Job Discrimination!!! - Page 3

[VisionaryMom]

Originally Posted by chinaKat

No. Kidding.

I was a terrible employee in my 20's. I came in hungover, I called in at the drop of a hat, I yacked on the phone/internet with friends, I took long lunches with co-workers.

I'm glad I'm not the only one! When I think back to the worker I was from 20-23, I cringe. I came to work hung over more than a few times.

[Needle in the Hay]

Originally Posted by the_lissa

How would the business go under? The company doesn't have to pay the employee, though most big companies do. They just have to hire a temp, which will probably work out cheaper.

I have no idea, you'd have to ask ChetMC (or read her first post on this thread I was going by that). I was simply stating that her DH would not necessarily refrain from paying forward the way he's been treated by his company. That doesn't mean I think it's a fine idea not to hire women of childbearing age nor does it mean I have any clue about how his business would function or how the Canadian maternity leave works.

[Ms. Cellaneous]

I read this thread on my Blackberry while waiting at the vet's office and I haven't been able to stop thinking about it. To the OP, I am so outraged on your behalf! I cannot believe that any boss would say anything so discriminatory, insensitive, unfair and downright stupid in a public meeting!!
However, the fact that he was dumb enough to say it in public may work to your advantage. If I understand correctly your contract with this company was not renewed -- I'm sorry. If you can at all afford it, I would definitely consult with a labor/employment lawyer. I'm no lawyer, but it seems like if a boss makes discriminatory comments in public about an employee, then that employee is fired/not rehired, that would make a pretty strong cause for a lawsuit. Definitely worth checking into, at least.

And I have to echo others who have been shocked by some of the reactions here. It doesn't matter whether parents are distracted by parenthood (and obviously it is arguable whether or not this "distraction" negatively affects work performance, on the whole). Discrimination against parents is wrong, period. It seems bizarre that I would have to type that sentence out on MDC, but there you go.

The notion of not hiring women of childbearing age because of mat leave is so disturbing. Going by this logic, really employers shouldn't hire women at all -- because women of any age are far more likely to have family-caretaker responsibilities. Women age 40-60, for instance, are far more likely than men of the same age to be the primary caregiver for an elderly parent. That does not excuse discrimination. This is why we have laws to protect us.

I lived in Canada for the past three years and yes, I'm well aware of the disruptive effect that one-year mat leave can have on a business. The solution is not to discriminate against women (or parents), the solution is for employers to put on their big girl panties and DEAL WITH IT. One-year mat leave has been standard in Canada and lots of other countries for a long time now, and the economy hasn't collapsed yet. (Well, not from that...) ESPECIALLY in this job market there are tons of qualified people who would apply for a one-year job. The small-business excuse just doesn't wash with me, sorry.

Finally, the idea that the OP should just get a job at a more family-friendly company ... Yeah, maybe he could score a job hanging candy canes on sugarplum trees in the magical forest of fairyland. I hear they have great parental leave policies. Seriously, in this economy you've got to take whatever you can get. Unfortunately, that leads to a lot of employers thinking they can get away with discrimination like this. And that's just wrong.

Sorry for the rant, I guess this situation just really struck a nerve with me. Best of luck to the OP and his family.

[Cassiopeia]

So, a company who refuses to hire women for fear they might become pregnant could still call themselves family friendly? That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

eta: xpost, this was directed at needle.

[Needle in the Hay]

Originally Posted by Cassiopeia

So, a company who refuses to hire women for fear they might become pregnant could still call themselves family friendly? That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

eta: xpost, this was directed at needle.

If only I had written that, it would have been cool to have been the author of the most ridiculous thing you had ever heard. I've actually heard way more ridiculous stuff, I don't know if it's because I'm in Europe or what.

Seriously, this is between you lot and ChetMC since according to you there is only one black-and-white issue here. I was referring to other family friendly stuff outside this (or THE) issue of the mat leave that could mean her DH didn't want to punish employees with families, but since all of that is seemingly irrelevant then you guys need to hash this out with someone else. I have not defended the refusal to hire women of childbearing age under any circumstances.

[Katwoman]

I'm really sorry that happened to you!

I know the shock and incredible anger you're feeling right now. While mine wasn't centered around being pg. I was in a job interview where the guy actually said he wasn't comfortable considering me for the job because I wasn't married. He felt if I was married, my husband would make me stable and less likely to go off on adventures and leave the company high and dry looking for an new employee. My husband would give me roots and a sense of responsibility.

I felt like he actually punched me in the gut. I was so pissed!

You deserve better than what you're getting. This guy didn't know me, but you've been working for your company for a while, they should understand what kind of employee you are!

It pisses me off that people can pretty much act any way they want to.

[WNB]

Originally Posted by ChetMC

It totally is, but can you blame somebody for not wanting to take the risk if their company or department could face legitimate problems as a result?

Discrimination of this sort arises from "observer error". Every employee presents the risk that she or he will undergo some medical issue making them unavailable or less productive for work for exended periods of time. Assuming that women are more likely to have such issues than men is just flat out gender bias.

My firm is a small one. We need all our staff to keep up with our client work. At one point, we'd hired two analysts at approximately the same time: one married woman, mid-20s, one single guy, same age with a body-building hobby on the side. Want to take a guess which one was out for practically a year on sick leave?