Hiring child-bearing age females

[CID]

snoopy I totally agree with your assessment but you forgot "condescending" in your description. And calling someone a "fool" for adjusting their lives around a career or other goals is pretty judgmental. Actually it's beyond that.....but I should stop there.

[whoop_whoop]

It's incredibly short-sighted for employers to argue that hiring men is cheaper in the long run.

I once worked for a company who discriminated against women during promotions because of the financial burden it would impose if they took maternity leave!!! The manager in charge of promotions defended his actions because he was a company man and wanted to ensure the company didn't spend more money :O I shake my head...when will employers recognize that men and women bring different skills, personalities, humor and viewpoints to the same job? Diversity is (IMHO) what drives a competitive and vibrant company!

Consider a hypothetical and utopian situation: if every employer paid their employees $10/hr more (i.e. minimum wage is now about $20/hr) then everybody would have more money to spend. The increased money would probably find it's way back into the same employer's pocket because of either their own employees or another company's employees!! Yes, I concede that some people are misers and would sock it all away but wouldn't most people see their way to spend a little bit?

Anyhow, back to the original topic: if you're so concerned about women taking time off work, why don't you ask the guys that you hire if they'll ever see clearly to take paternity leave? Then treat them the same way and tell them that family doesn't matter to your bottom line...no job for you, Mr Family Man!!

[shimmydampner]

In a mature, respectful society/industry this topic never would have been raised, because clearly it is irrelevant, and inappropriate.

Typical nauseating political correctness BS: never say anything that may offend someone.

['CauseTheCaravanCan]

when will employers recognize that men and women bring different skills, personalities, humor and viewpoints to the same job? Diversity is (IMHO) what drives a competitive and vibrant company!

Big + 1!!!!

I work for a company as diverse as they come.
and Vibrant it is!

I feel fortunate to be working somewhere that is so welcoming of new families.
The majority of us pilots (male and female) are of child bearing age, and it seems at all times, someone on our staff is expecting, ie: pilots, wives of pilots, dispatchers, etc.

I have found that whether or not a pilot is female, male, has a family, is seventy, is black, white, asian, native, muslim, mennonite, french, extremely french, a ginger, or missing fingers, it has had NO bearing whatsoever on the hiring process. As a matter of fact, when it comes to scheduling, maybe a reverse prejudice exists for those WHO DO have a family.
I've done my best as an employee, though, to be sure and not let my having a child be an inconvenience to regular ops.
But there are days when I just taxi in and have to run straight to my truck to go pick up the little guy before 6pm.

I'm surprised there aren't replies from female pilots who do have children on here. Is it really so rare?
I do realize there is only so far I can go in aviation before I'll run out of options. Like pretty much where I'm at right now actually.
Airlines? Hah! Out of the question. Unless someone can enlighten me how to make THAT work.

Maybe these ladies don't have time to reply on a forum, due to the little'uns?

Mine is already sleeping, so shhhh.

[Doc]

Well, Caravancan....it's pretty rare. I don't know any. A guy I work with knows a couple of instructors, but that's a home every night gig, and I think they're staying in the instructor game. More power to you if you can make it work though.

[Doc]

I did not put that picture there....it is mine, but it just popped up. Strange. It is a nice photo. With not much to do with aviation......except BMW used to make aero engines?

It's gone. That was strange.

[Beefitarian]

I did not put that picture there....it is mine, but it just popped up. Strange. It is a nice photo. With not much to do with aviation......except BMW used to make aero engines?

It's gone. That was strange.

Signatures have been returned with the server upgrade, along with a warning about account deactivation for "inappropriate content."

I like the quote in mine because it is true of so many industries in Canada, where if a job is attractive companies tend to find people willing to be oppressed just for an opportunity to be a part of it. I love flying so much, I understand but I also realize that shut the door for me. Construction was bad enough.

[railroad]

Snoopy,

You say the thread is "irrelevant". In the same post you said you have worked for one employer, which you have "great respect" for, that considered bearing children put an "unfair burden on a small business". I believe there are other employers who feel the same way both inside and outside of aviation. This makes the thread relevant.

You say the thread is "inappropriate". No. Coming on here and making blunt statements about the topic may be inappropriate, but opening up discussion and sharing differing points of view is not inappropriate. This is how issues are handled in a "respectful society/industry". We have the ability to discuss and listen. We have the ability to think and consider. These abilities allow us to come to conclusions based on an abundance of information. Hopefully, this allows us to come to the best conclusions.

Simply saying that it is irrelevant and inappropriate will not make the issue go away. Maybe talking about it will.

Oh, and due to the fact that we have had honest and valuable insight from people directly involved in this situation, both from employers and employees, makes this relevant.

[snoopy]

@railroad
It is considered bad form to partially quote and/or paraphrase someone's text in such a way as to take their words out of context so it looks like they said (or meant) something different than what they actually said.
Best Regards,
Kirsten B.

[MUSKEG]

In reference to your post Snoopy, please explain how this was taken out of context. When one relays thoughts via text and there is no way to discern body language and tone, the only avenue left is context and I too came to the same conclusion as railroad. Not looking to fight.

Quote
[I'm trying to figure out why this thread is still here or what the OP is trying to gain from it. In a mature, respectful society/industry this topic never would have been raised, because clearly it is irrelevant, and inappropriate.]

[snoopy]

@MUSKEG, many people don't actually read what is written, they read what they want to see, and/or they skim quickly. If you don't get why I object, then please just let it be. At any rate, in trying to quote my original post apparently I over wrote it - dunno what happened there.
.....
Several times over the course of my career I have been turned away for openly stated reasons of being female. I don't know which is more amazing, the fact that this still the norm, or the fact the person dared to openly declare the reason. One employer, who did hire me and for the most part I have great respect for, has very strong view points about not hiring potentially child-bearing women due the unfair burden they supposedly place on a small businesses such as his. Over that point we strongly disagreed, and had many heated debates but clearly his mind was made up.

Many of the few of us could go on for hours, even days about all the stupid stuff we have seen and heard throughout our careers - from passengers, colleagues and employers alike. Quite frankly most of us would rather devote our passion and positive energy to more productive ends than waste it on trying to change people who have already devoted their lives to being close minded and disrespectful of others.


Cheers,
Kirsten B.

[The Weasel]

I dunno. There's so much discrimination ongoing in the world and society that it makes such topics difficult.

- We won't hire you because you aren't buddies with the boss.
- We won't hire you because we want more people who where hijabs.
- We won't hire you because we need more women.
- We won't hire you because we don't want you take a year off for babies/traveling/education/etc.
- We won't hire you simply because we don't like you.
- We won't hire you because you have visible tattoos/piercings.
- We won't hire you because we have too many white people.
- We won't hire you because you wear a turban.

All are discriminatory, some more accepted than others, despite constitutional legislation. In many ways, it's human nature to make quick superficial judgements about a person. It takes a long time and lots of effort to really get to know a person and judge them somewhat fairly, and even then personal bias still plays a part.

I think an organisation should hire the people that it thinks are best for the organisation. If a company doesn't (or does) want people with visible tattoos to create or maintain a certain image, then they shouldn't (or should) hire people with visible tattoos. It is a private business owned and operated by a private group or individual. The basics of tact, respect, and dignity apply, but they should be able to run the business how they see fit.

[photofly]

Quite frankly most of us would rather devote our passion and positive energy to more productive ends than waste it on trying to change people who have already devoted their lives to being close minded and disrespectful of others.

Beats me what you're doing on AvCanada then.

[pdw]

There's something that's called hope

[General Brock]

This just happened at my last company
With pilots making low wages, its sometimes the woman who makes the most money in the relationship.
In this day in age, males are allowed to take Paternity leave.

Besides, hire the female... nicer scenery than blue sky

[ScudRunner]

just make it SOP to leave the WX radar on at all times on the ramp/hangar etc so with any luck you can neuter countless rampies and pilots thus solving said problem.