Is it fair for women in the workplace to use maternity leave every 1-2 years?

[RW]

Depending  upon length of time and frequency (i.e. taking far more out than putting in), others can in effect be paying



The OP = Is it fair for women in the workplace to use maternity leave every 1-2 years?



Seems a setup for wannabe baby factories and / or wannabe system-dependents to take advantage of. Are  there any regs that set limits to protect against abuse?

Rarely happens. In fact, women are having way less children today. The birth rate is half of what it was in the 1950s. There are more one-child families today than ever.



I can't believe I have to tell a woman that women aren't baby factories. Are you a baby factory? How many baby factories have you ever known? Like barely any?

Excuse me, but you are wrecking this thread by being a dishonest asshole just like you and your friends did the abortion one. Ms cc la femme and I hire people. As employers, we are of the same mind. We will do what is best for the organization. If I was to hire full time, I would ask probing questions to find out what if they plan on being around as much as I needed them. Anything that takes them away from the job for extended periods of time for any reason makes them an undesirable candidate. If someone wants to work, but doesn't want the responsibility of a full time job, for christ's sake get a contract job that fits the lifestyle.



PS. apologize to cc la femme liar.

In Canada, you are discouraged from asking certain questions because if you overlook a candidate because of gender or future family status (can make babies in the future) you can get slapped with a human rights case.

[Anonymous]

Depending  upon length of time and frequency (i.e. taking far more out than putting in), others can in effect be paying



The OP = Is it fair for women in the workplace to use maternity leave every 1-2 years?



Seems a setup for wannabe baby factories and / or wannabe system-dependents to take advantage of. Are  there any regs that set limits to protect against abuse?

Rarely happens. In fact, women are having way less children today. The birth rate is half of what it was in the 1950s. There are more one-child families today than ever.



I can't believe I have to tell a woman that women aren't baby factories. Are you a baby factory? How many baby factories have you ever known? Like barely any?

Excuse me, but you are wrecking this thread by being a dishonest asshole just like you and your friends did the abortion one. Ms cc la femme and I hire people. As employers, we are of the same mind. We will do what is best for the organization. If I was to hire full time, I would ask probing questions to find out what if they plan on being around as much as I needed them. Anything that takes them away from the job for extended periods of time for any reason makes them an undesirable candidate. If someone wants to work, but doesn't want the responsibility of a full time job, for christ's sake get a contract job that fits the lifestyle.



PS. apologize to cc la femme liar.

In Canada, you are discouraged from asking certain questions because if you overlook a candidate because of gender or future family status (can make babies in the future) you can get slapped with a human rights case.

Oh I know RW. But there are probing questions you can ask anyone, not just young women to determine if they really want to make the organization a long term home. I would make no distinction between young men or women. Both of them may want long term absences for various reasons, not just child rearing.

[RW]

Nevar!!1



I've been in charge of hiring. Not once did a woman I hired disappear to become an Oprah-watching baby factory.



Women aren't baby factories. The birth rate is half of what it was in the 1950s. There are more one-child families today than ever.



Those aren't lies. How many baby factories have you ever known of? Are you drowning in babies right now?

I didn't think you would. I never expected you to show any strength of character.



We are talking about whether employees who want extended leaves should be hired or should they themselves consider full time work. Alright, you go derail a good discussion.

But, I will ask you this--what benefit to your company is a worker wants to leave the company for extended periods of time for whatever reason? Who will step up and do their job when the person they are replacing  is away? How do you think this will affect the morale of the employees who never take extended periods of time away from work when they MIA employee returns? if the MIA employee returns, ask these questions all over again. The most important question is why oh why would someone who does not want the responsibility of full time job applying for one?

I took maternity and parental leave 4 years into my job.  Not one employee ever expressed any bitterness in me taking a year off to have a baby ... or two.  Where are you getting this morale shit from?



A temporary hired employee replaced me for a year.  She ended up staying on after I returned although she knew she was a maternity fill in.  It gave her experience and a pay cheque that she was happy to have even for a limited time.



Now why did I apply for a full time job four years earlier?  Because like so many others trying to get by in life, I needed one.

[cc]

In Canada, you are discouraged from asking certain questions because if you overlook a candidate because of gender or future family status (can make babies in the future) you can get slapped with a human rights case.

To me. that is ethically wrong, dead wrong.



It forces wise employers to be careful to not tip their hand.



The example of the  CAIR-sent muslima who was told by a very small beauty salon owner that she could not hire someone who did not show off her own lustrous hair as a matter of smart business  .. got sued and the kangaroo court made her pay 8 grand ..... resulted in most employers learning  to be careful as to saying "why" a person is not hired, or is fired.



Fortunately, thought reading devices are not yet available  and the law has so far been unable to get into reading thoughts

[RW]

Depending  upon length of time and frequency (i.e. taking far more out than putting in), others can in effect be paying



The OP = Is it fair for women in the workplace to use maternity leave every 1-2 years?



Seems a setup for wannabe baby factories and / or wannabe system-dependents to take advantage of. Are  there any regs that set limits to protect against abuse?

Rarely happens. In fact, women are having way less children today. The birth rate is half of what it was in the 1950s. There are more one-child families today than ever.



I can't believe I have to tell a woman that women aren't baby factories. Are you a baby factory? How many baby factories have you ever known? Like barely any?

Excuse me, but you are wrecking this thread by being a dishonest asshole just like you and your friends did the abortion one. Ms cc la femme and I hire people. As employers, we are of the same mind. We will do what is best for the organization. If I was to hire full time, I would ask probing questions to find out what if they plan on being around as much as I needed them. Anything that takes them away from the job for extended periods of time for any reason makes them an undesirable candidate. If someone wants to work, but doesn't want the responsibility of a full time job, for christ's sake get a contract job that fits the lifestyle.



PS. apologize to cc la femme liar.

In Canada, you are discouraged from asking certain questions because if you overlook a candidate because of gender or future family status (can make babies in the future) you can get slapped with a human rights case.

Oh I know RW. But there are probing questions you can ask anyone, not just young women to determine if they really want to make the organization a long term home. I would make no distinction between young men or women. Both of them may want long term absences for various reasons, not just child rearing.

Yes, many things can happen in life that results in long term absenses.  These days, I am the first to make an argument for employer consideration as I am disabled.  I don't want to be hired as a half assed employee.  No way.

[RW]

To me. that is ethically wrong, dead wrong.



Wise employers are careful to not tip their hand.



The example of the  CAIR-sent muslima who was told by a very small beauty salon owner that she could not hire someone who did not show off her own lustrous hair as a matter of smart business  .. got sued and the kangaroo court made her pay 8 grand ..... most employers have learned what to say and what not to say.



Fortunately, thought reading devices are not yet available  and the law has so far been unable to get into reading thoughts

How do you balance discrimination and employability?

[Anonymous]

Nevar!!1



I've been in charge of hiring. Not once did a woman I hired disappear to become an Oprah-watching baby factory.



Women aren't baby factories. The birth rate is half of what it was in the 1950s. There are more one-child families today than ever.



Those aren't lies. How many baby factories have you ever known of? Are you drowning in babies right now?

I didn't think you would. I never expected you to show any strength of character.



We are talking about whether employees who want extended leaves should be hired or should they themselves consider full time work. Alright, you go derail a good discussion.

But, I will ask you this--what benefit to your company is a worker wants to leave the company for extended periods of time for whatever reason? Who will step up and do their job when the person they are replacing  is away? How do you think this will affect the morale of the employees who never take extended periods of time away from work when they MIA employee returns? if the MIA employee returns, ask these questions all over again. The most important question is why oh why would someone who does not want the responsibility of full time job applying for one?

I took maternity and parental leave 4 years into my job.  Not one employee ever expressed any bitterness in me taking a year off to have a baby ... or two.  Where are you getting this morale shit from?



A temporary hired employee replaced me for a year.  She ended up staying on after I returned although she knew she was a maternity fill in.  It gave her experience and a pay cheque that she was happy to have even for a limited time.



Now why did I apply for a full time job four years earlier?  Because like so many others trying to get by in life, I needed one.

Four years into a job is quite different from someone like my son who gets a good job and four months later after making probation decides he needs time off to travel and "study" throughout South East Asia and Australia and New Zealand. Please don't misunderstand me.



An internal employee who also wanted my son's job is filling in for him. He is not getting the official rate for the job, but he does it anyway thinking he will get noticed. When my son returns, and if he does it again, I think most employees would be thinking why should we show up everyday and do someone else's job who does not want full time responsibility. I know I wouldn't be happy about it. I would look for an employer who valued full time employees who show up everyday.

[RW]

Why is your son's company giving him time off to "study"?



I thought we were talking about legitimate leaves of absence?

[Anonymous]

Why is your son's company giving him time off to "study"?



I thought we were talking about legitimate leaves of absence?

It qualifies as educational leave if you can believe it. It is considered a legitimate leave. I would bet they wished they had asked him some probing questions.

[RW]

It's definitely not protected by human rights like pregnancy is.

[cc]

Ethically and in a real world a business should be able to hire who they want .. who best suits the company's needs, period ..... after weighing ALL factors. Large companies who go to far can be and often are shamed into hiring using stats. No pretend and  unworkable laws are needed.



My main point was that laws do not achieve their objectives .. they merely keep employers from being "candid". They do not keep wise employers from hiring who they calculate who  best suits the company's needs ... i.e. they are phony at best .. a set up to become a silly charade.



I think our firm is good example of nature taking its course on hiring and allows me to speak for many employers. Sure, he had an obvious out if he chose to not hire, but after weighing all elements mate decided to hire based on the enthusiasm shown and the  appearance of talent,  despite powerful misgivings in a certain and obvious here area.



In fact, it was a major factor seriously considered in the equation, a factor which is his business only. The overall "score" said hire



Laws or not, if that factor spelled the difference, all he had to do was to NOT say it was a factor.

[RW]

cc, we all know employers discriminate in many different departments.  The current laws do more to protect active employees than future candidates for employment.  The only trouble people will run into if a rejected candidate catches wind of discrimination during hiring.

[cc]

That is correct

[Anonymous]

It's definitely not protected by human rights like pregnancy is.

Once he made it past his probationary period it is policy. They should have asked questions to see if he wanted to stick around or not. The organization's needs come first. But, I still wouldn't want to hire someone for a full time job if they wanted to take a lot of time off to raise a family. And the gender of the candidate doesn't matter. The law doesn't either.

[Anonymous]

That is correct

It sure is.