• 12-03-2014
    Bill2
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by obed View Post
    if that were to happen small business would avoid hiring women of child bearing age.

    Or worse, they might provide contraceptive coverage in their employees' health care plans!! :eek:
  • 12-03-2014
    TerminatorX91
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by crit_boy View Post
    Scholarly retort demonstrating thorough knowledge and thoughtfulness.

    I'm thoroughly familiar with that tired old right-wing Cadillac welfare queen bullshit you just mindlessly regurgitated. My retort was all your Land of Make Believe argle bargle warranted.
  • 12-03-2014
    crit_boy
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TerminatorX91 View Post
    I'm thoroughly familiar with that tire old right-wing Cadillac welfare queen bullshit you just mindlessly regurgitated. My retort was all your Land of Make Believe argle bargle warranted.

    (emphasis added)

    I am familiar with tires - bike and cadillac.

    How fast we delve into personal attacks. Instead of defending your position, you resort to name calling.

    I have no issue with FML. The choice is not lose you job forever. Your choice is stay home, take care of yourself and your new baby - but (once you are on FML) the company is not going to pay for you to do it.

    Once again, I ask: Why should a business financially support a person who cannot do the job?

    If name calling is all you have, please keep it to yourself.
  • 12-03-2014
    TerminatorX91
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by crit_boy View Post
    (emphasis added)

    I am familiar with tires - bike and cadillac.

    How fast we delve into personal attacks. Instead of defending your position, you resort to name calling.

    I have no issue with FML. The choice is not lose you job forever. Your choice is stay home, take care of yourself and your new baby - but (once you are on FML) the company is not going to pay for you to do it.

    Once again, I ask: Why should a business financially support a person who cannot do the job?

    If name calling is all you have, please keep it to yourself.

    1. There is nothing to debate. You're hyperbolic comment was simply stupid.

    2. I haven't attacked you personally, I've attacked your ideas and comments. I didn't call you any name either. You should stop telling lies now.
  • 12-03-2014
    Bill2
    1 Attachment(s)
  • 12-03-2014
    crit_boy
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TerminatorX91 View Post
    1. There is nothing to debate. You're hyperbolic comment was simply stupid.

    2. I haven't attacked you personally, I've attacked your ideas and comments. I didn't call you any name either. You should stop telling lies now.

    You proposed the idea, i.e. paying pregnant woman 55% of their pay and sharing 55% of the pay with the father.

    I called you on it. I used hyperbole in combination with a realistic example to demonstrate some problems with you idea. BTW, you have done nothing to attack my ideas and concepts. You have demonstrated an unwillingness to explain your positions.

    Instead of responding to the issues raised, you resorted to not defending your idea and mud slinging. Interesting you believe I am the one making stupid comments.

    Once again, I ask: Why should a business financially support a person who cannot do the job?
  • 12-04-2014
    xxl

    Now there you go again, preaching the politics of jealousy.

    Those other countries are jealous of our freedoms, so they try to make it sound like they have it pretty sweet over there, with "parental leave," "cost-effective health care," and other socialized nonsense.
  • 12-04-2014
    TerminatorX91
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by crit_boy View Post
    You proposed the idea, i.e. paying pregnant woman 55% of their pay and sharing 55% of the pay with the father.

    I called you on it. I used hyperbole in combination with a realistic example to demonstrate some problems with you idea. BTW, you have done nothing to attack my ideas and concepts. You have demonstrated an unwillingness to explain your positions.

    Instead of responding to the issues raised, you resorted to not defending your idea and mud slinging. Interesting you believe I am the one making stupid comments.

    Once again, I ask: Why should a business financially support a person who cannot do the job?

    You haven't "called me on" squat. We attack ideas and concepts here. Particularly, I attack unsubstantiated right-wing hyperbole and argle bargle. Don't like it? Tough. Take it or leave it.

    There is nothing in your questioning that is interesting to me or compels me to explain or defend my positions to you at all.

    You have your right-wing knuckle-dragging position and silly argument - as if people such as yourself would choose to perpetually stay pregnant like the Catholic Yorkshire family in the The Miracle of Birth Part II - The Third World from Monty Python's The Meaning of Life. A ludicrous argument yours. I have no respect for it.

    I have my position aligned with most of the modern Western industrialized world. You don't respect that and I don't care.

    See how this works now?

    BTW, considering that such systems, very similar or exactly the same, have already existed in most Western industrialized nations including Canada for years and decades, there are plenty of real-world examples to choose from for case studies. Feel free to show evidence of how pervasive in reality are the extreme hypothetical examples of problems you claim
  • 12-04-2014
    crossracer
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by crit_boy View Post
    Even if you look at pregnancy as a ADA issue, the limit of reasonable accommodation is when it is drawn to the essential function of the job.

    Her job was to lift boxes. She underwent a voluntary physical change. That voluntary physical change prevents her from performing the essential function of her job.

    How do you know it was voluntary? She might have been on BC and it still happened.

    Don't see why an employer should be expected to act as some form of a private welfare system expected to support some pregnant women that cannot do the job they were hired to do.

    Funny, large companies like Wall Mart seem to have no problem supplementing their bottom line of low pay by making me the tax payer provide benefits for their workers.

    .

    bill.
  • 12-04-2014
    NJBiker72
    Re: PREGNANCY: should companies accommodate?
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TerminatorX91 View Post
    You haven't "called me on" squat. We attack ideas and concepts here. Particularly, I attack unsubstantiated right-wing hyperbole and argle bargle. Don't like it? Tough. Take it or leave it.

    There is nothing in your questioning that is interesting to me or compels me to explain or defend my positions to you at all.

    You have your right-wing knuckle-dragging position and silly argument - as if people such as yourself would choose to perpetually stay pregnant like the Catholic Yorkshire family in the The Miracle of Birth Part II - The Third World from Monty Python's The Meaning of Life. A ludicrous argument yours. I have no respect for it.

    I have my position aligned with most of the modern Western industrialized world. You don't respect that and I don't care.

    See how this works now?

    BTW, considering that such systems, very similar or exactly the same, have already existed in most Western industrialized nations including Canada for years and decades, there are plenty of real-world examples to choose from for case studies. Feel free to show evidence of how pervasive in reality are the extreme hypothetical examples of problems you claim

    Yeah. Knuckle dragging right wing. Sure is brilliant intellectual discussion.

    Unfortunately you have no substance to this but to attack. Always happens when your argument has zero merit.

    Just another feel good free candy left wing give away without thinking of or understanding the consequences.
  • 12-04-2014
    SauronHimself
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by crit_boy View Post
    Even if you look at pregnancy as a ADA issue, the limit of reasonable accommodation is when it is drawn to the essential function of the job.

    Years ago, I worked at FedEx. My essential function was the ability to lift a 50 lb box. I had to demonstrate this ability before getting hired.

    Her job was to lift boxes. She underwent a voluntary physical change. That voluntary physical change prevents her from performing the essential function of her job. But, you think the company should make up a new position and give it to her - even if the company does not need the position (as evidenced by the fact that it does not exist) and/or she is not qualified to do it? She should just get a new job because she chose to be pregnant (unless she is experiencing immaculate conception or is victim of sex crime - she chose).

    That attitude is definitely treating women as equals to men. You know giving them a job just because they are a pregnant woman, not because they are the best person for the job.

    Don't see why an employer should be expected to act as some form of a private welfare system expected to support some pregnant women that cannot do the job they were hired to do.

    If you cannot work during pregnancy, you can take FML, quit, or get terminated.

    All that is said with the experience of my wife who had a very hard pregnancy. It was not planned - we were just practicing. She was not able to work. We lost her income, but made it work.

    When you say she underwent a voluntary physical change I don't think you can decree that with a reasonable amount of certainty. Consent to sex is not necessarily consent to pregnancy. While pregnancy can be a consequence of sex, it is not automatically assumed. This is much akin to getting into an automobile collision. Consenting to drive to does not mean you consent to getting into an accident, albeit that may be an unintended consequence. In both situations most people take necessary precautions to avoid those consequences (contraceptives vs seat belts/airbags/safe driving habits), yet they don't always prevent them, and when they do result in their respective consequences they often yield life-altering changes. Sure, this woman could've abstained from sex, but to expect that of everyone who doesn't want to endure this type of situation is like asking the sun to stop fusing hydrogen into helium. We can't ignore basic tenets of biology and of our sexually dimorphic species. Like it or not, women require considerations that men don't, but that does not mean businesses necessarily have the prerogative to stonewall them. Whereas you and your wife made an unintended pregnancy work without her income, it does not imply that it can work for everyone, and to even insinuate that is fallacious. For many people taking FML is not an option, and many families require both incomes to survive. Perhaps if economic policies allowed the median American income to be commensurate with inflation, most families could survive on a single income, but that isn't necessarily the case now.
  • 12-04-2014
    NJBiker72
    Re: PREGNANCY: should companies accommodate?
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SauronHimself View Post
    When you say she underwent a voluntary physical change I don't think you can decree that with a reasonable amount of certainty. Consent to sex is not necessarily consent to pregnancy. While pregnancy can be a consequence of sex, it is not automatically assumed. This is much akin to getting into an automobile collision. Consenting to drive to does not mean you consent to getting into an accident, albeit that may be an unintended consequence. In both situations most people take necessary precautions to avoid those consequences (contraceptives vs seat belts/airbags/safe driving habits), yet they don't always prevent them, and when they do result in their respective consequences they often yield life-altering changes. Sure, this woman could've abstained from sex, but to expect that of everyone who doesn't want to endure this type of situation is like asking the sun to stop fusing hydrogen into helium. We can't ignore basic tenets of biology and of our sexually dimorphic species. Like it or not, women require considerations that men don't, but that does not mean businesses necessarily have the prerogative to stonewall them. Whereas you and your wife made an unintended pregnancy work without her income, it does not imply that it can work for everyone, and to even insinuate that is fallacious. For many people taking FML is not an option, and many families require both incomes to survive. Perhaps if economic policies allowed the median American income to be commensurate with inflation, most families could survive on a single income, but that isn't necessarily the case now.

    She chose to have sex. Nothing wrong with that but you have to accept the consequences of your choices.

    If her job is lifting heavy boxes and she cannot do it, what is her employer to do? Hire someone else and just pay her to stay home?

    If that becomes the law and you have 2 equally qualified candidates, one without risk of being paid for a year of not working and one subject to that risk, who do you hire? What is the rational decision?
  • 12-04-2014
    TerminatorX91
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by crit_boy View Post
    So, what you are saying is that I can retire by having a series of babies' mamas (maybe parallel and series babies' mamas). The babies' mamas will get 45% of their pay and give me 55%. Sweet. Your welfare system is even better than I thought.

    Or a woman can have a lifetime of pay by just staying pregnant.

    Or, quite reasonably a family could have 5 or 6 kids with a "working" mom who does no work for 5 or 6 years, but gets paid during that time.

    Does your welfare plan also include performance and cost of living raises?

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NJBiker72 View Post
    Yeah. Knuckle dragging right wing. Sure is brilliant intellectual discussion.

    Unfortunately you have no substance to this but to attack. Always happens when your argument has zero merit.

    Just another feel good free candy left wing give away without thinking of or understanding the consequences.

    Yeah because what I was replying to was chalked full of brilliance, substance and merit. DERP.

    We have plenty of case studies in the Western industrialized world to look at to gauge and understanding the overall balance of pro and cons of such systems.

    Your framing these policies as free candy rather than a form of compensation earned by employees who work for and make companies money is just as ludicrous as the likelihood of employees staying pregnant for 5 to 6 years straight under such a program as the boy intimated.
  • 12-04-2014
    love4himies
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by crit_boy View Post
    Yes, I am jealous. I want to be paid for not working. Seriously. I would spend more time ride my bike and fishing.

    Back to the issue: So you think employers should act as a private welfare system to support some pregnant women that cannot do the job they were hired to do?

    I am honestly surprised that people believe a business should financially support a person who is not able to do the job.

    Didn't realize that people living on government welfare are bad, but people living on corporate (corporate in the business sense) welfare are good.

    Here in Canada Maternity leave is covered through Employment Insurance at the Federal Gov't level. Some unions have negotiated a "top-up" of wages above what EI gives them, so it's not necessarily the business that is paying.

    At one time women were "expected" to stop working once they became pregnant, however, the world has changed in the last 50 years so perhaps the US should be changing with the times and support families.

    Oh, and if you think you would have time to ride your bike when you have a newborn at home, guess again. Obviously you have not had that responsibility.
  • 12-04-2014
    TerminatorX91
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by love4himies View Post
    Here in Canada Maternity leave is covered through Employment Insurance at the Federal Gov't level. Some unions have negotiated a "top-up" of wages above what EI gives them, so it's not necessarily the business that is paying.

    At one time women were "expected" to stop working once they became pregnant, however, the world has changed in the last 50 years so perhaps the US should be changing with the times and support families.

    Oh, and if you think you would have time to ride your bike when you have a newborn at home, guess again. Obviously you have not had that responsibility.

    Well, he does say he is a "crit boy"...
  • 12-04-2014
    TerminatorX91
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NJBiker72 View Post
    She chose to have sex. Nothing wrong with that but you have to accept the consequences of your choices.

    If her job is lifting heavy boxes and she cannot do it, what is her employer to do? Hire someone else and just pay her to stay home?

    If that becomes the law and you have 2 equally qualified candidates, one without risk of being paid for a year of not working and one subject to that risk, who do you hire? What is the rational decision?

    No, operate and fund it the way most-any of the other Western industrialized nations do, much like unemployment insurance.
  • 12-04-2014
    SauronHimself
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NJBiker72 View Post
    She chose to have sex. Nothing wrong with that but you have to accept the consequences of your choices.

    If her job is lifting heavy boxes and she cannot do it, what is her employer to do? Hire someone else and just pay her to stay home?

    If that becomes the law and you have 2 equally qualified candidates, one without risk of being paid for a year of not working and one subject to that risk, who do you hire? What is the rational decision?

    It's not possible to say she chose to have sex unless she says so. The only thing that can be declared with certainty is that she chose to stay pregnant. The only alternative would be an abortion, but I know many people here would have choice words about such a decision.
  • 12-04-2014
    NJBiker72
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TerminatorX91 View Post
    Yeah because what I was replying to was chalked full of brilliance, substance and merit. DERP.

    We have plenty of case studies in the Western industrialized world to look at to gauge and understanding the overall balance of pro and cons of such systems.

    Your framing these policies as free candy rather than a form of compensation earned by employees who work for and make companies money is just as ludicrous as the likelihood of employees staying pregnant for 5 to 6 years straight under such a program as the boy intimated.

    You are the DERP king with a ton of argle bargle per post.

    For 1 minute, let's ignore yur dubious morality of asking everyone else to pay for your decisions.

    Let's just deal with the cold hard facts and decisions.

    You are an employer. You have 2 candidates. Both equally qualified. One is eligible to take off for a year with paid leave upon the employee's choosing. The other is not and if they want off for a year, they can take it, but would have no pay and no guaranty of a job upon their return. Who do you hire?

    My first guess is you tell the employer that they are mandated to hire the more costly employee. Or be subject to a lawsuit. As dumb of an idea as that is and has proven to be, let's go with it.

    How does the business afford this risk? Now surely, you will insist someone else pay for this. Ok who? Since I don't hear you volunteering your dough, let's try some alternatives.

    Insurance? Assuming you still want the company to pay for the employee's choice, the company would have to buy it. But at what cost? It is going to be pricy, since there is a great moral hazard to insuring against something someone else can choose to do. So now this goes back to the first point, it will be far more costly to employ, employee A over employee B. The rational decision? Oh yes, that's right mandates, quotas and lawsuits. Always the answer.

    Who else could pay? Why the taxpayers of course? Then at least you eliminate the cost and the disincentive to hire employee A. But the moral hazard is still there. The cost is there. It just comes out of everyone's pockets. To pay for 1 person's choice.

    Go ahead, argle, bargle, derp your way through that.
  • 12-04-2014
    serious
    PREGNANCY: should companies accommodate?
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NJBiker72 View Post
    Ding ding ding. Winner. Unintended consequences.

    But can you rationally make the decision to hire an equally qualified woman if she could just take a year off. Paid?

    Only Americans rationalize this kind of stupidity. It clearly works fine in so many countries, yet the stupidity continues.
  • 12-04-2014
    NJBiker72
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SauronHimself View Post
    It's not possible to say she chose to have sex unless she says so. The only thing that can be declared with certainty is that she chose to stay pregnant. The only alternative would be an abortion, but I know many people here would have choice words about such a decision.

    It is entirely a choice to engage in the action that causes the preganancy. Rape is a different story. But when you are dealing with consensual sex, that results in a known risk. That is the person's choice. Asking others to pay for your choice is not right. Mandating others pay for your choice has adverse consequences.
  • 12-04-2014
    NJBiker72
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by serious View Post
    Only Americans rationalize this kind of stupidity. It clearly works fine in so many countries, yet the stupidity continues.

    It clearly works fine. With zero explanation. Zero understanding. Zero knowledge.

    Yet call OTHERS stupid.

    Pretty typical around here.
  • 12-04-2014
    SauronHimself
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NJBiker72 View Post
    It is entirely a choice to engage in the action that causes the preganancy. Rape is a different story. But when you are dealing with consensual sex, that results in a known risk. That is the person's choice. Asking others to pay for your choice is not right. Mandating others pay for your choice has adverse consequences.

    If you replaced pregnancy terms with those related to smoking cigarettes, your argument would be logically sound. There is nothing inherently physical about smokers that we cannot change. Smoking is also not necessary for the continuation of our species. However, females have inherently unchangeable anatomies, and procreation is necessary to continue our species. In biology procreation is the norm, whereas abstention is the exception. Conversely, smoking is the exception vice the norm. To not accommodate for something that is necessary and inherent about our species seems illogical.
  • 12-04-2014
    NJBiker72
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SauronHimself View Post
    If you replaced pregnancy terms with those related to smoking cigarettes, your argument would be logically sound. There is nothing inherently physical about smokers that we cannot change. Smoking is also not necessary for the continuation of our species. However, females have inherently unchangeable anatomies, and procreation is necessary to continue our species. In biology procreation is the norm, whereas abstention is the exception. Conversely, smoking is the exception vice the norm. To not accommodate for something that is necessary and inherent about our species seems illogical.

    It is not eliminating it. It is taking responsibility for it. You can choose to engage in sexual activities. That is a good thing. But if you can't afford to get pregnant. Use a condom or take other measures to not get pregnant. Not foolproof. But pretty effective.

    Making other people pay for your choice is selfish and economically unsound.
  • 12-04-2014
    TerminatorX91
    Dum Dum
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NJBiker72 View Post
    You are the DERP king with a ton of argle bargle per post.

    For 1 minute, let's ignore yur dubious morality of asking everyone else to pay for your decisions.

    Let's just deal with the cold hard facts and decisions.

    You are an employer. You have 2 candidates. Both equally qualified. One is eligible to take off for a year with paid leave upon the employee's choosing. The other is not and if they want off for a year, they can take it, but would have no pay and no guaranty of a job upon their return. Who do you hire?

    My first guess is you tell the employer that they are mandated to hire the more costly employee. Or be subject to a lawsuit. As dumb of an idea as that is and has proven to be, let's go with it.

    How does the business afford this risk? Now surely, you will insist someone else pay for this. Ok who? Since I don't hear you volunteering your dough, let's try some alternatives.

    Insurance? Assuming you still want the company to pay for the employee's choice, the company would have to buy it. But at what cost? It is going to be pricy, since there is a great moral hazard to insuring against something someone else can choose to do. So now this goes back to the first point, it will be far more costly to employ, employee A over employee B. The rational decision? Oh yes, that's right mandates, quotas and lawsuits. Always the answer.

    Who else could pay? Why the taxpayers of course? Then at least you eliminate the cost and the disincentive to hire employee A. But the moral hazard is still there. The cost is there. It just comes out of everyone's pockets. To pay for 1 person's choice.

    Go ahead, argle, bargle, derp your way through that.


    I don't have nor will I be having children so the premise of your argument, that I'm asking everyone else to pay for my decisions, doesn't exist.

    Go ahead, argle, bargle, derp your way through that, indeed.
  • 12-04-2014
    serious
    PREGNANCY: should companies accommodate?
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NJBiker72 View Post
    It clearly works fine. With zero explanation. Zero understanding. Zero knowledge.

    Yet call OTHERS stupid.

    Pretty typical around here.

    Travel a bit, live in other countries before dismissing what many of us are saying.