Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Personally I feel that individuals should get payed by the jobs they do and how well they perform, not based off their gender or what have you.

At 5/1/12 09:23 AM, CaptainCornhole wrote: Personally I feel that individuals should get payed by the jobs they do and how well they perform, not based off their gender or what have you.

Who is the best judge of this? The government or employer?

If a company employs 3 men and 1 woman and the woman gets paid 20% less than the men should the government step in and penalise the company for discrimination or should we assume that the company pays her less because she doesn't perform as well and they are less afraid of losing her to a competitor?

At 5/1/12 09:23 AM, CaptainCornhole wrote: Personally I feel that individuals should get payed by the jobs they do and how well they perform, not based off their gender or what have you.

The problem is the way our country dealt with women for so long. Denying women's suffrage, limiting their reproductive rights, limiting their access to education and other critical infrastructure services... The patriarchal bent in our society has been around for so long that we need these laws to ensure that if all else is equal, that women are provided the same compensation a man would be provided (aka Equal Pay for Equal Work).

At 5/1/12 11:07 AM, bismuthfeldspar wrote: If a company employs 3 men and 1 woman and the woman gets paid 20% less than the men should the government step in and penalise the company for discrimination or should we assume that the company pays her less because she doesn't perform as well and they are less afraid of losing her to a competitor?

So are you saying that because women get paid close to 30% less than men that they must be worse workers?

At 5/1/12 11:16 AM, Camarohusky wrote: So are you saying that because women get paid close to 30% less than men that they must be worse workers?

no

Why did you jump to that conclusion Try thinking properly next time.

At 5/1/12 11:26 AM, bismuthfeldspar wrote: Why did you jump to that conclusion

The first read through of your post felt biased toward leaving it up to the employers. Move forward with that bias and, as employers control how much women are paid compared to men, the employers must be currently right and that the women deserve less pay.

Reading the post a few more times, that bias doesn't jump out anymore. I can see how I thought that, but nothing to confirm it.

Try thinking properly next time.

If you're looking for a way to sink your argument without much effort, I think you found it. The lack of punctuation only strengthens the torpedo.

At 5/1/12 11:50 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

I didn't discount the possibility that the employer was sexist, I never said whether the government was wrong or not. I was just following a smart logical process to examine the situation a bit more and that was the result.

should we assume that the company pays her less because she doesn't perform as well

Well?

If a woman who has worked at taco bell for 3 years finds out some male trainees are getting paid more than her then it's obvious a rogue manager is sexist.

However when it's a hi-tech company at the cutting edge of a field only a few dozen people around the world understand then you don't understand the needs of the company and you can't conclude they are sexist if they value a female employee less. The best option here, for both of us, is to shut up and get with the program, I'm not an expert and neither are you.

Furthermore you need to remember it's the shareholders who are the real victims in all this, not the woman who was discriminated against, if the woman was undervalued she could have just gone and worked for a competitor instead, what happened is the sexist manager overvalued the male employees placing his prejudices above profit which meant less profit for shareholders. Instead of sueing the company we should be fining the sexist, instead of raising the wages of women we should be decreasing the wages of overvalued men, I know it sounds counter-intuitive but it happens to be the truth, remember that many shareholders are women so it doesn't make sense to penalise women for being sexist. So... What am I supposed to think when this is what logic dictates?

lack of punctuation

buhu

At 5/1/12 11:13 AM, theburningliberal wrote:

The patriarchal bent in our society has been around for so long that we need these laws to ensure that if all else is equal, that women are provided the same compensation a man would be provided (aka Equal Pay for Equal Work).

And since when is equality defined by income or wealth?

At 5/1/12 11:07 AM, bismuthfeldspar wrote: Who is the best judge of this? The government or employer?

If a company employs 3 men and 1 woman and the woman gets paid 20% less than the men should the government step in and penalise the company for discrimination or should we assume that the company pays her less because she doesn't perform as well and they are less afraid of losing her to a competitor?

Who is the best judge? I don't entirely know, the employer and government both have their pros and cons. That said, how would penalizing the company do anything to help our female employee to achieve equality (assuming that the company is truly are discriminating against her)?

At 5/1/12 09:35 PM, CaptainCornhole wrote: Who is the best judge? I don't entirely know, the employer and government both have their pros and cons. That said, how would penalizing the company do anything to help our female employee to achieve equality (assuming that the company is truly are discriminating against her)?

The theory is that the punishment will cost more than it would to pay the woman fully. Also, sex discrimination is a major PR hit.

On top of that there's the remedial aspect for the female employee. A successful suit can get her back pay to the market rate (i.e. the male pay for equivalent experience and longevity) for the period that she was discriminated against (or at least up to the Statute of Limitations).

At 5/1/12 09:11 PM, CaptainCornhole wrote:

:: At 5/1/12 11:13 AM, theburningliberal wrote:
:: The patriarchal bent in our society has been around for so long that we need these laws to ensure that if all else is equal, that :: women are provided the same compensation a man would be provided (aka Equal Pay for Equal Work).

And since when is equality defined by income or wealth?

We are not trying to define equality here, we are trying to achieve equality. There is no legitimate reason why a female should make less than a man for any given job, if all other factors are equal, which is why we have the concept of equal pay for equal work. Some people just apparently don't get common sense.

At 5/2/12 01:02 AM, theburningliberal wrote: We are not trying to define equality here, we are trying to achieve equality. There is no legitimate reason why a female should make less than a man for any given job, if all other factors are equal, which is why we have the concept of equal pay for equal work. Some people just apparently don't get common sense.

Why shouldn't we define equality? That is what we are trying to achieve, no? How can we meet our goal if it is not defined? I would argue that there are legitimate reasons for people who do the same job to get payed less. Suppose a guy and a gal both do roofing construction, the gal does an amazing job (high quality work/gets done quickly) while the guy might not be as skilled as her. In that scenario (when we throw all the variables out the window) I would pay the female worker more as she is a more valuable employee.

So are you saying that people should get payed equally not matter what they do? Even if a female coworker might work her butt off and then go home to take care of her kids, while her male coworker might not to jack? Should a telemarketer get payed the same as a honest cop who puts his or her life on the line everyday?

At 5/1/12 11:45 PM, Camarohusky wrote: The theory is that the punishment will cost more than it would to pay the woman fully. Also, sex discrimination is a major PR hit.

On top of that there's the remedial aspect for the female employee. A successful suit can get her back pay to the market rate (i.e. the male pay for equivalent experience and longevity) for the period that she was discriminated against (or at least up to the Statute of Limitations).

I can see how it could act as a deterrent, but the company could just fire her and hire a male employee to avoid the punishment all together. And if society today is still that patriarchal and bigoted then a PR hit wouldn't matter, as society probably wouldn't care. Like you said, I can see some sort of suit working to help get the female employee's market rate back (granted that the company was being discriminatory), that's if we want to define equality based of income.

One thing that concerns me is that when government comes in to fix things they are often ineffective or make the situation worse. Now while we need something to make sure sex discrimination doesn't happen, I'm afraid that the government will just be ineffective and go after innocent businesses. I mean look at the National Housing Discrimination Act or what ever it's called. It penalizes apartment owners or whomever for being racist/homophobic/bigoted. Yet housing discrimination still exists.

At 5/2/12 09:49 AM, CaptainCornhole wrote: So are you saying that people should get payed equally not matter what they do? Even if a female coworker might work her butt off and then go home to take care of her kids, while her male coworker might not to jack? Should a telemarketer get payed the same as a honest cop who puts his or her life on the line everyday?

Equality doesn't mean flat equality. What equality means is that those with equal relevant factors are paid equally (or at least similarly).

Very rarely is sex/gender a relevant quality toward the ability to perform a job. Acting and the sex industry are the only places I can think of.

So, tying back to your example, if there was a man and a woman who both had equivalent experience (say 10 years and 9.5 years) both are superb workers, both has similar seniority, and both are abl;e to bring in similar cashflow/benefits to the company then they should be paid the same or a very similar wage/salary.

At 5/2/12 10:02 AM, CaptainCornhole wrote: I can see how it could act as a deterrent, but the company could just fire her and hire a male employee to avoid the punishment all together.

Because they'd be punsihed even fuirther and have to pay a good deal of lost wages even while the female employee is not working there. Employment lawsuits can seriously harm a company. Like I said they can lead to massive back pay, and future lost wages for periods where the employee no longer works at the company. It is an extremely rare situation where simply getting rid of the employee and taking the lawsuit will break even for the company, let alone be an efficient decision.

And if society today is still that patriarchal and bigoted then a PR hit wouldn't matter, as society probably wouldn't care.

No, because women are an extremely large consumer force and can have a boycott that severely hruts, even if only 10% of all women participate in it.

Like you said, I can see some sort of suit working to help get the female employee's market rate back (granted that the company was being discriminatory), that's if we want to define equality based of income.

Is there a better way to create equality within the workforce?

One thing that concerns me is that when government comes in to fix things they are often ineffective or make the situation worse. Now while we need something to make sure sex discrimination doesn't happen, I'm afraid that the government will just be ineffective and go after innocent businesses. I mean look at the National Housing Discrimination Act or what ever it's called. It penalizes apartment owners or whomever for being racist/homophobic/bigoted. Yet housing discrimination still exists.

You can't have it both ways. Either you want to protect innocent businesses from being targeted or you want to stamp out all discrimination. The middle ground sounds nice in theory, but cannot be achieved in reality.

At 5/2/12 11:08 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Equality doesn't mean flat equality. What equality means is that those with equal relevant factors are paid equally (or at least similarly).

Fair enough, I was under the impression you were advocating for a flat rate. That said, I would say equality is more then an equal or similar rate. I would say equality is that people are treated fairly inside and outside the workforce. And that individuals from different aspects of life have the same opportunity to better their fortunes in life. Also equality concerns civil rights, such as voting or what have you.

Very rarely is sex/gender a relevant quality toward the ability to perform a job. Acting and the sex industry are the only places I can think of.

Yeah, I'm not saying gender has anything to do with performance at a job.

So, tying back to your example, if there was a man and a woman who both had equivalent experience (say 10 years and 9.5 years) both are superb workers, both has similar seniority, and both are abl;e to bring in similar cashflow/benefits to the company then they should be paid the same or a very similar wage/salary.

Agreed.

Because they'd be punsihed even fuirther and have to pay a good deal of lost wages even while the female employee is not working there. Employment lawsuits can seriously harm a company. Like I said they can lead to massive back pay, and future lost wages for periods where the employee no longer works at the company. It is an extremely rare situation where simply getting rid of the employee and taking the lawsuit will break even for the company, let alone be an efficient decision.

Alright fair enough, again my concern with that is the potential for corruption. I could easily see an employee claiming sex discrimination, feeling that they should get payed more for their work, where it might not be the case. Then a government investigator with a personal dog in the fight could unfairly punish the company.

No, because women are an extremely large consumer force and can have a boycott that severely hruts, even if only 10% of all women participate in it.

Based off your premise that society is still insanely discriminatory towards woman would this not be the case?

Is there a better way to create equality within the workforce?

Yeah pay people fairly based of their performance and job situation.

You can't have it both ways. Either you want to protect innocent businesses from being targeted or you want to stamp out all discrimination. The middle ground sounds nice in theory, but cannot be achieved in reality.

I guess you always have to strive for the middle ground otherwise you get either two extremes. That said, I guess my solution would be to stamp out bigotry and sexism generation by generation. Like with racism, people were educated to be more tolerant over time. As older generations died off, more tolerant or progressive ones took their places. Not to say the older generations are completely racist or intolerant, but you get my point. I guess that is how I would try to tackle it. That said there will unfortunately be bigotry or what have you as long as people are around. I don't think it is entirely possible to stomp out that sort of thing.

At 5/2/12 12:01 PM, CaptainCornhole wrote:

At 5/2/12 11:08 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Equality doesn't mean flat equality. What equality means is that those with equal relevant factors are paid equally (or at least similarly).

Fair enough, I was under the impression you were advocating for a flat rate. That said, I would say equality is more then an equal or similar rate. I would say equality is that people are treated fairly inside and outside the workforce. And that individuals from different aspects of life have the same opportunity to better their fortunes in life. Also equality concerns civil rights, such as voting or what have you.

I second Cornhole's thought here. What someone does outside of the workplace has no effect on what they should be paid while they are in the workplace. It's not the employer's job to compensate for factors of which they either have no knowledge or are beyond their control. But as Cornhole wrote, when relevant factors are equivalent between a male and female worker, there should be no disparity in the compensation they receive.

This is also essentially the premise of the Equal Pay for Equal Work concept. As I have mentioned elsewhere, I have been out of the loop for quite some time, and I did see that WI has either made an effort to repeal their Equal Pay for Equal Work act, or has already done so. Knowing how legislatures work, I would have to do some more research into it to find out if it being repealed based on the intent of the law, or because of some random part of the law that has nothing to do with it, but is causing problems.

Very rarely is sex/gender a relevant quality toward the ability to perform a job. Acting and the sex industry are the only places I can think of.

Yeah, I'm not saying gender has anything to do with performance at a job.

Agreed.

So, tying back to your example, if there was a man and a woman who both had equivalent experience (say 10 years and 9.5 years) both are superb workers, both has similar seniority, and both are abl;e to bring in similar cashflow/benefits to the company then they should be paid the same or a very similar wage/salary.

Agreed.

Because they'd be punsihed even fuirther and have to pay a good deal of lost wages even while the female employee is not working there. Employment lawsuits can seriously harm a company. Like I said they can lead to massive back pay, and future lost wages for periods where the employee no longer works at the company. It is an extremely rare situation where simply getting rid of the employee and taking the lawsuit will break even for the company, let alone be an efficient decision.

Alright fair enough, again my concern with that is the potential for corruption. I could easily see an employee claiming sex discrimination, feeling that they should get payed more for their work, where it might not be the case. Then a government investigator with a personal dog in the fight could unfairly punish the company.

That's why we have the investigation process. Not saying it is perfect, but if there is little to no evidence that such discrimination has occured, the claim will be dismissed. Also, in re: your supposition of an 'investigator with an axe to grind', the decision of an investigator can always be appealed in court and reviewed by people who were not part of the original investigation. So while one investigator might try to 'unfairly punish' a company, if the decision is unwarranted it can always be reversed. A long trend of instances like this from a single investigator may also end up resulting in a disciplinary review of that investigator.

No, because women are an extremely large consumer force and can have a boycott that severely hruts, even if only 10% of all women participate in it.

Based off your premise that society is still insanely discriminatory towards woman would this not be the case?

Left to our own devices, we are still a patriarchal society. It is the efforts of progressives (of both genders) who have paved the way for us to make the slow transition to being a more egalitarian society when it comes to gender differences.

Is there a better way to create equality within the workforce?

Yeah pay people fairly based of their performance and job situation.

Thus, Equal Pay for Equal Work.

You can't have it both ways. Either you want to protect innocent businesses from being targeted or you want to stamp out all discrimination. The middle ground sounds nice in theory, but cannot be achieved in reality.

Not sure who originally posted this, but what middle ground? The oversight process of stamping out discrimination will ensure that only legitimate offenders are punished for breaking the rules. It's not like we are establishing a kangaroo court to deal with this, it will be dealt with in much the same way as other rules and regulations surrounding the workplace.

I guess you always have to strive for the middle ground otherwise you get either two extremes. That said, I guess my solution would be to stamp out bigotry and sexism generation by generation. Like with racism, people were educated to be more tolerant over time. As older generations died off, more tolerant or progressive ones took their places. Not to say the older generations are completely racist or intolerant, but you get my point. I guess that is how I would try to tackle it. That said there will unfortunately be bigotry or what have you as long as people are around. I don't think it is entirely possible to stomp out that sort of thing.

Agreed. Racism and Sexism are ideas, after all, and you can never kill an idea. You can bury it, ignore it, whatever you want to do, but there is always going to be someone who believes it is a good idea. Nevertheless, as you mentioned, we do have to take steps to educate people and foster progress on the gender gap.

At 5/3/12 12:35 AM, theburningliberal wrote:

You can't have it both ways. Either you want to protect innocent businesses from being targeted or you want to stamp out all discrimination. The middle ground sounds nice in theory, but cannot be achieved in reality.

Not sure who originally posted this, but what middle ground? The oversight process of stamping out discrimination will ensure that only legitimate offenders are punished for breaking the rules. It's not like we are establishing a kangaroo court to deal with this, it will be dealt with in much the same way as other rules and regulations surrounding the workplace.

I originally said this and it essentially applies to every facet of our legal system. By the very nature that people want to break rules for their own benefit, and our general human nature prone to error, we will either have a system that is intended to stop all of a certain problemand ignoring the many times where it penalizes factually innocent folks, or a system where we hold innocence to be sacrosanct thus letting many factually guilty people off free. The middle ground would be the utopian ideal of getting all of the guilty while not penalizing any of the innocent. That sounds nice, and should always be our goal, but it's just impractical.

At 5/3/12 11:24 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 5/3/12 12:35 AM, theburningliberal wrote:

You can't have it both ways. Either you want to protect innocent businesses from being targeted or you want to stamp out all discrimination. The middle ground sounds nice in theory, but cannot be achieved in reality.

Not sure who originally posted this, but what middle ground? The oversight process of stamping out discrimination will ensure that only legitimate offenders are punished for breaking the rules. It's not like we are establishing a kangaroo court to deal with this, it will be dealt with in much the same way as other rules and regulations surrounding the workplace.

I originally said this and it essentially applies to every facet of our legal system. By the very nature that people want to break rules for their own benefit, and our general human nature prone to error, we will either have a system that is intended to stop all of a certain problemand ignoring the many times where it penalizes factually innocent folks, or a system where we hold innocence to be sacrosanct thus letting many factually guilty people off free. The middle ground would be the utopian ideal of getting all of the guilty while not penalizing any of the innocent. That sounds nice, and should always be our goal, but it's just impractical.

It should be a goal, but I don't think it is as impractical as you make it out to be. That is why we have oversight and the appeals process to ensure that the rights of both plaintiffs and defendants in these types of actions are protected. If a punishment does get handed down or someone does get imprisoned unfairly, they can fight to clear their name and try to prove their innocence. So even if there is some kind of bias in the entity that initially handed down a decision, it can be overturned later on appeal so that people who truly are innocent of wrongdoing aren't punished for things they didn't do. It's as close as we can get, and unfortunately it doesn't always work, but especially in recent years, we have gotten better about making sure that we are seeking the truth in things like this and eliminating disparities in our society.

At 5/3/12 02:25 PM, theburningliberal wrote: It should be a goal, but I don't think it is as impractical as you make it out to be.

First you disagree...

It's as close as we can get, and unfortunately it doesn't always work,

Then you say exactly what I did.

but especially in recent years, we have gotten better about making sure that we are seeking the truth in things like this and eliminating disparities in our society.

There are two truths when it comes to the law: Truth and truth.

There is the actual factual truth. Then there is the legal truth. Our legal system relies legal truth completely ingoring real truth, because the real truth isn't as infallible as logic would make it seem. The biggest obstacle to real truth? Reliability.

At 5/3/12 07:48 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: It's just that unless we get more women in here (women on NG, there's a good one) this whole debate feels rather one-sided.

Then join in.

At 5/3/12 07:48 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: Am I the only one who finds it kind of amusing a bunch of guys are sitting around discussing the gender gap?

Myself, I have never experienced a so-called glass ceiling but I am a white woman raised in an upper middle class family so obviously that makes a big difference. So does my job, I'm sure. I also have no children.

I'm not saying men can't debate or have opinions on these issues. Mason has a bit of experience with his wife, from what we've seen. It's just that unless we get more women in here (women on NG, there's a good one) this whole debate feels rather one-sided.

To be fair, "the gender gap" was a misnomer for this thread. Until Captain showed up and pulled arguments out of his cornhole without reading anything other than the thread title it was about the "War on Women".

To be completely honest, I don't think glass ceilings and pay grade differences are as common as feminists and the media want people to think (granted they still exist in places just not legally). For example, that 30% quoted by Camaro. How can I be sure that factors in previous experience, job qualifications, seniority, work quality, and the various other ways pay can be genuinely affected without depending on sexism? Does that number also include pro sports players who make literally tens of millions of dollars a year compared to female pro athletes who get far smaller fan turnouts and thus make far less money. What about cases of high paying jobs that are more frequently dominated by men due to men more commonly choosing that career than women or low paying jobs that require physical capabilities most women don't have such as heavy lifting? I'm a college student and have been in school for most of my life, and most teachers are women. I've never once met a female teacher with equivalent relative factors to their male counter-parts that could honestly say that they were paid less. The only woman I know who was passed up for a promotion they deserved and were qualified for was my mother and she wasn't passed up because of gender but because she lacked a college education and the company she worked for wanted college graduates for their management positions. The laws that prevent sexist discrimination already exist and are enforced, if a woman can prove that and equally qualified male makes more money there are steps she can take to stop that. Which leaves me wondering why women are supposedly being paid so much less so many years after these laws were created without doing something about it unless they can't actually prove that they deserve the same level of pay.

At 5/3/12 08:43 PM, djack wrote: To be fair, "the gender gap" was a misnomer for this thread. Until Captain showed up and pulled arguments out of his cornhole without reading anything other than the thread title it was about the "War on Women".

Well, I was talking about the gap in support for the two candidates based upon the actions taken by one party to harm the interests of women. I think "war on women" is a bit harsh, and implies a more intelligent coordination than I believe is actually happening. I think this is just the "traditional values" of one party seeping to the forefront of national politics, and republicans being caught out for doing things they actually believe in, but are unable to usually do so because it would generally create a ton of political pushback (which hasn't really happened here, aside from the shift in support.

Also, Rydia, as one of the few female regulars I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts about the issues at hand: PP, Walker's actions in Wisconsin, various abortion laws across the country, and the instances of slut-shaming that make all of these issues very difficult for women to bring to light.

At 5/4/12 08:58 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: Sexism can exist in those industries too, but it's often inadvertent/less advert (e.g. not inviting a female colleague to a golf game).

Actually, the most overt sexualism I have seen has been in white collar professions like law and accounting.

An office of 40 workers going from 14 women to 2 in just over a year. Two pregnant women being demoted, then one of them being laid off during maternity leave. Underqualified men being promoted over superstar women.

The high power industries know they can get away with it, because a woman who reports them is blacklisted and few other companies want to take her 'as a liability'.

At 5/4/12 09:16 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: I think one reason for this is that a lot of the women who do sue settle out of court quietly.

While this is likely true in some cases, the specter about balckoisting can arise merely by threatening litigation. As a great deal of the higher ups in these professional communities knwo eachother, even information about private settlements can spread like wildfire.

It's going to take some ballsy women to sue and change things. Some do have guts (the mommy tracking suits) but those women are few and far between. There could be any number of reasons for this. One I think plays into it is that a lot of professional women I meet are afraid to rock the boat. Reasons range from fear for their reputations to fear for their coworkers, or also, the pride of the firm. I'm sure there are other reasons too, but those are the ones I hear the most.

Exactly. The big difference I see between women in professional careers and women in other careers is the amount of hard work it takes to become a professional. It takes a shit ton of hard work to make to these high powered firms/corporations, and on top of that a good amount of luck is still needed. Many woman subject to sex discrimination (my wife included) would rather grin and bear it than face the possibility of putting all of that hard work to waste. To tie in my example before, my wife was one of those 2 pregnant women. Not the one who was laid off though, she quit against my advice (she kicked that job's ass and the least those sexist fuckers owed her was a severance and retention of her bonus.) Even though she quit, they still had the gall to ask for the bonus back.

At 5/4/12 08:58 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: A lot of women decide to take time off/quit to raise families, so often they don't have the years/experience in to get promotions or higher salaries. Some industries are male-dominated simply because of this. Take Wall Street bankers for example. Much of the work involves 18-hour days, 7 days a week. A woman (or sometimes a man, for that matter) raising kids is not going to want to spend that much time away from their families. Sexism can exist in those industries too, but it's often inadvertent/less advert (e.g. not inviting a female colleague to a golf game).

True, but that only agrees with what I said. While sexism exists it isn't necessarily as common or severe as some sources would have the public believe. Those Wall Street bankers aren't predominantly male through sexist hiring practices but due to a difference in priorities. Those bankers also make a lot of money and factoring them into a comparison of male and female pay rates is going to scew the results in men's favor simply as a result of the number of men in that field.

Let's go with Camaro's example of his wife's office demoting female workers on maternity leave and having a sudden drop in female workers. Were those women being paid less than the men? Did the quality and/or quantity of work being done by those women decrease when they were pregnant? Did this happen when the office had to downsize due to economic difficulties that dropped them from employing 40 people to 20? There's a whole bunch of unanswered questions that could drastically change how that situation is viewed. While pregnant women are a topic, do you think it would be right for companies to be forced to provide paid maternity leave? I know Camaro will say yes to that but what about you? Isn't it discriminatory to give women more time for getting pregnant than a man could get if he used both his vacation and sick days? Shouldn't new fathers get time off as well to bond with their child? Is it right to force someone to pay for a service they're not receiving?