bean29
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 22:26:57 GMT -5
Posts: 10,213
|
Post by bean29 on Mar 10, 2016 10:07:45 GMT -5
Society expects women to be the nurturer. When I call parents, I tend to call the mother. Why is that, do you suppose? Somewhere along the way, maybe in my DD's HS years my husband got on the school contact list. I suspect when a student is absent or tardy, they send notification to both parents if they have contact info.
I know in DD's senior year of HS my husband always got the same notifications from the school that I did. I think that is appropriate b/c if you are a two career family you often tag team who is going to deal with issues at school and might miss discussing issues with your partner if you are busy.
When I was hired for my current position I really think they targeted to hire a woman, who was married and the husband was carrying the family health insurance. I was aware of the potential mine field health insurance could pose even 10 years ago, and I know I was asked a few illegal questions in my interview. I was intentionally vague in my answers.
I have pretty much always accepted my jobs at the wage or salary that was offered, and as someone else said, I only negotiated additional vacation time etc. I did force myself to fight for equitable benefits for employees and I have asked for a raise nearly every time someone else got a raise (I do payroll ). Still I think I am underpaid for my level of responsibility. My DH really wants me to look for a different job, b/c I put in a lot of hours and he would rather see me work less hours (I want to say even if I make less money, but he is a Man, and he feels I should work less hours and make more $$).
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Mar 10, 2016 10:15:58 GMT -5
But right there says it all. As a mom, I always wanted to be the one taking care of my child when they were sick. I can't say my ex ever thought "gee, I would much rather be home with my child who is sick than be at work". He went to work like it was just another day.
Again, I'm only going by what I saw in life and have no scientific evidence of anything. For me, it was a strong maternal pull that had me wanting to be with the kids when they were sick, wanting to see them at their school events, etc. Their dad just didn't have that same pull. He would do it if I couldn't
yeah, but IMO it shouldn't be just about what the mom wants but what is best for the family. If it's best for the family for the mom to work part time/mommy track/handle all the sick days for the kids, then that should happen. But I always wanted a partner who would split everything with me, even the childcare duties. I didn't make DS by myself so I don't expect to do all the work. X had his moments in the beginning but he is an extremely involved dad. And even though we're not together anymore, I'm glad I chose to have my son with him. It is obviously best to choose someone that compliments your parenting style and desires. I wanted to be the primary parent and never resented him for allowing me to be that. I was not meant to be with a man who wanted to be the primary care giver.
To be clear, financially it would have been a better move for me to continue working a ton of hours and let him stay home or put him on a daddy track. But that is not what I wanted in life. I wanted to be the one with the kids.
|
|
bean29
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 22:26:57 GMT -5
Posts: 10,213
|
Post by bean29 on Mar 10, 2016 10:19:10 GMT -5
I did almost all of the sick child/Dr. appts/PT appts with DD and since she had knee issues I did a lot of schedule adjustments to shuttle her back and forth. She got her Drivers license at 16 and she did a good number of routine visits PT or Dr. office visits for minor aliments on her own as long as the insurance paper work was in order.
My DH's schedule is and was more flexible in the mornings. Evening school events were not easy for him to do, but I got smart and started sending him text reminders and things got a little more do-able. But, we just worked out a system where daytime school events he handled and lots of evening stuff I did on my own. DH's career provides us a very good lifestyle, so I was always careful not to present to my kids that I felt there was anything wrong with him having business commitments.
We had it really good b/c we had super grandparents backing us up with daycare and transportation when we couldn't do it. I work for a small family run company and we have everything here from two career families to divorced parents. They allow schedule adjustments for family issues as much as possible.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Mar 10, 2016 10:20:43 GMT -5
I just did a quick google search....60% of accountants/auditors are female...seems like my field is less likely to discriminate when hiring which is maybe why I'm not seeing what you all are talking about. of course, only 19% of partners in firms are female but I think that has more to do with work/life balance. In my firm, you couldn't be a partner with a flex schedule/limited travel. It just didn't work.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Mar 10, 2016 10:22:02 GMT -5
yeah, but IMO it shouldn't be just about what the mom wants but what is best for the family. If it's best for the family for the mom to work part time/mommy track/handle all the sick days for the kids, then that should happen. But I always wanted a partner who would split everything with me, even the childcare duties. I didn't make DS by myself so I don't expect to do all the work. X had his moments in the beginning but he is an extremely involved dad. And even though we're not together anymore, I'm glad I chose to have my son with him. It is obviously best to choose someone that compliments your parenting style and desires. I wanted to be the primary parent and never resented him for allowing me to be that. I was not meant to be with a man who wanted to be the primary care giver.
To be clear, financially it would have been a better move for me to continue working a ton of hours and let him stay home or put him on a daddy track. But that is not what I wanted in life. I wanted to be the one with the kids.
I'm glad it worked out for you. Well, you know what I mean. I thought I wanted to be a SAHM/work part time but I just don't have that personality. I felt guilty over that for a long time, but I finally realize that I'm not a bad mother if I don't want to be home with my kiddo all the time.... even though that's changing now that he's getting older. I'm just not a baby person, lol!
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Mar 10, 2016 10:25:41 GMT -5
It is obviously best to choose someone that compliments your parenting style and desires. I wanted to be the primary parent and never resented him for allowing me to be that. I was not meant to be with a man who wanted to be the primary care giver.
To be clear, financially it would have been a better move for me to continue working a ton of hours and let him stay home or put him on a daddy track. But that is not what I wanted in life. I wanted to be the one with the kids.
I'm glad it worked out for you. Well, you know what I mean. I thought I wanted to be a SAHM/work part time but I just don't have that personality. I felt guilty over that for a long time, but I finally realize that I'm not a bad mother if I don't want to be home with my kiddo all the time.... even though that's changing now that he's getting older. I'm just not a baby person, lol! No, it totally worked out for me even though I'm divorced. I had the life that I wanted when my kids were younger. I worked two days a week, some of that at home and was able to spend the rest of the time being mommy. I was fortunate that my firm needed me more than I needed a job!lol I loved every minute of it and wouldn't have changed a thing. I still pulled down a salary that was more than most people make is my area so it isnt' like I hurt us financially.
ETA: Im not saying that my way is the right way or the only way. I'm just saying from what I've seen, my female friends were much more likely to either stay home full time, go on a flex schedule or limit their travel. I honestly cant' think of any that continued to work the hours we worked before having kids. That isn't the case for the males. again, no scientific research behind it..just what I saw. Which is why I dont' believe there is gender bias in pay differences. In my case and my friends' cases, we chose to limit ourselves and deserved less promotions and pay because of it.
|
|
wvugurl26
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 15:25:30 GMT -5
Posts: 21,890
|
Post by wvugurl26 on Mar 10, 2016 10:38:40 GMT -5
I'm glad it worked out for you. Well, you know what I mean. I thought I wanted to be a SAHM/work part time but I just don't have that personality. I felt guilty over that for a long time, but I finally realize that I'm not a bad mother if I don't want to be home with my kiddo all the time.... even though that's changing now that he's getting older. I'm just not a baby person, lol! No, it totally worked out for me even though I'm divorced. I had the life that I wanted when my kids were younger. I worked two days a week, some of that at home and was able to spend the rest of the time being mommy. I was fortunate that my firm needed me more than I needed a job!lol I loved every minute of it and wouldn't have changed a thing. I still pulled down a salary that was more than most people make is my area so it isnt' like I hurt us financially.
ETA: Im not saying that my way is the right way or the only way. I'm just saying from what I've seen, my female friends were much more likely to either stay home full time, go on a flex schedule or limit their travel. I honestly cant' think of any that continued to work the hours we worked before having kids. That isn't the case for the males. again, no scientific research behind it..just what I saw. Which is why I dont' believe there is gender bias in pay differences. In my case and my friends' cases, we chose to limit ourselves and deserved less promotions and pay because of it.
Hell I don't have kids and I don't want to work those hours. It's more important to be to have a life and enjoy it.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Mar 10, 2016 10:40:29 GMT -5
No, it totally worked out for me even though I'm divorced. I had the life that I wanted when my kids were younger. I worked two days a week, some of that at home and was able to spend the rest of the time being mommy. I was fortunate that my firm needed me more than I needed a job!lol I loved every minute of it and wouldn't have changed a thing. I still pulled down a salary that was more than most people make is my area so it isnt' like I hurt us financially.
ETA: Im not saying that my way is the right way or the only way. I'm just saying from what I've seen, my female friends were much more likely to either stay home full time, go on a flex schedule or limit their travel. I honestly cant' think of any that continued to work the hours we worked before having kids. That isn't the case for the males. again, no scientific research behind it..just what I saw. Which is why I dont' believe there is gender bias in pay differences. In my case and my friends' cases, we chose to limit ourselves and deserved less promotions and pay because of it.
Hell I don't have kids and I don't want to work those hours. It's more important to be to have a life and enjoy it. lol! Exactly.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 13, 2024 17:21:00 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2016 11:32:35 GMT -5
I just did a quick google search....60% of accountants/auditors are female...seems like my field is less likely to discriminate when hiring which is maybe why I'm not seeing what you all are talking about. of course, only 19% of partners in firms are female but I think that has more to do with work/life balance. In my firm, you couldn't be a partner with a flex schedule/limited travel. It just didn't work. 56.4% of college students are female (Forbes article). Who are they going to hire if they don't hire a proportionate share of females? You have to save some males to be doctors, lawyers, etc. as well. I think the partner statistic is more telling. Women are welcome in the lower echelons. We are the vast majority of teachers, but not of administrators. 50% of the law students are female, but only 25% are the judges. Add in your statistics about accountants. You get the idea. You can say that women choose to take the mommy track, but many have no choice. Is that the employers' fault? Maybe to some extent. I can't remember if it was you or Miss Margarita (get my drinks mixed up), but one of you was adamant that you would never hire a woman of child-bearing age again. It was too much for the team to have to cover. That kind of attitude keeps women down. It was so startling, too, because it was a woman discriminating against a woman.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Mar 10, 2016 11:40:06 GMT -5
I just did a quick google search....60% of accountants/auditors are female...seems like my field is less likely to discriminate when hiring which is maybe why I'm not seeing what you all are talking about. of course, only 19% of partners in firms are female but I think that has more to do with work/life balance. In my firm, you couldn't be a partner with a flex schedule/limited travel. It just didn't work. 56.4% of college students are female (Forbes article). Who are they going to hire if they don't hire a proportionate share of females? You have to save some males to be doctors, lawyers, etc. as well. I think the partner statistic is more telling. Women are welcome in the lower echelons. We are the vast majority of teachers, but not of administrators. 50% of the law students are female, but only 25% are the judges. Add in your statistics about accountants. You get the idea. You can say that women choose to take the mommy track, but many have no choice. Is that the employers' fault? Maybe to some extent. I can't remember if it was you or Miss Margarita (get my drinks mixed up), but one of you was adamant that you would never hire a woman of child-bearing age again. It was too much for the team to have to cover. That kind of attitude keeps women down. It was so startling, too, because it was a woman discriminating against a woman. It was me...but I did hire a women and she is out on maternity leave right now! So that actually proves my bias...luckily she got pregnant as soon as I freaking hired her so by law she isn't entitled to 12 weeks maternity leave. She gets 6 weeks and honestly, that is a major strain on my department. This is the second time in my four years with this company that I have been left picking up the slack for a woman on maternity. Like it or not, it does cause pain for those of us left holding the bag. Yes, I was able to hire a temp to pick up some low level duties but realistically, a temp isn't helping all that much because this person did higher level work that a temp isn't going to pick up.
And yes, we can all say that a man can go out and have a hip replaced but that is not something that has caused me pain in my years of working.
When I worked at the firm maternity leave wasn't that big of an issue because we had so many people rolling in and rolling out (major turnover) that it just wasn't that difficult to replace someone. It is much more difficult when you are a department of 6 or 7 and are heavily reliant on each person's contribution. So people might not like me saying it but higher level positions are harder to fill for 6-12 weeks at a clip and leave those behind really struggling.
I'm not sure what you mean about the mommy track being the employers' fault. In my field, you can either put in the hours or you can't. If you can't, you shouldn't be up for the same promotions or pay that others than can are up for. I'm sorry if you disagree with that statement. If I were working 70 hour week and excelling at my job (key distinction) I would not be happy if I was paid the same as someone working a flat 40 hours a week and excelling at their job. If that person could absorb more work we would both be able to work 55 hours a week and share the travel. I (or the person going the extra mile) should get promoted and paid more than the person not willing to go the extra mile. And I say that as someone who wasn't willing to go the extra mile when the kids were little.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Mar 10, 2016 12:12:47 GMT -5
IMO, I don't think anybody should be required to work 70 hours a week for a job. If you're an owner and want to in order to build up your own business, that's one thing. Anyone less than an owner should not be required to or expected to.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Mar 10, 2016 12:20:06 GMT -5
IMO, I don't think anybody should be required to work 70 hours a week for a job. If you're an owner and want to in order to build up your own business, that's one thing. Anyone less than an owner should not be required to or expected to. Then you stay out of public accounting...and depending on the company, finance.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Mar 10, 2016 12:23:54 GMT -5
IMO, I don't think anybody should be required to work 70 hours a week for a job. If you're an owner and want to in order to build up your own business, that's one thing. Anyone less than an owner should not be required to or expected to. Then you stay out of public accounting...and depending on the company, finance. I'm alluding to how salaries are structured to take advantage of people. I think across the board, to require 70 hour weeks of anyone is ridiculous.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Mar 10, 2016 12:28:05 GMT -5
I can see a 70 hour week here and there but definitely not as a normal thing. But we as a society created that monster - that we need to work insane hours to get ahead.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Mar 10, 2016 12:37:36 GMT -5
Then you stay out of public accounting...and depending on the company, finance. I'm alluding to how salaries are structured to take advantage of people. I think across the board, to require 70 hour weeks of anyone is ridiculous. When I was in public and working regular hours, 70 hour weeks durig tax season were the norm. It wasn't like that all year.
|
|
steph08
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 3, 2011 13:06:01 GMT -5
Posts: 5,508
|
Post by steph08 on Mar 10, 2016 13:17:49 GMT -5
56.4% of college students are female (Forbes article). Who are they going to hire if they don't hire a proportionate share of females? You have to save some males to be doctors, lawyers, etc. as well. I think the partner statistic is more telling. Women are welcome in the lower echelons. We are the vast majority of teachers, but not of administrators. 50% of the law students are female, but only 25% are the judges. Add in your statistics about accountants. You get the idea. You can say that women choose to take the mommy track, but many have no choice. Is that the employers' fault? Maybe to some extent. I can't remember if it was you or Miss Margarita (get my drinks mixed up), but one of you was adamant that you would never hire a woman of child-bearing age again. It was too much for the team to have to cover. That kind of attitude keeps women down. It was so startling, too, because it was a woman discriminating against a woman. It was me...but I did hire a women and she is out on maternity leave right now! So that actually proves my bias...luckily she got pregnant as soon as I freaking hired her so by law she isn't entitled to 12 weeks maternity leave. She gets 6 weeks and honestly, that is a major strain on my department. This is the second time in my four years with this company that I have been left picking up the slack for a woman on maternity. Like it or not, it does cause pain for those of us left holding the bag. Yes, I was able to hire a temp to pick up some low level duties but realistically, a temp isn't helping all that much because this person did higher level work that a temp isn't going to pick up.
And yes, we can all say that a man can go out and have a hip replaced but that is not something that has caused me pain in my years of working.
When I worked at the firm maternity leave wasn't that big of an issue because we had so many people rolling in and rolling out (major turnover) that it just wasn't that difficult to replace someone. It is much more difficult when you are a department of 6 or 7 and are heavily reliant on each person's contribution. So people might not like me saying it but higher level positions are harder to fill for 6-12 weeks at a clip and leave those behind really struggling.
I'm not sure what you mean about the mommy track being the employers' fault. In my field, you can either put in the hours or you can't. If you can't, you shouldn't be up for the same promotions or pay that others than can are up for. I'm sorry if you disagree with that statement. If I were working 70 hour week and excelling at my job (key distinction) I would not be happy if I was paid the same as someone working a flat 40 hours a week and excelling at their job. If that person could absorb more work we would both be able to work 55 hours a week and share the travel. I (or the person going the extra mile) should get promoted and paid more than the person not willing to go the extra mile. And I say that as someone who wasn't willing to go the extra mile when the kids were little.
That's just shitty. You would prefer to deny a job to a hardworking woman who would probably gladly give 5/10/20 years of good work to you/your company because she might inconvenience you for two months.
I put in 8 good, hard years at my company and for my boss before I took my first maternity leave - they can pick up the slack for 8 weeks (and when planned appropriately, isn't that much extra work because I did as much as possible in advance).
This time, it is a little bit more of a pickle because of my due date (didn't plan on getting pregnant on the first month trying), but everything will be done in advance and I will log on to do some necessary tasks 3-4 weeks out from birth to help out (someone else can do them, but it will be easier and quicker for me to take care of them). But God willing, I'll put in another good, hard 8 years at this company after this last maternity leave to "make up" for something that is my right to take.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Mar 10, 2016 13:35:26 GMT -5
It was me...but I did hire a women and she is out on maternity leave right now! So that actually proves my bias...luckily she got pregnant as soon as I freaking hired her so by law she isn't entitled to 12 weeks maternity leave. She gets 6 weeks and honestly, that is a major strain on my department. This is the second time in my four years with this company that I have been left picking up the slack for a woman on maternity. Like it or not, it does cause pain for those of us left holding the bag. Yes, I was able to hire a temp to pick up some low level duties but realistically, a temp isn't helping all that much because this person did higher level work that a temp isn't going to pick up.
And yes, we can all say that a man can go out and have a hip replaced but that is not something that has caused me pain in my years of working.
When I worked at the firm maternity leave wasn't that big of an issue because we had so many people rolling in and rolling out (major turnover) that it just wasn't that difficult to replace someone. It is much more difficult when you are a department of 6 or 7 and are heavily reliant on each person's contribution. So people might not like me saying it but higher level positions are harder to fill for 6-12 weeks at a clip and leave those behind really struggling.
I'm not sure what you mean about the mommy track being the employers' fault. In my field, you can either put in the hours or you can't. If you can't, you shouldn't be up for the same promotions or pay that others than can are up for. I'm sorry if you disagree with that statement. If I were working 70 hour week and excelling at my job (key distinction) I would not be happy if I was paid the same as someone working a flat 40 hours a week and excelling at their job. If that person could absorb more work we would both be able to work 55 hours a week and share the travel. I (or the person going the extra mile) should get promoted and paid more than the person not willing to go the extra mile. And I say that as someone who wasn't willing to go the extra mile when the kids were little.
That's just shitty. You would prefer to deny a job to a hardworking woman who would probably gladly give 5/10/20 years of good work to you/your company because she might inconvenience you for two months.
I put in 8 good, hard years at my company and for my boss before I took my first maternity leave - they can pick up the slack for 8 weeks (and when planned appropriately, isn't that much extra work because I did as much as possible in advance).
This time, it is a little bit more of a pickle because of my due date (didn't plan on getting pregnant on the first month trying), but everything will be done in advance and I will log on to do some necessary tasks 3-4 weeks out from birth to help out (someone else can do them, but it will be easier and quicker for me to take care of them). But God willing, I'll put in another good, hard 8 years at this company after this last maternity leave to "make up" for something that is my right to take.
I'm not sure how you think my person could have done her job in advance...not sure what you do but in Finance you can't just do things two months early. Which means 50 hours of work done each week (typical hours worked in my department...not including reporting week which tends to be more) has to be spread among the 5 remaning people, who are already working 50 hours a week....so yes, we suck it up but if I have the chance I won't be "sucking it up" again anytime soon.
You are legally entitled to take your maternity and I can't legally not hire a woman of child-bearing age...but two equally qualified people I would have to say I would opt for the one who didn't think I should just "suck it up" while she was out every few years...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 13, 2024 17:21:00 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2016 14:28:17 GMT -5
That's just shitty. You would prefer to deny a job to a hardworking woman who would probably gladly give 5/10/20 years of good work to you/your company because she might inconvenience you for two months.
I put in 8 good, hard years at my company and for my boss before I took my first maternity leave - they can pick up the slack for 8 weeks (and when planned appropriately, isn't that much extra work because I did as much as possible in advance).
This time, it is a little bit more of a pickle because of my due date (didn't plan on getting pregnant on the first month trying), but everything will be done in advance and I will log on to do some necessary tasks 3-4 weeks out from birth to help out (someone else can do them, but it will be easier and quicker for me to take care of them). But God willing, I'll put in another good, hard 8 years at this company after this last maternity leave to "make up" for something that is my right to take.
I'm not sure how you think my person could have done her job in advance...not sure what you do but in Finance you can't just do things two months early. Which means 50 hours of work done each week (typical hours worked in my department...not including reporting week which tends to be more) has to be spread among the 5 remaning people, who are already working 50 hours a week....so yes, we suck it up but if I have the chance I won't be "sucking it up" again anytime soon.
You are legally entitled to take your maternity and I can't legally not hire a woman of child-bearing age...but two equally qualified people I would have to say I would opt for the one who didn't think I should just "suck it up" while she was out every few years...
So what you are saying is that women should have to choose between being mothers or working for your firm. Not even that . . . you won't even give her the benefit of the doubt. She might not even be trying to conceive or able to conceive, but if she's in that biological window, you would give preference to the man. That is so wrong. This is a perfect example of unequal opportunity that still exists today. The really ironic part is that you are a woman.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Mar 10, 2016 14:37:51 GMT -5
I'm not sure how you think my person could have done her job in advance...not sure what you do but in Finance you can't just do things two months early. Which means 50 hours of work done each week (typical hours worked in my department...not including reporting week which tends to be more) has to be spread among the 5 remaning people, who are already working 50 hours a week....so yes, we suck it up but if I have the chance I won't be "sucking it up" again anytime soon.
You are legally entitled to take your maternity and I can't legally not hire a woman of child-bearing age...but two equally qualified people I would have to say I would opt for the one who didn't think I should just "suck it up" while she was out every few years...
So what you are saying is that women should have to choose between being mothers or working for your firm. Not even that . . . you won't even give her the benefit of the doubt. She might not even be trying to conceive or able to conceive, but if she's in that biological window, you would give preference to the man. That is so wrong. This is a perfect example of unequal opportunity that still exists today. The really ironic part is that you are a woman. Im not sure why you say unequal opportunity on my part. This candidate that pretty much got knocked up on the way home from me offering her the job was the best fit and I hired her. For me not to hire the best candidate because she was female would be illegal. If I have two equally qualified candidates and I choose one over the other there is absolutely nothing illegal in that.
but I will say that I'm sick of covering for women on maternity leave at this company. We don't have the qualified man power to do it. This isn't a low level position where some idiot off the street can cover for her.
|
|
skubikky
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 7:37:12 GMT -5
Posts: 3,044
|
Post by skubikky on Mar 10, 2016 14:39:13 GMT -5
Just because some women here have not experienced it does not mean it does not exist - just saying. Yes. Some of the statements made it seem as if it happens to everyone. I described my experience which was contrary to that.
|
|
emma1420
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2011 15:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,430
|
Post by emma1420 on Mar 10, 2016 14:45:14 GMT -5
So what you are saying is that women should have to choose between being mothers or working for your firm. Not even that . . . you won't even give her the benefit of the doubt. She might not even be trying to conceive or able to conceive, but if she's in that biological window, you would give preference to the man. That is so wrong. This is a perfect example of unequal opportunity that still exists today. The really ironic part is that you are a woman. Im not sure why you say unequal opportunity on my part. This candidate that pretty much got knocked up on the way home from me offering her the job was the best fit and I hired her. For me not to hire the best candidate because she was female would be illegal. If I have two equally qualified candidates and I choose one over the other there is absolutely nothing illegal in that.
but I will say that I'm sick of covering for women on maternity leave at this company. We don't have the qualified man power to do it. This isn't a low level position where some idiot off the street can cover for her.
But, i think that is an issue with your company not providing the appropriate help when it's needed. I have a similar issue where I work. I work for a small company and when someone goes on maternity leave it often means that I get to work another full-time job when they are gone. I have issues with it, but the issues these days are with my employer. They are the ones who are responsible for making sure that there is adequate enough staffing to make sure everything gets completed.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Mar 10, 2016 14:47:19 GMT -5
Just because some women here have not experienced it does not mean it does not exist - just saying. Yes. Some of the statements made it seem as if it happens to everyone. I described my experience which was contrary to that. My experience was also contrary to it.
|
|
beergut
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 11, 2011 13:58:39 GMT -5
Posts: 2,184
|
Post by beergut on Mar 10, 2016 14:49:09 GMT -5
But right there says it all. As a mom, I always wanted to be the one taking care of my child when they were sick. I can't say my ex ever thought "gee, I would much rather be home with my child who is sick than be at work". He went to work like it was just another day.
Again, I'm only going by what I saw in life and have no scientific evidence of anything. For me, it was a strong maternal pull that had me wanting to be with the kids when they were sick, wanting to see them at their school events, etc. Their dad just didn't have that same pull. He would do it if I couldn't
yeah, but IMO it shouldn't be just about what the mom wants but what is best for the family. If it's best for the family for the mom to work part time/mommy track/handle all the sick days for the kids, then that should happen. But I always wanted a partner who would split everything with me, even the childcare duties. I didn't make DS by myself so I don't expect to do all the work. X had his moments in the beginning but he is an extremely involved dad. And even though we're not together anymore, I'm glad I chose to have my son with him.That is one of the best compliments you can give a father.
|
|
techguy
Junior Member
Joined: May 1, 2013 15:59:05 GMT -5
Posts: 172
|
Post by techguy on Mar 10, 2016 14:51:43 GMT -5
I'm not sure how you think my person could have done her job in advance...not sure what you do but in Finance you can't just do things two months early. Which means 50 hours of work done each week (typical hours worked in my department...not including reporting week which tends to be more) has to be spread among the 5 remaning people, who are already working 50 hours a week....so yes, we suck it up but if I have the chance I won't be "sucking it up" again anytime soon.
You are legally entitled to take your maternity and I can't legally not hire a woman of child-bearing age...but two equally qualified people I would have to say I would opt for the one who didn't think I should just "suck it up" while she was out every few years...
So what you are saying is that women should have to choose between being mothers or working for your firm. Not even that . . . you won't even give her the benefit of the doubt. She might not even be trying to conceive or able to conceive, but if she's in that biological window, you would give preference to the man. That is so wrong. This is a perfect example of unequal opportunity that still exists today. The really ironic part is that you are a woman. Well, SouthernSusana, have you picked up the slack of a co-worker or subordinate who is absent for weeks/months at a time? Maybe the jobs yo had could tolerate missing workers. Some jobs cannot without it being a burden to the rest of the team. I can totally see Miss T's point where it does suck to carry the weight of another worker who is absent.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Mar 10, 2016 14:51:46 GMT -5
Im not sure why you say unequal opportunity on my part. This candidate that pretty much got knocked up on the way home from me offering her the job was the best fit and I hired her. For me not to hire the best candidate because she was female would be illegal. If I have two equally qualified candidates and I choose one over the other there is absolutely nothing illegal in that.
but I will say that I'm sick of covering for women on maternity leave at this company. We don't have the qualified man power to do it. This isn't a low level position where some idiot off the street can cover for her.
But, i think that is an issue with your company not providing the appropriate help when it's needed. I have a similar issue where I work. I work for a small company and when someone goes on maternity leave it often means that I get to work another full-time job when they are gone. I have issues with it, but the issues these days are with my employer. They are the ones who are responsible for making sure that there is adequate enough staffing to make sure everything gets completed. I think the higher you go up the ladder the harder it is to replace someone temporarily without a lot of pain by others. If my AP clerk went out for 6-12 weeks, it would suck because she is super efficient but realistically we could train someone and have them up and running ok in about a week. When my Senior Financial Reporting person goes out it isn't like I can call the temp agency and get someone to cover. It took me months to train her so that she was able to function independently. At that level, unless someone was between jobs who is going to take a higher level temp position? For a year or so maybe, but 6 weeks? I think it would be a miracle to find a qualified person willing to do that...who wouldn't bail if a great full-time opportunity opened up.
So we can all sit here and bitch about people like me who are sick of dealing with maternity leaves or we can admit that at higher level positions it really IS a huge burden on those left behind and understand why someone like me might lean towards someone that probably won't pop out a baby in the next year....
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Mar 10, 2016 14:52:57 GMT -5
So what you are saying is that women should have to choose between being mothers or working for your firm. Not even that . . . you won't even give her the benefit of the doubt. She might not even be trying to conceive or able to conceive, but if she's in that biological window, you would give preference to the man. That is so wrong. This is a perfect example of unequal opportunity that still exists today. The really ironic part is that you are a woman. Well, SouthernSusana, have you picked up the slack of a co-worker or subordinate who is absent for weeks/months at a time? Maybe the jobs yo had could tolerate missing workers. Some jobs cannot without it being a burden to the rest of the team. I can totally see Miss T's point where it does suck to carry the weight of another worker who is absent. Considering she is a teacher there is no way she had to pick up the slack for another teacher. A substitute was called in to cover the classes.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Mar 10, 2016 15:03:50 GMT -5
Im not sure why you say unequal opportunity on my part. This candidate that pretty much got knocked up on the way home from me offering her the job was the best fit and I hired her. For me not to hire the best candidate because she was female would be illegal. If I have two equally qualified candidates and I choose one over the other there is absolutely nothing illegal in that.
but I will say that I'm sick of covering for women on maternity leave at this company. We don't have the qualified man power to do it. This isn't a low level position where some idiot off the street can cover for her.
But, i think that is an issue with your company not providing the appropriate help when it's needed. I have a similar issue where I work. I work for a small company and when someone goes on maternity leave it often means that I get to work another full-time job when they are gone. I have issues with it, but the issues these days are with my employer. They are the ones who are responsible for making sure that there is adequate enough staffing to make sure everything gets completed. if there are 6-7 people all working 50+ hours per week, your company really should hire another person so you can all work a more livable schedule and can more easily cover for absences. (I'm assuming everyone should be able to take their vacation time without too much trouble.)
|
|
beergut
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 11, 2011 13:58:39 GMT -5
Posts: 2,184
|
Post by beergut on Mar 10, 2016 15:05:00 GMT -5
I'm not sure how you think my person could have done her job in advance...not sure what you do but in Finance you can't just do things two months early. Which means 50 hours of work done each week (typical hours worked in my department...not including reporting week which tends to be more) has to be spread among the 5 remaning people, who are already working 50 hours a week....so yes, we suck it up but if I have the chance I won't be "sucking it up" again anytime soon.
You are legally entitled to take your maternity and I can't legally not hire a woman of child-bearing age...but two equally qualified people I would have to say I would opt for the one who didn't think I should just "suck it up" while she was out every few years...
So what you are saying is that women should have to choose between being mothers or working for your firm. Not even that . . . you won't even give her the benefit of the doubt. She might not even be trying to conceive or able to conceive, but if she's in that biological window, you would give preference to the man. That is so wrong. This is a perfect example of unequal opportunity that still exists today. The really ironic part is that you are a woman. She's trying to do what is best for the business. Having people out for two months at a time isn't good for the business, so she's trying to hire someone who there is less possibility of having that issue. That isn't 'unequal opportunity', that is just smart.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Mar 10, 2016 15:15:17 GMT -5
Just because some women here have not experienced it does not mean it does not exist - just saying. Yes. Some of the statements made it seem as if it happens to everyone. I described my experience which was contrary to that. This is so very true. I've worked in 2 labs since I graduated from college, with 2 different supervisors. In the first one, women (even though all of us were unencumbered at the time, so no children excuse) were definitely considered second class citizens. In the lab where there were 5 males and 3 females, despite the fact that the education and experience of the 3 females was comparable to that of the males, all 3 of us were paid way less. The lab also lost all 3 females in a very short order. There were also some other issues in that the females were charged with the responsibility of dealing with things that were more of a hazard than males. I was perfectly willing to clean up my fractured tube that contained radioactivity, but it pissed me off beyond anything to have to clean up someone else's tube. Not so the case of my last employer. Salary was more dependent upon education, experience and responsibility (more as it should be). So 2 very disparate actions by employers in the same field for the same person.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 13, 2024 17:21:00 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2016 15:19:23 GMT -5
So what you are saying is that women should have to choose between being mothers or working for your firm. Not even that . . . you won't even give her the benefit of the doubt. She might not even be trying to conceive or able to conceive, but if she's in that biological window, you would give preference to the man. That is so wrong. This is a perfect example of unequal opportunity that still exists today. The really ironic part is that you are a woman. Well, SouthernSusana, have you picked up the slack of a co-worker or subordinate who is absent for weeks/months at a time? Maybe the jobs yo had could tolerate missing workers. Some jobs cannot without it being a burden to the rest of the team. I can totally see Miss T's point where it does suck to carry the weight of another worker who is absent. Yes, I've picked up the slack. We couldn't find a qualified substitute for one teacher, so the other twelfth grade teachers had to prepare the lesson plans, show the substitute how to do them, and grade the papers/talk to the parents/etc. But we just did it because we are a department. The next time the situation came up, it could be one of us. And certainly no one was willing to trade places with the teacher. Her child had been born with Downs so they were facing a series of heart operations as soon as he was old/healthy enough. Sure, it sucks. But to penalize someone because it might happen . . . ? To give an equally qualified guy the advantage because he doesn't have a uterus?
|
|