29 December 2008

Verbal Engineering

The following scenario is one that we are discussing in my Business Class that i am taking. Right now we are covering Human Resources. I agreed with Nicole and every chick in the class has busted my ass about it. In my opinion i defended what Nicole did but it sure pissed of the women. The men in the class tell me to keep up the good fight but they don't want to piss off the women.

Here is a statistic for you, 42% of all women who go out under FMLA for childbirth do not return to work.

Susan, who is visibly pregnant, has applied for a job with Bradley Corporation. Nicole, the hiring manager, has invited Susan to interview based on the strength of her resume and is not aware of her pregnancy. When Susan arrives at her interview with Bradley Corporation, Nicole is taken by surprise. Although Nicole thinks Susan would make a very fine employee, she wonders if Susan will stay in the position if hired.

Nicole is worried about having to train Susan and get her situated in the new position only to have her quit after her maternity leave. Nicole is savvy enough not to say, "I'm not going to hire you because you're pregnant" out loud, but she has decided that she will not hire Susan.
What would you have done if you were Nicole? Be prepared to defend your position.


Biggun6969 said...

I wouldn't hire that moody bitch just on the fact that she will drain the insurance company and everyone else will pay more next year; let along that chances are her prego ass won't return after she squirts out that puppy. I would tell her to "kick rocks" and come back after her lactating ass finds a good daycare. Later.

Jon said...

The problem with theoretical scenarios, they rarely fit into the real world.

In theory, Nicole discriminated against Suzan for her medical condition, if the only final consideration was the fact she was pregnant.

What's worse, if Susan wanted to pursue a lawsuit, she could use the hiring records to promote her plea. They could be useful if she had similar, or better qualifications for the position.

While Nicole has a valid concern, she would be walking a slippery slope if she couldn't cover her ass with other facts that supported her decision. This, to me, is wrong because her concerns are based on facts, logically protect the company from a possible poor employee choice, and prevents the shake-ups caused by maternity leave.

Suzan should never introduce herself into the job market when she's in late pregnancy. To me it's unethical and shows poor character in a professional environment.

I know some might pursue the argument Suzan needs the job, but asking a future employer to work around your personal problems is asking too much.

Anonymous said...

I'd hire her, then fire her a week later and re-post the position or hire the next best candidate on the list. Every company I know of has a 60 to 90 day period of time in which a company can terminate an employee for any conceivable reason--including that they just don't seem to "be a good fit" for the company/department/co-workers/whatever. In taking care of the problem in this way, I have taken no action which Susan can claim is discriminatory, and we won't have her draining the insurance company.

Ya got to know how to play the corporate game, fellas.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.