 | | Re: Is this sexism?
|
| (...) PAID time off? If you don't also give Paternity leave, yes, it is. And that still makes it unfair to those that choose not to have kids. (...) Yes, it would be a choice, assuming that miracle pill had zero side effects for anyone. (...) (...) (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?
|
| (...) (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 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?
|
| 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)
| |
