[QUOTE]One of the worst career moves a woman can make is to have children. Mothers are less likely to be hired for jobs, to be perceived as competent at work or to be paid as much as their male colleagues with the same qualifications.
For men, meanwhile, having a child is good for their careers. They are more likely to be hired than childless men, and tend to be paid more after they have children.
This bias is most extreme for the parents who can least afford it, according to new data from Michelle Budig, a sociology professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, who has studied the parenthood pay gap for 15 years. High-income men get the biggest pay bump for having children, and low-income women pay the biggest price, she said in a paper published this month by Third Way, a research group that aims to advance moderate policy ideas. “Families with lower resources are bearing more of the economic costs of raising kids,” she said in an interview.
Ms. Correll co-wrote a study at Cornell in which the researchers sent fake résumés to hundreds of employers. They were identical, except on some there was a line about being a member of the parent-teacher association, suggesting that the applicant was a parent. Mothers were half as likely to be called back, while fathers were called back slightly more often than the men whose résumés did not mention parenthood. In a similar study done in a laboratory, Ms. Correll asked participants how much they would pay job applicants if they were employers. Mothers were offered on average $11,000 less than childless women and $13,000 less than fathers.[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/upshot/a-child-helps-your-career-if-youre-a-man.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0"]Source[/URL]
Are you not quitting til it's just your name all over the front page?
[QUOTE=Dougz;45907919]Are you not quitting til it's just your name all over the front page?[/QUOTE]
At least its different kinds of news, I guess. Usually people who post news over and over again revolve around the same subject. I don't see a problem with it, really.
20
I was under the impression it was illegal (at least in the United States) for anyone to be discriminated against based on their marital status or if they had children when being hired.
Creeper are you just a news bot?
[QUOTE=kaine123;45907950]I was under the impression it was illegal (at least in the United States) for anyone to be discriminated against based on their marital status or if they had children when being hired.[/QUOTE]
I am pretty certain it is, but if so, it's also pretty hard to prove in court that was the case most of the time.
The employer's actual reason for picking Person A over Person B, who are perfectly identical for the job in every way, could be some discriminatory reason (race, religion, sex, marital status, eye-color, third-letter-of-first-name-is-a-vowel), but how do you prove that? "Well they were both perfectly identical for eligibility, so I just picked one at random!"
I think it's because most management is male. So the thinking is "This guy is supporting a family. He's a motivated worker and therefore we need to pay to keep him."
For a female employee the same HR guy might think "She's a mother, her kids are going to be her priority, not the job. We don't need to pay her, since if she doesn't like it we can find someone else."
So I don't this will change until more management is made up of women who know you can be a valuable employee AND a mother.
[QUOTE=kaine123;45907950]I was under the impression it was illegal (at least in the United States) for anyone to be discriminated against based on their marital status or if they had children when being hired.[/QUOTE]
It's only illegal if you explicitly state that as your reasoning.
If I have two applicants to choose from, be it hiring or promoting, I don't have to give a reason for choosing one over the other. The fact I don't have to state anything, of course, means that I totally can choose based on some arbitrary reason, as long as I don't say so. If one is white or black, I can just by pure 'coincidence' choose the white one. A man or a woman? Another 'coincidence' in my choosing the man. Even when it comes to termination, if I really want to get rid of an employee because s/he's a Muslim, I can simply look through everything they do until I find the slightest slip up, or otherwise legally defensible reason for termination. Of course, in this example, I'm almost certainly not doing this to my employees who are Christian or what have you.
We've tried to make laws restricting information that employers may ask of applicants in order to curtail this, but frequently there are other indirect ways of figuring it out. Such as this, where it's just inferring from their status in the parent-teacher association. Names will most of the time tell you their sex, and can also be used to figure out things such as race and ethnicity. Carlos sounds Latino, Latoya sounds black, and so on. This is all figured out without ever once asking for sex or race.
So the train of thought is that a man with a child has a family to provide for while a woman with a child has a burden and cannot fully commit to the job.
thats dumb
What defines a "man"
[QUOTE=Mysterious Mr.E;45908838]What defines a "man"[/QUOTE]
A miserable pile of secrets.
I recall reading this a while ago I think.
Ultimately businesses have to pay women not to work, they can give men money for incentive to work harder for their family - business is about making money after all. However, I think it would be different if governments paid to maternity leave instead.
However, you still have the problem of having a empty space in your business and end up having to recruit someone else for temp replacements; which costs the business money and resources with you gone either-way.
This is the UK's Maternity leave info: [url]https://www.gov.uk/maternity-pay-leave/how-to-claim[/url]
[QUOTE=kaine123;45907950]I was under the impression it was illegal (at least in the United States) for anyone to be discriminated against based on their marital status or if they had children when being hired.[/QUOTE]
It is extremely difficult and expensive to prove employment discrimination. The on-the-ground reality is that employers in this country can discriminate against you for whatever they feel like.
[QUOTE=Vasili;45909085]I recall reading this a while ago I think.
Ultimately businesses have to pay women not to work, they can give men money for incentive to work harder for their family - business is about making money after all. However, I think it would be different if governments paid to maternity leave instead.
However, you still have the problem of having a empty space in your business and end up having to recruit someone else for temp replacements; which costs the business money and resources with you gone either-way.
This is the UK's Maternity leave info: [url]https://www.gov.uk/maternity-pay-leave/how-to-claim[/url][/QUOTE]
This, this and this.
Imagine you hire a young woman, train her for a while to do the job, she becomes a valuable "asset" to your company. And then she gets pregnant and you lose her for months, maybe even years. Even if the government would paid the whole maternity leave, it wont replace an experienced worker. Then you have to find a replacement, train him/her, and then when/if that woman comes back you basically need to fire the new guy because he/she is superficial now and has less rights than she who was away.
You can't say that isn't a issue every employer wants to avoid. I can't blame them.
[QUOTE=Mysterious Mr.E;45908838]What defines a "man"[/QUOTE]
A penis and Y chromosome
[QUOTE=Mysterious Mr.E;45908838]What defines a "man"[/QUOTE]
Penis and vagina. Next question!
[QUOTE=Dougz;45907919]Are you not quitting til it's just your name all over the front page?[/QUOTE]
do people really care this much?
[QUOTE=AntonioR;45911914]This, this and this.
Imagine you hire a young woman, train her for a while to do the job, she becomes a valuable "asset" to your company. And then she gets pregnant and you lose her for months, maybe even years. Even if the government would paid the whole maternity leave, it wont replace an experienced worker. Then you have to find a replacement, train him/her, and then when/if that woman comes back you basically need to fire the new guy because he/she is superficial now and has less rights than she who was away.
You can't say that isn't a issue every employer wants to avoid. I can't blame them.[/QUOTE]
Exactly, this is why my parents strictly do not employ women in their business who are either pregnant, mothers or have a risk of falling pregnant. The business losing an experienced worker for a long period of time with a pregnancy is detrimental when you have a small business like my parent's.
Yeah, it sounds unfair for the women seeking work, but it's also unfair on the employer to be expected not to discriminate when they can find someone else who can work for the time they signed up for when getting the job and maintain their availability.
The extra hassle of employing a woman who is either expectant, a mother or have a great chance of falling pregnant is simply not worth it to many businesses.
[QUOTE=kaine123;45907950]I was under the impression it was illegal (at least in the United States) for anyone to be discriminated against based on their marital status or if they had children when being hired.[/QUOTE]
This isn't systemic, rule based discrimination but subconscious. Essentially this behaviour can be summed up fairly simply.
"Father" Oh hey, he's a father, means he's probably married and needs to be the main bread giver. It's only right he gets the upper end of the paycheck.
"Mother" Well she has a kid, means she probably has to be home more often and as such isn't as good for us.
While illegal, these kinds of things are much more subconscious than more overt things.
In a sense workplace discrimination also applies to childless men and women in some respects. It's very common for mothers to be able to have home office more often, to not be expected to work overtime as much as their collegues without children.
And the same applies to fathers compared to men who don't have kids.
It's a fairly complex issue which in some regards isn't based on intentional discrimination. Often the person who is doing it, isn't even aware of the fact.
[QUOTE=Maegord;45908300]It's only illegal if you explicitly state that as your reasoning.
If I have two applicants to choose from, be it hiring or promoting, I don't have to give a reason for choosing one over the other. The fact I don't have to state anything, of course, means that I totally can choose based on some arbitrary reason, as laong as I don't say so. If one is white or black, I can just by pure 'coincidence' choose the white one. A man or a woman? Another 'coincidence' in my choosing the man. Even when it comes to termination, if I really want to get rid of an employee because s/he's a Muslim, I can simply look through everything they do until I find the slightest slip up, or otherwise legally defensible reason for termination. Of course, in this example, I'm almost certainly not doing this to my employees who are Christian or what have you.
We've tried to make laws restricting information that employers may ask of applicants in order to curtail this, but frequently there are other indirect ways of figuring it out. Such as this, where it's just inferring from their status in the parent-teacher association. Names will most of the time tell you their sex, and can also be used to figure out things such as race and ethnicity. Carlos sounds Latino, Latoya sounds black, and so on. This is all figured out without ever once asking for sex or race.[/QUOTE]
Another great question which does sometimes get used about HR is asking about a female applicants maiden name. While that isn't illegal to do, it will automatically tell you if said applicant is married or not and that in itself will give you a clues about potential children. There's honestly a slew of questions that can be asked any applicant which will almost certainly tell you if they are in an active relationship, married, have or don't have children and a bunch of other stuff without directly asking about any of this information.
[QUOTE=Vasili;45909085]I recall reading this a while ago I think.
Ultimately businesses have to pay women not to work, they can give men money for incentive to work harder for their family - business is about making money after all. However, I think it would be different if governments paid to maternity leave instead.
However, you still have the problem of having a empty space in your business and end up having to recruit someone else for temp replacements; which costs the business money and resources with you gone either-way.
This is the UK's Maternity leave info: [url]https://www.gov.uk/maternity-pay-leave/how-to-claim[/url][/QUOTE]
You could also give men paternity leave equal to maternity leave. Has the added bonus of making fathers spend more time with their family shortly after birth.
[I]"Father? Hard worker, supporting his family by working away from his home.
Mother? Hard worker, supporting her family by working inside her home."[/I]
That's probably the logic. It's based on the average structure of parental homes. There's a bias against those who will probably need to spend more time at home and a bias in favor of those who will probably need to support their home by typical work.
It's unfortunate for those who have an atypical family structure that these biases exist.
[QUOTE=Mysterious Mr.E;45908838]What defines a "man"[/QUOTE]
That is irrelevant, in this study they sent a bunch of fake resumes where they probably just stated "man" or "woman"
[editline]7th September 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kardia;45915517][I]"Father? Hard worker, supporting his family by working away from his home.
Mother? Hard worker, supporting her family by working inside her home."[/I]
That's probably the logic. It's based on the average structure of parental homes. There's a bias against those who will probably need to spend more time at home and a bias in favor of those who will probably need to support their home by typical work.
It's unfortunate for those who have an atypical family structure that these biases exist.[/QUOTE]
Is that really average anymore though
I don't know anybody whose mom is a housewife
[QUOTE=deltasquid;45915279]You could also give men paternity leave equal to maternity leave. Has the added bonus of making fathers spend more time with their family shortly after birth.[/QUOTE]
Even then, it would be optional and looked down upon in the workplace. And there's no way of changing that realistically, since no employer really wants to see their employee's go on leave, it's simply not fair that they've been trained up and take such a huge amount of time off and expect a job to go back to, as another person would have had to be put in their place. That's fine for large business yes, but for businesses that can't afford many staff that is the sad reality.
[QUOTE=SkolVikings94;45907999]Creeper are you just a news bot?[/QUOTE]
Hey, I was the original newsbot.
[QUOTE=Kardia;45915517][I]"Father? Hard worker, supporting his family by working away from his home.
Mother? Hard worker, supporting her family by working inside her home."[/I]
That's probably the logic. It's based on the average structure of parental homes. There's a bias against those who will probably need to spend more time at home and a bias in favor of those who will probably need to support their home by typical work.
It's unfortunate for those who have an atypical family structure that these biases exist.[/QUOTE]
Yup, that's been the logic for awhile, but it seems to be simmering down now. For example, the situation my family is in is that my mother and I watch the nieces and nephew, while my sister, her boyfriend, and my father work full time. More and more people are having the grandparents watch the children of the family or having the observable out of work folk doing it.
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;45908256]I think it's because most management is male. So the thinking is "This guy is supporting a family. He's a motivated worker and therefore we need to pay to keep him."
For a female employee the same HR guy might think "She's a mother, her kids are going to be her priority, not the job. We don't need to pay her, since if she doesn't like it we can find someone else."
So I don't this will change until more management is made up of women who know you can be a valuable employee AND a mother.[/QUOTE]
Reasons for discrimination usually come after the fact, to justify actions.
You can disprove whatever line of bigoted thinking you'd like, and they may even believe you, they're still going to continue their bigoted behavior because the problem is more deepset than "reason".
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
