A male coworker was having a gripe today because he's been forced to cover for a female coworker who is about to use many months of further maternity leave for the second time in two years. The kicker is that both of them went for the position when it was advertised a few years ago and she was narrowly successful over him, but she's seldom around and he has to pick up the pieces. Then she returns and he gets demoted again, in effect.
He believes it's sexism since our employer has a very pro female advancement policy or activism, and he may be right. I'm a bit torn on this. If someone wants to cough up children, they probably should just leave but on the other hand, having a child shouldn't be the end of someone's career either.
If someone isn't present to do the job, should they be retained at their former position level when they return, offered another position, or just let go?
My coworker and his spouse don't have children nor want them, and they're career oriented. How is Ms. Baby Machine's behaviour fair to either of them?
Of course its reverse sexism.
If I make a choice to go on an extended vacation after taking a leave of absence for six to twelve monthsc, should I get my job back? Of course not. People make choices in life, and with every choice, there is a sacrifice.
But in this case, she gets her cake and is allowed to eat it.
Actually, if your workplace allows for frequent mat leave, then the guy in your workplace should get the job of the woman if she wants to go on leave all the time, and she should get demoted.
As far as I know, it's also acceptable under law and I doubt any employer in Australia would have the gumption to say that a woman couldn't have back to back children and keep her job. The nutty feminists would have a field day with that in the media.
A woman shouldn't be penalized because she is the gender who has a baby.
Here in Canada, a man can take parental leave instead of a woman. A woman is the only one able to take pregnancy leave. A person cannot be fired for taking leave under both our employment law and our human rights code.
Quote from: "RW"
A woman shouldn't be penalized because she is the gender who has a baby.
Here in Canada, a man can take parental leave instead of a woman. A woman is the only one able to take pregnancy leave. A person cannot be fired for taking leave under both our employment law and our human rights code.
I'm all for that but have to wonder if it's not musical chairs and one gender has it over the other gender should they want to control the chairs with their pregnancies in quick bursts.
Imagine if this female coworker has a third or fourth child over the next 2-2 and a half years? Think of the poor guy who does her job in the meantime but got passed over for advancement before she even had her first?
If he's good enough to do her job while she's mostly gone, why didn't he get the job right from the start? If she's always gone, why does she keep her job? If he sticks around when she doesn't, why isn't he advanced above her?
When did employment become a charity basket case?
So you think a woman should be punished in her career because she has to step out to have a baby?
Quote from: "Dinky Dianna"
A male coworker was having a gripe today because he's been forced to cover for a female coworker who is about to use many months of further maternity leave for the second time in two years. The kicker is that both of them went for the position when it was advertised a few years ago and she was narrowly successful over him, but she's seldom around and he has to pick up the pieces. Then she returns and he gets demoted again, in effect.
He believes it's sexism since our employer has a very pro female advancement policy or activism, and he may be right. I'm a bit torn on this. If someone wants to cough up children, they probably should just leave but on the other hand, having a child shouldn't be the end of someone's career either.
If someone isn't present to do the job, should they be retained at their former position level when they return, offered another position, or just let go?
My coworker and his spouse don't have children nor want them, and they're career oriented. How is Ms. Baby Machine's behaviour fair to either of them?
What happened to "family values"? Isn't having children the most important thing for the human race? Isn't it best for parents to bond with their children?
In Canada, fathers can take maternity leave as well.
Quote from: "Romero"
Quote from: "Dinky Dianna"
A male coworker was having a gripe today because he's been forced to cover for a female coworker who is about to use many months of further maternity leave for the second time in two years. The kicker is that both of them went for the position when it was advertised a few years ago and she was narrowly successful over him, but she's seldom around and he has to pick up the pieces. Then she returns and he gets demoted again, in effect.
He believes it's sexism since our employer has a very pro female advancement policy or activism, and he may be right. I'm a bit torn on this. If someone wants to cough up children, they probably should just leave but on the other hand, having a child shouldn't be the end of someone's career either.
If someone isn't present to do the job, should they be retained at their former position level when they return, offered another position, or just let go?
My coworker and his spouse don't have children nor want them, and they're career oriented. How is Ms. Baby Machine's behaviour fair to either of them?
What happened to "family values"? Isn't having children the most important thing for the human race? Isn't it best for parents to bond with their children?
In Canada, fathers can take maternity leave as well.
Fathers cannot take "maternity leave" which is called "pregnancy leave" in some provinces. They can take "parental leave".
Quote from: "RW"
So you think a woman should be punished in her career because she has to step out to have a baby?
Rare baby, fine.
Repetitive back to back babies, she's chosen a contradictory occupation to a career and needs to understand that her decisions are not conducive to her continued employment.
Quote from: "Romero"
Quote from: "Dinky Dianna"
A male coworker was having a gripe today because he's been forced to cover for a female coworker who is about to use many months of further maternity leave for the second time in two years. The kicker is that both of them went for the position when it was advertised a few years ago and she was narrowly successful over him, but she's seldom around and he has to pick up the pieces. Then she returns and he gets demoted again, in effect.
He believes it's sexism since our employer has a very pro female advancement policy or activism, and he may be right. I'm a bit torn on this. If someone wants to cough up children, they probably should just leave but on the other hand, having a child shouldn't be the end of someone's career either.
If someone isn't present to do the job, should they be retained at their former position level when they return, offered another position, or just let go?
My coworker and his spouse don't have children nor want them, and they're career oriented. How is Ms. Baby Machine's behaviour fair to either of them?
What happened to "family values"? Isn't having children the most important thing for the human race? Isn't it best for parents to bond with their children?
In Canada, fathers can take maternity leave as well.
So you're fine with women who take the full maternity leave back to back between one child birthed and the next one quickly conceived? What's the point of running a business if someone uses their reproductive anatomy to only show up for portions of multiple years?
I'm not talking about the measured conception and birth of a child. I'm talking about baby machines who use the law to screw over men and women all around them in their workplaces.
Oh yes. I'm sure that's what people do - pop out babies for time off work.
In Canada, to receive paid leave, you have to work a certain number of weeks to receive full benefits.
Quote from: "Dinky Dianna"
So you're fine with women who take the full maternity leave back to back between one child birthed and the next one quickly conceived? What's the point of running a business if someone uses their reproductive anatomy to only show up for portions of multiple years?
I'm not talking about the measured conception and birth of a child. I'm talking about baby machines who use the law to screw over men and women all around them in their workplaces.
Because being pregnant for nine months, going through labour and looking after a child for eighteen years is such an easy way to screw over coworkers. So that's why women have kids! They're so lazy! Any excuse to get out of some real work!
And how are the coworkers "screwed over"? Why, they have to show up for work just like they have to anyway!
Looking after a newborn is kind of important. Accounts receivable will make do somehow. Some families have a few kids. It's not like most women are having six babies in a row just to get out of work. I've been working with women for thirty years and I can't even recall a single time any of them have gone on maternity leave. There are more workers taking more days off to go golfing.
Quote from: "RW"
Oh yes. I'm sure that's what people do - pop out babies for time off work.
In Canada, to receive paid leave, you have to work a certain number of weeks to receive full benefits.
Same in the US and it is a limited number of weeks that she can receive full salary. Anything beyond the stipulate time frame and the pregnant woman must apply for disability which pays out only a percentage of her salary. Also the job she leaves doesn't necessarily have to be the job she returns to. All the law stipulates is it has to be "a job".
I'm wondering just how many women actually go out on maternity leave, come back and then work for year and then go out again. With the logistical problems of balancing a career and raising kids and the expense involved, it doesn't sound like something that happens with great enough frequency to bitch about.
You must all be leftists, like the baby machine.
Exactly Wulf.
Quote from: "Dinky Dianna"
You must all be leftists, like the baby machine.
I had two babies at once so I'd only have to take one leave. That sounds downright Conservative to me.
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "Dinky Dianna"
You must all be leftists, like the baby machine.
I had two babies at once so I'd only have to take one leave. That sounds downright Conservative to me.
If you're career minded and were two kid wishing, it's a win-win for you and your employer. :wink:
Quote from: "Dinky Dianna"
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "Dinky Dianna"
You must all be leftists, like the baby machine.
I had two babies at once so I'd only have to take one leave. That sounds downright Conservative to me.
If you're career minded and were two kid wishing, it's a win-win for you and your employer. :wink:
Now people having twins get dual parental leave to be taken for 35 weeks by both parents or one parent for 70 weeks.
Where does that leave the unfortunate business which has to keep them employed, though?
With a temporary employee. Our employment insurance pays for the leave.
So your position can be filled shortish term by a temp?
Maybe we're talking about different levels here.
Quote from: "Dinky Dianna"
So your position can be filled shortish term by a temp?
Maybe we're talking about different levels here.
Nobody is irreplaceable.
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "Dinky Dianna"
So your position can be filled shortish term by a temp?
Maybe we're talking about different levels here.
Nobody is irreplaceable.
Generally, agreed.
Hi Everyone, Baby machine here! :fgj(4):
I just want to say thanks to the employer :24pb120: I drove into the poor house because of all the disability insurance payments he had to pay out when I had my three kids. Those six weeks per baby at about 60% salary were a God send. Thanks Saul, you're the fucking best.:yahoo: I hope the moths that escaped from your wallet made it back home alright.
AND I would be remiss if I didn't say that ALL the money I made for doing absolutely nothing wasn't SWEEEEEEET!!!! In fact I made so much money off that poor slob of an employer that right now I'm now retired and sitting my fat ass on a beach in the Caribbean. :001_rolleyes:
Is this a serious thread????? ac_biggrin
Quote from: "Renee"
Hi Everyone, Baby machine here! :fgj(4):
I just want to say thanks to the employer :24pb120: I drove into the poor house because of all the disability insurance payments he had to pay out when I had my three kids. Those six weeks per baby at about 60% salary were a God send. Thanks Saul, you're the fucking best.:yahoo: I hope the moths that escaped from your wallet made it back home alright.
AND I would be remiss if I didn't say that ALL the money I made for doing absolutely nothing wasn't SWEEEEEEET!!!! In fact I made so much money off that poor slob of an employer that right now I'm now retired and sitting my fat ass on a beach in the Caribbean. :001_rolleyes:
Is this a serious thread????? ac_biggrin
6 weeks? Are you serious?
That's nothing.
Did you really have to take issue with a thread about numerous months in back to back pregnancies?
Not everything is about your small world, Renee.
I forgot that the U.S. doesn't have year long leaves.
Quote from: "RW"
I forgot that the U.S. doesn't have year long leaves.
I could of had 12 weeks of UNPAID leave but 6 weeks short term disability was the better option. A reduced paycheck was better than none.
Quote from: "Dinky Dianna"
Quote from: "Renee"
Hi Everyone, Baby machine here! :fgj(4):
I just want to say thanks to the employer :24pb120: I drove into the poor house because of all the disability insurance payments he had to pay out when I had my three kids. Those six weeks per baby at about 60% salary were a God send. Thanks Saul, you're the fucking best.:yahoo: I hope the moths that escaped from your wallet made it back home alright.
AND I would be remiss if I didn't say that ALL the money I made for doing absolutely nothing wasn't SWEEEEEEET!!!! In fact I made so much money off that poor slob of an employer that right now I'm now retired and sitting my fat ass on a beach in the Caribbean. :001_rolleyes:
Is this a serious thread????? ac_biggrin
6 weeks? Are you serious?
That's nothing.
Did you really have to take issue with a thread about numerous months in back to back pregnancies?
Not everything is about your small world, Renee.
And not everything is about your's.
I think you need to be cognizant of the fact that your whining may not garner the response you are looking for from everyone here. ac_biggrin
Quote from: "Renee"
Quote from: "Dinky Dianna"
Quote from: "Renee"
Hi Everyone, Baby machine here! :fgj(4):
I just want to say thanks to the employer :24pb120: I drove into the poor house because of all the disability insurance payments he had to pay out when I had my three kids. Those six weeks per baby at about 60% salary were a God send. Thanks Saul, you're the fucking best.:yahoo: I hope the moths that escaped from your wallet made it back home alright.
AND I would be remiss if I didn't say that ALL the money I made for doing absolutely nothing wasn't SWEEEEEEET!!!! In fact I made so much money off that poor slob of an employer that right now I'm now retired and sitting my fat ass on a beach in the Caribbean. :001_rolleyes:
Is this a serious thread????? ac_biggrin
6 weeks? Are you serious?
That's nothing.
Did you really have to take issue with a thread about numerous months in back to back pregnancies?
Not everything is about your small world, Renee.
And not everything is about your's.
I think you need to be cognizant of the fact that your whining may not garner the response you are looking for from everyone here. ac_biggrin
Pointing out that a 4-6 month absence because somebody likes to fuck without a condom every year is me or business whining?
Are you right in the head?
Seriously, just stfu.
Quote from: "Dinky Dianna"
Quote from: "Renee"
Quote from: "Dinky Dianna"
Quote from: "Renee"
Hi Everyone, Baby machine here! :fgj(4):
I just want to say thanks to the employer :24pb120: I drove into the poor house because of all the disability insurance payments he had to pay out when I had my three kids. Those six weeks per baby at about 60% salary were a God send. Thanks Saul, you're the fucking best.:yahoo: I hope the moths that escaped from your wallet made it back home alright.
AND I would be remiss if I didn't say that ALL the money I made for doing absolutely nothing wasn't SWEEEEEEET!!!! In fact I made so much money off that poor slob of an employer that right now I'm now retired and sitting my fat ass on a beach in the Caribbean. :001_rolleyes:
Is this a serious thread????? ac_biggrin
6 weeks? Are you serious?
That's nothing.
Did you really have to take issue with a thread about numerous months in back to back pregnancies?
Not everything is about your small world, Renee.
And not everything is about your's.
I think you need to be cognizant of the fact that your whining may not garner the response you are looking for from everyone here. ac_biggrin
Pointing out that a 4-6 month absence because somebody likes to fuck without a condom every year is me or business whining?
Are you right in the head?
Seriously, just stfu.
Eat shit bitch.
You better fucking believe it's whining. It's not mine or anyone else's problem outside your country of residence if your parental leave system and your employers are able to be fucked over as you claim. I'm sorry if you can't handle another perspective from someone who lives under and has lived under a different reality and circumstance.
I have NO fucking sympathy for you or your poor unfortunate employers and I don't give half a shit if every one of you end up living on the balls of your collective asses while trapped in a cradle to the grave safety net. As you yourself have stated, you Aussies live under a gov that keeps it's citizens in a bib and booster seat existence, deal with it or "seriously, just stfu".
Just sayin.
I'm baaaack :laugh:
Quote from: "Renee"
Quote from: "Dinky Dianna"
Quote from: "Renee"
Quote from: "Dinky Dianna"
Quote from: "Renee"
Hi Everyone, Baby machine here! :fgj(4):
I just want to say thanks to the employer :24pb120: I drove into the poor house because of all the disability insurance payments he had to pay out when I had my three kids. Those six weeks per baby at about 60% salary were a God send. Thanks Saul, you're the fucking best.:yahoo: I hope the moths that escaped from your wallet made it back home alright.
AND I would be remiss if I didn't say that ALL the money I made for doing absolutely nothing wasn't SWEEEEEEET!!!! In fact I made so much money off that poor slob of an employer that right now I'm now retired and sitting my fat ass on a beach in the Caribbean. :001_rolleyes:
Is this a serious thread????? ac_biggrin
6 weeks? Are you serious?
That's nothing.
Did you really have to take issue with a thread about numerous months in back to back pregnancies?
Not everything is about your small world, Renee.
And not everything is about your's.
I think you need to be cognizant of the fact that your whining may not garner the response you are looking for from everyone here. ac_biggrin
Pointing out that a 4-6 month absence because somebody likes to fuck without a condom every year is me or business whining?
Are you right in the head?
Seriously, just stfu.
Eat shit bitch.
You better fucking believe it's whining. It's not mine or anyone else's problem outside your country of residence if your parental leave system and your employers are able to be fucked over as you claim. I'm sorry if you can't handle another perspective from someone who lives under and has lived under a different reality and circumstance.
I have NO fucking sympathy for you or your poor unfortunate employers and I don't give half a shit if every one of you end up living on the balls of your collective asses while trapped in a cradle to the grave safety net. As you yourself have stated, you Aussies live under a gov that keeps it's citizens in a bib and booster seat existence, deal with it or "seriously, just stfu".
Just sayin.
I'm baaaack :laugh:
If by baaaack, you mean you've got Scrapie, rest assured I understand your dire predicament and retarded tongue speak backed by your underlying and sure to be accompanying mental shortfalls, Dolly.
I have no sympathy for morons but I do give an empathy pass at the onset of any unfortunate meshing with inferior types.
You've just got your one and only empathy quotient. Watch your step in the future, dummy.
Flame forum please.
Quote from: "Dinky Dianna"
Quote from: "Renee"
Quote from: "Dinky Dianna"
Quote from: "Renee"
Hi Everyone, Baby machine here! :fgj(4):
I just want to say thanks to the employer :24pb120: I drove into the poor house because of all the disability insurance payments he had to pay out when I had my three kids. Those six weeks per baby at about 60% salary were a God send. Thanks Saul, you're the fucking best.:yahoo: I hope the moths that escaped from your wallet made it back home alright.
AND I would be remiss if I didn't say that ALL the money I made for doing absolutely nothing wasn't SWEEEEEEET!!!! In fact I made so much money off that poor slob of an employer that right now I'm now retired and sitting my fat ass on a beach in the Caribbean. :001_rolleyes:
Is this a serious thread????? ac_biggrin
6 weeks? Are you serious?
That's nothing.
Did you really have to take issue with a thread about numerous months in back to back pregnancies?
Not everything is about your small world, Renee.
And not everything is about your's.
I think you need to be cognizant of the fact that your whining may not garner the response you are looking for from everyone here. ac_biggrin
Pointing out that a 4-6 month absence because somebody likes to fuck without a condom every year is me or business whining?
Are you right in the head?
Seriously, just stfu.
So we shouldn't repopulate the planet because it puts out our employers?
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "Dinky Dianna"
Quote from: "Renee"
Quote from: "Dinky Dianna"
Quote from: "Renee"
Hi Everyone, Baby machine here! :fgj(4):
I just want to say thanks to the employer :24pb120: I drove into the poor house because of all the disability insurance payments he had to pay out when I had my three kids. Those six weeks per baby at about 60% salary were a God send. Thanks Saul, you're the fucking best.:yahoo: I hope the moths that escaped from your wallet made it back home alright.
AND I would be remiss if I didn't say that ALL the money I made for doing absolutely nothing wasn't SWEEEEEEET!!!! In fact I made so much money off that poor slob of an employer that right now I'm now retired and sitting my fat ass on a beach in the Caribbean. :001_rolleyes:
Is this a serious thread????? ac_biggrin
6 weeks? Are you serious?
That's nothing.
Did you really have to take issue with a thread about numerous months in back to back pregnancies?
Not everything is about your small world, Renee.
And not everything is about your's.
I think you need to be cognizant of the fact that your whining may not garner the response you are looking for from everyone here. ac_biggrin
Pointing out that a 4-6 month absence because somebody likes to fuck without a condom every year is me or business whining?
Are you right in the head?
Seriously, just stfu.
So we shouldn't repopulate the planet because it puts out our employers?
I didn't realize that employers were meant to sustain the workplace careers of absent and unrepentant breeders, lack of work or presence not withstanding.
Did high school teachers passing lazy and un-attending Gen Y slackers start this phenomenon or does it go much further back in the lexicon of modern window licking feminism? :wink:
Quote from: "Dinky Dianna"
A male coworker was having a gripe today because he's been forced to cover for a female coworker who is about to use many months of further maternity leave for the second time in two years. The kicker is that both of them went for the position when it was advertised a few years ago and she was narrowly successful over him, but she's seldom around and he has to pick up the pieces. Then she returns and he gets demoted again, in effect.
He believes it's sexism since our employer has a very pro female advancement policy or activism, and he may be right. I'm a bit torn on this. If someone wants to cough up children, they probably should just leave but on the other hand, having a child shouldn't be the end of someone's career either.
If someone isn't present to do the job, should they be retained at their former position level when they return, offered another position, or just let go?
My coworker and his spouse don't have children nor want them, and they're career oriented. How is Ms. Baby Machine's behaviour fair to either of them?
The first time it happened, that's not a problem. A second time in two years means the temporary replacement should have been made permanent.
As a former employer, when I had to recruit new staff, what do you think I took into account when a young, married woman applied?
Its all well and good to enact these draconian laws so that women can have two roles in society, but employers will respond accordingly.
Women want it both ways.
Quote from: "SPECTRE"
As a former employer, when I had to recruit new staff, what do you think I took into account when a young, married woman applied?
Its all well and good to enact these draconian laws so that women can have two roles in society, but employers will respond accordingly.
Women want it both ways.
I'm all for nurturing talent and promoting them. But taking 2 out of three years off leaves a huge hole. It also kills morale for the guy or girl who is doing the job on a temporary basis only.
Its a rort.
So what do you guys suggest a woman does when she has a baby?
Be a mother.
So go off work permanently?
No. Until the children reach school age.
Children growing up while parents are working to afford 2 cars, 5 bedrooms, overseas junkets and the latest fad technology don't fare so well.
Children need parents, not paychecks.
How about to afford one car and mortgage payments?
That's fine. One salary will cover it if the lifestyle has been PLANNED and thought through.
Quote from: "SPECTRE"
That's fine. One salary will cover it if the lifestyle has been PLANNED and thought through.
The days of one income are over.
Then the days of having children are gone with it.
Seriously?!
Seriously. If material wealth and possessions override the responsibility of parenthood, then don't be parents.
Our children are screaming all over the world: It doesn't WORK.
See this is my problem with you righties. You don't want women to take time off of work, you discriminate against us, you want us to stay at home although we can't afford to, and then you'll turn around and bitch when we have to bring in immigrants to populate our countries.
Can you maybe come up with a solution that is based on a semblance of reality that you can actually live with?
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "SPECTRE"
That's fine. One salary will cover it if the lifestyle has been PLANNED and thought through.
The days of one income are over.
What can you expect from an old fuck that still thinks it's the 1960s. Somebody aught to wake him up and tell him "Father Knows Best" was cancelled 50 years ago.
You would think that Apple watch that he is so proud of would have a reality alarm on it.
I expect him to answer my question as he's an intelligent and capable man.
Quote from: "RW"
I expect him to answer my question as he's an intelligent and capable man.
Okay you go right ahead and wait for his answer....but his position is already pretty clear.
But when it's more of the same old sexist tripe and more of the "save the children/damn the selfish parents clap trap", I promise I will not say ,"I told you so".
This thread is another one of those threads that goes nowhere. Opinions will not be changed and the exchange of ideas will not take place. This is because people like the OP don't want solutions, they are looking for commiseration.
Sometimes it's about the discussion more than changing minds or agreeing on outcomes.
Quote from: "RW"
See this is my problem with you righties. You don't want women to take time off of work, you discriminate against us, you want us to stay at home although we can't afford to, and then you'll turn around and bitch when we have to bring in immigrants to populate our countries.
Can you maybe come up with a solution that is based on a semblance of reality that you can actually live with?
We do NOT discriminate against you.
Mother Nature went "eeny meeny..." and picked females to carry and deliver. That is not man's fault, your employer's fault, or society's fault.
Its how it is.
But you want to have babies, but continue with a lifestyle that takes away your parental role. Whilst there must be some dispensation to women who decide to have children, forcing employers to carry you in the process is untenable.
Women of childbirthing age will find it more and more difficult to attain senior positions, or even more mid-range positions, when an employer knows the fucking around they have to endure when they have babies.
Its too much trouble and cost for employers already trying to survive.
This is yet again the consequence of typical leftard/feminist philosophy; make the bosses pay, even if it costs jobs.
Quote from: "RW"
Sometimes it's about the discussion more than changing minds or agreeing on outcomes.
Discussion without agreement is a waste of time and a expenditure of a lot of hot air. There is already enough of that around here eminating from the usual sources.
Last I checked people have a right to have children if they wish and at the same time make a living. In fact that is ethically preferable to having children while sucking on the taxpayer funded dole. If employers must take up the temporary slack then it is the least they can do to maintain a healthy society and viable workforce.
This is a ridiculous thread started by a ridiculous trite individual who isnt interested in discussion. It simply wants agreement with its dissatisfaction with its countries maternity leave policies. I believe a previous poster called it "whining", well that's as close as it gets. Let's stop pussy footing around and call a spade a spade, shall we?
I have learned so much from discussions where no agreement was to be had.
Quote from: "RW"
I have learned so much from discussions where no agreement was to be had.
Really, like what?
The word "learned" implies that you came away with info that was worthwhile retaining. Are you sure that "learned" is the proper term. Perhaps in the context of venues like this forum the word "verified" would be a better choice?
In a community like this, we all pretty much know where we all stand on any given issue. Most opinions will fall along ideological or socio-economic lines and it's not exactly difficult to figure out in short order who stands where.
I can pretty much say up front that about 90% of what comes out of the mouth of say Dingus or Romero or even you I will disagree with, sometimes vehemently. It makes any kind of discussion worthless and reduces any exchange of opinion to wasted prattle.
That's why I usually avoid places like this. I've learned a long time ago that forums that have no direction in terms of interest and topics are nothing more than flame forums, simmering and waiting to erupt.
Quote from: "SPECTRE"
Quote from: "RW"
See this is my problem with you righties. You don't want women to take time off of work, you discriminate against us, you want us to stay at home although we can't afford to, and then you'll turn around and bitch when we have to bring in immigrants to populate our countries.
Can you maybe come up with a solution that is based on a semblance of reality that you can actually live with?
We do NOT discriminate against you.
Mother Nature went "eeny meeny..." and picked females to carry and deliver. That is not man's fault, your employer's fault, or society's fault.
Its how it is.
But you want to have babies, but continue with a lifestyle that takes away your parental role. Whilst there must be some dispensation to women who decide to have children, forcing employers to carry you in the process is untenable.
Women of childbirthing age will find it more and more difficult to attain senior positions, or even more mid-range positions, when an employer knows the fucking around they have to endure when they have babies.
Its too much trouble and cost for employers already trying to survive.
This is yet again the consequence of typical leftard/feminist philosophy; make the bosses pay, even if it costs jobs.
You said earlier that as an employer you'd pass by married, childless women. That's discrimination. Saying we will find it more difficult to obtain senior positions because we are of childbearing age is discriminatory.
Employers survive just fine because they don't pay for women who are on maternity/parental leave. Employment insurance does. What's the problem?
Quote from: "Wulf"
Quote from: "RW"
I have learned so much from discussions where no agreement was to be had.
Really, like what?
The word "learned" implies that you came away with info that was worthwhile retaining. Are you sure that "learned" is the proper term. Perhaps in the context of venues like this forum the word "verified" would be a better choice?
In a community like this, we all pretty much know where we all stand on any given issue. Most opinions will fall along ideological or socio-economic lines and it's not exactly difficult to figure out in short order who stands where.
I can pretty much say up front that about 90% of what comes out of the mouth of say Dingus or Romero or even you I will disagree with, sometimes vehemently. It makes any kind of discussion worthless and reduces any exchange of opinion to wasted prattle.
That's why I usually avoid places like this. I've learned a long time ago that forums that have no direction in terms of interest and topics are nothing more than flame forums, simmering and waiting to erupt.
I had an EPIC discussion with cc about Muslims back on DV. I learned a TON yet we never did agree.
Quote from: "Wulf"
That's why I usually avoid places like this. I've learned a long time ago that forums that have no direction in terms of interest and topics are nothing more than flame forums, simmering and waiting to erupt.
That is somewhat unkind.
I think TBC has established a very good culture of interesting discussions. True, some can get rather willing, but overall, in terms of discussing and debating a range of issues without deteriorating into name calling and flaming, we've done OK.
To testify to this fact, look at where the Bastard factory rejects veered towards. They felt this place wasn't to their liking. That was a great compliment.
Hope they're happy at Van. They deserve each other.
Its true one of our more recent acquisitions, sadly another Australian, has yet to learn its manners in polite society, overall I think we've done OK.
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "Wulf"
Quote from: "RW"
I have learned so much from discussions where no agreement was to be had.
Really, like what?
The word "learned" implies that you came away with info that was worthwhile retaining. Are you sure that "learned" is the proper term. Perhaps in the context of venues like this forum the word "verified" would be a better choice?
In a community like this, we all pretty much know where we all stand on any given issue. Most opinions will fall along ideological or socio-economic lines and it's not exactly difficult to figure out in short order who stands where.
I can pretty much say up front that about 90% of what comes out of the mouth of say Dingus or Romero or even you I will disagree with, sometimes vehemently. It makes any kind of discussion worthless and reduces any exchange of opinion to wasted prattle.
That's why I usually avoid places like this. I've learned a long time ago that forums that have no direction in terms of interest and topics are nothing more than flame forums, simmering and waiting to erupt.
I had an EPIC discussion with cc about Muslims back on DV. I learned a TON yet we never did agree.
Aside from being a very cool lady, cc, is one of those rare individuals that you actually can learn something from. If nothing else she is well versed in her signature topic.
I would argue that she is almost alone around here. The rest of the Yahoo's in places like this (myself included) are at best intellectual dabblers. At worst they are the typical, unremarkable, hotshot know nothing's; convinced of their intellectual superiority because they can string more than 3 ten dollar words together without looking completely stupid. You are not going to learn anything from from those types except maybe how big of an asshole they can be. And who really wants to be bothered learning something like that?
I can tell the difference between the truly intelligent and those who think they are intelligent. If you think you can't learn from all sorts, you aren't that smart.
Quote from: "SPECTRE"
But you want to have babies, but continue with a lifestyle that takes away your parental role. Whilst there must be some dispensation to women who decide to have children, forcing employers to carry you in the process is untenable.
Funny how some people think that only women have babies and children. The birds and the bees says it takes two to tango.
Nothing's stopping the fathers from taking the time off, at least nowadays. But mothers are still mainly the ones expected to raise a child and put their career on hold. So lucky! It's like winning the lottery!
Spending a little time with your children, especially when they're first developing, is pretty important. That one single 3-6 month paternal leave may be the most time a child and parent spends with each other until who knows when. Most the rest of life is 9-5, cook dinner and off to bed.
People live until around eighty. Work for decades. Is a developing child and parent spending a few months together really too much to ask for?
And still the mothers are always to blame. What happened to family values? Since when is looking after your kid supposed to be a bad thing?
Quote from: "SPECTRE"
Quote from: "Wulf"
That's why I usually avoid places like this. I've learned a long time ago that forums that have no direction in terms of interest and topics are nothing more than flame forums, simmering and waiting to erupt.
That is somewhat unkind.
I think TBC has established a very good culture of interesting discussions. True, some can get rather willing, but overall, in terms of discussing and debating a range of issues without deteriorating into name calling and flaming, we've done OK.
To testify to this fact, look at where the Bastard factory rejects veered towards. They felt this place wasn't to their liking. That was a great compliment.
Hope they're happy at Van. They deserve each other.
Its true one of our more recent acquisitions, sadly another Australian, has yet to learn its manners in polite society, overall I think we've done OK.
To be honest, Inspector, I don't think that one will ever learn it's manners and I am of the strong opinion that it has no intention of doing so. It insists on eating with its feet and farting at the dinner table. It's just a matter of time for that one before it is dealt with properly. No doubt after it reads this, instead of taking the strong hint, it will whine pitifully that it is being threatened.
Personally I think it's presence here is indicative of places like this. So far you have been lucky because competent trolls and ace internet jag-offs know that places like this really hold nothing for them. They know that they can be turffed far too easily.
So what you are left with is third rate dumb shit trolls like Dinky who think they can pass themselves off as legitimately intelligent members of the community or moron losers like Mel and Odinson who simply don't know any better.
BTW, I think most of the BF refugees have moved on from the main VF forum. The amount of red handles has diminished of late.
Quote from: "RW"
I can tell the difference between the truly intelligent and those who think they are intelligent. If you think you can't learn from all sorts, you aren't that smart.
I'm not saying you can't come away with something from just about any interaction with someone no matter how smart or stupid they happen to be.
But again, is it really knowledge or just verification of what your life experience has already taught you?
Quote from: "Wulf"
Quote from: "RW"
I can tell the difference between the truly intelligent and those who think they are intelligent. If you think you can't learn from all sorts, you aren't that smart.
I'm not saying you can't come away with something from just about any interaction with someone no matter how smart or stupid they happen to be.
But again, is it really knowledge or just verification of what your life experience has already taught you?
Challenges to my opinion strengthen my point of view as well. Sometimes my mind is changed. Sometimes it's a new way to evaluate my life experience.
I guess I'm not so static Wulf.
Quote from: "Wulf"
To be honest, Inspector, I don't think that one will ever learn it's manners and I am of the strong opinion that it has no intention of doing so. It insists on eating with its feet and farting at the dinner table. It's just a matter of time for that one before it is dealt with properly. No doubt after it reads this, instead of taking the strong hint, it will whine pitifully that it is being threatened.
Personally I think it's presence here is indicative of places like this. So far you have been lucky because competent trolls and ace internet jag-offs know that places like this really hold nothing for them. They know that they can be turffed far too easily.
So what you are left with is third rate dumb shit trolls like Dinky who think they can pass themselves off as legitimately intelligent members of the community or moron losers like Mel and Odinson who simply don't know any better.
BTW, I think most of the BF refugees have moved on from the main VF forum. The amount of red handles has diminished of late.
I cannot disagree with your summary of my oafish and uncouth country-it.
It seems its major pre-occupation is to make an electronic noise similar in aural cacophony to a handful of spoons in a blender. I know who it is and where they are from, and frankly, I fail to see what possible purpose it has in coming here and poking its reptilian tongue at its betters. Which is to say, everyone.
You'd have laughed heartily at its use of a voice distorter to mask its voice, purportedly on the basis that it is famous and doesn't want its fan base to know it frequents TBC. Why that would be an embarrassment is only due to its own inane verbal diarrhoea. I would hate to have MY name put alongside some of the babyish bilge it spouts, apparently in an attempt to impress us.
With what, only it can say...and I won't hold my breath.
However, on behalf of my fellow Australians, who would rather spend the night with a Kiwi than conduct themselves in the manner of this vacuous twit, I apologise.
As you know from my own erudite contributions, Australians are generally refined, urbane and educated.
But occasionally a twat slips through the net.
This is a conundrum..
Should employers go along with plans of men or women to stay home with their children?
I took extended maternity leave instead of my husband..
He earns much more than I do and it would affect career growth for him..
I can understand an employer's reluctance to hire someone who may take an extended leave soon after.
When people bitch about parental leave do you folks not realize that for the first 4-6 months of life a baby relies on its mother for milk? And don't give me this shit about formula. We make milk to feed our babies for the beginning of their lives.
Parental leave is a compromise - a way to keep women in the workplace while meeting the early needs of a child.
Daycare is also extremely cost prohibitive. That said, places that are on worksites where mothers can go to feed their babies during a work day see earlier returns to work.
I'm sorry to disappoint but this has more to do with biology than feminism.
Quote from: "Dinky Dianna"
A male coworker was having a gripe today because he's been forced to cover for a female coworker who is about to use many months of further maternity leave for the second time in two years. The kicker is that both of them went for the position when it was advertised a few years ago and she was narrowly successful over him, but she's seldom around and he has to pick up the pieces. Then she returns and he gets demoted again, in effect.
He believes it's sexism since our employer has a very pro female advancement policy or activism, and he may be right. I'm a bit torn on this. If someone wants to cough up children, they probably should just leave but on the other hand, having a child shouldn't be the end of someone's career either.
If someone isn't present to do the job, should they be retained at their former position level when they return, offered another position, or just let go?
My coworker and his spouse don't have children nor want them, and they're career oriented. How is Ms. Baby Machine's behaviour fair to either of them?
Your coworker is a whiner. He thinks he can do the job - he should find that job somewhere else if he feels used.
Quote from: "RW"
When people bitch about parental leave do you folks not realize that for the first 4-6 months of life a baby relies on its mother for milk? And don't give me this shit about formula. We make milk to feed our babies for the beginning of their lives.
They can just fill up a few bottles before heading off to work! Geeeeeezz
Where is the old "we make choices - and choices have consequences"?
If someone wants a child that is good. Thinking others should pay for it is just not right.
Does anyone realize that companies now have to compete with cheap foreign goods ? Adding more cost => less sales => less jobs for people who need them, of course including jobs for those raising a family and want to pay their way.
I don't know how the system works but small firms supplementing those who decide to have a child would break small firms = >less jobs for others or raise costs for big firms => less sales => jobs for others
So what does a company do, hire a replacement. What do people suggest should happen to that replacement when said mom want's to return?
Signed : Satan's Special Advocate ac_smile
If the employer isn't paying for it, how is it a cost to the employer?
I don't know the rules - I just popped in. I thought there was mention that someone was to pay leave? I interpreted that money from somewhere went to Mom ... maybe I misinterpreted and should be spanked ac_smile ?
If there is no pay by anyone or any entity, fine. But even then > So what does a company do? They hire a replacement.
What do people suggest should happen to that replacement when said mom want's to return if she is promised she can return?
Dinky's OP asked good and valid questions. "Fairness" should always be dual-directional, or in this case tri-directional counting the company and other employees, or it is not "fairness" at all.
Quote from: "cc la femme"
Does anyone realize that companies now have to compete with cheap foreign goods ? Adding more cost => less sales => less jobs for people who need them, of course including jobs for those raising a family and want to pay their way.
Oh yes, let's please be more "competitive" with foreign sweatshops. Live the dream!
Quote from: "cc la femme"
I don't know the rules - I just popped in. I thought there was mention that someone was to pay leave? I interpreted that money from somewhere went to Mom ... maybe I misinterpreted and should be spanked ac_smile ?
If there is no pay by anyone or any entity, fine. But even then > So what does a company do? They hire a replacement.
What do people suggest should happen to that replacement when said mom want's to return if she is promised she can return?
Dinky's OP asked good and valid questions. "Fairness" should always be dual-directional, or in this case tri-directional counting the company and other employees, or it is not "fairness" at all.
In Canada, EI pays a percentage of an employee's wages while on leave.
Fairness isn't always about giving someone exactly the same thing as someone else.
Quote from: "Romero"
Quote from: "cc la femme"
Does anyone realize that companies now have to compete with cheap foreign goods ? Adding more cost => less sales => less jobs for people who need them, of course including jobs for those raising a family and want to pay their way.
Oh yes, let's please be more "competitive" with foreign sweatshops. Live the dream!
I must admit, if you are anything, it would be "consistent"
Quote
In Canada, EI pays a percentage of an employee's wages while on leave.
Thanks. I'm not up to speed on it.
OK, so bottom line, we are paying for other's choice to have a baby.
Say, did you notice my last post on "attachments"? - bottom of killer of 8 thread
People can get EI, vacation pay, leave of absence, worker's compensation, sick pay, pension... we all put in and we all get to benefit.
Why the heck wouldn't looking after a kid at the start of its life be just as important?
Depending upon length of time and frequency (i.e. taking far more out than putting in), others can in effect be paying
The OP = Is it fair for women in the workplace to use maternity leave every 1-2 years?
Seems a setup for wannabe baby factories and / or wannabe system-dependents to take advantage of. Are there any regs that set limits to protect against abuse?
If a man or woman were applying for a job and they said they planned on returning to the classroom for some courses, would that be a deterrent to their selection? No, in fact a company would like a person who took the initiative to improve themselves on their own. Now, if the same candidate said they would need 18 months out of the next three years away from work, would that move a top vc to the bottom? You can count on it. It's no different for a bright young candidate that tells you they want to start or grow their family.
As an employer most of my life, I can say that it sure would be / has been a part of my hiring decisions
Company survival has to be #1. If a company fails the owner and any employees will not get anything from it
Quote from: "cc la femme"
As an employer most of my life, I can say that it sure would be / has been a part of my hiring decisions
Company survival has to be #1. If a company fails the owner nor any employee will not get anything from it
Amen my sister. I have worked as an employer of contract workers and equipment most of my life. It's not important and none of my business for what I hire for what they want to do something besides work for a year or more. I think anyone with those kind of personal or educational ambitions should look for contract positions. Their absence creates too many headaches for their employers.
We have always used "by contract" wherever possible.
Even my mate's # 1 son, an extremely capable project manager worked by preset amount contract during periods away from University. He like it and so did we .... mutually beneficial. A couple of other regular sub bosses working under him also worked as contractors,
Contracting does help against our govt's make businesses pay for everything mentality
That is back when we did construction projects - Now, we only do software but all programmers work as private contractors vs. as emplyee
Quote from: "cc la femme"
We have always used "by contract" wherever possible.
Even my mate's # 1 son, an extremely capable project manager, worked by preset amount contract during periods away from University. He like it and so did we .... mutually beneficial
Contracting does help against our govt's make businesses pay for everything mentality
That is back when we did construction projects - Now, we only do software but all programmers work as private contractors vs. as emplyee
I'm glad your step-son was wise enough to know contract work fit what he wanted to do. I hire only contract employees. They on the other hand may or may not be full time employees of their contract company.
I don't understand why someone who wants to be away from work would apply for a full time company position? It's not fair to the company and it's employees who have to pick up the slack.
It really worked for him. He was good and knew how long a project would take him to complete and was secure knowing he would have x amount to pay for his next semester.
We paid all individuals who contracted an amount considerably larger than they would have made if hourly - and they were responsible for fixing any flaws .. and of course made sure the projects were done efficiently and fast.
It worked well for all concerned
Quote from: "cc la femme"
Depending upon length of time and frequency (i.e. taking far more out than putting in), others can in effect be paying
The OP = Is it fair for women in the workplace to use maternity leave every 1-2 years?
Seems a setup for wannabe baby factories and / or wannabe system-dependents to take advantage of. Are there any regs that set limits to protect against abuse?
Rarely happens. In fact, women are having way less children today. The birth rate is half of what it was in the 1950s. There are more one-child families today than ever.
I can't believe I have to tell a woman that women aren't baby factories. Are you a baby factory? How many baby factories have you ever known? Like barely any?
.
OK. I see what is happening now. We are talking about 2 very different worlds
In your Lalaland world everything is roses and unicorns ... in fact, it always appears to be exactly as you "wish it" to be .. where to yourself everything is exactly as you "say" it is.
Most of us live the real world that is what it is
.
Quote from: "Romero"
Quote from: "cc la femme"
Depending upon length of time and frequency (i.e. taking far more out than putting in), others can in effect be paying
The OP = Is it fair for women in the workplace to use maternity leave every 1-2 years?
Seems a setup for wannabe baby factories and / or wannabe system-dependents to take advantage of. Are there any regs that set limits to protect against abuse?
Rarely happens. In fact, women are having way less children today. The birth rate is half of what it was in the 1950s. There are more one-child families today than ever.
I can't believe I have to tell a woman that women aren't baby factories. Are you a baby factory? How many baby factories have you ever known? Like barely any?
Excuse me, but you are wrecking this thread by being a dishonest asshole just like you and your friends did the abortion one. Ms cc la femme and I hire people. As employers, we are of the same mind. We will do what is best for the organization. If I was to hire full time, I would ask probing questions to find out what if they plan on being around as much as I needed them. Anything that takes them away from the job for extended periods of time for any reason makes them an undesirable candidate. If someone wants to work, but doesn't want the responsibility of a full time job, for christ's sake get a contract job that fits the lifestyle.
PS. apologize to cc la femme liar.
Nevar!!1
I've been in charge of hiring. Not once did a woman I hired disappear to become an Oprah-watching baby factory.
Women aren't baby factories. The birth rate is half of what it was in the 1950s. There are more one-child families today than ever.
Those aren't lies. How many baby factories have you ever known of? Are you drowning in babies right now?
Quote from: "Romero"
Nevar!!1
I've been in charge of hiring. Not once did a woman I hired disappear to become an Oprah-watching baby factory.
Women aren't baby factories. The birth rate is half of what it was in the 1950s. There are more one-child families today than ever.
Those aren't lies. How many baby factories have you ever known of? Are you drowning in babies right now?
I didn't think you would. I never expected you to show any strength of character.
We are talking about whether employees who want extended leaves should be hired or should they themselves consider full time work. Alright, you go derail a good discussion.
But, I will ask you this--what benefit to your company is a worker wants to leave the company for extended periods of time for whatever reason? Who will step up and do their job when the person they are replacing is away? How do you think this will affect the morale of the employees who never take extended periods of time away from work when they MIA employee returns? if the MIA employee returns, ask these questions all over again. The most important question is why oh why would someone who does not want the responsibility of full time job applying for one?
Quote from: "Herman"
Quote from: "Romero"
Quote from: "cc la femme"
Depending upon length of time and frequency (i.e. taking far more out than putting in), others can in effect be paying
The OP = Is it fair for women in the workplace to use maternity leave every 1-2 years?
Seems a setup for wannabe baby factories and / or wannabe system-dependents to take advantage of. Are there any regs that set limits to protect against abuse?
Rarely happens. In fact, women are having way less children today. The birth rate is half of what it was in the 1950s. There are more one-child families today than ever.
I can't believe I have to tell a woman that women aren't baby factories. Are you a baby factory? How many baby factories have you ever known? Like barely any?
Excuse me, but you are wrecking this thread by being a dishonest asshole just like you and your friends did the abortion one. Ms cc la femme and I hire people. As employers, we are of the same mind. We will do what is best for the organization. If I was to hire full time, I would ask probing questions to find out what if they plan on being around as much as I needed them. Anything that takes them away from the job for extended periods of time for any reason makes them an undesirable candidate. If someone wants to work, but doesn't want the responsibility of a full time job, for christ's sake get a contract job that fits the lifestyle.
PS. apologize to cc la femme liar.
In Canada, you are discouraged from asking certain questions because if you overlook a candidate because of gender or future family status (can make babies in the future) you can get slapped with a human rights case.
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "Herman"
Quote from: "Romero"
Quote from: "cc la femme"
Depending upon length of time and frequency (i.e. taking far more out than putting in), others can in effect be paying
The OP = Is it fair for women in the workplace to use maternity leave every 1-2 years?
Seems a setup for wannabe baby factories and / or wannabe system-dependents to take advantage of. Are there any regs that set limits to protect against abuse?
Rarely happens. In fact, women are having way less children today. The birth rate is half of what it was in the 1950s. There are more one-child families today than ever.
I can't believe I have to tell a woman that women aren't baby factories. Are you a baby factory? How many baby factories have you ever known? Like barely any?
Excuse me, but you are wrecking this thread by being a dishonest asshole just like you and your friends did the abortion one. Ms cc la femme and I hire people. As employers, we are of the same mind. We will do what is best for the organization. If I was to hire full time, I would ask probing questions to find out what if they plan on being around as much as I needed them. Anything that takes them away from the job for extended periods of time for any reason makes them an undesirable candidate. If someone wants to work, but doesn't want the responsibility of a full time job, for christ's sake get a contract job that fits the lifestyle.
PS. apologize to cc la femme liar.
In Canada, you are discouraged from asking certain questions because if you overlook a candidate because of gender or future family status (can make babies in the future) you can get slapped with a human rights case.
Oh I know RW. But there are probing questions you can ask anyone, not just young women to determine if they really want to make the organization a long term home. I would make no distinction between young men or women. Both of them may want long term absences for various reasons, not just child rearing.
Quote from: "Herman"
Quote from: "Romero"
Nevar!!1
I've been in charge of hiring. Not once did a woman I hired disappear to become an Oprah-watching baby factory.
Women aren't baby factories. The birth rate is half of what it was in the 1950s. There are more one-child families today than ever.
Those aren't lies. How many baby factories have you ever known of? Are you drowning in babies right now?
I didn't think you would. I never expected you to show any strength of character.
We are talking about whether employees who want extended leaves should be hired or should they themselves consider full time work. Alright, you go derail a good discussion.
But, I will ask you this--what benefit to your company is a worker wants to leave the company for extended periods of time for whatever reason? Who will step up and do their job when the person they are replacing is away? How do you think this will affect the morale of the employees who never take extended periods of time away from work when they MIA employee returns? if the MIA employee returns, ask these questions all over again. The most important question is why oh why would someone who does not want the responsibility of full time job applying for one?
I took maternity and parental leave 4 years into my job. Not one employee ever expressed any bitterness in me taking a year off to have a baby ... or two. Where are you getting this morale shit from?
A temporary hired employee replaced me for a year. She ended up staying on after I returned although she knew she was a maternity fill in. It gave her experience and a pay cheque that she was happy to have even for a limited time.
Now why did I apply for a full time job four years earlier? Because like so many others trying to get by in life, I needed one.
Quote
In Canada, you are discouraged from asking certain questions because if you overlook a candidate because of gender or future family status (can make babies in the future) you can get slapped with a human rights case.
To me. that is ethically wrong, dead wrong.
It forces wise employers to be careful to not tip their hand.
The example of the CAIR-sent muslima who was told by a very small beauty salon owner that she could not hire someone who did not show off her own lustrous hair as a matter of smart business .. got sued and the kangaroo court made her pay 8 grand ..... resulted in most employers learning to be careful as to saying "why" a person is not hired, or is fired.
Fortunately, thought reading devices are not yet available and the law has so far been unable to get into reading thoughts
Quote from: "Herman"
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "Herman"
Quote from: "Romero"
Quote from: "cc la femme"
Depending upon length of time and frequency (i.e. taking far more out than putting in), others can in effect be paying
The OP = Is it fair for women in the workplace to use maternity leave every 1-2 years?
Seems a setup for wannabe baby factories and / or wannabe system-dependents to take advantage of. Are there any regs that set limits to protect against abuse?
Rarely happens. In fact, women are having way less children today. The birth rate is half of what it was in the 1950s. There are more one-child families today than ever.
I can't believe I have to tell a woman that women aren't baby factories. Are you a baby factory? How many baby factories have you ever known? Like barely any?
Excuse me, but you are wrecking this thread by being a dishonest asshole just like you and your friends did the abortion one. Ms cc la femme and I hire people. As employers, we are of the same mind. We will do what is best for the organization. If I was to hire full time, I would ask probing questions to find out what if they plan on being around as much as I needed them. Anything that takes them away from the job for extended periods of time for any reason makes them an undesirable candidate. If someone wants to work, but doesn't want the responsibility of a full time job, for christ's sake get a contract job that fits the lifestyle.
PS. apologize to cc la femme liar.
In Canada, you are discouraged from asking certain questions because if you overlook a candidate because of gender or future family status (can make babies in the future) you can get slapped with a human rights case.
Oh I know RW. But there are probing questions you can ask anyone, not just young women to determine if they really want to make the organization a long term home. I would make no distinction between young men or women. Both of them may want long term absences for various reasons, not just child rearing.
Yes, many things can happen in life that results in long term absenses. These days, I am the first to make an argument for employer consideration as I am disabled. I don't want to be hired as a half assed employee. No way.
Quote from: "cc la femme"
To me. that is ethically wrong, dead wrong.
Wise employers are careful to not tip their hand.
The example of the CAIR-sent muslima who was told by a very small beauty salon owner that she could not hire someone who did not show off her own lustrous hair as a matter of smart business .. got sued and the kangaroo court made her pay 8 grand ..... most employers have learned what to say and what not to say.
Fortunately, thought reading devices are not yet available and the law has so far been unable to get into reading thoughts
How do you balance discrimination and employability?
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "Herman"
Quote from: "Romero"
Nevar!!1
I've been in charge of hiring. Not once did a woman I hired disappear to become an Oprah-watching baby factory.
Women aren't baby factories. The birth rate is half of what it was in the 1950s. There are more one-child families today than ever.
Those aren't lies. How many baby factories have you ever known of? Are you drowning in babies right now?
I didn't think you would. I never expected you to show any strength of character.
We are talking about whether employees who want extended leaves should be hired or should they themselves consider full time work. Alright, you go derail a good discussion.
But, I will ask you this--what benefit to your company is a worker wants to leave the company for extended periods of time for whatever reason? Who will step up and do their job when the person they are replacing is away? How do you think this will affect the morale of the employees who never take extended periods of time away from work when they MIA employee returns? if the MIA employee returns, ask these questions all over again. The most important question is why oh why would someone who does not want the responsibility of full time job applying for one?
I took maternity and parental leave 4 years into my job. Not one employee ever expressed any bitterness in me taking a year off to have a baby ... or two. Where are you getting this morale shit from?
A temporary hired employee replaced me for a year. She ended up staying on after I returned although she knew she was a maternity fill in. It gave her experience and a pay cheque that she was happy to have even for a limited time.
Now why did I apply for a full time job four years earlier? Because like so many others trying to get by in life, I needed one.
Four years into a job is quite different from someone like my son who gets a good job and four months later after making probation decides he needs time off to travel and "study" throughout South East Asia and Australia and New Zealand. Please don't misunderstand me.
An internal employee who also wanted my son's job is filling in for him. He is not getting the official rate for the job, but he does it anyway thinking he will get noticed. When my son returns, and if he does it again, I think most employees would be thinking why should we show up everyday and do someone else's job who does not want full time responsibility. I know I wouldn't be happy about it. I would look for an employer who valued full time employees who show up everyday.
Why is your son's company giving him time off to "study"?
I thought we were talking about legitimate leaves of absence?
Quote from: "RW"
Why is your son's company giving him time off to "study"?
I thought we were talking about legitimate leaves of absence?
It qualifies as educational leave if you can believe it. It is considered a legitimate leave. I would bet they wished they had asked him some probing questions.
It's definitely not protected by human rights like pregnancy is.
Ethically and in a real world a business should be able to hire who they want .. who best suits the company's needs, period ..... after weighing ALL factors. Large companies who go to far can be and often are shamed into hiring using stats. No pretend and unworkable laws are needed.
My main point was that laws do not achieve their objectives .. they merely keep employers from being "candid". They do not keep wise employers from hiring who they calculate who best suits the company's needs ... i.e. they are phony at best .. a set up to become a silly charade.
I think our firm is good example of nature taking its course on hiring and allows me to speak for many employers. Sure, he had an obvious out if he chose to not hire, but after weighing all elements mate decided to hire based on the enthusiasm shown and the appearance of talent, despite powerful misgivings in a certain and obvious here area.
In fact, it was a major factor seriously considered in the equation, a factor which is his business only. The overall "score" said hire
Laws or not, if that factor spelled the difference, all he had to do was to NOT say it was a factor.
cc, we all know employers discriminate in many different departments. The current laws do more to protect active employees than future candidates for employment. The only trouble people will run into if a rejected candidate catches wind of discrimination during hiring.
That is correct
Quote from: "RW"
It's definitely not protected by human rights like pregnancy is.
Once he made it past his probationary period it is policy. They should have asked questions to see if he wanted to stick around or not. The organization's needs come first. But, I still wouldn't want to hire someone for a full time job if they wanted to take a lot of time off to raise a family. And the gender of the candidate doesn't matter. The law doesn't either.
Quote from: "cc la femme"
That is correct
It sure is.
Quote from: "Herman"
Quote from: "RW"
It's definitely not protected by human rights like pregnancy is.
Once he made it past his probationary period it is policy. They should have asked questions to see if he wanted to stick around or not. The organization's needs come first. But, I still wouldn't want to hire someone for a full time job if they wanted to take a lot of time off to raise a family. And the gender of the candidate doesn't matter. The law doesn't either.
Tell me, how do you ascertain a candidate's want to take time off to raise a family some time down the road?
Quote from: "Herman"
Quote from: "cc la femme"
That is correct
It sure is.
I usually am.
(Not really haha)
Quote from: "Herman"
But, I will ask you this--what benefit to your company is a worker wants to leave the company for extended periods of time for whatever reason? Who will step up and do their job when the person they are replacing is away? How do you think this will affect the morale of the employees who never take extended periods of time away from work when they MIA employee returns? if the MIA employee returns, ask these questions all over again. The most important question is why oh why would someone who does not want the responsibility of full time job applying for one?
It's always been a huge problem. Oh wait - it totally hasn't.
We've had people take extended leave for health reasons or whatever. We just cover or hire. No big deal. It's a pretty normal part of life and business. We're not robots.
Still, in my thirty years of work I can't recall a single female employee going on maternity leave and I've worked with plenty. I have no idea where all these alleged baby factories are.
Quote
I usually am.
(Not really haha)
of course you are
Quote
I have no idea where all these alleged baby factories are
of course you wouldn't
Your world is always exactly as you wish it to be
Quote from: "Romero"
Quote from: "Herman"
But, I will ask you this--what benefit to your company is a worker wants to leave the company for extended periods of time for whatever reason? Who will step up and do their job when the person they are replacing is away? How do you think this will affect the morale of the employees who never take extended periods of time away from work when they MIA employee returns? if the MIA employee returns, ask these questions all over again. The most important question is why oh why would someone who does not want the responsibility of full time job applying for one?
It's always been a huge problem. Oh wait - it totally hasn't.
We've had people take extended leave for health reasons or whatever. We just cover or hire. No big deal. It's a pretty normal part of life and business. We're not robots.
Still, in my thirty years of work I can't recall a single female employee going on maternity leave and I've worked with plenty. I have no idea where all these alleged baby factories are.
In my workplace, before I went off to have babies, three of my male coworkers took parental leave.
See, this is what employers get for hiring men! Never hire a man. They're just a bunch of daycare factories.
I forgot that my female boss did as well to adopt.
Quote
.... in my thirty years of work I can't recall a single female employee going on maternity leave and I've worked with plenty....
hmmm ... Seems for "some" reason they just don't "do it"
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "Herman"
Quote from: "RW"
It's definitely not protected by human rights like pregnancy is.
Once he made it past his probationary period it is policy. They should have asked questions to see if he wanted to stick around or not. The organization's needs come first. But, I still wouldn't want to hire someone for a full time job if they wanted to take a lot of time off to raise a family. And the gender of the candidate doesn't matter. The law doesn't either.
Tell me, how do you ascertain a candidate's want to take time off to raise a family some time down the road?
Are you available to work overtime on occasion? Can you travel? You'll be required to travel or work overtime on short notice. Is this a problem for you? What are your long-term career goals?
And that's how you're going to get someone who doesn't plan on a family?
That's cute Hermie. :)
Quote from: "RW"
And that's how you're going to get someone who doesn't plan on a family?
That's cute Hermie. :)
It's not cute, it's just business. It's also effective.
There are others too, especially for the type of work we do. Like, do you have any commitments that may hinder our work attendance requirements? You can also make inquiries, made to both males and females, as to duration of stay on the job or anticipated absences. It works and I assume my son's employer wished they asked some of these types of questions to him.
Quote from: "RW"
When people bitch about parental leave do you folks not realize that for the first 4-6 months of life a baby relies on its mother for milk?
That does not explain why an employer has to PAY for it.
Any leave is a cost to the employer. It has to be paid for. How its paid for is moot. The point is if you are being paid, and you are not at work, someone is paying for you to have your baby.
That is bullshit.
It also discriminates against those who do not, or can not have babies. Maternity leave is a victory for rabid feminism, nothing more. We all know that once feminists start screaming, the trade unions come a running.
It is not a triumph for women. It is an impost that employers will seek to avoid wherever they can.
Quote from: "SPECTRE"
Quote from: "RW"
When people bitch about parental leave do you folks not realize that for the first 4-6 months of life a baby relies on its mother for milk?
That does not explain why an employer has to PAY for it.
Any leave is a cost to the employer. It has to be paid for. How its paid for is moot. The point is if you are being paid, and you are not at work, someone is paying for you to have your baby.
That is bullshit.
It also discriminates against those who do not, or can not have babies. Maternity leave is a victory for rabid feminism, nothing more. We all know that once feminists start screaming, the trade unions come a running.
It is not a triumph for women. It is an impost that employers will seek to avoid wherever they can.
Here, Employment Insurance pays for it - a fund paid into by employees not employers. An employer will pay for her replacement if she quits to have babies as well.
It doesn't discriminate any more than sick leave does. Nice try.
Quote from: "SPECTRE"
Quote from: "RW"
When people bitch about parental leave do you folks not realize that for the first 4-6 months of life a baby relies on its mother for milk?
That does not explain why an employer has to PAY for it.
Any leave is a cost to the employer. It has to be paid for. How its paid for is moot. The point is if you are being paid, and you are not at work, someone is paying for you to have your baby.
That is bullshit.
It also discriminates against those who do not, or can not have babies. Maternity leave is a victory for rabid feminism, nothing more. We all know that once feminists start screaming, the trade unions come a running.
It is not a triumph for women. It is an impost that employers will seek to avoid wherever they can.
We have EI here for maternity leave. But, any lengthy absence still creates a problem for the employer. If you can, it's better not to hire someone who you know will be taking a long time out for any reason.
Really? How much of a problem are we talking?
Quote from: "RW"
Really? How much of a problem are we talking?
Oh huge. Equipment not working, contracts cancelled, paying trucking fees with no revenue earned on equipment. It's not an issue in my line of work right now. Actually, now is the perfect opportunity to take time off. But, when it's busy, absentee employees are a nightmare.
With maternity, you usually have months to prepare, yet it's still a huge issue?
Sorry but I'm going to call bullshit.
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "SPECTRE"
Quote from: "RW"
When people bitch about parental leave do you folks not realize that for the first 4-6 months of life a baby relies on its mother for milk?
That does not explain why an employer has to PAY for it.
Any leave is a cost to the employer. It has to be paid for. How its paid for is moot. The point is if you are being paid, and you are not at work, someone is paying for you to have your baby.
That is bullshit.
It also discriminates against those who do not, or can not have babies. Maternity leave is a victory for rabid feminism, nothing more. We all know that once feminists start screaming, the trade unions come a running.
It is not a triumph for women. It is an impost that employers will seek to avoid wherever they can.
Here, Employment Insurance pays for it - a fund paid into by employees not employers. An employer will pay for her replacement if she quits to have babies as well.
It doesn't discriminate any more than sick leave does. Nice try.
Well, that does not happen here. Employee leave benefits have become a major cause for unemployment figures rising for some time now.
If the employees pay for maternity leave, then I see no problem, other than if a woman takes maternity leave, there should be NO guarantee that her position will remain open to her for longer than, say, 90 days. The employer still has to backfill the vacancy. Swapping staff in and out is a COST.
Quote from: "SPECTRE"
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "SPECTRE"
Quote from: "RW"
When people bitch about parental leave do you folks not realize that for the first 4-6 months of life a baby relies on its mother for milk?
That does not explain why an employer has to PAY for it.
Any leave is a cost to the employer. It has to be paid for. How its paid for is moot. The point is if you are being paid, and you are not at work, someone is paying for you to have your baby.
That is bullshit.
It also discriminates against those who do not, or can not have babies. Maternity leave is a victory for rabid feminism, nothing more. We all know that once feminists start screaming, the trade unions come a running.
It is not a triumph for women. It is an impost that employers will seek to avoid wherever they can.
Here, Employment Insurance pays for it - a fund paid into by employees not employers. An employer will pay for her replacement if she quits to have babies as well.
It doesn't discriminate any more than sick leave does. Nice try.
Well, that does not happen here. Employee leave benefits have become a major cause for unemployment figures rising for some time now.
If the employees pay for maternity leave, then I see no problem, other than if a woman takes maternity leave, there should be NO guarantee that her position will remain open to her for longer than, say, 90 days. The employer still has to backfill the vacancy. Swapping staff in and out is a COST.
That'll cost you here all right because a woman is guaranteed her position or an equivalent when she returns.
Why should we have to pay as a gender because we carry babies? That's bullshit.
You don't have to pay. Don't have babies. Make up your minds.
However...I fully support the improvement in home based work facilities. Modern phone and computer technology removes the need for some work to be office based.
Women want it all. They want to answer the call of nature to breed, but they want self fulfilment through vocation (which is odd, given that being a mother is a far more noble pursuit).
In the end, they really don't know what they want...and end up having nothing.
We want to have a baby then come back to work. In my case, I took a pay cut so I could do my job from home and raise my children. I had my cake and ate it too.
What I didn't want is to have invested 4 years into an organization to be canned because I answered mother nature's call.
That aside, what do you think happens to immigration numbers as births by citizens decrease? I'll give you one guess.
Your investment is neither here nor there. In most organisations, very few individuals are indispensable...in fact, quite the reverse.
The fact is that being a mother and full time worker is incompatible. Do your work, then have your babies. If, later you can return to work, go for it.
If not, be a mother. Its a great job.
Quote from: "SPECTRE"
It also discriminates against those who do not, or can not have babies. Maternity leave is a victory for rabid feminism, nothing more. We all know that once feminists start screaming, the trade unions come a running.
What, no Nazi reference? Don't you think that a mother looking after her newborn for a few months is just like Nazi Germany?
Quote from: "SPECTRE"
Your investment is neither here nor there. In most organisations, very few individuals are indispensable...in fact, quite the reverse.
The fact is that being a mother and full time worker is incompatible. Do your work, then have your babies. If, later you can return to work, go for it.
If not, be a mother. Its a great job.
My investment is significant to me and was significant enough to my employer to keep me on as a remote employee.
Being at home employees and parents worked for both my husband and I so it's hard to agree they were incompatible.
I had two great jobs at once :)
Quote from: "Romero"
Quote from: "SPECTRE"
It also discriminates against those who do not, or can not have babies. Maternity leave is a victory for rabid feminism, nothing more. We all know that once feminists start screaming, the trade unions come a running.
What, no Nazi reference? Don't you think that a mother looking after her newborn for a few months is just like Nazi Germany?
Not particularly.
On the other hand, I think forcing an employer to pay for women to have babies does lean that way. Moreso the Soviet Union, perhaps, but there is little socio-political difference between socialism and fascism.
For me, I am pleased that where I used to work for two decades, they allowed me to take a 6-month maternity leave for a very special reason. I was caring for my premature infant. Who better to nurse him to wellness than me. I was not about to leave him with day care workers as he was strapped with a heart and respiratory monitor. 1/ It was I he needed, my full attention. He fought to gain his strength from being a premature infant to an active and energetic baby.
1/ I have nothing against day care workers. Both my sons were happy at day care. As a result, so was I.
Quote from: "SPECTRE"
Your investment is neither here nor there. In most organisations, very few individuals are indispensable...in fact, quite the reverse.
The fact is that being a mother and full time worker is incompatible. Do your work, then have your babies. If, later you can return to work, go for it.
If not, be a mother. Its a great job.
Still you act as though women should be blamed for the audacity of having children. As if they're fertilizing themselves or something.
A man got you pregnant? Your fault! Your problem! Get in the kitchen and make me a sandwich!
How come you don't blame men for women needing maternal leave? "Just don't have babies", right?
And it's as if you don't realize you were a child and you've had a mother. I don't know about you, but most people haven't grown up in Leave It to Beaver world. Women have been having children, jobs and careers for quite some time now. I haven't seen the breakdown of society yet.
Quote from: "Romero"
Quote from: "SPECTRE"
It also discriminates against those who do not, or can not have babies. Maternity leave is a victory for rabid feminism, nothing more. We all know that once feminists start screaming, the trade unions come a running.
What, no Nazi reference?
Don't you think that a mother looking after her newborn for a few months is just like Nazi Germany?
Wince ..
Please tell me you didn't say that . pleeeeeease
Double wince
Say RW. With this guy around, I really need a "wince" smiley
Quote from: "RW"
Being at home employees and parents worked for both my husband and I so it's hard to agree they were incompatible.
I had two great jobs at once :)
Now, that's really neat!!
Quote from: "cc la femme"
Quote from: "Romero"
Quote from: "SPECTRE"
It also discriminates against those who do not, or can not have babies. Maternity leave is a victory for rabid feminism, nothing more. We all know that once feminists start screaming, the trade unions come a running.
What, no Nazi reference?
Don't you think that a mother looking after her newborn for a few months is just like Nazi Germany?
Wince ..
Please tell me you didn't say that . pleeeeeease
Double wince
Godwin's Theory rears its ugly head.
But cc, there are so many!
:t1939: :woodoo: :t0131: :0c0KHxD: :sm(56): :bash3: :wacko: :sdfjh(2): :oeudC: :crazy: :t1929: :sm(45):
Quote
Godwin's Theory rears its ugly head.
:roll:
Quote from: "cc la femme"
Quote
Godwin's Theory rears its ugly head.
:roll:

(//%3C/s%3E%3CURL%20url=%22http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/039/090/godwins-law1.png%22%3E%3CLINK_TEXT%20text=%22http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/new%20...%20s-law1.png%22%3Ehttp://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/039/090/godwins-law1.png%3C/LINK_TEXT%3E%3C/URL%3E%3Ce%3E)

(//%3C/s%3E%3CURL%20url=%22http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/694/274/fc5.png%22%3E%3CLINK_TEXT%20text=%22http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/new%20...%2074/fc5.png%22%3Ehttp://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/694/274/fc5.png%3C/LINK_TEXT%3E%3C/URL%3E%3Ce%3E)
All this talk about parents staying at home vs parents who go back to work does not bother me one bit. I stayed at home with my infants because I wanted to and I did and I also returned to work because I enjoyed my job and just because I went back to work does not mean I love my children less than the parents who stayed home. Working parents: don't ever let anyone tell you different. I have a 22-year old and a 16-year old who are happy and well-adjusted. I don't buy into that kids-are-better-off-when-their-parents-stay-home-with-them charade. There may be some extraordinary success stories but it does not mean the same can't be true for the children of parents who go off to work as well.
Quote from: "Romero"
Quote from: "SPECTRE"
Your investment is neither here nor there. In most organisations, very few individuals are indispensable...in fact, quite the reverse.
The fact is that being a mother and full time worker is incompatible. Do your work, then have your babies. If, later you can return to work, go for it.
If not, be a mother. Its a great job.
Still you act as though women should be blamed for the audacity of having children. As if they're fertilizing themselves or something.
A man got you pregnant? Your fault! Your problem! Get in the kitchen and make me a sandwich!
How come you don't blame men for women needing maternal leave? "Just don't have babies", right?
And it's as if you don't realize you were a child and you've had a mother. I don't know about you, but most people haven't grown up in Leave It to Beaver world. Women have been having children, jobs and careers for quite some time now. I haven't seen the breakdown of society yet.
If you walked a mile in MY shoes, sunshine, you may re-consider.
Quote from: "SPECTRE"
If you walked a mile in MY shoes, sunshine, you may re-consider.
With every post he demonstrates that he has never come within 1,000 miles (or 1609.344 kilometers ) of real life like that
Quote from: "SPECTRE"
Quote from: "Romero"
Quote from: "SPECTRE"
Your investment is neither here nor there. In most organisations, very few individuals are indispensable...in fact, quite the reverse.
The fact is that being a mother and full time worker is incompatible. Do your work, then have your babies. If, later you can return to work, go for it.
If not, be a mother. Its a great job.
Still you act as though women should be blamed for the audacity of having children. As if they're fertilizing themselves or something.
A man got you pregnant? Your fault! Your problem! Get in the kitchen and make me a sandwich!
How come you don't blame men for women needing maternal leave? "Just don't have babies", right?
And it's as if you don't realize you were a child and you've had a mother. I don't know about you, but most people haven't grown up in Leave It to Beaver world. Women have been having children, jobs and careers for quite some time now. I haven't seen the breakdown of society yet.
If you walked a mile in MY shoes, sunshine, you may re-consider.
Oh hell! He hasn't even walked a mile in the shoes he argues for walking in!
Excellent point, but can we be sure of that?
The devil made me say that
Quote from: "SPECTRE"
If you walked a mile in MY shoes, sunshine, you may re-consider.
Why would I have to walk a mile in your shoes? As if you have some secret shoe walking thing that somehow proves me wrong?
"Do your work, then have your babies."
So women shouldn't have babies during their career, right? Doesn't that mean men shouldn't have sex with women during their careers?
You can't just blame women for wanting to have children. Men are part of the equation too. I suppose you've only had sex with unemployed women.
Quote from: "SPECTRE"
Quote from: "Romero"
Quote from: "SPECTRE"
It also discriminates against those who do not, or can not have babies. Maternity leave is a victory for rabid feminism, nothing more. We all know that once feminists start screaming, the trade unions come a running.
What, no Nazi reference? Don't you think that a mother looking after her newborn for a few months is just like Nazi Germany?
Not particularly.
On the other hand, I think forcing an employer to pay for women to have babies does lean that way. Moreso the Soviet Union, perhaps, but there is little socio-political difference between socialism and fascism.
Peoples attitudes on this are really twisted. Your employees are not disposable slaves. Employment is an agreement. You ought to appreciate and support your employees, They are there to do a job that supports you, right? So you best support them.
I'm for maternity and paternity leave, assuming it's not abused and it doesn't place an organization in a bad way or worse. I do however think that rules should be tightened up to prevent mothers and fathers using it every 1-2 years because that's just ridiculous to me, and extremely unfair to your coworkers who are inevitably forced to fill the big holes left.
There should be limits placed on frequency of use and combined duration of absence. Perhaps allotting a number of weeks per man and woman in each of their workplaces and forcing them to alternate if the time needed is not adequate. There should also be more flexibility to negotiate in employment contracts so that those who will not be having children, or more, can let it be known right away and achieve better responsibilities, perks, or salaries.
Every 3-5 years is probably fair. Every 1-2 is bullshit.
Dictating when a woman can have a baby is bullshit.
That said, here, you have to work so many weeks to be entitled to paid leave.
True, and similarly
Dictating what a company has to do / tolerate is bullshit
"paid leave" - is that by company or EI?
Quote from: "cc la femme"
True, and similarly
Dictating what a company has to do / tolerate is bullshit
"paid leave" - is that by company or EI?
EI
Bottom line - whatever reason a person temporarily leaves an organization, they should be forced to relinquish their seniority within it.
I was at a place where women who left for maternity leave, also relinquished their seniority.
They were allowed to come back, but not at the position when they left.
They had to give up the perks they enjoyed before they went for mat leave.
So the person behind them, be it a man or a woman, took their place.
There's something wrong with the way your organization/place of employment is run if workers can come and leave without penalty.
If a person does the work of the person on mat leave, doesnt' get any credit for their hard work, and the person who left gets to retain their position because of the temporary worker's efforts, then a change is needed.
I saw this situation at another organization as well, where someone took a year off from her job, then her replacement, a woman, was let go after she came back. She was just as good (maybe better) than the person in a permanent position.
Quote from: "Dinky Dianna"
I'm for maternity and paternity leave, assuming it's not abused and it doesn't place an organization in a bad way or worse. I do however think that rules should be tightened up to prevent mothers and fathers using it every 1-2 years because that's just ridiculous to me, and extremely unfair to your coworkers who are inevitably forced to fill the big holes left.
There should be limits placed on frequency of use and combined duration of absence. Perhaps allotting a number of weeks per man and woman in each of their workplaces and forcing them to alternate if the time needed is not adequate. There should also be more flexibility to negotiate in employment contracts so that those who will not be having children, or more, can let it be known right away and achieve better responsibilities, perks, or salaries.
Every 3-5 years is probably fair. Every 1-2 is bullshit.
Quote from: "Dinky Dianna"
I'm for maternity and paternity leave, assuming it's not abused and it doesn't place an organization in a bad way or worse. I do however think that rules should be tightened up to prevent mothers and fathers using it every 1-2 years because that's just ridiculous to me, and extremely unfair to your coworkers who are inevitably forced to fill the big holes left.
There should be limits placed on frequency of use and combined duration of absence. Perhaps allotting a number of weeks per man and woman in each of their workplaces and forcing them to alternate if the time needed is not adequate. There should also be more flexibility to negotiate in employment contracts so that those who will not be having children, or more, can let it be known right away and achieve better responsibilities, perks, or salaries.
Every 3-5 years is probably fair. Every 1-2 is bullshit.
Another good one from Dinky Diana. I won't say anything because you said it all. :smiley_thumbs_up_yellow_ani:
Quote from: "RW"
With maternity, you usually have months to prepare, yet it's still a huge issue?
Sorry but I'm going to call bullshit.
It's far from bullshit. If you understood how the business worked you would know this is the wrong industry to be an absentee employee. In my line of work, you cannot call Kelly services and find a replacement next week or even next month. Few people have the skills we need, so temporaries are not on. Anybody who has the skill set is already working.
People are asked whether they are willing and able to travel, be away from home and work one hell of a lot of overtime. It's part of the job and that does not change just because someone decides they need to stay home to raise the family.
Now, few women work in our industry. But it has came up for one of our contractors. In one instance, she was permanently replaced as she should be.
Quote from: "Dinky Dianna"
I'm for maternity and paternity leave, assuming it's not abused and it doesn't place an organization in a bad way or worse. I do however think that rules should be tightened up to prevent mothers and fathers using it every 1-2 years because that's just ridiculous to me, and extremely unfair to your coworkers who are inevitably forced to fill the big holes left.
There should be limits placed on frequency of use and combined duration of absence. Perhaps allotting a number of weeks per man and woman in each of their workplaces and forcing them to alternate if the time needed is not adequate. There should also be more flexibility to negotiate in employment contracts so that those who will not be having children, or more, can let it be known right away and achieve better responsibilities, perks, or salaries.
Every 3-5 years is probably fair. Every 1-2 is bullshit.
Don't you think you are being slightly dramatic here? So some woman spaced her kids out for one to two years. Do you think she's gonna pop out kids every one to two years until she retires? Come on now.
Nonetheless, some do.
Dinky speaks wisely. The system discriminates against those who choose or cannot be parents. Why should they subsidise those that do.
Quote from: "Dove"
Quote from: "Dinky Dianna"
I'm for maternity and paternity leave, assuming it's not abused and it doesn't place an organization in a bad way or worse. I do however think that rules should be tightened up to prevent mothers and fathers using it every 1-2 years because that's just ridiculous to me, and extremely unfair to your coworkers who are inevitably forced to fill the big holes left.
There should be limits placed on frequency of use and combined duration of absence. Perhaps allotting a number of weeks per man and woman in each of their workplaces and forcing them to alternate if the time needed is not adequate. There should also be more flexibility to negotiate in employment contracts so that those who will not be having children, or more, can let it be known right away and achieve better responsibilities, perks, or salaries.
Every 3-5 years is probably fair. Every 1-2 is bullshit.
Don't you think you are being slightly dramatic here? So some woman spaced her kids out for one to two years. Do you think she's gonna pop out kids every one to two years until she retires? Come on now.
We know that Dove. What I am saying is that absenteeism is a big problem for employers. Not everyone is easily replaced.
Training to specific job skills, and TRUST, earned only over time, are vital for companies to put every effort into retaining
Quote from: "cc la femme"
Training to specific job skills, and TRUST, earned only over time, are vital for companies to put every effort into retaining
The three t's--trust, training and time. I could not have said it better cc la femme. :smiley_thumbs_up_yellow_ani:
Quote from: "SPECTRE"
Nonetheless, some do.
Dinky speaks wisely. The system discriminates against those who choose or cannot be parents. Why should they subsidise those that do.
Why should we subsidize sick people?
Quote from: "cc la femme"
Training to specific job skills, and TRUST, earned only over time, are vital for companies to put every effort into retaining
Smart companies train and retrain.
I've never seen so much whining about this matter. When I was having my children in the 90s, it was not even an issue. Everyone else was having a family as well. We had the older folks who have had their children who were then grown and then there I was among the others having children and then there were the younger crowd who were planning to have families. No one resented those who were taking maternity leave or paternity leave.
Planning was important. If we knew we would be away for a while, someone will be brought in to be trained who will pick up the slack. Life goes on. There were no sour pussies.
I remember the work-life balance seminars we all had to take and then there was the introduction of the CWS--compressed work schedule--for those who wanted to be off on Fridays so they can spend more time with their families.