You are here: Home / Jane Hatton / Is it too risky to employ young women?

Is it too risky to employ young women?

Posted by JaneHatton on February 1, 2010 · View Comments 

“It’s too risky to employ young women”

In my last blog I talked about the stereotypes which might affect the chances of women being employed or promoted in the workplace.

Let’s examine for a moment the reluctance to employ young women in case they get pregnant, or in case they have time off to look after their children. Sounds reasonable at first glance. What small business can afford to take those risks?

I remember talking to a woman who owned a woollen mill in Yorkshire with her two brothers. It was a lifestyle business, employing a hundred or so people. She used to have an unwritten (and illegal) policy of not employing young women, as they couldn’t afford to employ someone and train them and then have them go off on maternity leave. After a few years she noticed that the young men she was employing would stay a couple of years and then go off to better jobs in London. Whereas the few women she had employed may have had maternity leave – sometimes more than once – but they were still there when they were 50. It turned out that the women of child bearing age were in fact the more loyal employees.

a very pregnant blond woman in a short, black ...
Image by jordanfischer via Flickr

My own experience backs this up. When I started Public Sector Providers I employed two women who happened to have young pre-school and school age children. I was able to be flexible with their hours so they worked around the school run. One worked term-time only. I was happy for them to have time off for school assemblies and the like, provided they made the time up elsewhere. I don’t think either of them ever had any time off for child-related reasons. They are both the most productive and conscientious employees you could wish for.

One did have maternity leave. I remember being warned when I appointed her that a small start-up business like mine would be crucified if she went on maternity leave. Why? The government pays nearly all of the maternity pay. If systems are in place it’s easy for someone to pick up parts of the role as required. After her baby was born she chose to take extended maternity leave, but then returned, with all the skills I had originally appointed her for intact. She has since left for career reasons, but I don’t regret appointing her for one second. She was the best applicant for the job at the time of appointment, and remained a superb employee throughout her years with us.

The other employee’s children are a little older now, but we still work flexibly. It very much works both ways. Her hours fit in with her childcare arrangements, but if we need her to work on different days, or to do overtime to meet a deadline she is there. She has skills and experience which are invaluable for our business, and the arrangement suits both of us.

The assumption that it will always be the mother who takes time off to look after sick children is not only damaging for women, but for men also. If a woman takes time off to look after her sick child, her managers tut, but are resigned to it. If a man wishes to take time off to look after his sick child then it is often much more difficult for him to do so.

Once again, gender inequality is bad for all of us, not just women. What do you think?

Jane

Enhanced by Zemanta
Related Posts with Thumbnails

Filed under Jane Hatton, diversity in the workplace · Tagged with , , , , , , ,

  • I think being flexible with staff reassures them that they are valued as human beings, this meaning that things don't always go as planned and therefore a little understanding on the boss' part goes along away
  • I think you are right that small businesses ok hiring young women, mothers etc. I have trained quite a few young women in the city who's plan it was was to find a husband with a good city job, quit and have children. They would get a job closer to home. Most were in jobs that paid well and had long hours.

    They knew that they could not work in the city and have a family.

    I have met so many young women with that attitude that you have to wonder if large companies are the ones with the problem and smaller businesses outside the city will get loyal employees who just want a job that is the hours stated (or flexible) and close to home so they can spend more time with their families.
  • Editor
    I big to differ, I worked in the city in a strategic well paid role. I worked for a fab company that enabled me to work how I liked so long as I did my job. And I did both my job and delivered superb results.

    Nicola Horlick worked in the city with 6 kids. To imply that the city is no place for a woman with a family is the women being silly in this instance.

    It takes time and effort and you will be well rewarded. If they say they dont want to take the time or make the effort, then fair enough but to blame a town for being fast moving and not conducive to family life? They should get real!
  • Jane
    It's an interesting one - is there a difference in the city? There are many high profile women who seem to have succeeded in the city, but also a number of high profile sex discrimination cases going on.

    There have been many studies carried out on the long hours culture, where it has been discovered that productivity and results nose dive after a given number of hours worked (by men or women). The long hours culture has long been a barrier to many women (and some men) but can no longer be justified in a world where people are judged on results and output, not by number of hours sat at the desk.
  • Editor
    I think succeeding in the city is another blog entirely :) and will Gordon Brown face charges for abusing people in his employ? Does having a high powered job give you more rights... gosh I feel a rant coming on - is it my turn yet?
  • Babs
    Great blog, Jane

    And as someone who didn't have children until she was past 35, the whole "child-bearing" age thing makes me chuckle - that's well over 20 years these days! And while such thinking may be good news for older applicants (potentially), we just cannot afford to not tap into the available workforce.

    A woman may choose to not have children, or perhaps cannot, or may even, perish the thought, choose to continue working with her partner taking the lead child-caring role - not the usual circumstances, of course, but we don't know what people will choose when/if the time comes.

    We don't know what is going to happen - illness, disability, death even - but it seems that as far as this issue is concerned if we create a workplace and role that a woman will want to return to is likely to result in the best workforce going.
  • Jane
    Yes, the child-bearing years can be anything from 16 to 50 these days! By which time many employers will think she's tool old anyway (age being another huge area of discrimination).

    And people leave jobs for all sorts of reasons other than the birth of a child. Recruiting the best people and treating them well once appointed would be appear to be the best strategy for both employers and employees alike.
  • In my industry (which covers advertising, marketing and design) I have found that younger women are trained up and will more likely leave to further their careers at a different agency rather than maternity, where as the 'older' career minded women have focussed all their energy on their job and decide to have children later on in life.

    Practically all the women at my previous agency had children well into their late thirties, (which is considered to be 'old' apparently) and the majority had 2 children within a couple of years of each other but returned to work and their careers afterwards with no loss to the company.

    I think there should be flexibility whatever sex you are and whether you have kids or not. I know men who have brought up their children single handed and also people who have been carers to relatives who need flexibility within the workplace.

    It should be very much on a case by case basis as some people are given an inch and take a mile and ruin it for the rest of the working parents who are just trying to juggle a job and family life.

    Gender inequality definitely works both ways!
  • Jane
    Absolutely Emily. Many organisations have very well-intentioned "parent friendly" policies, but which can inadvertantly alienate employees who aren't parents. They may have other requirements - care of a partner or relative, or other demands on their time like studies or religious duties - and would be just as receptive to flexible working.

    It's less about putting people into boxes - "this is what working mothers need" - and more about finding the right person for the job and then finding out how their individual requirements and those of the business can both be met.
  • Ian
    Again, nice blog Jane.

    I'll give you very personal feedback on the stat's that I face in recruitment on illegal briefs we are asked to undertake, often on the miss belief that we can get away with it or at least be a firewall to illegal recruitment practices. On average through a typical year, we get 1 racist brief per quarter, and 1 no women of child bearing age brief per fortnight.

    We bat all of these back, and have an "if you insist on that, then thanks but no thanks to your business" policy. Of the illegal briefs we are asked to take, 9/10 become legal when we point out that:
    - you should reflect your market, Half are women, and 15% plus are ethic minority
    - women with children are three times as loyal as the average employee (pretty much according to REC for the reasons you have given, as long as their are flexi-working hours/agreements)

    Hence, the cost of putting up with the odd childs cold or sports days and some flexible working, is a 2/3rds reduction in your average employee recruitment cost. It is hence easier to turn around no women under 35 briefs than racist briefs.

    What really shocks me though, when most HR managers are women, is that these briefs ever get out in the first place. When you question them, the defence is nearly always "well, that's what my male boss wants." Asking them if they have advised him the brief is illegal, then the answer comes "Yes, but I thought you could tell him again."

    The only dark cloud I can see to not solving this at present is the proposed legislation around fair employment for existing pregnant women. Why would an employer take on someone who is 12+ weeks into term, when: soon they could disappear for 2years; but worst, the employee insurance quotes will be greater than for the rest of the company (I know, I got a quote!)

    We need to solve this problem, but part of the solve is with the largely female HR community accepting illegal job fulfilment requirements.
  • Jane
    Thank you Ian - yes, it is shocking that people still think it's OK to implement racist or sexist practices in recruitment, both in terms of the law and in what is best for the business.

    It all goes back to conditioning, stereotypes and myths. It's not just (some) men who think that women of child-bearing age are a risk, it's (some) women as well.

    Thank goodness there are people like you - experts in recruitment - who can educate people on the realities rather than the pre-conceived ideas. Sadly, there are just as many (if not more) who continue tto perpetuate the myths - often because they genuinely believe them, not because they are bad people.
  • Ian
    From the BBC West Bristol experiment some 18months ago, we know that between 50% and 70% of agencies will take both racist and sexist briefs. REC promised a clean-up, but nothing achieved so far as anyone will comment in public. Hence, while the recruitment and HR industry seems to knowingly condone such behaviour, it is left to trading standards and the human rights lawyers to prosecute.

    Again, I come back to education. Every government advert harks on about fines, but none extol the virtues of open recruitment policy. If of the illegal briefs we received I told these potential new customers of the fines, then we wouldn't get any business. Educate them, and they are happy to work with us
  • Jane
    That's a disappointing find, but not especially surprising. Yes, the way to go is promoting the business benefits of an inclusive recruitment policy, and education in general. Legislation is necessary, but the carrot is usually more effective than the stick alone.
  • Linda Mattacks
    It's interesting to note that a woman had a 'no young women' employment policy... I wonder how many female business owners there are who still have similar unwritten rules?

    I find 'the best applicant for the job at the time' a far more compelling basis on which to make an employment decision than "Might this one decide to go off and sprog?" or "What happens if one of her kids gets sick?" or "What if he decides to go and work in the big city after a couple of years?"

    'What if's are outside of the employer's control, whether the applicant is female or male, aren't they? Who knows what's going to happen in an employee's life that might influence their ability or desire to fulfill the role down the line?

    We could speculate 'til the cows come home and meanwhile miss out on having a cracking employee working with us.
  • Jane
    Absolutely Linda - "best person for the job" should win every time. No-one can see into the future and know how long that employee will stay with you.

    It's important to remember that the real best person for the job may be either gender of any age!
  • Morag
    I run two businesses and employ only women. Before people claim that I'm being sexist, one - www.thenappylady.co.uk - is a cloth nappy advisory service, and discussing things like childbirth plans, childcare arrangements etc come with the territory. I think a male employee would be both very uncomfortable and not at all welcome. Not that any man would not be allowed to apply, but I doubt he'd have the necessary skills and qualifications.

    All the women at TNL apart from one are self-employed, because they work from home and on a very part time basis. That suits me, because they are always off having children! :D

    My other business is a ladies' only gym, so the staff are all female as well. When interviewing, I did go in with the informal intention of finding ladies past childbearing years, for ease, but the best candidates included two who are right within that age group.

    I do believe strongly that you should select candidates who are right for the job, so I offered both of them jobs. The one who is now my gym manager has just informed me she is pregnant.

    What bothers me is not the cost, but the fact that she's so good at her job, so I'll miss her input for however long she is off.

    I agree very strongly that offering women flexibility at work produces very loyal staff. That has certainly always been my experience.
  • Jane
    Numerous studies have shown that part time or freelance workers are generally more productive, hour by hour, than their full time colleagues. So women (and men) who combine jobs with child care, for example, may well be of more, not less, value to an employer.

    Also, generally, people's response to employers are influenced by how their employers treat them. If I am happy to be flexible and listen to how I can accommodate their needs and requirements, I find a huge willingness to be flexible in return.
  • Employing mainly men I find that these days men tend to take time off or require time to collect their children from school more frequently as the years go on, is it modern day man? a sign of the times?. 50’s man would probably never off considered this but then 50’s women was probably at home? though my mother had to work (part time) and bring us up, and I do remember my poor dad taking me for an injection though this was more because I need holding down! than anything else. These days with the possibility of shared maternity leave upon us the gap is getting ever smaller between the sexes for me this is sad ‘women’ we are different & I’m glad I like to be treated as such, but speaking as an employee of 50+ men if a few of them where to exercise there right to maternity leave at the about the same time with the costs and replacement costs & to find the experience we require I’m not quite sure how we would cope.
    Oh I like the days when men where men & women well they – I will just go on being a woman
  • Jane
    I agree Jacqui - vive la difference! I'm happy for men to be men and women to be women, but I feel that there are a lot of myths surrounding those differences which disadvantage both genders in different scenarios.

    All men are not the same and all women are not the same (thank goodness!), and there are as many differences between people of the same gender as between men and women.

    I love the fact that we are all different, but I do feel we should have the same opportunities in the workplace, and it's important to dispel some myths that may put employers off appointing someone purely because of their gender.
  • Leanne
    Do you think that legislation to increase paternity leave entitlements will change public perception of hiring young women?
blog comments powered by Disqus