Hiring child-bearing age females
Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, I WAS Birddog
Hiring child-bearing age females
As a spin-off of Doc's sexist thread, I ask this question.
Let's pretend you are a person involved in hiring new pilots at one of Canada's bigger small operators (North Caribou, Perimeter, Transwest, Westwind, Ledcor, Discovery, etc. etc....). You are looking to hire a new low-time pilot who you expect to work with the company over the next couple of years while they get their career off the ground. Both applicants are in their early 20's, same schooling and work experience, basically equal in every way.
One is male, the other female. Who do you hire?
Before anyone is offended that I have even asked this question, I want to say, I believe this is a situation unfolding for countless people in most industries in North America, and am just looking for insight from others.
Let's face it, we all know the girl is more likely to become child bearing than the guy is. Possibly child bearing more than once over the next 5 years. As an employer, you will be in a position where you will lose this employee for some time while the bearing happens and for some time afterwards. You will also need to provide this employee with the same or equal job opportunity if they choose to return within a certain amount of time (I believe it is one year). I am aware the law now allows either parent to take the maternity leave, so you may be in a similar situation with either a male or female employee, but stats show it is usually Mom that takes it.
Thoughts?
Let's pretend you are a person involved in hiring new pilots at one of Canada's bigger small operators (North Caribou, Perimeter, Transwest, Westwind, Ledcor, Discovery, etc. etc....). You are looking to hire a new low-time pilot who you expect to work with the company over the next couple of years while they get their career off the ground. Both applicants are in their early 20's, same schooling and work experience, basically equal in every way.
One is male, the other female. Who do you hire?
Before anyone is offended that I have even asked this question, I want to say, I believe this is a situation unfolding for countless people in most industries in North America, and am just looking for insight from others.
Let's face it, we all know the girl is more likely to become child bearing than the guy is. Possibly child bearing more than once over the next 5 years. As an employer, you will be in a position where you will lose this employee for some time while the bearing happens and for some time afterwards. You will also need to provide this employee with the same or equal job opportunity if they choose to return within a certain amount of time (I believe it is one year). I am aware the law now allows either parent to take the maternity leave, so you may be in a similar situation with either a male or female employee, but stats show it is usually Mom that takes it.
Thoughts?
- Beefitarian
- Top Poster
- Posts: 6610
- Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:53 am
- Location: A couple of meters away from others.
Re: Hiring child-bearing age females
You're definitely barking up a dangerous tree and I will answer as having never been in a hiring position.
The reality of it is, many men these days are taking much of the parenting duties and in the past were more strictly what the woman have done. In Canada either parent can use the mat or pat leave and it would be hard to determine this before hand. Sure the mother if flying for you would have to take time off during the pregnancy but if she has a higher paying job than the father, she may want to get back to work sooner to support the family.
I would say in the past it may have effected hiring but today I would gather it has a much smaller effect than it once had. There still may be some chief pilots that are from the stone age and don't hire females but that is more their own issues rather than what most companies do.
The reality of it is, many men these days are taking much of the parenting duties and in the past were more strictly what the woman have done. In Canada either parent can use the mat or pat leave and it would be hard to determine this before hand. Sure the mother if flying for you would have to take time off during the pregnancy but if she has a higher paying job than the father, she may want to get back to work sooner to support the family.
I would say in the past it may have effected hiring but today I would gather it has a much smaller effect than it once had. There still may be some chief pilots that are from the stone age and don't hire females but that is more their own issues rather than what most companies do.
-
- Top Poster
- Posts: 8133
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:25 pm
- Location: Winterfell...
Re: Hiring child-bearing age females
For those operators you listed... it's probably a non-issue. They lose more guys (and girls) in that demographic to shiny jet syndrome and disillusionment of aviation than from women who want to have kids.
Re: Hiring child-bearing age females
Are you asking if it is OK to break to law or are you looking for advice on how to break the law without getting caught?
- Beefitarian
- Top Poster
- Posts: 6610
- Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:53 am
- Location: A couple of meters away from others.
Re: Hiring child-bearing age females
I see what you did there!! Good one!!ZBBYLW wrote: Sure the mother if flying for you would have to take time off during the pregnancy but if she has a higher paying job than the father, she may want to get back to work sooner


Re: Hiring child-bearing age females
I was not asking anything about law. I was hoping this wouldn't become a discussion about legalities or interpretation of law or what clause of the charter or precedence has been set. I simply asked the question.
Let me expand on it. You have two candidates with equal credentials. One is a 25 year old male, married a year ago to his 23 year old wife. No kids yet. The other candidate is similar age and single (male). After the interview, you feel they are both respectable young men with the values and morals you are looking for in an employee. Only difference is the individual`s position regarding the likelihood of bearing children in the near future.
Discussion in the other (sexist) thread, gave almost unanimous conclusion that raising a young family poses some difficulties for those starting or building a career. It is only reasonable to expect these difficulties (or problems) faced, will have an effect on the professional life, thus becoming in some cases the employers problem as well.
O.K. I know this is all hypothetical, and when looking at any employee, many factors must be considered, and all these factors add up on one side of the con or pro scale. My question is; How much weight is given to the child-bearing factor when looking at candidates.
By the way, I have noticed nobody has taken a shot at answering the question yet. We all have an answer, and I am sure everyone`s answer will not be the same.
It is funny sometimes, the things we are not allowed to talk about.
(disclaimer, I am not in a hiring position at my company)
Let me expand on it. You have two candidates with equal credentials. One is a 25 year old male, married a year ago to his 23 year old wife. No kids yet. The other candidate is similar age and single (male). After the interview, you feel they are both respectable young men with the values and morals you are looking for in an employee. Only difference is the individual`s position regarding the likelihood of bearing children in the near future.
Discussion in the other (sexist) thread, gave almost unanimous conclusion that raising a young family poses some difficulties for those starting or building a career. It is only reasonable to expect these difficulties (or problems) faced, will have an effect on the professional life, thus becoming in some cases the employers problem as well.
O.K. I know this is all hypothetical, and when looking at any employee, many factors must be considered, and all these factors add up on one side of the con or pro scale. My question is; How much weight is given to the child-bearing factor when looking at candidates.
By the way, I have noticed nobody has taken a shot at answering the question yet. We all have an answer, and I am sure everyone`s answer will not be the same.
It is funny sometimes, the things we are not allowed to talk about.
(disclaimer, I am not in a hiring position at my company)
-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 684
- Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 9:27 am
- Location: Toronto
Re: Hiring child-bearing age females
Check with your lawyer how much it's going to cost if a human rights complaint is filed against you.
Re: Hiring child-bearing age females
Given that 1) many people are employed in the aviation industry 2) what you are asking has legal implications and 3) this is a public forum I am not surprised that you're not getting a lot of answers.railroad wrote:By the way, I have noticed nobody has taken a shot at answering the question yet. We all have an answer, and I am sure everyone`s answer will not be the same.
Re: Hiring child-bearing age females
I guess some things are still pretty hush hush when it comes to legality... I feel you are posting on behalf of curiosity, which sometimes is better to ponder in your head. I doubt anyone from part of the hiring crew would give you a blunt answer who they would pick. One must tread lightly. I understand your question but seems a little silly to be asking how much of the law are you willing to break when hiring a candidate. 

-
- Rank 2
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 6:10 pm
Re: Hiring child-bearing age females
It is disgusting how people are affraid of getting their feelings hurt....
- Redneck_pilot86
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1330
- Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 12:47 pm
- Location: between 60 and 70
Re: Hiring child-bearing age females
I can't believe some of the uppity answers on this thread. It is not illegal to hire one candidate over another. You don't have the right to any given job, and if the employer feels someone else is better suited to the position than you are, then that is who they hire. There is so much reverse racism in our society from people who are scared to potentially offend some stranger that they are biasing decisions toward hiring minorities just to appear non discriminatory. So here: If two pilots apply for one other position, all other things being equal, and one expresses an interest in starting a family in the near future, I would hire the other one. That is not discrimination, it is common sense. Why would I hire a person and pay a significant amount for them to be trained on type, knowing that they are going to disappear for a year or so, and then have to be retrained at another large expenditure from me as they are no longer current when they return. The other candidate who is not taking mat/pat leave will be a better fit, as a year from now he/she will have a years experience in the position and possibly be ready for advancement.
-
- Rank 2
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 5:31 am
Re: Hiring child-bearing age females
Upon being hired at a company I was told by the owner "don't you go having babies on me now." It was all downhill from there.
Classy.
In my experience the type of company that would hire a young man over a young woman will sooner or later be exposed. Either they won't hire women at all or the women working there will eventually quit. They more than likely wouldn't want to return to this company after mat leave.
It's maybe about time that women are seen as equals as opposed to baby factories that will affect the company's training budget.
Classy.
In my experience the type of company that would hire a young man over a young woman will sooner or later be exposed. Either they won't hire women at all or the women working there will eventually quit. They more than likely wouldn't want to return to this company after mat leave.
It's maybe about time that women are seen as equals as opposed to baby factories that will affect the company's training budget.
- Beefitarian
- Top Poster
- Posts: 6610
- Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:53 am
- Location: A couple of meters away from others.
Re: Hiring child-bearing age females
Only one honest answer.
Hire the one that works for free.
Industry standard.
Hire the one that works for free.
Industry standard.
- Redneck_pilot86
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1330
- Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 12:47 pm
- Location: between 60 and 70
Re: Hiring child-bearing age females
I just want to clarify my above post, in no way do I support hiring men over women, but I do understand and support hiring a person that will stick around vs a person that is intending to take a significant amount of time off, regardless of their plumbing.Sleeve of Wizard wrote:Upon being hired at a company I was told by the owner "don't you go having babies on me now." It was all downhill from there.
Classy.
In my experience the type of company that would hire a young man over a young woman will sooner or later be exposed. Either they won't hire women at all or the women working there will eventually quit. They more than likely wouldn't want to return to this company after mat leave.
It's maybe about time that women are seen as equals as opposed to baby factories that will affect the company's training budget.
-
- Rank 2
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 5:31 am
Re: Hiring child-bearing age females
Riiiiight... In an interview a young kid is likely to say that they want to make a career out of this small operation.
People will leave for any number of reasons. Women have one more reason to leave. Might as well hire the man
People will leave for any number of reasons. Women have one more reason to leave. Might as well hire the man

Re: Hiring child-bearing age females
^ Yup.Sleeve of Wizard wrote:Riiiiight... In an interview a young kid is likely to say that they want to make a career out of this small operation.
People will leave for any number of reasons. Women have one more reason to leave. Might as well hire the man
Last edited by Flybabe on Wed Nov 20, 2013 7:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Colonel Sanders
- Top Poster
- Posts: 7512
- Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
- Location: Over Macho Grande
Re: Hiring child-bearing age females
Hold on a sec. I'm no doctor, but I think humanHiring child-bearing age females
females are actually physically capable of reproducing
starting somewhere around 13 years. And with
the advent of in vitro etc, women can give birth
well into their 50's. Didn't John Travolta's wife
just have a baby, at age 50?
So, I think this thread is asking about hiring female
pilots younger than 13, or older than 55. Correct?
Re: Hiring child-bearing age females
I'd hire the girl, to have a shot at getting her pregnantrailroad wrote:
One is male, the other female. Who do you hire?

I'm far, far away

Re: Hiring child-bearing age females
So, I think this thread is asking about hiring female
pilots younger than 13, or older than 55. Correct?
Do you know any "human" female commercial
pilots under 18???
pilots younger than 13, or older than 55. Correct?
Do you know any "human" female commercial
pilots under 18???
-
- Rank 1
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 2:52 pm
Re: Hiring child-bearing age females
Quite frankly, in my long experience young women who are inclined to starting a family tend to have it stamped on their foreheads.
I can only think of a single woman in my entire career who pulled the back-to-back mat leaves and she didn't come back after the second one.
I can only think of a single woman in my entire career who pulled the back-to-back mat leaves and she didn't come back after the second one.
Re: Hiring child-bearing age females
LOL. As good sheep, um, er, Canadians must, you have all girded your loins and skirted the actual issue, in the interest of political correctness. Well stroked.
Re: Hiring child-bearing age females
Are there some actual statistics to summon ... for this interesting thread ?