To think that this 'advice' column in today's Guardian is bang out of order?

[Aliama]

I'm fuming at this and wondering if I'm overreacting?

www.theguardian.com/money/2014/feb/01/dear-jeremy-work-issues-solved

Excuse me? Did I misread that? In what fucking world is it 'reprehensible' for a woman to fail to tell a prospective employer that she's planning on getting pregnant at an interview? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it fucking illegal for a company to allow something like that to sway their decision anyway, even if said woman is already pregnant?

Ugh.

I'm so sorry, I didn't know you'd missed a line. I'm not actually sure which line you missed.

I thought it was ridiculous to get petty over someone's terminology by promoting an equally gendered term, that's all. It detracts from the argument at hand - but maybe that was your intention?

Windy, you did say you won't employ women. You said you get around the issue by employing men.

You may not be setting out to be sexist, but it's still sexism all the same.

Institutional sexism is what they call.

If you set up a company or a business, it's part of your duty to not discriminate against certain groups. I don't doubt economics are an issue but you still have a duty to be fair and equal as part of the incorporation of your company. You mention you employ a few men on 6 figure salaries. Surely you can offset something to comply with your duties to the law?

I don't mean to flame you but in only employing men you are definitely discriminating against all women. Some may not want kids, some may not be able to have them. Some may want kids and a career. The burden on raising children in our society should not fall solely to women.

To turn your argument on its head, it's pure economics for us women. Why should we lose out because some men and some companies choose not to do their bit?

Hi Penguins, you're right, I wasn't clear. The flexible working issue has a lot to do with the size of the firm though.

We've got 2 client service guys, 1 covering US and one APAC. The APAC guy starts in the middle of the night and finishes at lunchtime, the US guy starts at lunchtime and finishes late evening. They both work from home whenever they like and the US guy takes the kids to nursery in the morning before work. I think we're actually quite progressive in that respect and they even get extra paid leave for kids school plays etc

Because there's no real cover for them it would be hard to allow any change in hours or conditions without it crippling us.

If we had duplication in staff which should happen later this year it'll be a lot easier to accommodate changes. If someone wants to leave early a couple of days a week to pick up the kids why should I worry, I know they'll make the time up later.

This ties into the potential headache of maternity cover and people returning after they've been on leave. If we're bigger it's a lot easier to handle, the size we are today it would be tough.

"I haven't said we won't employ women"

But you have strongly implied that the only CVs forwarded to you are those of men. If you never consider women for any roles then you're fairly unlikely to end up employing one.

I am also intrigued at the idea of an HR professional who believes that offering only statutory minimum maternity pay could be judged to be discriminatory but that only interviewing or employing men is completely unproblematic.

DontOutMeIfYouKnowMe

Bizarrely my intention was completely the opposite, I didn't want the argument to get side tracked by the use of a silly term.

strange how things work out.

the missed line was to pleasejust.

FYI, I don't agree with windy's argument.

He/she did say they wouldn't employ women. And I quote Windy in response to Meepmeep:

"'Meepmeep "Any employer with the tiniest amount of HR knowledge knows how to safeguard themselves against these situations."

Yup, we employ men' "

Well you missed it when he said it, so I repeated it for you..which you chose to ignore so I was forced to repeat it again.... not interested in suing you ..but a few women probably have a case against Windy....

I repeat, at no point have I said I wouldn't employ women.

I said that a way used extensively by companies (especially smaller / newer companies) to avoid the costs of maternity leave and its associated aspects is to employ men. I didn't say only men. I didn't say exclusively men.

Well, maybe if you don't want to derail by picking on silly terms, not doing so would be an excellent start.

It's not rocket science really.

I still don't know what windy would advise someone in my position to do.

Hang on, so do "Recruitment agents / headhunters know not to send female CVs to small companies" or not?

Because if they do, then you won't employ women. If they don't, then why did you say they did?

his is a huge expense, upheaval and drain on resources for a small company so why take the risk with the business (remember we support 6 families) when a much safer option is hiring another man?

Oh I have no doubt you'd hire a woman..should no men be available. Shame some of those women might also want to have families.

Oh come on, Windy, you just said you get around the problem by employing men.

I'd rather hear what you have to say about the help small businesses need in this regard, rather than pretending you didn't say that.

I also hope I don't sound patronising but it would be amazing if your company could think about this and any way you could be less discriminatory. I don't doubt things aren't easy for small business. But there must be better ways of looking at this. What do you reckon?

Also why name change and expect a flaming if you are just as likely to hire a woman as a man? even thought you obviously aren't and said so

I also think it's easy to slip into sexist ways without really thinking about it.

Good you posted here so we get an insight into how these things come about. I mean that sincerely.

There's always ways to improve these things.

It's called "Privilege" ashes. Just to play a bit of FWR bingo as I've already used mansplaining.

I agree with ashes.

I don't think windy is deliberately trying to be selfish. S/he simply thinks that s/he is in a situation where it's uniquely difficult to be fair to women, and would like others who have it easier to take up the slack. I understand that. But that's why the system continues.

Windy it's interesting that you say one thing and then try to backtrack when people have pointed out your sexist.

Do you not like women calling you out on your ignorance either?

Yep, some privilege at play

But I also have hope that people can change stuff from hearing the other side of the coin.

"Why name change and expect a flaming?" Not the sharpest tool are you alon?

Posting on an AIBU thread about female employment rights as a man giving a perspective that is unlikely to meet the approval of the feminista sisterhood that lurk in these parts..........hmm, now why was I expecting a flaming??????

No, I'm probably not..which is why when you posted "I avoid employing women and hire men instead" I thought you meant... "I avoid employing women and hire men instead".

I also assumed that as women make up half the population... that if you had equal respect for the aptitude of women (like you say you do) that you would have half as many women in your office. Or even one.

'Feminista sisterhood?' Ah ok, all falls into place now.

'feminista sisterhood'??

By that I presume you mean women that know more about employment law and equality in the workplace than you? It's abundantly clear you don't like being told that you are in breach of employment laws.

It is also clear your opinions of women in the workplace are massively outdated.

My dh has taken a career break and also flexible working to care for our dcs - so it isn't even safe to only employ men, some of the buggers look after children too!!

My dh has taken a career break and also flexible working to care for our dcs - so it isn't even safe to only employ men, some of the buggers look after children too!!

Yes, but presumably your dh is a dancing pirate captain so hardly typical??

Ahem....good point though. Maybe one day men of breeding age will be seen as just as much of a risk as women. Except men's breeding age covers a much longer period!

Windy you may be interested to learn that the small employer exemption from disability discrimination legislation ended in 2004. Maybe you want to check out that HR advice you're getting?