Discrimination

[BayView]

Here's an interesting one for ya's...

Yesterday my shop Manager at the workshop resigned. Finishes up next friday.

I am terribly sorry to see him go, and he will be missed.

When we discussed why he was leaving, he mentioned issues with childcare, school drop offs etc. Our shop hours are 8-5, monday to friday. His first answer was "I want to step back".

He found the role of manager not really to his liking; wanted to go back "on the tools" and get away from dealing with customers, less responsibility and ease to accommodate the kids. Fair enough too.

This is not a new topic with him; he had issues with childcare arrangements a while ago, and I offered to change his employment conditions - hours etc to accommodate - so he wouldn't leave.

Nothing was done after this; he never pursued it; I thought he was ok (trying to read the body language in the months afterwards) and now here we are - he's accepted another job which gives him more flexible start/finish times on the days in question for childcare. He has taken a pay cut and is not a manager in the new position, but he's happy to cop that for the flexibility. Fair enough; I did the exact same thing when my first son was born.

Maybe he just hated me?

But here's the thing; from my point of view; when I interview another candidate for this position, one of MY concerns with the applicant will be his family arrangements. I don't want to employ someone who is going to pull up stumps after a year because it is affecting his family life with the kids. So, someone who is perhaps younger, with young kids...hmmmm.

Now, I am not not allowed to ask any questions relating to any of this because it is seen as discrimination in this world we live in; I can't ask any questions about age, marital status and so on.

This is ridiculous, because all of these factors affect the ability of the employee to do his job correctly (for my business). It is important to the business owner when selecting the right employee for the position in my view. I should be allowed to ask these questions - they are extremely relevant.

I want to employ someone who is not going to have dramas with childcare etc, so if there is an equally qualified (or maybe slightly less qualified that I can train up) guy who is perhaps say an "empty nester" with none of these issues, he will be the one I would be leaning more towards.

The bleeding heart brigade will call this discrimination, but hey; I have to run a business and make sure it survives so that all the employees (myself included) keep their jobs.

To me; discrimination laws are out of control.

 

[Luv2Travel]

The bleeding heart brigade will call this discrimination, but hey; I have to run a business and make sure it survives so that all the employees (myself included) keep their jobs.

I agree with you Bayview, I think it's ridiculous how far employers have lost their rights to be able to run their business. Why does the world owe everyone everything? It bothers me about all the rights working mothers and fathers have now, because I wonder if that will be used against me if I was to ever apply for another job (hopefully won't be for a very long time). I'm in my "child bearing years", but I don't want children. I know employers aren't allowed to ask those questions, so I think I would somehow subtly drop those comments in so they can see my focus would be work, not my family. Really sucks for employers though these days. Then again, it sucked for employees years ago, but as usual it can't sit nicely in the middle, it has to swing one way or the other.

 

[evand]

Marc,

I think the thing is you offer a position with the conditions to fulfill that position (hours, pay, responsibilities etc) . If an applicant cant, then that's the problem.

The reasons why he cant don't and shouldn't really matter to you. So you can skirt around the problem by asking "are you ok with these hours, this responsibility etc....now and in the near future?"

Just because your last guy had issues with childcare/family issues, another employee might have other issues.

I know what its like being an employer and it can be a total pain in the butt. I was over being social worker, payday advance guy, excuse maker, life advice giver.....etc etc....

 

[Mooze]

Definitely agree the laws have gone too far. Another female of childbearing age, I've recently re entered an industry that I love, but which is incredibly male dominated.

Whilst kids weren't a question during the interview it came up in converstaion (friendly them talking about theirs etc) in the weeks after - I stated that whilst I wanted children I did not want to take time out of the workforce - my husband would love to be a stay at home Dad and run his events business from home. The guys didn't want to believe me, many "oh I've seen what happens when a woman has a child - all those hormones everything changes". That's nice, maybe it happens to some, but I've committed to a certain arrangement and will carry through with that.

Got to admit I'm really unimpressed with mat leave laws etc - it just makes it harder for those females wanting to move up the ladder.

 

[hobo-jo]

Now, I am not not allowed to ask any questions relating to any of this because it is seen as discrimination in this world we live in; I can't ask any questions about age, marital status and so on.

You're not allowed to ask the question or you're not allowed to make a decision based on this information?

I wouldn't think it that difficult to find this information by using a casual chat as a second interview or Facebook stalking

 

[rugrat]

I agree with evand.

Personally, I don't think you should discriminate based on kids anyway. Some people who have kids will always have 'reasons' that discourage you to do the job they are paid for. But many with kids won't - they will do the job regardless. Just because he had childcare problems doesn't mean everyone will, or even that most will. He made a 'lifestyle' choice to quit - you cann't really predict that, alot of parents cann't 'afford' to make a lifetyle choice like that, they need the money.

 

[Gordon Gekko]

Hi Marc,

When I eMployed people for management roles, I would prefer a person with a morgage, married with kids vs a "younger" person who doesn't have ties in one spot. Yes, this is a generalisation but true most of the time, IMO.

GG

 

[dan c]

You're not allowed to ask the question as such, but there are ways around it. If you spell out the terms and conditions of the role, and maybe even advise why the position is available, this could send the message to the applicant. I've also found in interviews that the applicant is often nervous, and will devulge all sorts of information without you asking for it.

If you choose one applicant over another because of the childcare issue, as long as you don't actually SAY that, it would be very hard to prove. Employers discriminate in a subtle manner all the time.

 

[WinstonWolfe]

This type of thing is not only a problem for employers BV.

I know a Gen Y female who has wanted to partner up in a new business for 3 years. I'd love to be able to make it happen because she is very good at what she does, but I just cannot trust her to stay the distance.....one day she wants to go back to study medicine, the next she wants to start a family sooner rather than later, the next she has split up with her partner.

I've changed my thinking on starting a new business from seeking business partners to using employees. So many of Gen Y just cannot commit to anything long term. This is leading to more competition for salaried positions but with higher churn. Business plans have to accommodate this.

 

[willair]

The bleeding heart brigade will call this discrimination, but hey; I have to run a business and make sure it survives so that all the employees (myself included) keep their jobs.

To me; discrimination laws are out of control.

It's always a 2 way street,why not tell all people that you control to apply for "ABN"numbers,and subby all the work out per job,not sure how to make this work but i know most rainwater-plumbing fab workshops work like that,and it works ..


I like to think that most people can work a person out standing in front of them within 90 seconds if you ask the right question and that depends
on the person..willair..

 

[lizzie]

why not tell all people that you control to apply for "ABN"numbers,and subby all the work out per job,

unfortunately the government gets you on that too.

industrial relation laws say that if someone is doing regular hours, in the same job for more than 6 months you have to have a very watertight, good reason why they are not put on as permanent - otherwise you get your backside fined off you.

 

[Corey Batt]

I agree with the 'just ask them if the hours are able to be done now and in the foreseeable future'.

If you were use whether they had a family or such as a deciding factor it would be descrimination of course. Think about it:

What if Joe Blow comes into for an interview at your work. He really wants this job, and has made arrangements as to make sure his family doesnt conflict with being able to do the hours provided. You don't know all the info, and place a black mark on him for being in a situation you think he wouldnt be able to do the hours.

Its crap, I know. But my workplace is worse. 98% unionised workforce, some workers pull sick days 2 days on average every week, go home early other days etc.can't get fired because they have appropriate documentation even though they are clearly not sick. You fire them, union puts the lawyers on you, squeeze compensation money out of you.

 

[BayView]

unfortunately the government gets you on that too.

industrial relation laws say that if someone is doing regular hours, in the same job for more than 6 months you have to have a very watertight, good reason why they are not put on as permanent - otherwise you get your backside fined off you.

What she said.

 

[BayView]

Marc,

I think the thing is you offer a position with the conditions to fulfill that position (hours, pay, responsibilities etc) . If an applicant cant, then that's the problem.

The reasons why he cant don't and shouldn't really matter to you. So you can skirt around the problem by asking "are you ok with these hours, this responsibility etc....now and in the near future?"

Just because your last guy had issues with childcare/family issues, another employee might have other issues.

I know what its like being an employer and it can be a total pain in the butt. I was over being social worker, payday advance guy, excuse maker, life advice giver.....etc etc....

Of course it matters to me, because it directly affects my ability to offer a quality service and product to the customers who pay me money.

The worst thing for any company is turnover of staff and disruptions to that.

So, if I can avoid one of the factors that contributes to this problem, then I will. But the fools who make the employee laws won't allow you to weed out the problematic ones; you just have to cop it and cop it.

Or; move the business overseas where you can be more..."selective".

This is one of the big reasons why there are no nurses as well; the hospital won't be flexible with the women who have families, so they find other industries that will accommodate them.

Families ARE an issue in either direction when it comes to employees.

Now, in my case; I can't have a manager who is all over the place hours wise. I can have standard mechanics who can do it, but the front man needs to be there.

I should be able to ask about their kids, what the arrangements are for them in relation to the impact on their ability to do fulfill their work hours without throwing up their hands and giving up after one year in the job...

But I'd be bankrupted.

So, while we are all being so clever at protecting the employees rights, we are actually undermining the overall ability to provide jobs for everyone; the restrictions and costs are more prohibitive

 

[Rolf Latham]

and its on;y going to get better : )

Check the Greens idealogy on casual employment.

We get the government we deserve.

ta
rolf

 

[HiEquity]

Build a bridge. Get over it...

The laws are the laws. They are real and they are there for a reason. The punishment for breaking them is also very real. Government is saying that the need for society to support itself through replenishment (ie having kids in this instance) is more important than allowing you to run your business as you feel like. Allowing employers to discriminate would prevent even more people from having kids (particularly the people we actually want to have kids - ie the hard working middle class). This is worse for society than the profitability of your business.

If you can't make money without discriminating against people then you're not good enough to be in business. Get better at running your business and you won't need to stoop to these lows. Freedom against discrimination is a core value of our society and worth protecting against purely commercial interests. Businesses all over Australia have been operating without discrimination for years and they survive and prosper. The large ones are extremely good at it and are usually more profitable as a result - being able to operate in full accordance with these laws is a sign of the professionalism and quality of the business.

The only question is - are you good enough?

 

[WinstonWolfe]

Allowing employers to discriminate would prevent even more people from having kids (particularly the people we actually want to have kids - ie the hard working middle class).

It is quite common knowledge Rudd expected his staff and many public servants to work more than 40 hours a week, and drove them hard in every way.

Qld State Govt departments ubiquitously employ people on a full time casual basis to get around being accused of discrimination when they let a poorer fit employee go. Only after the govt gets a chance to discriminate, do they offer you permanency.

In my experience, the state is just as guilty of discrimination as microbusiness.

So, laws are not really laws.

 

[jaycee]

Of course it matters to me, because it directly affects my ability to offer a quality service and product to the customers who pay me money.

The worst thing for any company is turnover of staff and disruptions to that.

So, if I can avoid one of the factors that contributes to this problem, then I will. But the fools who make the employee laws won't allow you to weed out the problematic ones; you just have to cop it and cop it.

Or; move the business overseas where you can be more..."selective".

This is one of the big reasons why there are no nurses as well; the hospital won't be flexible with the women who have families, so they find other industries that will accommodate them.

Families ARE an issue in either direction when it comes to employees.

Now, in my case; I can't have a manager who is all over the place hours wise. I can have standard mechanics who can do it, but the front man needs to be there.

I should be able to ask about their kids, what the arrangements are for them in relation to the impact on their ability to do fulfill their work hours without throwing up their hands and giving up after one year in the job...

But I'd be bankrupted.

So, while we are all being so clever at protecting the employees rights, we are actually undermining the overall ability to provide jobs for everyone; the restrictions and costs are more prohibitive

MArc,

Just cause you're having 1 issue.. .doesnt;' necessarily mean the whole sytem needs tob eoverhauled.

You wil lnever be 100% asure or sureur than you were with the first employee that thsame issue wont turn up agian for a myeriad of reaosns - I guarantee you, that this wil chidlren and what ever this guy had as problems won't nbe the only issues you wil face with employees. So it won't help you as much to discrimminate agianst somene with kids or whatever as oyu think, ther's ****loads of reasons why people will / might affect the running of your business. Do you hownestly thikn 6taht you woudl make a worse manger of a gold pro shop cause you have a child, but I (assuming I could play golf as good as you) woudl make a good one cause I have no kids ? I hope you ahve enough confidence in your ability to to and ethics ofr whatever to say of coures not, JC wouldnt; be alutomatically a better choice jsut on not having kids alone !

But you already know this and the associated risks of running a business, why are you acting surprised ?

 

[HiEquity]

So, laws are not really laws.

Hi Winston

Obviously laws in this area are very difficult to enforce. Yes you can probably cheat the system if you took that approach and you probably won't be caught but that's in the same bucket as tax evasion, stealing and getting away with murder - all of which are against the law and have no integrity associated with them.

With respect to employing people on a casual basis first, this is usually to determine their performance prior to going full time. There is no law prohibiting discriminating against someone on the basis of their performance in the job. A trial period is a great way of establishing this - there is no better selection technique than actually assessing someone's performance in the job at hand prior to employing them. Something to be encouraged.

I guess my main point on this is about mindset. If you are seeking to discriminate on the basis of someone's personal life then you have the wrong mindset for business IMO. Accept it as something you can't control and focus on the things you legally can control and successful business outcomes will follow. That way you can also hold your head high when looking back on your success, knowing you took the better path to wealth, instead of cheating the system.

Again, if you need to cheat the system to run a profitable business, then you're in the wrong business.

 

[jaycee]

Build a bridge. Get over it...

The laws are the laws. They are real and they are there for a reason. The punishment for breaking them is also very real. Government is saying that the need for society to support itself through replenishment (ie having kids in this instance) is more important than allowing you to run your business as you feel like. Allowing employers to discriminate would prevent even more people from having kids (particularly the people we actually want to have kids - ie the hard working middle class). This is worse for society than the profitability of your business.

If you can't make money without discriminating against people then you're not good enough to be in business. Get better at running your business and you won't need to stoop to these lows. Freedom against discrimination is a core value of our society and worth protecting against purely commercial interests. Businesses all over Australia have been operating without discrimination for years and they survive and prosper. The large ones are extremely good at it and are usually more profitable as a result - being able to operate in full accordance with these laws is a sign of the professionalism and quality of the business.

The only question is - are you good enough?

Agree wholeheartedly well said.

I think MArc is looking for the easier way out from these problems cuase they are a pain the a$$ that no one likes to deal with..

But, then agian, someone could point out that Mathis is the game Marc chose to play and that if you dont want to pal6y by the rules dont play the game and that these problems shoudl aahve been anticiapted etc

Every business in Aust seems to still survive despite thes rules, pain in the a$$ or not... I'm sure Marc is as good as them to be able to as well, maybe we just need to give him a bit of moral suppor t- come on Marc, you can do it, just like every one else, they're not that much better than you !