Subject:
|
Re: Is this sexism?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 29 Jun 2001 01:38:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
557 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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 that attract families, or
> conversely, decide that they want their company to be a party happy place
> and offer a palette of benefits that attract swinging singles?
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 regards or in response to the policy. And as such, it
likewise makes an even worse choice for government legislation.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
