yeah but you can usually guess what those people are thinking
you're sure that you know exactly what I'm thinking right now don't you ?!
Women Leaders in Politics - (I'm not Sexist)
- Thread starter eKwatee
- Start date
yeah but you can usually guess what those people are thinking
you're sure that you know exactly what I'm thinking right now don't you ?!
Yup..probably.
I dont feel like arguing, as this is only my opinion.
Everyone is entitle to one..even you.
Yup..probably.
I dont feel like arguing, as this is only my opinion.
Everyone is entitle to one..even you.
I was joking not arguing
but thank you for advising me that I am entitled to an opinion cause I was waiting for your permission before I got one
I was joking not arguing
but thank you for advising me that I am entitled to an opinion cause I was waiting for your permission before I got one
you are welcome
as the charming Dr Phil says ... the word "but" means "forget what I just said, here's what I really mean"
Unfortunatley the majority of the population refuses to believe that they themselves are racist even though studies have shown that people have racial, sexual and religious preferences.
As an investigator into racism last week on Insight (SBS) said, people have inbuilt preferences that could be called racism, people generally have preferences built into what they see in the mirror.
If everyone put up their hand and said 'yes we are all racist' then the taboo would be broken and people could openly express their feelings honestly and without deception.
That wouldnt eliminate people being overtly racist nor the reaction their extreme comments would bring but it would alow the majority to be able to talk about these issues and discuss them in an adult manner with the purpose of sharing information and experiences which I believe would help reduce the actively racist element in our society.
Here is the website for Insight and the racism episode
http://www.sbs.com.au/insight/episode/overview/459/I-m-Not-Racist-But...
There are also links to tests that you can do to see if you are subconsciously racist, its an interesting test.
That was what I was trying to say, but you explained much better...thank you.
But as an employer you have to think about more than their particular job skills. You have to think risk to the company and how well they fit in with the rest of the staff.
If there is a 50/50 line ball call do you hire the man or the woman? the woman is a risk of skill loss due to potential maternity leave in which the company would then have to hire a temp and have that persons position open in case they decide to one day return to work, for the guy that isnt an issue.
If the 50/50 line ball call is between a non overly religious person and a person who wears their religion openly though specific clothing or practices then do you risk disrupting the workplace by hiring someone who might raise racial/religious issues in other staff members? Why hire someone who is a higher risk factor to the company?
As an employer you have a duty to the company to protect it financially and to protect it from unions/discrimination cases. Why would you knowing select an option that opened the company up to greater risk in those areas? (if there was no tangible benefit over another candidate)
OK - sounds like a definitive answer to me - you must be right, concerning all three separate examples I mentioned.
Wow are you really saying that you wouldn't hire an obvious moslem because they wouldn't fit in with your 100% white caucasian male workforce or a woman because they might one day go on maternity leave?
Welcome back to the 50's I guess. Lucky for the 50+% of the workforce that don't have a penis not all companies or employers share your views.
Welcome back to the 50's I guess. Lucky for the 50+% of the workforce that don't have a penis not all companies or employers share your views.
So true! I for one can't stand all the political correctness that abounds these days. I tend to call a spade a spade and if it offends anyone then tough titties I say. Am I sexist - hell yeah! I reckon women can do things way better than most men!
I don't like Juliar though - not because she is a woman but because she is a lying ***** who has no integrity IMO.
Not at all.
When the positives about 2 people are the same you have to pick the person with the least negatives and as an employer you have the responsibility to risk manage your workforce.
If you owned the company and the similar situation came up would you hire the pregnant woman knowing that in 3-6 months after training her you will then have to hire a temp to fill in and have to train them, (maybe) pay for the maternity leave, hope that the temp will stick around and then not even know if the person you employed will even elect to come back to work?
If you would and you would pay all of that extra $$$ and use your valuable time and reduce the efficiency of your company throughout the double training period (and more if the temp gets a full time job and you have to hire another temp) then good for you, its your money and its coming out of your pocket.
But many (i daresay most) would say 'nah, pick the guy, same qualifications, less negatives and potential costs/hassle'
Its just about analyzing the facts and making a decision based on the potential risk of each candidate. Just because the laws of the land differ between the sexes doesnt mean that there is anything personal or sexist in the decision making process it is merely about $$$$ and risk.
I saw this first hand when I worked for the Federal Government. Woman aged around late 20s/early 30s would come into a new role. After 3 months you would find out that they're pregnant, since you need a minimum of 12 months employment to be entitled to paid maternity leave.
It was very, very annoying from a co-worker's perspective because the turnover of staff made it hard to get things done. Also some who came back to work part-time on a few days a week were only available on certain days (say Tuesday, Thursday, Friday) - but how am I supposed to get work done with that kind of schedule?
I don't have an issue with women's rights but this problem is what MangoMadness was talking about - it is fine for the Fed Govt because they have lots of resources - but what about the small business where each staff member is critical?
And yet thousands of years have proved they did not and still can't.
Chicks don't make good blokes, no matter how much you try.
Sure the service economy gives them a place where they can do well, but men are still the best at almost everything.
And when women ain't good enough (or little cleavage don't work) they call for quotas, discrimination and whatever BS they can think of including.
Many women are self employed (just like men)you say?
Yep because most are not very employable as previous posters stated.
Like I said, the duty is to hire the best employee. This takes in a range of considerations.
Would I hire someone of a different religious background? Absolutely. If they were the best person for the job. I don't think there is a 'risk to the business' of hiring someone different. If a current staff member has an issue, then maybe that is an issue of the current staff member, not the new employee.
Why should the new person be punished because of the prejudices of current staff? What sort of boss would I be if I subtly condoned racial / religious / gender bias in my underlings?
"As an employer you have a duty to the company to protect it financially and to protect it from unions/discrimination cases"
Hiring using discriminatory practices surely opens you up to action, rather than eliminating them. I know proving discrimination in hiring is extremely hard, but the best way to reduce that risk would be to hire the best person for the job, regardless of race / colour / gender etc.
