Hi all
I am new to posting and hope I am in the right place to start a discussion.
I had an interesting experience last week at a business networking event and was interested how others may have handled this. I bumped into a business owner who loudly told the rest of the group that he "never has and never will employ women of child bearing age" as a small business owner it caused "just too much disruption" to the business (this was in front of a group of 4 - 5 other business owners).
Sadly this view is one which I have come across before at networking events, although people are not normally so forthright in expressing their opinions! As an HR professional how would you have handled this and pointing out it is against the law would not cut it with this individual so there was no bother starting with that!
Replies
Hi everyone
Thank you so much for your comments and especially for sharing your personal experinces of this. It is interesting that many of us have experienced this in some shape or form, it is especially difficult when it impacts personally as some of you have shared.
I am always amazed how some individuals think that discrimination is OK for certain groups and can be justified.
Thanks for contributing to the debate all.
Regards
Sarah
Hi Sarah,
I am aware such opinions exist, however, I never fail to feel shocked when I read more and more cases like this. I spoke to somebody recently and they work for a business owner who will fire staff for being "fat" or other such insults. The sense that this is OK in that persons mind is seriously disturbing.
For a person to say in front of other professionals, that they wouldn't employ child bearing age women, is absolutely unreal. So the fact that an applicant could be the absolute best for the role, with the prospect of bringing so much to the role and the company, means nothing clearly.
Me being me would have got my message across that as a HR Professional, I would consider all applicants for their suitability to the role and the business,not whether they seemed to be the age to be having children. Although this would have been indirect, I would be satisfied that I had made my point and made a stand for my professional beliefs.
Debbie
Hi Sarah,
Interesting indeed. My wife, who is an experienced admin, encountered something similar just last week when going for a perm role in a company where she is currently temping. When she went to the HR rep and spoke in confidence about the hours (new job was FT, she presently works 25h) she expressed some concern but was going to speak to me about childcare and see how/if she could do it. The following day she spoke to the guy again and said that she'd like to be considered as she was happy that we could make the right plans.
During a subsequent interview she was asked by HR guy and hiring manager about the ages of our children and what/if plans had been made for their care as "this role needs you to be in for long hours..."
She was not successful with "experience on a key computer system" being cited as reasons. They hired a guy from the storeroom.
Also, she found out afterwards that the HR rep had gone and spoken to the hiring manager about the content of their supposedly confidential conversation prior to the interview.
Are there grounds for a discrimination complaint here?
To further rub salt in, they then offered her a FT temp role for a Customer Support with Repair Admin (the role she applied for) tacked on too!! The same HR guy said that they'd like her to do this whilst they found someone who "would be able to do the role fully". Unsuprising she told them to shove it....
Unbelieveable...
Hi Sarah,
First post since joining!
I've watched out for this with interest for a few years, especially before my wife had children. I was very cynical however pleasantly surprised to discover a lady who was heavily pregnant within public sector(education) being successful for a promoted post only weeks before going off on mat leave. Clearly, some might say there was another agenda however it was refreshing to see!
It's unfortunately something I think too many employers implicitly think, and talking from discussions I've had, a common view held by small employers or employers where case loads are very individually defined. From what you have indicated, it sounds like to explain why the business owner's statement was wrong from a moral and legal perspective wouldn't go down so well! Perhaps, rightly or wrongly, an approach I would have adopted is to stress the benefits to the business and bottom line of having a diverse workforce, in this instance 'women of child bearing age'. As we know, limiting your talent pool in any shape or form is going to miss out on key talent and new ideas and ways of thinking, and not going to accurately reflect the customer base and ultimately strive the business forward. Family life is one of the biggest parts of a customer or clients life, so to outwardly steer away from that in recruitment from a purely financial or 'disruption' perspective is not going to benefit in the long run.
Hard to get across to someone set in their viewpoint, but just an idea.
Hi Sarah. It always does surprise me that we still hear these attitudes and I'm not sure APL has, or ShPL will make much difference for quite some time. Sadly many employers cannot see past the perceived cost and disruption to the business.
A little while ago I blogged about this very issue on my website, making the business case around the 'war for talent' which is so important now as the economy recovers and people are more willing to move to competitor employers. The most interesting thing I have found in response to my blog is the analytics showing the number of hits from employers searching for ways to avoid this "risk".
Until male pregnancies happen, I cannot see these attitudes changing significantly any time soon.