Having a workforce that contains no smokers lowers the cost of the company health insurance policy.
I don’t think a reasonable person would claim that, if they had to choose, most moms would pick work over kids. I have no blogs to back this up, but it seems to make sense. Is there some survey somewhere which shows that moms tend to pick work first?[/quote]
My point is that there’s not a survey I’m aware of either way, so it’s just relying on societal stereotypes. Seeing how stereotypes on this type of thing tend to be heavily loaded on screwing everyone who’s not a white male, I’d be extremely leary of anything that’s not a bulletproof study. Maybe it’s true, maybe not.
Maybe they focus on getting their work done and then dive out the door for the kids. Maybe they really do sit around planning their kids lives and not doing shit. I don’t know, but I see no more reason to put stock in “moms don’t work as hard” than “blacks don’t work as hard.”
-
Your examples don’t correlate nicely with the results, because the study in question didn’t examine behavior of workers. It examined gender beliefs and hiring recommendations in untrained raters (undergrads). Your attitude about this is the only valid generalization regarding the study’s findings; it seems clear you would make the same recommendations as the majority of the participants had you taken part in the study. For these beliefs to have validity, there would need to be evidence that female parents have significantly lower job performance relative to females with no kids, or men in general. I haven’t seen any such evidence outside of your sample of two women, and my own personal circle of friends contradicts your experience. That’s why systematic data gathering is important.
-
So you take things case by case, but would engage in discriminatory hiring behavior “every single time” because of a woman’s category (“mother”) rather than her demonstrated work-relevant behavior? What does the phrase “case by case” mean to you? Discrimination due to parent status is also illegal in some states, and if you only discriminate against female parents, that runs afoul of federal sexual discrimination guidelines.
You should say “significantly”. It can as much as double the cost of the entire policy that you are purchasing for the entire group (1 smoker and 70-80 non-smokers). It also limits the types of insurance you can get from certain companies (some companies won’t provide major medical, etc).
Of course insurance companies are notorious for basing their cost on everything discrimination says you ‘shouldn’t’ in a job enviroment. Women of child bearing age cost alot more than men, workers with children cost alot more than without, and ethnicity, health history, etc.
But with this comes the fact that insurance is filled to the gills with some of the most disgusting people I have had the privilage to meet on a corporate level. Luckily HSA’s are smarter and better and being able to bypass alot of the bullshit of insurance companies while providing benefits regardless of their condition and how much more it costs you is blunted.
-
Your examples don’t correlate nicely with the results, because the study in question didn’t examine behavior of workers. It examined gender beliefs and hiring recommendations in untrained raters (undergrads). Your attitude about this is the only valid generalization regarding the study’s findings; it seems clear you would make the same recommendations as the majority of the participants had you taken part in the study. For these beliefs to have validity, there would need to be evidence that female parents have significantly lower job performance relative to females with no kids, or men in general. I haven’t seen any such evidence outside of your sample of two women, and my own personal circle of friends contradicts your experience. That’s why systematic data gathering is important.
-
So you take things case by case, but would engage in discriminatory hiring behavior “every single time” because of a woman’s category (“mother”) rather than her demonstrated work-relevant behavior? What does the phrase “case by case” mean to you? Discrimination due to parent status is also illegal in some states, and if you only discriminate against female parents, that runs afoul of federal sexual discrimination guidelines.[/quote]
-
then i suggest you go out and do your own study if sitting around talking about things in a non professional manner is not good enough for you. have you guys ever been told you take your selves to seriously? I think you guys forgot the reality of our situation. we are a bunch of geeks spreading rumors on the internets, get over your self for fucks sake.
-
the great thing about hiring my techs is that i don’t have to tell you why i did not hire you. Thats the best thing about all these discrimination laws, they cant actually do shit since you are not required to publicize the thinking behind a job interview. So i failed to give some woman a job because i think her situation will cause her to be of less value to my company than otherwise. I failed to give a black guy a job, or any other protected group. Now prove it bub.
Silly us, taking ourselves so seriously about denigrating entire classes of workers based on something like having kids.
Thats the best thing about all these discrimination laws, they cant actually do shit since you are not required to publicize the thinking behind a job interview.
You’re scum. Have a nice day.
-
Your examples don’t correlate nicely with the results, because the study in question didn’t examine behavior of workers. It examined gender beliefs and hiring recommendations in untrained raters (undergrads). Your attitude about this is the only valid generalization regarding the study’s findings; it seems clear you would make the same recommendations as the majority of the participants had you taken part in the study. For these beliefs to have validity, there would need to be evidence that female parents have significantly lower job performance relative to females with no kids, or men in general. I haven’t seen any such evidence outside of your sample of two women, and my own personal circle of friends contradicts your experience. That’s why systematic data gathering is important.
-
So you take things case by case, but would engage in discriminatory hiring behavior “every single time” because of a woman’s category (“mother”) rather than her demonstrated work-relevant behavior? What does the phrase “case by case” mean to you? Discrimination due to parent status is also illegal in some states, and if you only discriminate against female parents, that runs afoul of federal sexual discrimination guidelines.[/quote]
-
then i suggest you go out and do your own study if sitting around talking about things in a non professional manner is not good enough for you. have you guys ever been told you take your selves to seriously? I think you guys forgot the reality of our situation. we are a bunch of geeks spreading rumors on the internets, get over your self for fucks sake.
-
the great thing about hiring my techs is that i don’t have to tell you why i did not hire you. Thats the best thing about all these discrimination laws, they cant actually do shit since you are not required to publicize the thinking behind a job interview. So i failed to give some woman a job because i think her situation will cause her to be of less value to my company than otherwise. I failed to give a black guy a job, or any other protected group. Now prove it bub.[/quote]
Actually, the government can use aggregate data to extract a percentage probability of correlation between your hiring a woman and her having children, so I wouldn’t be quite so blase about it if I were you.
Yeah and you are a self absorbed prick who cant tell the difference between sarcastic hypothetical statements and a person admitting he takes part in discrimination on a day to day basis. As i said you take your self way to serious, you wont save the world or your self for that matter on a message board.
Actually, the government can use aggregate data to extract a percentage probability of correlation between your hiring a woman and her having children, so I wouldn’t be quite so blase about it if I were you.
Nice line except it will only work in high volume HR depts. That applies to the top 1%, how you gonna police all the rest of the people who dont take in enough apps to matter?
You’re right, I’m overreacting to some guy talking about how he doesn’t hire moms due to his discriminatory beliefs. All shits and giggles.
Its about time you realized it. Now if you will realize that we all hold and act on discriminatory beliefs, including you and me, you might feel more comfortable with the world around you. Tell you what, the people in the study and i obviously hold the opinion that women with children are somewhat less reliable than those who are unburdened. In most cases of logical debate it is up to those who dispute a claim to prove it wrong, that whole burden of proof thing, you know. So i invite you to use some of that serious attitude of yours and produce empirical evidence to the contrary, can you? I don’t know of any comparative studies done on this subject, but i am sure you can come with something. Since i am aware of the fact that mine is an opinion based strictly on unscientific observation in my own life, I would love to see what you come up with. You never know, i could be dead wrong and it would not be the first time.
Its Gattaca all over again!
Wrong way around, pardner. The burden of proof rests on those making a claim in the first place. There is an old saw that goes: it is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. You might want to consider taking that one on board sometime.
Wrong way around, pardner. The burden of proof rests on those making a claim in the first place. There is an old saw that goes: it is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. You might want to consider taking that one on board sometime.[/quote]Yeah and if you remember i did that with examples from my own life. He did not like those so maybe he can show us his hand now. all i remember him saying was that he does not see that when looking at his own life. you see i was looking at this like alot of guy talking about something, not a bunch of scientific types trying to find evidence for or against some hypothesis put forth by a different faction of thought. Like i said he is taking it too serious. i just wanted to see if he could do more than talk about his fiddle, can he actually play it?
That … is why you fail.
That … is why you fail.[/quote]well, that depends on your definition of failure. I would hardly call it a failure to have a disagreement between my self and a bunch of faceless geeks with chips on their shoulders and a usenet mentality. then again YMMV. Since this is for me a means of entertainment while i am at work, i would say that my time on QT3 has so far been a shining success.
[ul][li]I am amusing myself online.
[/li][li]You are a geek.
[/li][*]They have a usenet mentality and chips on their shoulders.[/ul]
god, it is a good thing that your company doesn’t hire based on message board use during company time. who do you think does more work, you or brandy the secretary?
To a higher extent than fathers in the same situation? (now, personally, I could see societal expectations meaning that kid stuff gets offloaded on the mother, but that’s just because I’m so set in thinking that our society is so god-damn old-fashioned, when you scratch a bit at the surface)[/quote]
Oh, I wasn’t trying to compare these mothers with fathers in the same sitch. Just comparing to themselves. I would imagine that the number for stay-at-home type dads would be similar. And apparently so do the people who participated in this survey.
I don’t think a reasonable person would claim that, if they had to choose, most moms would pick work over kids. I have no blogs to back this up, but it seems to make sense. Is there some survey somewhere which shows that moms tend to pick work first?[/quote]
My point is that there’s not a survey I’m aware of either way, so it’s just relying on societal stereotypes. Seeing how stereotypes on this type of thing tend to be heavily loaded on screwing everyone who’s not a white male, I’d be extremely leary of anything that’s not a bulletproof study. Maybe it’s true, maybe not.
Maybe they focus on getting their work done and then dive out the door for the kids. Maybe they really do sit around planning their kids lives and not doing shit. I don’t know, but I see no more reason to put stock in “moms don’t work as hard” than “blacks don’t work as hard.”[/quote]
Two points here. One, saying that “moms with kids will be less dedicated to work” is not even remotely the same as saying “moms don’t work hard”. Not even close, and I don’t think anyone suggested it.
Two, just because something is a stereotype doesn’t make it incorrect. I too work with many women with kids and the fact is that sometimes they have to take sick days not because they are sick, but because their kids are sick. This plain anecdotal fact means that moms, over the whole generalized spectrum, will tend to be less productive over time because they will probably miss more days of work.
What should be duly noted is that the people surveyed appear to think that dads were also more likely to be less productive than men without kids, so this isn’t an anti-mom stance in particular.
- then i suggest you go out and do your own study if sitting around talking about things in a non professional manner is not good enough for you. have you guys ever been told you take your selves to seriously? I think you guys forgot the reality of our situation. we are a bunch of geeks spreading rumors on the internets, get over your self for fucks sake. [/quote]
Dude, Sidd_Budd is, like, a psychologist or sociologist (or something close, Univ prof perhaps?). He’s isn’t some intarweb troll spitting out a worthless opinion. I’m thinking he’s got a pretty good hold on using surveys as a source of scientific data on studying people.
But that’s not the whole picture. You can argue, for example, that young singles are more likely to go out partying and either call in sick the next day or come into work either overtired or hungover and consequently not be 100% productive.
Actually in my experience parents miss more work than singles under the same circumstances. But I can say also in my experience parents are consistantly more productive than singles, so it evens out. This has to do with the responsibility for family part of the equation.
You may tar and feather me for it, but it’s just a realism when you choose to define by stereotypes. Usually this will end up causing you more problems than it seems to solve.
That isn’t to say there are not businesses out there that are not successful with it.
Edit: I also want to say that you have your diehard parents as well who can’t miss work because of their family. That’s the danger of information by stereotypes. There are always exceptions to whatever is ‘common’ or ‘statistical’.