Women hires? – No more.

[Raizinman]

I work in a company which was mainly a predominantly male only industry. Over the last 20 or so years, we have brought the proportion of women into the company to about 40% and rising every year. At a recent meeting, it was discussed that with so many women making allegations of sexual harassment that we have received orders from upper management that there is to be no more women hires.

We were told that all our branches are doing this and the three year goal is to reduce female employees to around 5% or less. All the standard cautions about firing and hiring due to discrimination were made.

Could this be the goal for many other large companies?

 

[RadiclDreamer]

I can see companies doing this absolutely.

I can see where the threat of constant accusations are a pain for a business to deal with and therefore they would want to avoid women as a result.

I dont necessarily agree with this, but if they are going to do it they had better be smart about it and just do it and keep their mouth shut. Telling the rank and files is a quick way to get even more lawsuits.

 

[Ns1]

Couldn't the company have achieved the same goal with no more male hires?

 

[dave_the_nerd]

They said that out loud? Orders? Sounds lawsuit-ey.

 

[interchange]

Wait. What? How could such a policy not be easy grounds for legal trouble?

Edit: just consider...why did they choose men to work there only instead of women? That would be an equally efficacious choice for their stated aim.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Yea, can't believe they would say that out loud....sounds like more lawsuits waiting to happen.

 

[Platypus]

If that actually happened I would blow that shit wide open. Name and shame them.

 

[Ken g6]

My boss at a small business once told me that he wouldn't hire a woman because his wife didn't trust him around them. Notably she was his second wife.

But I expect his business is too small to be sued.

 

[zinfamous]

So, do you work for Chrysler, OP? ...somewhere in the auto industry, maybe?

 

[zinfamous]

Couldn't the company have achieved the same goal with no more male hires?

Indeed. The other option, of course, is to just stop harassing and/or assaulting the women.

 

[BurnItDwn]

I think a wiser strategy would be "don't sexually harrass.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

But I expect his business is too small to be sued.

No such thing!

 

[FeuerFrei]

No problemo. Women-owned companies sometimes hire all-women personnel. Granted they're usually small. But no one complains.

 

[AdamK47]

I work in a company which was mainly a predominantly male only industry. Over the last 20 or so years, we have brought the proportion of women into the company to about 40% and rising every year. At a recent meeting, it was discussed that with so many women making allegations of sexual harassment that we have received orders from upper management that there is to be no more women hires.

We were told that all our branches are doing this and the three year goal is to reduce female employees to around 5% or less. All the standard cautions about firing and hiring due to discrimination were made.

Could this be the goal for many other large companies?

I have a hard time believing any of this.

Fake news.

I think a wiser strategy would be "don't sexually harrass.

I'm feeling harassed by your profile pic. What happened to Mr. Pinny Head?

 

[nakedfrog]

Indeed. The other option, of course, is to just stop harassing and/or assaulting the women.

OutRAGEOUS!

 

[deustroop]

I think a wiser strategy would be "don't sexually harrass.

That's not the point any more. We're way past facts, like whether a thing was actually done. Now its "reputation area" politics since the women are accusing celebrities, pols, etc. These are vulnerable males: once the allegation is out there, the reputation is gone, vamoosed, departed, extincto !

You cannot legally ignore female hires but perhaps male bosses can use witnesses, like the old procedure of having a nurse in attendance when a male doctor examined a female patient.That infers no more one-on-one meetings between boss men and worker women without a witness, or occurring when the meeting is in an open room.

As an aside, a single female friend, over 40, hates the #Me Too banality. Besides finding no credibility in many of the claims, she said it ruined her chance of getting hit on at work "for like, forever".

 

[ImpulsE69]

I have a hard time believing any of this.

Fake news.

Having been in some...interesting internal meetings from multiple companies, I can believe this.

 

[mindless1]

Harassment arbitration clause.

That aside, this could be a wake up call for businesses to stop hiring attractive women based on their looks. Attractiveness is part personal maintenance but also part how you dress and act so if a woman wants to convey that, it is unprofessional and makes them an unsuitable candidate for the position.

On the other hand I'm old school. If a woman wants to exude sexuality and then complains that others react to it, it's a bit like holding a steak in front of a dog and complaining that you didn't give the dog permission to lunge for it. Some guys are dogs, and some women are (nevermind, lol). Solution is don't tempt the dog.

You can argue that it shouldn't have to be that way but it is that way. There will always be a certain % of the population with worse self control than everyone else.

 

[pauldun170]

I work in a company which was mainly a predominantly male only industry. Over the last 20 or so years, we have brought the proportion of women into the company to about 40% and rising every year. At a recent meeting, it was discussed that with so many women making allegations of sexual harassment that we have received orders from upper management that there is to be no more women hires.

We were told that all our branches are doing this and the three year goal is to reduce female employees to around 5% or less. All the standard cautions about firing and hiring due to discrimination were made.

Could this be the goal for many other large companies?

 

[nakedfrog]

she said it ruined her chance of getting hit on at work "for like, forever".

 

[DaveSimmons]

You work for Uber?

If this isn't fake news or an urban legend you "heard from a friend," I'd sell any company stock and polish your resume since the upcoming lawsuits could seriously damage the company.

 

[momeNt]

Why not just not hire men for fear of actual sexual harassment instead of sexual harassment allegations.

 

[Darwin333]

Indeed. The other option, of course, is to just stop harassing and/or assaulting the women.

I think a wiser strategy would be "don't sexually harrass.

To be fair, the owner(s) of the company doesn't really have a way to really guarantee that someone at their company won't sexually harass or be accused of it. The only way to be absolutely sure that you aren't liable is to make it an all male or female workplace.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

That's not the point any more. We're way past facts, like whether a thing was actually done. Now its "reputation area" politics since the women are accusing celebrities, pols, etc. These are vulnerable males: once the allegation is out there, the reputation is gone, vamoosed, departed, extincto !

You cannot legally ignore female hires but perhaps male bosses can use witnesses, like the old procedure of having a nurse in attendance when a male doctor examined a female patient.That infers no more one-on-one meetings between boss men and worker women without a witness, or occurring when the meeting is in an open room.

As an aside, a single female friend, over 40, hates the #Me Too banality. Besides finding no credibility in many of the claims, she said it ruined her chance of getting hit on at work "for like, forever".

Fine. She can get a Tindr account like everybody else.

 

[clamum]

Couldn't the company have achieved the same goal with no more male hires?

Not if the company values intelligence. It's science that wahmen have smaller brains than men, approximately 1/3rd the size.