How is this statement contraversial?

[WestCoastRunner]

Really?

Experience is more relevant than education.

[Hal 9000]

Really?

Actually, what you described does happen - all the time. It's not a gender thing, it's a case of grooming. It happens with men/men all the time too.

[WestCoastRunner]

Actually, what you described does happen - all the time. It's not a gender thing, it's a case of grooming. It happens with men/men all the time too.

do you mean men/women

[Hal 9000]

Experience is more relevant than education.

I hear ya!

[Hal 9000]

Now, one female is decent - as decent as many of the guy's, however she's getting paid more than guys that have 2-3x's the experience (and are better at their job) and who should actually be leading their crews, but she's getting groomed and my boss brags to all our clients how we are truing a female crew leader.

Do these fellas have university experience?

None of us have degrees that are relevant to our profession - it's all on the job experience.

[WestCoastRunner]

I hear ya!

We agree on one thing!

[Hal 9000]

We agree on one thing!

It's a start!

[WestCoastRunner]

I have learned in these last few posts, that sometimes women and men get promoted based on their education and not their experience. It is a problem for both genders and not isolated to just women.

[WestCoastRunner]

I have learned in these last few posts, that sometimes women and men get promoted based on their education and not their experience. It is a problem for both genders and not isolated to just women.

However, a bigger problem for women

[TimG]

Well, of course they won't get that 4% raise while they were off having a baby. I get that. I'm not that unrealistic, but other than that, women on maternity leave should not be restricted in any way towards future promotions etc.

The original point which you disagreed with is that women's pay is adversely affected by time off for child rearing. Missing out on a year's pay raise is how this effect shows up. It also shows up because opportunities for promotions are infrequent and if a woman is out for maternity leave she could miss an opportunity and even if she did not she would have 1 less year of experience when competing for the next promotion opportunity. Edited August 3, 2014 by TimG

[WestCoastRunner]

The original point which you disagreed with is that women's pay is adversely affected by time off for child rearing. Missing out on a year's pay raise is how this effect shows up. It also shows up because opportunities for promotions are infrequent and if a woman is out for maternity leave she could miss an opportunity and even if she did not she would have 1 less year of experience when competing for the next promotion opportunity.

I was disagreeing with someone's post about how women taking maternity leave would somehow be dropped on the ladder towards mobility in a company or how it would impact their progression (which it shouldn't).

[WestCoastRunner]

The original point which you disagreed with is that women's pay is adversely affected by time off for child rearing. Missing out on a year's pay raise is how this effect shows up. It also shows up because opportunities for promotions are infrequent and if a woman is out for maternity leave she could miss an opportunity and even if she did not she would have 1 less year of experience when competing for the next promotion opportunity.

If a woman is working for a good company and they recognize her contributions and her skill set, she has no worries. And quite frankly, for the most part, this is what I have come across in the industry I work in.

Edited August 3, 2014 by WestCoastRunner

[Hal 9000]

I was disagreeing with someone's post about how women taking maternity leave would somehow be dropped on the ladder towards mobility in a company or how it would impact their progression (which it shouldn't).

You have to admit that if 2 people (a man and woman) of equal experience and education are hired at the same time, it would be unfair to promote the person who was off for a year over the one who has worked 5-6 days a week during that same year.

[-1=e^ipi]

Your response is so ridiculous and has no logic or thought to it at all.

Lol, what an empty statement without supporting evidence. It is very easy to make absurd claims.

It's a man throwing out bs towards women. You must somehow feel threatened by women or by women wanting to attain equal rights.

Ad hominem fallacy and appeal to motive. Please refrain from logical fallacies.

First of all, when a woman takes leave to have a baby, this should in no way, be detrimental to her career or her salary.

Yes it should. If someone chooses to take a year off work, by the end of that year they will have 1 year less experience relative to someone who did not take a year off of work.

Not sure why you would indicate this is harmful to her potential earnings.

Because of lost potential experience.

There is no reason a woman can't return to work in the same earnings range as her male counterpart who did not have to take maternity leave because his wife did so.

Yeah there is. The person who chose to have a baby now has a year less experience.

Someone has to have the babies but let's not penalize them in their job earnings for gods sake!

I support freedom of choice. But those that choose certain actions should be subject to the consequences of those actions.

Patriarchy does exist in NA.

And so does the flying spaghetti monster.

Here is a question, if I claimed that matriarchy existed throughout Canada, how would you disprove my claim?

Gender specific scholarships should absolutely be available. This is to encourage women to stay in the sciences, the maths, technology. Otherwise, we end up having a skills shortage in these fields.

This justification makes no sense. If the goal were to reduce 'skill shortages' in these fields, then you would give the scholarships to the best potential candidates, regardless of gender, and not restrict the pool of candidates.

Discrimination based on sex is wrong.

There are just as many women as men working themselves into an early grave.

Completely untrue claim. If this were true, the different in life expectancy would not be so large and you would have more female representation than there currently in sectors of the economy that have greater health or mortality risks.

[-1=e^ipi]

Having a child keeps our society growing!

I thought that is what immigration is for.

We have a responsibility to do so.

There is no responsibility to do so. Having children is a choice.

[-1=e^ipi]

That happens all the time in an environment where men are being trained by women. For example, in the banking industry, a woman trains a young man straight out of university on the banking practices in a branch. She teaches him thoroughly on all the best practices etc. But guess what, he gets the management position while she knows more than him! Sure, there are plenty of women in the branch who have worked there for years (without a university education) but they silently stand by and watch this young whipper snapper move on up because he has a university degree.

Can you explain the difference to me?

... Maybe education is relevant in determining someone's earnings and marginal product of labour? Idk clearly it's a big mystery! *sarcasm*

So you think women should earn the same as men even if the man has a higher education level? Now that is sexism!

[Shady]

... Maybe education is relevant in determining someone's earnings and marginal product of labour? Idk clearly it's a big mystery! *sarcasm*

So you think women should earn the same as men even if the man has a higher education level? Now that is sexism!

It's seems to be that way. Look at tennis. Women are pushing to be paid the same as men, even though women play 3 set matches, and men play 5 set matches. If they want to be paid equal, play 2 more sets, and shut up.

[jacee]

God this board is infested with dinosaurs.

[Hal 9000]

God this board is infested with dinosaurs.

Can you explain?

[eyeball]

She means conservatives, the whole country's lousy with them.

[TimG]

Can you explain?

It is a word she uses to describe people who form rational positions based on logic and analysis rather than her preferred way of forming positions based on irrational ideological preconceptions. Edited August 3, 2014 by TimG

[Wilber]

It's seems to be that way. Look at tennis. Women are pushing to be paid the same as men, even though women play 3 set matches, and men play 5 set matches. If they want to be paid equal, play 2 more sets, and shut up.

Pro sport pay levels are dictated by the amount of revenue a sport brings in. Both sexes play in the same tennis tournaments but not head to head, so I'm not sure how they break down the the difference or even if they do, but if women are generating the same amount of revenue as the men, they should be paid the same, regardless of how many sets they play. I think the women may have a valid point when it comes to tournaments where there are both men and women's draws.

BTW, men only play 5 set matches in the four Grand Slam tournaments, otherwise they also play three.

Reality is, men and women compete head to head in very few pro sports and revenue streams are usually very different.

[dre]

Why shouldn't it? If a man went to his boss and said he wanted to talk a year off to go trekking in Nepal he might get the leave but he would have no right to expect that his absence would have no effect on his career or salary. Time off for kids is no different. Employers have an obligation to accomodate these personal choices but but it is insane to think these workers should be treated the same as workers who did not make those choices.

Thats why theres should be maternity leave, and programs to keep womens training up to date so that they can re-enter the workplace easily. Right now a lot of mothers never enter the workforce again... its bad public policy to not have these things in place because if we can get these people back into the workforce the government gets to milk them like a cow for the rest of their lives. If we cant we get nothing.

[dre]

It's seems to be that way. Look at tennis. Women are pushing to be paid the same as men, even though women play 3 set matches, and men play 5 set matches. If they want to be paid equal, play 2 more sets, and shut up.

<facepalm/>

[TimG]

its bad public policy to not have these things in place because if we can get these people back into the workforce

This is only true for women with a specialized skill where the value added to the economy exceeds the cost of paying someone else to provide childcare. Women with such skills will typically find that employers are more than willing to accommodate. The other factor is the effect on the partner's income - a woman (or man) married to partner with specialized skills can contribute more to the economy by keeping the household running so the partner can focus on adding value. (the latter situation could mean the most economically sensible move would have the husband stay at home after the woman has recovered from childbirth) Edited August 4, 2014 by TimG