Harper won Canada zero

Canada is apart of the G-8 you twit.

 

Compared to the rest of it, yeah.

Dolt.

 

But the point is, I know full well guys sweating it to try and figure out how NOT to hire women simply cause you train em up, put them in positions of authority and then they decide to become mommies.

I can't imagine how they were sweating it after this "work six months get a year off paid. Work six months get a year off paid" trip. And the feminazis now want the seniority calculated on those years too, which means raises and promotions. OR ELSE.

This would be why outsourcing is accelerating....

The same thing in manufacturing. "We demand $50 an hour. We demand you put smokestack scrubbers on. We demand free paid lunch hours. Two hours. We demand.... hey, why are you packing up to go to Mexico?"

 

I'm sure this will come off sounding very sexist, but if i'm responsible for hiring...i would be very cautious of putting a woman in position of power. Just suppose i put her in a position of power..and we're working on a big deal, in the middle of it she claims maternity leave. Now someone who doesn't have her skills or experience fills her role...we fuck up, lose the deal or whatever. Whose ass is on the line? Not the chick who is pregnant..not the temp. MINE.

I just see a lot of risk, and no reward for putting a chick in a position with a lot of responsibility. Unfortunately, that is probably why there is a wage gap...women take(or are forced) into positions where flexible work hours can accommodate pregnancies/birth.

It sucks.

 

Ok. So now a country is solely defined by its economical policies in comparison to other countries.
If you'd really like to consider Canada's material worth and monetary qualities as a reason to dissuade employers from hiring young women, be my guest.

Merkel happens to be a socialist and a female, and I'd say she's doing pretty well so far in her duties.

The Canada dollar is at what presently... 87 cents to the American dollar and climbing???

A good business man anticipates how many young employees he is willing to hire. You fail to recognise that young males are equally a concern to employers when they consider hiring. Young males could easily decide to quit and move across the country with their wife who just got promoted.

 

Well first off all, the woman has 9 months to train someone at her job before she is eligible for her maternity leave. She can go back to work or help out with an important case if her employer makes it known that she is well needed during a stressful time for the employer.
And the woman can choose to go back to work the day after she gives birth if the hospital permits her to do so.

 

For christ's sake, most women dedicated to their jobs, employers, and careers are willing to go back to work ASAP. And let's not forget that maternity leave does mean they get a cut to their pay.

EDIT: Wait, not everyone qualifies in Canada. You have to have accumulated 600 hours of insured work in the last 52 weeks (1 year) or since your last claim in order to be a recipient. Here, check it:
http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/en/ei/types/special.shtml#Who

 

SEXIST!!!! CALL THE MILITIA!!!! COME SISTREN!!!! THERE IS A PHALLOCRATIC OPPRESSOR HERE!!!! GET THE LAWYERS!!!!!!!!!

BINGO. That's why for years we wouldn't hire women. Women wouldn't either. But they made sure to get it in the law that doing so would end up with a lawyer giving her all your assets if you didn't hire her or promote her.

Actually it's cause women walk off the job to have babies. My grandfather died because the head of oncology at the PUBLIC HOSPITAL (in Canada there's no pay for play medicine, you're stuck with the public system, like public housing and public schools) decided as a new mommy she wanted to work one day a week and bring her ickle pwetty baby in the one day she did show up half time, and students were supervising the patients. They shot him up with the wrong drugs and killed him, they literally dissolved his bones into his blood. He went in feeling a bit woozy and in a bit of pain and within a week he was dying, incontinent and no longer capable of thought. A French Canadian intern and a woman bouncing her precious little baby up and down when she was supposed to be doing her job killed that man.

Not me, girl. Not me. Look at it this way. Where did Paul Martin register his ships? Canada? Hell no, the Bermudas. What's that tell ya. Material worth is worth sweet F.A. if socialists decide who gets the money and when.

HA! Socialism is the most painful path between capitalism and capitalism.

Only cause the USA is slipping. Bubbles Greenspan is printing money faster than the Chinese can say "trade deficit" and as a result the currency is in free fall.

Then half of them walk off the job. Get a clue, girl.

HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR

99.9999% of the time the MAN is expected to hold down the job and keep the family paid for come what may and no matter what. Women consider a job a choice not an obligation. Most of them marry someone better off than them and consider a job something for self-fulfillment until the point if and when they decide to have kids.

Whereas men know they are expected to pay for their families no matter what.

Get a grip and a clue. This is the real world and there's REAL money on the table in it.

 

Can the employer choose to hire someone who will be there full time when needed, instead? Oh, thought so.

 

I suppose you can't offer a more valuable solution to the problem, can you?

Not in favour of affirmative action policies either, are ya?

http://hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2198154&postcount=130

 

Yeah, I am opposed to them.

You should hire someone cause he's qualified (or she) not cause he (or she) is black, Arab or whatever.

If the problem is that someone isn't getting hired cause the hirer is racist, then the hirer should be fined or jailed.

If the problem is that there's no qualified blacks, fix the schools they go to.

But this isn't about what the person looks like. Saying that one class of person gets preferential treatment in a way that severely disadvantages the company is economic suicide. Who pays these two people at once? The government? Hell no. It's Joe Business Owner who has to find the salaries to pay two people. Believe me if he had it, he'd be hiring more workers to get more business.

 

On a full time basis, that's just over three months. Less than four.

So, we are where I said we'd be. Work three months, take a year off. Work three months, take a year off.

Heck, if she works overtime she could conceivably (HA!) be back in bed watching soaps earlier.

 

Actually, in Canada - Joe Schmo doesn't pay you on your parental leave in Canada. Employment Insurance pays you.

http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/en/ei/types/special.shtml#much

And yet again I ask you, what viable solutions do you have to offer?

 

Who pays EI, Aristartle?

 

And that STILL doesn't cover things like cost of benefits, cost of having two people on the payroll.....

 

heh. No it doesn't.

Why do you not support this program may I ask?

 

What program? The one in which companies are required to hire two sets of people at a woman's whim?

Cause it's sexist, and it hurts business.

 

Not everyone works in the private sector. So hurting businesses doesn't apply.

 

Ah, so the public sector folks will simply be jacking up the cost of government and therefore taxes and therefore the price of publicly available goods.

 

Two "therefore" words used in one sentence like that, makes baby jesus cry.