Subject:
|
Re: someone has to say it...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 2 Jul 2001 06:20:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
853 times
|
| |
|
|
David Eaton wrote:
> Which do I live by? Both of course. I don't think I know anyone who
> doesn't... Although Tom S. admittedly did sound as if he were arguing for
> the point of justice with no regard for charity.
I think you need to reread my posts then. What I am arguing for is justice for
ALL, which would negate the need to even consider charity. If everyone had
equal PTO/PFT, regardless of the reason, this debate wouldn't even have had a
reason to start.
> But I don't think he meant
> (or means) to do such. Do we argue that business should be cold and
> heartless (just and not charitable)? Probably not.
Actually, the opposite - charity/justice for all. All equal PTO/PFT, giving
everyone the Quality Time they need.
> After all, which company
> would you rather work for? I don't expect you want your company to never
> offer you a break. I expect most people *like* things like health benefits,
> which aren't beneficial for the company, EXCEPT for the fact that it makes
> the job attractive for employees. The more charitable they are, the more
> people want to work there.
>
> On the other hand, let's suppose (for the sake of the argument at hand) you
> had no children, and had to work 50 hours a week for the same pay as someone
> with 1 child who worked 5 hours a week on the same job. Is your company
> being TOO charitable, and not just enough? I'd say so. If the company
> becomes TOO charitable, they become unjust, and often (more disasterous for
> the company) unprofitable too.
>
> And somewhere between these extremes is the place where we're content as
> emplyees. Somewhere where we feel that companies are being fair enough and
> charitable enough, without overstepping the boundaries of each. And of
> course the actual question Shiri proposed was is giving time off for PMS
> symptoms too unjust? Or is *not* allowing time off too uncharitable? Is
> there a happy medium between the two wherein a balanced policy can exist?
> Personally, I think it's only possible in theory-- in practice such a policy
> would become abused and ducked behind.
I agree.
--
Tom Stangl
***http://www.vfaq.com/
***DSM Visual FAQ home
***http://ba.dsm.org/
***SF Bay Area DSMs
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: someone has to say it...
|
| (...) 1st off, just to get it out of the way, what's PTO/PFT? Anyway, you sound like you're saying *equal* charity for *all*, yes? But that really doesn't follow from my own assumptions of what charity is-- charity being that which is selfless, and (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: someone has to say it...
|
| (...) Potentially being one of the subjects of this post (?) I'd like to make a distinction here-- I think the first time I was forced to realize it was reading Emanuel Levinas-- the distinction between the morals of charity and justice. Justice is (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
14 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
