• 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

Wakeforest22890 said:
Yeah and I'm sure that down here in the real world, far away from your theories on what "should" happen is the land where your situation is far, far less likely to occur than what actually does occur: discrimination on the basis of gender.
Click to expand...

Apparently, you haven't had the pleasure of employing many women in their 20s and 30s.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Not really sure how it is slippery. I don't think you can say there has never been white employee who has ended up in prison. I do think you you can say that there has never been a male employee who got pregnant. There is a pretty solid distinction between the two.
Click to expand...

I'm just tuning in, but this is the first 2&2 post that has me genuinely scratching my head. All those other posts seem like the product of genuine convictions, which I don't agree with, but I can see how those posts follow from those convictions.

This post just doesn't even make sense.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Sure, so if a company has been hit with a rash of dudes leaving because of parental reasons, then they should be free to adjust the pay of potential fathers accordingly.
Click to expand...

OK, but you said it wasn't a slippery slope risk because only women do it... but now you are agreeing that men do it too... so the race comparison is fair.

Also, men tend to be paid more after having children:

The Motherhood Penalty vs. the Fatherhood Bonus
 
avalon said:
OK, but you said it wasn't a slippery slope risk because only women do it... but now you are agreeing that men do it too... so the race comparison is fair.

Also, men tend to be paid more after having children:

The Motherhood Penalty vs. the Fatherhood Bonus
Click to expand...

I'm saying each company should be able to decide for itself based on its own history. People leave jobs for many reasons. If a company thinks that, in its experience, women leave to have kids to the point they are materially affected, then they should be free to hedge against that in their salaries. If a company thinks that, in its experience, men leave to have kids to the point they are materially affected, then they should be free to hedge against that in their salaries.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
I'm saying each company should be able to decide for itself based on its own history. People leave jobs for many reasons. If a company thinks that, in its experience, women leave to have kids to the point they are materially affected, then they should be free to hedge against that in their salaries. If a company thinks that, in its experience, men leave to have kids to the point they are materially affected, then they should be free to hedge against that in their salaries.
Click to expand...

Exactly why your reasoning is a terrifying precedent, and completely illegal in almost every version of its discrimination.
 
So you'd rather have me artifically depress wages across the board to avoid breaking a law while still addressing the actual problem, than to let the actual facts of the situation dictate how much I pay different employees? Fantastic logic, but then I guess it allows you complain about stagnant wages.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
So you'd rather have me artifically depress wages across the board to avoid breaking a law while still addressing the actual problem, than to let the actual facts of the situation dictate how much I pay different employees? Fantastic logic, but then I guess it allows you complain about stagnant wages.
Click to expand...

When those actual facts of the situation are discriminatory, then yes. You're passing on a business cost to select employees due to gender bias.
 
WFFaithful said:
When those actual facts of the situation are discriminatory, then yes. You're passing on a business cost to select employees due to gender bias.
Click to expand...

Uh no, I'm paying them for the actual expected value of their services to the business, which includes the expected cost of downtime and to train their replacement when they likely leave in the near future. Should they stick around, then I obviously have the right to give them a raise or bonus.

ETA: plus, it isn't gender bias if I'm willing to pay older and/or unattractive women the same as I would pay a dude. You should really look up to me, as it is Affirmative Action for old and ugly women.
 
Last edited:
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
So you'd rather have me artifically depress wages across the board to avoid breaking a law while still addressing the actual problem, than to let the actual facts of the situation dictate how much I pay different employees? Fantastic logic, but then I guess it allows you complain about stagnant wages.
Click to expand...

Sometimes we have laws that we don't like following. I'm sure slaveowners hated abolition too. The EV for free, forced labor was suuuuuuuper high!
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Uh no, I'm paying them for the actual expected value of their services to the business, which includes the expected cost of downtime and to train their replacement when they likely leave in the near future. Should they stick around, then I obviously have the right to give them a raise or bonus.

ETA: plus, it isn't gender bias if I'm willing to pay older and/or unattractive women the same as I would pay a dude. You should really look up to me, as it is Affirmative Action for old and ugly women.
Click to expand...

:popcorn:
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Uh no, I'm paying them for the actual expected value of their services to the business, which includes the expected cost of downtime and to train their replacement when they likely leave in the near future. Should they stick around, then I obviously have the right to give them a raise or bonus.

ETA: plus, it isn't gender bias if I'm willing to pay older and/or unattractive women the same as I would pay a dude. You should really look up to me, as it is Affirmative Action for old and ugly women.
Click to expand...

I know - why don't you just ASK them during the interview if they plan on having kids so you can be sure you're not unfairly compensating a woman who doesn't plan on having them!!


:tard:
 
Oh, I definitely lead them into answering that question. I interview probably 50 women of childbearing age per year for various positions, and probably 25 of them will walk right into answering that question without me asking it. A few address it in a manageable way.
 
lbE08 said:
I know - why don't you just ASK them during the interview if they plan on having kids so you can be sure you're not unfairly compensating a woman who doesn't plan on having them!!


:tard:
Click to expand...

2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Oh, I definitely lead them into answering that question. I interview probably 50 women of childbearing age per year for various positions, and probably 25 of them will walk right into answering that question without me asking it. A few address it in a manageable way.
Click to expand...

Quoted for posterity, just in case an enterprising plaintiff's lawyer comes after you for gender discrimination one day.
 
Meh, it's not gender discrimination if I still hire many more women than men. It's just that older, ugly, and generally unkempt ladies can move to the front of the line. It's the employment version of Goin Hoggin.
 
Pretty sure basing your hiring/pay based on likelihood of getting preggers is still illegal as shit regardless of how often you go hoggin'.
 
Good lord, 2&2. Have you ever met a person and thought about them as a human being instead of a profits-generating robot?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top