• 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

Another issue tied into all this is that there are no wages for housework. Being a stay-at-home mom or dad is certainly a privilege for many families, but it is hard work. Especially in early developmental stages, it is probably best for all children to spend the majority of their day with a parent. When your priorities are maximizing economic growth, as opposed to social well-being (harder to quantify), then you end up with shit like this.
 
Hire women and put a mandatory clause in their contract that everyone takes their birth control pill together at 9 am everyday under the supervision of the boss. It builds camaraderie within the child bearing age uterus having members of the office and takes the burden off the employer if they get preggo as a breach of contract. Problem solved.
 
Last edited:
ONW said:
Hire women and put a mandatory clause in their contract that everyone takes their birth control pill together at 9 am everyday under the supervision of the boss. It builds camaraderie within the child bearing age uterus having members of the office and takes the burden off the employer if they get preggo as a breach of contract. Problem solved.
Click to expand...

Maybe make it mandatory for the dudes too.
 
Deacon923 said:
This paragraph from the article pretty much sums up 2&2's entire contribution to this thread as an admitted discriminator who is proud that he can sniff out the potential preggos without them knowing they've been discriminated against.
Click to expand...

So, again, businesses are supposed to ignore their own actual #anecdotes because a plaintiff's employment attorney on the other side of the country makes a general claim that what they actually experienced did not actually happen? It was apparently all just a dream. Gotcha.
 
No, you're supposed to embrace the realization that you have a perception bias and a selective perception on these things where knowing national trends or statistics can help you sort out the anomalies and noise from what is actually occurring. I firmly believe that an ability to avoid being emotional and remaining a rational actor is a pretty big critical aspect of almost every big decision you undertake - which I would certainly believe hiring someone to a small business to be. While you may have had bad experiences in the past, knowing that they are not likely to continue to occur can change the entire mindset to how you undertake, in this case, hiring practices which can have a long-term benefit for your business. Other companies will overreact to this issues thus theoretically giving you a leg up merely by not being overly emotional.

Or you could just not hire women who might get pregnant and throw yourself into an area where you're diluting your own ability to hire new employees. If you have enough people applying then you do you.
 
ChrisL68 said:
So you are really surprised that an employment attorney would feel that way?

I remember when I was at Andersen there was one female employee who actually quit before her 12 week paid maternity leave and it shocked everybody who expected her to take the benefit and then quit like everybody else does. Not that it really was that material to a company the size of Andersen at the time, but the point stands.
Click to expand...

It does not surprise me to learn that relatively high paid, likely college-educated women working at a huge consultancy, who statistically are in stable marriages to college-educated males who also have good stable jobs, might take advantage of corporate maternity leave policies. I would hesitate to generalize that #anecdote to women who don't fit into that relatively narrow box and have much more need of a steady paycheck and less of a family/spouse safety net, which is the vast majority of women.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
No, you're supposed to embrace the realization that you have a perception bias and a selective perception on these things where knowing national trends or statistics can help you sort out the anomalies and noise from what is actually occurring. I firmly believe that an ability to avoid being emotional and remaining a rational actor is a pretty big critical aspect of almost every big decision you undertake - which I would certainly believe hiring someone to a small business to be. While you may have had bad experiences in the past, knowing that they are not likely to continue to occur can change the entire mindset to how you undertake, in this case, hiring practices which can have a long-term benefit for your business. Other companies will overreact to this issues thus theoretically giving you a leg up merely by not being overly emotional.

Or you could just not hire women who might get pregnant and throw yourself into an area where you're diluting your own ability to hire new employees. If you have enough people applying then you do you.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we'll usually get about 50-80 resumes per available position, so to me it is just another criteria to easily get it down to a manageable number.
But honest question for you - where does the line exist between experience and #anecdotes? And how many times are you supposed to put up with the same bad result arising from the exact situation while thinking that "they are not likely to continue to occur" because KenPom says so? You can call it "perception bias" and "selective perception" or whatever other buzz word from an article you want to use to make it look like there is a black and white answer that is clearly apparent from a 30,000-foot view, but there is also a reason why experience in business is valued. Everyone on here loves to say that insanity is doing the same act and expecting different results, so at what point does trusting some nebulous stats become insane? Or is it okay to be insane so long as you are PC?
 
Were you not getting enough attention today, 2&2?
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Yeah, we'll usually get about 50-80 resumes per available position, so to me it is just another criteria to easily get it down to a manageable number.
But honest question for you - where does the line exist between experience and #anecdotes? And how many times are you supposed to put up with the same bad result arising from the exact situation while thinking that "they are not likely to continue to occur" because KenPom says so? You can call it "perception bias" and "selective perception" or whatever other buzz word from an article you want to use to make it look like there is a black and white answer that is clearly apparent from a 30,000-foot view, but there is also a reason why experience in business is valued. Everyone on here loves to say that insanity is doing the same act and expecting different results, so at what point does trusting some nebulous stats become insane? Or is it okay to be insane so long as you are PC?
Click to expand...

Hey you do you.

Just out of curiosity how many times have you had female employees quit while pregnant after taking their leave? It sounds like it's happened a whole lot to you.
 
And I wouldn't use statistics if they weren't readily available for my specific situation. In areas where statistics show that X is likely to occur across the nation, it might differ in specific areas thus marking the statistics not as relevant. However if my options are to go with what I saw (i.e. if I were to have only watched the Wake-Duke game last year where Wake won and used it to place a bet instead of consulting with a couple of statistics indicating what the likely outcome will be with a margin of error accounted for) I'm almost always going to go with the statistics. That's the purpose of statistics. The key is looking at the methodology and understanding the practical application.

If you honestly believe that the statistics on females leaving the workplace after "milking" the FMLA leave and ditching are misleading because of your own, undoubtedly, smaller sample size, then that's fine. Like I said I think that there are likely some small differences in the national average and in your area, but would I for one second rely solely on my own interviewing experiences and subsequent problems with employees on a very specific issue like this to add an additional layer of (discriminatory I might add) factors into who I hire rather than statistics with a solid methodological backbone? Not for one second.

Then again that's the beauty(?) of capitalism. You do you and if it works then great.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Yeah, we'll usually get about 50-80 resumes per available position, so to me it is just another criteria to easily get it down to a manageable number.
But honest question for you - where does the line exist between experience and #anecdotes? And how many times are you supposed to put up with the same bad result arising from the exact situation while thinking that "they are not likely to continue to occur" because KenPom says so? You can call it "perception bias" and "selective perception" or whatever other buzz word from an article you want to use to make it look like there is a black and white answer that is clearly apparent from a 30,000-foot view, but there is also a reason why experience in business is valued. Everyone on here loves to say that insanity is doing the same act and expecting different results, so at what point does trusting some nebulous stats become insane? Or is it okay to be insane so long as you are PC?
Click to expand...

lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top