Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 04-26-2008, 12:34 AM
 
Location: New Orleans, LA
595 posts, read 2,344,092 times
Reputation: 193

Advertisements

I have little sympathy here. Perhaps I should but I don't have children yet my male coworker constantly takes time off or comes in late or leaves early, and I'm the one who has to stay late, come in early or double up on work because my life and time aren't worth as much according to management.

 
Old 04-26-2008, 04:42 AM
 
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,761,129 times
Reputation: 3587
As America has become a bastion of neo facist conservatism in the past since the 80s, the rights that women gained have largely been lost as the tide of Reaganism has swept into the court system of the country. This kind of practice would be very illegal in most any other industrialized nation in the world- including Canada, our northern neighbour. Women have actually lost rights since the 70's- the only group to have done so. And they stand to lose alot more if the Republicans win this year and McCain gets to replace 2 more Supreme Court justices with clones of Thomas and Roberts. This is what I try to tell women all the time. You women should not be so mad that, if Hillary loses, you go and do something foolish like vote for McCain. Barrack Obama cares about your issues too and his court appointments will prove that. A McCain win will virtually assure a hostile court system for decades for you.
 
Old 04-26-2008, 04:07 PM
 
3,255 posts, read 5,079,681 times
Reputation: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevK View Post
As America has become a bastion of neo facist conservatism in the past since the 80s, the rights that women gained have largely been lost as the tide of Reaganism has swept into the court system of the country. This kind of practice would be very illegal in most any other industrialized nation in the world- including Canada, our northern neighbour. Women have actually lost rights since the 70's- the only group to have done so. And they stand to lose alot more if the Republicans win this year and McCain gets to replace 2 more Supreme Court justices with clones of Thomas and Roberts. This is what I try to tell women all the time. You women should not be so mad that, if Hillary loses, you go and do something foolish like vote for McCain. Barrack Obama cares about your issues too and his court appointments will prove that. A McCain win will virtually assure a hostile court system for decades for you.
I agree that worker's rights as a whole are eroding. I just do not want children couched as a woman's issue, and I do not want women to carry this burden alone. All workers are harmed when management does not manage for people as well as products. We are not robots, we are humans who are providing services for pay. If I can fulfill my obligation to your bottom line by making up hours, it makes sense that managers allow it, but in many cases, managers do not look at the big picture.
 
Old 04-26-2008, 04:12 PM
 
5,273 posts, read 14,543,882 times
Reputation: 5881
I don't have a real big problem with this. I work in a company with 7 employees. Temps are out of the question for a lot of the work we do. If we had 5 women of child bearing age we would have to close down. Does that seem right? Of course not.

On the other hand, if we were a company of 700 employees it's a lot easier to absorb a few maternaty leaves at the same time.
 
Old 04-26-2008, 09:43 PM
 
2,137 posts, read 3,859,258 times
Reputation: 608
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevK View Post
As America has become a bastion of neo facist conservatism in the past since the 80s, the rights that women gained have largely been lost as the tide of Reaganism has swept into the court system of the country. This kind of practice would be very illegal in most any other industrialized nation in the world- including Canada, our northern neighbour. Women have actually lost rights since the 70's- the only group to have done so. And they stand to lose alot more if the Republicans win this year and McCain gets to replace 2 more Supreme Court justices with clones of Thomas and Roberts. This is what I try to tell women all the time. You women should not be so mad that, if Hillary loses, you go and do something foolish like vote for McCain. Barrack Obama cares about your issues too and his court appointments will prove that. A McCain win will virtually assure a hostile court system for decades for you.
What rights have women been lost since the 1970's?
 
Old 04-26-2008, 09:49 PM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,100 posts, read 39,258,323 times
Reputation: 4937
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevK View Post
Women have actually lost rights since the 70's- the only group to have done so.
KevK - Please, enlighten all of us as to exactly what rights women have "lost" since the 70's - and remember, the ERA was being debated in the 70's and 80's (and 90's) which INCREASED rights

Please - we need to know.
 
Old 04-26-2008, 10:22 PM
 
2,137 posts, read 3,859,258 times
Reputation: 608
This is a complex problem. I look at it in pretty simple ways. I judge people as individuals...sex, race, physical disability doesn't sway me one way or another as long as the applicant can perform the job. If I was interviewing people for an open position I would try to figure out if the applicant had a personal situation that might negatively impact the job. If that is finding out during an interview that a newly married is now anxious to begin a family....well, that will be a negative impact. If it is a man with a wife who will be a sahm, very litte negative impact, and some really positive impact as,in my experience these guys usually want to do a good job to keep the job. If it is a woman...that would be a major negative. If this were a low skilled position....I would not hire the woman. Period. If it were a highly skilled position and the woman would be a valuable asset AND she said that her husband was going to be a sahdad...I'd take the hit of her being off 3 months then returning and putting 100% effort into the job. No leaving for dr's apts every week, etc.

I've employed people before and have been in management. I like having a certain amount of personal time/sick time/vacation time written in stone. All people have personal issues that need to sometimes be addressed on company time. Just because you are a mother, in my eyes, you get no more leeway than any one else. You might have a school play to attend at 2:30 pm wednesday and if you have banked time and can work it out with others in the office, fine--go. Same as the man who wants to see a major league baseball game and got stellar tickets. Fine--go. It's equal to me. I'm all about equality.

Before someone plays the emotion card....It won't work on me. Having children is a choice. This decision is made by the parent and they should figure out all the difficult details....One being the real possibility that unless you are in a high demand job, employers are usually going to choose employees that are not going to be taking off work a lot for personal reasons. Young children require a lot of attention. Everyone knows this and that is why employers do not want to hire women that either have young kids or are planning to get pregnant and take a lot of time off then come back to work and disrupt the work environment with personal things.

Last edited by Elmonellie; 04-26-2008 at 11:50 PM..
 
Old 04-27-2008, 12:00 AM
 
1,080 posts, read 1,711,536 times
Reputation: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevK View Post
As America has become a bastion of neo facist conservatism in the past since the 80s, the rights that women gained have largely been lost as the tide of Reaganism has swept into the court system of the country. This kind of practice would be very illegal in most any other industrialized nation in the world- including Canada, our northern neighbour. Women have actually lost rights since the 70's- the only group to have done so. And they stand to lose alot more if the Republicans win this year and McCain gets to replace 2 more Supreme Court justices with clones of Thomas and Roberts. This is what I try to tell women all the time. You women should not be so mad that, if Hillary loses, you go and do something foolish like vote for McCain. Barrack Obama cares about your issues too and his court appointments will prove that. A McCain win will virtually assure a hostile court system for decades for you.
Wow...it's almost as if you believe that, by you saying this stuff, it actually makes it true. Of course, this is true of most liberals...in fact, if you don't display this type of "if I say it, it's true" behavior, you probably aren't capable of being a liberal in the first place.

Anyway, I am 100% for protecting mothers from any form of discrimination. However, if a private company feels that a single parent would be less able do fulfill the duties of a particular job than a childless applicant, or an applicant with a spouse at home to care for the children, I don't see how it is the business of the government. Yes, being a single parent is hard and it sometimes interferes with work...but the bottom line is that a company is out to make money and if certain types of employees get in the way of making money, it is only logical for them to try to avoid those types of employees. If a company feels that they can make up for those deficencies by providing on-site daycare or by juggling shifts around a bit, great...but they should not be forced to hire someone that would be a detriment.

I'm sorry, but nature did not create men and women equally...we have different roles, regardless of any liberal wishful thinking to the contrary. Women have the babies and are better suited to care for them than are men. That's not me talking, that's nature, baby. If we want our civilization (Western Civilization, specifically) to continue, I'm afraid we have to suck it up and let women have babies while men go out and take care of their women. The dramatically falling birthrates all over Europe, and even starting to show up here in America, should convince you of the truth of what I say...although if you are a liberal, silly things like cold, hard facts are unlikely to sway your opinion...
 
Old 04-27-2008, 05:47 AM
 
21,026 posts, read 22,147,970 times
Reputation: 5941
Good for both of you!

Don't hire women with children! Then they can stay at home with their kids , collect Welfare, and live off YOU without having to work!

 
Old 04-27-2008, 05:56 AM
 
Location: The Netherlands
8,568 posts, read 16,232,534 times
Reputation: 1573
Originally Posted by Who?Me?!
Quote:
Don't hire women with children! Then they can stay at home with their kids , collect Welfare, and live off YOU without having to work!
I would never claim that raising children is not work, cause it is.
But raising children is not a job because you won't get paid for it.

Children do cost loads of money tho.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:20 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top