3 ms·
FWIW I don't see how that's a jackass thing to do. There's a chance that a woman may take maternity leave, then never return. That's an extra cost to the employ
by bumblebird 17y ago
FWIW I don't see how that's a jackass thing to do. There's a chance that a woman may take maternity leave, then never return. That's an extra cost to the employer. It's a higher risk. I'm of the opinion that real freedom means the freedom to discriminate if you want to.
Insurers are freely able to discriminate, it seems like employers should be able to as well (I know in this age of political correctness it's impossible to).
Should terminally ill people be able to go on apprenticeships? I'd say on balance no - if they die before they're trained in the job, then the employer who is footing the bill of training them, has lost out.
- tptacek 17y agoYou shouldn't hire terminally ill people at all. Turnover is expensive. Also, the chronically ill drive up insurance premiums. For that same reason, you shouldn't hire people over 35. Another reason not to hire people over 35 is that people under 35 will work 80 hour weeks for no additional pay. That's also a good reason only to hire offshore developers, or, better yet, H1-Bs from H1-B bodyshops: they can't quit, or they'll be deported.
- bumblebird 17y agoRight. And personally, I think those decisions should be up to employers. Similarly, I'm completely against the minimum wage. Give employers the freedom to hire who they want, for whatever wage they want to offer.
- justinhj 17y agoWhere does equal opportunities fit into that view? Not at all, does it?