Who is stealing time from their co-workers?See Beckett's examples, and mine.
Actually, no one is stealing from you as you are being paid for your work.
You aren't donating squat, and if you manage to score some overtime you are in fact profiteering off their absence.
So how, since as I argued and you snipped, nothing in Sissyl's example affected maternity leave being a "parasitic process"?
Or, alternately, which parts of the example mean you don't have to donate your time to cover theirs?
She's describing a whole societal shift that leads to less glorifying of pregnancy, and consequently, fewer pregancies, and consequently, less of a burden on the people still working. In addition, she's describing a system in which my retirement and health care are covered, so I'm not forced to spend every waking moment trying to augment them through investments, frugality, and whatever else I can think of.
Or, to put it in much simpler terms, her example is
A + 4 + 2 and B + 4 - 2 = net +6 overall for person A, and net +2 for person B.
Counterexamples tend to run to A + 2 = B - 2.
You aren't donating squat, and if you manage to score some overtime you are in fact profiteering off their absence.
Are you going to pay me in company scrip as well? I think thejeff and Sissyl and I can all agree that management telling workers to "shut up and put out" isn't the ideal solution here.
Are you going to pay me in company scrip as well? I think thejeff and Sissyl and I can all agree that management telling workers to "shut up and put out" isn't the ideal solution here.
Are you suggesting that you don't believe you should simply do the job you are being paid for?
Who is telling you to "shut up and put out"? put out what exactly?
Who is talking about company scrip? Why did you invent this idea?
1. Are you suggesting that you don't believe you should simply do the job you are being paid for?
2. (a) Who is telling you to "shut up and put out"? (b) put out what exactly?
3. Who is talking about company scrip? Why did you invent this idea?
1. I'm suggesting that if I'm doing the job I'm paid for, and you then hand me half of someone else's job as well, then some adjustment might be in order.
2. (a) You did. (b) Someone else's job in addition to mine.3. "Invent?" Hardly. My imagination isn't that grotesque.
P.S. I honestly can't tell if you're parodying management positions or if this is a Poe thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Baby mommies are more important than you and you should be grateful to donate your time to cover theirs and if not you're a jerk."
Ah. If that's where you got your panties in a twist, for the record, I wasn't calling you a jerk. That wouldn't be classy. :p
I was trying to say that Maternity Leave rules are less about "incentivizing reproduction" and more about treating your workers well. Maternity Leave isn't "stealing time" from you, though. But, of course, if you don't have other rules that protect your work time then nothing stops your boss from being a jerk to you and dumping the 'lost' hours in your lap. But that's not the fault, or responsibility, of the Maternity Leave rules.
Around here, my work week is set in stone, and while my boss can ask if I would like to put in some extra hours, he can't force me to say yes, or fire me if I say no. So, if a colleague goes on maternity leave, my boss can't just dump their responsibilities on the rest of us. At best, he can hire a temp (and since this is a circle of not-jerking, the government, in the interest of fairness, will compensate him some of that expense.)
In short, someone's only going to "steals time" from you, if you don't have a system in place to protect your time from being stolen. Which is an entirely different issue than the one you think you're having.
(As an aside, I am very much forced to 'resort' to this sort of language, so I apologize for any miscommunication. I would happily switch to a more civilized tongue, but that's hardly appropriate.)
Slaunyeh, I'd like to sincerely thank you for taking the effort to explain your position -- it's a lot easier to understand where you're coming from this way, and also to find common ground. Hurling snark and insults might seem fun, but it generally gets us nowhere.
But, of course, if you don't have other rules that protect your work time then nothing stops your boss from being a jerk to you and dumping the 'lost' hours in your lap.
Can you explain this part to Shifty as well?
1. Are you suggesting that you don't believe you should simply do the job you are being paid for?
2. (a) Who is telling you to "shut up and put out"? (b) put out what exactly?
3. Who is talking about company scrip? Why did you invent this idea?1. I'm suggesting that if I'm doing the job I'm paid for, and you then hand me half of someone else's job as well, then some adjustment might be in order.
2. (a) You did. (b) Someone else's job in addition to mine.
3. "Invent?" Hardly. My imagination isn't that grotesque.
No one is asking you to do your job as well as 'half of another persons', so we can put that one right to bed. It is really hard to progress a conversation when you are happy to keep exaggerating like that.
No one is suggesting (other than you) that you are being asked to work gratis, or for some sort of company scrip. Once again, exaggerations and blatantly claiming this is the case is really unhelpful.
I have already covered the options normally available to staff, and none of those genuine current mainstream practices involve you being shortchanged. Not one.
If it were the case (not in this thread, but at your particular place of employment) that you aren't being paid your dues, then you should really have a hard look at your employer and seriously consider industrial advice.
Can you explain this part to Shifty as well?
|
No explanation needed here. If you are a patsy to every jerk move from your boss, then your problems are:
A) You have a jerk boss.
B) You are happy to simply be exploited.
That's not a failing of maternity leave.
In short, someone's only going to "steals time" from you, if you don't have a system in place to protect your time from being stolen. Which is an entirely different issue than the one you think you're having.
"Which is an entirely different issue than the one you think you're having".
I don't think Kirth really gets this.
Kirth needs to find out about Unions, and perhaps 'industrial agreements', there lay the secret mojo solutions he might need.
If I can be so bold as to attempt a summary, I see the following:
[1] Paid maternity leave is a good thing overall. It's an even better thing if it's offered for adoption as well.
[2] In a context of societal changes that lead to better conditions for everyone, there are fewer pregnancies overall, and maternity packages can be more generous.
[3] Population control needs to be addressed. People don't wish to stop reproducing, however, so dis-incentivizing maternity won't help, and its discussion won't be tolerated by most people. What does seem to help is a combination of education, a social support system, lack of religious fundamentalism, better quality of life overall (see 2, above).
[4] Maternity leave can produce a disporportionate burden on workers who are left behind to cover the absence. Management practices can exacerbate this burden to the point where it becomes intolerable.
[5] Management is generally unwilling to accept the entire burden themselves, however. Some means of lessening it would potentially placate them, but that would mean higher taxes overall. Or they can just accept it as a cost of doing business. Or they can, as Shifty advocates, shift the entire burden onto the remaining workers, but see 4, above.
Kirth needs to find out about Unions, and perhaps 'industrial agreements', there lay the secret mojo solutions he might need.
Kirth just spent 9 years in Texas -- "right to work state" -- no unions. But that's where the jobs are. Kirth's industry as a whole is non-union. 'Industrial agreements' fail to exist; if some other consulting firm will serve the client more cheaply, with fewer demands, then that other firm gets your firm's work. Not everyone works at Wal-Mart, or at UPS. I don't think Shifty really realizes this.
In Sweden, we have enormously long parent leaves. The reasoning was that if we are serious about making it possible for women to work in the job market on anywhere near the level of men, there needs to be functioning daycare. In turn, this raised questions of leaving tiny tots to that daycare. It is forbidden for employers to ask whether a woman is or intends to become pregnant, and that message has been well understood. Nowadays, of course, the debate is instead how we can get men to take half the parent leave, and some advocate making some division mandatory. It is nothing people whine about here. It is more a question of everyone getting some time off with their children, a few months each time, in a job career of forty or fifty years. Employers get to try temporary employees during said months, which is valuable, they don't have to deal with bone tired and distracted employees. Their costs are much the same, since the money for parent leave is paid by the state. Most people have children, meaning everyone has the choice to be away with their newborns, even if some choose not to. It saves on health care, which would probably be the next option for people (and health care is tax financed, so it matters). Even those who do not want children have at least taken part of this when they were newborns.
Stop trying to limit the discussion to "it's unfair that people get to dodge work and dump it on the rest of us". It is a question of what you value as a society. It is eminently possible to do. I hate to say it, but if you build big enough blinders for yourself and then can't solve certain problems you get... It is nobody's fault but your own. I also feel sorry for you that you apparently hate your job.
Stop trying to limit the discussion to "it's unfair that people get to dodge work and dump it on the rest of us". It is a question of what you value as a society.
Are you speaking to me? Have you not read anything I've posted, much less the numerated summary? Or, if this is targetted elsewhere, sorry for the interruption.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. We are saying most people have them, and it's a better than average cause to use tax money for to make that time somewhat more human. Lucky you Americans who get to spend your tax money on getting rectal exams and radiation damage when you visit airports.
I also feel sorry for you that you apparently hate your job.
I like my job, I just dislike the system (or, more accurately, the disfunctional half-system) that's in place for maternity in much of the U.S.
Certainly, no system works half baked. It isn't just parent leave that makes it work.
Kirth needs to find out about Unions, and perhaps 'industrial agreements', there lay the secret mojo solutions he might need.Kirth just spent 9 years in Texas -- "right to work state" -- no unions. But that's where the jobs are. Kirth's industry as a whole is non-union. 'Industrial agreements' fail to exist; if some other consulting firm will serve the client more cheaply, with fewer demands, then that other firm gets your firm's work. Not everyone works at Wal-Mart, or at UPS. I don't think Shifty really realizes this.
Sorry there Kirth, hate to pull you up on a few more generalisations, hyperbole, and outright inventions.
Kirth chose to live in Texas, where labour laws still do exist.
Kirth chooses to work in an industry with no Union, Kirth complains about his choice and the lack of conditions, but chooses it all the same. he doesn't seem to realise that the Texas Workforce Commission is still there to assist him regardless.
Kirth doesn't seem to understand that there is always some form of agreement in place between employer and employee, as supported by the laws of Texas - unless Kirth has no agreements and is cash-in-hand, a different issue entirely. Kirth just doesn't understand the laws so assumes they don't exist, even though he was bound and protected by them.
Kirth is still stuck thinking consulting is still about lowest cost wins, which is fair enough as that is what his competitors probably think too - erroneous as that thinking is.
Kirth also has very little clue about what Shifty might or might not know, sorry Kirth, but your throwaway line couldn't be further from the truth.
I also feel sorry for you that you apparently hate your job.
Which is what this is all really boiling down to.
Never mind. Hiding thread.
Women's ability to earn money directly impacts family size, they're inversely related. The better she is able to support (or help support) the family, the smaller the family will be (statistically).Smart career driven women tend to have few children they can provide for. poor high school dropouts are less likely to be responsible and know the gov will pay for all they have.
If your theory is correct, then you should be able to link some statistics about countries with government aid programs having higher birth rates than countries that don't.
1. Survival rate of children.
2. Whether children are needed for work.
3. Women education and labor force participation.
4. Accessible family planning.
Those are the four biggest factors on birth rates per woman. In your example we can assume both women are in the US (otherwise you probably wouldn't be complaining about government handouts), so childhood survival is fairly high (though not as high as it could be). Your career driven women doesn't need children as a source of income, she's educated and has a job. She can probably afford access to birth control if she chooses as well.
The high school dropout benefits from 1 nearly as equally (though probably slightly less as she will have less access to medical care here). She doesn't need her children to work, but she does get income from them. She also has no education and therefore probably can't get a very good job. The Christian Right has fought very hard to keep family planning out of schools, so her access to information and birth control is also fairly limited.
The government handouts are a factor, but significantly less than you imagine. Welfare programs actually play less per year per child than you'd get as a tax break for claiming a dependent. Make 3 less of a problem (she can EARN money) and all of a sudden relying on the welfare money program is actually a loss of income.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Never mind. Hiding thread.
Huzzah, comrades! Victory!
Now that we have bulldozed Kirth, on to Washington!
Also, huzzah!
Like I said,
On to Washington, comrades!
Don't know where else to post this.
Madame Sissyl, is that you?!?
Oh, what? Julia got the boot?
|
Oh, what? Julia got the boot?
She wasn't that popular as I understand but damn it's unusual for a sitting prime minister to get voted out by his/her party. I'm thinking there's an election coming up soon and the party didn't think they could win with her at their head?
Guy hits it on the head in one. Our election is in September.
(Although this is the second time the party has voted out the Prime Minister... replacing Gillard with Rudd, the original guy. It's madness, but hey, if they think it'll keep Abbott out of the Lodge, I'm down with it (despite liking Gillard more than Rudd in most regards).)
Julia Gillard's pollings lately have put her at something like a 7% swing away from the Government, which would absolutely decimate the Labor Party's seats. The question asked about preferred party if Kevin Rudd was the leader puts them back at 50% (where they are now). So basically the Labor Party is hoping his inexplicable popularity with the electorate will allow them to hold on to some things while the tidal wave comes through.
|
|
Well, a tonne of people loyal to Gillard are resigning, and half of the reason why there's a spill AT ALL is because he's spent the last 3 years trying to get back in by leaking things from cabinet, making multiple leadership challenges (I think this is the third...?) and otherwise making a nuisance of himself. The media, largely controlled by that lovely Australian Rupert Murdoch, has done a good job at constantly beating up leadership challenges since, and otherwise almost completely backing Mr. Abbott with little-to-no scrutiny.
Much of the senior Labor Party cannot stand Rudd. He's got an ego the size of the moon (don't all politicians?) and is considered a crazy workaholic, perfectionist, and control freak. The Opposition have a tonne of ammo to use against Rudd that is literally just quotes of Labor Party members talking s#!* about him.
However, Australia at large really likes him for no apparent reason that I can see. And Labor is super desperate.
Zombie Rudd rises from the dead yet again, fuelled by hatred!
|
Sorry there Kirth, hate to pull you up on a few more generalisations, hyperbole, and outright inventions.
. . . chose to live in Texas, . . . chooses to work in an industry with no Union, complains about choice and the lack of conditions, but chooses it all the same. he doesn't seem to realise that the Texas Workforce Commission is still there to assist him regardless.
But what about me, where only one of those things actually applies? Granted, I sure as heck would have chosen Texas, but that wasn't a choice for me, (legally dictated), and a lot of local laws, Workforce Commission, and Unions, and similar things do not apply.
|
|
So, we ARE saying that having kids is a public service that warrants special subsidies and support, correct? That's official policy now?
No.. the question is how do we improve the experience of early child raising in what has become the new minimum norm... a reality where both parents must keep down full time work. In some countries the answer is paid maternity and paternity leave.
Actually I'm not sure that's what we are talking about at all. If so, I think that it would be difficult to argue that the answer would be to make it mandatory t have one parent not work. I think that a lot of the point was actually in what ways can we "level the playing field" for woman in careers, and how choices like having children, cause careers to suffer should be handled, and by who.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I normally think your filibusters are incredibly ridiculous, and, well, that hasn't changed. But I kind of respect this woman who talked for about 11 hours to delay the passing of an abortion law.
I've seen it talked about that the Republicans went ahead with the vote after midnight anyway and there's some ruckus going on about them changing the timestamps, but I'm not sure if that's just Tumblr mutterings or what.
|
|
Belief in the bill or not, Im not sure that respect is the right attribute for someone that basically sounds like they just used a technicallity to get what they wanted when it would have been the opposite otherwise. Comes off as pretty immature and childish from what it sounds, not heroic, regardless of if you are for or against abortion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Belief in the bill or not, Im not sure that respect is the right attribute for someone that basically sounds like they just used a technicallity to get what they wanted when it would have been the opposite otherwise. Comes off as pretty immature and childish from what it sounds, not heroic, regardless of if you are for or against abortion.
A technicality that has been left in specifically for its ability to protect minorities.
|
|
And women are a minority? Let's not pretend she was a champion and was getting shouted or blocked out. Might doesn't make right. She is the one that wasted everyone else's time and effort, not to mention all our money shouting everyone else out. The way it sounds she was tried pulling out a few things and they where all shot down by well over the majority. Like I said, it shouldn't matter if you are for or against what she was fighting for, the way it was handled was extremely poor on her part, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if a new bill (probably even worse) is made up that removed that option, or if this leads to rethinking of that technicality in other cases where it's probably a lot more important.
I'm sorry, I'm not trying to rain on your parade, I just had a very different reaction to it than it seems other have.
And women are a minority? Let's not pretend she was a champion and was getting shouted or blocked out. Might doesn't make right. She is the one that wasted everyone else's time and effort, not to mention all our money shouting everyone else out. The way it sounds she was tried pulling out a few things and they where all shot down by well over the majority. Like I said, it shouldn't matter if you are for or against what she was fighting for, the way it was handled was extremely poor on her part, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if a new bill (probably even worse) is made up that removed that option, or if this leads to rethinking of that technicality in other cases where it's probably a lot more important.
The technicality has been used in many state and federal governments for decades. I highly doubt this use will push a radical change in that regard. The Texas Senate averages more than 1 fillibuster a year, with the longest being 43 hours long in 1977,according to this site.
And yes, women are a minority in government.
|
|
Actually, after actually reading up on the bill, no, F' her.
This is what the bill was actually supposed to do. It wasn't to stop abortion, or to "limit" it, it was to stop these sorts of things, which where already a huge compromise on both party's/side's part.
1.1.Ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy (ie something even pro abortion advocates are absolutely for, and like I said a huge compromise on the part of those that are totally anti-abortion. To put this into a bit of perspective, this is 140 or more days after the fetus might have been conceived, going on half a year. This is also well after half of the pregnancy, which is 36ish weeks. This bill makes it illegal to terminate a pregnancy after that point, which to my understanding is well after the point it's already illegal already, except in medical emergencies.)
2.That abortion clinics meet the normal clinical surgical minimum standards. (aka not being backdoor clinics, and not able to just sweep stuff under the rug)
3. Requiring that doctors/clinics that do perform abortions are legally allowed to have the right to admit patients to local ER's as a priority if something goes wrong. (I honestly am not sure why this is an issue??? I can think of two possibilities, one some ER refused to see an injured patient after an abortion, which is kind of unheard of or two that the abortion clinic sent a patient to another facility which did not have the capability to treat/care for the patient, which this part of the bill would not help in any way. Mind you, this is the fault of the abortion clinic, sending a patient to the wrong place trying to wash their hands of them, not the other clinic which would not have had the ability to perform the needed care. Neither really seem to fit, so this one I find a bit puzzling. Its similar to the abortion clinic sending the dying patient to a retirement home for treatment, something they should easily have known and there is no excuse for. So it seems it would require the retirement facility to also treat the patient? Makes no sense.).
This is what Wendy Davis and Van de Putte just blocked. It wasn't to stop abortion, it was to stop these things.