Is it better for an American company to keep under or even not performing female employees than replacing them

Question

out of the risk of a lawsuit out of their own iniciative or for not meetin equality standards and women quotas ?

Answer 1

Quotas are a Marxist concept that should be done away with. Equality means no special breaks unless you demonstrate a genuine need for them (i.e. disability, etc.).

Answer 2

No work No pay. Nobody is here for charity. Man or Woman, whatever color, all are paid to work.

Answer 3

If an employee is performing poorly, document, document, document. Make sure you have a record of the employee's poor performance in case you need to show a court it's NOT a case of descrimination, and you were justified in firing them. .

Answer 4

it is better for the female and not the company

Answer 5

I posted a question somewhat pertaining to this issue but it got deleted.  I work for a labour union in Canada, they hired a woman who was put on my crew and did NOT work, she couldn't shovel for more than 5 minutes and she actually sat on her cell phone.  She was hired over several men who had experience in construction.  We picked up her slack on the road crew..worked twice as hard to get the job done in time for the city.  Believe me, one extra person makes a massive difference when it comes to construction.  She's still there, doing nothing, and she will never be fired.  It's unfair, people should be hired and kept on based on work PERFORMANCE not gender!

Answer 6

No we shouldn't get special treatment. Equality in a company is golden. nNo special privileges to either s*x.

Answer 7

A company can terminate an employee that is performing poorly.  This does not mean that all female employees would be terminated.

(Having said that, my coffee break is over, time to get back to work, lol.)