Consider Sweden with paternity and maternity leave. I'm not sure about the particulars but it I think the couple gets so many months between them and they decide how to take them. This would change the dimensions of your problem.
Obviously. But it's illegal to ask them if they're starting a family. That gets you sued. But I'm sure you knew this.
But sometimes they just happen to mention it. What happens if she's preggo during the I.terview... is it acceptable not to hire her for that reason?
To not hire the man would be fiscally irresponsible. The woman has SAID she will be in need of at least 6 months off, sooner than later, with no guarantee that whatever investment the company makes in her short term will pay out. To select her would be a gross managerial mistake, assuming as the original premise suggested, the candiates are identical other than gender.
All else being equal, I'd ask them both for a (unenforceable) commitment of a certain amount of time, say a year or whatever the position and company would most benefit from, before making a decision.
Bigot. You are prejudiced and you're prejudices aren't even close to representative. I'd hire the man, Waspite, because they take less sick leave, base work decisions on the task and performance and not personal relationships, aren't as viciously competitive with others, and a planning a career.
And these are largely sexist reasons, ones that have hindered women's advancement and remuneration for many decades... bravo.
I am unable to answer this question since i would need to see each in person in order to be able to make a choice.
I'm sorry, Wyzaard. I forgot you were here. That was sarcasm directed at Warspite's bigoted post. My comments were sexist as you pointed out but, as I assume you realize since you didn't mention it, also accurate.
Whichever one interviewed better and had the personality and set of schools most appropriate for the position I'm trying to fill. Men have children too bud.
That's not always true, but whater. As many people have said, wouldn't the interview of these two condidates be more crutial to your decision than the gender of the candidates? It certainly would for me.. Would you call former employers or ask for recomendations? Surely one of them is better fit for the position than the other, not considering gender.
I didn't say that some didn't....but one guarantee is a woman HAS to take off for at least a little bit where a father does not HAVE to. I mean...if he save up vacation days and does it...so be it but a woman is honestly just a bigger economic risk for a company.
What if the woman has a personality that fits in better with the people already employed at your hypothetical company? What if she interviews better and is more knowledgable about the business that you are in? Who would you hire then?
I can't imagine hiring a person intergal to the success of my company who had had no experience. Be that as it may the question is, would you hire a woman who is planning on soon starting a family and being off work or a man who is starting a family which won't effect his work in any negative way. Honestly, I wouldn't hire either of the two hypotheical people but if I did, it would be the man. For the politically incorrect reason that I need someone at work. I'm retired now. When I worked I managed a unit of almost all women for a few years. I put in the nursery for nursing mothers of newborns. I started a workable system of job sharing. I found opportunities to send work home for new mothers who wanted it. I made a proposal to have independent contractors who could work from home but the liberals in Human Resources saw it as a great opportunity to do away with vacation, sick leave, health insurance, and other benefits so I scrapped that program. I also put out a memo requiring women to wear surgical masks and rubber gloves when handling visiting newborns. I attribute the increased pregnancies after a visiting newborn to baby germs. What else could it be? But, for a mission critical position? No way other than a federal mandate. I realize the only interest liberals have in my business is destroying it but I won't help them. A friend of mine was refused employment as a truck driver making deliveries. The company said she was too small to either drive the truck or load and unload the cargo. She sued. The company was required to hire her and pay her a sizable sum in "damages". Six months later she was on disability for back injuries due to the trucks being too large for her to drive comfortably and for the packages being too large and heavy for her to handle. When I suggested the company had been right in the first place is was told I was wrong. The company could have had trucks built for little people and required all packages be small and weigh no more than ten pounds. The government in the U.S. hates business.
