Article from the BBC website notes that the Graduate unemployment rate has hit 25%. Bad news. Interestingly, more male graduates are unemployed compared to female graduates
( Read more... )
That logic fails as evidence shows women are the first to be fired or made redundant during a recession. The last 2 years have seen record numbers of redundancies, most of them women, a large majority of which work part-time.
Women, despite being paid less and ergo cheaper, are seen as more expensive. A woman seeking employment in her early 20s is often seen by some (not all, but a fair few) employers as a potential pregnancy. They don't like the idea of hiring a woman, only to have her request maternity leave at some point in the future. Men, in that instance, are seen as the safer option, as it's unlikely they'll need 8 months to a year off to look after children.
In an ideal world, peaple would be paid equally for doing the same Job, however, I think its unfair to judge peaple inheriting this problem at the moment. Its a case of not haveing the money to deal with the problem. Unless you want them to fire peaple so the staff they have can be paid more.
Given the current economic climite were one chap I know is going to move to Norwich just to get some unpaid work experiance. And another one is basicly working full time as a Special Constable, just to be in with a chance of getting a job with the Police once the recruitment freeze is ended.
At least you, and your gender, apparently, have an easyer time of finding work to begin with. Which seems to be the more important factor, at this time.
I can see your point. I think my objection stems from the fact the Equal Pay Act has been in force and employers have been liable under it since 1970. Add to that a whole host of EU regulations and non-legislative measures to promote equal pay. It astounds me there is still no substantive equality of pay between men and women in 2010
( ... )
Its like anything, an employer wont tell you at interview We aint giveing you this job because your disabled. But, you can tell, whence you explain "I couldent stand for X hours a day" that they are thinking your not worth the effot.
I could be makeing this up. But these are the things I intuit from interviews sometimes.
As you say, employers are required to make reasonable adjustments for an employee, or potential employee, by law. Failure to do so is discrimination, unless they can objectively justify not doing so. A good example, a company is not required to install a chair-lift or lift if the building is simply not suitable for such equipment. A stool on the other hand is an expense that could be paid for out of petty cash.
By law, employers cannot say "you are disabled, so we're not hiring you, despite you being perfectly suited for the job". That's out-right discrimination. However, not bothering to provide a stool(the reasonable adjustment) for a potential disabled employee and instead hiring a less experienced/well-qualified/suited non-disabled candidate is still discrimination.
Have there been interviews where you've got a suspicion this has been the case?
Comments 8
Boss Thinks:
Women are cheaper. Why would I hire men?!
Reply
Women, despite being paid less and ergo cheaper, are seen as more expensive. A woman seeking employment in her early 20s is often seen by some (not all, but a fair few) employers as a potential pregnancy. They don't like the idea of hiring a woman, only to have her request maternity leave at some point in the future. Men, in that instance, are seen as the safer option, as it's unlikely they'll need 8 months to a year off to look after children.
Reply
Given the current economic climite were one chap I know is going to move to Norwich just to get some unpaid work experiance. And another one is basicly working full time as a Special Constable, just to be in with a chance of getting a job with the Police once the recruitment freeze is ended.
At least you, and your gender, apparently, have an easyer time of finding work to begin with. Which seems to be the more important factor, at this time.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I could be makeing this up. But these are the things I intuit from interviews sometimes.
Reply
By law, employers cannot say "you are disabled, so we're not hiring you, despite you being perfectly suited for the job". That's out-right discrimination. However, not bothering to provide a stool(the reasonable adjustment) for a potential disabled employee and instead hiring a less experienced/well-qualified/suited non-disabled candidate is still discrimination.
Have there been interviews where you've got a suspicion this has been the case?
Apologies, I've descended into full-on Law Mode.
Reply
Leave a comment