3 ms·
> Then you do your risk analysis and determine if the risk of the person not working out is something you can stomach Yeah, duh. Apparently you do realize this
by not_kurt_godel 8y ago
> Then you do your risk analysis and determine if the risk of the person not working out is something you can stomach
Yeah, duh. Apparently you do realize this tautologically obvious point despite your churlish and contrarian argumentation against it. The need to do risk analysis as it relates to potential pregnancy was the main thrust of the post that you dismissively replied to by saying that any business can do equally well with 9 employees as with 10 as if it were some kind of fundamental truth - despite that assertion being trivially easily disproven even by your own logic.
- lhorie 8y agoI said "get by", not "do equally well". My point is that if you can't handle the risk of a new hire going on mat leave two months into employment, then the reason you're discriminating is likely because you're in no financial shape to hire in the first place, not because the candidate wants to have a family, or has cancer surgery scheduled, or a family sickness or any of N number of reason someone might need to miss work. Risk analysis is not the same thing as "hire based on pregnancy status". The former is accounting and math. The latter is discrimination and illegal. In this thread, there seems to be this perverse line of thinking that the ends justify the means ("can't afford to hire a pregnant person but a man will surely help me grow my business!"). If you're one of the people already doing this and trying to make excuses, fine, keep making excuses and doing illegal things, but realize you're part of the problem.