More women would make it through the 'glass ceiling' if the government fully compensated companies for the massive costs incurred if a high-ranking woman gets pregnant, amirite?
1. Yes, they do. You have to train people to take over, company production falls due to absence of the leader. I'm talking mostly about upper management but not quite CEO. You need to hire a temp to fill in the job, and they are paid more than a full time worker. So you give free money for no work, then you pay another person more to cover the work, then people don't respect the new guy who will be gone soon, so productivity falls, incurring massive ocst. A secretary is easy to replace.
2. The government wants to encourage gender equality, but companies care about the bottom line. So, the government should use some of it's revenue to offset the cost of hiring a woman over a man.
Good points but massive costs like that is something the government couldn't afford and I doubt the tax paying public would even want them too. Especially with the current economy. So all though its morally correct it may not be worth the costs
Now that's a private organization/ charity group. Very acceptable choices. Maybe you could help start one. My friend just started a charity with local businesses to feed the homeless.
Maybe if I make a lot of money when I grow up. Since I'd be a guy who actively supports gender equality, I might then be able to help get equality sooner... unless extremist feminists call me sexist because I think they need charity to be promoted...
My friend isn't rich, he's actually armless lol. So if you present a plan or your cause is just enough then im sure you'll gain support. However there are much more pressing matters in the world than the troubles of white collared job holders. So you nay have trouble
Where I live the government pays parental leave, and when a baby is born or adopted either the mother or father can take the leave and get paid for 18 weeks (at the Australian minimum wage which is $589.40 a week),r they can have a one off payment of $5000. Of course some companies have it in their contracts where they pay the maternity/paternity leave at whatever wage they were getting, but every company has to offer unpaid maternity/paternity leave.
Do CEO pregnancies cost more than Assistants pregnancy? But still why would the government pay for that and not the company?
1. Yes, they do. You have to train people to take over, company production falls due to absence of the leader. I'm talking mostly about upper management but not quite CEO. You need to hire a temp to fill in the job, and they are paid more than a full time worker. So you give free money for no work, then you pay another person more to cover the work, then people don't respect the new guy who will be gone soon, so productivity falls, incurring massive ocst. A secretary is easy to replace.
2. The government wants to encourage gender equality, but companies care about the bottom line. So, the government should use some of it's revenue to offset the cost of hiring a woman over a man.
Good points but massive costs like that is something the government couldn't afford and I doubt the tax paying public would even want them too. Especially with the current economy. So all though its morally correct it may not be worth the costs
I guess so... maybe a fund could be set up so that it's more economically viable to promote women?
Now that's a private organization/ charity group. Very acceptable choices. Maybe you could help start one. My friend just started a charity with local businesses to feed the homeless.
Maybe if I make a lot of money when I grow up. Since I'd be a guy who actively supports gender equality, I might then be able to help get equality sooner... unless extremist feminists call me sexist because I think they need charity to be promoted...
My friend isn't rich, he's actually armless lol. So if you present a plan or your cause is just enough then im sure you'll gain support. However there are much more pressing matters in the world than the troubles of white collared job holders. So you nay have trouble
Yeah. Also A LOT of money is needed to offset such large costs.
Exactly, smaller cost to feed starving Africans. So comparitve advantage and pity factor are against you.
That's not their responsibility.
But they want gender equality, so they should reward companies for being more 'advanced'.
I didn't say it was their responsibility, I'm just saying that this would help women.
Which is exactly why I voted it up. I think it's ridiculous, but it would help women, which is all you said.
Where I live the government pays parental leave, and when a baby is born or adopted either the mother or father can take the leave and get paid for 18 weeks (at the Australian minimum wage which is $589.40 a week),r they can have a one off payment of $5000. Of course some companies have it in their contracts where they pay the maternity/paternity leave at whatever wage they were getting, but every company has to offer unpaid maternity/paternity leave.