, science, engineering and yes, even CEO positions. There are not significant differences between men and women in terms of intellect so the only explanation for the current lack of balance is the nature of our culture. We have to change it using any means, including positive descrimination. We are the most important resource we have so it's imperative to use this resource with maximum efficiency. It is a waste of potential to push 51% of our population out of positions such as the one I mentioned through cultural pressure or sexism.
As for children, there is a simple solution used in Sweden, I think. If the parents spend an equal time on maternal/paternal leave they get a tax reduction. Problem solved.
As for children, there is a simple solution used in Sweden, I think. If the parents spend an equal time on maternal/paternal leave they get a tax reduction. Problem solved.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
It isn't time out of work alone that is the issue, but the type of work they undertake. An element of that may be a lack of effort to explicitly recruit women into those industries, but then, why should they go out specifically to recruit women? Seems unfair to me. Let the best person get the job irrespective of their sex.
So my company can fail or I can hire and promote Men. Which do I choose?
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Jul 2014
- Posts
- 3,931
- Location
- Oxon
It's a good thing there's no such thing as gender inequality
Dunno what those feminists are moaning about
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
It's a good thing there's no such thing as gender inequality
Dunno what those feminists are moaning about
This isn't inequality. Women don't have to have children, they choose to do so.
Humans gonna human
We as society need people to procreate, as we all benefit. Thus, we all flex a little to support it happening.
Anything else is just, well, stupid frankly.
True it's a choice, but they shouldn't be punished for doing so either....
Its not as simple as that and I'm pretty sure you know that. Yes a company with 50 employees probably doesn't struggle too much. What about a company of 5 where you are very busy and all handle a lot of different issues that are completely unique to that company. What if you fill a very niche role in an industry and cannot replace someone easily for a short amount of time.
It's a good thing there's no such thing as gender inequality
Dunno what those feminists are moaning about
If you have a small company, what would you personally do? Be realistic here, and bear in mind that if your company goes under, everyone at your company - your friends and colleagues who you see every day - loses their job, and possibly their homes. What would you do?
It doesn't really matter what the reasons are (and, frankly, having worked in the past for a couple of <10 employee businesses - you're doing something pretty wrong if one person being on the piddling amount of SMP you pay, and absent for perhaps a year, is causing the business to go to the wall), the fact is that what you describe is exactly the gender inequality that feminism is fighting to remove.
You're ruling out hiring a woman on the basis that she's a woman. Because some women have children.
Lots of people in this thread seem to think there's no such thing as gender inequality, or that it's just men who are suffering it. You take a different view - that gender inequality is perfectly excusable. Truthfully, you're far from alone - which is why such inequality exists.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
That is a separate issue through.
If we as a society want our women to have kids, we can create the conditions for that. But a business may not have any real interest in that, which is what the person you were responding to was pointing out.
From a strictly business point of view, women going on maternity leave is bad for business. The fact we as a society compel them to hire women who may go on maternity leave is anti-business.
Granted we as a society may want that, so we have laws and welfare to support it. But you can hardly accuse a business of sexism because it's interests are its own bottom line.
This is especially true for small businesses who cannot carry such a burden easily.
In what way are they punished? If you choose to have less experience than someone else, it's not a punishment to be paid less than the more experienced person or not given the same opportunities.