ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Anonymous1749704 wrote:

The simplest example is male vs female wages: if there's two employee candidates with the exact same credentials, one male one female, the male has a statistically higher likelihood to get hired. The reason for this is pregnancy. From an employers standpoint this is a risk factor that costs money, can possibly be difficult to deal with and yields zero benefits to the company itself.

1. That's not technically wages, but hiring probability.
2. You say the reason is (risk of) pregnancy. Is this an illogical reason, or a realistic one?
3. Are employers allowed to ask probing questions regarding risk of pregnancy - and if not, why not? - such as: Are you on birth control (preferred answer: yes)? What is your sexual orientation (preferred answers: asexual, lesbian)? Are you sterile from tubal ligation or any other means (preferred answer: yes)? Are you sexually active or plan to be in the future (preferred answer: no)? Or how about cutting straight to the chase and waiving family leave privileges?
4. In the event a woman refuses questioning to better determine risk of pregnancy effecting job attendance - as is her right to refuse - does she not invite employers to use generalized risk assessment upon her due to her individual lack of candor?

Is it not slightly disgusting to anyone else that this particular process assumes that women are not right when they demand competitive compensation with identically qualified males due to the abstract idea that they might some day claim their intrinsic right to bear children?

If a woman wants the option of maternity leave in her contract she should be able to negotiate for it. That maternity leave would be part of her compensation, and would ideally be equivalent in value to the woman to the increased pay/benefits she gives up to claim it as compared to an equally qualified man. If a woman doesn't want maternity leave, then as Scrotie says: dispense with it and pay the woman what she's actually worth, instead of shortchanging her because of the 'risk' of her getting knocked up. If she gets pregnant after dispensing with maternity leave in her contract, then that was her decision to make and she can deal with the consequences.

But this idea that a business has the intrinsic right to refuse employment to women on the sole basis that said women might, one day, become pregnant is sort of disgusting given that women getting pregnant is kiiiiiiiiinda required for the species to continue existing. Disincentivizing pregnancy by forbidding those susceptible to it from obtaining work is kind of an actively terrible idea.

The problem is there is no evidence companies dont hire women because of pregnancy, it is just speculation.

My company gives men & women paid leave for babies, as well as 2 weeks paid leave for fostering or adopting. This idea that companies are all out to get women for having babies seems made up.

I have no doubt that some companies do discriminate against women on the basis of pregnancy robbing them of valuable hours, or at least citing that as their basis. Just as I have no doubt that, as you yourself infer, men sometimes want to take family leave as well as women - just because he's not having the baby directly doesn't mean the father wouldn't want to help his partner through her difficult times and take a few weeks to ensure his new family gets off to a proper start.

Given how often companies tout a 'family atmosphere' work environment and how much they want their employees to all feel like One Big Happy Family, this notion of Scrotie's that it's perfectly okay for a business to, essentially, demand that its employees refrain from procreating the species if they want to keep working seems both tyrannical and barbaric.

That's because society has a screwed up idea about marriage & family.

The job of being a parent is more important than whatever other job you have, but it seems like much of society no longer believes that.

Hard to be a good parent from a cardboard box in the streets.

A good parent is one that can provide for their children as well as be there for them. That requires the parent to hold a steady job, and for the steady job in question to err on the side of generosity rather than miserliness when it comes to providing time for parents to be parents. As with many things in life, the ideal road is one of balance. Whichever job you consider 'more important' or not is sort of immaterial; both are required, neither of those pieces are optional.

Businesses that discriminate and demand that employees consider the business' needs as being primary to all other needs, including their own/their family's, are bad businesses. This is most businesses, so most businesses are bad businesses. Shocking, that. But you can't raise a kid without cash, and for most folks the only way to get cash is to trade your life for a shitty biweekly paycheck from people that don't care a whit about you.

Such is life in Moscow.

You say "most" , where is that coming from?

Most businesses give good maternity leave nowadays. And do a lot to help parents.

You sound like you're describing coal mines from previous centuries

lmao

"

1453R wrote:

This is most businesses, so most businesses are bad businesses.

Bad businesses fail so long as they haven’t built a regulatory floor to prevent growth of competition, e.g., Facebook in the coming years. Good businesses take their place, because they have a better culture and the opportunity to do so, e.g., Amazon. It seems the market is already adapting—consumers don’t like businesses that appear mean to families, and employees don’t like it when their coworkers can’t take care of their children.

"

1453R wrote:

But you can't raise a kid without cash

Correct, and this isn’t an employer’s responsibility. It is good for business to take care of your employees (the market demandeth), but at the end of the day it is the individual’s responsibility to decide whether or not they can afford a single income household (stay at home parent, spouse can earn a retirement for two, i.e., work twice as hard and assume more responsibility), afford supplemental care in the absence of a stay at home parent to allow for a two income household, or if children are a bad idea.

I always assume everything a POTUS does is on purpose. Therefore, I must assume, per Calvin Broadus' argument, that Trump's silence regarding the hero of the Waffle House shooting (aka good guy without a gun) is a deliberate attempt to appear racist.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I always assume everything a POTUS does is on purpose. Therefore, I must assume, per Calvin Broadus' argument, that Trump's silence regarding the hero of the Waffle House shooting (aka good guy without a gun) is a deliberate attempt to appear racist.

Did they cover it on fox and friends? Maybe he's not aware that it happened.