What's with women and HR (bloody ridiculous)

fits

cantdecide wrote: »

Would your new circumstances make you consider changing to a career with more dependable prospects?

Not just my new circumstances, its something I have thought about at length.

If your current job prospects improved, would your husband choose to stay at home?

He would consider it yes. We thought about him moving abroad to where I have been working the last few years, but I didnt have guaranteed work long term and he would have had zero job prospects there. So we decided to base ourselves in Ireland where at least we both have some chance of working.

Frank101

anewme wrote: »

To be honest, following a reference here, ive looked up another thread on Op regarding interviews.

It involved putting on a strange deep fake voice during an interview.

When questioned on it the OP said they made up the story.

So on this case also maybe the Op also put on that deep voice at some stage in this interview and that's why the women smiled to themselves or alternatively the op made up this interview situation also in which case the OP may have a phobia about interviews.

That unprofessional to bring my other history into this thread. And this story is the true one.

anewme

Frank101 wrote: »

That unprofessional to bring my other history into this thread. And this story is the true one.

It was another poster said about the Good Man thread not me. I just read it and it was most bizarre and involved you having a problem with interviews.

you said that one was true for ages as well so this could be the same.

Why are you going on about an interview that you had "once" ? and linking it to success with women?

dr.fuzzenstein

JeffKenna wrote: »

This is your real problem, not HR. Anyone going for an interview should have an answer to this, very commonly asked question ready to go.

Best answer would be "is there anything in particular you would like to know or could you simply not come up with something better than this lame, clichéd question? Is the answer even going to matter to you?"

anewme

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Best answer would be "is there anything in particular you would like to know or could you simply not come up with something better than this lame, clichéd question? Is the answer even going to matter to you?"

That's the best answer to secure the job, without a doubt!

Frank101

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Best answer would be "is there anything in particular you would like to know or could you simply not come up with something better than this lame, clichéd question? Is the answer even going to matter to you?"

You're dead right. I find it hard to give a question that doesn't sound cliche. I guess I sort of fear that if I keep it simple it'll sound cliche.

But if the question is cliche, then that gives you the right to give a chliche answer.

"I'm a friendly, out going guy who's keen to learn in a working environment"

Frank101

Wibbs wrote: »

But if the person was stupid, then they'd need the observe the full gesture in order to realise what's meant.

Wibbs

The irony…

Calahonda52

15YemenRoad wrote:

The function of HR is to protect the company and minimize risk.

If you go to HR complaining about your depression, dead dog etc. it's better to be able to talk with a woman as Irish men are very emotionally stunted. BUT it's dangerous to assume that HR actually care. They are all about the company bottom line, not employee welfare. I feel like women are better at this duplicity.

I don't think there is any insult of either sex implied here: after 40 years in all sorts of companies, up to board level, across 3 continents, this observation matches my experiences.

mansize

Maybe you don't get the job because of
1. Your attitude
2. Your unpreparedness
3. Getting basic things wrong- 90% of women don't work in HR, but 90% of HR personnel may be female - I'd find this distinction very important in computing/programming etc

or conversely

Women, pah!

Christy42

jcon1913 wrote: »

So why dont busineses just employ women?

Businesses are not perfectly logical even if many try to be. Too many people believe that market forces work perfectly.

Same reason they don't hire men without kids over women without kids.

However to answer to op. Improve your interview technique. You got surprised in a preliminary interview by the looks of it. One suggestion would be to start by saying what you are looking for in a position and why that appeals to you. You are in all likelihood joining a team and so your personality is important to the role. I see no issue with that question. It is a bit of a vague question but not every interviewer you get will be perfect.

They aren't looking for you to sweep you off their feet. Just that you can communicate effectively and that you show that you are a good fit for the team in question.

El_Duderino 09

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Best answer would be "is there anything in particular you would like to know or could you simply not come up with something better than this lame, clich d question? Is the answer even going to matter to you?"

It would only really serve to eliminate the candidates so woefully unprepared for an interview that they hadn't prepared for such a basic question.

If you hadn't prepared for any question in an interview, it's your opportunity to demonstrate your ability to handle unexpected situations. Getting narky with the interviewer is probably not the best decision in any situation.

As posters keep pointing out, this is about the OP's interview technique and he has started a thread where he places the blame on women in HR.

Thelomen Toblackai

I had an interview before with two male managers and a girl from HR. I was prepared but still got a bit lost during the "Tell me about yourself" question as I was quite nervous and had to recompose myself. They didn't throw each other glances or make me feel more uncomfortable. The girl from HR actually asked a question about what I was saying to fill the gap and get me back on track.

Tbh those that say the two women in the OP's story were professional and the OP just wasn't prepared I think are being a bit harsh on the OP. To visibly throw a glance at your other interviewer when a flustered candidate is recomposing themselves is not professional by any means.

There's nice people who are good at their job and then there's not so nice people who are not good at their job. I got nice people who made me feel at ease and helped me get things back on track and I actually ended up getting the position where I have been doing very well. You got not so nice people who made you feel more uncomfortable and may very well have removed a good candidate from the running for the position because of it.

Nothing to do with women in HR though.

astrofool

Our HR interview is a funnel before the technical interview, it's usually there to make sure the person could work in a team, and some basic technical stuff before wasting time with engineers.

However, "tell me about yourself" is a question that must come up somewhere in every interview, I usually do coding questions and software development questions, but I'll still usually start with that just to break the ice and put the candidate at ease.

If you're having trouble with that, then I'd suggest talking to someone in the careers guidance profession for advice on how to handle yourself in an interview situation.

The gender of the interviewer shouldn't even be a concern to the candidate.

dogbert27

fits wrote: »

I am working on a contract/freelance basis. This sector is very precarious at the moment and I have tried and failed to find anything more secure. My plan at present is to return to work next June, five months after my due date. But my current paymaster could decide to just drop me in the meantime as they have absolutely no legal obligation to me. I feel its important for me to get back to work asap even if it has few financial benefits in the shorter term.

If you are working contract/freelance (self employed) you are your own paymaster. Or do you mean you are on a temporary contract being paid a salary for fixed period of time?

aphex™

I had problems with HR in my last company. They would interview new staff and call them names. This went on with the European Financial Controller. So you would hear them say "Yeah we'll go with the inbetweener" on the phone. You can guess which roles are male in female in that situation, your assumption will be correct.

Quite why either of them watch the inbetweeners on E4 I do not know. One of them looked the spit of Peter Griffin from Family Guy so he should definitely check that out for more adult humour.

A lot of women think they have 'HR skills' but don't actually work in HR. So my previous boss organised a lot of stroppy and over-the-top formal letters after I made a complaint about another staff member. Needless, they didn't stand up in the LRC and they ended up paying me.

SarahMollie

Wibbs wrote: »

It's hardly a "collapse" Fits. Never mind that we're not informed how those stats are analysed.

I would call a 30+ point swing in my income a collapse. And as for the stats being analysed, lots of posters were happy to run with the stat saying that women earned 17% more earlier on in the thread. Once the impact of having a family comes into play and it changed to women earning 14% less, then all of a sudden the figures are worthy of scrutiny?

Also, as to your point that not all monthers are the same, well yes of course, some are school leavers and some are PhD candidates. But the same is true of men. This doesnt explain how people who have previously earned well suddenly see their earning capacity fall off a cliff once they reach a certain age (which is code for having children.)

Also, there are softer effects of the pervalient sexism in our society. Whether or not you actually intend to have children, employers become wary of you around that age. They often think that as soon as they hire a women in her 30's that she's going to run off on maternity leave and present them with loads of problems. This is particularly accute in the SME sector.

Action does need to be taken to address the impact that motherhood (or even prospective motherhood) has on womens once flourishing careers. If maternity leave became parental leave that either partner could take that might be a start.

Pawwed Rig

Before family life comes into the equation there is more of an equal playing field so the remuneration is more comparable.
A statistic that showed a comparison in the wages of men and women who never had children would tell alot imo as would a comparison which showed women with no kids v men with kids

Christy42

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Before family life comes into the equation there is more of an equal playing field so the remuneration is more comparable.
A statistic that showed a comparison in the wages of men and women who never had children would tell alot imo as would a comparison which showed women with no kids v men with kids

Shouldn't we stop it from becoming unequal? I maybe have a slightly odd group of friends but can't think of one that wants to be a housewife (obviously not saying such people don't exist). Also remember that anyone who stays at home when they are able (or has their career path stunted) and willing to work will hurt the economy.

These combined suggest that it is a good idea to see why this happens. Giving both partners the same leave and cheap childcare seem like great ideas to help this (I am also curious about the 17% difference before children but have no idea what would be causing it).

Off topic: what happens to a gay couple who adopt, do they both end up just getting the 2 weeks while a lesbian couple would get 6 months each?

finooola

Frank101 wrote: »

It's seems women get to be the judge of a lot of things in this life. And with over 90% of women in HR, it's no surprise. You'd have to wonder is their screening process biased.

I remember being interviewed by two women once. One was probably a year younger than me, she seemed so naive and gave me a handshake like a robot. The other probably in her 30s. The first question was 'tell me about yourself?' I, like a lot of people, didn't really know where to start, so at one point I remember stopping myself in order to try and address the question better. A slight moment of dead air, and as I looked across the table, they were both looking at each other with a smile. I didn't make me feel good. I had no choice but to still give 100% effort, just in case, was something that irked me.

You'd have to wonder, is it human nature, for women to be more inclined to choose a man that is more charming or witty during the interview than one that isn't. This job was for a lab technician! What also annoyed me, was that 5 weeks later, when I asked if there was any decision, I was told that they were still deciding (instead of just informing me I hadn't got it). The envelope came about a week later, so late that it interrupted the holiday plans I had.

I'm definitely having no luck with the ladies at the moment, both in bars, and in interviews! And there's likely a correlation between the two!

The flip are you on about? No one likes those style of interview questions. I'm a woman and I dread them. You just (like everyone else in the western world) need to prepare as best you can for competency based interviews while they are the standard, even though you don't like them, and stop being pathetic and blaming women for nonexistent ills.

dogbert27

Christy42 wrote: »

Shouldn't we stop it from becoming unequal? I maybe have a slightly odd group of friends but can't think of one that wants to be a housewife (obviously not saying such people don't exist). Also remember that anyone who stays at home when they are able (or has their career path stunted) and willing to work will hurt the economy.

These combined suggest that it is a good idea to see why this happens. Giving both partners the same leave and cheap childcare seem like great ideas to help this (I am also curious about the 17% difference before children but have no idea what would be causing it).

Off topic: what happens to a gay couple who adopt, do they both end up just getting the 2 weeks while a lesbian couple would get 6 months each?

Women who give up work after having children are called stay at home moms, they are definitely not housewives. I know this first hand from my wife!! :pac:

Seriously though, it's not a very black and white issue. My wife had a 50K per annum job that she gave up to stay at home to be with our children.

It was always what she wanted to do when the time came. To cover the loss in income I worked extra hours.

So in the black and white world of statistics her salary dropped 100% while mine increased.

Then you have women who do go back to work but want to work 3 day weeks. This will result in a salary drop in the statistics but the reality is a work / life balance decision.

I was making more money than my wife but we were in two completely seperate fields of work and it would have been the case economically that we may have had to make the decision anyway for one of us to give up work as we could not afford the cost of childcare in Ireland and running two cars and a mortgage and putting food on the table.

You could say childcare should be subsidized like the Nordic countries but taking Denmark as an example where 2/3rds of the childcare cost is covered by the state this requires both parents to go back to work to pay a high level of taxation to cover the subsidy!

Wibbs

SarahMollie wrote: »

I would call a 30+ point swing in my income a collapse. And as for the stats being analysed, lots of posters were happy to run with the stat saying that women earned 17% more earlier on in the thread. Once the impact of having a family comes into play and it changed to women earning 14% less, then all of a sudden the figures are worthy of scrutiny?

I'm happy to scrutinise the figures quite simply because a government sponsored feminist quango are quite willing to speak outa the corner of their mouths when the figures go against their agenda.

Let's reexamine their stats.

The latest figures from the EU Commission show that the Gender Pay Gap in Ireland is 13.9% - in other words women in Ireland are paid almost 14% less than men. The Gender Pay Gap exists even though women do better at school and university than men. In the Irish context, what is perhaps most disturbing is the high cost of motherhood. Figures from the OECD show that in Ireland the Gender Pay Gap for women with no children is -17% but this increases significantly to 14% for women with at least one child – a jump of 31 percentage points.

For a start it is quite obvious the first sentence makes no sense when considering the second. Anyway the overall pay gap is 13.9%, not 30%. We'll return to that... No examination of the type of jobs, nor the hours worked by the way. When similar stats in other countries are looked at the reality is the "pay gap" all but vanishes in the same jobs with the same hours worked.

As for the 30%, again they're being economical with the truth/stats/information. Case in point; do women previously earning X amount drop 30%, even 10% after a child? Or is that this statistic is affected more by mothers not finishing education/dropping out of careers/working part time jobs? I would strongly suspect that if one was to look at men and women of similar career and educational backgrounds such an earning gap would narrow considerably, kids or no. Of course it would as they point out women are more likely on average to be better educated.

Of course that doesn't suit the pay gap victim narrative one little bit. Look how they twist said narrative as is. if they were even attempting to be honest they could have written "women on average earn more than men without children", but they pointedly didn't. Big shock and why more and more people are questioning the BS.

This doesnt explain how people who have previously earned well suddenly see their earning capacity fall off a cliff once they reach a certain age (which is code for having children.)

Which as I point out is not what the stats state. They simply state a woman who has children earns less than one who doesn't. That simplicity will almost certainly hide a multitude(never mind the reality that men are more likely to be unemployed in the first place). I'll bet that they won't ask to dig into the stats more deeply.

Also, there are softer effects of the pervalient sexism in our society. Whether or not you actually intend to have children, employers become wary of you around that age. They often think that as soon as they hire a women in her 30's that she's going to run off on maternity leave and present them with loads of problems. This is particularly accute in the SME sector.

TBH if I was running a SME I'd be very wary too. In that sense certainly, men are "cheaper".

SarahMollie

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Before family life comes into the equation there is more of an equal playing field so the remuneration is more comparable.
A statistic that showed a comparison in the wages of men and women who never had children would tell alot imo as would a comparison which showed women with no kids v men with kids

I really think its more insidious than that. Really once you're a woman in your 30s, employers start to look at you differently. Are you engaged? Are you just married? Are babies (aka maternity leave) just around the corner? Never mind the fact that men are key to all these life events.

Your employer can't actually ask you if you intend to have children, so they'll assume you do as thats what most people want, whether you plan on them or not. This can result in getting passed over for promotions etc, as they don't want to promote someone who is going to leave for 6-12 months, and might do it all over again a year later.

Lux23

You have issues answering the question, 'tell me about yourself' in an interview. It is pretty simple OP, you just bring them through your CV highlighting why you are suited to this particular job.

nelly17

SarahMollie wrote: »

I really think its more insidious than that. Really once you're a woman in your 30s, employers start to look at you differently. Are you engaged? Are you just married? Are babies (aka maternity leave) just around the corner? Never mind the fact that men are key to all these life events.

Your employer can't actually ask you if you intend to have children, so they'll assume you do as thats what most people want, whether you plan on them or not. This can result in getting passed over for promotions etc, as they don't want to promote someone who is going to leave for 6-12 months, and might do it all over again a year later.

They really should level the playing field on that one and give men the same amount of paternity leave or allow it be shared between both parents.

I do realise its a significant cost but it would lesson the implicit discrimination

Christy42

dogbert27 wrote: »

You could say childcare should be subsidized like the Nordic countries but taking Denmark as an example where 2/3rds of the childcare cost is covered by the state this requires both parents to go back to work to pay a high level of taxation to cover the subsidy!

On this line how exactly does it work? If one parent does not return to work do they simply not get the subsidy (which seems fair as it shouldn't be needed at that point). If that is the case it seems perfect. You get the subsidy if it is needed and if someone stays at home then you don't need the subsidy.

Lux23

runawaybishop wrote: »

Ah yes, the gender wage gap

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Have you read this recent article from the Economist recently?

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/05/gender-pay-gap-0

It is shrinking, but it does still exist.

SarahMollie

Wibbs, come on are you seriously suggesting that white male privilege doesn't exist? I see it every day when I go to work. Yes there are some female managers up to middle management level, but past that its a boys club. This is how men earn more. Its not about earning the same money for the same job, its about the ability to get promoted into an even better job, where the real money is to be made.

Lux23

nelly17 wrote: »

They really should level the playing field on that one and give men the same amount of paternity leave or allow it be shared between both parents.

I do realise its a significant cost but it would lesson the implicit discrimination

Men aren't physically affected by childbirth though so is it really discrimination to give women more time off? My 32 year old cousin had to have an emergency hysterectomy after giving birth to her last child so it took her much longer to recover. Another friend lost 80% of her blood after giving birth and suffered a prolapsed womb. These things are extreme, but the effect on a woman's body after childbirth is something that really isn't talked about in great deal. Then there is breastfeeding which is a lot harder when you're getting up for work every morning at 6am. Try pumping in a dress suit and blouse!

So although I agree that men should get more time off, it shouldn't be at the expense of a mother's time with her baby.

Lux23

SarahMollie wrote: »

Wibbs, come on are you seriously suggesting that white male privilege doesn't exist? I see it every day when I go to work. Yes there are some female managers up to middle management level, but past that its a boys club. This is how men earn more. Its not about earning the same money for the same job, its about the ability to get promoted into an even better job, where the real money is to be made.

You see if you're benefiting from something it makes more sense to deny it doesn't exist. Of course white men get better jobs, money and treatment. There is just no point explaining that to a man because he is so blinded by his privilege that he genuinely can't see it. Ignorance is bliss.

kunst nugget

Lux23 wrote: »

You see if you're benefiting from something it makes more sense to deny it doesn't exist. Of course white men get better jobs, money and treatment. There is just no point explaining that to a man because he is so blinded by his privilege that he genuinely can't see it. Ignorance is bliss.

Oh, ffs. This is a pisstake, right?

An old boys network of private school nyoks keeping themselves in positions of power is not something that magically benefits all white men. It benefits those bunch of fúcks and no one else.

dogbert27

Christy42 wrote: »

On this line how exactly does it work? If one parent does not return to work do they simply not get the subsidy (which seems fair as it shouldn't be needed at that point). If that is the case it seems perfect. You get the subsidy if it is needed and if someone stays at home then you don't need the subsidy.

You don't get the subsidy personally, it's when you apply for the childcare placement that it will be subsidized to the childcare facility.

If you decide to stay at home with your child you receive a home allowance of about 400 euro a month until the child is 2 or 3.

Wibbs

nelly17 wrote: »

I do realise its a significant cost but it would lesson the implicit discrimination

and there's the rub… The cost. In an ideal world I'd be all for it, but unless the government directly sponsors such schemes small businesses simply won't be able to afford it.

Lux23 wrote: »

You see if you're benefiting from something it makes more sense to deny it doesn't exist. Of course white men get better jobs, money and treatment. There is just no point explaining that to a man because he is so blinded by his privilege that he genuinely can't see it. Ignorance is bliss.

Today we are gathered together to hear Lux read from the Gospel of the Holy Western Feminist…. Amenwoman.

As I pointed out previously, in the US Chinese Americans earn more than White Americans. Are you seriously suggesting Chinese American privilege at work in the US?

As it stands today, in Ireland men are on average* less educated, a magnitude more likely to be injured or die at work, more likely to be unemployed, never mind more likely to commit suicide, be homeless, be assaulted(just as likely by a female partner BTW), have far fewer social safety nets, less medical research and die younger. Quite simply your average woman is better off than your average man. These are facts. Not corner mouth quango stats. So pray tell me how this male privilege thing works?






*no, I'm afraid elites and outliers don't count, even though modern feminists love to equate them.

mzungu

Lux23 wrote: »

You see if you're benefiting from something it makes more sense to deny it doesn't exist.

Really? There are a few at the top perhaps, but the average Joe Soap on the street?

That average Joe is less educated, will earn less (up until 30 as discussed above), higher instances of mental health issues, higher instances of fatalities at work and more likely to commit suicide etc. I would hardly call that benefiting. I am not denying that things still have a way to go as regards full equality, but there seems to be a tendency to match up the average women against a man in the upper echelons of society. Match the average man and woman together and it's a more equal picture. Although the various lobby groups spouting that message of 'male privilege' over the past couple of decades have done a fine job of muddying the water. As lobby groups tend to do!

dogbert27

SarahMollie wrote: »

I really think its more insidious than that. Really once you're a woman in your 30s, employers start to look at you differently. Are you engaged? Are you just married? Are babies (aka maternity leave) just around the corner? Never mind the fact that men are key to all these life events.

Your employer can't actually ask you if you intend to have children, so they'll assume you do as thats what most people want, whether you plan on them or not. This can result in getting passed over for promotions etc, as they don't want to promote someone who is going to leave for 6-12 months, and might do it all over again a year later.

Actually men who start a family do find themselves in this position also as it is the case that single men / women would get a promotion over the man with a new family as he will be unable to work late or weekends, will also either be coming in late after dropping child off to creche or leaving early to collect child from creche (whichever way the parents work the system of drop offs / collections).

The father with a new family will also probably be taking time off a points over the next 5 years to deal with a sick child (i.e. 2 or 3 days here and there for colds, chicken pox, etc.)

Men with a new family are not totally exempt from negativity to their careers.

SarahMollie

dogbert27 wrote: »

Actually men who start a family do find themselves in this position also as it is the case that single men / women would get a promotion over the man with a new family as he will be unable to work late or weekends, will also either be coming in late after dropping child off to creche or leaving early to collect child from creche (whichever way the parents work the system of drop offs / collections).

The father with a new family will also probably be taking time off a points over the next 5 years to deal with a sick child (i.e. 2 or 3 days here and there for colds, chicken pox, etc.)

Men with a new family are not totally exempt from negativity to their careers.

True, but you can't say that being unwilling to put in as much overtime is a big a negative to an employer as maternity leave (which could happen 2-3 times). Upon returning to work, women with young families are also not going to want to work weekends etc, and I'm sure will need to take time off for illnesses etc also.

Also I don't think that the specter of potential pregnancy hangs over men as much as it hangs over women. Its something that annoys me, because I don't plan on having children, but I know its assumed I will, because I'm 30 and have am in a long term relationship.

Lux23

Wibbs wrote: »

and there's the rub… The cost. In an ideal world I'd be all for it, but unless the government directly sponsors such schemes small businesses simply won't be able to afford it.

Today we are gathered together to hear Lux read from the Gospel of the Holy Western Feminist…. Amenwoman.

As I pointed out previously, in the US Chinese Americans earn more than White Americans. Are you seriously suggesting Chinese American privilege at work in the US?

As it stands today, in Ireland men are on average* less educated, a magnitude more likely to be injured or die at work, more likely to be unemployed, never mind more likely to commit suicide, be homeless, be assaulted(just as likely by a female partner BTW), have far fewer social safety nets, less medical research and die younger. Quite simply your average woman is better off than your average man. These are facts. Not corner mouth quango stats. So pray tell me how this male privilege thing works?






*no, I'm afraid elites and outliers don't count, even though modern feminists love to equate them.

Those are all valid points, but many of the issues men face are a direct consequence of perceived gender roles. Why did so many fathers kill themselves during the recession? Was it because they felt like failures because they weren't able to provide for their families? Is it because they are simply more unlikely to seek medical help? Is that somehow the fault of feminism? Why do women receive more formal education? Is it because men are more likely to benefit from access to vocational training in plumbing, building etc. Do more men die at work because more work in more dangerous occupations such as farming, building etc.

I could go on. The problem with some facts is that although they may well be correct, the context is often missing from the conversation.

What I will say is that life as a woman in Ireland is OK, apart from access to basic reproductive rights, we do play a part in society that women in other cultures don't seem to have. And single men seem to have a harder time of it, but I don't see how that is the fault of feminism.

Carlos Orange

SarahMollie wrote: »

parents with young families are also not going to want to work weekends etc, and I'm sure will need to take time off for illnesses etc also.

FTFY

Jaggo

Lux23 wrote: »

And single men seem to have a harder time of it, but I don't see how that is the fault of feminism.

Just on the Feminism issue - I just think that in any society having a lobby group for one particular group distorts the overall picture and men as a group are really bad at making a case for investment.

If you read the work of Claudia Goldin - the professor of economics at Harvard, she is coming to the conclusion that there is no gender pay gap. In America where the difference in earnings between men/women is 21%, it can be account for by women doing less hours, less days and less overtime. She cannot account for c3% of the gap but suggests that some(possibly all) is accounted for by women unmotivated by financial considerations (mainly returning to work mothers) entering the charity sector or similar low pay industries.

Furthermore, the above is pre-tax pay. Post-tax pay has a gender gap too. In Ireland, with the progressive nature of our tax system. A woman who only works 4 days a week will be recorded in the gender-gap stats as receiving 20% less pay even though she does 20% less work. But due to the tax system in Ireland, her colleague doing the 5 days a week will be paying nearly c50% tax on the fifth day. The person doing the full week will have a higher tax burden and will proportionately take home less pay. (the effect means that you do 20% less work but receive 11% less net pay)

Another feminist issue is that of pensions yet in the public services a man and woman will get the same pension on retirement. But due to living longer, the value of a woman's pension is considerably more then the male equivalent. So over the course of an average life-time, a woman will receive more income for the same job.

This is also true of PRSI and state pensions. Obviously a man is expected to died 7 years before a woman and thus received less pension yet they will both have contributed the same payments. This is particularly true in the inner city where the average man will die at 68.

Assuming that it is everyone's goal to produce a fairer and more just society having a lobby group that put forward only one side of any agenda distorts the picture and does not lead to a balanced argument.

SarahMollie

psinno wrote: »

FTFY

So he said "fathers", and I said "and also mothers", but you needed to change that to "parents"?

Unless there is some new gender neutral type of parent, I think we had it covered, thanks all the same.

dogbert27

SarahMollie wrote: »

So he said "fathers", and I said "and also mothers", but you needed to change that to "parents"?

Unless there is some new gender neutral type of parent, I think we had it covered, thanks all the same.

You seem to be avoiding the point though that post maternity leave when both parents return to full time employment they both share the same impedements, i.e. family life.

When a woman takes maternity leave and decides to return to work in Ireland she is entitled, by law, to return to the same employer, the same job, under the same contract (pay!) and the same terms and conditions.

SarahMollie

dogbert27 wrote: »

You seem to be avoiding the point though that post maternity leave when both parents return to full time employment they both share the same impedements, i.e. family life.

No, if you read what I said, I agreed with you, and said that its also true for mothers, as in, equally true for both. Fathers are not uniquely disadvantaged. There is no conflict here so I don't know why you're looking for it.

When a woman takes maternity leave and decides to return to work in Ireland she is entitled, by law, to return to the same employer, the same job, under the same contract (pay!) and the same terms and conditions.

This is just naive. Unless you're working in the public sector or in a service type job with an hourly rate, people are regularly paid differently for the same role. In most professional jobs, people negotiate their salaries as part of the recruitment process and the same goes for any pay rises - they're not just across the board. Typically people won't know the details of what others are paid, but its not a flat rate for a job.

dogbert27

SarahMollie wrote: »

dogbert27 wrote: »

You seem to be avoiding the point though that post maternity leave when both parents return to full time employment they both share the same impedements, i.e. family life.

No, if you read what I said, I agreed with you, and said that its also true for mothers, as in, equally true for both. Fathers are not uniquely disadvantaged. There is no conflict here so I don't know why you're looking for it.

When a woman takes maternity leave and decides to return to work in Ireland she is entitled, by law, to return to the same employer, the same job, under the same contract (pay!) and the same terms and conditions.

This is just naive. Unless you're working in the public sector or in a service type job with an hourly rate, people are regularly paid differently for the same role. In most professional jobs, people negotiate their salaries as part of the recruitment process and the same goes for any pay rises - they're not just across the board. Typically people won't know the details of what others are paid, but its not a flat rate for a job.

How is quoting employment law with regard to womens rights post maternity leave naive?

The discussion has been regarding womens pay being less then mens post maternity leave.

You're now discussing pay and contracts in general.

alwald

Frank101 wrote:

The envelope came about a week later, so late that it interrupted the holiday plans I had.

Really??!! It must the fault of the 2 women working in HR, in fact you are blaming women in HR for everything instead of focusing on yourself, learning from your experience and going forward.

SarahMollie

dogbert27 wrote: »

How is quoting employment law with regard to womens rights post maternity leave naive?

The discussion has been regarding womens pay being less then mens post maternity leave.

You're now discussing pay and contracts in general.

Apologies - I misread your 2nd paragraph. I though you were saying that everyone got the same rate for whatever job.

Taking that point though - while obviously you're entitled to come back on the same pay and conditions and into a role at the same level, the world moves on in that time. I know in my company, because its large, they might just shoehorn you in another part of the business because the role in the team you were in would have been filled.

I know theres not necessarily a way around it (until men can have the babies), but its certainly a frustration.

ancapailldorcha

Lux23 wrote: »

Those are all valid points, but many of the issues men face are a direct consequence of perceived gender roles. Why did so many fathers kill themselves during the recession? Was it because they felt like failures because they weren't able to provide for their families? Is it because they are simply more unlikely to seek medical help?

Maybe they were separated from their children by an antiquated system designed to favour mothers.

Lux23 wrote: »

Is that somehow the fault of feminism? Why do women receive more formal education? Is it because men are more likely to benefit from access to vocational training in plumbing, building etc. Do more men die at work because more work in more dangerous occupations such as farming, building etc.

It's not the fault of feminism but when you see feminists bleat on and on about the paygap despite most men not having a snowball's chance in hell at getting one of the top 1% of high paying jobs then I smell a rat. Feminists drone on and on about gender roles but never about getting more fathers involved unless it directly benefits the mother.

dogbert27

SarahMollie wrote: »

Apologies - I misread your 2nd paragraph. I though you were saying that everyone got the same rate for whatever job.

Taking that point though - while obviously you're entitled to come back on the same pay and conditions and into a role at the same level, the world moves on in that time. I know in my company, because its large, they might just shoehorn you in another part of the business because the role in the team you were in would have been filled.

I know theres not necessarily a way around it (until men can have the babies), but its certainly a frustration.

You're right as you say, life moves on. A promotion might have passed the woman by while she's been on maternity leave but it might equally be another woman who got that promotion who wasn't on leave.

I've seen women return to work and throw themselves in to their career and keep climbing and equally I've seen women make a life choice of wanting to do the job that they had and were happy to remain as they were.

Lux23

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Maybe they were separated from their children by an antiquated system designed to favour mothers.



It's not the fault of feminism but when you see feminists bleat on and on about the paygap despite most men not having a snowball's chance in hell at getting one of the top 1% of high paying jobs then I smell a rat. Feminists drone on and on about gender roles but never about getting more fathers involved unless it directly benefits the mother.

I agree with you to a point, some feminism is too extreme and purely focused on women. But that doesn't mean you discount it all especially when there is massive inequality in the world.

ancapailldorcha

Lux23 wrote: »

I agree with you to a point, some feminism is too extreme and purely focused on women. But that doesn't mean you discount it all especially when there is massive inequality in the world.

Of course there is massive inequality but when it is measured wrongly and without any consideration for nuance or context then it's hard to take seriously.

andekwarhola

Had a HR person present for a second interview once. Seemed more of a formality than anything.

Didn't read the whole thread but the amount of HR bashing always bemuses me. Any HR I've dealt with (15 years in IT industry) have always been great and although women have predominated in HR in the companies I've worked in, I don't know if that's a industry wide thing or not.