Correct, but it still indicates 33% do not return. I have a 1 in 3 chance she will not. As a business owner, without her promise to return, I cannot take that chance while I am trying to fill a role in my company which may lead to future success. Much like, depending on the position I am hiring for, I will choose a woman over a man any day. It all depends on the circumstances. Women are better than men at certain tasks, and vice versa. As a responsible business owner, I have a responsibility to my employees to create a successful environment.
Maybe another term with President Obama and running a business will be illegal. After all, that is his dream. If you have a business, you have to have redundancy in critical positions or you're screwed. My boss let us get in a situation where we had only one person who could deal with our computer software and, not surprisingly, he just couldn't find anyone to train to fill in for him. That's stupid position to get yourself into. I've noticed that some have made comments that were critical of choosing the woman and they were called sexist. Isn't it amazing that critical comments about men weren't called sexist? I haven't seen any comments comparing men and women I consider accurate. When I worked, the women employees had significantly more sick leave, excluding pregnancy related absences. Male dominated operations functioned on a task focus and the female dominated positions functioned with a social focus. One employee whom the supervisor described as critical couldn't do her job. She was a typist and she couldn't typ but she was still essential. She organized baby showers and birthday parties. Oh, right. I forgot about those things. I insisted she learn to type or leave and was hated.
this thread is hypothetical no 2 candidates are "equal" despite how hard you try to convince people I would hope that one of them had held a job or 2 at some point in their young lives. for over 20 years, when I conduct an interview, I never sit behind my desk and have that "barrier" We sit near each other in chairs with nothing between us. You learn a lot about people by watching them as well as listening.
According to... what? Relevant stats? For myself, I would hire the woman... due to her status as being a member of a disadvantaged class of persons. Turning the patriarchal tide is a social good.
Yeah, (*)(*)(*)(*) the men....burn the bras..... See we both have our own reasons why we would hire who we hire....and both can justify our sexist reasons.
One important fact missing for me to make that determination is "What is the hypothetical position?" Some positions require a personal skillset that is more prevalent in women. Other positions are more suitable to men.
Translation: "It's better to screw over a company for making a wise business decision than it is to punish somebody for choosing to take time off to start a family without any consideration for how it will affect the company that employs them." Selfishness rears its ugly head.
Um i would make both of them temps for a month and evaluate each of them against each other... Just on the fact they are the exact same i might choose some arbitrary method of deciding who gets the job, like asking them to play a game of rock paper scissors . RPS solves everything
And you risk being sued in court for sex discrimination if a pattern develops or the woman can somehow prove your decision was based on what you said.
It also depends on the current environment on the company, if we have a high ratio of one sex to the other then hire the candidate of the opposite sex. Im assuming in this example that you did all necessary background research and each candidate is equal in every way. If you have equal ratios of employees and don't feel like making an arbitrary decision process like my above post, then choose the woman so you get the incentives involved. Otherwise hire one and keep the other on speed-dial for when you need another new employee.
If the qualifications were the same, then I would look at their personality. I would hire the one who would be easier to get along with. You don't need someone in the work place will be causing strife and dissent. It makes everyone's job that much more difficult and unpleasant.
well, yeah. if you're going to get sued for sexual harassment, it might as well be by someone worth sexually harassing.
I'd have to know a bit more about each applicant before I made a decision. The only difference so far is that they are a different sex. In every other way, they are identical.
I thought that gender wasn't supposed to be a factor in hiring people, yet you suggest that a person should make a hiring decision based on gender?
If there is a financial incentive then yes. Also bringing in a female in a male heavy environment or vice versa might help with some aspects of the job and actually improve productivity. Then again you could just arbitrarily choose one as this is a highly unrealistic situation. There will always be at least one difference that puts one candidate above the other.
You know...women can be very difficult to work with because of their backbiting and office politics. Not saying that some men don't do the same thing but I KNOW women are bad for this. So if their personalities are equal and I"M the boss being a woman, i'd probably have to go with the guy.
