Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

UKIP MEP in row over working women (Sexism) watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    W e do, but this UKIP guy wasn't just talking about pregnancy, he was saying that some legislation has disadvataged women in some ways as it has made them less employable.
    Less employable and more secure in their jobs. It's a balance. I expect if you asked all the women in the country they'd rather have the security, especially since unemployment is so low at the moment anyway.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    He could've employed someone for at least one day a week on the money claimed back from the government. If you're department is a part of a larger company then your boss should've claimed for some extra funds.
    Why should he have to, that is the issue! What if all his staff were female, what if he was as well and we all got pregnant. You can't use that excuse without the reductio ad absurdum arguement washing it away!
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    Less employable and more secure in their jobs. It's a balance. I expect if you asked all the women in the country they'd rather have the security, especially since unemployment is so low at the moment anyway.
    It's not just that though, much of the legislation will discourage employers from employing women.

    It's a double edged sword - the legislation provides women with more protection but they become less employable, which makes the protection pointless.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by polthegael)
    I doubt anyone with sufficient knowledge of gas chromatography, HPLC, spectrophotometry, etc to do the job would agree to work for minimum wage anywhere! No, she was on well over 12k.
    You'd be surprised what jobs people will take to gain a bit of experience temping before going for well paid permanent jobs.

    And of course there's always the option of getting someone in to do the "menial" tasks for everyone and free up more time for the entire team to spend on the skilled tasks.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    It's a double edged sword - the legislation provides women with more protection but they become less employable, which makes the protection pointless.
    Very succinct interpretation..
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by polthegael)
    Very succinct interpretation..
    It isn't as simple as that, but a balance must be reached rather than hurrined legislation that creates more problems than it solves.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Gnostic)
    Polthegael debunks an old myth
    How long did that take you?
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    It's not just that though, much of the legislation will discourage employers from employing women.

    It's a double edged sword - the legislation provides women with more protection but they become less employable, which makes the protection pointless.
    Not pointless...if the protection made women completely UNemployable then it would be pointless - as it is it reduces a womans employability slightly in certain circumstances (small businesses carrying out skilled work - small businesses carrying out unskilled work won't be affected as in those circumstances it's usually cheaper to get in a temp than to employ someone full time, large businesses have a larger pool of skilled staff to fill in the temporary shortfall (secondments etc)).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Gnostic)
    You know, I think the only reason Cambridge let you in was because they were just as suprised as I am now at finding an Irishman using latin, albeit inaccurately.

    If you take an arguement piecemeal to its logical conclusions and show that it is impossible/illogical/plain stupid, then you are using a reductio ad absurdum dialectic arguement.

    I went to an English private school myself and did Latin, Greek, Classics, Russian, etc. Why can't you treat people as individuals and stop your pathetic attempts to label people in some crassly ignorant and illogically generalised way? It might make you more friends...
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil Queen)
    Not pointless...if the protection made women completely UNemployable then it would be pointless - as it is it reduces a womans employability slightly in certain circumstances (small businesses carrying out skilled work - small businesses carrying out unskilled work won't be affected as in those circumstances it's usually cheaper to get in a temp than to employ someone full time, large businesses have a larger pool of skilled staff to fill in the temporary shortfall (secondments etc)).
    Yes - protection is important however the point the UKIp was making (albeit inarticulately) was that some of this legislation hasn't helped women and some legislation is needed that hasn't been put in place.

    This is fairly accurate.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    Yes - protection is important however the point the UKIp was making (albeit inarticulately) was that some of this legislation hasn't helped women and some legislation is needed that hasn't been put in place.

    This is fairly accurate.
    I'd be willing to bet that he doesn't (or didn't) realise that employers can claim SMP back from the government though...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    How long did that take you?
    Glad you think that it was two minutes well spent...
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil Queen)
    I'd be willing to bet that he doesn't (or didn't) realise that employers can claim SMP back from the government though...
    I'm not saying he's right, but he's not as wrong as some of the press would have us believe.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by polthegael)
    Glad you think that it was two minutes well spent...
    I don't
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Gnostic)
    I'm not going to take a lesson in logic from a descendent of a people who depended upon potatoes for their existence (and then wondered why they started dying on a huge scale when their crop failed), thank you very much.

    And I thought I was on your ignore list? Or did Lord Huntroyde's reference to me prove too irresistible to not check out?

    ooooo they've stolen me' lucky charms!

    I think we can all judge this dude by his messages here. Trust me there are a wide seletion of racist and generally offensive messages in his list of posts.

    I doubt any of you could really be bothered to read them, however, even if it did only take two minutes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    I don't
    I didn't mean to imply you did... I just thought your quote would make a point better than a random one saying "two minutes"!
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by polthegael)
    I didn't mean to imply you did... I just thought your quote would make a point better than a random one saying "two minutes"!
    OK
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    It's hard to take them seriously when their politicians come out with crap like this, but their policies would spell economic disaster in any case.
    I know what you mean. Not only is this unfair and predudiced against women it also doesn't make sense. I mean surely by not employing a women of child bearing age you are rulling out a large number of people who could be doing the job better than some of the men who are employed.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by randdom)
    I know what you mean. Not only is this unfair and predudiced against women it also doesn't make sense. I mean surely by not employing a women of child bearing age you are rulling out a large number of people who could be doing the job better than some of the men who are employed.
    And if the stats produced by the Equal Opportunities Commission are correct someone you could pay substantially less money for doing the same job as a man....

    :o|
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil Queen)
    And if the stats produced by the Equal Opportunities Commission are correct someone you could pay substantially less money for doing the same job as a man....

    |
    Until the woman finds out anmd takes them to the cleaners
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 8, 2004
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.