And when a woman takes off for 2 to 3 months, PAID, it does hurt the perception of her in the workplace... I see that happen all the time, where the woman works until birth is close just to get the 3 months extra pay, knowing she is going to not come back.
2-3 months? Try 6-weeks with most insurance plans. Notice I said "insurance" and not "employer" because employers aren't required to pay anyone who takes medical leave. Good ones at least give you a short-term disability plan (which you and your company pay premiums for, so it's YOUR benefit to use).
I keep seeing this argument. It simply isn't a very good one. Complaining about a female getting paid for being gone for 6 weeks is the same thing as complaining about a male employee who gets paid for 6 weeks to stay home after spinal fusion surgery.
I've lived and worked in the UK and America. Your point is spot on. Americans get all worked up about women getting PAID to stay home with a newborn, and the rest of the world understands the importance of a mother staying home with a newborn.
What you said, plus the fact that somebody is actually decrying mythical "reverse discrimination"...
Men can stay home. Men can take care of babies. Men cannot BIRTH babies, but men CAN get short term disability that is required by law to tend to a newborn.
I'm just curious how a woman who works in an industry for 10 years then quits to have kids, no longer has 10 years of experience when they decide to return to the workforce in three or four years?
Does experience in tech only count for consecutive years?
Sorry, most real computer nerds tend to be men, and they have been since they were little kids.
You're seeing the result of the socialization women received 20+ years ago. Men now have a leg up technically, and they are paid more because of this,not because of evil sexism.
What qualifies as "evil sexism" if not your own statement about how men have a leg up? The "socialization women received 20+ years ago" is a great example of sexism.
Hmmm, so you haven't met any of the common stereotypes in your 20 year career? Stereotypes come from somewhere, you know?
In my 2 year career, I can name at least one person at my work (300 employees) that fits at least one of the categories above. In many cases, there are more people LIKE the stereotype presented than not.
So you ARE under the age of 25! Joking aside, I find the $50-$75 3d cards to work just fine for new 3d games. This has been an adequate price-to-performance point for me since about 2003.
McCain fought against education benefits because he felt they should not be used as a recruiting tool for a bunch of "1-and-done" low ranking soldiers. His plan was to be used as a tool to keep mid-career NCOs, not as an incentive for them to get out. It was one of the very few intelligent things he came up with during his campaign.
While I agree with your sentiment, it could be that they lived in on-base housing. If that were the case, she would have been forced to vacate and she could argue her relocation was related to that.
Sure that is a good and all but what about the family bills that per monthly have to be paid without the second income?
From a VA fact sheet, dated 2004, the VA pays the surviving spouse $967 month plus $241 per each child until that person turns 57 or remarries. It's probably more than that now.
See my post for his pay breakdown...he was an E-3, according to the article. He most likely had been in for a couple of years because the Marine Corps is stingy with promotions (or he could have started as an E3, depending on education and recruiting credits).
But *this* woman's husband died serving our country, while getting paid less than a garbage man in most large cities.
Can we please kill this myth? First of all, garbage men AND military people make more money than most people think. Saying somebody makes less than a garbage man is misleading. In Seattle, WA, (according to the Googles) they can make upwards of $60k a year.
Here's what this guy was making a month:
$1923 base pay (E3 with 3+ years) $963 housing (or housing provided for him) $323 food $225 imminent danger pay (while deployed) $250 Family Separation Allowance (while deployed) ??? - special skills pay (could be airborne, a linguist, etc., but the article doesn't say)
The guy was making $45,000/year with no education and very little experience. Not too shabby for someone in their early 20s.
And what makes you think that an institution that has been open six days a week for decades has not discovered the miracle of rotating shifts, thus allowing its workers to have consecutive days off?
The fact that the same 5 or 6 employees work there Monday - Saturday and there aren't enough employees to take shifts.
What's there to understand other than they provide good salaries, rewarding careers, and there's nothing to morally approve or disapprove of?
Why do people work for Sony with the evil rootkits? Why do people work for Microsoft with their well-known shortcuts-to-protect-bottom-line, or Apple and their famous walled garden? Somebody will always (and invariable inaccurately) find something they disapprove of from a corporation. Be self-employed, if you must.
In any of these cases, there's nothing inherently moral or immoral about working for somebody else.
You are asking that somebody justify taking a job in the defense industry based on morality. I can only guess you suggest that means it is inherently immoral, otherwise you wouldn't be seeking justification.
I can justify it on two grounds. The world needs a defense industry and it is a lucrative and rewarding career. I could just as easily design training for banking, government, insurance, but defense pays better than all of those, and there is nothing immoral about the industry.
Well your question is provocative, implying that it is morally wrong to work in defense. I merely posit that your view point is more out of the mainstream than the slashdot community thinks, based on how many of us willingly work in defense with none of the moral anguish you are implying.
Slashdot Mirror
And when a woman takes off for 2 to 3 months, PAID, it does hurt the perception of her in the workplace ... I see that happen all the time, where the woman works until birth is close just to get the 3 months extra pay, knowing she is going to not come back.
2-3 months? Try 6-weeks with most insurance plans. Notice I said "insurance" and not "employer" because employers aren't required to pay anyone who takes medical leave. Good ones at least give you a short-term disability plan (which you and your company pay premiums for, so it's YOUR benefit to use).
I keep seeing this argument. It simply isn't a very good one. Complaining about a female getting paid for being gone for 6 weeks is the same thing as complaining about a male employee who gets paid for 6 weeks to stay home after spinal fusion surgery.
I've lived and worked in the UK and America. Your point is spot on. Americans get all worked up about women getting PAID to stay home with a newborn, and the rest of the world understands the importance of a mother staying home with a newborn.
and it is almost always mom that stays home with them, not dad. Who has to pick the kids up at school or day care? Mom usually gets that task.
Are you sure about that, or is this just the same sort of overt sexism that causes you to draw these conclusions without any supporting evidence?
Why would a break in a career disqualify somebody from earning what somebody with 10-20 years experience would earn?
What you said, plus the fact that somebody is actually decrying mythical "reverse discrimination"...
Men can stay home. Men can take care of babies. Men cannot BIRTH babies, but men CAN get short term disability that is required by law to tend to a newborn.
I'm just curious how a woman who works in an industry for 10 years then quits to have kids, no longer has 10 years of experience when they decide to return to the workforce in three or four years?
Does experience in tech only count for consecutive years?
Sorry, most real computer nerds tend to be men, and they have been since they were little kids.
You're seeing the result of the socialization women received 20+ years ago. Men now have a leg up technically, and they are paid more because of this,not because of evil sexism.
What qualifies as "evil sexism" if not your own statement about how men have a leg up? The "socialization women received 20+ years ago" is a great example of sexism.
+1 hilarious.
Men don't take maternity leave and men don't take sick leave because their kids have the sniffles.
Statements like this prove the point that sexism still rules.
women don't have any potential in the fields that require great minds or great feats of strength, so they don't shine.
This is the worst post I've ever seen on slashdot.
Hmmm, so you haven't met any of the common stereotypes in your 20 year career? Stereotypes come from somewhere, you know?
In my 2 year career, I can name at least one person at my work (300 employees) that fits at least one of the categories above. In many cases, there are more people LIKE the stereotype presented than not.
"Sneering IT" is perfect. I'm stealing that.
So you ARE under the age of 25! Joking aside, I find the $50-$75 3d cards to work just fine for new 3d games. This has been an adequate price-to-performance point for me since about 2003.
McCain fought against education benefits because he felt they should not be used as a recruiting tool for a bunch of "1-and-done" low ranking soldiers. His plan was to be used as a tool to keep mid-career NCOs, not as an incentive for them to get out. It was one of the very few intelligent things he came up with during his campaign.
While I agree with your sentiment, it could be that they lived in on-base housing. If that were the case, she would have been forced to vacate and she could argue her relocation was related to that.
Rough crowd today. Not sure why you are at -1 for posting facts and not emotionally over-reacting.
Sure that is a good and all but what about the family bills that per monthly have to be paid without the second income?
From a VA fact sheet, dated 2004, the VA pays the surviving spouse $967 month plus $241 per each child until that person turns 57 or remarries. It's probably more than that now.
http://dva.state.wi.us/Webforms/Data_Factsheets/survivor_benefits.pdf
See my post for his pay breakdown...he was an E-3, according to the article. He most likely had been in for a couple of years because the Marine Corps is stingy with promotions (or he could have started as an E3, depending on education and recruiting credits).
But *this* woman's husband died serving our country, while getting paid less than a garbage man in most large cities.
Can we please kill this myth? First of all, garbage men AND military people make more money than most people think. Saying somebody makes less than a garbage man is misleading. In Seattle, WA, (according to the Googles) they can make upwards of $60k a year.
Here's what this guy was making a month:
$1923 base pay (E3 with 3+ years)
$963 housing (or housing provided for him)
$323 food
$225 imminent danger pay (while deployed)
$250 Family Separation Allowance (while deployed)
??? - special skills pay (could be airborne, a linguist, etc., but the article doesn't say)
The guy was making $45,000/year with no education and very little experience. Not too shabby for someone in their early 20s.
And what makes you think that an institution that has been open six days a week for decades has not discovered the miracle of rotating shifts, thus allowing its workers to have consecutive days off?
The fact that the same 5 or 6 employees work there Monday - Saturday and there aren't enough employees to take shifts.
Wars are not "just" or "unjust", they just are.
Raytheon is no more or less corrupt than Ford, Sanyo, or Cisco.
What's there to understand other than they provide good salaries, rewarding careers, and there's nothing to morally approve or disapprove of?
Why do people work for Sony with the evil rootkits? Why do people work for Microsoft with their well-known shortcuts-to-protect-bottom-line, or Apple and their famous walled garden? Somebody will always (and invariable inaccurately) find something they disapprove of from a corporation. Be self-employed, if you must.
In any of these cases, there's nothing inherently moral or immoral about working for somebody else.
You are asking that somebody justify taking a job in the defense industry based on morality. I can only guess you suggest that means it is inherently immoral, otherwise you wouldn't be seeking justification.
I can justify it on two grounds. The world needs a defense industry and it is a lucrative and rewarding career. I could just as easily design training for banking, government, insurance, but defense pays better than all of those, and there is nothing immoral about the industry.
I thought they dropped SPA, but I guess it is back. That is a good thing, since it is one of the only circuits left with any history to it.
Well your question is provocative, implying that it is morally wrong to work in defense. I merely posit that your view point is more out of the mainstream than the slashdot community thinks, based on how many of us willingly work in defense with none of the moral anguish you are implying.
Nah, the Nordschleife, by far, is the best track in the history of racing.
Spa is a great modern track (even though the old version is better).