If you were an employer, would you give more hours to the employee who has worked for 1.5 years, is trained and works in two areas of operation, and has no kids or husband to help support her or to the employee who has worked for less than but nearly 6 months, is trained and works in one area of operation, and has two kids and no husband to help support her? (both females and both have horrible financial situations and there are less than 20 hours available for either employee and neither have a second job)
2006-12-22 06:49:57 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Other - Social Science
ive been in the situation where im the one with no kids and i was at my job for longer but the girls with kids got more hours... i would get upset because its really wasnt my fault that they had kids! thats why i got a better job where my hours werent cut for silly thingss like that. i think the hours should go to the better worker because just because youve been there a long time doesnt mean that your a better worker... also when you schedule people with kids its more likely that they call in cause one of them is sick or whatever... so i guess it all depends
2006-12-22 07:05:04 · answer #1 · answered by Lipstick 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
As an employer, you can be making judgment calls based on a person's home life. It must be based on the job and employee's ability to do good work. The employer's number one priority is to keep the business going and earn profits if possible. If your situation is correct, it would appear the company is still in survival mode.
2006-12-22 07:03:14 · answer #2 · answered by Poncho Rio 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Depends on the terms they were hired under, if they are part time then that is exactly what they work , part time. Even part timers, if given over time do not necessarly get paid the overtime pay until they have worked 36 to 40 hours. Most employers hope the part timers will take overtime, it is cheaper. Maybe these women, who have children can not stay over or work more hours due to not having childcare. Your employer can ask who he wants to work, if he is going to pay overtime, he is going to pick the fastest , most reliable person who gets the job done correctly. It is a matter of economics when it comes to business, not sympathy.
2006-12-22 06:58:30 · answer #3 · answered by vivib 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
To be fair, I think the only way to decide is to give it to the employee with the most seniority. Or split the hours up. I know you feel sorry for the single mom, but it is unfair to bring their personal lives into the work decisions.
2006-12-22 06:53:35 · answer #4 · answered by jack russell girl 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Personally I would go for the one who is an asset to the company which would be the first lady who has more experience and is well rounded in more than one position... However I would do what I could to help the second find a job elsewhere.
2006-12-22 06:57:55 · answer #5 · answered by Twisted 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I would give the hours to whoever worked the hardest and most efficient. Seniority doesn't mean jack, unless you are in a Union. Outside problems and situations aren't your employers problems. And if I was your employer, and you tried laying a guilt trip on me about outside things, I would most likely fire you.
2006-12-22 06:59:19 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Whoever is the better worker. If one is a slob and the other is great...who would you want working more hours for you?
2006-12-22 06:57:14 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would look for another job if you are only getting 20 hours/week
2006-12-22 06:52:26 · answer #8 · answered by tchem75 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Flip a coin, the situations are about even.
2006-12-22 06:53:19 · answer #9 · answered by Mike R 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would alternate hours between them. one week extra for one, then the next week the other.
2006-12-22 07:36:31 · answer #10 · answered by SAINT G 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋