Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

alittlejolly t1_j0decez wrote

Who pays for the salary during the sick days? If it was paid by the government that is great but if a business has to pay for it then it may become a double edged sword. If I was a small business and needed to hire someone and the choice was between an equally qualified person with a uterus and a person without one I would probably hire the person without a uterus. The reality is that I wouldn't be able to afford the risk of having an employee not being available for some time each month. While I commend the idea, I worry about unintended consequences.


KnotiaPickles t1_j0e84gz wrote

All businesses should have paid sick days for their staff…


TeamADW t1_j0el8qj wrote

Most do, but there is a limit to what you can provide. A business has to make money off of the activity of the people there. If the take is more than the give, you need to find someone with less take.

that's the point being made here, that employers would look at any woman under retirement age as someone who is going to be taking paid leave 3-12 days a month. To which you can extrapolate that situation further. If someone is taking that leave, monthly, for the maximum allotted time, and its believed to be not in good faith (milking the system) , how does it get addressed without crossing medical information and privacy laws / norms?


Louloubelle0312 t1_j0gmty0 wrote

Well, first, it wouldn't be close to 12 days a month. I had endometriosis, and I would say that the first 2 days of my period were excruciating. If I was lucky, it happened on a weekend, so I could spend two full days, curled on the couch with a heating pad. But thanks for the empathy. I mean, businesses have to make money right? People are irrelevant.


Mrischief t1_j0h5m9y wrote

Yes but what he is saying is with malic this could get nasty for any employer and the risk is higher. It is not about your personal experience in it, not discounting it.


Louloubelle0312 t1_j0hwu8x wrote

My personal experience is the same as 10% of women. It's not an odd situation. And men need to start acting like women are people.


tandemxylophone t1_j0ekscn wrote

But will you be ok covering for other people's circumstances 4 days a month? If there were lots of mums wanting to pick up their kids at 3pm, should they allocate all the unsociable shifts to the childless workers since they are more abled?


KnotiaPickles t1_j0ellml wrote

Children are a Choice. Periods Are Not.

Also, accommodation can be made fairly easily. It is usually only about one day a month that is especially bad for many women, generally the first or second day. It’s more a scheduling issue than anything. The hard part is that we often don’t know exactly when it will come, and this could make a huge difference.


Louloubelle0312 t1_j0gmx2o wrote

As someone pointed out, periods are not optional. And fathers are just as capable of picking up children.


tandemxylophone t1_j0i6ct9 wrote

I'm not saying periods are not serious, just that regardless of it being cancer or tragedy, someone will be covering the responsibilities of the absent person.

Some jobs don't have that much responsibility or the work style is a periodic deliverable, which makes this work.

But if you set up a new one-man business and needed a hire someone to deliver fresh flowers, you won't choose an interviewee who says they have cancer so they need to take a medical leave every month for a week, and they expect that to be paid.


TrulyStupidNewb t1_j0douof wrote

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. For example, if we made the minimum wage $100/h only for black people, it sounds good at first, but in reality it doesn't work well.


amscraylane t1_j0esyxq wrote

But if being black meant every 28 days a body part of theirs backfires resulting in debilitating cramps, diarrhea, nausea, changes in hormones, headaches, and blood coming from an orifice, I would be willing to understand they would need a day off and not look for analogies on why that would not be okay because it doesn’t happen to me.


nworb200 t1_j0fbcla wrote

Why should businesses pay two people the same amount when one takes more leave?


amscraylane t1_j0fh1o5 wrote

Why should two people have the same expectations when one has physical pain inflicted upon them every 28 days involuntarily?

And that physical pain costs the other person each month with pads, tampons, panty liners, Tylenol … and potential loss of clothing, possible embarrassment … and loss wages


nworb200 t1_j0fi2ro wrote

As an employer if I had two equal candidates but one had to take an extra month of leave per year(for whatever reason) I would hire the one that didn’t.


Wonderful-Assist2077 t1_j0g8qjl wrote

I read that female ceo's or women in high positions of power tend to not higher women because of issues like this and maternity leave etc. they want their workers to be there 100 percent of the time ya know to squeeze that extra min out of them.


Louloubelle0312 t1_j0gna1a wrote

And this is why we don't like republicans. The almighty dollar comes first. Let's not try to figure out a way someone can still do their job with a debilitating illness. Let's just throw them to the curb.


nworb200 t1_j0hk4mv wrote

Not a republican. The thing is the dollar comes first for you too, if not you would accept that someone who does less work should receive less pay.


Louloubelle0312 t1_j0hurpf wrote

Nope. The dollar does not come first for me. People do. And at no place did we say that less work is going to be done. And frankly, given the way men treat women, we deserve more.


nworb200 t1_j0hz3s4 wrote

So you just think women are naturally more productive than men and can achieve the same amount in less days?


Louloubelle0312 t1_j0gn2t8 wrote

Wow! Did you actually just think that? So, what? Women shouldn't work?


nworb200 t1_j0hi5v8 wrote

They should just take the same leave as men. Or earn less.


Louloubelle0312 t1_j0hvgu1 wrote

Nope. Absolutely not. You're taking a whole class of people that through no fault of their own, have to deal with this every month, FOR YEARS, and all you men act like it's nothing. Well it isn't. I guarantee if you were sick for an extended time, you'd be screaming about it. And by the way - we already earn less. It's rather like when people applauded Fred Astaire for being such an amazing dancer, and nobody paid attention to Ginger Rogers, who as she said had to do the same dance steps, in high heels, and backward, but no one thinks she should have gotten more.


nworb200 t1_j0hyxf2 wrote

Why is it some random businesses job to fund righting the wrongs that nature gave women?


TrulyStupidNewb t1_j0gsku2 wrote

It's not okay because the days off will affect women negatively by limiting their options for employment. Sometimes, the worst decisions come from good intentions. I just gave an extreme example of how a good idea can become a bad idea.

How about this? If you wanted to give paid women days off for their period, the correct way would be to also give paid days off for men too. This way, there is no uneven competition, which is equality. The time off can be flex, and you can use use 4 flex days in a row all at once, if you want.

This way, women can choose to use the flex days off during their periods if they want, or move it if they don't want. This also benefits women who don't have periods, such as older women, and well as men.

However, some companies already give flex days like that, so if a woman cares about flex days like that, right now, they can simply apply for those companies. For example, the company I work for gives flex time off, paid, for both men and women, regardless of period or not.


amscraylane t1_j0gvehs wrote

We have a level playing field now. Every one shows up to work, but half of the workforce has to pretend they not menstruating. If a woman needs to take a day off, it comes out of their sick days.

With your scenario, men are getting a day of leisure and I am curled up in a ball trying to figure out if it is a fart or am I going to shit myself?

So once again, men get the advantage because you do not have a body part that revolts. So while woman are at home in genuine pain, you get to have a day of golf to make it “fair”?

The only fairness would be then if we get one of those machines that simulated cramps and made you wear a suit simulating the 5 lbs of water weight you take on, and then surprise you with a gush of blood in your underwear and have a voice that says, “you bled through your pants and onto the chair”


TrulyStupidNewb t1_j0gwy9s wrote

I'm not saying to not empathize with women who menstruate. I'm saying certain policies that attempt to fix that problem will hurt women further, and it is not my intention to hurt women.

In another side example, women on the pill do not menstruate much, but why should they suffer a disadvantage in getting hired because they are a woman? They shouldn't.


Louloubelle0312 t1_j0gmafg wrote

So, what? Women shouldn't have jobs? We have and DO work through incredible pain, fevers, vomiting, diarrhea, and bloating, just to name SOME of what happens. But we have to work through it, because of people with your attitude. Tell me, if a man had a condition that made him ill at least once a month, do you think they'd even come in? Or would you not hire them as well?


alittlejolly t1_j0gr7yn wrote

I think that you read a lot into my comment and decided to take it ad absurdum. Or course women should have jobs and of course they should not have to work through painful periods. The key point for the comment was the devil is in the details. Women should have access to those sick days and government should cover the cost . If the government doesn't then the business has to make the tough choice of whether or not they want to hire someone who may cost them more money.


Louloubelle0312 t1_j0gshi0 wrote

If you think that I thought it was absurd, it's because it was. Women would not be hired by your standards. Ah yes, the men would love this. Just another way to keep women under control. And yes, I think businesses should pick up the cost. It should simply be a benefit.


alittlejolly t1_j0gt2c7 wrote

reductio ad absurdum is a logical fallacy where to take something to an absurd end which in your case was the question. "Women shouldn't have jobs?". Obviously that statement is ridiculous and is nowhere near the what I said.

I also understand that this is a hot button issue for you but you don't seem to be actually reading what I wrote. I completely think that women should have this option and my argument is that the government should pay for it otherwise it will likely result in additional discrimination against hiring women.