Subject:
|
Re: Is this sexism?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 29 Jun 2001 02:20:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
554 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> 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.
Agreed. Night watchmen sort of have to watch at night, and Sunday School
teachers sort of have to teach on Sundays. :-)
> 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.
Truck factor 2!!! That company is asking for trouble. :-) She needs to ask
for a big raise at the same time her co worker does. :-)
> 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)
Not sure I was going to persnick... :-)
> > 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.
I think someone could (unfortunately) raise a complaint that it was
discriminatory. And we all know how I feel about *that* charge, right?
Restriction of free trade, restriction of free association.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Is this sexism?
|
| (...) Yeah-- their company has... issues. Their turnover rate is silly. Someone came into her department on their first day of work. The next day she called in to quit. Now *that's* turnover! Suffice to say my friend's looking for new work, and the (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
