Only 3 countries in the world where your boss is more likely to be female
The UK features at 41 out of 108 countries... that's not great!
At least not as bad as Pakistan, where only 3% are women!
http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/the-countries-where-your-boss-is-more-likely-to-be-a-woman--gkp0XV4b2e
At least not as bad as Pakistan, where only 3% are women!
http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/the-countries-where-your-boss-is-more-likely-to-be-a-woman--gkp0XV4b2e
Scroll to see replies
Can I sue a random company of my choice for this?
Where I worked at in 2013, my boss was a she.
Where I worked at in 2013, my boss was a she.
Original post by pinkteddyx64
Can I sue a random company of my choice for this?
Where I worked at in 2013, my boss was a she.
Where I worked at in 2013, my boss was a she.
I have also had female bosses, but that may be because of the line of work I am in. I bet there is a big disparity in different industries.
Still 1/3 female bosses, 2/3 male - not great!
Original post by Condog10
I have also had female bosses, but that may be because of the line of work I am in. I bet there is a big disparity in different industries.
Still 1/3 female bosses, 2/3 male - not great!
Still 1/3 female bosses, 2/3 male - not great!
Could I sue Digital Spy for the UK featuring at 41?
Original post by Condog10
I have also had female bosses, but that may be because of the line of work I am in. I bet there is a big disparity in different industries.
Still 1/3 female bosses, 2/3 male - not great!
Still 1/3 female bosses, 2/3 male - not great!
This is actually an impressive number. Look at the progression, how many women were bosses 10, 20, 30 years ago? You can't expect the older generations to leave at the same time.
Maybe they should work as hard as the men? I remember an article about how UK lawyers are split about 50/50 gender wise but something like 80-90% of partners are men and supposedly sexism was to blame for it. One of the female lawyers quoted said : ''I don't want to work crazy hours.'' That was her idea of sexism. Just go to a forum like Mumsnet to see what women's idea of ''fair'' is. Work part-time, take years off and expect to get raises and promotions at the same rate as men. Not gonna happen. This is why far more patriarchal countries have far lower gender pay gaps, women there aren't cocooned from birth and they know that they can't have it all : you wanna earn like a man, you gotta work like one.
There are many reasons why females are less likely to be your boss - some being more important than others. There is one big thing which plays on the mind of those who are doing the hiring, within a company/business. That is - pregnancy.
Say you have a small business - it has nice profits and is doing well. It has a female manager. She falls pregnant, has her baby and takes maternity leave. During this time you have to hire another manager (on the same wage) to do her job, while she isn't there. She will still be getting her wage as well. So this small business is now paying two manager wages (which are fairly high). This could potentially cripple the business, to the point where it can't even make profits anymore, and may even have to close. So if you were a small business owner, you'd probably think about this, and maybe favour a male applicant. You can't blame them really.
A conversation I once overheard between two females (this was a real conversation):
Female 1: I'm pretty much ready now to venture out and start my own business.
Female 2: So you'll be leaving your old job soon?
Female 1: No of course not. I want to have some children, and I don't want it to come out of my pocket. I want to be sat at home with my baby while still getting my salary paid to me. So I won't be leaving for a while.
^This is exactly the mentality that could ruin a business.
With larger companies I guess this is less of an issue, so you're probably more likely to get females in charge.
Say you have a small business - it has nice profits and is doing well. It has a female manager. She falls pregnant, has her baby and takes maternity leave. During this time you have to hire another manager (on the same wage) to do her job, while she isn't there. She will still be getting her wage as well. So this small business is now paying two manager wages (which are fairly high). This could potentially cripple the business, to the point where it can't even make profits anymore, and may even have to close. So if you were a small business owner, you'd probably think about this, and maybe favour a male applicant. You can't blame them really.
A conversation I once overheard between two females (this was a real conversation):
Female 1: I'm pretty much ready now to venture out and start my own business.
Female 2: So you'll be leaving your old job soon?
Female 1: No of course not. I want to have some children, and I don't want it to come out of my pocket. I want to be sat at home with my baby while still getting my salary paid to me. So I won't be leaving for a while.
^This is exactly the mentality that could ruin a business.
With larger companies I guess this is less of an issue, so you're probably more likely to get females in charge.
Original post by Tillybop
Say you have a small business - it has nice profits and is doing well. It has a female manager. She falls pregnant, has her baby and takes maternity leave. During this time you have to hire another manager (on the same wage) to do her job, while she isn't there. She will still be getting her wage as well. So this small business is now paying two manager wages (which are fairly high). This could potentially cripple the business, to the point where it can't even make profits anymore, and may even have to close. So if you were a small business owner, you'd probably think about this, and maybe favour a male applicant. You can't blame them really.
Yes, you can. If you're favouring a male applicant purely based on the fact that the female one may or may not at some point decide to have a kid, you can certainly blame the business for not hiring them. If they're pregnant or planning to be at the time of the interview, that's an entirely different matter. But the former is fairly questionable reason not to hire them.
Original post by shadowdweller
Yes, you can. If you're favouring a male applicant purely based on the fact that the female one may or may not at some point decide to have a kid, you can certainly blame the business for not hiring them. If they're pregnant or planning to be at the time of the interview, that's an entirely different matter. But the former is fairly questionable reason not to hire them.
Hmmm...I guess so. But when you see a female applicant who could potentially have children, even if they are not pregnant or planning to, there is still that feeling at the back of your mind that "one day" they could leave and have kids. Even if it's a year or two in the future, it could still cripple the business altogether.
I'm not saying it's a good thing, I'm saying I can understand why they do it. As I progress in my line of work, I often feel as though I should write on my CV "Not looking to have children now" because I'm aware that it could be something that may stop me getting hired in higher positions. It's bad that it happens, and that you have to go to lengths to make sure your gender doesn't put the employer off you, but at the same time, you can see why someone owning a business would try to do everything in their power to stop it from failing. The owner has most likely put lots of their money, time and years of work towards getting their business going, and making sure it is successful.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Tillybop
Hmmm...I guess so. But when you see a female applicant who could potentially have children, even if they are not pregnant or planning to, there is still that feeling at the back of your mind that "one day" they could leave and have kids. Even if it's a year or two in the future, it could still cripple the business altogether.
I'm not saying it's a good thing, I'm saying I can understand why they do it. As I progress in my line of work, I often feel as though I should write on my CV "Not looking to have children now" because I'm aware that it could be something that may stop me getting hired in higher positions. It's bad that it happens, and that you have to go to lengths to make sure your gender doesn't put the employer off you, but at the same time, you can see why someone owning a business would try to do everything in their power to stop it from failing. The owner has most likely put lots of their money, time and years of work towards getting their business going, and making sure it is successful.
I'm not saying it's a good thing, I'm saying I can understand why they do it. As I progress in my line of work, I often feel as though I should write on my CV "Not looking to have children now" because I'm aware that it could be something that may stop me getting hired in higher positions. It's bad that it happens, and that you have to go to lengths to make sure your gender doesn't put the employer off you, but at the same time, you can see why someone owning a business would try to do everything in their power to stop it from failing. The owner has most likely put lots of their money, time and years of work towards getting their business going, and making sure it is successful.
And a male applicant could be ill and be off for just as long on sick pay - you can't make decisions on such a 'what if' basis, it's not fair on the candidates. The female one might leave to have kids in a few years time, but that doesn't mean she wouldn't be the better one to hire in the intervening time. Heck, she might not have kids at all, and you've essentially just potentially lost the ideal person for the job on a speculation.
If the owner wants their business to be successful, they should be hiring on merit, not on some notion that any woman they hire will go off on maternity leave and cripple their business, that's just nonsense.
Original post by JokerGirl
Quite a lot of sexism going on in this thread.
The fact someone has a vagina shouldn't stop them getting a job.
*waits to be told to "Calm down, love."*
The fact someone has a vagina shouldn't stop them getting a job.
*waits to be told to "Calm down, love."*
I find it quite appalling how there is 0% of animals as bosses. This is stupid whats wrong with a cow or cat being your boss.
The fact that they are not human shouldn't stop them from getting a job.
Original post by goobypls
I find it quite appalling how there is 0% of animals as bosses. This is stupid whats wrong with a cow or cat being your boss.
The fact that they are not human shouldn't stop them from getting a job.
The fact that they are not human shouldn't stop them from getting a job.
??
Original post by poohat
So are we just meant to be ignoring the fact that the 10 countries with the highest percentage of female bosses arent particularly successful economically?
Are we also ignoring that there are more factors to it than that?
For instance, Jamaica is top on the list, and it's economic score has been increasing the last few years. It also ranks in the top 10 for it's region. (http://www.heritage.org/index/country/jamaica)
Besides which, USA is 15th and only a few percentage off of the top 10; they're not exactly a low ranking economy.
Original post by shadowdweller
And a male applicant could be ill and be off for just as long on sick pay - you can't make decisions on such a 'what if' basis, it's not fair on the candidates. The female one might leave to have kids in a few years time, but that doesn't mean she wouldn't be the better one to hire in the intervening time. Heck, she might not have kids at all, and you've essentially just potentially lost the ideal person for the job on a speculation.
If the owner wants their business to be successful, they should be hiring on merit, not on some notion that any woman they hire will go off on maternity leave and cripple their business, that's just nonsense.
If the owner wants their business to be successful, they should be hiring on merit, not on some notion that any woman they hire will go off on maternity leave and cripple their business, that's just nonsense.
It's true a male applicant could be very ill and may end up having to be out of work, and it's a risk they take because anyone from the human population could fall ill and need sick pay, but only the females will have children. And the sad truth is it's unlikely that the female will be the only ideal person for the job, as so many people are out there looking for the same job, that there will be hundreds of "ideal" people, all with great experience and could do the job perfectly. And it's likely that a large portion of those will be male, as well as female. And it's true she might not even want children, but when the possibility is there it is something the employer will consider.
I know of a business that almost went under because of a female being hired as a manager. She became pregnant after working just a few months, and the business only just survived. While it would be nice to hire on merit alone, employers will think above and beyond what we think, when they hire. They will think about various possibilities. Employers look at what they have at the present, and they look at what they could have; then they look at what fits with what they currently have. They will be looking for someone who can make their business grow. If their budget couldn't allow for two managers, which would be needed if the female left on maternity leave, then they either hire the female and have no manager if she has children (or the owner takes on a double workload); or hire a male and never need to worry about that sort of situation. An employer hiring a female may potentially be gambling with what they have worked for their entire life, and the stability for their home life (they may have a family to support).
It's a horrible situation which doesn't fall at the feet of females, but rather the way the law works. Females are allowed to be paid while on maternity leave. I'm not clued up fully on how their pay works, but I know they're entitled to full pay for a length of time, and then half pay for a further length of time. If it worked differently, and females only got paid while they were actually working, then it wouldn't cripple a business, and the employer would not think twice when hiring a female. Fathers only get a limited amount of paid paternity leave, so females should get the same limited amount. If they want to spend longer with their child, then they should leave work, but the employer should have to leave the job open for them if they choose to return. That way they have job security when they want to return to work, and the business does not lose out. It's a win win situation.
And in other news, 98% of stay-at-home parents are women (I made that up but it could be right), but you don't see men going on about it. I could draw a pie chart to show how few men fill that role, and how much they're under-represented. Why does everything have to be about a 50-50 split, when nature and the real world don't work like that?
I'd just like to clarify maternity pay.
Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP), the pay that business are legally obliged to pay to qualifying employees (employees must have worked as employees for the period of time required) is as follows:
The last 33 weeks are at nowhere near a professional wage.
https://www.gov.uk/employers-maternity-pay-leave/entitlement
and businesses can claim much of this back from HMRC
https://www.gov.uk/recover-statutory-payments/reclaiming
Many businesses do offer an enhanced package far beyond their legal obligations, but this is their choice. They do not do so out of charity. It is good business practice to make employees want to work for your company in particular.
Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP), the pay that business are legally obliged to pay to qualifying employees (employees must have worked as employees for the period of time required) is as follows:
Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP)
SMP for eligible employees can be paid for up to 39 weeks, usually as follows:
the first 6 weeks - 90% of their average weekly earnings (AWE) before tax
the remaining 33 weeks - £138.18 or 90% of their AWE (whichever is lower)
Tax and National Insurance need to be deducted.
SMP for eligible employees can be paid for up to 39 weeks, usually as follows:
the first 6 weeks - 90% of their average weekly earnings (AWE) before tax
the remaining 33 weeks - £138.18 or 90% of their AWE (whichever is lower)
Tax and National Insurance need to be deducted.
The last 33 weeks are at nowhere near a professional wage.
https://www.gov.uk/employers-maternity-pay-leave/entitlement
and businesses can claim much of this back from HMRC
. What you can reclaim
As an employer, you can usually reclaim 92% of employees’ Statutory Maternity (SMP), Paternity and Adoption Pay.
You can reclaim 103% if your business qualifies for Small Employers’ Relief. You get this if you paid less than £45,000 in Class 1 National Insurance in the last complete tax year before the qualifying or matching week (or the official notification for overseas adoptions).
As an employer, you can usually reclaim 92% of employees’ Statutory Maternity (SMP), Paternity and Adoption Pay.
You can reclaim 103% if your business qualifies for Small Employers’ Relief. You get this if you paid less than £45,000 in Class 1 National Insurance in the last complete tax year before the qualifying or matching week (or the official notification for overseas adoptions).
https://www.gov.uk/recover-statutory-payments/reclaiming
Many businesses do offer an enhanced package far beyond their legal obligations, but this is their choice. They do not do so out of charity. It is good business practice to make employees want to work for your company in particular.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- my friend stopped talking to me to become a strict muslim
- Does she like me? I can't seem to read her.
- Most women want to be bad girls in 2023.
- Solo Travelling
- Poetry essay feedback needed!! (A-Level)
- I'm almost 21 and have never been in a relationship
- My best friend just told me he’d pick his boss over me
- Is earning 25k a year considered poor?
- Gap year
- If you could instantly become fluent in any foreign language which one would it be?
- English Lang paper 2
- From girls to the world
- Is this a toxic work behaviour?
- Parents won’t let me leave for uni
- How much of the world have you seen?
- Better to focus on alevels or boyfriend?
- Recommended city in canada to meet local girls
- UCL, LSE OR KCL for law?
- 71 on the MAT, rejected for interview
- Are women fully protected by the Law?
Latest
Last reply 8 minutes ago
Bank Of england degree apprenticeship 2024Last reply 14 minutes ago
Feeling inferior compared to syrians as a half moroccan/half whiteLast reply 15 minutes ago
Edexcel A Level Business Paper 1 (9BS0 01) - 14th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 22 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 22 minutes ago
Atkins Degree Apprenticeship 2024Last reply 28 minutes ago
Official UCL Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 32 minutes ago
Official University of St Andrews Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 42 minutes ago
Learn Direct - Vet science Unit 9 HELPLast reply 52 minutes ago
LSE undergraduate accommodationLast reply 57 minutes ago
The Official Cambridge Applicants for 2025 Entry ThreadLast reply 57 minutes ago
Airbus degree apprenticeships 2024Last reply 59 minutes ago
Official University of Edinburgh Applicant Thread for 2024Trending
Last reply 17 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 17 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
