3 ms·
interesting. If this ever became law, it would incentivize hiring men over women because you'll get 5% less value out of hiring a woman employee. the math: let
by ryanx435 9y ago
interesting. If this ever became law, it would incentivize hiring men over women because you'll get 5% less value out of hiring a woman employee.
the math: lets assume that there are 260 working days in a year. women get 12 extra holidays per year for their periods, which means they only work 248 out of the 260 days. 248/260 = 95.4%.
very interesting indeed.
- robertlagrant 9y agoMaternity leave in theory has the same disadvantage, as generally women take this more than paternity leave (though I think that's changing) - it can be combatted by public denigration of companies that consider men to be preferable hires on the basis of lower risk of disruption and lower costs. Thus I don't think it'd be a problem.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- BearGoesChirp 9y ago>it can be combatted by public denigration of companies that consider men to be preferable hires on the basis of lower risk of disruption and lower costs. Was this said in sarcasm? I feel like it was, but I'm not a good judge of when sarcasm is used.
- robertlagrant 9y agoWhich bit sounds sarcastic?
- jlebrech 9y agothat's the assumption that a desk job is 8 hours straight productivity. but manual labour might hedge towards male employment, that's true.
- robertlagrant 9y agoThe numbers scale regardless of what percentage of the day everyone "really works".