Hiring women over 40

[Estellelove]

I suppose I've never actually heard anyone say this out loud so it's thrown me I'm not sure what to think.. so my relative, who is a lovely man, has a wife and young children and I want to emphasize is a really nice person, has a small business and I was chatting to him recently he said he is looking to hire a bookkeeper/secretary as he is expanding his business. I mentioned the name of someone I know who is looking for a job and he said, oh if it's a woman I won't hire her unless she is over 40. When I asked why he said I can't take the chance of her getting pregnant or having young children who will need her and she will have to constantly take off. I was shocked and said as much, i asked how he would feel if people treated his wife this way but he was completely comfortable with it and said it's reasonable and he has to think of the good of his business rather than the advancement of feminism. He was completely unapologetic about it and I was quite stunned. I mean I can understand the reasoning, but was thrown that he would so readily admit it so easily. I suppose I am just asking for thoughts... I'm trying to process...

[CheeseMmmm]

They've not been reading the news about menopause have they...

Soon it will be not hiring any woman of child bearing age OR women who may be/ are in peri...

For those who feel that way.

With our biology and work set up by men for men, we lose whichever way we go.

[silentpool]

Given the rise in older parents, this seems like it won't solve his problem. Also with the Sandwich Generation, you have middle aged mums with young children and elderly parents to deal with. I think flexibility should be afforded to all workers, rather than just parents. It would stop this kind of thing or at least lessen it.

[FluffMagnet]

Logically I can see his point, even though it utterly infuriates me. However, I don't think the problem is women (apart from the obvious hampering of our biology around birth itself) but men who refuse to stand up and take care of their offspring in a meaningful way. Technically men should be equally likely to have childbearing responsibilities or take shared parental leave. But - you only have to take a glance at the boards here to see the general mentality is one of preserve the mqn's career at all costs, with family slotting in where convenient. Unless and until that changes, women will face this sort of discrimination and be seen as "unreliable" rather than society expecting women to keep too many plates spinning than can reasonably be handled.

[violetanemone]

It's actually crazy to assume that a woman over 40 will be more devoted to the business than a woman under 40.

Men also take parental leave now and are entitled to it.

There is someone I work with who is in her late 50's and takes more time off than anyone looking after her grandchildren.

It's so presumptuous and he is actually discriminating illegally as pregnancy and sex are both protected characteristics.

[Naunet]

So he’s going to break the law because otherwise he cant afford to run his silly little business?

[LaetitiaASD]

@FluffMagnet

Logically I can see his point, even though it utterly infuriates me. However, I don't think the problem is women (apart from the obvious hampering of our biology around birth itself) but men who refuse to stand up and take care of their offspring in a meaningful way. Technically men should be equally likely to have childbearing responsibilities or take shared parental leave. But - you only have to take a glance at the boards here to see the general mentality is one of preserve the mqn's career at all costs, with family slotting in where convenient. Unless and until that changes, women will face this sort of discrimination and be seen as "unreliable" rather than society expecting women to keep too many plates spinning than can reasonably be handled.

Pretty sure the childbearing bit will continue to need to be done by women!

[Motherofking]

This is not surprising. When I was 15 I did work experience in a firm and they were giving us ‘ tips’ on how to handle interviews . And they literally told us that when we get older and get married to lie about how long we’ve been married for . So for example if I’ve been married for a month say 5 years in an interview because they will assume since We’ve just gotten married we are likely to get pregnant soon and won’t hire us. Back then it made sense and I thought it was an awesome tip but looking back I’m realising how horrible it was. Something like that would never said today

[KimikosNightmare]

@violetanemone

It's actually crazy to assume that a woman over 40 will be more devoted to the business than a woman under 40.

Men also take parental leave now and are entitled to it.

There is someone I work with who is in her late 50's and takes more time off than anyone looking after her grandchildren.

It's so presumptuous and he is actually discriminating illegally as pregnancy and sex are both protected characteristics.

He is discriminating illegally.

But from his point of view, to address your points the uptake on paternity leave is still way below the uptake on maternity leave.

Taking time off to look after grandchildren is less disruptive than someone taking 12 months off plus accrued holidays, then coming back and shortly going off again for another 12 month plus; or several employees at the same time doing that. If the grandmother's absences become a strain they can be dealt with- she can be told either start using them holidays to cover, failing which stop assuming her grandchildren's care is her employer's problem.

Maternity leave does put a strain on a business. Most businesses accept it and get by somehow- they have no choice; including employers picking up the extra work themselves so that their "silly little business" will keep going.

[Flubbah]

Employers do discriminate illegally. They avoid women in their 30s who are likely to have kids. Some avoid hiring people from religions who would need time off during the day to pray. My previous employer also avoided hiring what he called “wokies” because he said at some point they’ll get offended about something and try to sue you. They don’t admit to the discrimination publicly of course, they make another excuse.

[CheeseMmmm]

A few years back it was reported that 54000 women a year lost job because pg.

My quick Google also said with covid 1 in 4 Pg women experienced discrimination. Didn't read more that's headline.

Been known for ages that pg discrimination is rife. The stock answer is. It's against the law so job done. Thing is law itself doesn't stop things. With this need to complain tribunal sue that sort of thing. Very few women do that for a variety of reasons.

So despite law, situation still crappy.

[CheeseMmmm]

The thing I find interesting with this is that as with other things that relate to our biology-

The fact is that loads of men want children. They can't grow them. We can.

And another thing. That's interesting. Is that the accepted truth about men and women on this is not actually true. But. Still stated as total definite fact.

In this case. Most women want children. Most men don't want children. Thus children are a woman thing. Nothing to do with men really.

Of course in real life as mentioned loads of men want children. Even though popular view is that they don't and give in to woman... (?).

So men and women want children.
Women are the ones who grow them.
Discriminating against women because of that is understandable.

I mean that's a bit of a sod for us isn't it!

[LobsterNapkin]

He's not wrong, though it's a generalization, that women employees are more likely to take of time etc related to having kids. And obviously they are also the ones who are going to actually have the babies which involves accommodation.

And small businesses are the ones that struggle with that the most, because they don't have the depth or staff or profit to cover the gaps.

It can be shocking to hear someone who doesn't seem to see any ethical necessity to try and mitigate that. On the other hand, from the business owners perspective, suger-coating it doesn't change the bottom line.

[EnrouteNOTonroute]

Unfortunately maternity leave and the need for cover could cripple a micro / small business, so he’s only saying what he feels would be right for his business. It may not sound fair but until men have more responsibility to look after their babies during working hours then this is how it is.

[user1477249785]

Here's the double bind: they won't hire women under 40 because they might get pregnant and won't hire women over 40 because they don't have the right experience (see above).

[CheeseMmmm]

'He's not wrong, though it's a generalization, that women employees are more likely to take of time etc related to having kids'

Is this definitely true? I mean I suspect so but don't actually know.

In my industry which is vv big employer, financial sector. In the last 10 years or so things have changed a lot in some respects.

Last 2 employers have had informal flexi- get work done and there when needed in person then fine.

Both have had majority male. Both have had plenty with primary age children.

Both have it normal that kids dentist, school pickup etc. Just put in diary. And loads of the men with kids doing just that. No more or less than women.

Not unusual for men to have partner same level or more high powered. WFH fine if need to wfh kid ill. No probs.

I know things are very different between industries roles etc. But the idea that it's a given the woman covers all that stuff full stop. It's not true.

[CheeseMmmm]

@user1477249785

Here's the double bind: they won't hire women under 40 because they might get pregnant and won't hire women over 40 because they don't have the right experience (see above).

Sorry had a look and can't find the post relating to experience. Why wouldn't women over 40 have right experience.

Some more points (although doubt there will be agreement!).

Generalising- and this is experience and talking to hr friends etc. No stats. So admit open to serious challenge!

Men if good tend to move on. Opportunities fewer in small company. Replacing expensive.
Actually women too who are ambitious etc.
I'd say that is more of a risk/ cost than babies maybe.

Women who get good benefits feel treated well can be v loyal. I've spoken to many who feel that way.

Generally still women are cheaper than men. Shitty but true.

Loads of men seem to get injured all the time. The amount of male colleagues I've had off for ages due to nasty sports type injuries is ridiculous!

And then there's the whole thing around not taking women's skills, talent etc into account at all.

I think loads of things would really benefit from more women. Esp anything with client contact etc. This prob sounds sexist but is true often (not always) IME. That men tend to prefer dealing with men and women with women. Nature/ nurture whatever it's a thing. Women tend to make most purchases/ make decision/ have big say in which electrician etc. Imo it's good business to have a mix.

[CheeseMmmm]

'It can be shocking to hear someone who doesn't seem to see any ethical necessity to try and mitigate that. '

Not shocking at all! I posted some stats upthread.

[Flubbah]

I suppose he sees the ethical necessity as supporting his family and keeping his business going. Not giving equal rights to a complete stranger. Maternity can cripple a small business. If it’s a really small business with maybe 8-10 employees on mid level salaries then they can probably reclaim the maternity pay, but they will still have the expense of advertising and replacing the employee with a temp. A larger business can only reclaim 92% of maternity pay so they can end up significantly out of pocket.

[FannyCann]

Check out the YouTube and Instagram channels of The Travelling Surrogate OP.

This young woman has worked out how to make the most of the system, having a baby for someone else and enjoying a year off on maternity leave to go travelling, funded in part by her "expenses" and post birth gift from the commissioning parents of a holiday. She has also monetised her YouTube and Instagram channels.
She absolutely intends to do it several times. Her mother was a surrogate mother six times and the TS has fond memories of family holidays paid for as a post birth gift.

I can think of three surrogate mothers who have been on tv/in the news who were doing it for work colleagues. So a business could be hit with a double whammy of maternity leave and adoption/parental leave for the commissioning parent/s.

If many young women follow her lead I guarantee this will be bad for ALL women.
Maternity benefits weren't intended to be used for a year off to go travelling.

[FannyCann]

Just to add I have seen it suggested (article in the guardian, sorry, lost the link) that there should be TWO weeks birth leave to allow the birthing parent to recover and all the rest should be parental leave, to cover adoption/surrogacy as well. If a woman needed a longer recovery time this could be taken as sick leave.

I do believe women could lose their maternity rights as we know them and if there is a flood of travelling surrogates this will hasten it.

[LobsterNapkin]

@CheeseMmmm

'It can be shocking to hear someone who doesn't seem to see any ethical necessity to try and mitigate that. '

Not shocking at all! I posted some stats upthread.

The OP was shocked though. I think it's different to hear it personally, rather than see it reflected in numbers.

[LobsterNapkin]

@CheeseMmmm

'He's not wrong, though it's a generalization, that women employees are more likely to take of time etc related to having kids'

Is this definitely true? I mean I suspect so but don't actually know.

In my industry which is vv big employer, financial sector. In the last 10 years or so things have changed a lot in some respects.

Last 2 employers have had informal flexi- get work done and there when needed in person then fine.

Both have had majority male. Both have had plenty with primary age children.

Both have it normal that kids dentist, school pickup etc. Just put in diary. And loads of the men with kids doing just that. No more or less than women.

Not unusual for men to have partner same level or more high powered. WFH fine if need to wfh kid ill. No probs.

I know things are very different between industries roles etc. But the idea that it's a given the woman covers all that stuff full stop. It's not true.

It's a generalization, which is different than a given, but yes, I think it's true. It's why women are more likely to work PT, or have slower career progression after kids, when it is as fast before. It's also been demonstrated since covid that this is the case.

[MarshaBradyo]

The sector I’m in is pretty ageist

But also a lot of SME

You tend to get huge amount of 20s to 30s then drops off for females

A few 40 plus, getting slightly better but only just.

[glimpsing]

Employers have to be less discriminatory and more flexible, childcare needs to be better quality, more inclusive, reliable and affordable, fathers have to take on more responsibility for childcare.

The bottom line is that society cannot do the job of the family. We may pay professionals to do certain tasks but they don't care enough to do everything within their power which is what is needed regarding raising children. If there is family breakdown an alternate support network needs to be found but the best ones generally aren't the type you can buy.

Businesses are run for profit. Unless they are compensated for losses we rely on the goodness of those in charge not to be discriminatory in some way.

[Triffid1]

All these people saying the reasoning is sound, if unfair. Bollocks to that. If workplaces were more supportive generally, it wouldn't matter whether you hired a man or a woman, because care for children etc would be split. But instead, men like your relative are quite happy to perpetuate the ridiculousness that it must always be women.

The cost thing is understandable but only up to a point - if you can't afford enhanced maternity pay, the SMP is covered by the government. Yes, there may be some additional costs if hiring cover is a bit more expensive than your full time employee but I'd imagine that's easily covered in today's environment because women are routinely paid less (and please, don't tell me that the gap for women doing the same job is not there any more because of course it is. It IS possible that within a single large organisation these things have changed slightly*, but a small business will absolutely get away with paying a woman slightly less than a man in the situation referenced by the OP. And in fact, women often accept this, seeing some increased flexibility as the pay off).

The reality is that your relative doesn't want to hire a woman and be part of the solution because it is easier for him to continue to hire men, who are all like minded and who are all quite happy to avoid the effort involved in looking after children and homes.

• But more often what happens is that the high paying jobs are given to men and the low paying jobs are given to women. So sure, theoretically, there is pay parity for the same roles, but in reality, women are pushed down a path of less well paid roles, often even if it's only on paper.