siralynn
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 8, 2013 10:33:16 GMT -5
Posts: 528
|
Post by siralynn on Mar 11, 2016 16:27:44 GMT -5
I think that's a cop-out. Attitudes are changing, and more and more men ARE taking their leave (especially in California where they pay into paid family leave benefits from the state). In a hypothetical future in which the men of your company would take paternity leave, would you start only hiring men and women in their 50s and older? Or would the women "of child-bearing age" still take the brunt of the backlash? I guess you missed the part where I have hired women and 2 of them have gone out on materinity leave in the last 3 years...so it isn't that I'm not hiring them.
And call it a cop-out if you want but I know the type of workaholics that I have worked with. I can't imagine any of them taking paternity leave, at least not the ones that made it past the first couple years. They had one mission and that was to make partner. You aren't going to make partner if you are on the mommy or daddy track.
I don't live in California so perhaps things are different there.
Right. You have hired women because they were the most qualified candidates, but you said if you had equal male candidates, that you would have gone with them instead. I was asking you to imagine a world in which men would also be out for parental leave, and whether you would change your biases. Would you also start being reluctant to hire married men without children, in case they might be having children soon? It sounds like no.
|
|
teen persuasion
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:49 GMT -5
Posts: 4,164
|
Post by teen persuasion on Mar 11, 2016 17:01:33 GMT -5
Yep, my job is definitely a second (class citizen) job. No benefits, part time only, poor pay. The assumption is that a married woman will work there, and their husband will have real benefits thru his employer. To a large degree we are subsidizing services for the good of the community, thru our semi-volunteer pay. When the director passed away suddenly and the board needed to interview to replace her there was one male applicant. It was clear from talking with the retired director (who filled in for a while, and was on the board) that he was not considered. He would have wanted too high of a salary AND benefits. I believe it is generational. The director they hired is much younger, and single. While she had to take a pay cut and loss of benefits for the title and responsibilities (and for personal reasons), she is working to find the resources to improve our compensation (and hers) to more professional levels. It's going to take a while for her to bring the board around to another public budget vote, but the ball is rolling. But the issue is that apparently women WILL take the position for less pay. I'm not trying to be harsh but if they couldn't find anyone willing to take the job at such a low salary they would have to increase it. You have a choice...you can either stay for the crap wages or leave. You chose to stay, which only reinforces the fact that they can get away with shit wages because someone work for them.
This is why I struggle with accepting that females make less because of gender bias versus our own choices. I really do think women are willing to accept lower pay than men...whether it is for flexibility, due to self-confidence, or other reasons, a company will pay what they can get away with paying. I'm giving a range when I'm hiring...I always start at the low-end and negotiate up from there. Men rarely take the starting salary I offer but women almost always do...that isn't the company's fault. Just like it isn't the library's fault that you, a woman, is willing to work for lower wages.
You are absolutely right - there are trade-offs. I took the job for the flexibility and location close to home (and my kids' school). It is also a labor of love for the good of my community. Then again, they can find people to take the job at low wage (hourly, not salary) because of a lack of jobs locally. We need to hire a *really* part-time person to fill in a few evenings and maybe one Saturday a month, so 4-10 hours/week, and we had 59 people apply before the deadline! We have a really tight budget, that can't be increased much annually due to a state property tax increase cap (inflation or 2%, whichever is smaller - governor is trying to wring the fat out of local government, ha), and the board has buried its head in the sand and chosen *not* to even attempt any budget increase vote at all for 4 years. The longtime board members are all retired people, the organization has run off volunteer labor from the board and supporters for a long time, so there is a "do things as inexpensively as possible" mentality at play here. Regulations are changing though, and many things can no longer be done as in the past - tax and accounting, technology are not done by volunteers any more. The director is now required to have MLIS, pushing her pay higher (but not really high enough). I've chosen to stay to try to improve things from within. Progress is there, we're moving in the right direction, it is just slower than in a for-profit business. We give our stuff away for free, after all.
|
|