Daughter Water [Gender Pay Inequality]

[quote=Meiyjhe][quote=jhoijhoi]I'm absolutely happy to concede that at a certain point in pregnancy, a woman may not be able to perform to full potential; it is at this point that many women decide to take maternity leave. However, I fail to see how this is an acceptable reason for women to not work whilst pregnant. A woman can also suffer mood-swings due to her period - should employees refrain from employing a woman in the event they'll bleed, have a head-ache/stomach ache and preform less than normal? Maybe I'm missing the point here, but from what I'm reading, many of you think that it's okay for employees to think about women as child-bearers, and as such will be unproductive during a potential pregnancy. And during pregnancy, without even considering who the mother may be, you think that their ability to work will be sub-par. There are plenty of jobs that women can work effectively well into their pregnancy (thinking about teaching, office jobs); on the flip side, there are plenty of jobs that women will cease working effectively (waitressing, any sort of manual labour job). However, what I just wrote above is again, a stereotype, as a pregnant woman's ability to do what she sets her mind on is only limited by what she wants to do. For all I know, pregnant waitresses find it easier to work in diners when they're pregnant (maybe they get more tips?). My ultimate point is, just because a woman is pregnant, they don't automatically become sub par workers in all conditions. But many people do believe that women don't work as efficiently when they're pregnant. The problem is in the mindset of negativity.[/quote] No one said that women cannot work while being pregnant, they just said that their productivity will be less. A pregnant woman is more vulnerable to sickness and fatigue (as was mentioned by others), being tired or sick way more often than a regular person is a big downside for an employee. If the employer can choose to either hire someone that is sick and tired or someone that is not (while both having the same background and demanding the same loan), the employer will of course choose for the one that is not suffering from these symptomps. There are probably situations where a woman with a non-physical demanding job gets paid less than a man while pregnacy is not an issue. This would be of course unfair, which I think we all can agree on. If pregnacy is involved however, you can't expect from employees to give you the exact same treatment as everyone else.[/quote]

[quote=jhoijhoi][quote=sirell]Just because the law or state says that something is the case, doesn't mean it's true.[/quote] Of course; this is true for many things that have happened in the past, as you mention. But in this particular case I think the Anti-Discrimination Act is a vital set of laws and legislation in place to protect people from employers with your mindset. If employers were able to just pick and choose who to hire based upon a set of [b]"unrelated to the actual job"[/b] qualities they wanted, there'd be a lot of people out there unemployed. [quote=jhoijhoi]Ah, I must have missed this point. In which case your ideas/opinions are discriminatory in general. You pretty much just said, "I wouldn't hire a parent". Can you imagine a world where all employers refused to employ people who had children or planned to have children? Now you're talking about "carer or parental status discrimination".[/quote] [quote=sirell]Firstly, there's a difference between someone who intends to have children and a parent. The employer is already aware of what is meant in employing someone who is already a parent. However, the situation may change with someone who intends to have children, since it will [b][i]100%[/b][/i] guarantee that the employee will be absent for maternity/paternity leave.[/quote] Have you been reading what I've been writing? You cannot discriminate against people who plan to become parents. It is illegal to ask the question "What are your plans for family" or "Are you planning on taking maternity/paternity leave in the near future". However, you don't seem to have a regard at all for anti-discrimination laws, so I'm not sure if my above comment will help you understand that you are being discriminatory. [quote=sirell]I have been constantly and always talking about the employers' discretion in picking what they consider to be the optimal employee (which will, ultimately involve some of discerning of ability, which you call 'discrimination'), in particular, with their discretion, I think it's entirely fine for them to consider that it's more convenient not to employ a worker who will take time off and will require replacement.[/quote] What you're saying is that, given the chance between only these two options, you would hire a woman who declares she won't get pregnant over a woman who says she will. Now, assuming the two women have the same qualifications for the job, the first option is fine. However, if the second woman (the one who will get pregnant) is more qualified for the job and you don't hire her, you are being discriminatory based upon her human rights choice to get pregnant. That is the law, and ultimately, doesn't have anything to do with what the employer thinks is convenient or in their "discretion". [quote=sirell]So let's assume pregnancy discrimination is valid. By extension, why can I not argue against 'non-skilled discrimination'? I have no skills in the job area, but why should that mean the employer doesn't have to consider me for employment? No, fuck them, they should employ me and they should teach me, so I can do the job, because that's what equality's about, isn't it? Equal opportunity, equal pay, isn't that what you're saying? Hell, resumes and CVs shouldn't matter at all! What about age? Should that be a consideration, or would that be 'discrimination' too? Hell, I'm 12 years old, I should be able to get any job with the proper qualifications, right? What about when I'm 90?[/quote] I'll go over a few of these things. It's not discrimination if you do not have qualifications for the job; I know you said this was a ridiculous scenario, but comparing a pregnant woman/non-pregnant woman with a person with qualifications/no qualifications is a huge stretch. Technically speaking, if you are successful in gaining employment and the qualifications change so that you need further education, the employer can't fire you; instead they must make accommodations so that you can gain that education (so yes, they will teach you). As for age, "It is not against the law to refuse someone a job if, because of their age, they can’t perform the ‘inherent requirements’ of the position. In other words, you must be able to carry out the essential duties of the job."[/quote] [quote=sirell]No. No. No. No. No. Stop removing what I am saying out of context, for god's sakes. I don't even know whether I should really try and explain it any further, because you just completely extrapolate and put words in my mouth that I don't even IMPLY, let alone say.[/quote] Also, would just like to say that as an English teacher I am very analytically critical and am trained to read the gaps and silences in a text, to indeed extrapolate and interpret values, attitudes and beliefs behind the plain ideas.[/quote]

[quote=jhoijhoi][quote=Meiyjhe]If the employer can choose to either hire someone that is sick and tired or someone that is not ([b]while both having the same background and demanding the same loan[/b]), the employer will of course choose for the one that is not suffering from these symptomps.[/quote] Yes. Which is what I said earlier. [s]However, Sirell is claiming that even if the pregnant/planning to be pregnant mother has more qualifications than another woman, he'd rather hire the woman with no plans for pregnancy (and less qualifications) due to his view that pregnancy reduces a woman's ability to work (including days off due to maternity leave).[/s] < This is my assumption, due to my analysis of what he's been saying; it may not actually be the case, let's wait and see. [quote=meiyjhe]If pregnacy is involved however, you can't expect from employees to give you the exact same treatment as everyone else.[/quote] This is a whole new can of worms, but actually, employers ARE expected to make allowances or accommodations for pregnant women.[/quote]

[quote=Toshabi]Wut dah fuck did eye just read. Pregnant women here are heavily compensated by my WC office via fancy equipment and such. And I dunno about this unequal pay thing eitherz given that all the superiors and even the VP is a woman (and the head of the department for WC that contracts my company is a woman) In fact, the boss at my company (and I mean 51% in control of the assets) is a woman so. All my life, my superiors have been women so not sure wtf all these bs statistics are coming from. #ToshabiTellsItAsHeLivesIt Not to mention maternaty leave is encouraged for both males and females WHAT IT WORKS FOR BOTH GENDERS FOR TIME OFF WTFFFFF :OOOOOOO And the "If she's gonna be prego, she won't get hired bit"; duh. You don't bring that shit up in interviews. My brother, who needed surgery for his shoupder, was denied jobs for even bringing up that he'd need to get that done down the road. You leave that shit out of interviews cause HR departments are filled with fat bitches who don't care and shouldn't care about shit like that. They just want people who will get the job done. So fuck dis rant. I think. I really don't care, yall are crazy bitches and Toshabi has no problem with this world.[/quote]

[quote=jhoijhoi]Sounds like a very family friendly workplace Tosh :) The education employment system here in Australia is similar, very accommodating for pregnant teachers and expectant fathers. My own experience with pregnancy related discrimination is nil; all the teachers I know of who have had time off come back to work part time or full time depending on which they would rather do, and of course teachers who have children are seen in a more positive light, so win win for everyone. I'm pretty glad I'm in the education industry :3 [quote=Toshabi]And the "If she's gonna be prego, she won't get hired bit"; duh. You don't bring that shit up in interviews. [/quote] Yah, but the point is, women often get asked if they are planning on starting a family any time soon, which is discriminatory; women don't preface an interview by blurting out that they're pregnant or plan to be in the near future.[/quote]

[quote=Toshabi]That's why you say "I want to get settled the fuck down first before I decide to poop out a child". The same goes for anything else (surgery, weddings, trip to the mountains to study sorcery, ect.) Your weakness is that you're simply not lying. It's not discrimination, it's you not being able to play the game. I.E: I told my boss during the interview that I'm looking for a company to settle down in, and yet I plan on moving in a year when I finish my animation major. The kicker? That plan changed when the future panned out and I actually might be at this company long term. You keep important shit confidential as needed. You don't know if that kid you wanted so bad will be a good idea next week. For those questions you say "I'm not sure yet, I want to grow my career first before I even consider it". Seriously, it's like non of you have had a real job before.[/quote]

[quote=Meiyjhe][quote=jhoijhoi]Yes. Which is what I said earlier. However, Sirell is claiming that even if the pregnant/planning to be pregnant mother has more qualifications than another woman, he'd rather hire the woman with no plans for pregnancy (and less qualifications) due to his view that pregnancy reduces a woman's ability to work (including days off due to maternity leave).[/quote] This is a situation that depends purely on what kind of job and how much more qualifications the pregnant woman really has. I do not have the knowledge to go deeper on this. [quote=jhoijhoi]This is a whole new can of worms, but actually, employers ARE expected to make allowances or accommodations for pregnant women.[/quote] Yeah exactly. If the employer is adapting to the pegnant women, it is indeed giving pregnant women a different treatment. Does the employer want to do this? Probably not. Thus the employer would likely take someone else over the pregnant woman instead, or reduce the womans paycheck.[/quote]

[quote=GrandmasterD][quote=Toshabi]trip to the mountains to study sorcery[/quote] Oh wait, you [b]don't[/b] share that?! Well, learnt something new. [quote=jhoijhoi]Also, [color=#FF0000]I[/color] would just like to say that[color=#FF0000],[/color] as an English teacher[color=#FF0000],[/color] I am very analytically critical and am trained to read the gaps and silences in a text[s],[/s] to[color=#FF0000],[/color] indeed[color=#FF0000],[/color] extrapolate and interpret values, attitudes[color=#FFFF00],[/color] and beliefs behind the plain ideas.[/quote] ftfy. Also, I would rephrase a few of those sentences. ^^[/quote]

[quote=sirell][quote=jhoijhoi]However, Sirell is claiming that even if the pregnant/planning to be pregnant mother has more qualifications than another woman, he'd rather hire the woman with no plans for pregnancy (and less qualifications) due to his view that pregnancy reduces a woman's ability to work (including days off due to maternity leave).[/quote] Stop. Stop. For your own dignity (especially as 'an English teacher analytically trained to read subtext and bullshit that's meant to be RESTRICTED TO LITERATURE'), please just stop. That's not what I fucking said. Stop misquoting me, stop DELIBERATELY misconstruing what I've said to make it fit some further bullshit point you come up with. You are seriously 10 different levels of dense right now. You have 0 comprehension of ANYTHING I said. [quote=sirell]Then that's up to the employer to discern the trade-off between an absent but great worker as opposed to (let's say) a consistently average worker.[/quote] That's what I said. Seriously, this is why I'm not accepting your apology. You don't even know what you're supposed to be apologising for! Edit: Incidentally, what is this bullshit? [quote=jhoijhoi]Also, would just like to say that as an English teacher I am very analytically critical and am trained to read the gaps and silences in a text, to indeed extrapolate and interpret values, attitudes and beliefs behind the plain ideas.[/quote] I'm a postgraduate philosophy major studying at Birkbeck College and UCL, and on average (according to a former Wall Steet Journal article which was unfortunately removed, so I can't actually provide evidence for this) students of philosophy have a far better understanding of the English language than English majors. In addition, philosophy majors have to study mandatory texts that are far harder than the standard of English literature in terms of analytical demand and English writing. Now, this isn't to say I'm actually a good philosophy student, but what I am saying is that before you go blowing your own horn, that shit doesn't work with me, as is evident by your severe lack of proper comprehension on what I have even said. If you are trained to extrapolate and interpret, then I am never going to where you were trained.[/quote]

[quote=Jovy]Déjà vu.[/quote]