The workers’ rights debate

Yesterday’s CTU employment relations debate was reported as feisty, but it felt fairly tame compared to union election debates of yore.  There were a couple of heckles, mostly just rude and abusive rather than the traditionally to be expected gruffly humorous or vaguely threatening.  There were a plethora leaflets being handed out from the Greens, Labour, the Alliance, and RAM (the last two were aggrieved at being excluded from the debate) so each attendee walked away with a veritable tree’s worth of literature.

What struck me was that Labour and the Progressives have got a down a tidy patter talking about the achievements they have won and attacking National for wanting to take away those gains. Their campaign is basically shaping up as a list of achievements and attacks.

Whereas, by comparison, Sue’s answers to questions were essentially forward looking – what can we achieve next?  She talked about improving the Employment Relations Act, starting work on a 35 hour week, creating a new Mondayised holiday for workers, lifting the minimum wage to $15 and extending paid parental leave.

That practical positivity accords with what Ben Thomas noted in the NBR recently:

But where are the government’s new ideas coming from to continue the dream of moderate social democracy it has been working on for nine years?

At least as far as its key area of employment relations is concerned, the answer is probably – the Greens. To a large extent the Labour government has outsourced its industrial relations policy-making to the Greens over the last three years.

Labour’s campaign strategy is fine is fine as far as it goes. In the area of employment relations there are significant differences to highlight between the Labour Progressive government and the National party.  And I’m sure it’s got more policy to come. But Sue’s positive and, dare I say it, ambitious approach seemed to go down well with workers and union members yesterday.

Sue Bradford

Photo credit: Finsec

57 thoughts on “The workers’ rights debate

  1. what can we achieve next? She talked about improving the Employment Relations Act, starting work on a 35 hour week, creating a new Mondayised holiday for workers, lifting the minimum wage to $15 and extending paid parental leave.

    Was there by any chance an employer group present and was affordability discussed?

    You can have any industrial relationship you like but without the other party contributing about what is affordable, what is the point?

    Lower the ROI of any employer (excep the state) or their investors and the jobs will go offshore (fintec know all about this).

    I guess once you have withdraw all the capitalist intiatives to invest, than the only employer will be the state. Is that the end game?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  2. Labour Progressive government ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

    What happened to Winston First & Last (and of course a few other ‘pledged’ supply and confidence votes)?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  3. Interesting that Trevor Mallard used the occasion to announce the Labour would be supporting statutory minimum redundancy pay.

    Labour has been in Government for 9 years, and they’ve only just come up with this now! Well, actually, they ‘ve only just stolen it from the Greens, for whom it has long been policy.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  4. Gerrit, just to make things clear:

    The Green policy re the 35 hour week is:

    Establish a taskforce to:

    1. Investigate the economic and social effects of a 35-hour working week in New Zealand.
    2. Provide advice to the Minister of Labour on how to address barriers to a 35-hour working week…

    Note investigate. So it is something the Greens would like to see happen, but would not implement unless it were economically viable.

    The Mondayised holiday would probably have little impact on employers, because it would fall in the long winter/spring period between Queen’s Birthday and Labour Day where there is currently none, and during which I suspect most employees take a “mental health day sickie” at some stage anyway.

    The extension to paid parental leave is a cost to the taxpayer, rather than just to employers. It would be phased in, not imposed in one whack. The policy doesn’t specify how quickly it would be phased in, although I suspect it might be somewhat slower given the economic situtation that has become apparent over the last few weeks that it would have been otherwise.

    As for the minimum wage, I suspect much of the cost to employers of increasing the minimum wage would be offset by the improved productivity of having a more satisfied workforce who are more motivated to actually turn up to work and to work hard when they got there . Pay peanuts, get monkeys!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  5. toad,

    Currently it is not a requirement to have redundency provisions sitting on a company’s balance sheet.

    Meaning that if a company goes bankrupt, the redundanty payments owing to the laid off staff will be owned to unsecured creditors.

    The laid off staff are unsecured creditors (wages do sit as an expnse on balance sheets).

    Bit different to say the ANZ who wants to lay-off call centre staff but keep operating. They would make provisions for the redundancy.

    Now if you were to make it compulsorary to have ALL redundancy provisions sitting on the balance sheet, it may well make many a company unprofitable or in the case of SOE’s or government departments, unable to keep under their current budgets.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  6. And paid parental leave not a burden on the employer?

    Ever tried to get temporary staff to cover a maternity leave employee?

    Not many around who will take on that work for what may well be an unknown length of time. Maternity leave can be revoked by the employee at any time.

    And employers have a trained member replaced by a new “untrained” (in the sense of knowing how the business functions in regards people, function, processeses and structure) staff member.

    I would never consider employing a women under 40 for any job. But that is me, rather have harder working older and mature people working smarter then employee someone younger.

    But that is another kettle of fish entirely.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  7. toad,
    if employers thought that paying higher wages would increase productivity to an extent greater than the cost then they would do it, many places do do this, particuarly quality of service companies such as call-centres. the fact that they dont shows that they beleive they would loose out and as such any compulsary move to higher wages will mean higher unemployment and more people on the dole; neccesitating more taxing, more borrowng, or less spending in other areas.

    Compulsaery redundancy pay, once again; it will increase risk to employers of bad workers and make them less likley to higher workers whom have previously not worked or have be fired or comited crimes; the result being more unemployment and more on the dole.

    More paid parential leave; greater pay discrepancy between males and fertile females. for reasons mentioned by gerrit and mentioned by me several times previously; it increases ritk and decreases the effective value of women, lol.

    35-hour week; well I dont really have any problems with this one, I assume that over timepay would be compulsary for any worker being made to work over that limit rather than the worker not being allowed to at all? would increase employment but would decrease the money madeby each individual, so working for families may betaken up by afew more people.

    Extra holiday; again, not so much of a problem, but it occurs to me most holidays tend to fall on sundays, not exactly the best fo non-sunday workers, could be an area to change.

    Unions have no place in a regulated economy where both a minimum wage and a benifit exist; take one ot the other, not both.
    As previously stated, several times, the workers policies accheive nothing in the way of workers rights, if anything they compromise them.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  8. “I would never consider employing a women under 40 for any job”

    I would never consider employing a {gay person} {black/asian/pacific islander} {etc} for any job

    way to discriminate Gerrit. your open-minded approach sheds a lot of light on other comments you make…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  9. I think you’ve missed his point entirely.

    It’s about risk (read: additional costs), not personal prejudice.

    These laws increase the risk of hiring one type of person, but not another. You need to find a way of mitigating that risk, otherwise such policies will lead to less women of childbearing age being employed.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  10. Thanks Blue Peter,

    That was my point.

    nommopilot, I like women under 40, I like them a lot.

    What I’m trying to say is that if I had to choice between employing a women under 40 and a women over 40, I would always go for the over 40 year old. (if I employed the under 40 year old would I be showing age discrimination by not employing the over 40 year old?).

    Reason is purely risk management. Why risk potential disruption to a business enterprise, when it is not neccessary.

    Some with young males and females under 25. To many show up for work straight from partying all nite and having to be sent home while either wasted or sleepy. Not worth the risk (OSH dont like to see sleepy workers) and loss of productivity.

    Hey, at least you know where my mind is at, so it is completely open. If that sheds light on my other comments, that is a good thing. Cherish it.

    I could always present you with platitudes and say I employ only those who are most qualified.

    However that would not be true as I look at how the new employee will fit in with the rest of the workforce. Skill is but one factor. Attitude is the most important. An ability to work with others is up there as well.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  11. BP,
    its useless, ive been argueing just that since i got to this blog over a year ago; they never listen.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  12. Gerrit has a good point, the proposed extensions to paid maternity leave (which is a stupid idea) makes the hiring of a young newly married female a really dumb thing to do.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  13. same goes for the removal of the youth wage; if anything it disadvantages youth.
    The purpose of the youth wage is for employers to have more motvation to take on the younger members of society which carry with them a far greater degree of risk as moast of the time they do not have sufficent previous work experiance.
    The youth wage accually grants an advantage to youth as it grants them entry into the world of employment, if anything it disadvantages those no longer considered youth.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  14. “It’s about risk (read: additional costs), not personal prejudice. ”

    however you want to rationalise it it is discriminatory. I understand the rationalisation Gerrit is making but I still think it makes him/her/it sound like a bastard.

    “You need to find a way of mitigating that risk”

    any offspring to an employee could belong to the employer as personal slaves?

    its a difficult problem to solve from a government end, but some cooperation and generosity from employers would go a long way. I’ve mostly been employed by higher-end call centres and have found that because they pay higher-than-average salaries and often have excellent benefits – including parental leave – they attract highly intelligent employees from diverse backgrounds. the goodwill they generate with their generous packages translates directly into increased productivity, quality of service, loyalty(employee and consequently customer) and creates an environment where people use their initiative and go beyond their job descriptions.

    Gerrit’s post just reveals a cynical prejudice. sometimes saving a penny costs you a lot more.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  15. “if I employed the under 40 year old would I be showing age discrimination by not employing the over 40 year old?”

    basing your choice on age is both discriminatory and stupid either way.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  16. nommopilot,
    discrimination is a part of opperating a company; choosing the most skilled employees, the least risky, those most likley to participate well with others, etc it is all discrimination.
    discrimination is not a bad thing; if you choose not to employ a fertile female because she carries a far greater risk but all the same benifits of another non-fertile female or a male it is a rational and economic decision, yes it sound bad but it is not a “rationalisation”. If you just didint like women or had some predijuce against them then and then tryed to explain your deteriance to them in terms of their higher risk then that would be “rationalisation”.

    You say you worked in a call centre most of your working life? well let me put this in a way you may understand.
    My mother owns and operates one of New Zealands larger call centres, when she used to hire people (for ovious reasons she delagated that away long ago) she had an immegrant request a job from her, he was african and spoke with such a thick accent that the receptionist and my mother could hardly understand him, suffice to say she turned him down due to his thick accent being far from adequeit for a call centre job which, at the time, was doing outbound or inbound calls. This case made the local newspaper with the job applicant claiming to of been discriminated against based on race (turns out a third of my mothers employees at the time were african, and most of her team leaders, go figure). This is not an instance of racism, it is an instance of logical and rational decision making based on the potential utility of the job applicant. Infact in the reply article she stated she would not hire her oldist son (me) for the job eaither as I speek unclearly also. lol. understand now?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  17. Gerrit,

    Fantastic to hear it, keep it up.

    Good people are damn hard to find these days. And good people are everything to a business (corporate HR depts parrot those words, but small employers like me know it’s really, really true).

    So you keep with your insane discriminatory hiring practices, and leave more of those highly-skilled, smart, motivated young people for the rest of us to hire.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  18. “understand now?”

    the example you give is based on a person’s qualification for the job – ie. ability to speak clearly and understandably – discriminating on the basis that someone is capable of reproducing is a bit more extreme in my view. he says in a later comment that attitude is the most important thing but the previous comment says he would “never” hire a fertile female, so in a choice between a dour 49 year old with no real qualifications and a 28 year old well-qualified experienced young woman he would choose the former even if the latter had no intention of having a child. it’s about discriminating based on relevant criteria.

    also, what about the fact that over-40s are at a higher risk of dying of cancer and heart attacks? there are any number of risks involved in hiring any person. Gerrit’s insistence on an older workforce means a higher turnover due to retirement and probably increased costs of hiring and training new staff. its a complicated thing, for sure…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  19. “So you keep with your insane discriminatory hiring practices, and leave more of those highly-skilled, smart, motivated young people for the rest of us to hire.”

    exactly what I meant, but so much more clearly articulated.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  20. icehawk,

    Will do. Will always hire the best people for the job. Be they young, old male, female.

    However it suits my business to employee older people as the business, work orientation (precision engineering) etc., by design is based around experienced people.

    We have very smart, motivated older people who have taken to solid modelling design and manufacturing software like ducks to water.

    What I cant teach a young person, without machinist skills learned from running CNC machines over time is that their fancy designs have to be machineable.

    Those nice looking reverse curves and tumblehomes on solid model computer programmes look nice and impressive, but it takes experience from a machinist point of view to know what can actually be machined easily (not to many set ups), accurately and profitably.

    Not to mention that the deeper the pocket or profile the slower to machining (and greater cost) plus if a tool is actually available to do 200mm deep cuts that we had in a solid model prepared by a computer freak without machining experience recently.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  21. “Will always hire the best people for the job. Be they young, old male, female.”

    “I would never consider employing a women under 40 for any job”

    um…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  22. I have similar problem to those experienced by Gerrit.

    I also find that young people just do not want to be told how to do the job, they also seem to think that their views and opinions should be heard and considered when they have been with us for all of five mins.

    Our working environment is all about experience, you simply have to put years in before you learn all the ins and outs of the job.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  23. really BB? seems to me like you know everything ergo it should be impossible for anyone to tell you anything.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  24. You said it nommo…

    You have to laugh, “boss I would like to talk with you about flexible work hours”..”oh yes”…”yeah I would like to start later in the day”….”ok, how do you intend to make up the hours?”….”I will work a bit longer at the end of each day”….”really, do you expect me to keep the place open just to fit in with your wishes?”…”well yes”….”sorry, it ain’t going to happen”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  25. “What I cant teach a young person,” …

    maybe the problem is your inability to teach? I’m at a design school currently and am surrounded by young people who are pretty good at learning. bright, positive, enthusiastically and happily learning from their qualified tutors. no problem.

    maybe when you start by saying “I can’t teach …” you are doomed to fail. younger people are usually quicker at learning…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  26. big bro –

    ‘they also seem to think that their views and opinions should be heard and considered’

    Young people! Who do they think they are!
    Are you sure you’re able to recognise innovation and creativity form young people, when you see it? I work with two young men who are lightning quick with their problem solving and initiative, despite their having been in the business for a fraction of the time I have. I sometimes suffer the same ‘blindness’ that I suspect you do, but they don’t let me get away with stuffiness.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  27. BB

    sounds like a reasonable conversation. if work hours were more flexible it would be a good thing. everyone working 9 to 5 just creates gridlock. shame you’re not more open to it, but I understand. young people can’t be trusted to lock up or work unsupervised. let’s face it the young can’t be trusted.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  28. Nommopilot,

    True I said both statements

    “Will always hire the best people for the job. Be they young, old male, female.”

    “I would never consider employing a women under 40 for any job”

    While it is a contradiction it makes sense in a wider sense. If I had another business I might well employ women under 40. Especially sales staff in the industrial field. Dont mind if they leave as there are plenty more!!

    Just in my engineering/manufacturing field I would not employ them.

    That will get your “young” outrage juices flowing!!!!

    Remember those older over 40 workers will be around for the next 25+ years.

    Long enough for me to sell the business and retire.

    Us oldies were young ones and knowledgeable once. Now we are pushing 60, we realise how little we knew when we were younger and how much we would have learned if we just had listened to our “olds”.

    Mind you every generation never learns from the previous. Look at the current financial crisis.

    Been there done that 3 times over already. lesson from this crisis. Buy, buy, buy assets. You will get the upswing in a few years.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  29. nomo

    Goodness me, if only it were that easy.

    First of all it is illegal to have one person here on their own thanks to the idiots at OSH, not to mention the extra costs incurred extending the business hours just because this person cannot be bothered getting up in the morning.
    There is also the small matter of our customers, for some reason they prefer to do business between the hours of 9-5.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  30. Gerrit

    and how did you get where you are today? surely someone gave you a go when you were young?

    “Remember those older over 40 workers will be around for the next 25+ years”

    except the ones that get heart disease/cancer etc.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  31. nommopilot,
    a different object but it is the same in the end.
    The utility of the worker determines the willingness of the employer to hire the employer, if the employee is not skilled the utility suffers, if the employee refuse to learn and adapt the utility suffers, if the employee is more likely to have sick days off, unexplained absences, or leave before the investment is payed off then that employee is high risk and the utility suffers. Its all about utility, and it is entirly reasonable.
    Although i wouldint use an age to detirmine employment i wouldint employ a babyfactory or someone likely to get pregnant soon or spend alot of time with sick children in a high skilled job or one that demands reliability. If it was as a supermarket ground level staff member then it is rather without consequence, but once it gets even to the level of supervisor (second lowest in most supermarkets) you cant afford to have them no tthere randomly.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  32. The very best thing about hiring more mature staff is that they are not the type that demands the boss take an interest when they are having a “crisis”.

    They understand the rules, they come to work, they are paid well (very well) they are looked after and they go home.
    They leave their domestic problems at the door when they come in and pick them up on the way out.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  33. nommopilot

    It doesn’t surprise me that you’re young. You’ll understand in a few years.

    No doubt you’ll hear that as being condescending, but it’s not. We were all in the exact same space once.

    Hiring is a risk management problem.

    Some people present more risk to your business than others. The hirers job is reduce that risk as much as possible.

    If you have person A that you may need to replace for 12 months, and hold the job open for their return, and the availability of temporary replacements is limited, that presents you with much more risk than person B who won’t present you with that issue.

    It doesn’t matter if B is black,white, blue purple, or a memeber of some stange cult, all else being equal – B will get the job. Everytime.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  34. BB said: I also find that young people just do not want to be told how to do the job, they also seem to think that their views and opinions should be heard and considered when they have been with us for all of five mins.

    Fair point BB, but there is also an issue about older workers who are set in their ways and have difficulty embracing new technology or different ways of doing things.

    I think it cuts both ways – there are risks to the employer in employing “more mature” (ie older) staff too. Once people are into their 50s and 60s the incidence of time off as a result of degenerative conditions such as arthritis and chronic pain consequent on earlier injury are likely to increase too.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  35. “No doubt you’ll hear that as being condescending, but it’s not.”

    yes it is. young is a state of mind and you don’t know my age or experience.

    what I do know is that employer’s calculations work both ways. if you show workers that they are valued they will show you and the job more respect than if you treat them as economic units purely there to function as a cog in your machine.

    if someone feels like they are engaged as a valuable part of an operation this will be reflected in their approach and output.

    take the youth wage. paying them a lower rate says automatically they are worth less but as BP points out we all go through this stage. respecting and valuing young employees will lead them to have a greater loyalty to their employer and this will lead to the investment of the employer in training them paying off.

    this thread is full of comments reflecting an innate prejudice toward younger generations who are just trying to get a foothold in the competitive world they’ve inherited from the generation who are now in the position to employ them or not. BP says “We were all in the exact same space once” but going by some of the comments on here some people just suddenly gained their divine wisdom and experience without needing anyone to give them a chance to learn.

    sure some of this prejudice is based on experiences with young employees but if people are not shown generosity, openness and understanding then a vicious cycle occurs whereby they become disillusioned with working and will not contribute what they could. and on it will go.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  36. >>if you show workers that they are valued they will show you and the job more respect

    Sometimes true, sometimes not.

    >> if you treat them as economic units

    It’s always part of the picture. Always.

    >>paying them a lower rate says automatically they are worth less

    They are worth less. Having said that, any good worker should then be given increases.

    >>just trying to get a foothold in the competitive world they’ve inherited from the generation who are now in the position to employ them or not.

    We’ve all been there. Experience is valued for a good reason. There is only one way to get it.

    >>gained their divine wisdom and experience without needing anyone to give them a chance to learn.

    I have a degree and a lot of technical training, and I still started at the bottom, on a low wage, in a job that I was over-qualified for. It is up to you to prove yourself.

    I don’t have anything against young people, but in some circumstances they aren’t going to have the skills required. In some cases, only experience can deliver it.

    Paying dues….

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  37. “Paying dues….”

    all very well. but a lot of the talk on here is about not even allowing them in the shop, let alone pay…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  38. if you dress like a flimsy and look like your ready to get knocked up anytime soon even a supermarket wont hire you, that is unless your boss is looking for alittle something (oh, how often ive seen that); employment 101

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  39. Sapient said: <i:if you dress like a flimsy and look like your ready to get knocked up anytime soon even a supermarket wont hire you

    Sapient, that is disgusting and sexist.

    I had, until now, thought better of you despite your denial of the right of workers to organise collectively in their mutal interest.

    Anyone who refuses to hire young (or middle aged) women because they fear they might get pregnant and take parental leave deserves to have the full forceof the Human Rights Act thrown at them. Unfortunately, the motivation of the employer is very difficult to prove.

    BTW, what about the father who may choose to take parental leave? It does happen, you know. I’m a bit old for having more kids now, but my wife earns about 1.5 time what I do, so if we did it would suit us best economically for me to be the primary caregiver.

    Males can’t produce milk, so that may have to be another consideration, but milk expression, despite it being a hassle, is a way to make the father being the primary caregiver work.

    What say you, Sapient?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  40. Toad

    “Anyone who refuses to hire young (or middle aged) women because they fear they might get pregnant and take parental leave deserves to have the full forceof the Human Rights Act thrown at them. Unfortunately, the motivation of the employer is very difficult to prove.”

    Good aye, all we have to say is “there was a better person for the job” and thats the end of the matter.
    The reality is that Labour and the left created this problem, you are the ones who thought that spending my money to pay people to breed was a good idea, in the mean time the pregnant shelia goes off on maternity leave and does not have to tell us if she is coming back or not until the end of her tax payer funded holiday.
    In the mean time business has had to muck on through while we wait for the woman to make up her mind.

    Sorry but that does not work ion the real world, a few simple and innocent sounding questions at the interview soon weeds out those who have not yet had kids or are thinking about starting a family, their CV’s go straight onto the “thanks but no thanks” pile.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  41. “Shunda barunda Says:

    October 10th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
    I like to dress “flimsy”

    Really!…want a job?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  42. Toad,
    The point of that statement was that it is not what the risks accualy are that determines that you will get hired but rather how risky the employer perceives you to be. Due to this a fertile female, particuarly one of child bearing age will always be disadvantaged in the search for work as she is more likley than a comparable male to get pregnant (go figure), if the female makes it look like, to the employer, she will get knocked up soon or she explicitly states that she intends to become pregnant soon then for her to be hired she would need to have significantly higher skills and utility than the next best job seeker, either that or a employment agent whom has no idea how to do their job.

    As I have remarked previously; Paid Parential leave increases the risk of fertile female job applicants because they are the ones whom carry the child and as such need the time of work and because in most cases they are ones whom end up taking the parential leave. I recognise that women are often the ones that end up sacrificng their carriers but this does occasionally happen the other way around, I support and would even encourage this, and the accompaning social change. I favour an approach similar to that of Sweden in which in a male-female partnership there is a portion of the paid maternity leave which is only availible if it goes to the mother and a portion likewise for the male, there also being a portion which can go eaither way. This would effectivly help to ballance out the inwqualities introduced by paid parential leave, though it would not completly aleviate them.

    Discusting and sexist? discusting is a matter of opinion, in my opinion several of your values are discusting also, so lets leave that criticism by the side of the road where it belongs. Sexist? that is questionable, it is not a discrimination against women so much as a discrimination against fertility, a trait that women just happen to posess, due to the economic nature of risk management (you should understand that concept) fertile beings are simply more risky. I would be more likley to hire a sterile male than a non-sterile male for much the same reason as I would much rather hire a female whom is on long dosage infertility drugs or has been rendered infertile through natural or unatural causes over a fertile female. The same goes for other factors; why on earth would you hire someone with AIDS (esspecially due to HIV) over a comparable person without AIDS unless having AIDS provides a benifit to the job at hand; as the risk is significantly higher of them needing more sick days and, as is relivant to highly skilled work, their life span is significantly decreased.

    BTW, men are able to lactate.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  43. BTW, men are able to lactate.

    And as someone who has had a double mastectomy. Men get breast cancer too.

    Just thought to throw that into the pot for good measure.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  44. All I want is the right to tell an F-wit worker to F-off. Employees have the absolute right to walk off the job for ANY reason at ANY time. Surely a 90 day no questions asked right to dismiss isn’t unreasonable?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  45. I dont like the ‘no questions asked’ side of things…
    leaves far too much open to abuse and firing people due to turning down sexual approaches.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  46. I’d like to think the employee in that situation would be out the door as fast as they could, unless they worked in a knock shop that is!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  47. well, with limited skills and mouths to feed i can think of many who would put up with it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  48. Workers’ right?

    You communists wouldn’t know workers’ rights if they crawled into you subsidised lifestyles and bit your heads off.

    I’m a worker, and all you’ve ever done is lived a privileged existence by forcibly extracting money from me, in return for which you get to preach your sanctimonious claptrap and attack my genuine freedoms.
    All you offer is the right to do as you say so.

    How dare you privileged elite claim to speak for workers like me? Get a real job and stop sponging off the rest of us.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  49. Toad

    “Anyone who refuses to hire young (or middle aged) women because they fear they might get pregnant and take parental leave deserves to have the full forceof the Human Rights Act thrown at them. ”

    Which just goes to show you still. don’t. get. it.

    You need to find a way to mitigate that risk.

    Curious how quick you are to resort to threats of state violence to get your way.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  50. Well one could put provisions on the contract that clearly statea condition of the employment is that for the duration of the employment the employee must not become pregnant and must tae measures to ensure that this does not happen, eg the pill or injection.
    Oh wait! theres no way that would ever be allowed, Sue B would be up in arms! probally be at your door with some sort of fully automatic weapon!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  51. The way to do it would be to abolish the need to hold open the job.

    If a person leaves for any reason, be it pregnancy or anything else, they’ve made their choice. When a person returns to the workforce, they simply do what we all do – apply for another job.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  52. im all for that, still leaves fertile females more risky in terms of ROI and continuation for high paying jobs though. how to solve that?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>