Re:How Subtle Class Cues Can Backfire on a Resume (2016)
by gmac on Sunday March 26, 2017 @05:18AM
(#13959897)
You can always quit your job if you dislike the choice offered.
Right, and find a job with completely different terms, which, uh, very likely doesn't exist.
This kind of "everything's a choice" BS really bugs me. There are plenty of situations where regulation is the only solution, and I suspect this is one of them. Since employers use willingness to work long hours as a signal of commitment/productivity, very few people get the choice to work shorter hours, even if almost everybody would be happier that way.
Re:How Subtle Class Cues Can Backfire on a Resume (2016)
by icebraining on Sunday March 26, 2017 @03:47AM
(#13959692)
How does it forbid you? The law doesn't force you to take that time; it merely doesn't allow your partner to take it on your behalf.
Re:How Subtle Class Cues Can Backfire on a Resume (2016)
by yummyfajitas on Sunday March 26, 2017 @04:12AM
(#13959750)
I am not permitted to enter into a "more money, less leave" contract with a willing employer.
Re:How Subtle Class Cues Can Backfire on a Resume (2016)
by kaitai on Sunday March 26, 2017 @09:45AM
(#13960749)
Women (fortunately or unfortunately) are not permitted these contracts either. It's not possible to promise chastity or childlessness or plead hysterectomy and get more money; the actual condition of one's reproductive equipment or desires is ignored and instead a broad bias ("she might leave!") is applied to all.
Re:How Subtle Class Cues Can Backfire on a Resume (2016)
by icebraining on Sunday March 26, 2017 @04:24AM
(#13959777)
Right, but that's unrelated to the efforts to get men to take up more leave (increasing the "use it or lose it" for men), since even if the time was all usable by the mother, you couldn't enter into a contract renouncing it either. So I don't see how it's germane to the point you introduced earlier.
Re:How Subtle Class Cues Can Backfire on a Resume (2016)
by emodendroket on Sunday March 26, 2017 @12:28PM
(#13961539)
Yes, but fundamentally you don't understand the premises your interlocutors are starting from. Essentially, the view you're encountering is that a certain amount of vacation, parental leave, and related benefits are an intrinsic good and that nobody should be forced to choose between their career and, for instance, taking paternity leave. To someone with that view talking about losing the "choice" to forego these benefits for the sake of your career is pointless in much the same way it'd be pointless for me to appeal to the Bible in an ethical debate with an atheist.
Legislation does target individuals; it forbids me from choosing money over time. As a person with no desire to stay home for long periods, this directly harms me.