Are you asking how many anecdotal experiences are needed to become statistically significant? Maybe you should work on eliminating variables first.So no legit answer?
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.
So it looks like 2&2 and his employees are acting in their best interests within the law.
What's the problem?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Who does have the resources to bear these financial and operational burdens?
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.
I don't actually believe in morality so that's a good point.
Cool. Thanks.
Carry on.