male and female equality in the workplace

[NarcoticHobo]

No sense covering up what the point I'm eventually getting at with analogies and such as I'm sure everyone can see straight through those.

Anyway today we were discussing in my class getting a job in various countries. A lot of the older Korean and Japanese women brought up how it is harder for them to get a job because employers know that they are likely to get pregnant and thus require a pregnancy leave, whereas an equally qualified male would not need this.

Obviously the question is is this or is this not equality?

Now I'm sure if two equally qualified men applied for a position but one of them (lets say man B) says that 3 years down the road he will require a 6 month leave of absence, however man A makes no such demand, the choice to hire man A would seem a reasonable and equitable choice.

Does that extend to this situation though?


Disclaimers:

1) No point bringing up that not all women will get pregnant, we already know that, but I promise you NO men will be getting pregnant.

2) Please no throwing around the word "sexist" that would just stifle real discussion.

 

[ViRGE]

No, it would not be equality. Now the men could certainly take family leave to care for any new children, the law applies to both sexes.

 

[NarcoticHobo]

Originally posted by: ViRGE
No, it would not be equality. Now the men could certainly take family leave to care for any new children, the law applies to both sexes.

Granted, but what about the actual pregnancy leave? IE a new child (natural birth) requires the woman to be absent from work for an extended period, it does not require a man to do so.

Don't get me wrong I'm not arguing that the above situation is equality, I've brought it up for discussion because I don't know and I think it is a complex issue. That said I think there is a deeper argument to be made than simply "the law applies to both sexes".

 

[zerocool84]

Obviously not hiring someone based solely on that is unconstitutional but they can come up with a different reason to not hire you.

 

[NarcoticHobo]

Originally posted by: zerocool84
Obviously not hiring someone based solely on that is unconstitutional but they can come up with a different reason to not hire you.

0_o yea according to the US constitution, but what about in other places. Not saying is it legal, asking if it is right or wrong.

 

[EMPshockwave82]

In the United States this would be considered discrimination and therefore not legal.

In other countries they may allow it.


I would not consider this practice to be "right" as you say. When you are hiring someone you should focus only on their merit as a prospective employee and not the time that they may request off in the future because that is an unknown. By US standards the female will have 2-3 children and therefore would be a moot point over a period of 30 years of service (estimate 1.5 years off for family leave and you only have 5% of total service). You are would also not be required to pay this person for the period of time so there is really no loss to you other than work that would need to be completed. If you still have some work to be done you could hire a temp at 1/4 the cost without benefits and make out like a bandit.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: zerocool84
Obviously not hiring someone based solely on that is unconstitutional but they can come up with a different reason to not hire you.

Um, the Constitution limits the power of the federal government and nothing more. There is no Constitutional protection to equal hiring practices... lol.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: EMPshockwave82
If you still have some work to be done you could hire a temp at 1/4 the cost without benefits and make out like a bandit.

Yes, because the process of interviewing, hiring, and training a temp is completely free and certainly doesn't involve taking other people off of their normal jobs to accomplish thereby diminishing productivity further.

You can't just grab a random temp off the street and throw them into a job without any training and expect them to be efficient. You're looking at a 2-4 week hiring process, another 2 weeks or so of "on-the job training", and then probably a 4-6 weeks of generally reduced productivity while the temp learns who the appropriate resources are for any incoming questions.

ZV

 

[NesuD]

Korean and Japanese women brought up how it is harder for them to get a job because employers know that they are likely to get pregnant and thus require a pregnancy leave, whereas an equally qualified male would not need this.

It is a conundrum. To not discriminate against a equally qualified woman because she might get pregnant is to discriminate against the equally qualified man because he is not a woman. In your scenario the woman who is just as qualified for the job as the man would get the job over the man so as not to give the appearance of being discriminated against because she might get pregnant. How is that fair to the equally qualified male candidate? A company has a right to make an estimation on which candidate will be the most benefit to the company.

I think that all things being equal potential pregnancy and the accompanying time lost from work is a reasonable determining factor in this situation. Women may not like it but the fact is this is nature. There is little that can be done that doesn't impact someone elses rights.

 

[EMPshockwave82]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: EMPshockwave82
If you still have some work to be done you could hire a temp at 1/4 the cost without benefits and make out like a bandit.

Yes, because the process of interviewing, hiring, and training a temp is completely free and certainly doesn't involve taking other people off of their normal jobs to accomplish thereby diminishing productivity further.

You can't just grab a random temp off the street and throw them into a job without any training and expect them to be efficient. You're looking at a 2-4 week hiring process, another 2 weeks or so of "on-the job training", and then probably a 4-6 weeks of generally reduced productivity while the temp learns who the appropriate resources are for any incoming questions.

ZV

Of course it isn't going to work in all situations. I never said it would. Typically you can get a temp from an agency for near minimum wage to keep most jobs rolling. Obviously this will not be a prefect replacement but many times it will fill the spot until they get back without full on hiring another person.

 

[AreaCode7O7]

Assume you have a scenario where you're interviewing two middle age candidates. As it happens, you know the man has kids and is a single dad, requiring that he drop them off in the morning, pick them up at night, and be available in case something happens. The woman, by contrast, is single and childless, easily able to work longer hours. Long hours is not a job requirement but you know your company...

Is it fair/legal to not hire the man because he's a single dad?

No. Companies are not allowed to penalize workers for their familial status, real or potential. Part of being a good employer is understanding that the people who work for you are more than resources, that life happens, and that accomodating that for your workers helps improve morale and productivity. It affects not just the person accomodated but the surrounding coworkers by creating a culture and surroundings where they feel they're valued (even if that isn't true).

Beyond that, diversity in thought and experience can help expedite problem solving, so mixed-gender, race, class etc workplaces have a bit of an edge over heterogeneous workplaces.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: NarcoticHobo

Originally posted by: zerocool84
Obviously not hiring someone based solely on that is unconstitutional but they can come up with a different reason to not hire you.

0_o yea according to the US constitution, but what about in other places. Not saying is it legal, asking if it is right or wrong.

Depends on whether or not you think not hiring any woman ever is "wrong" because at some point she may become pregnant. I don't think this is a difficult question.

 

[shoegazer]

I think a big problem is the assumption that women will take off 6 months of work to care for a baby.

It's not hugely uncommon for a woman to keep working while a man takes care of the baby at home. This is especially true if the woman does not have paid leave and is the main source of income for the household.

 

[FeuerFrei]

Ignoring the facts of life in pretense of equality is foolish.
Men and women differ biologically.
Any sane employer will factor those physical attributes into their desirability quotient.
Discrimination is wise. Who would hire a blind man to deliver for UPS? You really cannot ignore physical traits when hiring – like it or not – as it directly impacts the employee's ability to perform.

 

[imported_Imp]

On the other hand, women may be hired to broaden the equality and diversity image of the company. Overall, I'd say it is not equality. However, no sane employer would want anyone who would bail on them at any time. The same holds true for military reservists.

 

[shoegazer]

Originally posted by: FeuerFrei
Ignoring the facts of life in pretense of equality is foolish.
Men and women differ biologically.
Any sane employer will factor those physical attributes into their desirability quotient.
Discrimination is wise. Who would hire a blind man to deliver for UPS? You really cannot ignore physical traits when hiring ? like it or not ? as it directly impacts the employee's ability to perform.

Are we talking about a job that requires a penis or a vagina? If not, why discriminate on sex alone?

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Originally posted by: FeuerFrei
Ignoring the facts of life in pretense of equality is foolish.
Men and women differ biologically.
Any sane employer will factor those physical attributes into their desirability quotient.
Discrimination is wise. Who would hire a blind man to deliver for UPS? You really cannot ignore physical traits when hiring ? like it or not ? as it directly impacts the employee's ability to perform.

Spoken like a good little corporate thug. Your comparison is ludicrous.

Corporations discriminate against anyone who may possibly fit into a higher risk category as defined by their risk management team or another large company's risk management policy.

This is morally wrong, ethically wrong and, in the long run, bad for business. Corporate thugs don't care about the long run or much of anything else except getting theirs before the trough runs dry and they have to relocate to another big corporation.

 

[compman25]

There will be equality in the work place when the broad's start changing the water bottle's on the water machine.

 

[Fritzo]

All I know is:

- Smacking a woman on the rear = sexual harrasment

- Smacking a woman on the rear and yelling "BOO-YAHHH!!!!!!" = moral boost