Next up. “Should a certain percentage of young women have to undergo sterilization in order that all women can achieve “true equality” with men? After all if family friendly policies are holding back some women obviously too many women are stilling deciding to be moms. Shame on them for not putting the Sisterhood first.
Lets pass ObamaCare so that all full time employees will get medical coverage. Oh? That resulted in fewer full time jobs and more part time jobs?
Oh Well.
Lets raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour to make things more fair for the poor. Oh? That resulted in fewer jobs?
Oh Well.
For many decades I’ve been in a fast paced business with lots of key employees (highly paid, some 6 figures). It hurts everything when one of those key people are gone for extended periods. I hire a lot of women, but no more for key positions. I have a couple who have had kids (2 each) over the last few years. One is always taking time to tend to her kids. This is a real business killer.
Well, then, after the employers are mandated to provide certain benefits to certain people,
they’ll just have to be mandated to hire and pay those people as if those benefits weren’t required.
How do you fix consequences of a bad law, if you’re a lefty?
You outlaw the consequences.
It’s not just “family friendly”. Back in 1966 my parents were trying to rent out our house before we moved to Seattle. One night they went out and told me (I was in 6th grade) that if anyone called on the house that sounded black I was to tell them it was already rented.
This really concerned me and the next day I asked my dad why they told me that. Here is his response:
If we rent to white people that turn out to be deadbeats, we can easily evict them. If we rent to blacks that are deadbeats it’s much more difficult to evict them because of the new laws protecting them.
“For employers politicians, it becomes much easier to justify discrimination charges,”
Make it worse, get credit for trying to make it better- rinse, repeat...
In my workplace, employees with children are contantly taking time off for kids, much of which is never accounted for. As an example, coming in 1-2 hours lare (snow days etc) or leaving 1-2 hours early (games, sickness, doctors visits, etc).
I have no problem with this IF it is recorded towdards PTO, but these shortened days never are. So people with no kids or empty nesters are quite simply putting in more hours per week - I’d be aware of this if you are hiring to a productive workforce.
An employee has to earn his/her total compensation package, no matter what its composition, or he/she is worthless to his/her employer.
I’m 24 and expecting my sixth baby in September. This is what I wanted to do with my life and it would be totally unreasonable to expect an employer to shoulder the burden of my choice of lifestyle.
Granted I’m an extreme example but the point is that I made a CHOICE, right?
The left prattles on and on about a woman’s right to choose but then they expect the whole world to subsidize that choice with free condoms, free abortions, free health care, free child care, and ridiculous paid leave policies.
Imagine MY employer having to have to keep me on the payroll over the past six years while I was pregnant most of the time? How would that be a responsible policy for the employer? What about their profits and their other employees? What about their customers who’d be missing me pretty much most of every year?
Bottom line here: Men and women are NOT equal!
And if the left wants to say that we are then women should not have more rights in the workplace (or anywhere else) than men.
Aww. “Backfire” = not achieve the Marxist dream of “abolition of the family”.
This is one reason why over 62s are preferred in hiring and retention. They get Medicare, so no Obamacare penalty. Too old to have kids and maternity leave, and if health issues are a problem, they retire instead of taking maternity leave.
Should not the concern the income of the family and not any particular member of it? It is the family that is the basic economic unit, not the individual wage earners. If a family judges that it is better that the husband work full time and the wife either part time or full time at home with the children, who should complain?
I didn’t get all the way through the article. Did they make the comparison of family-friendly policy results having unintended consequences to the potential unintended consequences of jumping the minimum wage to $15/hour?
Theres no “family-friendly” without fathers except with widows. Widows, more often than unmarried others, raise the kids to respect fatherhood and wholesome family.
It would be more family friendly to insist on two adults to raise every child and one should be a full time wage earner. No one gets any special time off. Period.