You are the boss..... you are having to hire for a position intergel to the success of your hypothetical company. Its down to 2 candidates.... Applicant a - 25 y.o. male, married, just graduated with a bachelors degree from good ole State U. , 4,0 and no real professional experience. During the interview, he expresses his desires and is ready to start a family. Applicant b - 25 yo female, married, just graduated from good ole state u with a bachelors degree. 4.0 student with no real professional experience....during the interview she expresses her desires to start a family. (In before people start critiquing why the final two candidates are just graduated...) In essence...you have 2 ideal candidates with dead even qualifications. Who are you willing to take a risk on hiring and why? This is nothing more than a way to reflect on your personal beliefs. I would hire the male for the simple fact I have less economic risk by hiring a woman who plans to have kids, forcing her to either take extended leave or quit altogether. Yes, I know some men take leave too, but there is still simply more chance.
B. I'd hire the woman since they tend to be more calculated in their decision making process and less prone to rash action and peen flexing. Tits or ****.
I'd need to have more data before making the decision about candidates with identical qualifications. I'd assess aspects like how they handled themselves during the interview, how well they answered questions, if they were confident and well-spoken, if their attire matched the job position they were applying for, etc. Qualifications aren't the only criteria.
Of course you would. You set it up so you could say that and then explain your "reasoning". Firstly you cannot use that reason to not hire a woman and she would sue your company for everything you've got. Remember she could be talking about 10 years time and be the best empoloyee you'll ever have. Secondly you haven't even bothered to interview them, seek previous employers advice or seek out any personal references. Let's face it, you don't know the first thing about hiring people and I doubt you'll ever be in such a position. I was, for 25 years and woman usually worked harder and longer than men who tended to stand around talking. Women with children, working part time, worked even harder and never wasted time as they wanted to get their work done, keep their job and get home to the kids. Did you consider any testing to find out who is suited to the work? Nope, you didn't. You just looked and saw a male and a female and picked the male. Pity he has no hands and your work involves manual labour isn't it? You didn't ask and didn't intervies so you get what you think don't you. Go back to bias central and get a new moral compass, the one you have is failing you. You haven't even considered Federal or State legislation on the issue either have you? Are you aware sometimes there are govt incentives for hiring people in certain categories? No, you're not, are you. I don't suppose you considered the male may be in the Army Reserve and be off to Afghanistan or wlsewhere at the drop of a hat. And come back maimed, but employed by you still. Still think there's more chance the woman is not worth even considering? You'd never find out would you. In fact you are totally ignorant and wouldn't get the job yourself.
I expected that response. It has nothing to do with sex, only with statistics. My job is to run my company successfully, if I feel my company can become more successful based on the aforementioned, I am entitled to proceed with my course of action. I need to fill a position. The woman will take an extended leave period to care for her child. I take the risk of her not coming back. Whereas with the man, he may take leave, but his probability of returning to work (in a more hastily manner also) are higher than the woman. With my position currently unfilled, I would be required to fill it with a new person (which requires more money, more training, more loss of productivity), or hopefully scrape enough resources to spread the responsibilities out to co-workers until the person returns. Sex is only a factor because only a woman can bear children. If both sexes could bear children, it would be an extremely tough decision, one in which I would require more data than what the OP has given me.
I have found as a boss women have been more honest and I require that . Guys are better at set hours and often Moms need flexible hours, I also have found they produce the same . in this case it would come down to gut feeling and their personality
I own my own business and i wont hire either one...I would hire someone whohas experience in my field and one who has a good work record first..
And yet regardless of apparent competence you are preferring the male because he doesn't have a vagina. Thank god for AA, that's all I can say.
In a not so eloquent way, yes. Is my rationale not justifiable, though? Is what I said inaccurate? Edit: It isn't due to the vagina, it is due to the woman expressing her wish to bear children in the near future.
I don't see how that's a hinderance. My employers were well aware of my intent to start a family in the near future and handed my a 4-year contract. It wasn't a problem.
Good thing asking an applicant that is illegal. You really shouldn't be running a business if you don't know what's illegal and what isn't.
And I'm very happy you were able to retain your position and provide for your family! The fact of the matter is that you represent a different dataset. How many men fail to return to their employer after their wife has a baby? How many women fail to return to their employer after they have a baby?
I'm near certain I will return, I'm career-oriented, despite my parents and perhaps culture wishing I weren't. I don't know of any statistics, if you have them, I'd be glad to see but then that's employer prejudicing, either way.
If it's any consolation to you and warspite, had the woman told me during her interview "I WILL come back to work afterward", I would not dismiss her based on child birth. I would then have to consider other merits (not presented in the OP). This article is 14 years old, I'm curious to see newer statistics. It is also UK and not US based (I'm sure there are differences in numbers, as there always are). --http://www.psi.org.uk/news/pressrelease.asp?news_item_id=63
All of these points argue that the trend is for women to return to work, return earlier, and to the same employer....