Subject:
|
Re: Is this sexism?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 29 Jun 2001 01:56:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
632 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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?
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 this clause), the policy would go over ok, depending on the
details, obviously. As long as you're still putting in the effort that you
would be *without* the days off, then there's no issue.
But (as I mentioned earlier on) there are jobs where it matters. My friend
works data entry. And particularly, she's one of 2 people who knows how to
do a particular part of that job. A job that needs to be done *every* day
without fail by a deadline. Things also get more hectic at month-end and
week-end. Hence she can't merely put in more quality time elsewhere-- she's
got to *be* there to be productive. Support is another similar job. The list
goes on.
The question is does it affect productivity? If not, why not do it? If so,
why do it? Or why not do it? Should we empathize with women the way we
empathise with people with families? Doesn't my boss (who has kids) get more
benefits through the company than I would being his level? (And don't try to
persnick out the fact that we "pay" for benefits-- the monetary value of all
his kids' doctor visits, etc. far outweighs the difference in what we "pay"
for them respectively)
> In an ideal world, employers would be shorthanded enough w.r.t. talent that
> they would not balk at being flexible.
Yes. In an ideal world people could put in quality work and specific time
put in wouldn't matter. No quarrels there.
> 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.
You're implying that women who would want such a policy should ask for such,
or perhaps even expect such? I agree. If it means enough to you (if you
*are* one of those women who *needs* a couple days off to function), find a
job where you *can* take the time off. If you can't find or get such a job,
then... well... tough, I guess. That sounds harsh. Apologies. I guess I
don't really expect this particular issue to be one that enough people are
demanding. Otherwise, it'd probably be offered by more employers, no? At
least in this country, where I believe any company could offer such a policy
and it'd be legal. No? I could be wrong. Could be biased against men. IANAL.
$.02,
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
