5 ms·

Speaking as a Swede, that is not entirely true in my experience. It's still expensive for employers and they don't like hiring women who will soon be pregnant.O

Speaking as a Swede, that is not entirely true in my experience. It's still expensive for employers and they don't like hiring women who will soon be pregnant.Or their men for that matter, but those are harder to spot :) I have female friends who changed jobs just before getting pregnant or visibly pregnant, and those employers were not happy.

TomMarius 9y ago
Well I'm going to play the devil's advocate: How would you feel about looking for an employee for months, spending tremendous amounts of money on recruiting them, training them afterwards, only to find out that they're not going to work for you for several years and didn't even mention that, possibly messing up your financial situation, screwing up any long term planning, etc? How do you feel when someone takes an unplanned vacation (and that's just for a few weeks)? The other cases of harassment are terrible. But I can sympathize with the managers/business owners on this one - not that I support them. I see their point.
- carlob 9y ago
  How do you feel doesn't go into it. You probably feel like shit, granted. But we as a society have decided that it's more important that women can feel at least a little bit safer having a family as well as a career and we've regulated this so that they can be protected from losing their job. In some more advanced countries than the US or Papua New Guinea there is even mandatory paid leave, go figure. As an exercise you can take the pregnant woman in your example and replace with a cyclist in a bike accident or someone who was just diagnosed with cancer.
  - TomMarius 9y ago
    I live in one of these 'more advanced countries'. The system is bad, expensive and has many issues, but that doesn't matter for this discussion. What matters is that in these more advanced countries, for example in the one where I live, it's actually very normal to tell your manager about this so they can plan for that - and then there are no issues on either side. BTW the paid leave is not paid by the employer, it's paid out of mandatory government insurance. EDIT: please reply and discuss before downvoting. Downvoting adds nothing to the discussion.
  - TomMarius 9y ago
    Reaction to your edit with a cyclist, I have no idea how that relates to this case. That's an accident, something that no one knew will happen, and everyone understands that. On the other hand it doesn't seem nice to purposefully not tell someone information that might be extremely important to them and might even mean if they do or do not lose their business.
    - PeterisP 9y ago
      The position here is that it's not information that might be extremely important to them. Legally (and ethically!) this information literally can not, must not influence any of their decisions regarding that employee in any way whatsoever. What is the employer going to do if they tell them if they can't use that information or act on it? They might do something, but they should not; they likely want to do something, but they should be prevented from doing so. In essence, the applicant has a right to demand treatment as if the employer didn't know that information. By not telling them, they're exercising that right, taking precautions so that it wouldn't be violated in a way that's illegal but hard to prove.
      - TomMarius 9y ago
        What? That an employee will be away for several years is not an important information? Since when? The employee has right to be treated as if the information was unknown, I never said the opposite and never wanted to even imply that (and I'm pretty sure that I did not). That doesn't mean that the employer shouldn't have an opportunity to plan accordingly (e.g. start looking for a temporary replacement, stop accepting new projects and so on).
        PeterisP 9y ago
        Okay, yes, there are some reasonable and legal actions that can be taken with that information, so it is valuable, I was apparently exaggerating. However, giving that information right before a decision point (i.e. when changing jobs, getting a promotion, etc) is just inviting it to be misused, it's a risk they shouldn't be required or always expected to take. For some context, some time ago I was involved in handling quite a few maternity/replacement situations. Our local laws are quite generous with maternity leave, so for existing employees we (in that company) had often started planning replacements as early as 6 months before start of their leave. However, this is a bit tricky - if there was some promotion issue in the middle of that period (3 months after I'd known but 3 months before she'd leave), I could try acting as if that information was unknown, but it's difficult, I can't magically unlearn things, I couldn't be sure myself if I wasn't biased one way or another (unless we had extremely dry formal procedure based on some arbitrary "objective" metrics that mismeasure as much as they measure), and I definitely couldn't prove that I wasn't influenced if that was contested. So in such an situation I might have even preferred not to know, despite the extra hassle it would cause. It's probably a question of trust. If an employee is working in a trustworthy environment, they'd likely volunteer that information (which I've seen happen) and the employer would benefit from having created such an environment. But if employees feel a lack of trust, they would likely want to protect themselves and keep it a secret (which I've also seen happen), and IMHO they have (or should have) a right to do so if they really feel the need. The employer's reputation and trustworthiness is their own fault or achievement based on their previous actions, so in some sense they deserve what they get, whether it's trust or lack of it.
- urahara 9y ago
  Why do you think that women who forced to constantly experience all kinds of problems and overload because of their gender, should be concerned about well being of groups and institutions (that tend to force them into these problems) at the expense of their own safety? Maybe you imply some ideal situation in which it is totally safe for an average woman to communicate openly like you suggest, but how often is it really the case given a huge problem of sexism we are discussing here and multiple evidence of which you were just presented?
  - TomMarius 9y ago
    Well as I said in another comment, I live in Europe, so it's definitely very different here. I have several points. Let's not blame organizations for the actions of individuals (given that the organization properly deals with said individual). Let's not blame the whole industry or the whole society for the actions of individuals. If something happened to me at a conference, I won't blame my manager who is not connected to the individual that did it in any way for that - and I won't make them suffer because of that. Of course there might be a reason to not communicate that and that's completely alright, it's business after all, but let's not make it a default choice, please - let's stay human and be nice to each other.
    - IntronExon 9y ago
      Well as I said in another comment, I live in Europe, so it's definitely very different here. As a growing number have pointed out in response to that claim, no... no it isn’t.
    - urahara 9y ago
      There are no countries where the problem of sexism is solved. Maybe it is better in Europe, but it still exists everywhere and still huge. And in the most countries it is times worse. It is reasonable to protect oneself from that behavior with all legal means and it would be strange to expect anything else of a person facing high probability of being discriminated against.
    - urahara 9y ago
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Well I'm going to play the devil's advocate: How would you feel about looking for an employee for months, spending tremendous amounts of money on recruiting them, training them afterwards, only to find out that they're not going to work for you for several years and didn't even mention that, possibly messing up your financial situation, screwing up any long term planning, etc? Were I hiring in an environment where that was a legally protected right, I'd probably work it into my hiring planning in advance, then if it was occurring more often than I had accounted for, try to evaluate whether my planning was bad. Can't see the point in getting upset about it.
  - hackerman12345 9y ago
    If you planned to hire based on an immediate need, it would require you to discriminate against pregnant women though. For example, if you need someone to do x immediately for the next y months, hiring someone who you know would need leave during that would be a pretty major issue. So maybe you could simply hire her as well as another person who would be less likely to require leave during that period, but then your payroll needs grow - not a great business decision for a startup or whatever. I think it's easy to see how this could be a predicament for a business without extra money and "get over it" isn't a very good answer IMO - at the very least you'll have discrimination being done in disguise until there's a better answer.
- gowld 9y ago
  You can pay for performance and offer retention bonuses if you are concerned that your employees increase in value over time until later.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
crdoconnor 9y ago
>I have female friends who changed jobs just before getting pregnant or visibly pregnant, and those employers were not happy. I have a friend whose wife did that in the UK. The employer then let her go. They sued and either won or settled (can't remember which). I think it was for an executive type role.

TomMarius 9y ago

Well I'm going to play the devil's advocate: How would you feel about looking for an employee for months, spending tremendous amounts of money on recruiting them, training them afterwards, only to find out that they're not going to work for you for several years and didn't even mention that, possibly messing up your financial situation, screwing up any long term planning, etc? How do you feel when someone takes an unplanned vacation (and that's just for a few weeks)? The other cases of harassment are terrible. But I can sympathize with the managers/business owners on this one - not that I support them. I see their point.

carlob 9y ago
How do you feel doesn't go into it. You probably feel like shit, granted. But we as a society have decided that it's more important that women can feel at least a little bit safer having a family as well as a career and we've regulated this so that they can be protected from losing their job. In some more advanced countries than the US or Papua New Guinea there is even mandatory paid leave, go figure. As an exercise you can take the pregnant woman in your example and replace with a cyclist in a bike accident or someone who was just diagnosed with cancer.
- TomMarius 9y ago
  I live in one of these 'more advanced countries'. The system is bad, expensive and has many issues, but that doesn't matter for this discussion. What matters is that in these more advanced countries, for example in the one where I live, it's actually very normal to tell your manager about this so they can plan for that - and then there are no issues on either side. BTW the paid leave is not paid by the employer, it's paid out of mandatory government insurance. EDIT: please reply and discuss before downvoting. Downvoting adds nothing to the discussion.
- TomMarius 9y ago
  Reaction to your edit with a cyclist, I have no idea how that relates to this case. That's an accident, something that no one knew will happen, and everyone understands that. On the other hand it doesn't seem nice to purposefully not tell someone information that might be extremely important to them and might even mean if they do or do not lose their business.
  - PeterisP 9y ago
    The position here is that it's not information that might be extremely important to them. Legally (and ethically!) this information literally can not, must not influence any of their decisions regarding that employee in any way whatsoever. What is the employer going to do if they tell them if they can't use that information or act on it? They might do something, but they should not; they likely want to do something, but they should be prevented from doing so. In essence, the applicant has a right to demand treatment as if the employer didn't know that information. By not telling them, they're exercising that right, taking precautions so that it wouldn't be violated in a way that's illegal but hard to prove.
    - TomMarius 9y ago
      What? That an employee will be away for several years is not an important information? Since when? The employee has right to be treated as if the information was unknown, I never said the opposite and never wanted to even imply that (and I'm pretty sure that I did not). That doesn't mean that the employer shouldn't have an opportunity to plan accordingly (e.g. start looking for a temporary replacement, stop accepting new projects and so on).
      - PeterisP 9y ago
        Okay, yes, there are some reasonable and legal actions that can be taken with that information, so it is valuable, I was apparently exaggerating. However, giving that information right before a decision point (i.e. when changing jobs, getting a promotion, etc) is just inviting it to be misused, it's a risk they shouldn't be required or always expected to take. For some context, some time ago I was involved in handling quite a few maternity/replacement situations. Our local laws are quite generous with maternity leave, so for existing employees we (in that company) had often started planning replacements as early as 6 months before start of their leave. However, this is a bit tricky - if there was some promotion issue in the middle of that period (3 months after I'd known but 3 months before she'd leave), I could try acting as if that information was unknown, but it's difficult, I can't magically unlearn things, I couldn't be sure myself if I wasn't biased one way or another (unless we had extremely dry formal procedure based on some arbitrary "objective" metrics that mismeasure as much as they measure), and I definitely couldn't prove that I wasn't influenced if that was contested. So in such an situation I might have even preferred not to know, despite the extra hassle it would cause. It's probably a question of trust. If an employee is working in a trustworthy environment, they'd likely volunteer that information (which I've seen happen) and the employer would benefit from having created such an environment. But if employees feel a lack of trust, they would likely want to protect themselves and keep it a secret (which I've also seen happen), and IMHO they have (or should have) a right to do so if they really feel the need. The employer's reputation and trustworthiness is their own fault or achievement based on their previous actions, so in some sense they deserve what they get, whether it's trust or lack of it.
urahara 9y ago
Why do you think that women who forced to constantly experience all kinds of problems and overload because of their gender, should be concerned about well being of groups and institutions (that tend to force them into these problems) at the expense of their own safety? Maybe you imply some ideal situation in which it is totally safe for an average woman to communicate openly like you suggest, but how often is it really the case given a huge problem of sexism we are discussing here and multiple evidence of which you were just presented?
- TomMarius 9y ago
  Well as I said in another comment, I live in Europe, so it's definitely very different here. I have several points. Let's not blame organizations for the actions of individuals (given that the organization properly deals with said individual). Let's not blame the whole industry or the whole society for the actions of individuals. If something happened to me at a conference, I won't blame my manager who is not connected to the individual that did it in any way for that - and I won't make them suffer because of that. Of course there might be a reason to not communicate that and that's completely alright, it's business after all, but let's not make it a default choice, please - let's stay human and be nice to each other.
  - IntronExon 9y ago
    Well as I said in another comment, I live in Europe, so it's definitely very different here. As a growing number have pointed out in response to that claim, no... no it isn’t.
  - urahara 9y ago
    There are no countries where the problem of sexism is solved. Maybe it is better in Europe, but it still exists everywhere and still huge. And in the most countries it is times worse. It is reasonable to protect oneself from that behavior with all legal means and it would be strange to expect anything else of a person facing high probability of being discriminated against.
  - urahara 9y ago
dragonwriter 9y ago
> Well I'm going to play the devil's advocate: How would you feel about looking for an employee for months, spending tremendous amounts of money on recruiting them, training them afterwards, only to find out that they're not going to work for you for several years and didn't even mention that, possibly messing up your financial situation, screwing up any long term planning, etc? Were I hiring in an environment where that was a legally protected right, I'd probably work it into my hiring planning in advance, then if it was occurring more often than I had accounted for, try to evaluate whether my planning was bad. Can't see the point in getting upset about it.
- hackerman12345 9y ago
  If you planned to hire based on an immediate need, it would require you to discriminate against pregnant women though. For example, if you need someone to do x immediately for the next y months, hiring someone who you know would need leave during that would be a pretty major issue. So maybe you could simply hire her as well as another person who would be less likely to require leave during that period, but then your payroll needs grow - not a great business decision for a startup or whatever. I think it's easy to see how this could be a predicament for a business without extra money and "get over it" isn't a very good answer IMO - at the very least you'll have discrimination being done in disguise until there's a better answer.
gowld 9y ago
You can pay for performance and offer retention bonuses if you are concerned that your employees increase in value over time until later.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

crdoconnor 9y ago

>I have female friends who changed jobs just before getting pregnant or visibly pregnant, and those employers were not happy. I have a friend whose wife did that in the UK. The employer then let her go. They sued and either won or settled (can't remember which). I think it was for an executive type role.