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...

That seems like a really dumb policy since I had 4 under 6 as I turned 40! And still managed to do my full time job perfectly well. Foolish man.

I've heard this before, many times. This wouldn't be the official reason for not hiring a younger woman, but it's definitely in some hiring managers' thoughts.

On the other hand, and TBF, I've often thought that hiring too many young women could cripple a small business if they all had babies at the same time. There's the cost of paying someone on mat leave plus the cost of paying for maternity cover.

I've heard this before about excessive costs to small businesses if women are on maternity leave. But I was under the impression that the costs can be claimed back in their entirety from the government - is that not the case? So in essence you are only paying out for what you were paying out for before if you hire a maternity cover person?

Somehow the small business that I work for has survived several women taking mat leave whilst thriving as a business and expanding.

Iirc small businesses get over 100% back to help with finding cover

The government pays SMP. As far as I know, it does NOT pay the salary of anyone who get in to cover. So there are some costs there if, for example, you have to pay more because it's a contractor vs a full time employee. But it shouldn't be major. Similarly, there might be some additional effort because you have to train the person on cover to take over, integrate etc.

But the cost of the person wh is on maternity leave's SMP is covered by the government.

The cost of SMP is met by the Government, and not in full above a certain size.

In my sector most employers offer enhanced maternity pay well above that.

As for hiring temporary replacements, in many cases that is not a realistic option.

@AssassinatedBeauty

I've heard this before about excessive costs to small businesses if women are on maternity leave. But I was under the impression that the costs can be claimed back in their entirety from the government - is that not the case? So in essence you are only paying out for what you were paying out for before if you hire a maternity cover person?

Somehow the small business that I work for has survived several women taking mat leave whilst thriving as a business and expanding.

SMP can be claimed- many businesses will pay more than that.

I wonder if any of you have any conception of the additional work load which maternity leave adds?

Yep, had it said to me. Know people who do recruit older women only, trained professionals too.

I failed to get any sort of training place in a surveying firm, despite excellent results due to my age. Twat bloke high up in the profession told me "companies won't get enough work out of you".

Sadly OP this is more common than you think. Before he retired, my father worked for a small business (25 employees, mostly field based plus some office staff and a receptionist) and refused to hire women full stop. Never has, never will!

His reasoning is women need more time off and are less likely to want to work 9-5. Sexist, but sadly probably true.

I’m not sure he is a ‘lovely man’. He’s a sexist.

Also if you can bring yourself to do it, I would take him further to task. Does he think his daughter should be discriminated against because she has ovaries? I see no reason to make life socially comfortable for bigots.

What a twat

But I was under the impression that the costs can be claimed back in their entirety from the government

Can they? In which case ignore my earlier post

@CheeseMmmm

Iirc small businesses get over 100% back to help with finding cover

It's not just the cost, it's also investing time and energy into an employee who will understand the business and be able to work independently leaving him to do the other things, and then having them leave or be absent and having to retrain a new person just for 9 months, it's a massive hassle and also causes lost income. I do agree there is a risk of that with anybody leaving for all kinds of reasons, but I suppose maternity is the most obvious and worrying to him and it is a very small business. I guess there is no getting away from the fact that female biology will always be detrimental to us in some way no matter how many laws and policies are implemented.

@KimikosNightmare

I wonder if any of you have any conception of the additional work load which maternity leave adds?

I suspect from your tone that you think I have absolutely no clue and that you think I'm a total idiot as a result. Maybe you'd enjoy setting me right?

@spinachandchickpea

Also if you can bring yourself to do it, I would take him further to task. Does he think his daughter should be discriminated against because she has ovaries? I see no reason to make life socially comfortable for bigots.

He's not the type of person to reject his views because it might affect his daughters. Like I said he has no problem with his wife being treated in that way since he believes it is fair. For those saying he is not a nice person, that is why I found it so weird, he is a kind and loving person it's just that he puts his business and livelihood above feminism. (He does also have traditional views about mother's being sahm and he does work extremely hard so that his wife doesn't have to work - which she is happy with).

Well specifying over 40 is a bit silly imo as loads of women will still have young children when they're in their forties and some women get pregnant in their forties.

It's unfortunate but true IMO.

I remember a new female team member joining when I was a project manager. She had two consecutive maternity leaves and hadn't managed a single project by the two year mark as she had to pretty much be retrained from scratch after the 2nd mat leave. She kept her brand new company BMW throughout the entire period and they had to train up several temps to cover her.

so my relative, who is a lovely man, has a wife and young children and I want to emphasize is a really nice person

No he isn’t.

@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.

This. And professionals like teachers and nursery workers and nannies - they have their own families.

The model of a family with two FT working parents with fairly inflexible jobs doesn't work unless there is a fair salary involved for childcare. And even then it's often not great.

And from the other perspective, not all jobs lend themselves to flexible work policies.

Tbh, if I ran my own business and profitability was the absolute focus I wouldn't employ women of a particular age. It may be discriminatory but so is hiring the better candidate over somebody who seems less intelligent when you look at it objectively.

It's not our fault we are the childbearing sex but it's still a risk for companies who want consistent and reliable staffing.

He's not the type of person to reject his views because it might affect his daughters. Like I said he has no problem with his wife being treated in that way since he believes it is fair. For those saying he is not a nice person, that is why I found it so weird, he is a kind and loving person it's just that he puts his business and livelihood above feminism. (He does also have traditional views about mother's being sahm and he does work extremely hard so that his wife doesn't have to work - which she is happy with).

He may well not care at all about feminism as such, but it may be that he thinks there are other ways we should protect the interests of women with children, things like mother's allowances, for example. So not thinking that giving everyone equal employment regardless of family circumstances does not mean he doesn't care about making sure people are taken care of.

@KrispyKremeDream

It's unfortunate but true IMO.

I remember a new female team member joining when I was a project manager. She had two consecutive maternity leaves and hadn't managed a single project by the two year mark as she had to pretty much be retrained from scratch after the 2nd mat leave. She kept her brand new company BMW throughout the entire period and they had to train up several temps to cover her.

Yeah, I think this is more often the difficulty. You can't always just pick up someone on a temporary basis and slot them into a role. In some cases it's easy, in others, almost impossible.

My husband used to be in a job where it took him about three months to be trained adequately to do an important, though small, part of the job. You just had to have a certain amount of experience judging conditions. Covering a parental leave would have been very tricky.

He may well not care at all about feminism as such, but it may be that he thinks there are other ways we should protect the interests of women with children, things like mother's allowances, for example. So not thinking that giving everyone equal employment regardless of family circumstances does not mean he doesn't care about making sure people are taken care of.

Indeed there are a lot of women who are 'taken care of' but most feminists prefer to turn a blind eye to this as it's most certainly one of the biggest female privileges.

It makes a change from not employing women over the age of about 32, I suppose. Age discrimination is also an issue for women.