Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I just took a look at some of my old HR sites, I'm not in the field anymore but I was shocked by this thread because it was drilled into me to never let a manager ask about marital status or children. According to these sites it's federal law that prohibits these questions, not just the state I was in.
How are people getting away with this? I realize an employer can try and sneak it in, but it seems they could also be reported and sued for doing it.
Of course it is illegal. What the original thread said was that businesses were shying away from women of childbearing years. So as an employer you can look a t woman and decide if she may potentially have children and make that a strike against her. It would be impossible to prove, but at the same time, it happens. Heck I have worked in offices where they put all the women and gay men in one office so the "real" men did not have interact with them. How do you prove it caused hardship? That remains the problem! Proof
I just took a look at some of my old HR sites, I'm not in the field anymore but I was shocked by this thread because it was drilled into me to never let a manager ask about marital status or children. According to these sites it's federal law that prohibits these questions, not just the state I was in.
How are people getting away with this? I realize an employer can try and sneak it in, but it seems they could also be reported and sued for doing it.
Yup, they could be sued...like I pointed out in another post....how does a lawsuit affect the bottom line ???
Elmonellie,
""To compare the women that choose to have kids then expect others at work to pick up thier slack to victims of real past racism is ridiculous""
No, it IS stupid and illegal to NOT hire someone because of what they MIGHT do....same thing.
Yup, they could be sued...like I pointed out in another post....how does a lawsuit affect the bottom line ???
Elmonellie,
""To compare the women that choose to have kids then expect others at work to pick up thier slack to victims of real past racism is ridiculous""
No, it IS stupid and illegal to NOT hire someone because of what they MIGHT do....same thing.
I remember your post and agree, but then others and the OP article were implying it was a state law. I'm not sure where that is coming from. People need to stand up and not allow it because it is ridiculous. By all means fire someone who doesn't do their job, but don't assume a mother won't do her job before even hiring her and don't assume it's even your business if an interviewee has children or not.
Oh, "your" company IS obligated under the law. Not only is it really stupid to not hire someone based on what they might do but if "your" company does discriminate then maybe a good big juicy lawsuit will keep some of these women off Welfare...and work ! Oh, those lawsuits...how they do a number on the bottom line!
I know which fed and state labor laws applied to my businesses. I doubt you do or you wouldn't make these kind of broad, meaningless statements.
Still, I will tell you how most employers handle this situation with the following example. The company needs a billing clerk. 10 people apply for the position. 4 men and 6 women. All are EQUALLY qualified. All are pleasant and well groomed. One woman is 6 months pregnant. She, in the employers mind, is disqualified due to the obvious. One woman is 25 and recently married. She, in the employers mind is diqualified becuase the odds that she will want to have kids soon are high. That leaves 4 other women and 4 men. 2 of the women are over 50. The two other women are under fifty but have older teen children or adult children. The employer likes one of of the men, but eventually chooses the woman with 4 adult children because she reminds the employer of his great aunt Bertha.
If there were a "law" that said you could not discriminate against women of childbearing age you could never prove ANYTHING. These people are all equally qualified and the employer chose the one he liked best.
Now I'm sure this makes your blood boil, but this is how the normal, average American business owner makes this kind of hiring decision.
If you had ever actually ran a business you would realize how difficult finding and keeping good employees is and how costly...and what resentment builds in the company when a few selfish (usually) women parents expect everybody else to do extra work because little Stewie has an earache for the 10th time this year.
I have as much compassion for someone that has a sick dog. Believe me, I value people more than dogs, but to that person...it is what they care about...and they deserve personal time off in the exact amount the selfish mother gets. I like things equal...and that is always how I tried to run my business. Never got sued, by the way.
""Believe me, I value people more than dogs, but to that person...it is what they care about...and they deserve personal time off in the exact amount the selfish mother gets"""
So the mother is selfish but the dog owner who takes off the "exact amount" is not selfish????? Does no harm???
Have you read any of the other posts ???
BTW, your company must not be run very well. Several women where I work have had maternity leaves and no one did any extra work....8 hours of work for 8 hours of pay....
ELMOnellie,"If you had ever actually ran a business you would realize how difficult finding and keeping good employees ""
Well, ya, if you have really prejudiced ignorant personnel managers who eliminate good prospects based on biased views....'magine you would have problems...
And, I have never experienced or heard off an employer who MINDS putting extra work on their employees....for whatever reason
""Believe me, I value people more than dogs, but to that person...it is what they care about...and they deserve personal time off in the exact amount the selfish mother gets"""
So the mother is selfish but the dog owner who takes off the "exact amount" is not selfish????? Does no harm???
Have you read any of the other posts ???
BTW, your company must not be run very well. Several women where I work have had maternity leaves and no one did any extra work....8 hours of work for 8 hours of pay....
ELMOnellie,"If you had ever actually ran a business you would realize how difficult finding and keeping good employees ""
Well, ya, if you have really prejudiced ignorant personnel managers who eliminate good prospects based on biased views....'magine you would have problems...
And, I have never experienced or heard off an employer who MINDS putting extra work on their employees....for whatever reason
Let's try this again, really s l o w l y: The dog owner, the mother, the guy with that likes to fish should all get the same amount of personal time off.
And re: your remark about the evil employers that never mind putting extra work on their employees.....What a bizarre view of the world you have.
Let's try this again, really s l o w l y: The dog owner, the mother, the guy with that likes to fish should all get the same amount of personal time off.
And re: your remark about the evil employers that never mind putting extra work on their employees.....What a bizarre view of the world you have.
Uh, Y O U said it puts extra work on employees....what a bizarre memory you have.......
Yes, they all should get the same amount of personal time off...and if anyone abuses that then that individual should be dealt with....it has been posted a couple of times .......
Of course it is illegal. What the original thread said was that businesses were shying away from women of childbearing years. So as an employer you can look a t woman and decide if she may potentially have children and make that a strike against her. It would be impossible to prove, but at the same time, it happens. Heck I have worked in offices where they put all the women and gay men in one office so the "real" men did not have interact with them. How do you prove it caused hardship? That remains the problem! Proof
The original post claims women are being asked if they have children, that is an illegal question according to the EEOC.
Uh, Y O U said it puts extra work on employees....what a bizarre memory you have.......
Yes, they all should get the same amount of personal time off...and if anyone abuses that then that individual should be dealt with....it has been posted a couple of times .......
Exactly!
...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
