djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,434
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 17, 2015 0:43:52 GMT -5
Yes, because the UN is too useless and scared to go where there could be real issues and do anything about them so it's easier to point fingers at "civilized" nations and tell them what they're doing wrong. Assholes. i think they do that, but let's never mind that for a moment. are you in favor of paid maternity leave or not?
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,873
|
Post by zibazinski on Dec 17, 2015 7:14:09 GMT -5
Yes, because the UN is too useless and scared to go where there could be real issues and do anything about them so it's easier to point fingers at "civilized" nations and tell them what they're doing wrong. Assholes. i think they do that, but let's never mind that for a moment. are you in favor of paid maternity leave or not? I'm not.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Dec 17, 2015 7:45:33 GMT -5
So women who aren't Americans spend 10 whole days here and presume to tell us how to run our country? I call bullshit on that. The UN is a joke. Last I checked, we don't vote for them. Even if they were US Citizens, the salary comparison failed to take into account: ♤ job classifications ♡ seniority ◇ education And WTF with: ♧ female migrants in detention centers (don't like it, leave) ☆ maternity leave (FMLA = 12 wks) Yes, the often quoted 78 cents per dollar is misleading at best. It simply compares the overall earnings of full time, year round employees, without controlling for industry, job, hours worked, or any number of other factors. And I agree, those "issues" of the female illegal immigrants and campaign finance reform were out of left field. It looks like they were grasping at straws.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,873
|
Post by zibazinski on Dec 17, 2015 7:47:49 GMT -5
What worries me is what another poster mentioned. Two people interview for a job. One male, one female. What are my chances of the female needing maternity leave vs. the male getting too ill to work? I see women not getting hired and that's tough. Even if your pregnancy is a surprise, you have several months to prepare. If you're barely making ends meet on two pay checks, you have worse problems than an employer who isn't sympathetic to your "wants."
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,060
|
Post by happyhoix on Dec 17, 2015 9:10:03 GMT -5
What worries me is what another poster mentioned. Two people interview for a job. One male, one female. What are my chances of the female needing maternity leave vs. the male getting too ill to work? I see women not getting hired and that's tough. Even if your pregnancy is a surprise, you have several months to prepare. If you're barely making ends meet on two pay checks, you have worse problems than an employer who isn't sympathetic to your "wants." I love how conservatives think. They are devoted to babies before they are born and have no problem forcing women to be moms but once the baby is here, God forbid it becomes a drain on productivity or tax dollars. It's every man (or woman, or baby) for himself at that point. By the way, my company always has people out on long term disability for one thing or another. They get up to a year before the company begins thinking about having to fire them. Including new moms in that group is not going to bankrupt my company, and I suspect most companies are that way. As for employers not hiring women because they might want maternity leave - that already exists right now, due to FMLA requiring employers to give women time off without pay. Only difference would be they would have to pay them. Some employers don't want to hire women who are moms, or might become moms, or men who have young kids and working wives (so they're obligated to help with sick kids) - it is what it is.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Dec 17, 2015 10:42:11 GMT -5
What worries me is what another poster mentioned. Two people interview for a job. One male, one female. What are my chances of the female needing maternity leave vs. the male getting too ill to work? I see women not getting hired and that's tough. Even if your pregnancy is a surprise, you have several months to prepare. If you're barely making ends meet on two pay checks, you have worse problems than an employer who isn't sympathetic to your "wants." I love how conservatives think. They are devoted to babies before they are born and have no problem forcing women to be moms but once the baby is here, God forbid it becomes a drain on productivity or tax dollars. It's every man (or woman, or baby) for himself at that point. Not exactly true, but it fits nicely into the party narrative for many liberals.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,434
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 17, 2015 10:47:02 GMT -5
i think they do that, but let's never mind that for a moment. are you in favor of paid maternity leave or not? I'm not. do you mind me asking: why?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,434
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 17, 2015 10:48:04 GMT -5
On a serious note...this has been bugging me since I read it and I haven't been able to put my finger on why. It finally hit me. I find grievances like this to be totally counterproductive to what people are trying to achieve. Let's step back for a minute. The goal is equality, right? So how is it logical to demand special treatment in order to get equality? Doesn't that inherently unbalance things? Then you add in what are increasingly becoming IMHO ridiculous slights, the whole message becomes diluted and a parody of itself. doesn't what inherently unbalance things?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,434
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 17, 2015 10:49:26 GMT -5
Even if they were US Citizens, the salary comparison failed to take into account: ♤ job classifications ♡ seniority ◇ education And WTF with: ♧ female migrants in detention centers (don't like it, leave) ☆ maternity leave (FMLA = 12 wks) Yes, the often quoted 78 cents per dollar is misleading at best. It simply compares the overall earnings of full time, year round employees, without controlling for industry, job, hours worked, or any number of other factors. And I agree, those "issues" of the female illegal immigrants and campaign finance reform were out of left field. It looks like they were grasping at straws. if women are funneled into low paying professions, without any real opportunities in high paying ones, is that any better than paying them 78 cents/hr for the same work? NOTE: please treat this as a hypothetical. that is all it is.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,434
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 17, 2015 10:50:24 GMT -5
What worries me is what another poster mentioned. Two people interview for a job. One male, one female. What are my chances of the female needing maternity leave vs. the male getting too ill to work? I see women not getting hired and that's tough. Even if your pregnancy is a surprise, you have several months to prepare. If you're barely making ends meet on two pay checks, you have worse problems than an employer who isn't sympathetic to your "wants." sounds like a good case for federal protection, to me.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,434
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 17, 2015 10:51:15 GMT -5
I love how conservatives think. They are devoted to babies before they are born and have no problem forcing women to be moms but once the baby is here, God forbid it becomes a drain on productivity or tax dollars. It's every man (or woman, or baby) for himself at that point. Not exactly true, but it fits nicely into the party narrative for many liberals. what IS exactly true?
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,873
|
Post by zibazinski on Dec 17, 2015 10:52:38 GMT -5
What worries me is what another poster mentioned. Two people interview for a job. One male, one female. What are my chances of the female needing maternity leave vs. the male getting too ill to work? I see women not getting hired and that's tough. Even if your pregnancy is a surprise, you have several months to prepare. If you're barely making ends meet on two pay checks, you have worse problems than an employer who isn't sympathetic to your "wants." sounds like a good case for federal protection, to me. Yes, good luck proving that you weren't hired because of gender.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,434
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 17, 2015 10:53:11 GMT -5
doesn't what inherently unbalance things? demanding/asking for special treatment ah. thanks. what do you think of the ADA?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,434
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 17, 2015 10:55:00 GMT -5
sounds like a good case for federal protection, to me. Yes, good luck proving that you weren't hired because of gender. i don't really have anything to worry about, dear. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/wink.png)
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,873
|
Post by zibazinski on Dec 17, 2015 10:55:24 GMT -5
do you mind me asking: why? Because it's a choice. I regret not choosing a career where I made big bucks but I chose a more family friendly career. That choice led to a lifestyle that I made do with but always wished for more. I had my kids several years apart because daycare was an expense I needed to consider. It's a choice I made and no one else is responsible for my choices but me.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Dec 17, 2015 10:55:34 GMT -5
Yes, the often quoted 78 cents per dollar is misleading at best. It simply compares the overall earnings of full time, year round employees, without controlling for industry, job, hours worked, or any number of other factors. And I agree, those "issues" of the female illegal immigrants and campaign finance reform were out of left field. It looks like they were grasping at straws. if women are funneled into low paying professions, without any real opportunities in high paying ones, is that any better than paying them 78 cents/hr for the same work? NOTE: please treat this as a hypothetical. that is all it is. That is only IF you honestly believe women are still "funneled" into those low paying professions. And as to your question about is that any better than paying them 78 cents/hr for the same work...it's not the same thing because it isn't the same work. The argument is inherently flawed, and it's odd how many people (I understand you aren't one of them) fail to either recognize of acknowledge those flaws while arguing that we need to do more to help women in this area when men are already starting to fall behind due to education and other factors (like many of those male dominated manufacturing jobs that paid decently being shipped off-shores). I wonder if those same manufacturing jobs were female dominated, if the discussion would be that they are only being shipped off-shore because it is female dominated? The goal post in the argument are constantly being changed.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Dec 17, 2015 10:56:58 GMT -5
Not exactly true, but it fits nicely into the party narrative for many liberals. what IS exactly true? Very, very few people are economic Darwinist.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,434
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 17, 2015 11:00:51 GMT -5
if women are funneled into low paying professions, without any real opportunities in high paying ones, is that any better than paying them 78 cents/hr for the same work? NOTE: please treat this as a hypothetical. that is all it is. That is only IF you honestly believe women are still "funneled" into those low paying professions. that is what "hypothetical" means, Phoenix: ASSUME for a moment that they ARE.And as to your question about is that any better than paying them 78 cents/hr for the same work...it's not the same thing because it isn't the same work. don't get hung up on "same work". what i am talking about is this. let's say in some parallel universe, like say....19th century England, women are ONLY allowed to pursue professions which are inferior in terms of pay. i am asking you to consider, just for a second, HYPOTHETICALLY, if that is any better than getting inferior pay for the same work. that is all. can you do that for me? purdy please? ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/grin.png) The argument is inherently flawed, and it's odd how many people (I understand you aren't one of them) fail to either recognize of acknowledge those flaws while arguing that we need to do more to help women in this area when men are already starting to fall behind due to education and other factors (like many of those male dominated manufacturing jobs that paid decently being shipped off-shores). I wonder if those same manufacturing jobs were female dominated, if the discussion would be that they are only being shipped off-shore because it is female dominated? The goal post in the argument are constantly being changed. dude. it was a HYPOTHETICAL. i don't care if it is flawed or not. i am asking you to CONSIDER the argument. sheesh. i am NOT moving the goalposts. i am simply asking you to consider a hypothetical. if you can't or won't do that, fine. have a nice day, i guess. ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/rose.gif)
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,434
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 17, 2015 11:03:06 GMT -5
ah. thanks. what do you think of the ADA? That's a whole different (and probably just as long) discussion! is it? the ADA is about accommodating people that have different physical needs. is not paid maternity leave also about accommodating people who have different physical needs? if you are going to argue that getting pregnant is a choice, i would have you consider for a moment where you would be if your mother had chosen NOT to get pregnant.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,434
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 17, 2015 11:04:36 GMT -5
You'd think people would be all for encouraging women to stay in the workforce and move up since greater diversity increases thinking, problem solving, and profits. www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-diversity-makes-us-smarter/So - on a happy note the crazy range of opinions on this board is making us all work harder cognitively. The U.N. does a ton of things that seem flat out wrong. I won't reject their report just because it's the U.N. though. well, there are FACTS in the report, and there are SUGGESTIONS. we can ignore the suggestions, if we like. we should not ignore the facts.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,434
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 17, 2015 11:06:21 GMT -5
Very, very few people are economic Darwinist. agreed. would you agree that those that are economic Darwinists are disproportionately rich and powerful?
|
|
bean29
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 22:26:57 GMT -5
Posts: 10,012
Member is Online
|
Post by bean29 on Dec 17, 2015 11:23:31 GMT -5
Well, I had 8 weeks off with my first child and 10 weeks off with my 2nd. I did receive disability pay both times. 66 2/3 the first time and 100% the second time, although returning to work was difficult, we managed. We would have had two children irregardless of paid leave or unpaid leave. We planned for our kids. The early years with children will be difficult no matter if you get 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months or a year - you will still have struggles.
I am ambibient about providing some time of paid family leave but imho 6 months is excessive, and I was surprised that the professional women here on this board are pretty much against paid family leave. It kind of makes sense though. Having a career requires commitment and planning. Having a family and working requires the same. If you are not capable of long term planning, I don't know if 6 months paid leave is going to do much to improve the situation. It kind of just kicks the can down the street and shifts the financial responsibility for your family onto someone else.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,434
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 17, 2015 11:23:48 GMT -5
do you mind me asking: why? Because it's a choice. I regret not choosing a career where I made big bucks but I chose a more family friendly career. That choice led to a lifestyle that I made do with but always wished for more. I had my kids several years apart because daycare was an expense I needed to consider. It's a choice I made and no one else is responsible for my choices but me. i will grant that the timing is a choice, but not that getting pregnant is. the human race REQUIRES women to get pregnant. our existence depends on it. therefore, it is right up there in the "commons" with air, food, etc- the very TOP of Maslow's pyramid. it is not just "convenience", it is necessity. i get what you are saying, zib- but i think there is an aspect of maternity that is consistently mischaracterized in popular culture, and economics.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,434
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 17, 2015 11:26:34 GMT -5
Well, I had 8 weeks off with my first child and 10 weeks off with my 2nd. I did receive disability pay both times. 66 2/3 the first time and 100% the second time, although returning to work was difficult, we managed. We would have had two children irregardless of paid leave or unpaid leave. We planned for our kids. The early years with children will be difficult no matter if you get 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months or a year - you will still have struggles.
I am ambibient about providing some time of paid family leave but imho 6 months is excessive, and I was surprised that the professional women here on this board are pretty much against paid family leave. It kind of makes sense though. Having a career requires commitment and planning. Having a family and working requires the same. If you are not capable of long term planning, I don't know if 6 months paid leave is going to do much to improve the situation. It kind of just kicks the can down the street and shifts the financial responsibility for your family onto someone else. i think that part of it is the "i made sacrifices, others should have to, too" attitude. we all saw that same idea played out on the minimum wage thread: "i suffered, therefore others should have to, as well". i have never been a fan of that attitude. i think that we should all hope for a better future for our fellow Americans- one that involves less suffering and more achievement and independence. but i guess that makes me a socialist or something.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,434
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 17, 2015 11:36:11 GMT -5
wow. my wild guess was right? ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/grin.png)
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 17, 2015 13:06:27 GMT -5
Because it's a choice. I regret not choosing a career where I made big bucks but I chose a more family friendly career. That choice led to a lifestyle that I made do with but always wished for more. I had my kids several years apart because daycare was an expense I needed to consider. It's a choice I made and no one else is responsible for my choices but me. i will grant that the timing is a choice, but not that getting pregnant is. the human race REQUIRES women to get pregnant. our existence depends on it. therefore, it is right up there in the "commons" with air, food, etc- the very TOP of Maslow's pyramid. it is not just "convenience", it is necessity. i get what you are saying, zib- but i think there is an aspect of maternity that is consistently mischaracterized in popular culture, and economics. Why should women's unique role as bearers of children cause us to nullify the fundamental "pay = productivity" rule? Paid maternity leave is pay without production. There can be no doubt that it breaks the rule. Mandating that businesses selectively break the rule for women is unjust. The fact that paying female employees on maternity leave (in deference to their special role) is noble, sometimes even beneficial to the employer, doesn't annul this injustice. Consider: Orthodox Jews and Christians who observe the seventh day Sabbath (of which I am one) cannot work at our customary jobs from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday. There are no exceptions. If you adhere to the religion, if you believe in it, you cannot break the rule. Employers find this remarkably hard to deal with. Especially up north where sundown can come as early as 4:00 PM in winter, it causes a lot of problems. In a sense, Sabbath-keepers are a liability. Huge Monday morning deadline that requires an over-the-weekend crunch? Can't do it. Major corporate presentation on one of the annual high days? Can't do it. Need somebody to close up shop Friday evening? Can't do it. Even imposing on employers to shuffle hours around--maybe putting in an extra two hours Thursday to take off early on Friday, or working double shifts in the week before the week-long Feast of Booths in the fall--causes a lot of real consternation. Businesses have rules, schedules, and protocols, and an employee that needs to deviate them can gum everything up. Other employees see Joe Sabbath-keeper being accommodated and wonder "why not accommodate my unique needs too?". Which brings me to my point: I don't begrudge businesses for refusing to accommodate me, and I certainly don't support the government forcing them to do so. This is despite the heavy penalties Sabbath-keepers pay for lack of accommodation, which either means being disqualified from being hired, or in some cases being fired when a frantic, irate employer discovers that "no exceptions" really does mean "no exceptions" during a Friday afternoon emergency. The business doesn't exist to accommodate the employee. The business exists to profit the business owners, and the employee's relationship with the business is governed by pay = productivity. Do I consider it a good and noble thing when employers accommodate me? Yes, obviously. But they shouldn't be forced to. It's unjust, just as forcing businesses to pay women for no production during maternity leave is unjust. You don't force businesses to break a fundamental rule as a matter of accommodating a group with unique needs. It's a form of tyranny.
|
|
Peace Of Mind
Senior Associate
[font color="#8f2520"]~ Drinks Well With Others ~[/font]
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:53:02 GMT -5
Posts: 15,554
Location: Paradise
|
Post by Peace Of Mind on Dec 17, 2015 13:09:20 GMT -5
On a serious note...this has been bugging me since I read it and I haven't been able to put my finger on why. It finally hit me. I find grievances like this to be totally counterproductive to what people are trying to achieve. Let's step back for a minute. The goal is equality, right? So how is it logical to demand special treatment in order to get equality? Doesn't that inherently unbalance things? Then you add in what are increasingly becoming IMHO ridiculous slights, the whole message becomes diluted and a parody of itself.
It's already unequal/unbalanced since men can't bear children. Women have to do the procreation so that is why women should be given the proper amount of time to heal and to adjust to the new life as a mother, the majority of child care provider, career/working woman and finding somebody who is qualified to care for their child if they choose to continue to work, keep up with the house/cooking/laundry (which has probably doubled with a puking, pooping, peeing newborn) etc.
I doubt it requires 6 months but not all women snap back to their former selves especially if a C section was involved or a hard birth. I know my mom needed blood transfusions, etc. after the birth of my brother that almost killed her. Not to mention health issues some mother's experience before birth where they can't do normal activities for a period of time.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Dec 17, 2015 13:17:44 GMT -5
OK, so you're against mandated maternity leave, (which, as a woman, I find odd).
You say you had to consider the expense of daycare. Are you also against government-funded daycare, which allows women to re-enter the job market?
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Dec 17, 2015 13:21:52 GMT -5
is it? the ADA is about accommodating people that have different physical needs. is not paid maternity leave also about accommodating people who have different physical needs? if you are going to argue that getting pregnant is a choice, i would have you consider for a moment where you would be if your mother had chosen NOT to get pregnant. Does it take 6 months to a year to physically recover from having a child? We get a year off. Either the mother or father can take the time off. It really has less to do with physically recovering from having a child, but more to do with adjusting to a different lifestyle with lack of sleep, and bonding with the child. It builds stronger families.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Dec 17, 2015 13:30:02 GMT -5
What worries me is what another poster mentioned. Two people interview for a job. One male, one female. What are my chances of the female needing maternity leave vs. the male getting too ill to work? I see women not getting hired and that's tough. Even if your pregnancy is a surprise, you have several months to prepare. If you're barely making ends meet on two pay checks, you have worse problems than an employer who isn't sympathetic to your "wants." I love how conservatives think. They are devoted to babies before they are born and have no problem forcing women to be moms but once the baby is here, God forbid it becomes a drain on productivity or tax dollars. It's every man (or woman, or baby) for himself at that point. By the way, my company always has people out on long term disability for one thing or another. They get up to a year before the company begins thinking about having to fire them. Including new moms in that group is not going to bankrupt my company, and I suspect most companies are that way. As for employers not hiring women because they might want maternity leave - that already exists right now, due to FMLA requiring employers to give women time off without pay. Only difference would be they would have to pay them. Some employers don't want to hire women who are moms, or might become moms, or men who have young kids and working wives (so they're obligated to help with sick kids) - it is what it is. Horseshit. Nobody forces a woman to be a mom except in the very rare cases of pregnancies that result from rapes. Woman choose to have sex and if an unwanted pregnancy results from that CHOICE, to this conservative, it shouldn't mean you should simply be able to kill the consequences of your CHOICE. Don't even pretend to know what conservatives think because you obviously do not have a clue.
Histrionics. Plain and simple.
|
|