Subject:
|
Re: Is this sexism?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 29 Jun 2001 01:21:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
496 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> So back to the question, should women deserve a break when it comes to
> regular PMS? Sure. Should they deserve extra time off from work? Nah. Or at
> least not in all cases, by my own watch. Should they get that extra time off
> if they're negatively compensated (in pay or something)? Ok. That works for
> me, depending on the compensation. Could be fair to women, could be unfair.
> And because it's such a borderline topic, I *KNOW* that such a policy has
> the potential to be taken *WAY* off course and become abused. I wouldn't
> trust the government with it in a million years. I wouldn't trust 99% of
> companies with such a policy. It'd be really tough to make such a policy
> fair and avoid its abuse-- Not to say it couldn't be done, but in general,
> it's a Bad Thing.
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 due to impacts on productivity, how many dependents
someone has should have no impact whatever on their worth to the company and
thus the rate of pay they get).
Using that metric I don't exactly see what the issue is. If someone works
and makes a contribution, does it exactly matter exactly what days out of
each month they worked?
In an ideal world, employers would be shorthanded enough w.r.t. talent that
they would not balk at being flexible. My employer isn't balking. But then
I'm a workaholic and they are getting plenty of added value out of me so
they don't sweat if I have to take time to take care of something. So my
example may not be particularly relevant to anyone else.
If you personally (the general you, not any particular poster) are stuck in
a dead end job where your employer is dictatorial, why is that? Examine the
causes and decide what to do about it. I know what my father did about it. I
know what I did about it.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
244 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
