Annoying New Mother.

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
However, as an employer, my job is to hire the most qualified person for the job who will be able to do the job for years to come. What motivation do I have to hire a young, newly married woman over an equally qualified male? None whatsoever if there's a chance that that woman may become pregnant in the next year or so. Why would I want to pay her salary, maternity leave and her replacement's salary while she's on maternity leave, when I can deal without the headache and hire her equally capable male counterpart?

[/ QUOTE ]
Dom, keep in mind that not hiring that young woman because she is a young woman or she might get pregnant is illegal. If someone you didn't hire wanted to sue you and knew you posted here, you might see this in a courtroom.

[kipin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, as an employer, my job is to hire the most qualified person for the job who will be able to do the job for years to come. What motivation do I have to hire a young, newly married woman over an equally qualified male? None whatsoever if there's a chance that that woman may become pregnant in the next year or so. Why would I want to pay her salary, maternity leave and her replacement's salary while she's on maternity leave, when I can deal without the headache and hire her equally capable male counterpart?

[/ QUOTE ]
Dom, keep in mind that not hiring that young woman because she is a young woman or she might get pregnant is illegal. If someone you didn't hire wanted to sue you and knew you posted here, you might see this in a courtroom.

[/ QUOTE ]

In before lock!

[Georgia Avenue]

[ QUOTE ]
i looove preferential treatment. my initiative to reproduce has just skyrocketed.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is the only post in this thread besides OPs that is interesting.

However, this development's implications, are exciting!

Why not start a poll to decide who the lucky baby daddy will be? (NLSol. is too short obv., tho he can raise the super-genes baby if he wants).

[Dominic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, as an employer, my job is to hire the most qualified person for the job who will be able to do the job for years to come. What motivation do I have to hire a young, newly married woman over an equally qualified male? None whatsoever if there's a chance that that woman may become pregnant in the next year or so. Why would I want to pay her salary, maternity leave and her replacement's salary while she's on maternity leave, when I can deal without the headache and hire her equally capable male counterpart?

[/ QUOTE ]
Dom, keep in mind that not hiring that young woman because she is a young woman or she might get pregnant is illegal. If someone you didn't hire wanted to sue you and knew you posted here, you might see this in a courtroom.

[/ QUOTE ]

shhhhhhhhh! [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

seriously, if two men came into my office for the same job with equal qualifications, and I chose one over the other based on:

length of hair (say my company has a grooming policy)

one was in better physical shape than the other (the job required heavy lifting)

one was better looking than other (the sales job requires lots of face time with women)

...is any of this discrimination? If not, why not?

Now what if I have two women come in for the same job, both equally qualified, but one is 3 months pregnant.

If I hire the non-pregnant one, am I discriminating against the pregnant one because I want someone who is going to actually be WORKING and not out on maternity leave?

What if I hired a man instead of the pregnant woman? Why can't her condition be a deciding factor on whether or not I am going to hire her?

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]

Hell, I "choose" to go skiing for three months. Why can't I get paid leave for that?? Because it's stupid, that's why. You're paid to do a job. Do it. If having a child keeps you from doing your job effectively, you should be fired.

[/ QUOTE ]

If people don't have kids, you won't have anyone to work at the ski resorts, you selfish bastard.

[Lottery Larry]

I could stand behind you until you made this quote

"“So you think your baby is a job? You’re comparing your first bon son with working in an umbrella factory? Are you kidding? I have to get up early too, I have to feed my cat. Is that work?”

Selfish bastard.

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
seriously, if two men came into my office for the same job with equal qualifications, and I chose one over the other based on:

length of hair (say my company has a grooming policy)

one was in better physical shape than the other (the job required heavy lifting)

one was better looking than other (the sales job requires lots of face time with women)

...is any of this discrimination? If not, why not?

[/ QUOTE ]
All of those are discrimination. However, none of them are illegal discrimination. (although the long hair one is so retarded you might lose anyway) This is because Congress has not passed laws protecting those groups. They have passed laws protecting women and specifically pregnant women.

[ QUOTE ]
Now what if I have two women come in for the same job, both equally qualified, but one is 3 months pregnant.

If I hire the non-pregnant one, am I discriminating against the pregnant one because I want someone who is going to actually be WORKING and not out on maternity leave?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes you are. If you actually did that, expect to be writing two six figure checks: one to your lawyer and another to the pregnant woman.

[ QUOTE ]
What if I hired a man instead of the pregnant woman? Why can't her condition be a deciding factor on whether or not I am going to hire her?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because Congress said so.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
Plus, I was making separate points regarding maternity leave and the preferential treatment a lot of women get in the workplace once they have children.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look at it this way- at least YOU don't have to deal with kids this way, yet you benefit from their existance.

[Jameso]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe the cat reference wasn’t such a good idea, but I really can’t stand new mothers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Comparing a baby to a cat is, I don't know, comparing apples and watermelons? I have one son and a daughter due on Feb. 1 and wouldn't consider bringing either to a NYE party. I doubt that the new mother thing is the only reason you'll find for your dislike of this person. She sounds like an annoying twot. Not all new mothers fit this description.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i looove preferential treatment. my initiative to reproduce has just skyrocketed.

[/ QUOTE ]

just dont work at dom's company.

rj

[/ QUOTE ]

no breeders in MY company, dammit! You'd have to agree to sterilization before coming to work for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now THIS one I liked! :P