1. Check out our app, Forums for Android! Download and leave feedback here!

you are interviewing 2 candidates for a 6 figure job...

Discussion in 'Politics and Current Affairs' started by mcatdtDROID, Oct 21, 2010.

?

Who do you hire...

  1. The man

    9 vote(s)
    100.0%
  2. The woman

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. mcatdtDROID

    Thread Starter
    43

    May 9, 2010
    405
    25
    43
    Candidate 1 - 25 y.o. married male, Ivy League 4.0 graduate with a Masters and no experience. Casually mentions that he plans to start a family within the next 5 years
    Candidate 2 - 25 y.o. married female, Ivy League 4.0 graduate with a Masters and no experience. Casually mentions that she plans to start a family within the next 5 years


    who do you hire when all things are equal. Both of equal qualifications and experience, both have great personalities, the ONLY difference is one is male and one is female. Also, give your reasoning.


    I'd hire the male over the female
    Reason - all things equal, the male is a better economic choice. Not because you can pay him more or less than the female, but because eventually, when both start their respective families, it's GARANTEED she will have to take some time off for maternity leave. During which time you, as the boss, will have to either make someone else pick up her slack while she's out, hire a temp replacement, or possibly replace her completely, thereby having to retrain another new employee. All of which are economic losses.

    The man won't take maternity leave.


    All other things are equal... possibility of person leaving the company, or not being as good a worker as you had initially thought, illness possibilities, death..... all those cancel each other out, but pregnancy.... that's the one thing you don't have to worry about with a man
     

    Advertisement

  2. zauper

    zauper Well-Known Member
    38

    May 13, 2010
    136
    13
    38
    The man can take paternity leave.

    Parental leave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    IIRC, the paid benefit is mandated to be equal for both genders, as well.
     
  3. avacomputers

    avacomputers Well-Known Member
    43

    Dec 9, 2009
    374
    31
    43
    Computer Tech.
  4. mcatdtDROID

    Thread Starter
    43

    May 9, 2010
    405
    25
    43
    he CAN, but he doesn't HAVE TO.... A woman pretty much doesn't have a choice.... she has to take time out, no matter how minimal it is compared to other women, it's still time away that has to be economically accounted for.

    I know my job, there is no maternity leave per say. We get sick/personal time that builds up. When preggo, you have to use the time you have built up. So, while I could take time off, it just comes out of my end totals, so men take off less time than their wive's do in the same field. Economically, that makes men more valuable than the woman.
     
  5. mcatdtDROID

    Thread Starter
    43

    May 9, 2010
    405
    25
    43

    I could see that as a legit answer to some.... lets just say, for argument's sake, that they are equally good looking by SOCIETY'S standards. lol
     
  6. zauper

    zauper Well-Known Member
    38

    May 13, 2010
    136
    13
    38
    Actually, in this day and age the woman doesn't have to.

    Induced labor friday pm, back in work monday. It's doable. Particularly over a long weekend where you could get an extra day off.

    If you have more than 75 employees, there is p/maternity leave at your job. Unpaid for 12 weeks.

    U.S. Department of Labor - Wage and Hour Division (WHD) - Family and Medical Leave Act
    Are you accounting for the average salary difference between the two in your "economic analysis"?

    Do you have statistics on the number of paid days taken by each gender, since that seems to be part of your argument?
     
    Martimus likes this.
  7. mcatdtDROID

    Thread Starter
    43

    May 9, 2010
    405
    25
    43
    yep, but nothing garantees that.... with a man, you don't have to worry about it.

    it's economic RISK.... She may NEVER have a kid.... but the economic risk to the company is greater than that with the man.

    EDIT - same pay.
     
  8. zauper

    zauper Well-Known Member
    38

    May 13, 2010
    136
    13
    38
    Statistically, men get paid more than women.

    Again, a man can choose to take paternity leave. It's a federal right, if you have more than 75 employees. It's a RISK either way. Just a lot less likely.

    But if you're ignoring statistics and setting the stage so there's no reason to vote for anything but the man, then you're already stacking the deck, eh?

    Let me be clear -- statistics show us that even if the starting salary is the same, the guy is more likely to get promoted/raises more frequently and higher ones than the woman. Why are you ignoring that when talking about economic risk?
     
  9. mcatdtDROID

    Thread Starter
    43

    May 9, 2010
    405
    25
    43
    we're not talking about what the rest of the country does... you have a job worth $100,000 a year. You have to choose between equally qualified candidates....

    I simply stated WHY I would hire the male... but the question is, who would YOU hire and why?

    I mean, you have to hire somebody. Is it fair to hire the man over the woman for the reason I gave? If not, would you automatically hire the 'minority' but how is that fair to the male who was equally qualified?

    What's YOUR answer?
     
  10. mcatdtDROID

    Thread Starter
    43

    May 9, 2010
    405
    25
    43
    there, you hit the nail on the head.... just a lot less likely. Economic risk is ALWAYS there, but what's wrong with trying to reduce it? Laws of Economics don't always follow politically correct rules.

    but I do see what you're saying here.... the same man and woman 10 years from, the man will economically cost more than the woman because you can give her fewer raises.

    The problem is, how do you differentiate their value difference 10 years from now. Maybe the man may cost you 200,000 in 10 years, but he may bring in 1 million to the company, whereas the woman may only cost you $120K in 10 years, but can only generate $500,000 in revenue.

    Think about car salesmen. A lot of people just don't want to deal with a female salesperson.... That's not the car company's fault. Hiring a man in this case would make better economic sense because he has more potential to move more inventory.


    now, I am, by no means, advocating hiring a less qualified male over a female because she can get preggo and he can't. Only when ALL OTHER MEASURABLE THINGS ARE EQUAL.
     
  11. zauper

    zauper Well-Known Member
    38

    May 13, 2010
    136
    13
    38
    Women aren't a minority. IIRC, they're 51% of the population.

    I would hire the most qualified person for the job. I wouldn't discriminate (as you are) based on gender. You'll also note that when I asked for clarity, you made an argument (BUT WOMEN WOULD HAVE TO TAKE TIME OFF TO HAVE A BABY) that is false (they don't have to) and then fell back on "but they could", and ignored that the man also could. You then proceeded to say that the salary was identical, even though stats show that over time you'll be paying the man more.

    Do you see why your argument is problematic yet? Not only is it based on a faulty premise, but you're also essentially trying to control for all factors other than your faulty premise without any reason.

    Also, you're being silly. You said in your first post that the man and the woman have the same skills, the same knowledge, the same ability.

    Why would you presuppose that the woman would as a result bring in less revenue than the man? Ah, I see, you're making a sales argument. Since the initial post has no indication of it being a sales job, and sales jobs are largely commission driven, that doesn't make sense in the context of the first post.
     
  12. Potvin63

    Potvin63 Well-Known Member
    18

    Sep 23, 2010
    81
    11
    18
    Legal
    New Jersey
    I would need a little bit more information to properly answer the question, specifically what kind of job and what kind of company? Something that might factor into my reasoning as the hiring manager might be the male/female perspective in relation to the job. Factoring in something like maternity leave as being the deciding factor with everything else being equal is something I understand by the OP, but it wouldn't be my deciding factor.

    My choice would come down to who I thought brought the most to the table as relates specifically to the field of work and the duties associated with the job. The male point of view vs. female point of view would rank higher than whether or not the female applicant MIGHT some time down the line take maternity leave.

    It's funny you mentioned maternity leave since I am at my current job BECAUSE I am partly filling in for a woman who is on maternity leave.
     
  13. Vihzel

    Vihzel Destroying Balls Everyday
    333

    Apr 8, 2010
    5,364
    1,055
    333
    NYU Student & Real Estate Agent
    Manhattan, NY
    Not enough information. :)
     
  14. batgeek

    93

    Sep 4, 2010
    752
    175
    93
    Systems Engineer
    Suffolk, VA
    yeah, you didn't mention what your EO statistics look like. if there is even a hint of there needing to be a female in order to make the EO people happy, you WILL be hiring the female.
     
  15. LickTheEnvelope

    LickTheEnvelope Well-Known Member
    58

    Oct 13, 2010
    161
    23
    58
    Cellular Provider- Customer Service
    Vancouver
    What's the job? What did they master in? Do they know their a$$ from a hole in the ground?
     
  16. mcatdtDROID

    Thread Starter
    43

    May 9, 2010
    405
    25
    43
    lol @ everyone trying their damndest to answer a tough question because they don't want to be politically incorrect.

    experiment concluded. lol Thanks for playing
     
  17. Isthmus

    Isthmus Well-Known Member
    93

    Jan 6, 2010
    772
    119
    93
    If those are the only parameters for qualifications then you might be right and the man might sound like the better candidate. In reality however, qualifications are almost never equal. similar, perhaps, but equal, no.

    The example doesn't look at things such as practical experience; which Ivy they went to (in some cities the student network from your school really matters when opening doors; where you a member of any fraternities or sororities? what kind of internships or specific research did the candidates do? how were they recommended? and most importantly, how did they interview?

    IMHO, most of this stuff, at the end of the day really only applies to entry level or just-after-graduation type of jobs. Once you get professional experience under your belt, each person becomes fairly diversified and their experiences and capabilities begin to be unique to the individual. IMHO an employer would be a fool to turn down a valuable candidate simply because they think they might have to accommodate maternity leave at some point down the road.
     
  18. copestag

    copestag Well-Known Member
    143

    May 23, 2010
    1,355
    247
    143
    put em both in the same room and let them fight it out.... hire the one that walks out with more teeth (this method doesnt work in W Virginia... not enough teeth to start with)
     
  19. mcatdtDROID

    Thread Starter
    43

    May 9, 2010
    405
    25
    43
    I hear ya... at least that's thinking about it anyways...

    The point of it is... we are getting to the point that if all things are equal, the white man will lose out (and I know that's tough in and of itself). I mean, if there are NO distinguishable differences... how do you justify one over the other. You can flip a coin I suppose, but if the man wins, it's "he was hired because he was a man" argument can bite you in the ass. If the woman gets the job BECAUSE she's the woman, noone is concerned, and it's politically incorrect to question it.
     
  20. Roze

    Roze Hiding behind a mystery
    333

    Jan 20, 2010
    9,814
    2,183
    333
    Where the Sakura grows
    I will say that there is not enough information.

    So I have to assume, that throughout highschool, undergrad and grad school, both candidates did not participate in any extraciricular activities, nor volunteer? This is what hiring managers look at when BOTH candidates are very similar. If one was an executive members of an academic society, on the varsity team, started his/her own successful club, or volunteers on a regular basis, this candidate will be more superior than the other who may not do as much. These activities may not give the candiate real work experience (which is what you meant by 'no experience'), but they are life experience. It's just how you sell yourself and what you have done.

    If the manager finds it hard to decide and he/she has the resources, he/she can put them both on a week/month probation and see how they do their work and interact with their team.
     
  21. mcatdtDROID

    Thread Starter
    43

    May 9, 2010
    405
    25
    43
    ok, here's a twist

    preggo female (~6 months)
    male of similar experience, educational background, etc...
     
  22. zauper

    zauper Well-Known Member
    38

    May 13, 2010
    136
    13
    38
    You didn't even say that the man was white.

    Reverse discrimination - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    If the white man is more qualified, he has legal recourse if he doesn't receive the job. If everyone is equally qualified, why would you complain regardless of who receives the job? No one is more deserving of it.

    If the woman is not more qualified, she does not have legal recourse.
     
  23. zauper

    zauper Well-Known Member
    38

    May 13, 2010
    136
    13
    38
    Who's more qualified?

    If she's 6 months pregnant, I don't have to worry about maternity benefits.

    Am I fully insured or self insured? Would they be using my insurance plan or the husbands?
     
  24. byteware

    byteware Well-Known Member
    143

    Feb 18, 2010
    2,140
    210
    143
    Application Developer
    Alabama
    As far as I'm aware, it isn't. If you can provide a source for that, I would very much appreciate it.

    The book "Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality" presented studies that showed that women and men of similar work histories and similar education had no statistical difference in pay.

    He posited that the real pay gap comes from women taking time away from their careers to raise children, and choosing fields that they saw as traditionally women's (early education) at a higher rate than men do.

    I'm not sure I agree with you that it's gender discrimination. I think it's future plans discrimination.

    If the man told you that he was going to take 12 weeks off (FMLA) to tend to his ailing mother, then you wouldn't hire him over a woman who made no such statement.

    Their future plans impact their usefulness in their position. Whether it's a woman planning maternity leave, or a man planning to take leave to tend to an ailing parent.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------


    All in all, I tend to make the choice that makes the most economic sense to my company.

    A knowledgeable HOT woman will sell more sports cars than a knowledgeable HOT man will.

    If they would both perform equally well on the job, then I choose the one who hasn't told me they will take a substantive time off the job.


    That being said, nothing in the real world is ever this clean cut of a decision, but that's the question you asked, so that's the question I answered.
     
    mcatdtDROID likes this.
  25. mcatdtDROID

    Thread Starter
    43

    May 9, 2010
    405
    25
    43
    doesn't matter, your training cost of hiring a temporary replacement, or the economic cost of making someone do both their job and her job temporarily while she's gone.
     

Share This Page

Loading...