I took a little bit of time trying to decide which thread to post this in. While it will touch on jobs that I have had, it's not about a job that I have had or even one that I am likely to have. It is effected somewhat by politics, but it's not about politics or government, and it has nothing to do with senior employment. It has more to do with things that I have heard in the news over the past several years, although it's not about any specific news item. When I was an EMS director, program chairman, or part owner of an ambulance company, I hired far more female medics than most of the other ambulance companies in the Rio Grande Valley, the majority of which had one female medic, more of a token really. Other companies hired women as dispatchers or to work in the office, but not as medics, although nearly half of every EMT program was made up of female students. This posed no problem for me whatsoever, as they were every bit as capable as any male EMTs or paramedics, and there were times when a female medic was a distinct advantage. Even before that, when I was an adjustor-supervisor at Duro Bag, I promoted the first woman ever to the position of a machine operator. I've told that story elsewhere, so I won't go into details there again. However, my wife and I were talking earlier this week and I don't think I would take the chance of hiring a woman if I owned or operated a company, today. This is not at all because I think that women are incapable, but the current climate is that women are automatically believed when they make an allegation, even when there is no proof whatsoever, and whoever they are accusing is expected to resign or be fired without so much as even being charged with a crime, and with no proof necessary. As much as I hate to say it, I don't know that I'd take the chance. If someone were to get angry with me because she didn't get a promotion that she had hoped for, or if I had to let her go for some reason, all that it would take is for her to make an allegation and at least half the world would believe her even if she totally made it up. If it were my company, I'd lose business. If it were someone else's, they'd be pressured to fire me or to ask me to step down. I can't imagine that I'm alone in this, and I am wondering if this is going to prove to be a bad thing for women in the workplace. On the upper part of the scale, companies are pressured to have more women on their boards of directors or in management but on the lower end of the scale, this could lead to women having a harder time finding work. Of course, if the men who are being forced out are replaced by women, or by men who are afraid to deny anything to a female employee, it could work out for them, but at the expense of productivity. Hopefully, this won't result in a fight. I don't expect that I will ever be in a position to hire anyone again, so whatever position I am taking here is not a threat to anyone. It is intended to be fodder for discussion, and I couldn't care less if you agree with me.
I agree, @Ken Anderson that it will make it more difficult for women to get jobs in some fields now that the sexual harassment thing is back in the news. Real harassment has gone on for years, but it became a weapon in the late 80s and early 90s. I may have shared the story that I hears of a Radiology supervisor in a hospital in Oregon around 1990. A female employee approached her boss and propositioned him as she had developed an affection for her married supervisor. He rejected her advances, and shortly thereafter she filed a sexual harassment complaint against him. On the date and time of the alleged "touching", there were 5 women in the room, all of whom testified in his defense and stated that the incident never happened. The man lost his job anyway, and, since he was fired, his wife assumed the accusation had to be true and left him taking their children. He found it impossible to find another job as he was "not eligible for rehire" at his previous employer and his career and life were ruined by a false accusation. I don't know what happened ultimately to the supervisor or to his accuser, as several of her co-workers left to find other jobs stating that they didn't want to work in a place where such injustice could happen. I don't know how common these incidents were, but it made it very difficult to separate the real problems from the retaliatory ones. I would like to see everyone work in an environment where they felt safe and secure, and I thought we had moved beyond using allegations as weapons, but with the rise of the "MeToo" movement and seeing what is being done to Brett Kavanaugh, I can see that we are back into that sad workplace environment once again. I am certainly glad that I am retired.
I understand the concerns but I think we need to get beyond them and figure out how to work together to resolve problems on both sides of the issue. In my working years, I was partial to hiring middle-aged women that were reentering the workforce after raising a family. Those women knew how to manage time and money, they were dependable, they accepted challenges without a lot of moaning and complaining, they had a great work ethic, they knew how to get things done, they were fearless, and they were thankful for the opportunity! My frustrations were in hiring the younger folks that couldn't understand what the big deal was if they were late, surfed the net, made personal calls, left early, etc... I'm glad my working years are behind me.
I can well see your point, @Ken Anderson. If I were a man I would be afraid to even be alone in an elevator with a woman. She could say you touched her and ruin your life.
It's a "both sides" not respecting proper boundaries in my opinion. There will always be men who "hit" on women and there will always be women who "hit" on men. And I agree with what you have said @Ken Anderson...yet I do believe the wind blows both ways in this area. It's not right and neither men or women should have to worry about this when applying for a job or working in one. Anything goes now days. But that doesn't mean it's right and in the topic you are speaking of...it's very, very, wrong. I'm glad I don't have to be in the working world anymore either these days but if I had to be I would find myself something I could do by myself and with as little direct contact with others as possible.
I had the chore of hiring a buyer one time back in the sixties. I was purchasing agent. I ran an ad in the paper for two days only to see what I would get. The company normally didn't hire by running employment ads. I interviewed two men and one woman. There were no female buyers in this company. It was generally discouraged. One of the guys I interviewed was really hoping to get a job with another company and I thought would probably use my position as a stepping stone. The other individual I had serious doubts about. I thought he was probably someone who could not control his drinking, as there were large gaps on his resume regarding his work record which he couldn't satisfactorily explain. The lady was a teacher who wanted to change her occupation. She taught eleventh grade English in a almost entirely minority high school. She gave me a good explanation which I won't go into here. She was not married and lived with her parents and was involved in their care. She had a masters degree in education, presented herself well and I soon learned she was a tough negotiator. She soon was promoted to senior buyer and worked in this spot until the company was bought out by a British firm. Before I left the company a number of women were hired as buyers. Now days, I would be more cautious for the reasons someone stated above.
I have been reluctant to post a lot in this thread for fear of angering some folks. I will try to keep it mellow. I was involved in hiring many people over the years in both professional and non-professional positions. I believe that, just as individuals can vary , so can sexes/genders, religions, ethnic groups and races. Some do better than others at given positions. I knew an insurance company manager in California who wanted to increase the number of female adjusters in his nation-wide company. He began by trying to hire more women but couldn't get acceptable candidates, so he raised the salaries of female trainees significantly over their male counter parts. That worked for a while, but he said that after training (this was in the San Jose area), if he told a man to go to Miami, Santa Barbara, or Cleveland, he would pack his bags and go. With his female recruits, after significant expense in training, if he sent them to Santa Barbara, they would go happily, but if he needed them to go to Cleveland, they would resign. He was at a loss. I don't know if this situation has changed, as women are being encouraged to be more like men, even if they don't want to be. This is a generalization, so there are always exceptions, but I have found that women tend to be "parallel thinkers" and deal with several lines of thinking at the same time, while men seem to be mostly "serial thinkers", who address one problem then move to another. That pattern makes them suitable for different jobs, and careers, but society and women's groups are trying to push women into jobs that they are not (generally) suited for, and that often leads to women unhappy with their careers. I don't believe anyone should be excluded form any training or career path, but I think it is up to the individual to choose the path they feel will make them happiest, not necessarily the one that society tells them they should follow. Never meet with someone of the opposite sex alone....
I liked the way Champion Paper handled female applicants and employees because they were treated just like anyone else who applied. Anyone who didn't have previous experience in paper bag manufacturing was hired at the entry level position, which was as a stacker. Their job was to stack the complete bales onto pallets, and they were expected to assist the machine operator with other tasks when they had the time to do so, in order to familiarize themselves with the next level on the ladder. Whereas Duro Bag never promoted female employees beyond the entry level position unless there was an office position available, being a union plant, they had the same opportunities for advancement with Champion as the male employees did. However, they were expected to do the same job. Depending on the type of bag being made, some of the bales were pretty heavy and occasionally we'd get someone who couldn't keep up with it. However, we had some male employees who couldn't, too. Machine operators, the second level on the ladder, was actually a pretty easy job as long as the operator paid attention. It did involve lining rolls of paper up behind the machine. Typically, a machine would go through five or six rolls of paper a shift, and they weighed more than two tons. Being rolls, of course, they rolled but, although the forklift drivers would drop the rolls off behind the machines, they wouldn't line them up, so the operator would have to manipulate them to fit. There were times when a forklift driver would take extra care to line the rolls up behind the machine for a female machine operator, particularly when they were cute, and I had to ask them not to do that. Likewise, some machine adjusters would spend more time with the female machine operators, doing part of their job for them. This wasn't fair to anyone else, or to them, particularly if they wanted to earn the respect of everyone else there. Paper bag production was also a dirty job and a noisy one. Machine operators and adjusters could expect to accumulate a fair amount of oil, ink, glue, and paper dust on their clothing. We did have a higher turnover of female employees than men, but those who stayed did as well as any of the men who worked there.
Ken you are correct in your thinking. I think it has to do with the whole education system the politico correctness and the ideas of feeling more important than anything else even the law. This push by the education system to produce a whole field of unemployable people having degrees in .... studies instead of science
As far as the physical requirements for any job, the requirements should serve the needs of the position, and everyone in that position should be required to meet the same standards.
In the late 1970's part of my job was interviewing and hiring new sales staff for the company I was employed with. We hired whoever could do the job best .. no matter if it was a man or woman. One day we had a visit from EEO stating that we MUST hire a black person, a latino person and an oriental person or we would be fined multiple $ per day until we do. That is just plain stupid ! We were able to find out who had filed a complaint against us and we took it to the higher ups at EEO. We presented them with the resume and the references that this person had given us and they had to back down. The resume showed that this 20 year old man had already been employed 32 times ! His references all stated he was fired for not showing up to work and theft. He also had a criminal record. A company should hire who will perform best .. not ever based on sex, color, race or religion.
We went through a phase with similar requirements, sort of like Noah filling his ark. We finally settled on having a workforce that was representative of the community where our facilities were located and I agree with that as long as the candidates can meet the requirements of the job. IMO you should strive to have a diverse workforce including LGBTQ, military veterans, people with disabilities, etc...
I was a Manager at the DoD. We were presented with three candidates for each position that had been prescreened. If we did not hire the protected class,(Female,racial minority) we had to write a justification for not accepting that person. When a white male was rejected there was no such questioning. Since the DoD also requires veteran preference this often put us in a difficult position. The base I worked at was overwhlmingly white, like 95% it almost always left us in a quandry.