3 ms·

I'll just repeat what I said at the start: If you are hiring the right people that fit your company's needs, team, skills, etc, this is not an issue. Then, how

by antr 12y ago

I'll just repeat what I said at the start: If you are hiring the right people that fit your company's needs, team, skills, etc, this is not an issue. Then, how can you assure me that a male hire won't take paternity leave too? They have a legal right too, and you can't stop them.

zo1 12y ago
It is an issue because they are not free to hire "the right people that fit [their] company's needs". They're "free" to do so if they have money to blow on it. Which is something small, budding, or failing companies do not have the luxury of doing. Hence why small/budding companies are discriminated against with such prejudicial (albeit noble) regulations. Additionally, they are further not "free" to hire the right people, because the right people might end up being "all white guys", or whatever is cheapest at the time, etc. And we all know what a public lynch mob that would create if it ever came to light. That's assuming your country doesn't have laws against it in place already.
- antr 12y ago
  You are creating an issue where there isn't one. In my opinion. If you hire on the probability of someone getting pregnant (or their partner), good for you, that's your choice. I hire employees who I (and my team) believe have the right technical skills, have initiative, are responsible and trustworthy, etc. I guess we have different hiring priorities.
  - zo1 12y ago
    I know I don't have the most popular of opinions, but I at least expect people here to have the polite courtesy to read my post before they respond to it. Good day.
    - antr 12y ago
      Read it twice. It didn't change my answer. I'm sorry you base your hiring decisions on "failing companies", and imply that I have "have money to blow on it"... Well, we do have money to spend on the right hires, but we definitely do not have the money to spend on the wrong ones. To you sir, I wish you a good day too.

by antr 12y ago

zo1 12y ago

It is an issue because they are not free to hire "the right people that fit [their] company's needs". They're "free" to do so if they have money to blow on it. Which is something small, budding, or failing companies do not have the luxury of doing. Hence why small/budding companies are discriminated against with such prejudicial (albeit noble) regulations. Additionally, they are further not "free" to hire the right people, because the right people might end up being "all white guys", or whatever is cheapest at the time, etc. And we all know what a public lynch mob that would create if it ever came to light. That's assuming your country doesn't have laws against it in place already.

antr 12y ago
You are creating an issue where there isn't one. In my opinion. If you hire on the probability of someone getting pregnant (or their partner), good for you, that's your choice. I hire employees who I (and my team) believe have the right technical skills, have initiative, are responsible and trustworthy, etc. I guess we have different hiring priorities.
- zo1 12y ago
  I know I don't have the most popular of opinions, but I at least expect people here to have the polite courtesy to read my post before they respond to it. Good day.
  - antr 12y ago
    Read it twice. It didn't change my answer. I'm sorry you base your hiring decisions on "failing companies", and imply that I have "have money to blow on it"... Well, we do have money to spend on the right hires, but we definitely do not have the money to spend on the wrong ones. To you sir, I wish you a good day too.