I think DH is upholding the glass ceiling (not DIY). WIBU?

[Pa1oma]

DH has a company which employs maybe a thousand people, of which probably about 40% are women. It’s not a traditionally male industry like construction, however, in 15 years, there has never been a female director. Whenever I’ve asked him why this is, he says he would like this to change but no women seem to apply.

Then last night I heard him in the phone to someone discussing restructuring the board of directors and his words were, “She’d be worth consideration, but she’ll probably have a baby or something soon” . When he got off the phone, I told him what I’d heard and asked him if he knew for a fact that this woman was pregnant. He said, “Well I wouldn’t know but she’s in her late 30s and I think she’s been discussing it”.

His argument is he’s not going to risk over £100k on someone if he’s not sure they’re going to see “the next phase” through. My argument is, he is not in a position to presume anything about anyone. WIBU?

I hope you earn 10x what he does as I did with my husband. That tends to make men appreciate women with babies often work full time and earn more than men!

Do you work Pa1oma?

You can't run a business with people popping off every now and again.

Of course you can - your business needs to be able to cope with that or what do you do if someone quits, or has an accident? Or you know, just wants some time off?

The business demands would mean you couldn't have somebody off on maternity and a lot of businesses can't afford to pay 2 wages for one job, whilst someone is on maternity.

Then your business can't afford employees (and the government covers maternity pay anyway). What if a man takes parental leave, or has a heart attack? Or decides that your oppressive environment isn't worth the pay and leaves for another job?

You don't own employees, they can always leave, and your business needs to be able to cope with that.

Luckily a lot of women are cottoning on to the fact that because male business owners are such idiots and won't hire talented women, if they start their own business there is a very rich pool of extremely capable women to choose from. I run my own company and my direct competitor is a misogynist like gillybeanz. In fact he is such a misogynist that he has on more than one occasion actively shot himself in the foot and prevented himself from making money. As a result my business is kicking is business's arse. It is extremely gratifying.

Hes an idiot a friend of mine got a new job after maternity leave which is way more high up and pressurised than before and she's flying its totally possible.

Bollocks, what's unlawful about giving someone a job who will actually do the job and not want endless time off for this that and the other.

We'll employ a young person on a temporary contract when we do employ. There's nothing unlawful about that.

Company culture often does come from the top down...so his views and wrong and he's effectively spreading the poison downwards. Such a shame. How would he feel if one day, it was his daughters progress that was blocked by a possibilty versus a reality .....in any case, loads of brilliant women are working mothers.
You can only hope that no females are consumers or buyers of your DH's products or services - because if they are, he's effectively choosing to be blinkered to his target market and will have limited success v his competitors.

I kick myself that I ever wondered about how I could be successful as a business owner. It was only when I started running my business that I realised that there are so many people like gillybeanz who somehow manage to make money despite not having a clue. It's actually pretty easy to be very successful - even misogynists who won't hire the best people manage it.

To add - it's pretty obvious anyway, but study after study after study has shown that a company's success rests almost entirely on hiring the best people. If you actively exclude half the population then you are automatically excluding your company from being the best. It is just a stupid thing to do.

You have absolutely no guarantee your preferred young worker won’t take endless time off for this that Gilly
You’re assuming they’ll not take time off,no actual basis for your assumptions
And if you habitually offer temp contracts they’ll likely leave for security

Great gillybeanz. Hope your young person works for you for six weeks then fucks off to a better company with all your clients.

£100k isn’t much for a director, is he able to attract any quality for that?

Anyone can go off on maternity: paternity -Man, woman, gay, straight, young, old. His illegal selection criteria isn’t even protecting him

I used to work in HR & Recruitment and I can’t even begin to explain to you how shortsighted you are being @gillybeanz. So I’ll just wish you good luck .

The thing is sitting behind a keyboard being moral is one thing. Running a company and recruiting staff is another.

Women could go on maternity leave.

Men could exercise their right to shared parental leave and take a similar amount of time off.

People of either sex could decide that the job is not for them, or they could have an accident or become ill so this could also cause them to be not available for work. The chances of a a mid 30s woman having children is probably quite small - if they were going have them by then, they probably would have already.

Why is he only focussing on one small aspect of staffing risk to his business?

I actually don't think I could continue loving someone with that attitude. I'd be questioning everything about him, his values, what he truly thinks about me and women in general. I have a good male friend who told me in May that 'men hate the #metoo movement', then made some further ridiculous remarks, and it upset me so much and I honestly think that I can't see him again - after a twenty year friendship. Just ugh.

Yes it is the law but i have had colleagues abusing the system with 8 years on the trot of mertinity leave even in schools there was a woman that seriously effected my younger brother maths teaching as she was assigned years 10/11 (GCSE years) then went of on materinty leave 5 years in a row went straight to the union when the school tried to get a materinty cover to take year 10/11 forced the school to have to take loads of temp teachers.

(She successfully argued that having a materinty cover teaching for the year she was off and her class being assigned to a full time other teacther was a effectively depromotion so basically she wanted to come back for the 1 or 2 months to qualify for the next round of martinity pay she wanted to still be teacther GCSE years but refused to go to inset days / kit days for new circiulum and sinc ethe union was involved were stuck having to have supply teachers changing every few weeks so their was no conituatial to the teacthing.

But i digress only be 1 year but it could be every year for 10+ years were they are working for you "10 years" while only physically working for less then a year.

But thats the law and they need to follow it no matter what.

'The thing is sitting behind a keyboard being moral is one thing. Running a company and recruiting staff is another.'

This is the thing I don't understand though WaggyMama, it's not really about morals (though I suppose isn't very 'moral' to deny talented people opportunities). Even if you have no 'morals' at all there is a very solid evidence out there that if you refuse to hire women, or prevent them from progressing, it will actively decrease your chances of success. It is actually pretty obvious that if you cut your pool of talent in half you're going to get less choice. It's just not a good business decision.

In my experience though the nonsense about maternity leave isn't actually the reason why men (and women to a certain extent) won't hire women. It's a smokescreen for other much more ridiculous views that they would never actually say out loud because it would reveal them for the braindead arseholes that they are.

@worridmum how on earth do you know all the detail of the teacher and her discussions with her employers?

I'm surprised that people are still surprised that businesses don't want to promote people, then have to pay for their time off whilst paying someone else to do their role.

As nasty as it is, the lack of continuity & extra cost makes it a PITA for employers.

Until there's a system that works equally well for all parties, the glass ceiling will be around....

... and of course if she already has children she'll be "unreliable" or some such shite. YANBU your husband is bloody reinforcing the glass ceiling, and unfortunately so are lots and lots and lots of other people's DHs all over the country. 🤷🏻‍♀️

Worrid - people also abuse other aspects of the system. Are you arguing that if one woman behaves in questionable way, all women should be punished? Men have been shown to sexually harass women in worryingly large numbers. Should men then be excluded from management on that basis? Or do men get to be judged individually, while women are just one big mushy group?

£100k isn’t much for a director, is he able to attract any quality for that?

Depends where you are!

Not that it matters, but the biggest “pisstaker” I’ve heard of was a man in his 60s who (allegedly) faked a mental illness because he was having a strop about not being promoted. He was on a temp contract, but he still managed to get a lot of sick pay. A single, young woman I knew also (allegedly, but who knows?) faked a back injury and went on a series of jollies, returned to work when sick pay was about to run out, then injured her back again on her way to visit family, where she stayed till sick pay ran out and so on. A woman in her fifties went on mat leave from one of my former offices. I also interviewed for a job once where a young single woman was about the go on mat leave, having discover led she was pregnant the day after she started work there. I could go on.

It’s just a bit thick to think you’ve covered your arse by employing only men / young singles / people past usual childbearing age. And yes, it’s illegal. If he leaves a paper trail or if anyone reports him, he could find he has some questions to answer.

'As nasty as it is, the lack of continuity & extra cost makes it a PITA for employers'

It's funny isn't it QueenPeeBeePee that women's perfectly legal behaviour is considered such a PITA that women aren't hired, when men's PITA behaviour - collapsing companies like Carillion, hiding funds, harassing women etc etc - don't really affect how men are seen?
Why is that do you think?