Great answer to a stupid question from a CNN reporter ...

[rn79870]

I'll tell you how it is done. There are people who specialize in the treatment of special needs children. She could hire one of these people full time to take care of her child and then she can visit as she feels she needs to.

Why is it that everyone in this forum, except dusred, can't answer the simple question. How is she going to balance the needs of her family with the needs of the office?

Thank you dusred for offering the first suggestion as to how she may address both obligations.

[rn79870]

If someone actually says that, I'm gonna fall out laughing.

Solid.

You think she is a better shot than Cheney?

[AZhitman]

Why is it that everyone in this forum, except dusred, can't answer the simple question. How is she going to balance the needs of her family with the needs of the office?

How will Obama? (2 kids)

How did Clinton? (1 kid)

How did Bush? (twin girls OMG)

Oh, that's right. That's DIFFERENT... They're MEN.

Silly me.

Hey Bob - Pull the ripcord, that's the ground you see rushing up at you.

[szh]

I hire and fire for my company. One question I ask is whether a potential employee has outside considerations that preclude things like occasional travel, a week out of town, conventions, etc. If they do, I pass on them, and I have passed on good people just because of that.

And, those questions and decision to hire/fire based on them are illegal if the job does not require the travel, etc. You better contact your HR people to get some clarity here.

Personal questions about children, breat-feeding at the office, are an extreme no-no too! You CANNOT even ask if the person is married or single, let alone if they have any kids.

Just for reference as to where I am coming from (so, I can assure you that I have the "experience" to talk about these issues):

I have been working as a technical manager of people for about 28 years now. In that period, I have had close to about a thousand people work for me at various companies. Many of them were women (software engineers and IC design engineers), by the way, so I know to be very careful about these issues.

Over than same period, as a job requirement, I have sat through six or seven training seminars on people management. These included formal training (with a sign-off requirement that I had attended) on topics exactly like these (hiring, interview questions, sexual harassment, etc.).

Sexual harassment training is a CA law requirement for any company that has more than a certain number of employees, by the way.

Z

[szh]

Why is it that everyone in this forum, except dusred, can't answer the simple question. How is she going to balance the needs of her family with the needs of the office?

Because it is not a fair question, regardless of how much you want to try and spin it that way! It does NOT need to be addressed or answered.

This (and the reporters question) so clearly shows how women are treated in the work-place that it lends credence to the women who complain about this sexist discrimination.

Like I said, talk to some women in the Democrat party and see if they can show you the light here!

Z

[AZhitman]

I posted the citations that reference the EEOC laws...

[audtatious]

So, is it "legal" to discriminate in the case of Palin due to it being a federal-level position?

[szh]

Oh, let's say a trip to the middle east for 10 days. Is she planning on taking her 4mth old son, or is she going to have to schedule those trips around his needs? Fair question.

If she indicated that she had responsibilities that precluded her devoting 100% of her effort 100% of the time, should she get the job over someone who could?

I think they understand that the job should go to the best qualified, most dedicated and the one who is the biggest asset to the company/organization, regardless of their sex, family situation or orientation. That's what I've been saying. I just want to know what Palin's position is.

Actually, you can't ask about their family situation, but you can ask if they are available for travel on very short notice. You can (and I do ) ask about their life history, their experience and how many days they missed from work over the last year. But no, you can't ask if they are married.But then again, if they volunteer that they have a 4 month old child with special needs, you are free to inquire into how that may affect their job performance.

Z, this is a logical issue, not an emotional one.

Bob, the more you post on this topic, the more it comes across as a classic rationalization to say that women are incapable of working and doing an equal job. So, it is then okay to ask these sorts of questions, demand answers, and make a hire/fire decision!

Absolutely classic!

Seriously, before you keep digging this hole deeper for yourself, please, PLEASE stand back and talk to your HR people and any serious women libber in the Democratic party. Or any woman with a full-time job, who is also raising kids.

Z

[AZhitman]

It's not really about discrimination per se.

It's about whether it's even appropriate to ask a question of an elected official that you can't ask of an employee...

There's this uneducated perception being propogated that "we have a right to know".

Well, you don't.

It's NOYDB what people do in their family life, which the libbenheimers have been stuffing down our throats for eons.

[rn79870]

How will Obama? (2 kids)

How did Clinton? (1 kid)

How did Bush? (twin girls OMG)

Oh, that's right. That's DIFFERENT... They're MEN.

Silly me.

Hey Bob - Pull the ripcord, that's the ground you see rushing up at you.

Silly guy, my feet are the ones firmly planted on the ground here. The republicans are in denial when it comes to Palin. When will they see that it would be easier to teach a dog to play a guitar than find something positive about Palin?

[szh]

At my company, we have three women who recently had babies (past six months). They took 2 - 4 weeks maternity leave, and are now back at the job. Full-time!

One (only one) asked for her hours to be changed to the second shift, so that she could take care of her newborn during the day when her husband goes to work. We accommodated her without any issues! She is doing exactly the same work - just after hours.

Had we not hired her in the first place (some years ago), or asked questions about her child or family or how she was going to manage kids, we would have been seriously remiss!

Finally, my point in my previous posts: the act of asking such a question of Gov. Palin is fundamentally wrong. We do NOT need to know the answer. So, we do need need to even consider the question here as something we posters should answer for Gov. Palin.

Z

[rn79870]

Bob, the more you post on this topic, the more it comes across as a classic rationalization to say that women are incapable of working and doing an equal job. So, it is then okay to ask these sorts of questions, demand answers, and make a hire/fire decision!

Absolutely classic!

Seriously, before you keep digging this hole deeper for yourself, please, PLEASE stand back and talk to your HR people and any serious women libber in the Democratic party. Or any woman with a full-time job, who is also raising kids.

Z

Palin raised the issue of having a child with special needs. My question, and it is a fair one, is how will the needs of that child effect her ability to perform the job she is asking for?

That is a fair, legal and legitimate question. Why not let her answer it, after all, she is the one claiming that she is qualified in all ways for the office of VP. We have a right to know how she intends to balance both obligations. If she can, so be it, if she can't, then we need to know.

Z, don't get all emotional in this, it's merely a logical question.

[rn79870]

Finally, my point in my previous posts: the act of asking such a question of Gov. Palin is fundamentally wrong. We do NOT need to know the answer. So, we do need need to even consider the question here as something we posters should answer for Gov. Palin.

Z

Yes we do. It's a trade, an answer for a vote. It's called an election, that's how it works.

[AZhitman]

Z, don't get all emotional in this, it's merely a logical question.

Yeah Z, you can't be acting all emotional, you might be mistaken for a Dem.

[szh]

Z, don't get all emotional in this, it's merely a logical question.

Actually, I am not being emotional at all! Sorry to see how mistaken you are about that too.

It is not a logical question. It is an illegal question.

Since you don't seem to appreciate my help, I will take back my attempts to help you avoid the problems. My apologies for that effort!

So ... instead of my asking you to speak to your HR people or an active Democrat woman before you post any more, I will ask you to do the following.

Please ask these questions the next you interview a woman for a job: "Do you have a child? Newborn? With special needs perhaps? Maybe you are a Soccer Mom? If so, how do you plan to do the job that you are applying for here?"

Looking forward to her response and what happens to you after that!

Z

[szh]

Yeah Z, you can't be acting all emotional, you might be mistaken for a Dem.

Z

[AZhitman]

Yes we do. It's a trade, an answer for a vote. It's called an election, that's how it works.

No, we don't.

Can you trade an answer for a job offer?

And who are you to decide if her answer will be good enough?

If she says, "I'm going to hire a nanny", then you're gonna scream "bad mom!"

If she says, "I'll telecommute some", you'll scream "Inattention!"

If she says, "My husband and family will be there to support me and pitch in", you're gonna claim she shirks her responsibilities.

All you want out of this is to do damage, which makes you a fearmongerer.

And you're STILL asking questions that, PURSUANT TO FEDERAL LAW, an employer can't ask, and cannot impact the hiring decision.

zer...icism

[szh]

zer...icism

Thanks for that reference and link! I have been in training seminars for some of these items, but did not have the specific EEOC information.

Z

[rn79870]

It is not a logical question. It is an illegal question.

Z

Sorry to point this out but it's perfectly legal. She opened the door to it by mentioning her special needs child. So, it's not illegal.

In other news, the 4th. example of her abuse of power as Governor has surfaced. Four examples. Yep, she's a breath of fresh air all right.

Gov. Sarah Palin is already facing ethical questions over her firing of the Alaska public safety commissioner, and now she faces questions over the firing of a longtime local police chief. http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blot...age=1

I'm still giggling at good fortune dealt the dems with her selection. Whoever selected her....

[dusred]

Bob, I find it hard to believe that you are genuinely concerned for this child. I think you are using this for your own personal agenda.

However, If you were genuinely concerned about the child you deserve an answer to the question though it may be an illegal question.

I gave you my .02 on one idea. If you were genuinely concerned that would have been enough to comfort your concerns.

[AZhitman]

Sorry to point this out but it's perfectly legal. She opened the door to it by mentioning her special needs child. So, it's not illegal.

Keep digging.

Asking the question isn't illegal. Making one iota of a decision based on her answer IS.

It's a non-issue, and dusred hit it right on the head.

Don't mind my responses based on FACT, and keep the nervous giggling up... it's reminding me of telco.

[szh]

Sorry to point this out but it's perfectly legal. She opened the door to it by mentioning her special needs child. So, it's not illegal.

Like I said, feel free to explore this in an interview with a woman.

Gov. Sarah Palin is already facing ethical questions over her firing of the Alaska public safety commissioner, and now she faces questions over the firing of a longtime local police chief. http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blot...age=1

Why are you changing the subject from the original topic?

This is being dealt with in other threads already. Yawn ...

Whoever selected her....

I agree heartily! indeed!

Z

[AZhitman]

In other news, the 4th. example of her abuse of power as Governor has surfaced. Four examples. Yep, she's a breath of fresh air all right.

Gov. Sarah Palin is already facing ethical questions over her firing of the Alaska public safety commissioner, and now she faces questions over the firing of a longtime local police chief. http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blot...age=1

That's not news. We've covered "troopergate" days ago.

Quit changing the subject, you're supposed to be the Moderator here!

[rn79870]

No, we don't.

Yes we do.

Can you trade an answer for a job offer?

People do it every day. Try going through an interview with "no comment" answers. Seriously.

And who are you to decide if her answer will be good enough?

A voter.

If she says, "I'm going to hire a nanny", then you're gonna scream "bad mom!"

Maybe some people will. Maybe some won't...

If she says, "I'll telecommute some", you'll scream "Inattention!"

Ms. Palin, you're needed in Iran for a meeting, no sorry, gotomeeting won't work this time. Nice try big guy.

If she says, "My husband and family will be there to support me and pitch in", you're gonna claim she shirks her responsibilities.

assume.

All you want out of this is to do damage, which makes you a fearmongerer.

There is little I can do to damage. If she were a car, she would be a veteran of a couple demo derbys, and you're worried about another dent?

And you're STILL asking questions that, PURSUANT TO FEDERAL LAW, an employer can't ask, and cannot impact the hiring decision.

According to federal law, if the person raises the issue, you can inquire about it. She can refuse to answer it of course, but she's let the door open and she loses the right to complain about what enters.

zer...icism[/QUOTE]

[Soravia]

I truly don't see any other women more suitable to pick as VP either. At least we didn't get Nancy.

You know, when I think of Mr.Obama becoming president and being assasinated, I get scared. The whole country would be run by Joe Biden, and if someone kills him, we'll end up with Nancy Palosi

[szh]

Sorry to point this out but it's perfectly legal. She opened the door to it by mentioning her special needs child. So, it's not illegal.

Even though the above is NOT correct - it is illegal - I will change my earlier advice slightly. Please ask your HR folks if you can say to a woman: "I note that you have said here that you have a special needs newborn? How do you plan to do the job that you are applying for here?"

Looking forward to your HR departments response on the above!

Z

[AZhitman]

Bob acts as if she's the first VP candidate with kids.

Your interpretation of EEOC laws is flawed. Mentioning her special needs child does NOT remove her rights or protections, as it's common knowledge.

Further, even if you DO stretch the bounds of appropriateness by asking the question, you've now exposed your agency to unnecessary risk by implying you'll base the hiring decision (even partially) on the sufficiency of her answer.

[Soravia]

If the Liberal Dems are honest with their STANCE (and I repeat, STANCE) of 'Helping Government'

Mr. Obama should be calling for checks for working moms with kids to pay for childcare as necessary.

[rn79870]

Bob acts as if she's the first VP candidate with more issues than National Georgaphic.

Fixed it for you Sir! ::salute::

EEOC doesn't apply to a candidate campaigning. Once the door is opened the questions are fair. The party has the right to refuse to answer them with out prejudice ( ) through.

She's asking for votes, and she's losing a ton of them for not addressing the question.

[szh]

EEOC doesn't apply to a candidate campaigning. Once the door is opened the questions are fair.

Sez who? Do you have a reference/link to a Federal law that says the EEOC laws are limited in this manner?

More rationalizations for illegal questions, as far as I can see!

Z