Don't Ask Don't Tell repealed

It happens on here a lot, I do it myself if im starting to lose the argument
I was just throwing in an example of so called discrimination for people to think about, me personally, I think its a case of people having too many rights.
Why should an employer pay £4125 plus 6 weeks of her normal wage when he could have just taken on somebody else that can do the job required?

 

The fuck you talking about. If you're not willing to employ pregnant woman then why not go the whole nine yards and stop employing women all together, as they clearly pose a risk of becoming pregnant. Basing your whole argument on the fact I said 'might' is fucking retarded, if you ignore the 'might' part my argument is EXACTLY the same. Why not try and construct a proper argument at why not employing pregnant women solely because they're pregnant isn't discrimination. Oh and please find an argument other than it costs less.

Thanks for the advice!! Like I previously said; for a woman to be eligible for SMP she has to employed for atleast 25 weeks prior to the 15th week of pregnancy, meaning that they would not be pregnant af the start of their employment, so guess what? If you employ a woman who is already pregnant, you dont have to pay her anything other than the wage she is due. So bringing in someone to cover would cost you the same as if the women wasnt pregnant. That's where the 'might' comes into play, I've already established that your argument is stupid and I'm right. So if you dont ever want to pay SMP the only way round it is to stop employing women who "might become pregnant".

If I ever start a business, the fuck is a buisnuess, I'll employ people based on their suitability for the job and not whether they are carrying a child or not.

tl;dr it's discrimination and you're sexist, good day.

oh hey! you should totally start doing it in the wikileaks thread then.

To many rights!? Do you actually listen to yourself? And anyway this isnt about rights, it's about equality... unless you don't agree with that either

 

No need, anyone can see wikileaks is a threat just by having secret documents.

Can the pregnant woman do the job equally as well as someone who will be there, and make my wage expenses equal?

And I just love it when people rant lol it makes the effort of typing out the post worthwhile

 

Doesn't the man also get some time off, if his wife is pregnant?
Anyway, this argument is retarded.
I mean, what do you suggest?
That a woman who has worked somewhere for a while could just be fired simply because she got pregnant?

That's basically how the USA works.

 

Not at all.
I said if a pregnant woman came for a job interview she wouldn't get it because of said reasons. £5000+ is a lot to lose for a small business.

 

Ooooooh.
In that case, i think you have a point.
But then again, a pregnant woman would probably not be looking for a job, because she was, pregnant.

 

And I said that if a pregnant woman came for a job, the business would'nt have to pay the £5000+

 

Thankyou.

Probably not, but its still discrimination to not give her the job, and there is my problem with people having too many rights, it goes beyond common sense sometimes.

Work out 6 weeks normal pay plus 33 weeks at £125.
Plus you still have to pay someone normal wages on top. I worked out(roughly) a shortfall of around £5000

 

It a woman is employed whilst pregnant, it is impossible for her to have been employed for the neccessary 25 weeks, prior to the 15th week of pregnancy, to be eligible for SMP. I've already stated this, twice, why aren't you getting it. IN THIS CASE THE EMPLOYER WOULD NOT NEED TO PAY HER ANYTHING.

 

It seems like msg's argument is that an employer is forced to employ an already pregnant woman, which i doubt is factual.
Besides, i did a google search, and according to this article it seems that here in the US they don't even get paid for leave.

 

Re: Don\'t Ask Don\'t Tell repealed

But haven't you heard?
Unions are evil.
They're the reason why small businesses can't compete, and...and... we'll i forget the other bullshit excuses the right wing uses so the people here hate unions, and favor legislation that actually hurts them, and helps big corporations.
All i know is if it weren't for the Union i would still be making half of what i make, and i wouldn't have any insurance, or half the benefits i now do.
America needs a big smack in the face, to see if it wakes the eff up and starts acting like the other civilized countries.
Post Merge: [time]1293117186[/time]

I can only hope....

 

To be fair to such people, the corporations have largely controlled public opinion on this matter, and political pressure of course 'helps'.
The general idea that corporations doing better automatically equals to the population doing better, (economically and otherwise) has been hardwired at this point to a large amount of people, even if it is false.

 

Trickle down economics.
You can thank Reagan for that.

 

...these descrimination laws piss me off, ok if I had 2 workers, a 16yr newb and a pregnant women with more experience, who would I choose?

Sure I like experience, but the kid is cheaper, that is if I had the choice from a pool of workers.

Also, the smokers getting smoke breaks IN ADDITION to their normal breaks has become descrimination to non smokers (well at least here from what I seen, I watch the fools smoke as soon as they start, work for an hour, smoke again, and several times during a shift as well as a lunch break.

Those same workers, if they didnt smoke, would get 2 15 min tea breaks and an hour lunch break, non smokers get far less breaks...


As for what's being changed, from all I known (sorry for my ignorance) if you are gay in the army you just dont tell anyone and there is no problem, tell someone and you are sacked, there will always be homophobics in every job...must we be that open everywhere we go these days?

I see no issues in keeping one's mouth shut, sure being fired over it seems harsh but on the battlefield I wouldnt need an openly gay solider telling me he's gay...for I certainly wouldnt want him behind me.

If I wrong on what I thought the policy is about let me know otherwise this is my take.

 

its all about what companies can get in as little time as possible

 

Wouldn't the repeal of the DADT endangers soldiers in a way that they will be beat up by fellow soldiers for being open gay? Doesn't the DADT made to protect enlisted men from discrimination by not forcing them to be questioned on their sexual preference?

If you are an open gay soldier, won't you be an easy target for those soldiers that hate gay?
I'm not pro or against the repeal but that DADT Law, became a law because it was to protect someone in the first place, right?