From: Brian Phillips (deepbluehalo@earthlink.net)
Date: Tue May 21 2002 - 15:54:24 MDT
Looks likePhil Osborn wrote:
>>
> May 19 2002 - 00:46:28 MDT
>
> Men are paid more on average because of the long years
> a woman's place was only seen as in the home, because
> of lingering prejudice and because of such notions
> that she "probably has a man to help take care of her"
> or "is liable to find one and disappear to make
> babies". >
>
> Or how about "when her husband has to move to stay
> with his career, she will probably quit and leave with
> him." Or, "if she gets pregnant, there is a good
> chance that she will take extended leave and, as
> mandated under law in many jurisdictions, the company
> cannot fire her and bring in a permanent employee to
> replace her."
Then Samantha Atkins replied
<These days a husband is often likely to move for the wife's
career and may well stay home with baby himself. And no, the
company should not be able to fire anyone for taking time off in
such circumstances.>
"In any such circumstances"? A business should not be subject
to your moral quibbles or anyone else's for that matter, save
when a customer decides to not trade with them or if they do
violence to a bystander.
Put another way, a boss/owner should be able to fire you
out of spite, out of disgust, racism, or anything else. You don't
have the right to be employed, you chose to contract with them
for service for money.
If they choose to terminate the contract for any reason, that's
where the moral buck stops.
Moral "enforced niceness" laws not withstanding.
For a mature professional this seems wishwashy and weakminded
Ms. Atkins.
brian
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:15 MST