AirbusMDCFAN
Topic Author
Posts: 497
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2016 10:51 am

Spain's Iberia airlines fined for making female applicants take pregnancy test

Mon Jul 10, 2017 7:37 pm

Link/Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07 ... pplicants/

"Spanish airline Iberia has been slapped with a fine for forcing female job applicants to undergo pregnancy tests, prompting a outcry over sexism at the national flag carrier."

"But authorities in Mallorca - where the practice was originally discovered - rejected that claim, ordering Iberia to pay €25,000 (£22,000) for what they described as a serious act of gender discrimination."

"Iago Negueruela, the work, trade and industry secretary for the Balearic Islands government, said Iberia was guilty of a "very grave infraction" and that men and women could not be given different tests for access to work."

Is Spain a right-to-work country?
 
KFLLCFII
Posts: 3495
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 7:08 am

Re: Spain's Iberia airlines fined for making female applicants take pregnancy test

Mon Jul 10, 2017 7:40 pm

So just give men the test too.
"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
 
User avatar
Jayafe
Posts: 1215
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:12 pm

Re: Spain's Iberia airlines fined for making female applicants take pregnancy test

Mon Jul 10, 2017 8:01 pm

It was a process actually done by an outsourced hiring company, running the tests before hiring the applicants (instead of after, which could make sense for safety/security reasons)
 
ubeema
Posts: 391
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 3:48 am

Re: Spain's Iberia airlines fined for making female applicants take pregnancy test

Mon Jul 10, 2017 9:54 pm

Jayafe wrote:
It was a process actually done by an outsourced hiring company, running the tests before hiring the applicants (instead of after, which could make sense for safety/security reasons)

Not sure what you are implying by your statement, but whether Iberia outsourced the service does not matter. Only matters that it was company policy mandated by management. Unfortunately the fine does not fit the crime. Not deterrent enough IMO.
 
ryanov
Posts: 182
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 4:38 am

Re: Spain's Iberia airlines fined for making female applicants take pregnancy test

Mon Jul 10, 2017 10:10 pm

KFLLCFII wrote:
So just give men the test too.

You're joking, right?
 
KFLLCFII
Posts: 3495
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 7:08 am

Re: Spain's Iberia airlines fined for making female applicants take pregnancy test

Mon Jul 10, 2017 10:32 pm

ryanov wrote:
KFLLCFII wrote:
So just give men the test too.

You're joking, right?

Well why should pregnant men be exempt? Testing only for pregnant women is sexist!
"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
 
VolvoBus
Posts: 217
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2016 5:47 pm

Re: Spain's Iberia airlines fined for making female applicants take pregnancy test

Tue Jul 11, 2017 6:08 pm

KFLLCFII wrote:
So just give men the test too.


Would it be non-discriminatory to insist on the partners of male applicants also undertaking pregnancy testing?

With the extension of maternity benefits to fathers, it would equalise the possibility of new employees taking birth benefits before they have done any productive work.

Tin hat on and head down.
 
ahj2000
Posts: 1184
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 5:34 pm

Re: Spain's Iberia airlines fined for making female applicants take pregnancy test

Tue Jul 11, 2017 8:54 pm

KFLLCFII wrote:
ryanov wrote:
KFLLCFII wrote:
So just give men the test too.

You're joking, right?

Well why should pregnant men be exempt? Testing only for pregnant women is sexist!

Hate to be that guy, but
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/08/health/tr ... index.html
-Andrés Juánez
 
User avatar
MoKa777
Posts: 937
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:47 am

Re: Spain's Iberia airlines fined for making female applicants take pregnancy test

Tue Jul 11, 2017 9:03 pm

KFLLCFII wrote:
So just give men the test too.


This cracked me up..! Hahaha
Never be proud. Always be grateful.
 
airtechy
Posts: 724
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 7:35 am

Re: Spain's Iberia airlines fined for making female applicants take pregnancy test

Tue Jul 11, 2017 9:15 pm

Does QR have a large stake in Iberia?
 
NichCage
Posts: 916
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Spain's Iberia airlines fined for making female applicants take pregnancy test

Tue Jul 11, 2017 9:52 pm

Qatar Airways has been known to be a lot more tougher on female employees, so they are doing a lot worse than this.
 
NichCage
Posts: 916
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Spain's Iberia airlines fined for making female applicants take pregnancy test

Tue Jul 11, 2017 9:53 pm

Qatar Airways has been known to be a lot more tougher on female employees, so they are doing a lot worse than this.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8310
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: Spain's Iberia airlines fined for making female applicants take pregnancy test

Tue Jul 11, 2017 11:23 pm

Well let's face it, honestly, no business wants a pregnant woman starting, getting trained up and certified as cabin crew for 6-8 weeks, then be on duty abroad and with hormonal surges (potential customer service issues??) only to drop out after about 6 months to give birth, then 6-12 months maternity leave at full pay but off the roster cycle, which leaves the company short and forces them to hire more staff to cover. There will also be excess sick days depending on the individual pregnancy. I know plenty at work that were pregnant again within 3 months of giving birth, so it could be 2 years before the airline sees any real work from a new hire.

I actually think it is a very reasonable test requirement, given the implications for the company. They should have taken urine samples for males and females, and tested on the pretext for drug use, (and also tested for pregnancy without notification) and not hired any that tested positive for either.

If you want a career change and a baby, then have the baby then go for a career change. Having a baby is a lifestyle choice - it isn't mandatory, and you have the choice to plan and have one when you want. Likewise a business should also have the right to keep maternity leave for existing employees, not for "pre-existing" pregnancies where a company is hiring on a gross deception on the new employee's part.
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
User avatar
Rajahdhani
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2016 3:13 pm

Re: Spain's Iberia airlines fined for making female applicants take pregnancy test

Wed Jul 12, 2017 12:54 am

NichCage wrote:
Qatar Airways has been known to be a lot more tougher on female employees, so they are doing a lot worse than this.


Though you may indeed be correct, what bearing does the policies and practices of a company based in Qatar, have to do with this company, based in Spain?

I may disagree with QR's practices, however they are not illegal based on Qatari legal perspective. Don't like their practices, don't fly for them. Want to see more important changes, join/create a protest movement.

That said, the topic of discussion is a Spanish company, and how their practices conflict with Spanish laws. What is done in Qatar, though "wrong" does not have bearing here.

As a matter of fact, why not create another thread discussing the employment practices at the QR? It would certainly be interesting to be able to discuss that here (as opposed to within Qatar where such a topic would be difficult to discuss).
 
User avatar
Rajahdhani
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2016 3:13 pm

Re: Spain's Iberia airlines fined for making female applicants take pregnancy test

Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:03 am

aerorobnz wrote:
Well let's face it, honestly, no business wants a pregnant woman starting, getting trained up and certified as cabin crew for 6-8 weeks, then be on duty abroad and with hormonal surges (potential customer service issues??) only to drop out after about 6 months to give birth, then 6-12 months maternity leave at full pay but off the roster cycle, which leaves the company short and forces them to hire more staff to cover. There will also be excess sick days depending on the individual pregnancy. I know plenty at work that were pregnant again within 3 months of giving birth, so it could be 2 years before the airline sees any real work from a new hire.

I actually think it is a very reasonable test requirement, given the implications for the company. They should have taken urine samples for males and females, and tested on the pretext for drug use, (and also tested for pregnancy without notification) and not hired any that tested positive for either.

If you want a career change and a baby, then have the baby then go for a career change. Having a baby is a lifestyle choice - it isn't mandatory, and you have the choice to plan and have one when you want. Likewise a business should also have the right to keep maternity leave for existing employees, not for "pre-existing" pregnancies where a company is hiring on a gross deception on the new employee's part.


So, what happens if a male employee, after completing training comes to need a medical leave that incapacitates him for a comparable period of time?

You're shortsighted analogy directly discusses only the short/medium term need for leave, but fails to see that once trained (and given the appropriate leave) that employee can have an entire mutli-year/decade career with the company.

Pregnancy is a temporary situation. Ask your mother, and thankfully, she made that choice when she did, as voluntary as you make it out to be.

Choosing to discriminate will cost the company (via fines) short term. Properly compensating and allowing specific leave - is a short term "cost" (and once the courts affirm the breach of those applicants rights to not be discriminated against - will open the companies liabilities further), that the employee is legally entitled to. A smart manager would be able to see that as an investment in a well trained, and potentially long term employee.
 
MSPbrandon
Posts: 144
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 2:48 am

Re: Spain's Iberia airlines fined for making female applicants take pregnancy test

Wed Jul 12, 2017 3:11 am

Certainly not what i would expect coming from Spain.
 
Virtual737
Posts: 621
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:16 am

Re: Spain's Iberia airlines fined for making female applicants take pregnancy test

Wed Jul 12, 2017 5:09 am

Rajahdhani wrote:
You're shortsighted analogy directly discusses only the short/medium term need for leave, but fails to see that once trained (and given the appropriate leave) that employee can have an entire mutli-year/decade career with the company.

Pregnancy is a temporary situation. Ask your mother, and thankfully, she made that choice when she did, as voluntary as you make it out to be.


Of course it is a temporary situation, but why should it be at the cost of the business at the very embryonic stages of the woman's career? Change the situation to a much smaller business employing only 5 staff and taking the risk to expand by adding a 6th. It is wholly possible that a known pregnancy (but not known to the business) could cost that business significantly more due to leave, hiring additional resources, cost of additional training and re-training of the mother etc etc. The mother also does not have to return to work at all, meaning the business loses everything. Why should the business (and every other employee) have to be exposed to this risk? It is quite possible that 5 people lose their jobs (and the directors lose everything) because of the rights of a couple to raise children. Is that right? Is it even the best available option?

If the woman knows she is pregnant (and by your words knows it is a temporary situation) then why not wait until that life changing moment (the pregnancy is temporary but the resulting child is anything but) has passed, then take the job? If the mother is that realistic about doing the right thing then why not take a job that can be done from home at this point in her life? Very difficult to be aircrew while working from home. Why take a job that has a good chance of needing to spend significant time away from home when you're about to become a mother?

By all means offer all the support possible (we all had mothers at one time), but do it centrally via the government rather than the employer (yes, I know, crazy idea that burdens us all).

Flame away, but please make sure you offer balanced (both employee and employer) opinion beforehand )
 
User avatar
Jayafe
Posts: 1215
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:12 pm

Re: Spain's Iberia airlines fined for making female applicants take pregnancy test

Wed Jul 12, 2017 11:34 am

MSPbrandon wrote:
Certainly not what i would expect coming from Spain.


Spanish workforce in Spain has always been (and got used to) mistreated for long due to the local market. Airlines wont be different....
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 5474
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

Re: Spain's Iberia airlines fined for making female applicants take pregnancy test

Wed Jul 12, 2017 12:05 pm

How can they be stupid enough to think this is okay in 2017?
 
sw733
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 6:19 am

Re: Spain's Iberia airlines fined for making female applicants take pregnancy test

Wed Jul 12, 2017 12:48 pm

NichCage wrote:
Qatar Airways has been known to be a lot more tougher on female employees, so they are doing a lot worse than this.


Sure, let's all emulate the way Qatar treats people, what could go wrong?
 
bennett123
Posts: 8947
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

Re: Spain's Iberia airlines fined for making female applicants take pregnancy test

Wed Jul 12, 2017 12:57 pm

Whenn you take a job there is an expectation that you can carry out the tasks involved.

If she is already pregnant when she applies then by the time training etc is complete then she will be approaching the point when carrying those duties becomes unadvisable.

Given there will be a significant break before she can reasonably fly again as an FA, I woulf be interested in knowing how much of the training would need to be re done from scratch.

Also nothing to stop this cycle being repeated multiple times.
 
cledaybuck
Posts: 1536
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: Spain's Iberia airlines fined for making female applicants take pregnancy test

Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:17 pm

Heck, why hire women at all? They could become pregnant at any time! On second though, maybe the US carriers have it right with their "grandmother" flight attendants. (end sarcasm)
As we celebrate mediocrity, all the boys upstairs want to see, how much you'll pay for what you used to get for free.
 
Jomar777
Posts: 390
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:45 am

Re: Spain's Iberia airlines fined for making female applicants take pregnancy test

Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:32 pm

Guess we all have (or had...) mothers. isn't it? What if they were faced with circumstances where they definitely could not work if they did choose to have a baby and, like some here (are simply blind to...) suggest considered having a baby just a lifestyle decision? Not many people flying nowadays (or writing on this blog, for that matter...).
Even if you are a guy, imagine facing the prospect that your wife/partner will not be able to work to help out on the costs of bringing your child because nobody employs her because she is/may in future be pregnant. Happy to face the bill on your own or not have someone to call it son (or daughter...)???
Great to disdain women that get on with their lives regardless of their current life prospects as far as they are not your wives/partners/mothers/sisters/etc., isn't it???
 
Oykie
Posts: 1864
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

Re: Spain's Iberia airlines fined for making female applicants take pregnancy test

Wed Jul 12, 2017 2:00 pm

aerorobnz wrote:
Well let's face it, honestly, no business wants a pregnant woman starting, getting trained up and certified as cabin crew for 6-8 weeks, then be on duty abroad and with hormonal surges (potential customer service issues??) only to drop out after about 6 months to give birth, then 6-12 months maternity leave at full pay but off the roster cycle, which leaves the company short and forces them to hire more staff to cover. There will also be excess sick days depending on the individual pregnancy. I know plenty at work that were pregnant again within 3 months of giving birth, so it could be 2 years before the airline sees any real work from a new hire.

I actually think it is a very reasonable test requirement, given the implications for the company. They should have taken urine samples for males and females, and tested on the pretext for drug use, (and also tested for pregnancy without notification) and not hired any that tested positive for either.

If you want a career change and a baby, then have the baby then go for a career change. Having a baby is a lifestyle choice - it isn't mandatory, and you have the choice to plan and have one when you want. Likewise a business should also have the right to keep maternity leave for existing employees, not for "pre-existing" pregnancies where a company is hiring on a gross deception on the new employee's part.


I have hired woman that are pregnant or trying. IMO workers who try to get pregnant, or are pregnant often stay at a business for a longer duration, than people who are not. Of course they might be gone for a while, but when they are back, my experience is that they are a great contribution to the workplace. I try to make sure they are able to be in the job for a long as possible, and support them to start work without having to be away from their babies too long. I know the airline business require workers to be away for a while, but it should be possible to give them schedules that did not require overnights initially. I hire a lot of people every year and IMO we should celebrate people getting pregnant in business. Their kids will either be future workers, or customer. When it comes to pregnancies it is important to see the bigger picture. I at least welcome it.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
sw733
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 6:19 am

Re: Spain's Iberia airlines fined for making female applicants take pregnancy test

Wed Jul 12, 2017 2:02 pm

Jomar777 wrote:
Guess we all have (or had...) mothers. isn't it? What if they were faced with circumstances where they definitely could not work if they did choose to have a baby and, like some here (are simply blind to...) suggest considered having a baby just a lifestyle decision? Not many people flying nowadays (or writing on this blog, for that matter...).
Even if you are a guy, imagine facing the prospect that your wife/partner will not be able to work to help out on the costs of bringing your child because nobody employs her because she is/may in future be pregnant. Happy to face the bill on your own or not have someone to call it son (or daughter...)???
Great to disdain women that get on with their lives regardless of their current life prospects as far as they are not your wives/partners/mothers/sisters/etc., isn't it???


It's amazing how many crappy ideas that negatively impact women are implemented by men who seem to forget their mother was a woman.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8310
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: Spain's Iberia airlines fined for making female applicants take pregnancy test

Wed Jul 12, 2017 5:17 pm

Jomar777 wrote:
Guess we all have (or had...) mothers. isn't it? What if they were faced with circumstances where they definitely could not work if they did choose to have a baby and, like some here (are simply blind to...) suggest considered having a baby just a lifestyle decision? Not many people flying nowadays (or writing on this blog, for that matter...).
Even if you are a guy, imagine facing the prospect that your wife/partner will not be able to work to help out on the costs of bringing your child because nobody employs her because she is/may in future be pregnant. Happy to face the bill on your own or not have someone to call it son (or daughter...)???

That kind of misses the point on two levels. 1) that new hires will likely already have an existing job that is contributing financially to a family budget, that they were present at when they got pregnant and where they are already part of a corporate workplace with a contract where they should get maternity leave and contract already negotiated, already have a position that can be filled by short term appointment and a history where they have previously shown a loyalty to a company etc. That's not the issue. The issue is solely with new hires getting into a new company with a "trojan horse" in the uterus - especially if they have not declared it on CV/ interview as they would have to do for any preexisting medical condition that affects their ability to perform the advertised role . If they declare it prior to being hired, then fine, I can live with that - At least the business knows what it is in for and can plan accordingly from the outset, There are plenty that would not do this and happily deceive the company for their own gain, and the medical/urine test which needs to be performed by every applicant (in this particular industry) male and female regardless is the easiest way to check they are being truthful of their status. 2) It doesn't limit someone who gets hired and then gets pregnant while in employment after a few months at all. This isn't anti-women at all, this is ensuring that a business when posed with two equal (female) applicants can make an informed decision on what is best for their company at that moment in time.

If it isn't informed to the business, then It's a bit like breaking up with the father of a yet unborn child, starting a new relationship with a new man that earns more and not telling him of the pregnancy prior to the relationship starting, yet expecting him to foot the bill for everything as the father. Socially we don't find that acceptable so why the same doesn't apply for when it happens to business concerns.
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
ubeema
Posts: 391
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 3:48 am

Re: Spain's Iberia airlines fined for making female applicants take pregnancy test

Wed Jul 12, 2017 7:23 pm

aerorobnz wrote:
Well let's face it, honestly, no business wants a pregnant woman starting, getting trained up and certified as cabin crew for 6-8 weeks, then be on duty abroad and with hormonal surges (potential customer service issues??) only to drop out after about 6 months to give birth, then 6-12 months maternity leave at full pay but off the roster cycle, which leaves the company short and forces them to hire more staff to cover. There will also be excess sick days depending on the individual pregnancy. I know plenty at work that were pregnant again within 3 months of giving birth, so it could be 2 years before the airline sees any real work from a new hire.

I actually think it is a very reasonable test requirement, given the implications for the company. They should have taken urine samples for males and females, and tested on the pretext for drug use, (and also tested for pregnancy without notification) and not hired any that tested positive for either.

If you want a career change and a baby, then have the baby then go for a career change. Having a baby is a lifestyle choice - it isn't mandatory, and you have the choice to plan and have one when you want. Likewise a business should also have the right to keep maternity leave for existing employees, not for "pre-existing" pregnancies where a company is hiring on a gross deception on the new employee's part.


aerorobnz I think you are barking up the wrong tree because the argument here is that Iberia illegally discriminates against prospective job candidate because they are FEMALE and force them to take a pregnancy test for a job consideration.
You are also confused because it is well understood that NO business is legally obligated to provide full benefits to a new employee (male or female). Most well run businesses have compensation policies clearly state that FULL eligibility for benefits is based on tenure (i.e. insurance coverage or parental leave). At my company any parent (father or mother) is entitled up to 16 weeks 100% paid parental leave after 1 year of service.

Since you believe a "pre-existing" pregnancy is a gross deception that could cost Iberia so much money and disrupt the workplace. How about Iberia requires pre-hiring medical screening for both male and female, and any pre-existing conditions uncovered should be a red-line for a hiring decision. Think about what they will find that may require medical insurance and potential time-off: Cancer, organ defects, sports injuries (talking about lifestyle).

Can you tell us one big corporation that went in financial distress because they were hiring a bunch of women who came on-board pregnant? Too many people (especially male and businesses run by a bunch of men) too often WRONGLY assume and believe pregnant women will drive up the cost of insurance and create wreak havoc in the work place. It is wrong, backward and there is no legal basis for this type of thinking. I am not sure if you are EU or US citizen, but if Iberia was based in their pre-hiring pregnancy test practices would have been ground for a Federal investigation/complaint with EEOC.

My wife works in an Internal Audit capacity in a very large US firm, and she recently audited workers compensation claims, guess who comes on top of the abusers list: bunch of "strong" men who fake and exaggerate injuries left and right and steal millions in settlement for the rest of their life.

WE NEED TO SHOW RESPECT FOR WOMEN (AND OUR MOTHERS)
 
DfwAussie
Posts: 147
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 10:03 pm

Re: Spain's Iberia airlines fined for making female applicants take pregnancy test

Wed Jul 12, 2017 7:41 pm

Sounds like a throwback to the 60's and 70's when "stewardesses" were subject the weight restrictions, hair styles, marriage, etc. Not very PC in 2017.
 
ubeema
Posts: 391
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 3:48 am

Re: Spain's Iberia airlines fined for making female applicants take pregnancy test

Wed Jul 12, 2017 7:43 pm

sw733 wrote:
It's amazing how many crappy ideas that negatively impact women are implemented by men who seem to forget their mother was a woman.

:checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark:

Since I became a father I always think that if someone could have invented a substance that men could drink as soon as their wife or partner is pregnant so that they feel the same pain, hormonal changes, and mood swings that she is having. I bet you no men will ever dare defends illegal, stupid and insensitive practices like Iberia was caught in.

ANECDOTE: Three years ago while at work I suffered a sudden terrible stomach pain with a strong urge to pee. Drove myself to the hospital ER. It was so painful, I vomited in the parking lot, and walked in the ER bent halfway like a 120 year old men. Found out half hour later I had a kidney stone. Doctor later told me kidney stone is one of the sharpest pain men can endure similar to a woman in labor. And my episode only lasted ~3 hours overall until medication helped the stone pass.
 
RandWkop
Posts: 179
Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 10:56 pm

Re: Spain's Iberia airlines fined for making female applicants take pregnancy test

Wed Jul 12, 2017 8:07 pm

aerorobnz wrote:
Well let's face it, honestly, no business wants a pregnant woman starting, getting trained up and certified as cabin crew for 6-8 weeks, then be on duty abroad and with hormonal surges (potential customer service issues??) only to drop out after about 6 months to give birth, then 6-12 months maternity leave at full pay but off the roster cycle, which leaves the company short and forces them to hire more staff to cover. There will also be excess sick days depending on the individual pregnancy. I know plenty at work that were pregnant again within 3 months of giving birth, so it could be 2 years before the airline sees any real work from a new hire.

I actually think it is a very reasonable test requirement, given the implications for the company. They should have taken urine samples for males and females, and tested on the pretext for drug use, (and also tested for pregnancy without notification) and not hired any that tested positive for either.

If you want a career change and a baby, then have the baby then go for a career change. Having a baby is a lifestyle choice - it isn't mandatory, and you have the choice to plan and have one when you want. Likewise a business should also have the right to keep maternity leave for existing employees, not for "pre-existing" pregnancies where a company is hiring on a gross deception on the new employee's part.


If they carry out tests on prospective employees,without informing them of the purpose of the tests. Would that not be discriminating at the very least. It could even be construed as assault in some cases.
In cases where an employee was pregnant, when applying for the job, it is likely their terms and conditions would preclude them from company maternity benefits. So the company only has to pay replacement costs.
Regarding the "lifestyle choice", maybe all companies should hire only male employees. Keep the pesky baby vessels in the home where they belong.
 
ubeema
Posts: 391
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 3:48 am

Re: Spain's Iberia airlines fined for making female applicants take pregnancy test

Wed Jul 12, 2017 9:01 pm

Virtual737 wrote:
Of course it is a temporary situation, but why should it be at the cost of the business at the very embryonic stages of the woman's career? Change the situation to a much smaller business employing only 5 staff and taking the risk to expand by adding a 6th. It is wholly possible that a known pregnancy (but not known to the business) could cost that business significantly more due to leave, hiring additional resources, cost of additional training and re-training of the mother etc etc. The mother also does not have to return to work at all, meaning the business loses everything. Why should the business (and every other employee) have to be exposed to this risk? It is quite possible that 5 people lose their jobs (and the directors lose everything) because of the rights of a couple to raise children. Is that right? Is it even the best available option?

If the woman knows she is pregnant (and by your words knows it is a temporary situation) then why not wait until that life changing moment (the pregnancy is temporary but the resulting child is anything but) has passed, then take the job? If the mother is that realistic about doing the right thing then why not take a job that can be done from home at this point in her life? Very difficult to be aircrew while working from home. Why take a job that has a good chance of needing to spend significant time away from home when you're about to become a mother?

By all means offer all the support possible (we all had mothers at one time), but do it centrally via the government rather than the employer (yes, I know, crazy idea that burdens us all).

Flame away, but please make sure you offer balanced (both employee and employer) opinion beforehand )

Virtual737. No flaming necessary. You do have a point but Iberia and a small business are not comparable. Iberia decided to take a unnecessary and illegal shortcut and they got caught doing it. What makes IB management so scared of a pregnant woman? You kinda have to think that to take such extreme positions. Maybe they have a basis but they have not clearly argued their position because other airlines even smaller do not have these illegal practices in place AFAIK. Does IB realize any individual (male or female) could be at any time disabled to perform for their normal duties within weeks of employment (i.e. injury at home or workplace). The counter to that type of risk is generally mitigated in your compensation benefits, like I tried to explain another poster. Any business can design their benefits as they wish, as long as they do not discriminate based on gender or other attributes. That is why small business like the ones you defend should be able to protect themselves against with employees in need of short of long term disability (I know nothing is ever perfect). Basically they can choose to offer less of everything, and it can be clearly laid out upfront in the offer, the rest is up to the candidate. IIRC even the embattled Affordable Care Act has provisions for Small business for the reasons you have exposed.

P.S. I know a young man who suffered a stroke after he was offered a job but before he commenced work (real bad luck).
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8310
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: Spain's Iberia airlines fined for making female applicants take pregnancy test

Wed Jul 12, 2017 9:44 pm

ubeema wrote:
Since you believe a "pre-existing" pregnancy is a gross deception that could cost Iberia so much money and disrupt the workplace. How about Iberia requires pre-hiring medical screening for both male and female, and any pre-existing conditions uncovered should be a red-line for a hiring decision. Think about what they will find that may require medical insurance and potential time-off: Cancer, organ defects, sports injuries (talking about lifestyle).

My wife works in an Internal Audit capacity in a very large US firm, and she recently audited workers compensation claims, guess who comes on top of the abusers list: bunch of "strong" men who fake and exaggerate injuries left and right and steal millions in settlement for the rest of their life.
]


Firstly, I maintain an :"undisclosed" pregnancy is the issue, not a declared one because a company/employee should then be able to negotiate the terms of contract based on the individual circumstances , Secondly, I acknowledge your points about no full benefits contractually, If they are new hires then they won't in most cases be on full maternity leave 2) I acknowledge I am not an EU or US citizen, for which I am not familiar with every law and regulation . My country offers 12 months maternity/paternity leave.. 3) I also acknowledge the last point as being correct about abusers of the system.being more often men. I am offering a counter point to the argument, even if it currently bares no legal weight. I am merely an advocatus diaboli if you will. All I am saying, if we can skip the Chauvinist/Feminist rhetoric from both sides is that everyone should be held to a higher standard for physical ability. personal responsibility and for what they declare to a company prior to being hired for a new role.

I was hired in the airline industry concerned provisionally pending the results of a medical examination and urine test, And yes, I do think any known medical condition that [b]compromises the ability of the applicant to perform the job function fully and safely(and with some stipulation as to being able to work for eg: a minimum of two thirds of your first year) should be prescreened and subject to passing medical by company doctor prior to acceptance. A Pilot or ATController requires a current Class 1 medical certificate which does have implications on flying while pregnant, and I see nothing wrong with making all new job applicants require a current medical certification which should include pregnancy rated to meet the demands of the job they are applying for. It

As you stated, there are plenty that take up lifting jobs with preexisting back injuries, and High stress high workload high responsibility jobs with known high blood pressure/heart conditions etc and they should all be screened into roles that meet their medical requirements if it can't be treated easily to bring them within limits. A Retail/ Office/Middle management job, fine it doesn't involve much except your ability to type and sit for long periods of time so it shouldn't be treated the same as someone who works in a hazardous/higher responsibility environment. And yes Airport ramps, and Aeroplanes are hazardous so should require a higher level of certification.
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
Virtual737
Posts: 621
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:16 am

Re: Spain's Iberia airlines fined for making female applicants take pregnancy test

Thu Jul 13, 2017 4:38 am

ubeema wrote:
Virtual737. No flaming necessary. You do have a point but Iberia and a small business are not comparable. Iberia decided to take a unnecessary and illegal shortcut and they got caught doing it. What makes IB management so scared of a pregnant woman? You kinda have to think that to take such extreme positions. Maybe they have a basis but they have not clearly argued their position because other airlines even smaller do not have these illegal practices in place AFAIK. Does IB realize any individual (male or female) could be at any time disabled to perform for their normal duties within weeks of employment (i.e. injury at home or workplace). The counter to that type of risk is generally mitigated in your compensation benefits, like I tried to explain another poster. Any business can design their benefits as they wish, as long as they do not discriminate based on gender or other attributes. That is why small business like the ones you defend should be able to protect themselves against with employees in need of short of long term disability (I know nothing is ever perfect). Basically they can choose to offer less of everything, and it can be clearly laid out upfront in the offer, the rest is up to the candidate. IIRC even the embattled Affordable Care Act has provisions for Small business for the reasons you have exposed.

P.S. I know a young man who suffered a stroke after he was offered a job but before he commenced work (real bad luck).


Thank you for the intelligent discussion.

I would say that pregnancy is rather different than sudden onset disability. One is planned (or at least the action of becoming it was planned, even if it was a night out on the beer) while the other is not.

I'm not for one moment condoning Iberia's illegal action. I am however suggesting that the law in question is, well, not realistic and offers a potential employee with zero sunk commitment to an employer significant advantage over that employer. Where the employer is assuming more of the upfront costs, I just don't think that is right. Not for a 5 person company, not for an Iberia. Yes the large company is likely better placed to absorb those costs, but that is not a reason to burden them. That would be a penalty for success.

Simple solution to all this... neither a father nor a mother has ANY paternity/maternity benefit at the cost of the employer in the first 20 months (1 year plus gestation minus 1 month) of employment. Benefit, if any, is purely government funded and low. In other words, the employer still loses (sunk training costs etc) but the employee will have to have given it some more thought themselves. Starting a new career and starting a family are probably best planned a few years apart. By all means try it if you want to, it is your right, but at your cost.

My final thought for the day... men and women are different in some very significant ways. Those that strive to make them the same in all aspects of life are ignoring nature. History has shown that this is not the brightest idea.
 
ubeema
Posts: 391
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 3:48 am

Re: Spain's Iberia airlines fined for making female applicants take pregnancy test

Thu Jul 13, 2017 5:07 am

aerorobnz wrote:
My country offers 12 months maternity/paternity leave..

Euh... Are you kidding me, 1 year parental leave! Can I move in your country :). So who pays for parental leave? I have my guess but I will let you answer that.

aerorobnz wrote:
All I am saying, if we can skip the Chauvinist/Feminist rhetoric from both sides is that everyone should be held to a higher standard for physical ability. personal responsibility and for what they declare to a company prior to being hired for a new role.
Frankly if you look back in the history of this world women have always been held to the highest standards in every aspect of their life. I am a proud husband and father of two little daughters and I can say that with confidence. Women have learned to live with pain since puberty and never complained. If only men would endure half the misery women go though most of their lives including unfair treatment we will not be having this discussion.

aerorobnz wrote:
A Pilot or ATController requires a current Class 1 medical certificate
Glad it does not say male Pilot or female Pilot.

aerorobnz wrote:
As you stated, there are plenty that take up lifting jobs with preexisting back injuries, and High stress high workload high responsibility jobs with known high blood pressure/heart conditions etc and they should all be screened into roles that meet their medical requirements if it can't be treated easily to bring them within limits.
I hope you now realize how crazy it can get... If candidate/employee has kidney condition then do X..else if candidate/employee has history of smoking then do Y...else if candidate has bad cholesterol then transfer to call center. I am just kidding but in all seriousness, this thinking will keep anyone older than 30 years old to hold any "normal duty" whether you are a mechanic, pilot, or FA. Just not practical and will definitely cost more.
 
ubeema
Posts: 391
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 3:48 am

Re: Spain's Iberia airlines fined for making female applicants take pregnancy test

Thu Jul 13, 2017 5:34 am

Virtual737 wrote:
My final thought for the day... men and women are different in some very significant ways.

I get reminded of that every time I lose arguments with my wife. Even worst now I lose arguments with 4 year old daughter.

Virtual737 wrote:
men and women are different in some very significant ways. Those that strive to make them the same in all aspects of life are ignoring nature. History has shown that this is not the brightest idea.

At my work there are many women which includes my boss. Interestingly enough everytime I go to lunch with the team and my female boss I am always stuck with the check. But I always make sure to redirect the waiter towards the real boss ;).

One year ago my company extended paid parental leave from 12 to 16 weeks. My wife's company only offers 6 weeks paid, so she stayed home extra weeks unpaid. Exit interviews at my company showed that we were losing our best female employees due to many workplace unfair conditions which included need for more family time. Exit interviews also uncovered that an increasing number of male employees demand more family time, so the company equalized many benefits.

Times are changing and businesses that do not adapt are bound to lose talents and eventually disappear.
 
Virtual737
Posts: 621
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:16 am

Re: Spain's Iberia airlines fined for making female applicants take pregnancy test

Thu Jul 13, 2017 5:43 am

ubeema wrote:
I get reminded of that every time I lose arguments with my wife. Even worst now I lose arguments with 4 year old daughter.


The mistake you made was believing you had a chance of success in the first place ;)
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10872
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Spain's Iberia airlines fined for making female applicants take pregnancy test

Thu Jul 13, 2017 5:58 am

aerorobnz wrote:
Well let's face it, honestly, no business wants a pregnant woman starting, getting trained up and certified as cabin crew for 6-8 weeks, then be on duty abroad and with hormonal surges (potential customer service issues??) only to drop out after about 6 months


Companies should also have the right to force people into binding 10 years contract, no business wants an emploee starting, getting trained up and certified as cabin crew for 6-8 weeks, then be on duty abroad only to decide to quit after about 6 months!

For the single employee this is important protection, for companies it is a non-issue. The percentage of drop outs, either because of pragnancy, incompetance or because they simply don´t like the work, is pretty constant and can just be factored in.

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
Virtual737
Posts: 621
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:16 am

Re: Spain's Iberia airlines fined for making female applicants take pregnancy test

Thu Jul 13, 2017 6:14 am

tommy1808 wrote:
The percentage of drop outs, either because of pragnancy, incompetance or because they simply don´t like the work, is pretty constant and can just be factored in.


True, however the same can be said about theft in a retail business. It is pretty constant and can be factored in. This doesn't mean you cannot or should not work to reduce that loss. I'm not for one moment equating pregnancy with theft (before someone accuses me of it), but they can both cause loss to the business and so can be seen as areas to work towards minimising such loss.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10872
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Spain's Iberia airlines fined for making female applicants take pregnancy test

Thu Jul 13, 2017 7:52 am

Virtual737 wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
The percentage of drop outs, either because of pragnancy, incompetance or because they simply don´t like the work, is pretty constant and can just be factored in.


True, however the same can be said about theft in a retail business. It is pretty constant and can be factored in. This doesn't mean you cannot or should not work to reduce that loss.


Yes, they can. But they can not strip search customers leaving the store, no much how much theft cost them. Pregnancy testing is pretty much that.... what point is there in allowing women to lie about that question, if the company gets to test them.

Do you think companies should also be allowed to test applicants DNA to check for risk favors? Ask for medical records to sort out people that have above average sick days? Deny handicapped people jobs?

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
Virtual737
Posts: 621
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:16 am

Re: Spain's Iberia airlines fined for making female applicants take pregnancy test

Thu Jul 13, 2017 8:11 am

tommy1808 wrote:
Do you think companies should also be allowed to test applicants DNA to check for risk favors? Ask for medical records to sort out people that have above average sick days? Deny handicapped people jobs?


No I don't. A person doesn't choose their DNA any more than they choose to have an accident (although they might choose to take more risk...). I would have no problem taking a full blood test, urine test or whatever and if the company chooses not to employ me I wouldn't lose too much sleep about it. In fact, if the company told me that they are not employing me as I have a high likelihood of terminal disease A or because I have shockingly high cholesterol I would thank them and take the positive that at least I am now aware of it and can potentially choose to do something about it.

Any couple has the right (even if not the actual ability) to have children. We would not exist as a race if that did not happen of course. However, with that right comes responsibilities. One of those responsibilities, in my opinion, is for the parents to be aware of and take ownership of all those responsibilities, with whatever centralised support exists in their country. I don't think a new employer should be burdened with any of the costs, but I understand why that might seem extreme to others. Put in a year or two of service and then the matter turns on its head. The employer would be very short sighted not to offer a good employee all the support they need. Its this "you owe me something from day 1" attitude that I really disagree with.

By the way, I love this type of dicusssion. I'm very open to changing my opinion (I love to learn and sometimes to learn I have to be wrong first), but I have given that opinion lots of thought.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10872
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Spain's Iberia airlines fined for making female applicants take pregnancy test

Thu Jul 13, 2017 8:31 am

Virtual737 wrote:
No I don't.


good, at least something...

A person doesn't choose their DNA


Why you are less productive does concern your employer exactly how? Some risk factor in your DNA is exactly the same for them as a pregnancy: a cost risk.

I would have no problem taking a full blood test, urine test or whatever and if the company chooses not to employ me I wouldn't lose too much sleep about it. In fact, if the company told me that they are not employing me as I have a high likelihood of terminal disease A or because I have shockingly high cholesterol I would thank them and take the positive that at least I am now aware of it and can potentially choose to do something about it.


I bet you change your mind very quickly once that has become an acceptable practice and is done by every single employer. And you are out of a job for nothing but a slightly elevated risk of something. Doesn´t have to kill you, just keep you from coming into work.

Any couple has the right (even if not the actual ability) to have children. We would not exist as a race if that did not happen of course. However, with that right comes responsibilities. One of those responsibilities, in my opinion, is for the parents to be aware of and take ownership of all those responsibilities, with whatever centralised support exists in their country.


Part of that support consists of laws that prevent job los to happen over pregnancies.

I don't think a new employer should be burdened with any of the costs, but I understand why that might seem extreme to others.


It isn´t extreme, it is just not logical. In your world women would pretty much always be unemployed, because being pregnant is in fact only slightly more costly than just being a women, since most women will be pregnant at some point in their life. If employers get to not hire people because they are pregnant, the same logic applies to firing people once they are pregnant.

Put in a year or two of service and then the matter turns on its head. The employer would be very short sighted not to offer a good employee all the support they need. Its this "you owe me something from day 1" attitude that I really disagree with.


It is more like an employer is just an employer. You owe them 40 hours or so of your time per week, for work. You don´t owe them your family planning, you don´t owe them your haircut or hair color, they don´t get to decide if you have tattoos or piercings or not, you don´t owe them what you eat and so on and so forth.

I actually do think that violations like this, if done fully aware of doing something illegal, should land managers behind bars, and not just fine them a few pounds.

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
Virtual737
Posts: 621
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:16 am

Re: Spain's Iberia airlines fined for making female applicants take pregnancy test

Thu Jul 13, 2017 8:37 am

tommy1808 wrote:
Virtual737 wrote:
No I don't.


good, at least something...

A person doesn't choose their DNA


Why you are less productive does concern your employer exactly how? Some risk factor in your DNA is exactly the same for them as a pregnancy: a cost risk.

I would have no problem taking a full blood test, urine test or whatever and if the company chooses not to employ me I wouldn't lose too much sleep about it. In fact, if the company told me that they are not employing me as I have a high likelihood of terminal disease A or because I have shockingly high cholesterol I would thank them and take the positive that at least I am now aware of it and can potentially choose to do something about it.


I bet you change your mind very quickly once that has become an acceptable practice and is done by every single employer. And you are out of a job for nothing but a slightly elevated risk of something. Doesn´t have to kill you, just keep you from coming into work.

Any couple has the right (even if not the actual ability) to have children. We would not exist as a race if that did not happen of course. However, with that right comes responsibilities. One of those responsibilities, in my opinion, is for the parents to be aware of and take ownership of all those responsibilities, with whatever centralised support exists in their country.


Part of that support consists of laws that prevent job los to happen over pregnancies.

I don't think a new employer should be burdened with any of the costs, but I understand why that might seem extreme to others.


It isn´t extreme, it is just not logical. In your world women would pretty much always be unemployed, because being pregnant is in fact only slightly more costly than just being a women, since most women will be pregnant at some point in their life. If employers get to not hire people because they are pregnant, the same logic applies to firing people once they are pregnant.

Put in a year or two of service and then the matter turns on its head. The employer would be very short sighted not to offer a good employee all the support they need. Its this "you owe me something from day 1" attitude that I really disagree with.


It is more like an employer is just an employer. You owe them 40 hours or so of your time per week, for work. You don´t owe them your family planning, you don´t owe them your haircut or hair color, they don´t get to decide if you have tattoos or piercings or not, you don´t owe them what you eat and so on and so forth.

best regards
Thomas


I would agree with everything you've written.... if it was about the issue at hand. This isn't about employers bearing cost because of something you might choose to do somewhere down the road. This is about demanding that an employer takes a loss on a decision you made even before applying for the job.

I don't change my mind that often, because I tend to give reasoned thought before forming one. Yes those opinions do differ from some others and it would be a boring world if they didn't.
 
Jomar777
Posts: 390
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:45 am

Re: Spain's Iberia airlines fined for making female applicants take pregnancy test

Thu Jul 13, 2017 8:56 am

aerorobnz wrote:
Jomar777 wrote:
Guess we all have (or had...) mothers. isn't it? What if they were faced with circumstances where they definitely could not work if they did choose to have a baby and, like some here (are simply blind to...) suggest considered having a baby just a lifestyle decision? Not many people flying nowadays (or writing on this blog, for that matter...).
Even if you are a guy, imagine facing the prospect that your wife/partner will not be able to work to help out on the costs of bringing your child because nobody employs her because she is/may in future be pregnant. Happy to face the bill on your own or not have someone to call it son (or daughter...)???

That kind of misses the point on two levels. 1) that new hires will likely already have an existing job that is contributing financially to a family budget, that they were present at when they got pregnant and where they are already part of a corporate workplace with a contract where they should get maternity leave and contract already negotiated, already have a position that can be filled by short term appointment and a history where they have previously shown a loyalty to a company etc. That's not the issue. The issue is solely with new hires getting into a new company with a "trojan horse" in the uterus - especially if they have not declared it on CV/ interview as they would have to do for any preexisting medical condition that affects their ability to perform the advertised role . If they declare it prior to being hired, then fine, I can live with that - At least the business knows what it is in for and can plan accordingly from the outset, There are plenty that would not do this and happily deceive the company for their own gain, and the medical/urine test which needs to be performed by every applicant (in this particular industry) male and female regardless is the easiest way to check they are being truthful of their status. 2) It doesn't limit someone who gets hired and then gets pregnant while in employment after a few months at all. This isn't anti-women at all, this is ensuring that a business when posed with two equal (female) applicants can make an informed decision on what is best for their company at that moment in time.

If it isn't informed to the business, then It's a bit like breaking up with the father of a yet unborn child, starting a new relationship with a new man that earns more and not telling him of the pregnancy prior to the relationship starting, yet expecting him to foot the bill for everything as the father. Socially we don't find that acceptable so why the same doesn't apply for when it happens to business concerns.


Gotta say that you calling a baby "Trojan Horse" simply blows away any point you are trying to make. Are you/Were you ever a father? Would you like people call your son/daughter Trojan Horse, Bump, Add-on, etc.?
As for the other points, I see you are really misguided but others have already answered and pointed out that.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10872
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Spain's Iberia airlines fined for making female applicants take pregnancy test

Thu Jul 13, 2017 9:14 am

Virtual737 wrote:
This is about demanding that an employer takes a loss on a decision you made even before applying for the job..


How do you know that they have been aware of the pregnancy before they applied, which can be month before an interview? I also don´t see how that changes anything if they do. They still just get paid if they work. The net loss is therefore much lower than with someone doing the training and then resigning.

We wouldn´t even discuss this issue at all, if it could concern men. Because none of the items that make hiring man more expensive/risky, higher stroke risk for example, has any effect on employment chances.
Pretty much the same way that abortion isn´t controversial in countries where men are seriously held to their financial responsibilities when they get a women pregnant.

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
Virtual737
Posts: 621
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:16 am

Re: Spain's Iberia airlines fined for making female applicants take pregnancy test

Thu Jul 13, 2017 9:48 am

tommy1808 wrote:

How do you know that they have been aware of the pregnancy before they applied, which can be month before an interview?


As the employer I wouldn't (without a pregnancy test). However the candidate would have a much better chance of knowing that they might be, don't you think?

tommy1808 wrote:

I also don´t see how that changes anything if they do. They still just get paid if they work. The net loss is therefore much lower than with someone doing the training and then resigning.


Possibly, but the act of resignation you're drawing a comparison to is a possible act in the future, not a reality of here and now, so it's not really comparing apples with apples. Also the pregnant woman might just up and resign too at any point, so the possibility of resignation is an additional risk for the pregnant woman, not just a risk associated with other employees.

tommy1808 wrote:

We wouldn´t even discuss this issue at all, if it could concern men.


It can't (yet) directly affect men so who can say for sure we would discuss it or not?

tommy1808 wrote:

Pretty much the same way that abortion isn´t controversial in countries where men are seriously held to their financial responsibilities when they get a women pregnant.


To be fair, is that at all relevant to the current topic?

It seems that we have differing opinions. Hope you have a great day.

(edited to fix my poor attempt at multi-quoting)
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10872
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Spain's Iberia airlines fined for making female applicants take pregnancy test

Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:08 am

Virtual737 wrote:
As the employer I wouldn't (without a pregnancy test). However the candidate would have a much better chance of knowing that they might be, don't you think?


Not necessarily. I myself was conceived despite birth control, 10 years after my parents had been "trough" with kids.
But by that logic, employers should ask "are you sexually active with the opposite sex" decline those that say yes and prefer homosexuals.

tommy1808 wrote:
Possibly, but the act of resignation you're drawing a comparison to is a possible act in the future, not a reality of here and now, so it's not really comparing apples with apples.


statistically both is just noise and perfectly predictable if your company is large enough. We are looking at it from the company perspective, so how and why a cost risk exists doesn´t matter, only the cost risk matters.

Also the pregnant woman might just up and resign too at any point, so the possibility of resignation is an additional risk for the pregnant woman, not just a risk associated with other employees.


Why i have no database to check it, i have not seen a pregnant women resign yet. In fact employees having kids makes work force stable. Less likely to move to a new job.... i am not sure if that is an additional risk or if those factors just even out in the long run. Also in many countries, the male Partner can take the time of work just as well as the women, you think you partner should be pregnancy tested when you apply for a job?

[quote"] It can't (yet) directly affect men so who can say for sure we would discuss it or not?[/quote]

We can be very certain about that, since no male risk factor ever played a role in employment decisions. Why would male pregnancy be the first?

tommy1808 wrote:

Pretty much the same way that abortion isn´t controversial in countries where men are seriously held to their financial responsibilities when they get a women pregnant.


To be fair, is that at all relevant to the current topic?[/quote]

It is a pretty hard indicator that those policies are flat out anti-women, since they wouldn´t even be discussed if they concerned men.

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
Virtual737
Posts: 621
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:16 am

Re: Spain's Iberia airlines fined for making female applicants take pregnancy test

Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:42 am

tommy1808 wrote:
Virtual737 wrote:
As the employer I wouldn't (without a pregnancy test). However the candidate would have a much better chance of knowing that they might be, don't you think?


Not necessarily. I myself was conceived despite birth control, 10 years after my parents had been "trough" with kids.
But by that logic, employers should ask "are you sexually active with the opposite sex" decline those that say yes and prefer homosexuals.

tommy1808 wrote:
Possibly, but the act of resignation you're drawing a comparison to is a possible act in the future, not a reality of here and now, so it's not really comparing apples with apples.


statistically both is just noise and perfectly predictable if your company is large enough. We are looking at it from the company perspective, so how and why a cost risk exists doesn´t matter, only the cost risk matters.

Also the pregnant woman might just up and resign too at any point, so the possibility of resignation is an additional risk for the pregnant woman, not just a risk associated with other employees.


Why i have no database to check it, i have not seen a pregnant women resign yet. In fact employees having kids makes work force stable. Less likely to move to a new job.... i am not sure if that is an additional risk or if those factors just even out in the long run. Also in many countries, the male Partner can take the time of work just as well as the women, you think you partner should be pregnancy tested when you apply for a job?

[quote"] It can't (yet) directly affect men so who can say for sure we would discuss it or not?


We can be very certain about that, since no male risk factor ever played a role in employment decisions. Why would male pregnancy be the first?

tommy1808 wrote:

Pretty much the same way that abortion isn´t controversial in countries where men are seriously held to their financial responsibilities when they get a women pregnant.


To be fair, is that at all relevant to the current topic?[/quote]

It is a pretty hard indicator that those policies are flat out anti-women, since they wouldn´t even be discussed if they concerned men.

best regards
Thomas[/quote]

Hmmm where to start. Please remember that I am suggesting that an employer should be somewhat protected from the costs of a pregnancy at the early stages of a new employment, nothing more and nothing less. That this doesn't also reduce theft, resignations, people with mohican haircuts or the employability of homesexuals maybe shouldn't be a reason for it to have no merit.

I have not said that the candidate would 100% know of a pregnancy. What I have clearly stated is that they are in a MUCH better position to know this than the employer. The current law states that the candidate can hide the fact but the employer cannot discover the fact. A clear advantage to the candidate Your own conception, while a marvel, doesn't change that at all.

Yes anything is just noise if the company is large enough. How and why a cost risk exists DOES matter if you are trying to reduce cost risk. To do so requires looking at specifics, not noise. If you're not bothered with the combined risk then of course there is no need to look at any of the specifics. That Iberia (or at least their contractor) was requiring the illegal test surely shows that at least one party was interested in this risk.

You state that you don't have a database to show figures of resigning pregnant women, so unless you've studied them all personally yourself having never seen a pregnant woman resign is pretty meaningless. If such figures were available I'd happily bet a 5 figure sum right now that at some point in the past 30 years a pregnant woman has resigned. Using pure gut feel, that bet would probably be safe for today, let alone the past 30 years, but it is irrelevant. If you have figures to show that pregnant women are LESS likely to resign than others then please do share.

You have a point about a workforce with kids making the overall workforce more stable.... but we are not discussing a woman with existing children (of school age, which would make your statement more likely), we are discussing a pregnant woman as a candidate for a new position. Please, let's at least keep some of the factors constant.

No I don't think a partner should be pregnancy tested. I'm not actually stating that ANYBODY should be pregnancy tested. I'm suggesting that both maternity and paternity pay should be 0% from the employer for a period at the beginning of an employment. I think I stated 20 months earlier, just as my opinion.

To be clear, I'm not stating in this thread my position on gun control, abortion, the best colour for a wedding dress, whether Boeing were right or wrong to close the 757 line or anything else. I am suggesting that a law giving either a male or female extended time off work at the employers cost in the early stages of employment is not "balanced".
 
User avatar
cougar15
Posts: 1416
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 6:10 pm

Re: Spain's Iberia airlines fined for making female applicants take pregnancy test

Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:45 am

Pregnant ladies are very much protected by stringent labour laws in the EU. In most countries, they are entitled to 3 years maternity leave (and get payed).
They can also not be dismissed when pregnant, and if they fell pregnant during the say 6 months probation, it becomes borderline for the employer who is then in the situation of keeping them on. SAYING ALL THAT does not mean I agree with this practise, but the EU labour laws & protection a worker enjoys are part of the equasion here, rules that most other regions do not have.
some you lose, others you can´t win!
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10872
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Spain's Iberia airlines fined for making female applicants take pregnancy test

Thu Jul 13, 2017 11:05 am

Virtual737 wrote:
Hmmm where to start. Please remember that I am suggesting that an employer should be somewhat protected from the costs of a pregnancy at the early stages of a new employment, .


yup, and so far i haven´t heard a single good reason why an employer should have any effect on deeply personal decisions at all, since they pretty much don´t get any say in all other personal decisions, and why would that argument only apply to a condition that is limited to women? Misogyny is the only answer that makes any sense at all.

cougar15 wrote:
Pregnant ladies are very much protected by stringent labour laws in the EU. In most countries, they are entitled to 3 years maternity leave (and get payed).


There is no EU regulation requiring mothers to be paid for 3 years.

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
Virtual737
Posts: 621
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:16 am

Re: Spain's Iberia airlines fined for making female applicants take pregnancy test

Thu Jul 13, 2017 11:13 am

tommy1808 wrote:
yup, and so far i haven´t heard a single good reason why an employer should have any effect on deeply personal decisions at all


I'm quite certain that you never will. All the best sir.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos