Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ethics

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Ethics



    Guys had an argument here with one of the girls over something that I thought was fair enough but she went apesh!t over. Scenario is as follows:


    2 people go for a job. Both are equally skilled and equally valid contenders for the job. Both are women. One of them is heavily pregnant and will only be able to work 3 days a week for next 2 months and then will leave on 9 months maternity leave.


    Which one would you hire?


    Genuine question here. I personally cannot see the point of paying someone a years wages for at most 24 days of work. I am fully aware that the law is against me on this one but just want to see if any agree with my logic or think I'm a horrible sexist pig?
    The only difference between me and a madman is that I'm not mad.
    - Salvador Dali (1904-1989)

    #2


    Economically = I agree
    Socially = I don't
    "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too ?" - Douglas Adams

    Comment


      #3
      Interesting dilemma.

      I think many would agree that IN REALITY, the pregnant lady is at a bit of a disadvantage. However, ethically, we should ignore the fact that the lady is pregnant, as to do otherwise is to discriminate against her.

      If the pregnant lady is going to be ill a bit because of her pregnancy, then that should be ignored also - however, if you've got a project that's behind schedule, over budget and needs someone who can work a 60 hr week for the next 6 months, which way are you going to go?

      Q: How would you feel if it's your job - and others - on the line if the project fails? E.g. Deliver on time and under budget or the US plant gets to build the new product, and your plant gets the chop!

      No easy answers to this one.........


      Trust is good; control is better. V I Lenin.

      Comment


        #4


        yeah but we have all been to interviews where you get asked your intentions to hang around i.e. have you roots in the area family etc and jobs can be swung on such things as a company is more likely to hire someone they think will hang around then someone who could up and leave after a year of investment in training etc.


        Whats the difference?


        The only difference between me and a madman is that I'm not mad.
        - Salvador Dali (1904-1989)

        Comment


          #5
          if they are both of the same skills and personality,then i think its quite obvious whom you would Hire, but in the climate we live it my advice is to be careful and cover your ass.

          Comment


            #6


            Racialamists


            My computer thinks I'm gay
            What's the difference anyway
            When all the people do all day
            Is stare into a phone

            Comment


              #7


              If both CV's read the same then I think it's based on how they come across in the interview. Remember company's don't have to pay maternity leave, instead the lady in question can claim social welfare. I know of companys who adopt a policy that they don't pay maternity leave at all.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by eracoto


                If both CV's read the same then I think it's based on how they come across in the interview. Remember company's don't have to pay maternity leave, instead the lady in question can claim social welfare. I know of Scumbag Hellhole companys who adopt a policy that they don't pay maternity leave at all.

                Fixed that for you.





                My computer thinks I'm gay
                What's the difference anyway
                When all the people do all day
                Is stare into a phone

                Comment


                  #9
                  People move jobs now all the time.I dont know the type of company you are in, but i work in Engineering and if expensive training isrequired then our company is now having its newest employees sign a contract that if they leave they pay back some of the training cost, the amountis proportionate to time served. A lot of money was being lost in training. It just was'nt feasible to train people up and thenhave themleave once this was done.

                  Comment


                    #10


                    Originally posted by Blindsider.

                    If the pregnant lady is going to be ill a bit because of her pregnancy, then that should be ignored also - however, if you've got a project that's behind schedule, over budget and needs someone who can work a 60 hr week for the next 6 months, which way are you going to go?

                    Q: How would you feel if it's your job - and others - on the line if the project fails? E.g. Deliver on time and under budget or the US plant gets to build the new product, and your plant gets the chop!

                    What you say here would be my thinking also. As she would be part of a team the team will have to work harder to cover her absence or if workload gets too high may need to contract someone in temporarily (because of the line of work in this case). I would have no problems with this scenario for an existing employee (pregnancy, Illness, etc happpen and people deserve to be supported) but if you area small companyyou cannot afford to waste money like this if you can avoid it.


                    Am trying to put myself into a pregnant womans shoes and to be honest all I can think is that I personally could'nt, in good faith, apply for the job...
                    The only difference between me and a madman is that I'm not mad.
                    - Salvador Dali (1904-1989)

                    Comment


                      #11


                      Seeing as poor 'oul socks isn't here to comment, let me do it for him


                      The preggers one should be at home getting ready to have her child through natural birth, none of this CS bulls**t. She shouldn't be getting in the way of some fit young one eitherand in reality should be at home making the dinner and cleaning up after her owner.
                      It happened, and I was there.
                      4.48pm, Saturday 20th May 2006.
                      What does grease taste like? Is it like chicken?

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Well if they're equally competent for the role then the pregnant lady would not be hired by me.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          <DIV>A woman's work place should be the home. nowhere else.</DIV>
                          <a href=\"http://www.xboxlc.com/profile/Ruck_You\" target=\"_blank\">
                          http://www.xboxlc.com/cards/sig/default/Ruck%20You.jpg
                          </a>

                          If you’re fat stay in the ruck - Liam Toland

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by sewa
                            Originally posted by eracoto


                            If both CV's read the same then I think it's based on how they come across in the interview. Remember company's don't have to pay maternity leave, instead the lady in question can claim social welfare. I know of Scumbag Hellhole companys who adopt a policy that they don't pay maternity leave at all.

                            Fixed that for you.

                            [img]smileys/lol.gif[/img]You get the state entitlement and you can't loose your job but they get cover for you and pay them so you can stay out for the full maternity leave length without feeling like the team has to work extra hard for you. I think's it's good

                            Comment


                              #15


                              It's a no-brainer... hire the one who won't be taking six months off.


                              In the greater scheme of things a company must allow for the fact that female employees get pregnant. If neither woman was pregnant it would be wrong to discriminate on the possibility that one of them is more likely to become pregnant in the future.


                              However, in this case the damage is doneand itis unethical in my book for the person to apply for a job they know they aren't going to be available to do...And the company shouldn't be subject to any kind of legal ramifications for making a sensible decision.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X