''taking into account time off for family or child care'', right so when a woman has a child and her work availability is compromised she is still as valuable as a man who can commit 100%? Let's get real here,a person who is disruptive to a business is a liability and absence from work is probably the biggest disrupter but when it's a woman who's pregnant or raising young kids it's the other way round and the employer is the difficult one for not providing all the needs to the mother,and her disruptive schedule.
This is why you need strong social policies from your government. They provide the income of the women in maternity leave. Just like they provide the income of people who are home sick. So that the employer doesn't have to pay.
Off course, there is still the long abscense. But unlike with a desease that lasts for months, you can actually plan for maternity leave, as you know it months before hand.
This does not need to be a problem, unless you make it a problem.
[qutoe]Businesses are their to make a profit not fulfill political goals[/quote]
Right, but I bet that as an american, you don't really care for government run universal health care and alike, which would actually cover this particular
political goal. Amirite?
and if women can't keep pace with the competition thats their problem.
Wauw. This is irony squared.
"that's their problem"? What exactly is their problem?
That they are women????
That's what you mean ultimately, isn't it? Because you're saying that they can't "keep pace with competition" while talking about being absent because of getting pregnant...
And that is "their problem". That they get pregnant. That they are women. And not males.
This is.... wauw.
Why exactly should people get the same rewards if they don't render the same level of service?
Please quote statistics showing that women are unable to render the same level of service as males while on the job.
In a sales company someone sells 100 units,the colleague sells 30, do they deserve the same pay? I wouldn't think so.
The point of this thread, is that when BOTH sales reps sell 50 units and have equal seniority and job description, then the one with the penis gets the highest pay.
Political and social pressure on businesses have gotten women a lot of the gains they have today.
That goes for ALL workers, not just women.
Not to mention minorities.
Some governments have even gone as far as legislating gender quotas against large companies to promote women to CEO positions.
And the fact that that is happening, shows that there is a problem.
Quota's aren't installed for fun or just to annoy. Quota's are there because there is a discrimination problem that won't solve by itself.
By principle I am against quota's though. I'm not sure if that's the way to solve the issue, even if only temporary just to get it going.
If these affirmative action cases don't make as much money as a REAL top CEO who's top of the game....another pay gap based on gender discrimination?
A "real" top CEO. In capital letters and italic. Good grief.