Room for a chicky!

[thecharmed01]

Senior staff member does not constitute company owner, nor does it imply company policy in any way.

Since you want to argue, this is a discussion forum whereby it is quite arguable that any expressed comments made by a personal user account are merely the opinion of the poster and could be argued that they should in no way be taken as any official company policy unless they are made by an account owned and run by the owner of the said business.
One would also argue (from the owners point of view) that the business owner could have no idea what his staff are posting, so how can you hold the business accountable.
A business owner cannot reasonably be expected to control every action of every staff member all of the time.

If personal forum accounts owned by EMPLOYEES were held accountable for business reasons then a lot of people online would be in a lot of legal trouble daily.......

[prettybillie]

Come on let's not all get legal and stuff. Let's just say CFWB is a perv and wanted some boobs around the office....nothing wrong with that

[jafar]

Senior staff member does not constitute company owner, nor does it imply company policy in any way.

Since you want to argue, this is a discussion forum whereby it is quite arguable that any expressed comments made by a personal user account are merely the opinion of the poster and could be argued that they should in no way be taken as any official company policy unless they are made by an account owned and run by the owner of the said business.
One would also argue (from the owners point of view) that the business owner could have no idea what his staff are posting, so how can you hold the business accountable.
A business owner cannot reasonably be expected to control every action of every staff member all of the time.

If personal forum accounts owned by EMPLOYEES were held accountable for business reasons then a lot of people online would be in a lot of legal trouble daily.......

As it is posted by someone senior within the company it could be used against the company, that the post is put up by someone other than the owner is of no real consequence as it shows an intent to hire based on the sex of the applicant !!
While the owner cannot be expected to know what his employees post on a forum in their own time that doesn't alter the fact that a MALE who THINKS he might have been able to fulfill the role could conceivably take the employer to court for hiring A FEMALE. As was stated previously(by someone else) there are laws against discrimination & stating a preference for a female is getting close to the edge.......
All of this is matters not UNLESS someone objects & places a claim that they didn't get the job because of their sex.

[thecharmed01]

As it is posted by someone senior within the company it could be used against the company, that the post is put up by someone other than the owner is of no real consequence as it shows an intent to hire based on the sex of the applicant !!
While the owner cannot be expected to know what his employees post on a forum in their own time that doesn't alter the fact that a MALE who THINKS he might have been able to fulfill the role could conceivably take the employer to court for hiring A FEMALE. As was stated previously(by someone else) there are laws against discrimination & stating a preference for a female is getting close to the edge.......
All of this is matters not UNLESS someone objects & places a claim that they didn't get the job because of their sex.

As an employer myself, with 18 staff (much less now that we sold 5 stores) I beg to disagree.
Only if I as the employer was to make a claim for such would I be liable for it....
We have actually been through something quite similar (albeit with our staff touting for a male staff member) and it was ruled in our favour as although a manager was asking for a male staff member, we, the owners/employers were not. Therefore it was thrown out of the employment court as we the owners cannot be held liable for our staff's request - especially when they took into account that the staff member in question had no final say in the hiring process.

[jafar]

As an employer myself, with 18 staff (much less now that we sold 5 stores) I beg to disagree.
Only if I as the employer was to make a claim for such would I be liable for it....
We have actually been through something quite similar (albeit with our staff touting for a male staff member) and it was ruled in our favour as although a manager was asking for a male staff member, we, the owners/employers were not. Therefore it was thrown out of the employment court as we the owners cannot be held liable for our staff's request - especially when they took into account that the staff member in question had no final say in the hiring process.

You have been to employment court because of something similar & yet you disagree????
Read the bottom line of my previous post !!!!!!!!!!!

[thecharmed01]

Wow, did you even read what I wrote?
What's said in this forum would most likely have no bearing should anyone make any attempt to make it seem relevant to them not getting a job....
So of course I disagree.
I've already proved that this post, would not be held accountable to the owners of the company.... LOL

[jafar]

Wow, did you even read what I wrote?
What's said in this forum would most likely have no bearing should anyone make any attempt to make it seem relevant to them not getting a job....
So of course I disagree.
I've already proved that this post, would not be held accountable to the owners of the company.... LOL

Yes I read what you wrote & you have proved nothing except that you have been in a similar situation. The thing that saved you in the court was that your employee had no final say in the hiring. Is that indeed the situation here ??
The point is/was that IF someone got upset because they didn't get the job they could use the act to claim based on discrimination.

Copied from the act !

It is unlawful for employers to refuse to employ a person, hire them on lesser terms or dismiss an employee based on prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Acts, which include gender, marital status, religious or ethical belief, colour, race, ethnic or national origins, disability or age.


CFWB's original post would appear to contravene the act.


Bout time we took a chicky on board here at Wellington Motorcycles in our well busy spares and acc division.

Any keen punters get hold of me!

Pete

[thecharmed01]

BUT that is only the case IF he owned the business... you seem to be missing the point.
Nice try though.

[Crasherfromwayback]

To top it off...we hired a guy! Shows how badly the owners would only hire a women eh?

[rosie631]

Did you have any women apply?

[IdunBrokdItAgin]

Wow,

the only thing anyone has proved in this thread is how easy it is to kill a rather amusing thread with legal talk.

I was smiling after page 2 then by page 4 I had just lost the will to live.

Glad you found someone to fill the role. Shame it wasn't a chick.

[prettybillie]

To top it off...we hired a guy! Shows how badly the owners would only hire a women eh?

Oh you'll only get man boobs now

[jellywrestler]

Oh you'll only get man boobs now

I think you'll find the correct term is 'He Hooters'

[Crasherfromwayback]

Did you have any women apply?

I'd rather not comment!

[vifferman]

Copied from the act !

It is unlawful for employers to refuse to employ a person, hire them on lesser terms or dismiss an employee based on prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Acts, which include gender, marital status, religious or ethical belief, colour, race, ethnic or national origins, disability or age.

That's all very well, but in The Real World, people discriminate all the time - it's a natural part of human nature. What it really boils down to is not making it obvious that you hired a person because of race, gender, or whatever.
For instance, if you need a salesperson who speaks good English, you have to discriminate against someone that spoke highly-accented English that no-one could understand. Legally, they could go to court over this, but it's complete and utter bollocks. While the intent of the Act is OK, it needs a good beating with the Commonsense Stick.

Look at our stupid orofice building: it has 'wheelchair friendly' toilets in accordance with the local building regulations, but we're on the first floor, with no elevators. Good luck trying to be an equal-opportunity employer interviewing someone who can't walk up stairs!