Labour's day of decision new leader or not.

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Labour's day of decision new leader or not.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ... | 11

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1836483 3-Aug-2017 12:12

MikeB4:

" it is totally unacceptable in 2017 to say that women should have to answer that question in the workplace. That is unacceptable in 2017. It is the woman's decision about when they choose to have children," she said."

I sincerely if you ever find yourself as an employer you learn what you can and cannot ask. If you do be prepared to be in the employment court.

She is talking about women in the workplace. She agreed that it was not an inappropriate question for HER.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1836484 3-Aug-2017 12:12

Wiggum:

bmt:

It's not debatable whether it IS a valid question. It is illegal to ask, 100% fact.

Whether it SHOULD be a valid question is debatable.

Fact should really be followed with some proof, ie a link. Otherwise its just fiction to me.

There are certain instances where this question will be appropriate in a workplace. It depends on the job being applied for.

Think

- Pilots / Flight attendants (Can't fly while you pregnant)

- Contractors (You applying for a contract role of 6 months)

Probably a few more.

WHAT!!!!!

In IT one hires a truck load of "contractors" I have lost count how many I have hired over the years and I never asked that.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1836487 3-Aug-2017 12:21

Wiggum:

MikeB4:

" it is totally unacceptable in 2017 to say that women should have to answer that question in the workplace. That is unacceptable in 2017. It is the woman's decision about when they choose to have children," she said."

I sincerely if you ever find yourself as an employer you learn what you can and cannot ask. If you do be prepared to be in the employment court.

She is talking about women in the workplace. She agreed that it was not an inappropriate question for HER.

She said she has decided to answer the questions but still said its inappropriate.

I really don't know why I engage here

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1836493 3-Aug-2017 12:24

MikeB4:

In IT one hires a truck load of "contractors" I have lost count how many I have hired over the years and I never asked that.

As a male, and contractor, I have been asked if I have kids or not. On one of the contracts I applied for required a lot of traveling and away from home time. I thought it was a fair question because it would mean that I would need to spend sometimes weeks away from my kids.

I find it odd that its fine for WINZ to ask all sorts of personal questions, but as soon as its asked by the "corporate world" everybody gets their knickers in a knot.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1836497 3-Aug-2017 12:26

MikeB4:

She said she has decided to answer the questions but still said its inappropriate.

No. I quoted her word for word.

Jacinda Ardern: I decided to talk about it, it was my choice, so I am happy to continue responding to these questions

Asked if it is an inappropriate question?

Jacinda Ardern: For me, No. Because I opened myself up to it.....

You are wrong.

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1836501 3-Aug-2017 12:32

Mike: Do you believe that the polls are upward trending for Labour based on the fact Ardern is the new leader? Does that not indicate people are voting for *her* and not the policies which have been in existence for months and present during the time they were polling low? If they are voting for her and potentially she will be taking significant time out of office, is that not something people should be aware is a potential issue? I would expect to be told if I hired someone for a job, if they knew if they were expecting to need to spend significant time out of the office, so I can plan accordingly.

If she says "yes, I intend to start a family" then people can decide if it's a big deal or not for themselves and vote accordingly.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1836507 3-Aug-2017 12:44

networkn:

Mike: Do you believe that the polls are upward trending for Labour based on the fact Ardern is the new leader? Does that not indicate people are voting for *her* and not the policies which have been in existence for months and present during the time they were polling low? If they are voting for her and potentially she will be taking significant time out of office, is that not something people should be aware is a potential issue? I would expect to be told if I hired someone for a job, if they knew if they were expecting to need to spend significant time out of the office, so I can plan accordingly.

If she says "yes, I intend to start a family" then people can decide if it's a big deal or not.

To answer this from a private perspective my wife worked while we had children, she worked up until around a week before giving birth and returned to work soon after. It is against the Law in NZ to make a decision about an employee on whether they will have children or not. It is illegal to decline employment based on that. It is illegal to discontinue employment based on that.

I would go further and say that if someone believes they have the right to ask that they are ill equipped to be an employer.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1836510 3-Aug-2017 12:47

MikeB4:

It is illegal to decline employment based on that. It is illegal to discontinue employment based on that.

I would go further and say that if someone believes they have the right to ask that they are ill equipped to be an employer.

Proof please

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1836515 3-Aug-2017 12:52

Wiggum:

MikeB4:

It is illegal to decline employment based on that. It is illegal to discontinue employment based on that.

I would go further and say that if someone believes they have the right to ask that they are ill equipped to be an employer.

Proof please

https://www.hrc.co.nz/files/6814/2378/0069/12-Jun-2005_20-16-44_Pregnancy.pdf

Really odd that some people will argue black and blue - but not bother to google for themselves.

I'd discriminate against that when hiring - lazy incompetent people really annoy me.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1836520 3-Aug-2017 12:58

Wiggum:

MikeB4:

It is illegal to decline employment based on that. It is illegal to discontinue employment based on that.

I would go further and say that if someone believes they have the right to ask that they are ill equipped to be an employer.

Proof please

You will find it here

http://legislation.govt.nz/

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1836527 3-Aug-2017 13:07

Fred99:

Wiggum:

MikeB4:

It is illegal to decline employment based on that. It is illegal to discontinue employment based on that.

I would go further and say that if someone believes they have the right to ask that they are ill equipped to be an employer.

Proof please

https://www.hrc.co.nz/files/6814/2378/0069/12-Jun-2005_20-16-44_Pregnancy.pdf

Really odd that some people will argue black and blue - but not bother to google for themselves.

I'd discriminate against that when hiring - lazy incompetent people really annoy me.

I'm not arguing that it is not illegal in the workplace. I was just asking for proof.

Still, I think its a perfectly fair question for a possible PM. The way Jacinda has handled the question though tells me a lot about her. Instead of just answering the question at hand she chose to get on the defensive.

As PM she would be expected to handle much tougher questions. If this is how she is going to handle them she is going to make a pretty useless PM IMO.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1836536 3-Aug-2017 13:20

MikeB4:

It is against the Law in NZ to make a decision about an employee on whether they will have children or not. It is illegal to decline employment based on that. It is illegal to discontinue employment based on that.

I would go further and say that if someone believes they have the right to ask that they are ill equipped to be an employer.

I guess that New Zealand voters can be seen as "Employer" and/or interviewers. If she does not get the job as PM, maybe she should take New Zealand voters to court on the grounds of discrimination?

The law of discrimination does not apply here. At the end of the day voters are exercising their democratic right to possibly change the laws of the country. You can't force voters how to vote, or what questions they can/can't ask.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1836540 3-Aug-2017 13:25

I note that none of the National Party Women are being asked this question.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1836546 3-Aug-2017 13:30

networkn:

MikeB4:

I note that none of the National Party Women are being asked this question.

Are any of them in line to become the PM?

As mentioned above. Voters should not be bound to the rules of discrimination (or any previous government laws/rules) when going to the polls. They should be able to ask any possible PM whatever questions they like. It should even be OK for me to ask if she was going to put on/or loose some weight.

If I choose not to vote for her because she is about to have kids then that's just me exercising my democratic right.

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1836549 3-Aug-2017 13:36

OMG Andrew Little has been handed the small business portfolio, I am almost lost for words.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ... | 11