4 ms·

Im not saying its humane, or just, or right. Its business. The reason you point out is exactly what has happened in the past. In fact my mum used to work for a

Im not saying its humane, or just, or right. Its business. The reason you point out is exactly what has happened in the past. In fact my mum used to work for a company that straight up fired any female staff in the secretary pool which got married to protect themselves from exactly the losses you speak of. Luckily we don't live in that world anymore (40 years ago). And we are working to reduce the dis-incentives of hiring women over men. Im living in the UK where recently paternity and maternity leave are inter-changable and can be split between parents. entitling men to equal leave to women to reduce the incentives of hiring men over women. There are all kinds of times when people become less productive. Im never advocating never hiring a woman, only that whatever benefits you apply to one act as a hiring dis-incentive unless applied by law to both. Its economics, not ethics.

chii 9y ago
> Im not saying its humane, or just, or right. Its business. I'm sure the same was said about slavery too. Society had some tolerance for unethical behaviour, but you'd want to hope that it improves overtime. One such way is when a business does the uneconomical thing, but gains good will and recognition.
- DropbearRob 9y ago
  wow... slavery? really? strawman much? There is a HUGE difference between forcing someone to work for no money, and expecting an equality of pay and sick leave based on a persons sex. My whole argument was that in small business where the financial bottom line is tight and every saving makes the difference between success and failure, by introducing discrimination such as this initiative, it actually dis-incentivises the hiring of women. HENCE, in order to establish a balanced workplace it is in your best interests to NOT introduce factors which make hiring men more cost effective. If you believe in equality, then the only solution is "whats good for one is good for all". otherwise you create a situation where you end up incentivising the opposite objective to what you were trying to achieve.
  - falcolas 9y ago
    Slavery isn't, to be fair, such a huge leap when the comment being responded to disregards fairness and morals in favor of "Its business". Many things are done in the name of business which have no place in a moral society - some forms of slavery included. How many people are in a form of indentured servitude these days? Or in so much debt from the cost of living as to make no real difference?

chii 9y ago

> Im not saying its humane, or just, or right. Its business. I'm sure the same was said about slavery too. Society had some tolerance for unethical behaviour, but you'd want to hope that it improves overtime. One such way is when a business does the uneconomical thing, but gains good will and recognition.

DropbearRob 9y ago
wow... slavery? really? strawman much? There is a HUGE difference between forcing someone to work for no money, and expecting an equality of pay and sick leave based on a persons sex. My whole argument was that in small business where the financial bottom line is tight and every saving makes the difference between success and failure, by introducing discrimination such as this initiative, it actually dis-incentivises the hiring of women. HENCE, in order to establish a balanced workplace it is in your best interests to NOT introduce factors which make hiring men more cost effective. If you believe in equality, then the only solution is "whats good for one is good for all". otherwise you create a situation where you end up incentivising the opposite objective to what you were trying to achieve.
- falcolas 9y ago
  Slavery isn't, to be fair, such a huge leap when the comment being responded to disregards fairness and morals in favor of "Its business". Many things are done in the name of business which have no place in a moral society - some forms of slavery included. How many people are in a form of indentured servitude these days? Or in so much debt from the cost of living as to make no real difference?