 | | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Agreed. Night watchmen sort of have to watch at night, and Sunday School teachers sort of have to teach on Sundays. :-) (...) Truck factor 2!!! That company is asking for trouble. :-) She needs to ask for a big raise at the same time her co (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes: <snip> (...) Well of course! IMHO, other than the common law prohibitions we've had all along there isn't much of *anything* that makes a good choice for government legislation. :-) But the usual (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Because certain jobs *do* require specific days to be worked, and are paid hourly. Mine isn't. If my company instigated that policy among my department (other departments like support, where you have to *be* there wouldn't be covered under (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) I think that would be what I'd suggest. It's up to the company to decide whether or not to undertake such a policy. If they pull it off, great! But my personal guess is that any company that tries it is liable to get a mouthful of abuse with (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) (not picking on Dave E per se, he's asking good questions) Why isn't this a matter for employers to choose? In an ideal world, shouldn't employers be able to decide they want their company to be family friendly and offer a palette of benefits (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) I've been reading the main drift of this somewhat bemusedly... Strikes me that most sorts of jobs are such that pay ought to be based on contributed value, not on mere hours worked and especially not on need (except for second order effects (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Well-- my point would be that the guy who works 50+ hours a week to support his family "deserves" (in a purely philosophically 'fair' world) exactly the same amount as the guy who works 50+ hours a week just to be rich. The fact that he's (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Okay - point taken - sorry to jump down your throat. (...) embolism - not using the spell-check (...) Snip (...) Haha - yeah, I could tell... ;) (...) How about the guy who works his tail off 50+ a week to support his family? Does he deserve (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Alright-- I'll ask a little more directly: what does the act of choosing have to do with it? Should those who *didn't* choose to have kids have negative reprecussions? Should those that *did* have negative repercussions? Should those negative (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
|
(...) Uh oh-- I better jump in and clarify. That sounded bad on my part. (...) I guess where I was going with that wasn't to suggest that having PMS *was* a choice-- I don't think it is. It was to say if it *were* a choice, would it be treated (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
