Sign in to follow this  
nick

The Open War On Women

Recommended Posts

the drumpt says women who seek abortions "should be punished". the American Women's Soccer Team is suing the American Soccer Association for blatant wage discrimination. they have won THREE world cups, the American men zip.

the incredibly successful AWST fly measly economy, the loser men fly business, even though they have never won a darn thing.

and the latest in tennis. the idiot organizer of rolex tournaments said women should fall on their knees every night that there is a nadal, a Sampras, a docokivz.

is it just me that thinks this is a new war on women? women who are ten years older than me worry about what they fought for and has been achieved historically and every day. rosa parks, marie curie, Florence Nightingale, Rosie the Riveter.

Edited by nick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

White men are a dying breed. They know it and they're grasping at any advantage they have over anybody. That's my take on it anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
San Francisco on Tuesday became the first city in the United States to approve six weeks of fully paid leave for new parents — mothers and fathers, including same-sex couples, who either bear or adopt a child.
The new law in San Francisco, passed unanimously by the city’s Board of Supervisors, mandates full pay, with the 45 percent difference being paid by employers.
The ordinance goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2017, for companies with more than 50 employees, and a year later for those with 20 or more workers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/06/us/san-francisco-approves-fully-paid-parental-leave.html?_r=0

So in 2017 companies with 50 or more employees and in 2018 companies with more than 20 employees will have to pay 45% of the employees pay for that 6 weeks.

I presume the company will have to raise the prices of the products or services they offer, who loses as usual?, the consumer.

I wonder how many companies will cut their workforce to stay below the magic number of 50 or 20 when this law goes into effect?, how many companies will only hire part time employees to circumvent the law, how many companies will hire less women?

I wonder how many companies will close, how many companies will leave the State?

Yes the law says fathers, but I wonder if employers will be more worried about hiring women than men because of this.

Don't you just love Lawmaker who think they should control what a Private Companies should pay for?

Edited by Southern Trails

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a fair number of laws on the books that have benefitted me personally due to Lawmakers controlling how Private companies do business. I've no doubt that there were folks who objected to pretty much every law that forced employers to provide something to employee's. (Minimum wage, anti-discrimination, etc.).

Having laws that put some boundaries around what employers can and can't do isn't always a bad thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good employer treats his employees good & pays them a fair wage, but there are some that would never offer their employees a raise, but still raise their prices, & pocket the rest. Rules & regulations are often results of someone not holding up their end of the deal. At times government goes to far with laws they pass, & make it difficult for some businesses to operate. There has to be a happy medium some where. PD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the main part of my post was overlooked, the thread is Open War on Women, does forcing a Company to pay 45% of someone salary while they are on leave not suggest this new Law may be harmful in hiring practices?

Yes, some Laws about workers may be just, but then again, I have always had the mindset to find another job if the employer was not treating me correctly, I have a brain and do not need somewhat brainless politician holding my hand.

Forcing companies to pay part of someones salary when they are not working is beyond reasonable as in this case, IMO.

Especially starting in 2018 when a very small company of 21 employees will have to do it, that could really hurt small companies.

If you want to have a baby or adopt a baby, you should have sufficient resources saved up for such a long term commitment, it is not the employers job to pay.

.

Edited by Southern Trails

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would rather have a employer set up it's own family leave plan, than have government dictate it. If government is going to dictate for them, then they best have a tax break, for that employer to be able to afford it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If employers weren't forced by law or unions to enact benefits, employment in the US would look very different. Read labor history.

Edited by jubal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the main part of my post was overlooked, the thread is Open War on Women, does forcing a Company to pay 45% of someone salary while they are on leave not suggest this new Law may be harmful in hiring practices?

Yes, some Laws about workers may be just, but then again, I have always had the mindset to find another job if the employer was not treating me correctly, I have a brain and do not need somewhat brainless politician holding my hand.

Forcing companies to pay part of someones salary when they are not working is beyond reasonable as in this case, IMO.

Especially starting in 2018 when a very small company of 21 employees will have to do it, that could really hurt small companies.

If you want to have a baby or adopt a baby, you should have sufficient resources saved up for such a long term commitment, it is not the employers job to pay.

.

Have you never had a paid vacation? Isn't that getting paid while not working?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you never had a paid vacation? Isn't that getting paid while not working?

The Government does not mandate paid vacations.

If a company gives paid vacation, then ALL employees get a paid vacation, not just some of them.

With this Law, only people who have a baby or adopt a baby get paid leave, that is Discrimation to all those that do not want to have a baby or adopt a baby.

Some do not want a baby, some are too old to have a baby, why should a select segment of workers be penalized/discriminated against by not having that extra 6 weeks paid leave?, bu Law you cannot discrimate agaist for instance the older segment of workers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it discrimination when you do have a choice? You CAN choose to have a child---or not. By your reckoning, if part-time workers or seasonal workers don't get a paid vacation, that would be discrimination too, and they don't get a choice, really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would rather have a employer set up it's own family leave plan, than have government dictate it. If government is going to dictate for them, then they best have a tax break, for that employer to be able to afford it.

I'm quoting my own post, as I'm contradicting myself from previous posts, I still would rather have employers set up their own family leave plan than government, but most won't until they are forced to. With more single head of household women in the work force, family leave is just more needed, than it once was, as there isn't a spouse out there to make up the difference. We live in a time when to many men want have a good time with the ladies, but not take responsiblity for their actions if these women get pregnant. My daughter married such a man , & went in military to support her children, & almost got killed in Iraq, to support her children, while her spouse sitting on his duff back home. We have to many youngmen these days that are lazy jerks, & don't want to grow up they only want to party. Who taught them that?, probably wasn't mom, as she was to busy working. But if a woman collects some kind of assistance to support her children, then she is targetted as lazy & undeserving, Welfare agencies have little interest in going after men that don't pay child support. So where is the justice? I raised daughters & neither is afraid to work & get their hands dirty, I can't say that about some losers I know. PD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it discrimination when you do have a choice? You CAN choose to have a child---or not. By your reckoning, if part-time workers or seasonal workers don't get a paid vacation, that would be discrimination too, and they don't get a choice, really.

Sounds like you do not know too much about HR and Workers Rights Laws, part time and seasonal workers are exempt for most laws of equal pay and equal benefits.

Having a child?, how many 60 year old workers want to or can have a child? This is discrimination because they do not get the same paid time off for having a baby as other empoyees are offered.

As far as a choice, planning to be financially responsible for a child is the persons responsibility, not the employer.

What’s next? Employers have to provide a car so the employee can get to work? Employers must pay for workers lunch becasue they must eat?

Liberals amaze me

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never been a liberal in my 68 years. Your "logic" simply amazes me. And yes, having worked most of my life, I knew that about part-time, which was the reason I asked the question you clumsily side-stepped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having a child?, how many 60 year old workers want to or can have a child? This is discrimination because they do not get the same paid time off for having a baby as other empoyees are offered.

Read more: http://forums.horsecity.com/index.php?showtopic=47105451#ixzz45Ro5ygmT

But maybe they would have liked to have that option when they did have children. It sounds kinda like you're jealous that you can't take advantage of this law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ST: Having a child?, how many 60 year old workers want to or can have a child? This is discrimination because they do not get the same paid time off for having a baby as other empoyees are offered.

J: But maybe they would have liked to have that option when they did have children. It sounds kinda like you're jealous that you can't take advantage of this law.

Eh? I thought the law said women AND men having/adopting a child could take advantage of this law? So if ST did have or adopt a child he most certainly *could* take advantage of that law.

I wonder about people who cannot (age or medical inability) have a child, do not want to adopt and let's not forget the part of the population who simply do not want to have children of their own. Is that not discriminatory? Or at the very least, exclusionary? I do not like programs that reward procreation just for the sake of procreation. How about a reward program for being responsible for yourself?

Oz, why do you think part time and/or seasonal workers should have vacation time?

I imagine if they aren't a full-time employee having retirement and/or dent/med benefits pulled from their earnings, the part-time and seasonal worker gets to *keep* that pay. If we are going to make an employer budget and account for part-time and seasonal workers, those workers will need to be prepared to have those non-tax-related monies removed from their weekly pay and then not have access to it until they either need to use it or they reach the termination of their temporary employment with the company. Seems sort of six-of-one-half-dozen-of-the-other.

Edited by Heidi n Q

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh? I thought the law said women AND men having/adopting a child could take advantage of this law? So if ST did have or adopt a child he most certainly *could* take advantage of that law.

Read more: http://forums.horsecity.com/index.php?showtopic=47105451#ixzz45THvAZp1

Exactly! So if ST wanted to adopt or father a child, he could take advantage of the paid leave. How is that a discriminatory law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oz, why do you think part time and/or seasonal workers should have vacation time?

I imagine if they aren't a full-time employee having retirement and/or dent/med benefits pulled from their earnings, the part-time and seasonal worker gets to *keep* that pay. If we are going to make an employer budget and account for part-time and seasonal workers, those workers will need to be prepared to have those non-tax-related monies removed from their weekly pay and then not have access to it until they either need to use it or they reach the termination of their temporary employment with the company. Seems sort of six-of-one-half-dozen-of-the-other.

I imagine for the very same reason you are crying about the maternity breaks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

now i'm reading that as part of orientation week activities coeds are being advised on many college campuses about what to do in the case of being sexually assaulted. (don't report it, don't bother us with it). this due to the rise in instances and the totally sad arse way that the administrations have historically reacted. say what?

"dear ms. X,

congratulations on being accepted to Harvard university. just be aware that being raped might be part of the cost of admission".

a mock letter posted in response to the dismissive attitude college administrations have had to rape cases to date. 1 in 5 coeds are sexually assaulted each college year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ST's link only applies to companies operating in the bay area, and yes I DO think it's important to support working moms and dads. if they don't have babies who is going to work, pay taxes and support the infrastructure of not the next generation? for those of you who want to appreciate the "relevance" of this just take a look at what is happening in china and japan. the population is going over a cliff and Jubal posted a head turning thread recently what is going on in china with aging/parent child relationships.

all of that is off topic. the war on women is very real, and for those women who are tired of hearing about it than read something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we have 58 weeks of maternity/paternity leave with 80% salary (payed by the government) or 46 weeks with 100% salary.

Maternity leave is not a "reward for having a baby" but a recognition of what is best for the baby.

Our government has made our economy so that 90% of families have to have 2 incomes to support themselves (expensive country to live in) and allowing the parents to stay at home the first year is necessary. Kindergartens here do not allow children younger than 11 months old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this