From: Terry Donaghe (terry@Donaghe.com)
Date: Tue May 21 2002 - 16:28:03 MDT
In these days when any job that lasts more than 6 months feels like a permanent job, I'm not sure that maternity leave really matters. By the time the mother has been out for 6 months or whatever, the entire market could have changed rendering her previous employer or job obsolete.
Perhaps the government can mandate that employers must not fire folks for maternal/paternal leave, but market forces can make those laws irrelevant.
Libertarian/anarcho-capitalist prejudices aside, the future seems to be rushing at all of us so fast that each of us has to fight to hang on at all, much less allow some dinosaur government fight for us.
My liberal, immature professional upbringing tells me that business entities should not be allowed to exist without allowing employees to take maternity/paternity leave, but the reality is that it may not matter much longer.
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Brian Phillips" <deepbluehalo@earthlink.net>
Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org
Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 17:54:24 -0400
>
>
>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