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.
If people have young kids and take that responsibility seriously, they are going to miss more work than most other people who don't have kids. For that reason, if I knew that a woman had at least one very young child and was a single parent, I would not hire her unless she lived with her mother who agreed to be a full-time babysitter. (This was about 30 years ago, btw, when I was an office manager responsible for hiring secretarial staff, and back then, all the secretarial applicants I interviewed were women.)
I did feel bad about that, but I believed then (as I believe now) that women should not have kids unless they are married and can afford to have children without both spouses having to work 40 or more hours a week. Yes, that is a very old-fashioned attitude, I know, and I also know that life doesn't always turn out the way people expect it to even when they plan well, but nevertheless, it is what I believe.
[And, to emphasize, I know that I am in the minority with this opinion! The older I get, the more it seems that most of my opinions these days are as antiquated as manual typewriters!]
Well at least you admit that your thinking is outmoded. There’s this thing called divorce. Also both arenas work because very often they have to or maybe the woman doesn’t want to stay at home. That’s her choice.
Yeah I have kids. I also have 25 years of solid experience so that counts for something if I were looking for a job.
If people have young kids and take that responsibility seriously, they are going to miss more work than most other people who don't have kids. For that reason, if I knew that a woman had at least one very young child and was a single parent, I would not hire her unless she lived with her mother who agreed to be a full-time babysitter. (This was about 30 years ago, btw, when I was an office manager responsible for hiring secretarial staff, and back then, all the secretarial applicants I interviewed were women.)
I did feel bad about that, but I believed then (as I believe now) that women should not have kids unless they are married and can afford to have children without both spouses having to work 40 or more hours a week. Yes, that is a very old-fashioned attitude, I know, and I also know that life doesn't always turn out the way people expect it to even when they plan well, but nevertheless, it is what I believe.
That is what I believe too. Men have historically provided support for the family (in the caveman days, it was by hunting; in modern days, it is by working at a job), and historically the women have stayed home to raise the children. That system has worked for mankind for millenia. Why change that?
If people have young kids and take that responsibility seriously, they are going to miss more work than most other people who don't have kids. For that reason, if I knew that a woman had at least one very young child and was a single parent, I would not hire her unless she lived with her mother who agreed to be a full-time babysitter. (This was about 30 years ago, btw, when I was an office manager responsible for hiring secretarial staff, and back then, all the secretarial applicants I interviewed were women.)
I did feel bad about that, but I believed then (as I believe now) that women should not have kids unless they are married and can afford to have children without both spouses having to work 40 or more hours a week. Yes, that is a very old-fashioned attitude, I know, and I also know that life doesn't always turn out the way people expect it to even when they plan well, but nevertheless, it is what I believe.
[And, to emphasize, I know that I am in the minority with this opinion! The older I get, the more it seems that most of my opinions these days are as antiquated as manual typewriters!]
Yup, definitely antiquated and out of touch with the modern workforce. Which not only consists of working mothers, but also employees who are spouses of working mothers and are doing their fair share of kid-duty, employees who are caring for elderly parents, and employees who are caring for chronically ill spouses.
I pumped for each of my 3 children. I worked 10 hour days to make up for the pumping "breaks" which, btw, can hardly be considered breaks when you're stuck in some back room with no lock on the door with very sensitive body parts attached to a machine and praying to get that last ounce you need for tomorrow, when you get to do it all over again.
And I have NEVER heard of a woman getting a bigger paycheck "because she has a family." Google the mommy tax, and look at how many of your female coworkers have been passed over for promotions/opportunities because they have kids. (Strange enough, fathers don't have this issue.)
I agree--this thread is about 47 kinds of pathetic..and I'm an older white guy. The world has clearly left some of these posters in the rear-view mirror..
That is what I believe too. Men have historically provided support for the family (in the caveman days, it was by hunting; in modern days, it is by working at a job), and historically the women have stayed home to raise the children. That system has worked for mankind for millenia. Why change that?
If one working parent's Salary was enough to cover that...then sure. Easier to do in lower COL areas than in higher COL areas such as San Fran or NYC/Boston
I think the issue is that many families these days need two working parents to support the household.
If people have young kids and take that responsibility seriously, they are going to miss more work than most other people who don't have kids. For that reason, if I knew that a woman had at least one very young child and was a single parent, I would not hire her unless she lived with her mother who agreed to be a full-time babysitter. (This was about 30 years ago, btw, when I was an office manager responsible for hiring secretarial staff, and back then, all the secretarial applicants I interviewed were women.)
I did feel bad about that, but I believed then (as I believe now) that women should not have kids unless they are married and can afford to have children without both spouses having to work 40 or more hours a week. Yes, that is a very old-fashioned attitude, I know, and I also know that life doesn't always turn out the way people expect it to even when they plan well, but nevertheless, it is what I believe.
[And, to emphasize, I know that I am in the minority with this opinion! The older I get, the more it seems that most of my opinions these days are as antiquated as manual typewriters!]
Funny, most people tend to not be quite so proud about committing employment discrimination. So yeah, your opinions are antiquated. They are also against the law.
You cite working 10 hour days. What was the alternative? "Reasonable accommodation" doesn't include paying you for 8 hours while you work 6. So what else could be done?
A door with a lock would have been a great start. I could work and pump hands-free instead of being pushed into a supply room. I had a comfy desk job; by the time my 3rd came along, I could at least close my office door and pump at my computer next to the wall of windows. Better than many moms get.
Funny, most people tend to not be quite so proud about committing employment discrimination. So yeah, your opinions are antiquated. They are also against the law.
Well, you are wrong on two counts, unless at least one on-line guide is wrong.
First, I am not "proud" of discriminating against single moms with kids (without support), but I did what I thought was best for the company I worked for, which I was hired to do.
Second, there is no national law against Family Responsibility Discrimination (except for civil service employees), based on what I have learned, and no law against it in the state I was in. Many companies did discriminate in that way, and many still do. Now, maybe that is something that is wrong and should be corrected, but it is not illegal in most localities and for most jobs.
There is no federal law that expressly prohibits FRD. Even though there is no statute expressly prohibiting FRD, employees may be protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Equal Pay Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act and ERISA. Some states have adopted laws, and some categories of employees, like federal employees, may have protection. For example:
Alaska Statute §18.80.220 prohibits discriminating against an employee based on "parenthood"
D.C. Human Rights Act §§2-1401.01, 2-1401.02(12), 2-1402.11, 2-1411.02 prohibits employment discrimination based on "family responsibilities"
Some cCities and counties have provisions similar to D.C., , and includinge: Cook County, Illinois; Atlanta, Georgia; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Tampa, Florida.
Federal Executive Order 13152 prohibits employment discrimination against federal employees because of their "status as a parent."
Conn. General Statute § 46a-60(a)(9) prohibits employers in Connecticut from requesting or requiring information from applicants or employees relating to their familial obligations.
Over 55 localities prohibit employment discrimination based on FRD under different statutes. Check with an employment attorney in your area to find out how you might be protected.
The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 prohibits marital and parental status discrimination. (See: Federal Prohibited Personnel Practices for more information)
Now, as I said, I do feel bad about not hiring women with very young children and no live-in support, but this is one more way that people often must live with the consequences of their decisions (or just plain bad luck).
Last edited by katharsis; 06-05-2019 at 12:27 PM..
Well, you are wrong on two counts, unless at least one on-line guide is wrong.
First, I am not "proud" of discriminating against single moms with kids (without support), but I did what I thought was best for the company I worked for, which I was hired to do.
Second, there is no law against Family Responsibility Discrimination, or at least not on a national level, based on what I have learned, and not in the state I was in, at least. Many companies did discriminate in that way.
There is no federal law that expressly prohibits FRD. Even though there is no statute expressly prohibiting FRD, employees may be protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Equal Pay Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act and ERISA. Some states have adopted laws, and some categories of employees, like federal employees, may have protection. For example:
Alaska Statute §18.80.220 prohibits discriminating against an employee based on "parenthood"
D.C. Human Rights Act §§2-1401.01, 2-1401.02(12), 2-1402.11, 2-1411.02 prohibits employment discrimination based on "family responsibilities"
Some cCities and counties have provisions similar to D.C., , and includinge: Cook County, Illinois; Atlanta, Georgia; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Tampa, Florida.
Federal Executive Order 13152 prohibits employment discrimination against federal employees because of their "status as a parent."
Conn. General Statute § 46a-60(a)(9) prohibits employers in Connecticut from requesting or requiring information from applicants or employees relating to their familial obligations.
Over 55 localities prohibit employment discrimination based on FRD under different statutes. Check with an employment attorney in your area to find out how you might be protected.
The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 prohibits marital and parental status discrimination. (See: Federal Prohibited Personnel Practices for more information)
Now, as I said, I do feel bad about not hiring women with very young children and no live-in support, but this is one more way that people often must live with the consequences of their decisions (or just plain bad luck).
You treated a subset of women differently on the basis of their marital and parental status. That is considered discrimination on the basis of sex.
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.
