FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

As a small business enterprise

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Given the very tough climate, if you were the owner of a small company, would you shy away from employing a woman with exactly the same strengths as a man, if she were of child-bearing age, I know they can be much later these days, but lets just say below 45.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Given the very tough climate, if you were the owner of a small company, would you shy away from employing a woman with exactly the same strengths as a man, if she were of child-bearing age, I know they can be much later these days, but lets just say below 45.

"

In a word no the reason being that I find women try harder than men in a male orientated work place

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *Ryan-Man
over a year ago

In Your Bush

I would. The buggers never stop talking.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I would. The buggers never stop talking. "

Naughty boy.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rumCoupleCouple
over a year ago

birmingham


"Given the very tough climate, if you were the owner of a small company, would you shy away from employing a woman with exactly the same strengths as a man, if she were of child-bearing age, I know they can be much later these days, but lets just say below 45.

In a word no the reason being that I find women try harder than men in a male orientated work place "

In which case they haven't got "exactly the same strengths" have they ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Isn't it illegal to discriminate on that basis?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Given the very tough climate, if you were the owner of a small company, would you shy away from employing a woman with exactly the same strengths as a man, if she were of child-bearing age, I know they can be much later these days, but lets just say below 45.

"

As an employer you cant discriminate on age/sex etc - but im pretty sure it must go on

Id have no problems employing you though if your experiences/professional / career qualifications where on my wish list ....plus you look sexy lol

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rumCoupleCouple
over a year ago

birmingham


"Given the very tough climate, if you were the owner of a small company, would you shy away from employing a woman with exactly the same strengths as a man, if she were of child-bearing age, I know they can be much later these days, but lets just say below 45.

"

It should be a no brainer. If you accept that there is a risk - however small - that an employee can go absent on full pay, while you have to pay for a replacement, then you will shun that risk. Unless you are not a real businessman.

Now if the woman was *better* than the man, there's a possible offset. But in the case you suggest, where their strengths are equal - man every time. Sorry, that's business.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rumCoupleCouple
over a year ago

birmingham


"Isn't it illegal to discriminate on that basis?"

If it could be proved, yes. However it's hard to prove, unless the employer is a bit thick, and actually admits it, or can be shown to reject women out of hand.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Isn't it illegal to discriminate on that basis?"

Very much so. But the question is based upon many conversations I've had that choose to not employ, purely from the strain it puts on the payroll. Large companies like the one I work for can suck it up, the work can get spread around. But if there are four people in a company and one is out for a year having a baby, it puts a a huge burden on the rest of them still there.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman
over a year ago

evesham

Who is to sway that the bloke won't get signed off long term sick and the woman isn'tiinterested in having children??

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Given the very tough climate, if you were the owner of a small company, would you shy away from employing a woman with exactly the same strengths as a man, if she were of child-bearing age, I know they can be much later these days, but lets just say below 45.

It should be a no brainer. If you accept that there is a risk - however small - that an employee can go absent on full pay, while you have to pay for a replacement, then you will shun that risk. Unless you are not a real businessman.

Now if the woman was *better* than the man, there's a possible offset. But in the case you suggest, where their strengths are equal - man every time. Sorry, that's business."

Thoroughly agree. As wrong as it is.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Who is to sway that the bloke won't get signed off long term sick and the woman isn'tiinterested in having children??"
stats

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman
over a year ago

evesham


"Who is to sway that the bloke won't get signed off long term sick and the woman isn'tiinterested in having children??stats"

Pardon?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Just a thought here. But don't blokes get PATERNITY leave nowadays?? Lol

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rumCoupleCouple
over a year ago

birmingham


"Who is to sway that the bloke won't get signed off long term sick and the woman isn'tiinterested in having children??"

Good point. I wonder what the stats are ? However, there's no obligation on a company to pay sick leave at all, let alone for a long period. Whereas there *is* an obligation to pay maternity leave. So the outcomes of the risks are not equal.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rumCoupleCouple
over a year ago

birmingham


"Just a thought here. But don't blokes get PATERNITY leave nowadays?? Lol"

I believe they are entitled to six weeks after the birth.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *isscheekychopsWoman
over a year ago

The land of grey peas and bacon

blokes get 2 weeks off for paternity leave

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just a thought here. But don't blokes get PATERNITY leave nowadays?? Lol

I believe they are entitled to six weeks after the birth."

Exactly.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just a thought here. But don't blokes get PATERNITY leave nowadays?? Lol

I believe they are entitled to six weeks after the birth."

6?! Until last year it was 2

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman
over a year ago

evesham


"Just a thought here. But don't blokes get PATERNITY leave nowadays?? Lol"

Yes and I believe that they can split it with the mother now making it fairer and allowing the woman to return to work sooner.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Just a thought here. But don't blokes get PATERNITY leave nowadays?? Lol

Yes and I believe that they can split it with the mother now making it fairer and allowing the woman to return to work sooner. "

Which was brought about to combat the discrimination that was going on.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rumCoupleCouple
over a year ago

birmingham


"Just a thought here. But don't blokes get PATERNITY leave nowadays?? Lol

I believe they are entitled to six weeks after the birth.

6?! Until last year it was 2"

My bad

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Who is to sway that the bloke won't get signed off long term sick and the woman isn'tiinterested in having children??stats

Pardon?"

Look at the statistics available.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Isn't it illegal to discriminate on that basis?"
Yes it is illegal all employers have to go for the best candidate for the job regardless of age/sex/colour/sexual preference etc.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *xodussxMan
over a year ago

sheffield


"Isn't it illegal to discriminate on that basis? Yes it is illegal all employers have to go for the best candidate for the job regardless of age/sex/colour/sexual preference etc."

How would you prove the discrimination? Very hard to do. It is like equal opportunity. All what a company need to do is hiring all kind of people and give the lower jobs to who may complain about equality

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *o1mrtlcMan
over a year ago

cannock


"Given the very tough climate, if you were the owner of a small company, would you shy away from employing a woman with exactly the same strengths as a man, if she were of child-bearing age, I know they can be much later these days, but lets just say below 45.

I have employed 2 woman in the past, but they just cant manage the heavy lifting other wise yes I have and would if they could cope.

"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I don't have a problem with it ... but women with a family are very, very good employees ... I suppose it depends very much on whether you treat people as statistics and objects, or whether you value them for the specific skills they bring to the table and take the longer view ...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *londeCazWoman
over a year ago

Arse End of the Universe, Cumbria

I'm sure it must happen and yes I know it's illegal but as has been said it'd be difficult to prove. Personally I'd take on the bloke, but that's probably also cos I've always worked better with fellas anyway (and not for any sexual reasons, just I relate better in the workplace with men)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

I mainly employ women (Six Vs. Two)

The main reason being that women are lighter of touch and much of our work is intricate.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Sad to admit it but it would be man over woman for me. The potential scenario of baby, time off, followed by baby followed by a quick return before realising job and kids are too much would make me very wary. That said, a lot of blokes are useless so it is never black and white. Obviously a lot easier in large businesses with less pressure on cash flow etc.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I mainly employ women (Six Vs. Two)

The main reason being that women are lighter of touch and much of our work is intricate. "

Is yours a small company Jane?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top