5 ms·

> Some set of hiring managers assumed a mother with kids would likely focus more on family then career. In the present times, some set of managers would assume

> Some set of hiring managers assumed a mother with kids would likely focus more on family then career. In the present times, some set of managers would assume it for ANY woman of childbearing age. And if a woman doesn't have kids, she's assumed to get pregnant and go on maternity leave.

pjmlp 13y ago
In some countries that can happen to dads as well, because you can share the time with the kid afterwards. The point is that not hiring women because they have kids, is stupid, as the same can happen to men as well. Except for the pregnancy time, of course.
- Tichy 13y ago
  What happens is that women usually get to do the reduced time because they have a higher claim to their kids. It is not only the paternity leave, but also for example working part time later on. Dads don't get the option to do part time instead of their wives a lot. Of course it happens, but it is not the usual thing to expect.
  - pjmlp 13y ago
    It all depends on which country one speaks about. Many European countries, have shared leaves between parents.
    - Tichy 13y ago
      As I said, it's not only the parental leave that is an issue. Often later on one parent decides to only work part time. Usually it is the mother.
      - pjmlp 13y ago
        I guess I may be biased, because on our office guys also do that, which makes me wrongly extrapolate the common situation.
Tichy 13y ago
"she's assumed to get pregnant and go on maternity leave" Would you say that assumptions is completely unfounded? What percentage of women don't have kids?
- mgkimsal 13y ago
  You'd need to narrow it down some - what percentage of women in "industry X" don't have kids. I don't know if the numbers would be significantly different, but they might for some industries.
  - Tichy 13y ago
    In some industries you might not have a significant enough number of women to create a significant statistic.
- jack-r-abbit 13y ago
  I don't think people are necessarily saying that this assumption is or is not unfounded. But it should not be grounds for not hiring someone.
  - Tichy 13y ago
    But what is the solution? Why should companies be responsible to pay for that risk? I think if society doesn't want women to be disadvantaged because of the "risk" of becoming family persons, then society should pay up, not companies.
lrem 13y ago
That's quite probably why my wife gets her contract renewed in half-year increments (and she feels like everybody wants to know if she's already pregnant)...
anologwintermut 13y ago
I personally doubt the problem is mainly maternity leave. 3 months time off for a good employee is not that bad (though if you had an equal male candidate, sure on sheer cost reasons you'd hire them). The problem is they are more likely to leave permanently or the perception they are more likely to put up a stink about discrimination if you say they are not pulling their weight. Imagine what would happen if a guy came in and said "I like this job, but my real passion may be art. There is a %50 chance in the next 5 years I am going to leave my job to peruse that." You'd try to avoid hiring them. Of course, this has terrible consequences in that it effectively discriminates against women in hiring, but simply trying to get hiring managers "not to be sexist' isn't going to fix the problem. You are asking employers (men and women) to weigh their personal ideals ( gender equality) against financial incentives(retaining employees, not paying to).
hrktb 13y ago
Actually the best remedy to this could be to give father equal length paternity leaves.
- RodericDay 13y ago
  absolutely agreed. http://www.sweden.se/eng/home/society/equality/facts/gender-equality-in-sweden/ http://www.sweden.se/eng/home/society/equality/facts/gender-... Sweden does it :)

pjmlp 13y ago

In some countries that can happen to dads as well, because you can share the time with the kid afterwards. The point is that not hiring women because they have kids, is stupid, as the same can happen to men as well. Except for the pregnancy time, of course.

Tichy 13y ago
What happens is that women usually get to do the reduced time because they have a higher claim to their kids. It is not only the paternity leave, but also for example working part time later on. Dads don't get the option to do part time instead of their wives a lot. Of course it happens, but it is not the usual thing to expect.
- pjmlp 13y ago
  It all depends on which country one speaks about. Many European countries, have shared leaves between parents.
  - Tichy 13y ago
    As I said, it's not only the parental leave that is an issue. Often later on one parent decides to only work part time. Usually it is the mother.
    - pjmlp 13y ago
      I guess I may be biased, because on our office guys also do that, which makes me wrongly extrapolate the common situation.

Tichy 13y ago

"she's assumed to get pregnant and go on maternity leave" Would you say that assumptions is completely unfounded? What percentage of women don't have kids?

mgkimsal 13y ago
You'd need to narrow it down some - what percentage of women in "industry X" don't have kids. I don't know if the numbers would be significantly different, but they might for some industries.
- Tichy 13y ago
  In some industries you might not have a significant enough number of women to create a significant statistic.
jack-r-abbit 13y ago
I don't think people are necessarily saying that this assumption is or is not unfounded. But it should not be grounds for not hiring someone.
- Tichy 13y ago
  But what is the solution? Why should companies be responsible to pay for that risk? I think if society doesn't want women to be disadvantaged because of the "risk" of becoming family persons, then society should pay up, not companies.

lrem 13y ago

That's quite probably why my wife gets her contract renewed in half-year increments (and she feels like everybody wants to know if she's already pregnant)...

anologwintermut 13y ago

I personally doubt the problem is mainly maternity leave. 3 months time off for a good employee is not that bad (though if you had an equal male candidate, sure on sheer cost reasons you'd hire them). The problem is they are more likely to leave permanently or the perception they are more likely to put up a stink about discrimination if you say they are not pulling their weight. Imagine what would happen if a guy came in and said "I like this job, but my real passion may be art. There is a %50 chance in the next 5 years I am going to leave my job to peruse that." You'd try to avoid hiring them. Of course, this has terrible consequences in that it effectively discriminates against women in hiring, but simply trying to get hiring managers "not to be sexist' isn't going to fix the problem. You are asking employers (men and women) to weigh their personal ideals ( gender equality) against financial incentives(retaining employees, not paying to).

hrktb 13y ago

Actually the best remedy to this could be to give father equal length paternity leaves.

RodericDay 13y ago
absolutely agreed. http://www.sweden.se/eng/home/society/equality/facts/gender-equality-in-sweden/ http://www.sweden.se/eng/home/society/equality/facts/gender-... Sweden does it :)