• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Ladies and gentleman...the worst human ever

So it looks like 2&2 and his employees are acting in their best interests within the law.

What's the problem?
 
Wakeforest22890;[B said:
1910478]You realize his point isn't that you should pay more so you can keep pregnant people, it's to pay more so that you can retain good employees[/B] and not be forced to bear the costs of going through the transactional costs of hiring a new employee, right? Obviously if it was worth it for them to stay then they would. As is, it's a lose-lose: they lose because it's not worth it to stay at a job that doesn't pay enough to get them child care (or so we theorize) while you lose because you have to suffer the time and financial burden of replacing employees instead of just paying them more to stay.

And to piggyback off of 923, of course it's easier to just do what you do: discriminate. That's the whole reason we have laws preventing it, because it provides an efficient breach for the employer while wholly shifting the burden onto the shoulders of (in this case) women who may potentially get pregnant.

Bottomline is that regardless of the legality of the situation, which we all agree in your situation is not illegal SOLELY because you are a small employer, it's a despicable business practice and just shows that you value some extra bucks in your pocket over any sense of morality, empathy, or social compassion for fellow humankind.
Click to expand...

But what makes the possibly pregnant employee by default a better employee than the woman I hire instead of her? Do you know what makes a good employee? Somebody who shows up, does their job without disrupting anyone else, and goes home. They are not performing brain surgery. As I mentioned, I get between 50 and 80 fungible applications for one position. So why do I have to go out of my way to affirmatively hire someone who may get pregnant and incur the additional risk? It makes no sense. Why am I supposed to give preference to someone I think will not be a "good employee" over someone I think will be a "good employee"?
 
Because we as a society value the fact that women who might get pregnant are able to find jobs without having to face discrimination more than we value the business owner's right to "incur the additional risk" that someone might get pregnant. It makes plenty of sense when you stop looking at the tree and instead look at the forest. I mean I realize you've spent a lot of time and money at these businesses which could have been time and money better spent elsewhere, so you're naturally biased (which is fine) but it's relatively apparent that the reason that there is protection for pregnancy is because we value their job potential more than your right to hire whomever you want whenever you want.

As to your last sentence, you're not giving preference to someone you might think will be a "good employee" on any rational grounds. You are merely using one single characteristic: pregnancy/pregnancy potential as a proxy for "good employee" versus "bad employee." That's literally the definition of discrimination. It couldn't be anymore textbook than it is in any sense of the word IMO: literal definition, legally (in the event that you have at least 15 employees), hell even how it's used in casual conversation. Basing someone's skills and abilities, and thus their hireability to one (physical) characteristic is not something that we as a society want to, or should, embrace merely so one individual has a little bit more control over their own entity.
 
PhDeac said:
So it looks like 2&2 and his employees are acting in their best interests within the law.

What's the problem?
Click to expand...

To me the problem is there's a gap in the law. I understand providing protection for small businesses, but personally I think the employee number for coverage for all these major federal statutes should be lower than 15. If small business owners who are currently in the market decide that this is going to increase costs too much to compete, then they will drop out of the market and I guarantee that someone else will step up to the plate and take over the spot in our capitalistic society. Isn't that what capitalism is all about in the first place? If regulations change and a small business can't compete anymore (fair or not based on what their understanding of the law was when they entered the marketplace) then they will be weeded out and a more economically efficient business who can compete will step up.
 
Maybe his wife has stopped giving him any and he is projecting that to all women.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
To me the problem is there's a gap in the law. I understand providing protection for small businesses, but personally I think the employee number for coverage for all these major federal statutes should be lower than 15. If small business owners who are currently in the market decide that this is going to increase costs too much to compete, then they will drop out of the market and I guarantee that someone else will step up to the plate and take over the spot in our capitalistic society. Isn't that what capitalism is all about in the first place? If regulations change and a small business can't compete anymore (fair or not based on what their understanding of the law was when they entered the marketplace) then they will be weeded out and a more economically efficient business who can compete will step up.
Click to expand...

Of course, you have never actually owned or operated a small business before, correct? It is easy to pontificate about all of these societal benefits that small business should just be responsible for when you have never actually had to stay in business and generate a profit to feed your family. This tone deaf attitude that many liberals have in this regard is one of the biggest complaints that many people have about Democrats in general.

I don't necessarily agree with 2&2, but I understand where he is coming from.
 
Last edited:
I've had small businesses and helped other who own them. 2&2's position is immoral and shows his lack of management skills. If his company was one worth working for, his results would be dramatically different.
 
ChrisL68 said:
Of course, you have never actually owned or operated a small business before, correct? It is easy to pontificate about all of these societal benefits that small business should just be responsible for when you have never actually had to stay in business and generate a profit to feed your family. This tone deaf attitude that many liberals have in this regard is one of the biggest complaints that many people have about Democrats in general.

I don't necessarily agree with 2&2, but I understand where he is coming from.
Click to expand...

We have laws to prevent someone's need to stay in business and generate a profit to feed their family from conflicting with someone else's need to have a job to feed their family.

The tone deaf attitude from the right is that they want to protect the right to discriminate while blaming those who are discriminated against for not having stable employment.
 
ChrisL68 said:
Of course, you have never actually owned or operated a small business before, correct? It is easy to pontificate about all of these societal benefits that small business should just be responsible for when you have never actually had to stay in business and generate a profit to feed your family. This tone deaf attitude that many liberals have in this regard is one of the biggest complaints that many people have about Democrats in general.

I don't necessarily agree with 2&2, but I understand where he is coming from.
Click to expand...

Small businesses know about these risks when they enter the market. It is what it is. Small businesses are far better equipped to handle these shifts than the women 2&2 jst hiring to a self-proclaimed position that doesn't require much skill and is fungible.
 
PhDeac said:
We have laws to prevent someone's need to stay in business and generate a profit to feed their family from conflicting with someone else's need to have a job to feed their family.

The tone deaf attitude from the right is that they want to protect the right to discriminate while blaming those who are discriminated against for not having stable employment.
Click to expand...


We have a balance where we don't push these social engineering regulations down to businesses that don't have the resources to bear the financial and operational burden of meeting these requirements.
 
ChrisL68 said:
We have a balance where we don't push these social engineering regulations down to businesses that don't have the resources to bear the financial and operational burden of meeting these requirements.
Click to expand...

Who does have the resources to bear these financial and operational burdens?
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Less than 10% have quit for non-baby reasons. We've fired a lot more than that. But, of course, it is easier to blame the employer than face the reality that the world is not always as PC as everyone would like.
It's not like the problem is hard to figure out ... when you factor the cost of daycare, it isn't worth it economically for the mother to work for the going industry rate for the position. I get it, and I don't blame them for making that calculation. I don't need a University study to teach me how to multiply and subtract. But yet knowing that fact and using it in a hiring decision is somehow discriminatory.
Click to expand...

Why are you having to fire so many? Aren't you the guy hiring them?
 
ONW said:
Who does have the resources to bear these financial and operational burdens?
Click to expand...

Big business. Big business loves regulation because it creates barriers to entry.

If Big 4 firm hires in an office that includes high pregnancy attrition, they can fill in from other offices, etc.

If mom and pop firm hires two people and both are pregnancy attrition, it can seriously affect them.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ONW
Wakeforest22890 said:
Bottomline is that regardless of the legality of the situation, which we all agree in your situation is not illegal SOLELY because you are a small employer, it's a despicable business practice and just shows that you value some extra bucks in your pocket over any sense of morality, empathy, or social compassion for fellow humankind.
Click to expand...

I must confess that I find your invocation of "morality" amusing. I thought thoroughgoing liberals like yourself viewed the concept of morality as the vestige of a bygone age. Justify your views according to some principal or heuristic--utilitarianism, capitalism, socialism, liberty, some admixture of them, etc., but to invoke "morality" is like a 5 year old saying it's not "fair." It's a meaningless concept without reference to the principle.

Or maybe that's just when old-time "morality" conflicts with your own more enlightened values? Or, maybe you're just using that outdated terminology for rhetorical effect?

Whatever the case, I don't request a response--nor do I want to derail this delightful thread. Just the musings of an old so and so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top