Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!yale-com!mwolf
From: mwolf@yale-com.UUCP (Anne G. Wolf)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re:employing married vs single people
Message-ID: <2461@yale-com.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 23-Nov-83 18:14:38 EST
Article-I.D.: yale-com.2461
Posted: Wed Nov 23 18:14:38 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 26-Nov-83 04:05:16 EST
Lines: 24

If a person had a spouse who did all of the house-keeping, he or she would
have more time and energy to put into his or her job than someone who had
to do his or her own house-keeping.  Assuming that putting more time and
energy into a job means that the employee is more productive, I can see why
married people might be preferred, if you assume that most couples have a
single breadwinner.

Since it is becoming more common for a couple to divide the house-keeping
and the earning between them, a person would be likely to do some house-keeping
whether he or she was married or not.  However, it is not clear whether a
married person would do more or less house-keeping than a single person.
If I were an employer, I wouldn't bet one way or the other, and I suspect
that the belief that married people are more productive employees is becoming
outdated.

I agree that there might be favors to an employee because the employee "has a
family to support".  On the other hand, a single person would not have
dependents to support if he or she got killed on the job, and would have an
easier time keeping strange hours, moving to another town every 4 months,
living under an assumed name, or other things like that. I can see why an
employer might prefer single people for some positions.

Assuming that employers have their own best interests in mind, it wouldn't
make sense to have a consistent preference one way or the other.