Did You Vote Today?

[bladeplayer]

you're missing the point and the facts! Chris knows it only costs him 8% of that persons salary yet you and he allude to the fact the business could go under! Yet Chris also states he paid an employee 14 weeks full pay when off sick (very admirable and right imo) think you'll find that equates to far more than 8% and couldn't be planned for, with pregnancies you have time to plan and make contingencies, something any good business does on a weekly/monthly basis.

Not running your own company doesn't make peoples opinion and knowledge less important or relevant

You are missing some yourself mate , there is alot of upheavel in a small business when a member of staff is out , ok sickness cant be helped , but if you hired someone who chose to have 3 children in a few years , how does your business cope with that ..

Again as i said to all i might not agree with it but i see Chris's point and if i was in his position i could imagine i would be as selective in my recruitment as Chris was ..

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I think there are some really poor comments directed at Chris on this thread.

I employ 15 staff, both men and women and I understand entirely where he is coming from.

To clarify, I tend to positively discriminate and look to bring women in to roles when I can as my view is that women think and work differently to men and often give me a fresh perspective on issues and strategies. Ideally, I want as close to a 50/50 balance between men and women in the company as I can realistically get to.

That said, if a female candidate came for a job with us and was 29, been married 2 years and just bought a new house and had not got children, then I am afraid to say that the high chance of her starting a family imminently would be a factor that I would privately consider. It may be sexist, it may be illiberal and it may be flouting employment legislation. However, it is also basic common sense for any small business and furthermore, my (female) HR consultant also regularly raises this as a possible red flag when it fits the circumstances.

I appreciate that it isn't what the liberal left of the forum want to hear but hard lines. Your protestations just illustrate that you can't see the other side of the argument.

As ever, that is the trouble with liberals - they are only liberal if you agree entirely with their views and if you don't, you are a fascist pig and a disgusting human being.

And lastly, returning to the original question - no I did not vote. Just like 65% of the apathetic population. Two reasons - I have very little faith in our political system and the free-loading clowns within it plus, where I live, the Tories have a majority of 24000 and there is no candidate from any left of centre party so it is a done deal anyway.

..and flipping the coin over for a moment.

I had a boss who kept a list of everyone in his department. When I was less than three years in the company, young, single and living in rented - I was top of his 'to be looked after' list and so targeted for good projects, travel, wage rises etc.

As I got older and was with them a little longer I slipped down the list; bought a flat - slipped down the list; got married - slipped down the list; had children - slipped down the list; children went to school - down the list. This was only his 'who I need to look after etc' list but I was being discriminated against. As it happens I was well looked after - but the list was there.

 

[CMAC]

You are missing some yourself mate , there is alot of upheavel in a small business when a member of staff is out , ok sickness cant be helped , but if you hired someone who chose to have 3 children in a few years , how does your business cope with that ..

Again as i said to all i might not agree with it but i see Chris's point and if i was in his position i could imagine i would be as selective in my recruitment as Chris was ..

you really dont get it do you, you cannot or will not see the bigger picture. Care to elaborate what I am missing?

 

[MegaSteve]

I would call a basic human right of a person to be chosen on their ability rather than their sex together with other legislation is in my opinion morally and legally wrong.

So, how come women only shortlists are [seemingly] OK?

 

[Snelly]

..and flipping the coin over for a moment.

I had a boss who kept a list of everyone in his department. When I was less than three years in the company, young, single and living in rented - I was top of his 'to be looked after' list and so targeted for good projects, travel, wage rises etc.

As I got older and was with them a little longer I slipped down the list; bought a flat - slipped down the list; got married - slipped down the list; had children - slipped down the list; children went to school - down the list. This was only his 'who I need to look after etc' list but I was being discriminated against. As it happens I was well looked after - but the list was there.

Fascinating. As it happens, I don't have a "list" and the idea sounds pretty daft.

We look after everyone and everyone is a shareholder. Our staff turnover is next to zero with over 75% of the team being with us for over 5 years. We have a fantastic company with wonderful, highly rewarded employees. We are great. But we'd still think twice about the child bearing issue for potential new hires.

 

[Papas1982]

you're missing the point and the facts! Chris knows it only costs him 8% of that persons salary yet you and he allude to the fact the business could go under! Yet Chris also states he paid an employee 14 weeks full pay when off sick (very admirable and right imo) think you'll find that equates to far more than 8% and couldn't be planned for, with pregnancies you have time to plan and make contingencies, something any good business does on a weekly/monthly basis.

Not running your own company doesn't make peoples opinion and knowledge less important or relevant

How much time and money does it cost to cover said women whilst she's on leave? Maybe take on agency workers who don't know how to do the job. Putting everyone in jeopardy. What about when she decides she's not coming back to work full time. Which a lot of women do? He's then lost an employee he has spent time on training and has to try and fill the extra hours too.

 

[chrisd]

So, if I read this rightly, you agree such discrimination is wrong but you would practice it; adding hypocrisy into the mix.

No, I've never employed anyone but I have needed to find work to support myself. I've applied for jobs where I ticked every box in the description but didn't even get invited to interview and you're left wondering why, whether you've been discriminated against.

Frankly, if 25% of employers are still getting away with this we need more, stronger legislation to crack down on unscrupulous businesses, not less!

No apologies for using the word "odious", that's my opinion on the subject.

I don't hold myself up as being a paragon of virtue Karen and life is all very good from a purely a moral standpoint. It's great that you can criticise me so strongly, from afar without knowing me, for making just one point that we will have to disagree on. Its just a shame that that you don't start your own business, risk everything you own and hold dear, and see whether you still hold the same ideological values.

 

[bladeplayer]

you really dont get it do you, you cannot or will not see the bigger picture. Care to elaborate what I am missing?

IM a bit con fused now ? as basically i was agreeing with you! i think its you that cant see the BIG picture

I do get it and i have admitted its wrong to be discriminated against in any way, i dont or cant disagree with you or anyone on that

,BUT i also know its a realism , people running small business are at the pin of their collars trying to survive , if you or anyone on here think for a second any small business person will put morally correct decisions over financially correct decisions for their business and family then you are living in a fantasy world (no offence meant)

Its a dog eat dog world out there and millions of businesses are doing things that may not be right to survive ,

I told Chris i didnt agree with it, but i also admitted i respect his honesty and if i was in his position i hand on heart cannnot say i wouldnt do the very same ..

If that makes me wrong so be it ..

 

[jp5]

How much time and money does it cost to cover said women whilst she's on leave? Maybe take on agency workers who don't know how to do the job. Putting everyone in jeopardy. What about when she decides she's not coming back to work full time. Which a lot of women do? He's then lost an employee he has spent time on training and has to try and fill the extra hours too.

Way to tar all women with the actions of a few. I'd wager a woman taking maternity leave would be less disruptive than the poor bloke who's been off sick for 3 months. Perhaps he should be let go?

 

[CMAC]

I think there are some really poor comments directed at Chris on this thread.

I employ 15 staff, both men and women and I understand entirely where he is coming from.

To clarify, I tend to positively discriminate and look to bring women in to roles when I can as my view is that women think and work differently to men and often give me a fresh perspective on issues and strategies. Ideally, I want as close to a 50/50 balance between men and women in the company as I can realistically get to.

That said, if a female candidate came for a job with us and was 29, been married 2 years and just bought a new house and had not got children, then I am afraid to say that the high chance of her starting a family imminently would be a factor that I would privately consider. It may be sexist, it may be illiberal and it may be flouting employment legislation. However, it is also basic common sense for any small business and furthermore, my (female) HR consultant also regularly raises this as a possible red flag when it fits the circumstances.

I appreciate that it isn't what the liberal left of the forum want to hear but hard lines. Your protestations just illustrate that you can't see the other side of the argument.

As ever, that is the trouble with liberals - they are only liberal if you agree entirely with their views and if you don't, you are a fascist pig and a disgusting human being.

And lastly, returning to the original question - no I did not vote. Just like 65% of the apathetic population. Two reasons - I have very little faith in our political system and the free-loading clowns within it plus, where I live, the Tories have a majority of 24000 and there is no candidate from any left of centre party so it is a done deal anyway.

big leap as I'm not liberal and I don't think you see the other side either. There is well documented evidence of the benefits both short and long term for the business in handling pregnancy the correct and fair way. Sales is one area a business can reap greater definitive rewards in 'looking after' an employee, other disciplines are harder to directly associate a monetary value but it can be done.

There are also different views from Owner Managers as opposed to 'Supervisors' of staff where the whole company name and reputation isn't so intrinsically linked.

 

[chrisd]

Way to tar all women with the actions of a few. I'd wager a woman taking maternity leave would be less disruptive than the poor bloke who's been off sick for 3 months. Perhaps he should be let go?

Yes, perhaps he should

 

[Papas1982]

Way to tar all women with the actions of a few. I'd wager a woman taking maternity leave would be less disruptive than the poor bloke who's been off sick for 3 months. Perhaps he should be let go?

Tar a few? Really? in the last 4 years me and my wife have had our two little girls. They now go to groups and play schools. Do you know how many if the mums now working, having done so before hand. 3, my wide included. That is out if 25 couples. That's much more than a few. Career woman will go back to work, but more than a majority in my experience won't go back to the role they left. It should be the duty of a company to bend for people IMO. My wife is a cinema manager and they have a very good package where by if you sign up to it, you get a great maternity package but must come back to your previous role for 1 year or repay the extra payment. It's taken up less than 10%.

I fully support Chris on this one. It's all well and good wanting an ideal world, but it doesn't exist. Walk into any high end wine bar and tell me how many interactive people are working. Companies will always employ whose best for them, some just won't admit it.

And yes I am happy for my daughters to grow up in a world like this, as I hope they'll have a work ethic like their parents and having children won't be an excuse to stop working like many and not a few do!

 

[Snelly]

big leap as I'm not liberal and I don't think you see the other side either. There is well documented evidence of the benefits both short and long term for the business in handling pregnancy the correct and fair way. Sales is one area a business can reap greater definitive rewards in 'looking after' an employee, other disciplines are harder to directly associate a monetary value but it can be done.

There are also different views from Owner Managers as opposed to 'Supervisors' of staff where the whole company name and reputation isn't so intrinsically linked.

I have two children and my wife works so yes, I do fully appreciate both sides of the argument.

 

[CheltenhamHacker]

Yes, perhaps he should

Haha. That would make me laugh. Imagine that dismisal.

Chrisd: "I'm sorry XXXX, but I'm going to have to let you go"

XXXX: "Why?!"

Chrisd: "Well you remember those 14 weeks sick you had? Some people on the internet disagreed with my stance on hiring women, this got brought up, and it turns out I need to fire you. Sorry."

 

[Papas1982]

Haha. That would make me laugh. Imagine that dismisal.

Chrisd: "I'm sorry XXXX, but I'm going to have to let you go"

XXXX: "Why?!"

Chrisd: "Well you remember those 14 weeks sick you had? Some people on the internet disagreed with my stance on hiring women, this got brought up, and it turns out I need to fire you. Sorry."

as long as he's replaced my an attractive religious lesbian female of non British race,that's fine by me. Gotta make sure there's no discrimination.

 

[guest100718]

No I didnt vote as its a waste of time where I live.

 

[chrisd]

Haha. That would make me laugh. Imagine that dismisal.

Chrisd: "I'm sorry XXXX, but I'm going to have to let you go"

XXXX: "Why?!"

Chrisd: "Well you remember those 14 weeks sick you had? Some people on the internet disagreed with my stance on hiring women, this got brought up, and it turns out I need to fire you. Sorry."

Just to make you chuckle ...... I have dismissed him!

 

[G.U.R]

:mmm: Back to the thread, no I didn't never have as I've never ben into politics and live in an area where there is no risk of any extremist party's getting in, and the rest are all as bad as each other.

 

[CheltenhamHacker]

Just to make you chuckle ...... I have dismissed him!

I hope jp5 feels guilty now!

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

No I didnt vote as its a waste of time where I live.

Why is a waste of time? Your vote will always affect the %s - even if only in a small way. If everyone who thought that way actually voted then things might well be different. Doing nothing guarantees that nothing will happen.

Besides - what effort does it actually take to get to the polling station and cast your vote. And then you have legitimate 'active elector' basis for going to elected representatives and having a go - if that is what you need to do.