What's with women and HR (bloody ridiculous)

smash

It's rare that I'd come across a man working in HR. Recruitment, sure. But rarely in HR.

I've no issues with HR bashing because it's not human resources as much as its "company protection". But that's nothing to do with it being a female dominated industry.

fits

smash wrote: »

It's rare that I'd come across a man working in HR. Recruitment, sure. But rarely in HR.

I've no issues with HR bashing because it's not human resources as much as its "company protection". But that's nothing to do with it being a female dominated industry.

I have had dealings with a male HR manager and it wasnt great. Completely agree with you that its just all about the company

ancapailldorcha

I had an interview scheduled with a male HR chap recently. I cancelled it but you do see guys in HR from time to time. My former flatmate was doing a HR-related qualification as well.

smash

It's interesting. When I think about it, the only time I've had any interaction with a man in HR, he was the owner of a HR outsourcing company.

yqtwqxqm

In my last company there were 4 women and 1 man in the HR department.
I worked for that company on and off for about 5 years.
Always there was at least one of the women out on maternity leave and sometimes two or three at a time.
There were so many babies born to HR that the joke in the company was that HR stood for Human Reproduction.
The man got promoted and ended up heading up the department. The girls werent half p!ssed.
The last I heard one of them was going to take a case. She was out on maternity leave again at the time.

jimgoose

yqtwqxqm wrote: »

In my last company there were 4 women and 1 man in the HR department.
I worked for that company on and off for about 5 years.
Always there was at least one of the women out on maternity leave and sometimes two or three at a time.
There were so many babies born to HR that the joke in the company was that HR stood for Human Reproduction.
The man got promoted and ended up heading up the department. The girls werent half p!ssed.
The last I heard one of them was going to take a case. She was out on maternity leave again at the time.

Sounds like a company with a misogynistic, asshole "culture". The HR manager here (for the whole hemisphere) is a rather tasty fortysomething little blonde with a couple of kids. Her usual approach is "Fcuk off out of my office and sort ye'reselves out like grown men!". I like that gal...

yqtwqxqm

jimgoose wrote: »

Sounds like a company with a misogynistic, asshole "culture". The HR manager here (for the whole hemisphere) is a rather tasty fortysomething little blonde with a couple of kids. Her usual approach is "Fcuk off out of my office and sort ye'reselves out like grown men!". I like that gal...

It was the women who nicknamed it the Human Reproduction department.
They couldnt believe the amount or the timing of the pregnancies.

jimgoose

yqtwqxqm wrote: »

It was the women who nicknamed it the Human Reproduction department.
They couldnt believe the amount or the timing of the pregnancies.

Would you not consider that perfectly normal? Any woman worth her salt will go through the CEO like the Alien Big Bitch when it comes down to the babby business. That's why we love the critters!

yqtwqxqm

jimgoose wrote: »

Would you not consider that perfectly normal? Any woman worth her salt will go through the CEO like the Alien Big Bitch when it comes down to the babby business. That's why we love the critters!

I couldnt care less one way or the other. Just passing on a story to the good people of boards.
Sure I might as well tell the rest of it now
The CEO called up to HR when the only male member was on hols and finds that the last remaining non pregnant female member of staff was in getting a scan and there was a heavily pregnant temp in there as the last person standing.
He decreed that there will be no more women hired in HR and that the male member was to be promoted to head of HR.
Thats why the case was being taken. Im sure if they are reading this they will know exactly the company know after ive spilled that nugget
But im retired. Good luck to them all.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jimgoose

yqtwqxqm wrote: »

...He decreed that there will be no more women hired in HR and that the male member was to be promoted to head of HR...

Poor bastard!

Charizard

jimgoose wrote: »

Sounds like a company with a misogynistic, asshole "culture". The HR manager here (for the whole hemisphere) is a rather tasty fortysomething little blonde with a couple of kids. Her usual approach is "Fcuk off out of my office and sort ye'reselves out like grown men!". I like that gal...

I understand him getting the gig, if it was like he explained it to be anyways

orl

I can assure the CEO will be a sorry man. If the female HR staff had more experience and qualifications, that will be a slam dunk case in the WRC. Papers love those stories too. Bad PR, Bad HR>

Charizard

orl wrote: »

I can assure the CEO will be a sorry man. If the female HR staff had more experience and qualifications, that will be a slam dunk case in the WRC. Papers love those stories too. Bad PR, Bad HR>

Really? Ive been promoted over people with more experience and qualifications and vice versa before, sometimes its more suitable for the candidate to get the job regardless of the other two things

Pawwed Rig

Interesting article on the pay gap here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37156178

A selective quote (despite of the title of the piece)

The IFS found that in the 20 years following the arrival of a first child, the average woman had worked for four years fewer than men.

And men had spent nine years more than women working for 20 hours a week or more.

SarahMollie

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Interesting article on the pay gap here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37156178

A selective quote (despite of the title of the piece)

For some balance;

The thinktank says the widening of the hourly wage gap after childbirth is associated with working fewer hours. However women do not see an immediate cut in hourly pay when they reduce their hours. Rather, women who work 20 hours or less per week lose out on subsequent pay rises, meaning that the hourly wages of colleagues in full-time work pull further and further ahead.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/aug/23/gender-pay-gap-average-18-per-cent-less-uk-women

Highlighting that men generally don't make the same sacrifices.

Pawwed Rig

SarahMollie wrote: »

Highlighting that men generally don't make the same sacrifices.

Can't make the same sacrifices you mean.

I would love 6 months off to spend with my little girl. Instead I see her if she is awake in the morning and then I say good night to her when I get home.

So we don't make sacrifices?
I am forced to sacrifice my family life because the State thinks I am worthless other than to provide finance to my family.
I would much rather spend time than at the office as would my wife. Who is making the sacrifice?

SarahMollie

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Can't make the same sacrifices you mean.

I would love 6 months off to spend with my little girl. Instead I see her if she is awake in the morning and then I say good night to her when I get home.

So we don't make sacrifices?
I am forced to sacrifice my family life because the State thinks I am worthless other than to provide finance to my family.
I would much rather spend time than at the office as would my wife. Who is making the sacrifice?

Obviously men can't have the babies, but theres no reason the man couldn't be the once to drop to part time hours once the children are born.

I'm sure you're going to come out with a tonne of reasons why this wouldn't/couldn't work in your particular circumstance but thats not the point.

The point is that the evidence shows that its overwhelmingly women who sacrifice their careers.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

fits

^ wow. We really are stuck in the dark ages.

Lux23

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Can't make the same sacrifices you mean.

I would love 6 months off to spend with my little girl. Instead I see her if she is awake in the morning and then I say good night to her when I get home.

So we don't make sacrifices?
I am forced to sacrifice my family life because the State thinks I am worthless other than to provide finance to my family.
I would much rather spend time than at the office as would my wife. Who is making the sacrifice?

Are you not both making a sacrifice?

SarahMollie

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

As I said, there will be cases that are different but you can't think that your experience is representative of the majority of parents?

And I know that the law is weak in the are of unmarried fathers, especially if your name isnt on the birth cert. As a women I'd be absolutely in favour of this being addressed. I think state subsidies should treat parents equally. I'm absolutely in favour of making it easier on fathers who want to be the primary carer to do so.

All of that would actually help close the wage gap as then perhaps employers wouldnt automatically look at every woman in her 30's as a potential liability.

runawaybishop

SarahMollie wrote: »

Obviously men can't have the babies, but theres no reason the man couldn't be the once to drop to part time hours once the children are born.

Of course there is a reason, 9/10 months more work experience and the pay rises that go with it.

Outlaw Pete

SarahMollie wrote: »

Wibbs, come on are you seriously suggesting that white male privilege doesn't exist?

Lux23 wrote: »

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRsYwu8uD4I

jimgoose

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

...

So hang with white dudes, dawwg. Diplometic immuni-TEEHH!! <evil Bond villain-esque cackle>

SarahMollie

runawaybishop wrote: »

Of course there is a reason, 9/10 months more work experience and the pay rises that go with it.

AKA - not wanting to sacrifice ones career?;)

Theres a myth out there that people (women) can have it all. No one can have it all, at least not all at the same time.

You want to be with your children, but you want to say full time in work. Well you can't be in 2 places at one time so theres always a choice to be made.

Theres more expectation on women to chose their children, but if a man feels strongly that he should be the one to stay at home or work part time, I know I certainly wouldnt have a problem with it.

runawaybishop

SarahMollie wrote: »

AKA - not wanting to sacrifice ones career?;)

No. It makes financial sense for the higher earning partner to work. If you miss 6-10 months work you will earn less than someone that misses no time off.

So yes, there is an obvious and clear reason.

Lux23

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRsYwu8uD4I

The American Enterprise Institute, really? An american, conservative think-tank created to protect the interest of big business?

mansize

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This is stuff we really need to look at as a nation. Father's rights are so backward in this country.

SarahMollie

runawaybishop wrote: »

No. It makes financial sense for the higher earning partner to work. If you miss 6-10 months work you will earn less than someone that misses no time off.

So yes, there is an obvious and clear reason.

But like I said, no one can have it both ways. You can't choose to stay in work for pragmatic reasons and then say that you're making a sacrifice, because you can't be in two places at once and someone has to care for the child.

I'd like it if it was parental leave and the couple could share it as they see fit. I'm sure some would stick pretty closely to the norm now, but I know couples who would love the flexibility. Then that way maybe each parent will have taken 3 months off and then neither parties career is more disadvantaged that the other. Its not going to work for everyone but its all about giving people choice.

smash

Lux23 wrote: »

The American Enterprise Institute, really? An american, conservative think-tank created to protect the interest of big business?

Capitalism rocks!

SarahMollie

Lux23 wrote: »

The American Enterprise Institute, really? An american, conservative think-tank created to protect the interest of big business?

Its the internet. You can always find someone to say something that suits your purpose.

Lux23

runawaybishop wrote: »

No. It makes financial sense for the higher earning partner to work. If you miss 6-10 months work you will earn less than someone that misses no time off.

So yes, there is an obvious and clear reason.

Well I earn twice that of my partner. Now I get six months pay from my employer, but even I didn't I can't be certain that I could return to work in a few weeks? What if I want to breastfeed, wouldn't I be in a more difficult situation than my partner who clearly can't breastfeed.

There really isn't an equal playing field here, there are valid reasons as to why the law favours women over when it comes to having children. Arguing against that is petulant.

runawaybishop

SarahMollie wrote: »

But like I said.

You explicitly said there was "no reason".

runawaybishop

Lux23 wrote: »

Well I earn twice that of my partner. Now I get six months pay from my employer, but even I didn't I can't be certain that I could return to work in a few weeks? What if I want to breastfeed, wouldn't I be in a more difficult situation than my partner who clearly can't breastfeed.

There really isn't an equal playing field here, there are valid reasons as to why the law favours women over when it comes to having children. Arguing against that is petulant.

Why are you quoting me? I am not arguing for or against leave for either sex.

Lux23

runawaybishop wrote: »

You explicitly said there was "no reason".

But in some countries women don't get paid maternity benefit so how do you explain the pay gap there? In the US, you can be back in a number of weeks.

runawaybishop

Lux23 wrote: »

But in some countries women don't get paid maternity benefit so how do you explain the pay gap there? In the US, you can be back in a number of weeks.

But nothing, I responded directly to your statement. Stop moving the goalposts.

Lux23

runawaybishop wrote: »

Why are you quoting me? I am not arguing for or against leave for either sex.

The higher earning thing?

smash

Lux23 wrote: »

There really isn't an equal playing field here, there are valid reasons as to why the law favours women over when it comes to having children. Arguing against that is petulant.

Only regarding maternity leave and only under certain circumstances such as breast feeding as you've mentioned, or recovery post child birth. For all other parenting related issues there is no reason why women should be favoured.

SarahMollie

runawaybishop wrote: »

You explicitly said there was "no reason".

Well there is no reason, as it theres nothing stopping any man choosing to stay at home - theres no law against it. People may choose to do otherwise for a variety of reasons but theres nothing stopping any couple from deciding that the man should be the one to stay at home.

Any "reasons" are choices.

dogbert27

Lux23 wrote: »

Well I earn twice that of my partner. Now I get six months pay from my employer, but even I didn't I can't be certain that I could return to work in a few weeks? What if I want to breastfeed, wouldn't I be in a more difficult situation than my partner who clearly can't breastfeed.

There really isn't an equal playing field here, there are valid reasons as to why the law favours women over when it comes to having children. Arguing against that is petulant.

Is this the argument that SarahMollie is making that you can't have it all? You can't go back to work and breastfeed. It's just not possible. So why make an argument to suggest it should be possible.

You say your employer pays your 6 months maternity leave. Will you return to work then? Because as I stated yesterday you will be returning to the same job as you were contracted to do on the same pay and terms and conditions. While you are on maternity leave your employer is not allowed by law to make you redundant.

If you earn twice what your partner is earning then, as the discussion keeps saying, it is a choice to be made as to what is best for the family. If you feel as parents that it is best that one parent remains at home to be with your child then the black and white decision is that you keep working as you earn twice the pay and you can transfer your husbands tax credits to you.

The points being raised about child benefit only being for the mother, fathers being ignored as not being the primary care givers by the state are not petulant arguments. To suggest so is what is actually petulant.

Christy42

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Surely the solutions are the same. Well for most of it. I mean 6 months or whatever leave for everyone would solve so much of this instead of arguing who is better off.

I am quoting you a little unfairly since both sides of this argument are guilty of this but I can't multi quote on my phone.

runawaybishop

Lux23 wrote: »

The higher earning thing?

What what has that got to do with you stating men are petulant if they argue about leave?

runawaybishop

SarahMollie wrote: »

Well there is no reason,

There is, i just gave one.

SarahMollie wrote: »

as it theres nothing stopping any man choosing to stay at home

There is, breastfeeding is one Lux just gave. Removing that from the equation there my not be anything stopping but there is definitely a financial incentive.

SarahMollie wrote: »

Any "reasons" are choices.

:rolleyes:

SarahMollie

runawaybishop wrote: »

There is, i just gave one.


There is, breastfeeding is one Lux just gave. Removing that from the equation there my not be anything stopping but there is definitely a financial incentive.


:rolleyes:

You gave a choice, not a reason. A couple might chose for the man to stay in work if he earns more. If the man felt passionately about staying at home then they could choose to cut their cloth to meet their measure.

Also, I was clearly talking about more than just maternity leave. The burden of childcare doesnt just disappear once those few months are up.

runawaybishop

SarahMollie wrote: »

You gave a choice, not a reason. A couple might chose for the man to stay in work if he earns more. If the man felt passionately about staying at home then they could choose to cut their cloth to meet their measure.

Its a reason. Stop digging.

dogbert27

If a man really felt passionately about staying and home to care for the child and the woman equally felt as passionate about staying at home and looking after the child who should stay at home to care for the child?

SarahMollie

runawaybishop wrote: »

Its a reason. Stop digging.

Good argument, bruh. :rolleyes:

No, its a choice, just like having children at all is a choice. If you choose to be the breadwinner rather than be the primary carer for your child because that seems more rational to you, then cool, no ones arguing with you, but don't kid yourself that there was a gun to your head.

SarahMollie

dogbert27 wrote: »

If a man really felt passionately about staying and home to care for the child and the woman equally felt as passionate about staying at home and looking after the child who should stay at home to care for the child?

Like everything, each couple will work it out for themselves! Maybe they could alternate career breaks or maybe one person will just be left disappointed. Such is life.

runawaybishop

SarahMollie wrote: »

Good argument, bruh. :rolleyes:

No, its a choice, just like having children at all is a choice. If you choose to be the breadwinner rather than be the primary carer for your child because that seems more rational to you, then cool, no ones arguing with you, but don't kid yourself that there was a gun to your head.

Who said there was a gun being pointed anywhere?

SarahMollie wrote: »

but theres no reason the man couldn't be the once to drop to part time hours once the children are born.

You've been given 2 already. You tried to move the goalposts, then you started arguing semantics, now you are resorting to ad hominems.