Ladies and gentleman...the worst human ever

[Baconwfu]

the last few pages have been pretty funny
The argument from the left side on this thread for the last few pages has roundly ignored any reality of small business management/ownership. It's kind of like when people on the right talk about poor people in the since that they should try harder and make more money. I mean, it might be the brutally honest, correct statement, but completely ignores/belittles reality thus is a pretty ineffective argument. (To be clear, I'm not equating a poor person struggling to make ends meet with blight of a small business owner trying to replace an employee who left, I'm equating the tone deaf mentality behind the arguments)
Building and running even the simplest business is challenging, it takes a lot of work and risk. People put their hearts and souls into these business and have lots of money (and ego...never underestimate ego) in them. There are hundreds of thousands of things that can derail a business and part of running a business is trying to minimize risk, thus the temptation to think twice when hiring a woman of child bearing age to a critical position. Again, I don't agree with 2&2, but in line with what ChrisL68 is saying, but it's very easy to see where he's coming from.
Just as you might look at someone some rich OWG politician talking about fighting poverty and say, "he can't possibly help poverty because clearly he doesn't understand impoverished people", I would say that (based on the statements made), "if you really want to discuss problems in the business world, you have to have a better understanding of the businessman"....i mean person.

 

[Deacon923]

Good post, Bacon. There's a good reason why many business/employment regulations don't kick in until x number of employees.

I can't speak for other posters, but I personally have plenty of experience with small business as a lawyer representing those businesses and a partner in a small law firm (over 50 but less than 100 total employees). I appreciate the need for smaller businesses to have more flexibility and less impact from certain regulations. While I think the US would do well to implement some additional labor protections, such as more mandatory vacation and maternity leave, I don't really support a blanket "equal pay" law and I don't think we should get rid of the "employment at will" doctrine. Looking at the rest of the world, in this case some European countries (esp. France and Spain) have given us a model of what not to do by putting too many restrictions on employers and causing their labor force to stagnate.

What I have been arguing against primarily is the attitude of some posters that discrimination against women is either nonexistent, too small to be a problem, or the women deserve it because #anecdotally some women take the leave and don't come back to work. We also have one poster on this thread who has stated that he has several small businesses all under 15 employees so he can "stay off the radar" and keep up his discriminatory practices. I don't find any of those positions particularly sympathetic.

 

[Wakeforest22890]

the last few pages have been pretty funny
The argument from the left side on this thread for the last few pages has roundly ignored any reality of small business management/ownership. It's kind of like when people on the right talk about poor people in the since that they should try harder and make more money. I mean, it might be the brutally honest, correct statement, but completely ignores/belittles reality thus is a pretty ineffective argument. (To be clear, I'm not equating a poor person struggling to make ends meet with blight of a small business owner trying to replace an employee who left, I'm equating the tone deaf mentality behind the arguments)
Building and running even the simplest business is challenging, it takes a lot of work and risk. People put their hearts and souls into these business and have lots of money (and ego...never underestimate ego) in them. There are hundreds of thousands of things that can derail a business and part of running a business is trying to minimize risk, thus the temptation to think twice when hiring a woman of child bearing age to a critical position. Again, I don't agree with 2&2, but in line with what ChrisL68 is saying, but it's very easy to see where he's coming from.
Just as you might look at someone some rich OWG politician talking about fighting poverty and say, "he can't possibly help poverty because clearly he doesn't understand impoverished people", I would say that (based on the statements made), "if you really want to discuss problems in the business world, you have to have a better understanding of the businessman"....i mean person.

Really good post and a fair position.

 

[Wakeforest22890]

I can't speak for other posters, but I personally have plenty of experience with small business as a lawyer representing those businesses and a partner in a small law firm (over 50 but less than 100 total employees).

YOU GUYS HIRING?!?!?1111

Asking for a friend.

 

[Deacon923]

PM sent.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

What I have been arguing against primarily is the attitude of some posters that discrimination against women is either nonexistent, too small to be a problem, or the women deserve it because #anecdotally some women take the leave and don't come back to work. We also have one poster on this thread who has stated that he has several small businesses all under 15 employees so he can "stay off the radar" and keep up his discriminatory practices. I don't find any of those positions particularly sympathetic.

How is that any different than a company following the old Supreme Court advice and attempting to minimze its tax burden within the existing laws? These particular employment laws have built-in thresholds for a reason, which reason has been thoroughly discussed here and it seems like most people agree with. There are relatively high compliance costs associated with exceeding the threshold, and the appropriate business decisions do not coincide with the compliance. So why shouldn't a company endeavor to stay below the threshold so that it can make the best business decision possible, the same way a company can accelerate a purchase to take advantage of bonus depreciation or structure its operations to take advantage of a multitude of other facets of our regulatory framework?

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

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.

It is a completely rational basis. As I've mentioned, perhaps the most important requirement for these particular jobs is reliability. If I don't think someone is going to reliably physically show up for work, then I'm not going to hire them. That same principal applies whether they don't have a car (we aren't on a bus line), live an hour away, arrive late to an interview, or smell like booze when they do show up. If I get the sense that someone is going to be gone after a few months and then not come back at all, then that goes directly to reliability.

 

[Wakeforest22890]

But you have no idea if the individual is reliable or not, you're just assuming they aren't because they may get pregnant. None of those other groups of people you named (as far as I know) have any sort of protected status in any state or federal statute.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

I have no idea if any employee is actually going to be a good employee absent a specific reference from someone I trust who happens to have direct knowledge. The entire hiring process is assumptions.

 

[Wakeforest22890]

Well and what you garner from the resume, interview, and references as a responsible employer.

Again, the point is that even if the entire hiring process is assumptions, we as a society have decided that pregnancy for businesses with 15 or more people is not a legally valid assumption to use when looking at potential employees.

 

[TownieDeac]

Hiring is really tough. Even though I'm still in the early stage of my career, I've had a hand in hiring at two different jobs, over a dozen people in a few different positions and levels. It's exceedingly challenging to get qualified people who are a good fit. I'd hate to add yet another criteria to the mix that they not be female and 13-50. just from a practical standpoint it seems challenging.

 

[Junebug]

For sure. Should have been more precise with my language and said it's selfish.

I'm not sure that's a very persuasive argument. Of course it's selfish; but just saying that doesn't explain why being selfish should be rejected in favor of something else. Social policy isn't on your side, because social policy draws the line at 15 employees, and Slider isn't in violation of that.

 

[Junebug]

Hiring is really tough. Even though I'm still in the early stage of my career, I've had a hand in hiring at two different jobs, over a dozen people in a few different positions and levels. It's exceedingly challenging to get qualified people who are a good fit. I'd hate to add yet another criteria to the mix that they not be female and 13-50. just from a practical standpoint it seems challenging.

Seems like this would make it easier, at least insofar as it cuts down the applicant pool.

 

[DistrictDeacon]

Well and what you garner from the resume, interview, and references as a responsible employer.

Again, the point is that even if the entire hiring process is assumptions, we as a society have decided that pregnancy for businesses with 15 or more people is not a legally valid assumption to use when looking at potential employees.

And we as a society have decided that it is legal for small businesses to use pregnancy as a valid assumption when looking at a potential employee.

 

[Wakeforest22890]

Right I don't disagree with that at all. It seems to me that a couple pages back 2&2 was asking generally why private employers of any kind shouldn't be able to discriminate on grounds of pregnancy. Maybe I misread that and he was just talking about small businesses.

 

[TownieDeac]

Seems like this would make it easier, at least insofar as it cuts down the applicant pool.

That's typically not the problem. I guess it is if you're hiring for a position that a monkey could be effective at.

 

[Deacon923]

How is that any different than a company following the old Supreme Court advice and attempting to minimze its tax burden within the existing laws? These particular employment laws have built-in thresholds for a reason, which reason has been thoroughly discussed here and it seems like most people agree with. There are relatively high compliance costs associated with exceeding the threshold, and the appropriate business decisions do not coincide with the compliance. So why shouldn't a company endeavor to stay below the threshold so that it can make the best business decision possible, the same way a company can accelerate a purchase to take advantage of bonus depreciation or structure its operations to take advantage of a multitude of other facets of our regulatory framework?

Do you also make all your cash deposits juuuuuust a little less than $10,000 at a time so you don't have to fill out the large deposit/anti-moneylaundering paperwork? Because that's illegal too. There's a difference between tax structuring and evading laws meant to fight crime or further social goals.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

That is a pretty strange position to take. So if somebody goes to a bar on their 21st birthday then that is objectionable? Howabout driving 54 in a 55mph zone so you don't get a ticket even though you want to go faster? What if the government drafts someone the day after their 18th birthday?
It is an arbitrary numerical cutoff like a thousand others under the law.

 

[JuiceCrewAllStar]

I don't think 2&2 is getting enough credit here for his ugly woman affirmative action stance.

 

[Deacon923]

That is a pretty strange position to take. So if somebody goes to a bar on their 21st birthday then that is objectionable? Howabout driving 54 in a 55mph zone so you don't get a ticket even though you want to go faster? What if the government drafts someone the day after their 18th birthday?
It is an arbitrary numerical cutoff like a thousand others under the law.

I don't think any of your examples have anything to do with my post. Try again.