The Political Discussion Thread

[Womble]

Ummm.. Might I point out that by giving one group special consideration, you are by definition showing favoritism.

How about just treating all employees the same?

But they're not the same. Employees are people, not mass-produced identical robots.

There used to be a time - still not quite passed - when women were at a severe disadvantage with employers, because women get pregnant and men don't. If you treat a woman and a man "the same" when hiring (or firing- say, firing a young woman due to her getting pregnant), you're effectively discriminating. People with children and people without children have different needs. If children are important to the society, both state - mandated and employee-initiated protection of their needs makes sense.

Moreover, the vast majority of people will eventually have children. If you want to retain experienced employees, it's good business sense to accommodate them when necessary. It DOES mean that single, childless people get shafted sometimes, but chances are they will eventually make use of the same advantages.

My travel agency has walk-in branches, but the bulk of it is essentially a website and a call-center support. We have two employees in the operations department who are hearing-impaired (one deaf, one using hearing-aids but not hearing well enough even with them to work a phone line). I don't think an American call center would've hired them. Here, they do a splendid job communicating with customers using text messages and e-mail, and the head of operations department has taken it upon herself to learn sign language and teach others. Their needs are accommodated in the same way people with children's needs are accommodated.

I suppose our employers could "treat everyone equally" and refuse to hire people with small children, but that would mean they couldn't retain promising young people for more than a couple of years. A typical operations dept. employee is a 20-something girl who gets married and / or pregnant within her first two years in the company; the running joke is that any woman promoted to supervisor in that department gets pregnant within months of the promotion.

[Falcon Horus]

I also have a vague understanding on how companies make products and change "plates" (or templates) for new designs. Each template costs money, so somewhere along the way, someone is going to pay for the changes in the labeling design.

It's called Marketing - a pretty important thing for a company too.

Of course parents should be given the chance to care for their kids. Single people or childless people should help out and invest in the nation's future by allowing for such sacrifices.

Personally, I can take it - up to a point.

[pookey]

People who dont have kids shouldnt be punished for that.
We have a girl at our place, she has a husband and two kids, she works from 11-2 then 4-6, these are the hours in the contract she signed, these are the hours we need from her they total 20 hours a week, now, she is constantly having time off and altering her days off, usually when it is either mine or the other person that works with us, time off, she has sick kid, we allow for that, we have been nothing but accomodating but she still moans, she lost her child care, so she was looking for another, so she thinks that she can alter her hours to 9-2, this means she still gets her hours, but, we are left without the second shift covered, this is what is known as taking the piss, you see she makes sure she is getting her hours, even tho those particular hours dont exsist, we work full time, we have no children, that does not mean we should damn well keep messing up our lives for hers.

Edit: the management refused her those hours, good for them

[Falcon Horus]

We have fixed hours, and fulltimers need to work 7,5h a day. The employer thus expects those who leave early to start early, or to work longer the next day.

Most adhere to the rules, some don't.

[pookey]

One rule for one, one rule for another, you can allow so much, after that it is taking the piss

[Annoyed]

One rule for one, one rule for another, you can allow so much, after that it is taking the piss

Exactly. There should be no preferential treatment for employees just because they have kids. Particularly in cases that require the single/childless workers to take up the slack, as it is in most cases.

If the company wants to provide accommodations for employees with kids, fine. Hire another employee to take up the slack, don't dump it off on the the childless workers.

Of course, that would make the employer wonder why they need the employee who has to have special accommodations in the first place....

[SoulReaver]

(you overlooked GF's question as to whether you got paid for the overtime)²

How about just treating all employees the same?

so do you think such favouritism should be illegal?

[Annoyed]

Of course I was paid for the OT. But I didn't want the OT to begin with, I had other things going on that needed time and attention. But for us single/childless, it wasn't optional.

As far as whether or not it should be legally enforced, I'm of two minds on that.. It is a private business, and they have the right to operate it as they see fit, but since it involves treating employees equally, it should be regulated, as are min. wage laws, etc.

[garhkal]

To be fair to FH, she never made that statement, she too seems frustrated by it.

I could put forward the point that a person in a stable relationship, especially where children are involved -can- seem a more attractive option for employers, simply because a single person is -statistically- more likely to quit a job (note, statistically, not anecdotally) as they tend to have no commitments to anything but themselves, and an employer may feel that a small additional cost is worth that security. In a "At will employment" environment however, (like much of the US) pay rates are privately negotiated, and if someone can negotiate better than you, that's not their fault, it's your failing. (collective your, not you personally Garhkal)

But isn't the fact that the married/with kids person going to be off work longer/more often out earlier/later cause OF their family commitments compared to a single kid showing they are NOT as reliable?

Most adhere to the rules, some don't.

Agreed. It is the bad apples that seem to make everyone dislike the process of catering to those with kids.. Though to me, it seems far more of those 'with kids' milk the system, than other aspects of the work force milking it..

Case and point. In the military, Dual-mil couples, or single parents are required to have what's called a Family plan for when/if they deploy or otherwise will be away from their kid(s) for a significant time period. Several times i have seen single parents either IGNORE putting one in, and not got punished for it, or had one, but ignored what was on it, crying foul when someone DID try to get on their case about it.

[Britta]

your comparisons are becoming increasingly desperate

Really? Projecting much?

we're talkin' about human life....so naturally you compare human life to things that have no life at all, i.e., building supplies, and still have no life at all even when assembled into what it's supposed to be, i.e., a house

if you knew anything at all about human biology it's that every piece of biological information defining the new life as a human being is present from the first moment of conception

Not all humans are persons. To say otherwise is quite frankly preposterous.

all that's left after conception is growth and development...the process by which the biological information already present in the unborn baby only needs to differentiate...but you would withhold the baby's status as a human being based upon some magic stage in the baby's growth and development

Yes, growth of the parts that instill personhood. The development of awareness is hardly a magical stage, though I suppose I can think of some people to whom such a thing must seem quite magical indeed.

[aretood2]

It's called Marketing - a pretty important thing for a company too.



Personally, I can take it - up to a point.

People who dont have kids shouldnt be punished for that.
We have a girl at our place, she has a husband and two kids, she works from 11-2 then 4-6, these are the hours in the contract she signed, these are the hours we need from her they total 20 hours a week, now, she is constantly having time off and altering her days off, usually when it is either mine or the other person that works with us, time off, she has sick kid, we allow for that, we have been nothing but accomodating but she still moans, she lost her child care, so she was looking for another, so she thinks that she can alter her hours to 9-2, this means she still gets her hours, but, we are left without the second shift covered, this is what is known as taking the piss, you see she makes sure she is getting her hours, even tho those particular hours dont exsist, we work full time, we have no children, that does not mean we should damn well keep messing up our lives for hers.

Edit: the management refused her those hours, good for them

Well, yes of course there's a line. And as for Pooks, that person just sounds like they are entitled period. I doubt that they would be any different if they were single and childless.

[mad_gater]

Really? Projecting much?



Not all humans are persons. To say otherwise is quite frankly preposterous.



Yes, growth of the parts that instill personhood. The development of awareness is hardly a magical stage, though I suppose I can think of some people to whom such a thing must seem quite magical indeed.

the Founding Fathers of our once great country might beg to differ....they seemed to hold to this rather crazy notion that ALL human beings are CREATED equal (and no one can deny the creation of a new human child in the womb as a created human being)

pretty desperate argument there, to imply that our personhood as human beings is stored in some rather ambiguous "part" of our persons

is a baby any more or any less self-aware outside of the womb as he was inside of the womb?

the only things a baby is aware of, whether inside or outside of the womb, are the instinctual biological needs of eating, drinking, breathing, and waste elimination, oh and sleep, with the only difference being that inside the womb, all of those imperatives are fulfilled via the umbilical tube and possibly other tubes (been awhile since A&P so I'm not sure if there are other tubes involves besides the umbilical cord or not)

oh and if the "cell cluster" inside the womb is not a human baby, then what, pray tell, does all the kicking that expectant mothers commonly are very happy about?

[mad_gater]

oh and please tell me what magical biological changes occurred during the process of me growing from the single diploid cell I began as to the human being I am today?

I'm either a human being or I'm not.....can't have it both ways

if I am a human being then I had to have been so since I was first created in the womb, not when someone decided I was to be designated as such

pure and simple reproductive biology made that designation

[jelgate]

Someone has confused meosis with mitosis

[SoulReaver]

oh and please tell me what magical biological changes occurred during the process of me growing from the single diploid cell I began as to the human being I am today?

I'm either a human being or I'm not.....can't have it both ways

you mean consciousness ain't a magical thing?
you mean there's a scientific explanation?
you mean there's no soul?
you mean you're atheist?

either you're religious or you're not.....can't have it both ways ^_^