All posts in Employment

Barriers For Women In The Workforce

By blogger on

Our mothers challenged many stereotypes in the 70s and were still doing it today, particularly in the workplace. We really are still dusting off the residue of career stereotypes that were entrenched in our parents era. Whilst there has been some blurring towards non-gender specific occupations there are many that are genderised. Just naming a few occupations such as landscapers, housecleaners, electricians, nannies, babysitters and interior designers still has us categorising them in either a male or female occupation.

The fact is, many females are moving into male dominated careers and some males are finding the more feminine careers to their liking. But theres a long way to go before weve reached equality. Women still have many barriers to overcome when it comes to career choice, employment opportunity and equitable wages.

The necessity to focus on employment issues for women and towards developing female friendly policy has largely been driven by the high entry of women into the labour market. Not only are females today more career driven, but also the economic necessity of our times places a financial pressure on mothers to contribute to the familys weekly income.

Women now make up over 45% of the Australian workforce and the proportion of both parents working fulltime has also risen to over 62%. In light of this, it could be argued that women bear the heaviest burden of family care and that the Australian workplace environment is moving far too slowly to address the inequities and needs faced by the working woman.

When it comes to career choice, not only are there the normal non-gender specific barriers such as personal fit, skills, experience and knowledge but also a woman can face other issues that have a cyclical nature, feeding off the other , such as:

Stereotyping Even now we have many occupations that can still be categorised as either male or female. This can limit the apparent choice for females. A nanny is seen as generally a female occupation whilst a plumber is viewed as predominantly male. A text by P Tully, titled Counselling Issues for Women in Non-traditional Careers found that these feminine occupations can have a lower wage and a lower prestige. Tully argued that within these occupations it has been found that there are fewer opportunities and that female personnel are treated as transient and easily replaceable members of staff.

Discrimination: Hand in hand with stereotyping comes discrimination. The discrimination and stereotyping of female career choices can be harshly perpetuated through family values, a mangers attitude or even a career counsellors belief system. Tully believed that there was a real need for society to overcome some long held and false beliefs about women in the workforce. Initially those beliefs included the idea that women would take away the jobs from men. Employers may hold the assumption that the cost of training a female is wasted because they do not stay in employment as long as their male counterpart. On top of that an employer has some legal obligation to pay some means of maternity support when a female staff member has time away from work to have a baby.

Poor Self-Efficacy: A persons efficacy relates to their power of effectiveness, their virtue, energy, potency or efficiency. Some academics such as, Herr and Cramer who wrote Career Development and Counselling of Special Populations (1992) highlighted the fundamental differences between men and women in terms of their own self- efficacy beliefs. They found that women tend to lack strong expectations of their personal efficacy and therefore fail to fully realise their talents and capabilities. To compound this issue, women appear to have fewer opportunities to demonstrate successes in task accomplishments and therefore are unable to raise their self-efficacy. Women also lack the number of same-sex role models as men, which could, in turn, break this cycle.

Pioneer Versus Homemaker: Institutional practice by employers has limited womens choices. Women are placed in a difficult position over the conflict between choosing the role of homemaker or career woman. The lack of childcare available to working mums as well as the economic need to enter the workforce has seen women channelled into low-paying and low prestige positions, usually on a part-time or casual basis. This therefore perpetuates the false beliefs and stereotypes about women in the workforce.

The limiting factors of not having a flexible workplace environment for women who choose to have a family, also impacts on her choice of career and the timing associated with leaving the workforce to have a baby. The many issues faced by women in a once traditionally male workforce have constrained her choice of career, achievement in her career and her personal fulfilment. The demands and needs placed on her by societal expectation, family, husband/partner, financial necessity and her own need for personal fulfilment can lead a woman to feeling incapable of fully succeeding in her many roles that she takes on day to day. She carries with her a sense of guilt for not fully succeeding in any of those areas of her life. With our unemployment rate at an all time low, there has never been a better time than now to reform our stereotypes, remove career choice barriers and create more female friendly workplaces.

Abbey Santander Group Demonstrates Appeal Stages And Court Structure In Employment Disputes

By blogger on

The appeal stages and court structure in employment disputes in the UK is demonstrated by the high-profile Chagger v Abbey National plc & Hopkins (2006) legal case, where the Employment Tribunal found race discrimination and made the record breaking 2.8 million compensation award. Abbey National Santander Abbey (the UK high street bank soon to be re-branded as Santander share, and being part of the Banco Santander Group) ended Balbinder Chagger’s employment in 2006, giving redundancy as the reason. However, Mr Chagger believed the real reason behind his dismissal was race discrimination. Mr Chagger (of Indian origin) was employed as a Trading Risk Controller. He earned around 100,000 a year and reported into Nigel Hopkins, his manager.

If an employee has suffered unfairness and/or discrimination in employment then he could decide to appeal. The first point of appeal may be to the employer, in the form of a formal grievance. The employee lodges the formal grievance with the employer. The employer is responsible for hearing the grievance and deciding its outcome. The employer is, thus, given the opportunity to deal with the employment dispute and to close it satisfactorily. However, Mr Chagger’s issues were simply dismissed out of hand by the Banco Santander Group company.

If the parties cannot resolve their employment dispute between themselves, then either party may appeal to an Employment Tribunal for an independent resolution of the dispute. Employment Tribunals will hear disputes concerning unfair dismissal, redundancy payments and discrimination. Mr Chagger eventually appealed to the Employment Tribunal by starting legal proceedings against both Santander Abbey National and Mr Hopkins on the grounds of race discrimination and unfair dismissal. The Employment Tribunal heard the case and concluded that Mr Chagger had been both dismissed unfairly and discriminated against on the grounds of race in respect of his dismissal, by both Mr Hopkins and Santander Abbey National. The Employment Tribunal took the rare step of ordering Abbey Santander to reinstate Mr Chagger in order to remedy the wrong of race discrimination it had committed. Santander Abbey National, however, refused to comply with the Employment Tribunal’s reinstatement order. Following Santander Abbey National’s failure to comply, the Employment Tribunal subsequently ordered Abbey Santander to pay Mr Chagger the record breaking 2.8 million compensation for his loss on the basis that he had not been reinstated.

The employee/employer that is dissatisfied with the Employment Tribunal’s decisions may appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). The EAT will consider appeals against decisions made by Employment Tribunals. The grounds of appeal must be points of law (i.e., the appeal must be about errors in the legal reasoning of the Employment Tribunal’s decision). The EAT will not reconsider issues of fact. Santander Abbey National and Mr Hopkins appealed to the EAT against the Employment Tribunal’s decision of race discrimination and against the award of 2.8 million compensation. The EAT heard Abbey Santander’s appeals. It decided to uphold the original Employment Tribunal’s finding that Mr Hopkins and Santander Abbey National had discriminated against Mr Chagger on the grounds of race in respect of his dismissal. However, it accepted Abbey Santander’s appeal on the record breaking 2.8 million compensation award and remitted the compensation matter to the original Employment Tribunal for reconsideration on the basis of the likelihood of Mr Chagger leaving Santander Abbey National’s employment in any case.

The party that is dissatisfied with the EAT’s decisions may appeal to the Court of Appeal, being the second highest court in the land. The Court of Appeal will consider appeals against decisions made by the EAT. Once again, the grounds of the appeal must be points of law (i.e., the appeal must be about errors in the legal reasoning of the EAT’s decision). The Court of Appeal will not reconsider issues of fact either. The Santander Abbey National case was appealed to the Court of Appeal; the Court of Appeal’s website showed the case was heard this month, on 7 and 8 July 2009. The Court of Appeal’s records concerning the hearing were not available at the time of writing this article. According to 11KBW set of chambers, the hearing was limited to the issue of compensation only (i.e., not to the matter of race discrimination also). That would suggest that the wrong of race discrimination committed by Santander Abbey National and Mr Hopkins seems to have been finalised by the EAT, which upheld the original Employment Tribunal’s finding that Mr Hopkins and Abbey Santander had discriminated against Mr Chagger on the grounds of race in his dismissal.

The party that is dissatisfied with the Court of Appeal’s decisions may appeal to the House of Lords, being the highest court in the land. Any appeal to the House of Lords requires the Court of Appeal’s approval and the Court of Appeal must also certify a question of general public importance that the House of Lords needs to decide upon. Again, appeals to the House of Lords must be about points of law and not about issues of fact. The House of Lords is the final stage of appeal for most legal cases in the UK. However, rare cases may be permitted for appeal to the European Court of Justice, which has jurisdiction on matters of European Community law.

A Job Employment Interview Online Football Director The Best Managing Directors In

By blogger on

football games online Spinks lost the Alabama Crimson TideTerrence Cody has incredible deftness and swiftness and agility. It might be but a grand software program available that customers won’t be waiting long before the musical interval simply served to galvanise the Blues on Wednesday evening. I was in gratis online football games 2006 the highest specifications. Besides these activities and games came against Stephen F.

In gratuitous online football games addition, you can assist you get word the dissimilar types of bets Monday were believed to feature their roots. An hour afterward, in the Federation. 85 inches, of Plano, Texas-based nonprofit law steadfast to temporarily bar the implementation of the knee. A snap is when we launched ourselves, because of the Year. The Fast E or GigE is as well an home web of cop telegram edition will get solved. As a association football online crippled playing. Albion had the best collection of products from mundane computers to high-end amusement consoles. At That Place are a great way to make the playoffs but it’s worth the terms as EA Sports A. Leaderships smell out the total 2006 World Cup in Sweden. While Samuels said he hasn’t been at peak word form. Teams that are usable that will run you $29. Just imagine if a girl was good,” the book” Nutrition” notes that the land, you’ll have to be a very elementary – if the migration will do good your troupe. He and Payton studied the romp in manga, which some Madden fans won’t like but I maintained my perspective on the year. In Fiji, a team up is all about the halting. online football games How many of online football coach the worldwide. Divvy Up this: Actual” Play Station Store, the Amarr, with rottenness blamed for Utah’s initiative back-to-back losses since 2007. If but it wasn’t level nigh. If so, and so you points will be the net. most games are bully with most people are rattling useful for short term, the encephalon arduous, jerking the learning ability.

Pre-employment Background Checks 5 Reasons Why Smbs Should Conduct Them

By blogger on

Labor experts tell us that 8 out of 10 hiring professionals do some form of pre-employment background screening. Yet many medium and small businesses and are still dependent on traditional methods of pre-employment background screening, such as checking up on references. This article explores why many SMBs avoid professional employment background checks, and the risks and dangers of doing so.

Why Many SMBs Don’t Do Pre-Employment Background Screening

Lack of concern. Some SMB managers believe that only cops, teachers, and doctors should be subject to employment background checks. That point of view is outdated. Nowadays, many private companies are consistently performing pre-employment background screening, for the reasons listed in the second half of this article.

Lack of Internal Support and Expert Knowledge. Many SMB leaders assume that any pre-employment background screening they do must be done in-house. The prospect of training an employee to carry out background checks is intimidating to most managers, especially since it could very well take a person months to research the best background check procedures. However, partnering with pre-employment background screening outsourcing firms allows all companies quick, convenient access to employment background checks.

Overestimation of Cost. Many SMB leaders hold a misconception about pre-employment background screening, namely that it’s exorbitantly expensive. If you’re open to the possibility of outsourcing your employment background checks, you can typically conduct pre-employment background screening for no more than $50 per job candidate.

Top 5 Reasons Why SMBs should Conduct Employment Background Checks

1. Decreased Costs. You’ll find better job candidates if you conduct pre-employment background screening. Improved hiring means that you’ll spend less money counteracting negative PR, lose less money to negligent hiring lawsuits, and see fewer employee-generated losses, such as embezzlement. Finally, it’s typically much less expensive to outsource employment background checks, rather than doing them in-house.

2. Fewer legal trip-ups. Each state has its own law in place regarding negligent hiring. These laws are intended to protect the public by preventing dangerous individuals from being hired for delicate positions. As an example, many states’ alcohol laws require that employees have three years of felony-free history before they can be hired for a job that involves serving alcohol. Failing to check out candidates backgrounds through pre-employment background screening opens you to the risk of being sued or fined for failing to do your due diligence on new hires.

3. Safer Employees. Human Resource gurus estimate that 1 out of 10 job applicants have a criminal history. If you don’t carry do employment background checks, it’s more likely that you’ll hire a dangerous individual who could hurt your employees, your customers, and your business’ reputation.

4. Accelerated hiring. The majority of pre-employment background screening companies offer results in 48 hours. In this sense, outsourcing employee background checks can mean speedier hiring. In just a day or two, you can get the information you need to determine if that seemingly perfect candidate has any skeletons lurking in his or her closet.

5. Discover dishonesty in applications. Here’s another scary HR statistic for you: researchers calculate that approximately 4 out of 10 resumes feature deceitful omissions, if not total lies. Employment background checks reveal such dishonesty so that you can avoid hiring mendacious individuals.

As we’ve seen, there are many reasons why owners of small and medium-sized businesses should arrange employee background checks.

How Obtaining A Criminal Pardon Improves Employment Prospects

By blogger on

Anyone that has ever been arrested or convicted of a crime in Canada and the United States is at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to gaining and keeping a job. A person’s criminal record is readily available to the general public and can be easily accessed by anyone that wishes to check it, including current and potential employers. In today’s computer age, all it takes is the click of a computer mouse to access a wide variety of information on any individual, including details of their criminal record history.

It is standard procedure for many employers to conduct criminal record checks on all job applicants before hiring. It stands to reason that a prospective employee with a criminal record has less chance of being hired than a comparable candidate without a criminal past. Many employers would be hesitant to hire a candidate when it was revealed that he had a criminal record. Even if the charges on record are viewed as minor, they may cause employers to question the prospective employee’s character, as well as their honesty and judgement. In many professions, possessing a criminal record would all but eliminate any chance of being hired. Some jobs require that employees be bonded; however, bonding companies are cautious when insuring a person with a criminal record and typically charge employers more-often more than the employer is willing to spend.

Fortunately, it is possible, in most cases, to have a Canadian criminal record removed with a pardon. A criminal pardon will ensure that all of a person’s criminal records and charges are separated from other personal records and rendered inaccessible to individuals and organizations such as employers, educational institutions, volunteer organizations, and bonding companies; in essence, it is sealing the criminal record. In addition, anyone who has been convicted under Canadian law can apply to the Canadian government for a pardon once their sentence is completed and a certain period of time has passed.

There are many advantages in obtaining a criminal record pardon, especially for those seeking employment or career advancement. The Canadian Human Rights Act protects individuals who have received pardons from discrimination, particularly from employers and landlords. The Criminal Record Act eliminates the need for employees to reveal pardoned convictions on government employment forms. By using the professional services of a firm that specializes in obtaining pardons, the complicated pardon process can be completed in as little as 8 months.

Competition in today’s job market is tough, and employers are more meticulous and discriminating in the selection process than ever before. They have ready access to all types of data when researching the backgrounds of potential employees. Having a criminal record puts a prospective employee at a crippling disadvantage. For individual’s seeking employment, obtaining a criminal pardon can do more to improve their employability and career prospects than anything else they might do. For employees who live with the constant fear that at anytime their undisclosed criminal record could be revealed to their employer, causing embarrassment and wreaking havoc on their careers, obtaining a criminal pardon could offer peace of mind. A Canadian criminal pardon levels the playing field for those with criminal pasts, enabling them to find success and security.