Womens rights
 

I always thought I was pretty up to date on understanding employment do and don't having attended training seminars for years but that was 20-30 years ago.

So I have a question. Can an employer hire a male over a female because they are fearful the women will have a child and that will be disruptive to the business?

Not a Lawyer here, but would think a like minded employer does it without saying it. Not wanting to take that a chance it might be illegal.



Barney

As far as I know, it is illegal to not hire a female because she might get or might be pregnant.
However, in my experience, employers are able to give other reasons why that person isn't "a good fit for the job" and avoid hiring a person.

(This is true for many situations.... Not just a fear of losing the employee to pregnancy).

An employer does not have to give a reason for not hiring.

If a provable record of discriminatory hiring practices exists, he/she/it (the company) can be legally prosecuted.

Thanks for the replies. I am well aware that an employer will not put that on paper however it's already been said and discussed.

May be different rules for small companies.

When my daughter got pregnant, it being a start up she was with, they did not have to do much of anything you would think they would under the law.

No paid leave, no holding the job....

Women here are second class citizens - get used to it or do summat about it.

It is explicitly illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender and to discriminate on the basis of pregnancy. Any employer stupid enough to include prohibitions against pregnancy in a written policy will likely be hit with pattern and practice litigation by the EEOC (provided the employer has fifteen or more employees). If there is a steady history of women facing adverse employment consequences as a result of becoming pregnant, the employer is likely to face litigation. Time off for the birth (or adoption) of a child or for complications from pregnancy is provided by the Family and Medical Leave Act. FMLA coverage is limited to employers with 50 employees, and the leave is limited to 12 weeks. However, if an employer has a practice of providing greater time off for other disabling conditions, the effects of pregnancy are entitled to the same treatment.

What about in "At Will" states. Do those laws cover hiring or just termination.

I mentioned federal laws. They refer to any adverse employment action, including hiring, firing, demotions, and failures to promote. In general, employment discrimination laws are exceptions to the at-will rule.

When I was a young man working in an office with three people one of the girls got pregnant a couple of times. I had to do her work for her while she was out. Didn't get paid any more. Never understood why her getting knocked up was my responsibility.

Thanks

That is what one would think but you never know.

In this case, nothing is written but they had been open and honest in discussing with her their concern on a pregnancy. Any re course?

,...............

Btw, she was hired but she had to promise to not get pregnant again for at least 2 years.
Just curious, is this an allowable"deal" under the law? Again nothing written but everything openly discussed.

My experience had always been the opposite. In the late 70s early 80s men were passed over all the time in favor of women based on sex. Right up until the mid 90s when I started my own business I never experienced anything but advantages for or women.

Never lesser pay, alWays softer demands for the same job, cleAr favoritism for the more attractive. Unquestionably favored for promotions.
so as liberal as I am I have always thought the women rights demands much ado about nothing.

It's hard to see something when you don't want to see it.

in practical terms, what are you saying?

I have a mom, wife, several and daughters. On top of that I am liberal in nature which means I look to help those oppressed and am predisposed to see oppression.

what is it that I did not want to see when I was young and women always got the nod before men, were paid the same but were never sent to unload the truck?

I am not anti womens rights as this threads shows....

Just what are you saying with that attempted drive by?

You may be liberal but sort of hypocritical. When it comes to you own daughter you are concerned about possible discrimination, but you seem to hold a very biased view toward women and their supposed "advantages" in the workplace based on your own keen analysis from your "experience."

It is well known that women do not get paid for the same work as men.

For instance, he thought Trump's misogyny was "a riot".

Plus he called Hillary an "old woman"...

I guess he never thinks of his own daughter being of an age someday.

what is my biased view? That I personally never witnessed anything but advantages for women ?

That is experience not bias. I am all open ears to their plight. Seriously. I just never saw it. Honest.

And how am I hypocritical if I already spoke to this in dispassionately?

Teach me, I am always open to polite contradiction.

John, I do not have your photographic memory

Can you recant or link "a riot."

I can't recall the context but I respect your memory.

thanks

she is not old?

Sometimes this PC crap is extreme.

I submit this is a case of that.

BTW, everything is context and relative.

I go to the supermarket every Wednesday and ask the cashier for the "old man discount" in reference to myself. I refer to senior discounts as "old man discounts."

If you are old, you are old. I have always chosen descriptive words or phrases over conventional talk.

Anyway, this place has a habit of attacking posters not posts... it's ashame.

Why not just share your experiences of work place inequities so I may understand because frankly, generally I don't.

Thanks

See, me, I have no problem with this. I guess it's my sense of community.

I am all for treating women equal and helping in a reasonable way. Even unloading the truck when the truck needed to be unloaded while the women stayed on the floor earning commission just because of their sex. I see the sexes as equal not the same.

OK, in this scenario the man was discriminated again. I am fine with it. Because it made sense under the "equal not the same umbrella" which guided me.

Ed must have posted over 100 times praising Trump or rationalizing his uncouth and bigoted behavior. I have no desire to pore over them searching for one post in order to satisfy one person's curiosity.

You mentioned her age in the context of a disqualification for the presidency. Is this a criticism you would think to level against a man? She's 68. Trump is 2 years older. Bernie is 6 years older. I don't remember you mentioning their age.

I honestly don't recall but knowing how my mind works I think I mentioned it in context to image not to capabilities. I think her very capable.

Image: be it right or wrong, I feel strongly that an "old lady" image is hard to get elected. Trump although older, does not poses this image.

Further, IMO jeane kirkpatrick, when she was relevant in such conversations was probably Hill's present age. I don't think she suffered from any such image.

Also John, my comments seem to be taken as endorsements or attacks when often, maybe most times, they are observations.
In all threads.

I only ask to be sure it was in context because the stuff you throw out me is mostly out of context.

You have a habit recently, IMO, of telling people what they believe or how they have said something so you can attack it if it is not in lockstep with your views.

Everything is gray. Insisting you are white and anything not in line with your thought is black shares little and frankly is often antagonistic.


Why not have a discussion?

You start a thread called Woman's Rights and then post the most biased content in the thread about them.

what was biased?

what?

how is that a response to this post?

You guys are so fraekin' unpleasant.

WTF is that about?

This was a local case that went to the Supremes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilly_...er?wprov=sfla1

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

thanks... good post

any personal experiences of the same?

I have heard it suggested that women through biology may be less likely to damned pay the same way men do. Should not beta men then bring suits? and then is the issue more biological than gender?

as I said, I have never experienced it nor been in the company of anyone who spoke to it. After 62 years I am sure in casual conversation, if it were a common prevalent problem, someone I know would have spoken to it?

Barb, you like to do drive-bys, why not instead share something substantive on this from your personal experience?.

My personal experience is mainly military, and generally, it went on there as well.
Men tended to make the rules, written or otherwise, and otherwise was where things really went bad, ruining careers and lives.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

You post something like this (above) and expect to be taken seriously in a conversation about women's equality?!

Like I said... You can't see what you don't want to see.

thanks again

I am looking for specifics of personal experiences since mine appear to be so different.

As I have thought about this further, I recall more and more advantages women had. Now granted my experience was in the middle and lower end of retail and later wholesale but men were always overlooked and NEVER paid more.

Sort of a voluntary affirmative action that propelled women not hindered women in my day.

Aside from pay which I have never seen unequal, I recall bosses who had never worked with women previous who were instantly smitten little manipulated toys. But that has a flip side. Women being punished for rejecting advances. I am guessing that is another conversation? Or that has a place here?

Yes, I did post that Barb.

And it's freakin true and very understandable.

Are you capable of explaining yourself or not?

My past interactions with you suggest no. You slap at what you don't like and then hide.

Stop with the nonesense.

You have something of value to add or not?

I don't like conversing much with you for several reasons.
First, you refuse to address me by my given name.

Second, you refuse to believe my words for what they are and insist on projecting what you think I should be saying/feeling.

Third, you go round and round and never have a conversation that really includes others. It appears to me you just like to hear yourself talk.


I may be wrong in my conclusions, but that's how I see it.

And just because I leave a one sentence post doesn't mean anything like a drive by. It just means that is all I want to say in that response. There is no rule on the length of a post here as far as I know.


Finally... Your comment on Hilary aging and Trump aging is a blatant discriminatory mindset. With a mindset like that.... I'm not surprised that you don't see how women are discriminated against in society.

Can you list these advantages?

And if you were at the lower or middle end of retail, how is it that you were in a position to know what your female coworkers were paid and hoe that compared to what their male counterparts were paid?

How exactly did this voluntary affirmative action "propel" women forward in their careers?

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/20...exual-violence

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

This sounds misogynist. Slap and hide?

Be glad to explain.

I spoke to many advantages already. I'll go over them again.
1) Women were a preferred hire.
2) Women stared at the same pay BUT all employees received commission as well. When physical work was called for, the men did it. This removed the men from the sales floor so the women were at an advantage in pay.
3) Women were the preferable sex for promotions.
4) women received maternity leave, men did,'t
5) Women were not sent to "tough" areas. You know NJ. In the company I was with the men worked the Paterson, Newark, Passaic, East Orange... stores. Women stayed in Bergen County or Livingston or Wayne... I recall men quieting rather than accept the transfer to some tough neighborhoods. Not a women ever asked.

You have to recall, this was the late 70's. Corps wanted no suits brought so men got passed over left and right.

Bear in mind, I am not like the other poster, I am not upset at any of this. Just telling you what I saw and why I never saw it as an issue.

I worked in the lower end of retail not on the bottom rung . Maybe I misspoke. I worked with the middle and lower end in retail.
I did the payrolls so I know exactly who made what. Then I supervised the payrolls and did the hiring with the companies objectives in mind. I guess I was really middle or upper management although it never felt it. lol

I generally had upwards of 50 people I was fully in charge of so I knew....

I have had this conversation with my eldest daughter and she thinks being a female has never limited her. Generally been an aid. I can't say how but she has thought that in general terms and expressed that feeling to me. She does quite well except she was a knuckle head going to work for a start up just before she got married. She lost tons of benefits she would have had if she stayed put.

Soooooooo we cannot ever talk open and honest about the psychology of the voter? Of humans?

if we do we are blatantly discriminatory?

Tell you what, teach me.

How do I better express the fact that human perception see a frumpy old women differently than a tanned well spoken old man?


I am cursed or privileged, I don't know which, to look at everything from a psychological perspective. It's just instinctive. It's just what I do and I am real good at understanding and explaining what I see.

It's that simple.

I am serious, please tell me how to reword what I have truthfully stated that you will find acceptable.

"frumpy old woman" and "tanned well spoken old man" :rolleyes:

I think I see your problem right there, Ed.