Harman at it again.

[realityhack]

*chomp chomp*

That's not popcorn Xen, here, put it in your lap instead.

[meridian]

I recall one job interview, many years ago when I was a young lad, when the interviewer said:
"We're required under sex discrimination laws to ask all applicants the same questions, so:
Are you planning on becoming pregnant during the next few years?"

[Xenophon]

That's not popcorn Xen, here, put it in your lap instead.

*blink*

*phooeeeaaarrgggghhhh*

[realityhack]

*blink*

*phooeeeaaarrgggghhhh*

Here - have a mars bar. Anyway, I think the show's over now. People are back on topic.

[BoredBloke]

As usual the non-thinking sas adds his 1p.

I guess I must be non thinking also as I was thinking what Sas said. Before starting a permie role people are asked about their medical background and often have to have a medical. This isn't because they are interested in how fit the person is because they are being nice, it is to judge how fit they are and if they are likely to be a risk regarding extended time off work. By the same token a woman who pops out sprogs once every couple of years can legally expect to have huge amounts of time off work. Why shouldn't the employer be allowed to factor that into the equation?

[Chantho]

Harman pushes discrimination plan


WTF? Saw this on the Beeb earlier today. If companies want to employ older, female or ethnic minority workers, they already can, can't they? She makes my blood boil.

I don't know the detail of this plan, but given the source it is unlikely to be a) sensible, b) workable or c) of benefit to anyone (with the possible exception of the legal profession).

On the other hand, it appears unlikely to affect contractors much.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

I guess I must be non thinking also as I was thinking what Sas said. Before starting a permie role people are asked about their medical background and often have to have a medical. This isn't because they are interested in how fit the person is because they are being nice, it is to judge how fit they are and if they are likely to be a risk regarding extended time off work. By the same token a woman who pops out sprogs once every couple of years can legally expect to have huge amounts of time off work. Why shouldn't the employer be allowed to factor that into the equation?

Look at it from a woman's point of view though - you can have kids or a decent job but not both. Why?

Are we really such a poorly run crappo economy that we can't accommodate a highly skilled and capable 50% of the potential workforce working in a slightly different way? You lot sound like the Taliban sometimes - I mean why bother sending girls to school?

[sasguru]

Look at it from a woman's point of view though - you can have kids or a decent job but not both. Why?

Are we really such a poorly run crappo economy that we can't accommodate a highly skilled and capable 50% of the potential workforce working in a slightly different way? You lot sound like the Taliban sometimes - I mean why bother sending girls to school?

Women can have both. Unfair to companies (and to male employees) to expect to do it at the same time though. Surely women are able to plan this? And I disagree that we should look at it from any particular gender's point of view - we should always look at it from the company's point of view - private companies are not charities.

Taliban comparison is frankly ridiculous.

[rootsnall]

Look at it from a woman's point of view though - you can have kids or a decent job but not both. Why?

Because you can't be in two places at the same time

[TheBigYinJames]

Because you can't be in two places at the same time

Not even by the power of teleconferencing?