Posted on 06/29/2022 5:26:33 AM PDT by DoodleBob
Well its true. Pregnancy costs corporations a lot more money than an abortion does. They want drones who have no personal lives and who will take no time away from work. That’s why all these corporations are offering to help their employees get abortions. It saves them money.
The same is true if you hire a man with a family. Or a male employee whose wife gets pregnant. Everything relating to employees is nothing but an inconvenience to employers.
Trump was also a Democrat supporting John Kerry back then.
Thankfully he did not get his way - Alito would not have been on the Court.
Anytime anyone wants to bring up anything Trump did in his past... get a life!!!
We all change as we become aware... and the good Lord in Heaven shows mercy to us.. He forgives... oh, that mankind would do the same.
We need President Trump...He is willing to be dragged thru the lying den.. to save our country. If he was not for us and active.. we’d be eaten up by the rabid left.
God bless President Trump!
You are welcome :).
I did not know about the two strands of the Women’s movement at the time. It seemed to me these new expectations of women were anti-feminine, anti-women — and they seemed to have simply been imposed from on high thanks to mass media. Basically, we were told to act more like men (swear like sailors, be more aggressive, more promiscuous, etc.), kill our babies, dress like men by day in the office and like hookers by night in the disco, etc.
I had to go back many years later and study up on how and why this insanity came about. Now here we are in a porn-drenched society where too many worship abortion. We ladies were sold out, but our fault so many of us went along with it.
It’s 18 years old but more relevant today.
What exactly is the point of anti-Trump NBC unearthing this 18 year old story?
Do they really think this non story is going to make conservatives abandon the guy most responsible for the overturning of Roe?
Feminism was a total disaster for men and women. The destruction of our society continues unabated.
I recall the company I worked for would only hire temps. They would keep them around for several months, and possibly offer them a job depending on how they performed. It never failed that within weeks of a woman being hired she would become pregnant and in line for massive employee benefits.
It gets asked anyway, outlawed or not. My niece has (and is) working for a company here in Texas, and has for at least 8 years. She is up for a promotion, and her interview included exactly the question "do you plan to have any more children"?
Trump told the simple truth...it by no means implies that he is and was “pro-choice”. Just stating facts.
He said some things 20 years ago that were worth objection. But he changed his opinions and stuck to them. If he had gotten elected and then reverted to some of his older opinions, then these old stories would have validity. But he didn’t, so they don’t.
First, I NEVER was advised, tacitly or otherwise, to avoid hiring women.
Second, when women announced they were expecting, there wasn't some smoky, backroom meeting about how to muscle out Mary. If anything, it was simply another HR matter requiring changes to workflow and assignments... and assembling an in-office baby shower.
Third, we NEVER asked "are you coming back?" Indeed, the female employee frequently offered up the question AND answer after announcing her pregnancy - "I'll be taking some time off then coming back." More often than not, that happened. There were a few instances where the woman voluntarily left the workforce to care for her child, and in all of those cases it was because she WANTD to do so. Nature, you know.
Fourth, after taking over departments, I observed "apparent" pay disparity instances. Upon deeper investigation, many of these disparities were explained by experience, hiring dates (people hired more recently tended to have higher/market-adjusted base pay), and performance.
Notwithstanding all of this analysis, there were absolutely a few places over the years where the disparity boiled down to the prior hiring manager being a POS. In those cases, I called HR and they had ninja-like skills in finding funding pools to correct the disparity. Parenthetically, I never saw a guy getting the pay shaft in my analyses.
During the pandemic I saw men AND women rise to the occasion. For every guy I saw work harder, there was a woman who thought harder. And visa versa. Differences in talent I've observed, was solely based on the individual and not their XX or XY pattern.
One last salient point: I've had MANY women confide in me, that women can be the worst bosses to other women. "oh yea...it's a thing" I was told. That's not to say guys can't be terrible bosses - I've had quite a few - but as one female told me "women can be our own worst enemies."
Your mileage may vary.
This is a stupid trap and you shouldn't get caught in it. The woman is not the inconvenience, the pregnancy is not the inconvenience, it's the fact of having to account for staffing and scheduling that is the inconvenience. It's no less an inconvenience if the government requires parental leave to be offered, it's still an employee being out of the workplace for an extended period of time, shifting of job duties, maybe hiring or training a temp, and all on a schedule out of control of the employer.
There are plenty of things to point to where employers don't value their employees and don't deserve loyalty from their employees. Acknowledging reality isn't one of them.
One last thing....one of those POS hiring managers had a big boss that was über-wokey: talked the talk, but failed to walk the walk.
Without the woman or the pregnancy the there would be no staffing or scheduling problem. or no 'inconvenience'.
I’ve seen numerous surveys. Women PREFER male bosses.
I do a lot of contracts for banks and my bosses have overwhelmingly been women……as in 14 of the last 15…..I’ve generally been lucky and had good bosses though.
I might also mention in my company, HR will actively work to resolve pay disparities. When we do our merit increases, there is a bucket of money that can be used to make these kind of adjustments.
For example, if a "Specialist III" position (to be generic) had a mid-point salary of $78,000 and we brought somebody internally into that position that was making considerably less in a different job role, we would add to their merit increase from that pool of money to make them more whole in that position over time (those in the lower third of the pay scale get a higher increase than those in the upper third). Otherwise, they might never get to the mid-point on just the regular merit increases alone (which can be rather meager).
Provided of course that the employee is receiving favorable performance reviews and doing well in the job.
We want everybody getting to the mid-point as that is a good launching point to the next higher job title in the career path.
There is literally no such thing as women getting paid "less" than their male counterparts. The pay scales and percentages of merit increase are the same regardless of gender. That is never taken into account.
Well done and informative.
What you describe has been the norm since around 1990 and in larger corporations since the 1980s, as best I know. In smaller good-ol-boy owned businesses in the 1970s, and even in some into the 80s, there were owners/bosses who made no bones about paying women less because they would sooner or later get pregnant and quit, or become less reliable, and paying men more because they “have families to support”. I heard both from the lips of former bosses in person. **”But I never saw or heard any of that after 1990.***
In the 1970s, business and industry leaders began welcoming women in earnest as they reakized women were willing to work for less or work harder for the same pay. Men were sometimes replaced by women for this reason. They supported Women’s Lib and abortion in the political sphere through donations, as these kept women in the work force either longer at lower cost and made them look good guys to the women’s libbers to boot.
During the 80s, the DINKs and professional singles emerged as a lucrative market for a number of profitable products and services that benefit from heavy marketing and advertising, thanks to their having disposable income and leisure time available for restaurant meals, designer goods, upscale beauty products, gym memberships, travel, gadgets and entertainment of all kinds, etc. So the carefree childless lifestyle featured prominently in advertising and in TV and movies, which further encouraged the trend.
This piggybacked nicely on the already established emphasis on teen marketing. The shift to teen marketing efforts began in earnest in the late 40s (when the word “teenager”, coined by marketing and ad men, came into more general use) as teens became more mobile and had more disposable income to spend on things like entertainment including records/tapes/CDs/concerts, cool clothing and accessories, fast food, soft drinks, etc. (and thanks to the baby boom, a large market). So we had already established the youth culture as having outsize pop culture influence , and the basketball-in-the-python Boomer generation was moving on up in age.
So yes, corporate America did exert influence in pushing and glamorizing youth culture and extending that into young adulthood. It wasn’t some sinister plot, but a rational quest for profit. Businesses benefited from young adult singles and childless couples both as a market and as labor pool.
Couples with children simply didn’t have the spare money for products and services that benefit from intensive marketing (other than fast food, a time saver and cost effective for working couples with kids) nor the spare time to go out to movies, concerts and nicer restaurants, or for top line beauty products, trendy accessories, etc. They were spending their money on housing, baby food, diapers, gallons of milk, school supplies, and saving up for the kids’ college, etc. None of which are discretionary or impulse buys and therefore none of which benefit from intensive marketing. So there were fewer ads and movies and pop songs aimed at that audience.
Now, today, paying travel expenses for out-of-state abortions looks like a generous women-friendly gesture but is actually far less costly than the expenses and downtime of pregnancy, childbirth and motherhood. So it’s a win-win for the company (looks generous while actually saving money).
I do *not* think it means they will try to influence pregnant female employees to get abortions or curtail maternal leave or benefits. But as policy, making this offer makes good sense from both a financial and a PR standpoint.
Yes, women can be quite nasty toward each other in the workplace. The ones in bookkeeping/secretarial/clerical type positions can be especially vicious toward women in professional positions. Seriously! Jealousy?
I’ve had terrible and wonderful bosses of both sexes, most in between. The bad women bosses do tend to be more back stabby toward other women in my observation, as are bad women colleagues and underlings. I did my best to be a good boss to both men and women and believe I was evenhanded. I hope so, at least.
Nice to have an intelligent and thoughtful conversation with you here! It’s like the olden days on FR before it became twitterized. :)
I've worked for men. I've worked for women. I've had both bad male and bad female bosses and I've had outstanding male and female bosses. To say I prefer one over the other would be wrong. A boss who challenges you, respects you, mentors you, and helps you to do your best is the kind of boss I would like to work for, regardless of gender. I've been fortunate to work for both men and women who meet that description.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.