Femi-Nazis stay out

freako104

freako104

Well-Known Member
Gato_Solo said:
That's what overtime is for. ;) If you work over-and-above your peers, then a bonus is what's called for, not a higher pay rate. If the work is consistently better, then you get a promotion. Be careful, though...If you base pay solely on performance, then, a job which requires constant, heavy lifting with no special equipment, you've already put women at a disadvantage, thus placing you in the 'chauvanist' catagory. ;)

To the women out there reading this and getting pissed...I'm sure that there are women out there who can do the constant, heavy lifting-type jobs, but, be honest, how many do you know personally?
Click to expand...


see i dont like being labelled a chauvanist as i feel women and men are equal and thats why i was saying those that work harder at their jobs and not slacking off shou;d make more. i didnt consider the idea of putting the woman at a disadvantage there
 
Gato_Solo

Gato_Solo

Out-freaking-standing OTC member
freako104 said:
see i dont like being labelled a chauvanist as i feel women and men are equal and thats why i was saying those that work harder at their jobs and not slacking off shou;d make more. i didnt consider the idea of putting the woman at a disadvantage there
Click to expand...

As for that statement, I think you haven't thought it all the way through. As for dear GF's statement, I, too know a few women who can compete with men physically. The numbers, however, are not that many. At least not that I've seen. My statement, however, was not to belittle women in a traditionally 'male' job, but to highlight the differences in brute strength type jobs. Some women can do them, but most cannot. It's not chauvanism that makes me say that, but biology, anatomy, and physiology. Women can 'bulk up' to do those jobs, though...it just takes more time. ;)
 
Aunty Em

Aunty Em

Well-Known Member
Gato_Solo said:
To the women out there reading this and getting pissed...I'm sure that there are women out there who can do the constant, heavy lifting-type jobs, but, be honest, how many do you know personally?
Click to expand...

Add me to the list... there's an art to lifting heavy objects, namely people, without injuring yourself which brute strength alone does not solve. And believe me, I've lifted some heavy porkers! :eek:
 
Aunty Em

Aunty Em

Well-Known Member
Ah, but so do 0.5 + 3.5, 1 + 3, 1.5 + 2.5, 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 and 1 + 1 + 2

... so which one is politically correct?
 
Gonz

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
Aunty said:
0.5 + 3.5, 1 + 3, 1.5 + 2.5, 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 and 1 + 1 + 2
Click to expand...

Notice, the sum stays the same but the parts differ, thus they are not equal. :p
 
Gato_Solo

Gato_Solo

Out-freaking-standing OTC member
paul_valaru said:
they are all diffrent, yet equal, like men and women, diffrent yet equal.
Click to expand...

Now here's the real problem...If you have set standards that everyone must meet, or exceed, in order to do a job, what if one segment of the population cannot meet those standards? (monkey wrench number 3 :D ) If you refuse to hire them, and pay them the same as those who do meet the minimum standard, are you guilty of discrimination?
 
paul_valaru

paul_valaru

100% Pure Canadian Beef
no, you hire people who can do the job best to do the job.

IF Max is a better welder than Mary, you hire Max.

If Joan is a better accountant than John, you hire Joan.


If you need two customer service reps, and you hire a male and a female, their starting salaries should be the same, and then increases should be based on merit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top