Ok Lets say a company has 100 female employees. Giving each of those this paid leave would mean paying for 1200 days. Le
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Religion, Faith, and Spirituality
Thorshairspray — 9 years ago(January 18, 2017 02:46 PM)
Ok
Lets say a company has 100 female employees. Giving each of those this paid leave would mean paying for 1200 days.
Lets say they earn on average £20,000, they would earn £57 per day. So the company needs to pay out £68,500 plus NI @11% so £76,000 extra.
So it becomes more cost effective to hire men.
they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. -
mervispool — 9 years ago(January 19, 2017 05:05 AM)
Sure. In jobs where a female candidate is the preferred option if not the necessity, employers don't really have a choice. But I'd say a strong majority of jobs in society can be accomplished by either men or women candidates.
For exampleI work in construction and I've worked with several women who were as capable as any man. But in my field you don't get sick days. If you don't work you don't get paid. It's a system that works just fine. -
bubblegum_jenocide — 9 years ago(January 18, 2017 09:38 AM)
I said "Equally qualified" The male candidate is just as good as you, but you cost £800 a year more to employ. Why would I employ you?
Once again, I'm not in a position where I can't hack it. Let's pretend period leave is a thing. Okay. Great.
IF, and that's a big IF, I need it, it's there. But unless it's mandatory, you're whole argument is weak. So let's say I
qualify
for two weeks off every year in addition to sick time, vacation timeall that. That doesn't mean I'll
use
two weeks. It's like maternity leave. Some women don't use their full maternity leave. Some women don't use it at all. Some women come into a job with three kids and ain't planning on having any more. Some women don't want kids, period. Some might be unable to conceive.
Just because something is there, doesn't mean it's automatically going to be used. -
Thorshairspray — 9 years ago(January 18, 2017 11:30 AM)
IF, and that's a big IF, I need it, it's there. But unless it's mandatory, you're whole argument is weak. So let's say I qualify for two weeks off every year in addition to sick time, vacation timeall that. That doesn't mean I'll use two weeks.
Great, how does you prospective employer know you won't use it? You can easily say you won't use it, but then use it and the employer can do nothing.
It's like maternity leave.
Women don't get pregnant every month. And maternity leave isn't paid for by the employer. Are you expecting the taxpayer to pay for this?
they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. -
bubblegum_jenocide — 9 years ago(January 18, 2017 11:59 AM)
Are you expecting the taxpayer to pay for this?
I ain't expecting sh!t. It's not like I proposed this idea.
This isn't a bill
I'M
introducing on the Floor.
I don't think I've ever known a woman whose period would keep them from going to work anyway. We can lactate, bleed for a week, and squeeze living beings out of our bodies.
You really think a day at work while going for a magic maxi ride is gonna slow us down? You act like I support this. I'm neutral. I don't care either way. All I'm saying is your argument is based on women taking advantage of it. Who says that would be the case?
Women don't get pregnant every month.
And maternity leave ain't two days. And? -
Thorshairspray — 9 years ago(January 18, 2017 01:51 PM)
I ain't expecting sh!t. It's not like I proposed this idea.
I didn't say you were.
I asked you why if this happened would people hire women given that they would be entitled to two weeks paid leave more than men. You have yet to answer this.
Whether you or anyone you know would abuse this means nothing. You could and that is the point.
And maternity leave ain't two days. And?
So the two things aren't comparable.
they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. -
bubblegum_jenocide — 9 years ago(January 18, 2017 02:30 PM)
You have yet to answer this.
You say that like I'm expected to answer a question on a scenario I didn't put forth.
My original comment was a hypothetical question to make people think about the money having a period costs us. You drug the conversation in this direction.
I don't have an answer to that. I'm not an employer. I feel like I'm repeating this a lot, but, oh what the hell, one more time: This hypothetical scenario is not something I support, nor do I see myself taking advantage of it were it to become reality. Based on that, isn't my opinion on this null and void anyway? Would you ask someone who doesn't watch TV to answer a question of their favorite shows?
I'm not an employer; I'm an employee who is more than capable of toughing out a day at work while on my period. So why is my non-existent opinion on this matter so important to you?
But since you want to pretend, well, then, let's pretend. Let's say I run Jenocidal Industries and I'm looking to fill a position. I interview someone who is like, "yeah, I don't work when I'm menstruating." Then, I'd be like, "you ain't right for this company then. I need someone tough."
Countless women the world over go to work and, to my knowledge, none benefit from period leave. It's not necessary. We can handle it; we've been handling since Eve. So it's rather confusing that you're asking me to defend a position that I don't really support one way or the other.
Whether you or anyone you know would abuse this means nothing. You could and that is the point.
People can abuse sick days. Sowhat are you getting at? -
Thorshairspray — 9 years ago(January 18, 2017 02:37 PM)
You say that like I'm expected to answer a question on a scenario I didn't put forth.
No its one I put forth, that is usually how it works.
My original comment was a hypothetical question to make people think about the money having a period costs us. You drug the conversation in this direction.
I told you. £60 a year of which £3 is tax. Then you told me to stop talking about it.
This hypothetical scenario is not something I support, nor do I see myself taking advantage of it were it to become reality. Based on that, isn't my opinion on this null and void anyway? Would you ask someone who doesn't watch TV to answer a question of their favorite shows?
IT is perfect legitimate to ask a question about TV to a person posting in a TV thread, whether they watch TV or not. If you have no interest in talking about it, fine, but why are you in this thread?
I'm not an employer; I'm an employee who is more than capable of toughing out a day at work while on my period. So why is my non-existent opinion on this matter so important to you?
Well done. I'm not gay or disabled, so should I have no opinion on these things?
Countless women the world over go to work and, to my knowledge, none benefit from period leave. It's not necessary. We can handle it; we've been handling since Eve. So it's rather confusing that you're asking me to defend a position that I don't really support one way or the other.
Well done.I don't care because it isn't relevant to anything.
they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. -
bubblegum_jenocide — 9 years ago(January 18, 2017 02:48 PM)
Then you told me to stop talking about it.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-nsMh46PvCos/Uo1WTkQO_QI/AAAAAAAAWE0/nGab8hRukHo/s1600/ngg25.gif -
Thorshairspray — 9 years ago(January 18, 2017 04:51 PM)
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-x4YOs9lfUD8/Vb_oQ4x6pHI/AAAAAAAAngI/A-bDGXOO9i0/s1600/hmc.gif
they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
