The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Off Topic Discussions > Supreme Court Decision
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 07-07-2009, 07:38 AM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrQ1701 View Post
let me give you another example: When I was applying for my current job, there were a number of steps that must be taken in order to be hired. First you had to pass a test. This test was a 12 question "common sense" test. Most of the questions were alost trick questions and you had to pay close attention to what was really being asked. If you missed more than two questions you failed. Then a physical test was given. You had to run one mile at an elevation of 7,500 ft in a certain of amount of time. Then you went into an interview. All of this while a backround check was being done. If your background checked out okay then the final people being hired were decided upon based on the interview board.

I was hired. About two weeks before my new job was to start I recieved a letter that my training class was postponed for 6 months!! One day while some of my wife's friends were visiting, I find out one of them, a young female about 20 years old, also tried out for the same position I was hired for. She failed the run and did not make it to the interview stage. She went on to tell me that the company's recruiter called her up after she failed the run and told her about another position that had not been advertised, one in which the run qualifier did NOT apply. He said (I am paraphrasing) that the company needed more young woman and that they would like to offer her this other postion. She ended up taking this job, which paid the same as the other, and ended up more senior than I!!! I was a bit pissed. Here I am forced to wait 6 months, while this female that failed is handed a different position!! I learned all this because she herself told me. She didn't see anything wrong. After she and my wife's other friends left our house, my wife could not believe the story.
Legally:
If you steal reparations to recover lost wages or services are required.
but thats a seprate issue from all this.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-07-2009, 07:38 AM
MrQ1701's Avatar
MrQ1701 MrQ1701 is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Espanola, New Mexico
Posts: 3,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Botany Bay View Post
Lets be carefull to not invite generalizations here. I agree that affirmative action is allways a problematic thing. But overall, if there is discrimination that violates the constitution, then the state has the duty to take action against this discrimination (in the US as in almost all european countries too). And that can only mean to help the discriminated, either with quotas, or with more education... all the methods have advantages and disadvantages. In the end someone can allways come along and call it "reverse discrimination", thats inevieatable.
I believe more education is the answer. I don't like quotas. I hate it when a company HAS to hire someone just to fill needed gender or minority requirements. If I ran a company and had 100 employees, then I would want 100 of the most qualified people. If I were forced to hire less qualified people and not someone more qualified people because of a quota, then I find that wrong.

I know these situations are tricky and often difficult to prove, in either direction. Sometimes a very qualified minority is not hired in favor of "the white guy". This is the situation affirmative action was meant to prevent. It was NOT meant to create the situation where the less qualified minority is hired over the "more qualified white guy" just because it makes the company's employee race mix look good on paper.
__________________
To secure the peace is to prepare for war. -Metallica
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-07-2009, 07:45 AM
Botany Bay's Avatar
Botany Bay Botany Bay is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Berlin
Posts: 2,112
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrQ1701 View Post
I know these situations are tricky and often difficult to prove, in either direction. Sometimes a very qualified minority is not hired in favor of "the white guy". This is the situation affirmative action was meant to prevent. It was NOT meant to create the situation where the less qualified minority is hired over the "more qualified white guy" just because it makes the company's employee race mix look good on paper.
I see where you are coming from. I allways say I wish I would live in a society where quotas would not be necessary. The reality is that companies do not forcingly hire the person that is best for the job, but that also fits into certain pictures and expected stereotypes and gender goes a very long way there. Dont underestimate the level of discrimination in western societies and dont overestimate the rationality of companies.

Just try to imagine how your chances where to become a car salesman when you where a woman. Try to imagine the job interview with the Boss.

Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-07-2009, 07:48 AM
MrQ1701's Avatar
MrQ1701 MrQ1701 is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Espanola, New Mexico
Posts: 3,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Botany Bay View Post
Allways sucks to be the one who has to pay the price and you have all my sympathy. On the other hand, statistics show that men do have it easier to make a career and do earn more money for the same performance and do suffer less income losses for having children, etc.

So, the moment you take a look at the broader picture, thats the moment where this case may not look that unfair anymore. Just wait untill she receives a child and you are climbing the career ladder while she is staying at home, missing a year in her job and has a hard time to catch up with you.

However, again, I sympathise and would likely have felt pretty much the same in this situation.
I could not believe that the recruiter actually stated the company needed more young woman. The one that benefited from it was the one that told me!!

You know, I don't sympathize with the whole "mother" thing. I mean, if she chooses to have a child and to spend time away from work, then that is her decision. If I climb "the ladder" while she remains at home, that is her and her family's choice. Her husband could stay at home while she continues her climb up the ladder.

I agree, with all things being equal, woman and men should be paid the same. Funny thing is that many other factors come into play when dealing with pay. At my job I do the same work as the guy that has been there 25 years, but he earns more sick leave, more vacation, and has a higher hourly rate than I. Is that fair?
__________________
To secure the peace is to prepare for war. -Metallica
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-07-2009, 07:54 AM
Botany Bay's Avatar
Botany Bay Botany Bay is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Berlin
Posts: 2,112
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrQ1701 View Post
You know, I don't sympathize with the whole "mother" thing. I mean, if she chooses to have a child and to spend time away from work, then that is her decision. If I climb "the ladder" while she remains at home, that is her and her family's choice. Her husband could stay at home while she continues her climb up the ladder.
That argument is often made but forgets a very important fact: Women earn less then their husbands (in the majority of the cases). So, even if the husband is an honest guy, progressive, not afraid of breaking with the male gender sterotype and offers to stay at home, risking his macho boss may think he is some kind of... you can easily imagine the little problems that easily add up to become a huge one. In any case the family would lose more money then when the wife stays home.

The moment there is a baby is the moment where the woman stays at home because in most cases she earns the leat money and the loss of her income for a year is less painfull then the loss of the man in the house.

Its just not that easy, MrQ.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrQ1701 View Post
I agree, with all things being equal, woman and men should be paid the same. Funny thing is that many other factors come into play when dealing with pay. At my job I do the same work as the guy that has been there 25 years, but he earns more sick leave, more vacation, and has a higher hourly rate than I. Is that fair?
And now imagine you would have worked at least a year less at the company because you would have stayed home taking care of the child. Add another year, for seeking a new job or a third and a fourth year for the second child. Now, what do you think how much you would earn now?

Last edited by Botany Bay : 07-07-2009 at 07:58 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-07-2009, 07:59 AM
MrQ1701's Avatar
MrQ1701 MrQ1701 is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Espanola, New Mexico
Posts: 3,940
Default

Let me tell you something else that is funny. I live in a highly Hispanic and Native American area. I have 3 female cousins that are highly educated and very successful. They make BIG bucks. None of them has children and they don't plan on it. Around here, woman like them are almost sneered at by society. They are seen as selfish and as caring more about how much they earn rather than things like family. I believe this comes from Hispanic culture and it's emphasis on family. Seems kind of backwards, but everyone chooses what they consider to be priorities. They chose professional life and are reaping the rewards. The same could be said about the mother that is enjoying having and raising children.
__________________
To secure the peace is to prepare for war. -Metallica
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-07-2009, 08:03 AM
Botany Bay's Avatar
Botany Bay Botany Bay is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Berlin
Posts: 2,112
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrQ1701 View Post
Seems kind of backwards, but everyone chooses what they consider to be priorities. They chose professional life and are reaping the rewards. The same could be said about the mother that is enjoying having and raising children.
It takes two to tango. Usually a woman AND a man choose to have a child and it is the woman who is granted the joy and cheer of raising a child while the husband renounces generously like a true gentleman.

However, we can not deny that there is discrimination and unfairness. We can now debate the amount of discrimination forth and back and plaster this thread here with links to sociological studies... in the end it still boils down to the problem that as long as there is discrimination, for so long the state has to take action in the one or the other form.

Can we agree on that?

Last edited by Botany Bay : 07-07-2009 at 08:06 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-07-2009, 08:10 AM
MrQ1701's Avatar
MrQ1701 MrQ1701 is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Espanola, New Mexico
Posts: 3,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Botany Bay View Post
That argument is often made but forgets a very important fact: Women earn less then their husbands (in the majority of the cases). So, even if the husband is an honest guy, progressive, not afraid of breaking with the male gender sterotype and offers to stay at home, risking his macho boss may think he is some kind of... you can easily imagine the little problems that easily add up to become a huge one. In any case the family would lose more money then when the wife stays home.

The moment there is a baby is the moment where the woman stays at home because in most cases she earns the leat money and the loss of her income for a year is less painfull then the loss of the man in the house.

Its just not that easy, MrQ.



And now imagine you would have worked at least a year less at the company because you would have stayed home taking care of the child. Add another year, for seeking a new job or a third and a fourth year for the second child. Now, what do you think how much you would earn now?
Again, I don't buy the argument. If the father makes more money and the family (wife and husband) decide the wife should take the time off, then it is still their decision. If career is more important than don't have children. It's really that simple.

I want to clarify that I DO think it is wrong that woman earn less than men, when all things are equal. I believe that kind of situation should not exist but unfortunately they do.

I'll give you an extreme example of where a woman chose family over career. My friends wife has a Master's degree. She earned bug bucks. He earns big bucks, but a little more. When they started having children SHE wanted to be 100% stay at home mom. She easily earned MORE than what daycare would have cost. She even turned down an offer from her employer to work at home!! She has not worked for over 5 years now. If and when she goes back to work, is she entitled to the same wage as if she had never left? Many companies base wages on years of service. That is why I gave the example of me doing the same work as someone that has been at my company for 25 years. She could have continued working. My friend was willing to take more time off from work. They BOTH would have lost a little income from work in order to be at home more, but SHE wanted to be home, period.
__________________
To secure the peace is to prepare for war. -Metallica

Last edited by MrQ1701 : 07-07-2009 at 08:15 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-07-2009, 08:14 AM
MrQ1701's Avatar
MrQ1701 MrQ1701 is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Espanola, New Mexico
Posts: 3,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Botany Bay View Post
It takes two to tango. Usually a woman AND a man choose to have a child and it is the woman who is granted the joy and cheer of raising a child while the husband renounces generously like a true gentleman.
It does take two tango, and if THEY choose to follow what has been considered the "traditional" family by having the man be the bread winner and she the home maker, that is their choice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Botany Bay View Post
However, we can not deny that there is discrimination and unfairness. We can now debate the amount of discrimination forth and back and plaster this thread here with links to sociological studies... in the end it still boils down to the problem that as long as there is discrimination, for so long the state has to take action in the one or the other form.

Can we agree on that?
Agreed. It is a fine line that is not always clear. Some cases the less qualified guy gets the job, others the more qualified guy does NOT get the job. (OOPS I just realized I said the same thing twice!) I say "guy" but I mean guy or gal. Like I said before, with all things being equal, race and gender should NOT be part of the wage equation. We agree on that.
__________________
To secure the peace is to prepare for war. -Metallica

Last edited by MrQ1701 : 07-07-2009 at 08:20 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-07-2009, 08:19 AM
Botany Bay's Avatar
Botany Bay Botany Bay is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Berlin
Posts: 2,112
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrQ1701 View Post
Again, I don't buy the argument. If the father makes more money and the family (wife and husband) decide the wife should take the time off, then it is still their decision. If career is more important than don't have children. It's really that simple.

I want to clarify that I DO think it is wrong that woman earn less than men, when all things are equal. I believe that kind of situation should not exist but unfortunately they do.
And there is the contradiction: You say men and women should earn the same money for the same performance, but you acknowledge they dont. So you do agree there is discrimination.

And because in most cases the woman earns less she is almost allways the one staying home for the child and suffering further disadvantages.

Its the decision of the couple to have a child, yes, but the whole imballance of wages of men and women starts with the little difference: If women earn just a few bucks less at the beginning of their career, then they usually end up with earning far less at the end of their career as soon as there is a child.

Furthermore society wants to have children, society encourages it. Just look at the fuzz made about marriage.

So, even if we dont want to call it discrimination, there is still something foul in our societies. Why not attempt to find ways of correcting the unequal chances. Quotas may not be the best way, but they are a way. We can now debate forth and back where quotas are necessary or unneccessary, or wise or unwise, but that wouldnt get us far because its a case to case decision to be made and a very close look must be taken on all those cases. That cant be done on a forum about some men and women flying around in spaceships.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrQ1701 View Post
Agreed. It is a fine line that is not always clear. Some cases the less qualified guy gets the job, others the more qualified guy does NOT get the job. I say "guy" but I mean guy or gal. Like I said before, with all things being equal, race and gender should NOT be part of the wage equation. We agree on that.
Cheers.

Last edited by Botany Bay : 07-07-2009 at 08:24 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:06 PM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.