‘I won’t be employing women with children again’

[Everhopefulhev]

AIBU in feeling really wound up by this comment?
I’ve just had to quit my new job as my childcare arrangement fell through which is shit for my employer because obviously they could do without having to find someone else. However, whilst talking to my current boss he said ‘I won’t be employing women with children again’ and told me not to take it personally or think he’s a dick for saying it.
Is this just an example of the problems women face in the workplace? Just because I didn’t work out for them they are disqualifying any further woman with a child?
I just find this type of thing infuriating.

It's still discriminatory, just of other people and not the OP.

If a man wanted to be (say) a brain surgeon and an accountant he would be laughed at. Yet so many women aspire to be a home maker/mother and have a career. Seems to me thats wanting to have your bread buttered on both sides.

Its the workers who are childfree that get to pick up the slack for all the "mothers" and "fathers" when they take time off for childcare. Plus its our taxes that pay for your child allowance, maternity leave and all the other subs and handouts you get.

As an employer I would not employ women of child bearing age. I would stick with older workers who are more reliable and grateful to have a job. I run a business not a charity.

@biglouis

Lone parent here
Never had any child allowance
Adoption leave was unpaid
No other ‘subs’ or ‘handouts’

Highly successful professional career, with less than one day off per year for child related issues.

I have a child free worker in my team, he was recently sacked due to poor performance, everyone else in the team is a parent, they all exceeded this years target.

I’m hoping you yourself won’t be using any tax funded subs or handouts yourself, especially in retirement.

@biglouis and I hope none of your child free workers ever get sick themselves or have to take time off to look after elderly parents, take them to hospital appointments etc.

The parents sorry, I mean mothers, that you won't employ also pay tax as will their children.

I am a parent, and I am very cross with some of my coworkers who are taking and absolute piss. Yes, emergencies happen, but Tarquin forgetting his football kit and mummy having to drop everything and run isn't one. We are a small organization and we have to be present/ get the work done or we may as well shut the whole thing down.

Plus its our taxes that pay for your child allowance, maternity leave and all the other subs and handouts you get.

Presumably you won’t avail of any health or other kind of care after the age of 65 as you’ll be relying on other people’s children to provide it.

Or draw your state pension, which will be funded by the taxes paid by the work force of the time.

We’re all dependent on others, stop being a monumental twat about it.

If a man wanted to be (say) a brain surgeon and an accountant he would be laughed at. Yet so many women aspire to be a home maker/mother and have a career. Seems to me thats wanting to have your bread buttered on both sides.

Why is only women that are criticized for wanting a career and family??

Its the workers who are childfree that get to pick up the slack for all the "mothers" and "fathers" when they take time off for childcare. Plus its our taxes that pay for your child allowance, maternity leave and all the other subs and handouts you get

What a load of rubbish. Nobody has every had to pick up my work. Any time off for childcare comes out my annual leave which is the same as everyone else in my organisation. And what hand outs? I don't get any handouts....

As an employer I would not employ women of child bearing age. I would stick with older workers who are more reliable and grateful to have a job. I run a business not a charity.

What a ridiculous policy. You're missing out on so much talent. I'm by far the most effective and hardworking member of my team. I have a 5 year old but that doesn't mean i'm not an excellent employer. I earn every penny of my salary.
You should be ashamed of yourself.

Biglouis

Hilarious ! Such a pioneer of industry you're sat posting on Mumsnet. Thank you for gracing us with your opinion. I laughed at your comments so much I wet myself with my dodgy pelvic muscles from throwing out kids at the tax payers expense.

As an employer I would not employ women of child bearing age. I would stick with older workers who are more reliable and grateful to have a job. I run a business not a charity

And you’re not alone. It’s much more common than people think. I think you’re deluded if you think older workers are grateful though. I was never grateful. If you employed me you got a bloody good deal: in early, willing to stay late if necessary and decades of experience. I expected you to treat me like a grown up and not attempt to micromanage me. Any intimidation that I should be grateful and I’d have walked.

I don't think anyone should equate scandinavian policies to what happens here. Massive influx of money from oil and gas allows for more social policies. Speaking with a Norwegian in Oslo recently. He said the trouble with Norway was too much money...not enough people. Hence high prices and wages.

Sweden doesn’t have oil money. They do have a high taxation policy though.

The world of male partners is not neatly divided into "Men who do 50% of the work as they should" versus "Bastards."

Couples everywhere are staring down the barrel of a deep recession with massive job insecurity. If the man already earns more than the women (which is true in the majority of couples), most couples will understandably make the decision that he will need to prioritize his work availability over hers.

Its the workers who are childfree that get to pick up the slack for all the "mothers" and "fathers" when they take time off for childcare. Plus its our taxes that pay for your child allowance, maternity leave and all the other subs and handouts you get.

How sweet of you to personally volunteer not to receive any pension or care in your old age.

You are aware that it is OTHER PEOPLE'S KIDS who will be providing your care in old age, and it will be their economic activity that ensure that your pension is worth something?

Three issues that are simple but never seemed to be resolved:

Sharing of of responsibility between parents where possible so not all on mother.

Provision of quality childcare options subsidised by employers and the state as an investment in the future of the state and the business.

Flexi working so if a parent needs to take time off they can make it up in evening or weekend so they do same hours and avoid having to justify the time to go to dentist etc and colleagues do not build up resentment.

It really isn't too hard to resolve this issue, but for whatever reason it seems to be impossible for policy makers to grasp.

Other people's kids who will be providing....
Exactly, we often speak as if children are are an indulgence, a hobby, something that parents do for thier personal gratification only but actually they are producing the next generation, without this vital work there can be no human progress

It seems to me when you hear a sentence with a but in it you know what’s coming next is justification for the unjustifiable as in “he shouldn’t have said that but....”
What he said if put into action actually breaks the law.
We could argue back and forth about who is responsible should men step up or is it women’s responsibility to make them as some are suggesting here, but the reality is that if we want to have anything approaching equality and we do want to have a next generation, as a society we should ensure decent affordable childcare. The would mean being provided by the state as is done in other countries. Let’s remember children benefit a society as a whole not just their individual families.

Not just their individual families
Whilst being a parent can be fulfilling in many ways children are huge cost and a burden to their parents, parents put in the work and make the sacrifices for free and society reaps the benefit of a new generation of taxpayers and innovators etc

@Heffalooomia

Not just their individual families Whilst being a parent can be fulfilling in many ways children are huge cost and a burden to their parents, parents put in the work and make the sacrifices for free and society reaps the benefit of a new generation of taxpayers and innovators etc

And society pays to educate those children and provide their healthcare. Let’s not pretend having children is an altruistic sacrifice made for the greater good because it isn’t.

Women are increasingly making the calculation that being a parent is not worth the sacrifice, populations are in decline
www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53409521
.....more women in education and work, as well as greater access to contraception, leading to women choosing to have fewer children.

Prof Ibrahim Abubakar, University College London (UCL), said: "If these predictions are even half accurate, migration will become a necessity for all nations and not an option.
"To be successful we need a fundamental rethink of global politics.
"The distribution of working-age populations will be crucial to whether humanity prospers or withers."
Are there any solutions?
Countries, including the UK, have used migration to boost their population and compensate for falling fertility rates.
However, this stops being the answer once nearly every country's population is shrinking.
"We will go from the period where it's a choice to open borders, or not, to frank competition for migrants, as there won't be enough," argues Prof Murray.
Some countries have tried policies such as enhanced maternity and paternity leave, free childcare, financial incentives and extra employment rights, but there is no clear answer.
Sweden has dragged its fertility rate up from 1.7 to 1.9, but other countries that have put significant effort into tackling the "baby bust" have struggled. Singapore still has a fertility rate of around 1.3.
Prof Murray says: "I find people laugh it off; they can't imagine it could be true, they think women will just decide to have more kids.

OP if it is a large corporate make a formal complaint to HR about what he said. With a bit of luck he might then think twice.

Unfortunately this kind of attitude will only change when Men start taking a proportion of parental leave but many women refuse to agree to losing some of their maternity leave. We need to stop this perception that child care is for women.

Depends on your definition of success I guess. An underpopulated planet would be a huge environmental success. Fewer people is good news.

An underpopulated planet would be a huge environmental success. Fewer people is good news.

Environmentally yes, but societally and economically no. It’s complicated.

A lot of posts on here are criticising the OPs decision, which is not the point- the point is the sexist comment that was made, her situation is irrelevant. She’s shouldn’t have to explain herself.

Since I lost my job due to coronavirus this year the number of part time jobs I have seen in my sector I could almost count on one hand. Before this year there were loads. I can't even find anywhere on 4 full days a week or even full time with a flexible start/finish time.

I wonder, those talking about mothers receiving government handouts... are you/have you been furloughed?
What do you think that is, if not government handouts?