5 ms·
I'm not being obtuse. What is the point of a right that applies to 1/3 of the population. That is by definition not a right. It's a privilege for a class of peo
by anm89 5y ago
I'm not being obtuse. What is the point of a right that applies to 1/3 of the population. That is by definition not a right. It's a privilege for a class of people, in this case the people who are already the most privileged people in society.
And a big proportion of those people are already going to have that ability forever at this point.
So this is a legal guarantee of a privilege for some people but mostly just those who don't need it.
The people being obtuse are the people arguing for this like it's some kind of grass roots labor issue and they are freedom fighters.
- AussieWog93 5y ago>What is the point of a right that applies to 1/3 of the population. Tell that to the abortion rights campaigners. Or the father's rights activists. Or the people who advocate for the rights of gay/trans people, indigenous peoples and immigrants. There are so many rights out there that only apply to a small subset of the population. It doesn't mean they're invalid.
- anm89 5y agoEvery one of your examples conveys a right to 100% of people who are biologically capable of having that right. That makes sense, women can have rights that don't make sense for men. The right to WFH is a right that only applies to a socially defined group, specifically the group that have the best jobs. Not at all in the same category IMO.
- AussieWog93 5y agoOk then, what about these rights: - Right to sick leave and annual leave (only for people on part/full-time contracts, at least in AU) - Right to strike (only affects unionised labourers)