Isn't there something about a group of women that wind up "cycling" with the alpha female of the group? Yes, I'm a man asking this ;) If there is any science (real science not climate change science) to that, this may not be a bad thing if all the women were out at the same time.

Just think of the reduced stress on all the male employees during that time; almost like going to work and being on vacation.

:)

Of course this is gender discrimination since it would not apply to the males of the company. How would this apply to women that have gone through menopause (or as I tease my wife "mental pause")? Would the women it applied to have this calculated as part of their total compensation, since they'd be working 3 weeks out of every month, so they should get only 75% of the pay?

There are medical solutions if you have extremely bad cramps. For lesser issues there are wonderful OTC choices. So, why would special sick days only available to women be needed when there are clearly solutions already available?

Why do so many people have the idea that they should still be paid when they are not at work?

I'm reminded of the time I asked a rhetorical question on this blog, and got what is probably the most asinine response I've ever seen.

I asked everyone reading the question to imagine they were the hiring manager of a large corporation, and you have two new applicants, a man and a woman, fresh from college, same qualifications.

Your business depends upon establishing long-term relationships with clients and you will spend $100,000 training this new hire. So, who do you hire?

Which one is more likely to quit their job to start a family? And even if they don't, which one is going to require paid maternity leave? Which one is more likely to stay home if the kid gets sick? Which one is more likely to need to leave early to take care of the kids?

Now comes the response that still leaves me shaking my head in disbelief. One person told me that she would hire the woman, because it's just a "fact" that to get as far as man, a woman has to work ten times as hard; therefore, despite all the disadvantages, you'd still get much more work from a woman.

Now comes "period" leave. A paid vacation once a month. And for how long? Five days?

But I'm quite sure that a woman would still be much more effective than a man, despite needing "period leave." Because it's just so much a fact that a woman has to work at least ten times as hard as a man to get as far as a man.

So, don't be the least bit balked by hiring a woman if this ridiculous idea comes to pass. A woman will still be far, far, far more productive than any man, despite needing period leave and all other time off from work to take care of the kids.

Why do so many people have the idea that they should still be paid when they are not at work?

Wasn't it FDR who started things like sick leave and paid vacation?

Once paid leave got its foot in the door, so to speak, it was just a matter of time before the rest of it started worming their way in.

Far too often, I land temp jobs to do the work of the permanent employee (you know, the one they give benefits to) who is out on maternity leave.

Being a white male, I don't help them check off any "hired a women or minority" box; so, there is no reason to hire me permanently. (Thank Obama and his stupid voters for giving us over 20% unemployment!)

This will just be another case of getting me, a MALE, to do the work of slackers; so, the company can claim they "help" women. Give her benefits; but, have me do the work.

Well, if Coexist can make this work, more power to them. Maybe other firms will try it, then.

On the other hand, I can see people screeching, "Hey, Coexist is offering menstrual leave, and it isn't hurting them any! It should be the law for everybody!"

"Wasn't it FDR who started things like sick leave and paid vacation?"

I think -- I'm not sure -- it was another one of those WWII things. During that time when the government was capping wages and salaries, and companies tried to work around that by offering paid benefits (notoriously, paid health insurance) in lieu of higher wages that they weren't allowed to offer.

Well, I guess they're trying to make up for paying them only $0.78 on the $ they would a man.

Oh...

Patrick provides a very interesting thought experiment:

Your business depends upon establishing long-term relationships with clients and you will spend $100,000 training this new hire. So, who do you hire?

I'm going into this assuming that this costly training will happen in a short period (phrasing) of time at the beginning of their hire. If it is spread out over a longer time frame, that changes the calculus. A bit, anyway.

Hmmm...most likely, the man. In either case, I'm signing them to a long-term contract. That will give me some leverage if they were to skip out on the deal after they've been trained.

But for the woman? I'd make any offer contingent on her getting a birth control implant. I might make the offer to the man contingent on him getting married and popping out kids.

Having mouths to feed gives him incentive to show up on time, to do a good job, if for no other reason than pay increases and bonuses.

Whatever happened to the "strong woman" ideal? Only when it's convenient, I guess..

I've read accounts of women crossing the plains, giving birth and back on the trail the next day. Even GIVING BIRTH wasn't enough reason to take a day off! What happened to that kind of fortitude?

Patrick, go get some help for your misogyny. The hire you're describing is clearly an experienced professional and a savvy executive will hire the best PERSON for the job, and developing relationships is not necessarily a function of time spent at work. Most human activity in the workplace is waste, so time-at-work is overrated. Statistics are useful but only tell part of the story - people can't be reduced to their cohort. Re women's effort, I agreed with George Carlin that if there is a God, he's male because no woman could create such a shitty universe.

:shrug:
Ok, offer everyone 12 weeks paid offtime per year, to be used however needed. No other paid time off given. Unpaid time off per boss discretion, or according to the normal unpaid leave act... which is 12 weeks, I think.

There QED. Now everyone has to work harder to make up for that lost productivity, but, FAIR.

Right? FAIR? Probably nobody will think it fair, because: reasons...

And the business will prolly implode trying to pay for all that...

Or maybe not. Consider all that paid time off, as part of the overall salary/benefits package, and adjust salaries accordingly. Throw in some productivity mumbo jumbo, to equalize that, too.

Meanwhile... small consulting firm offers NADA benefits wise, but bonuses for speed, and contracts only the best freelancers, to do the best work.

Some people make bank, and some take the safe comfy way..

AND OMG THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN WHAT PEOPLE ARE PAID AND THAT IS EV0L!!!!11!1!

"It was then that Diana Moon Glampers, the Handicapper General, came into the studio with a double-barreled ten-gauge shotgun. She fired twice, and the Emperor and the Empress were dead before they hit the floor."
- Harrison Bergeron -

I guess everyone is equal in death, then?

I guess everyone is equal in death, then?

Some people go to hell. Some go to heaven. Some get a suspended sentence and cool their heals in purgatory for a time.

And some get reincarnated as a dog.

So I can choose whether to hire and pay for 9 months of work or 12 months of work?

Yeah, no contest.

"if for no other reason than pay increases and bonuses."

IRA, you've started speaking in tongues. I'm not sure what a 'pay increases' or a 'bonuses' is. Maybe lay off the peyote. ;.>

Wasn't it FDR who started things like sick leave and paid vacation?

Once paid leave got its foot in the door, so to speak, it was just a matter of time before the rest of it started worming their way in.

Posted by: Patrick at March 4, 2016 4:43 AM

I don't believe even FDR mandated paid sick leave. In fact, it's not a federal law that employers must offer paid sick leave.

According to the Department of Labor Web site, "Currently, there are no federal legal requirements for paid sick leave."

What happened under FDR was wage and price controls. FDR was desperate to head off inflation driven by the post- Pearl Harbor economic surge. The cost of living had risen 15% since 1939. Prices were projected to rise by at least 23% in 1942.

Employers, unable to offer higher salaries, began offering benefits to attract and retain employees.

DaveG: Patrick, go get some help for your misogyny.

Actually the first person I saw employ this thought experiment (which I have varied) was Marilyn Vos Savant, a woman and proud owner of the world's highest measured IQ. (Which will never be surpassed due to the standards in measuring IQs that will never allow for a score as high as hers again.)

So, go tell Marilyn Vos Savant to get some help for her misogyny.

And yes, long-term relationships with clients are still very important in the workplace. Business deals still close with handshakes, like it or not. And telecommunication not only makes this impossible, but it depersonalizes the contact, with or without the handshake.

It has nothing to do with misogyny; it has to do with facts. Women are more likely to call in sick if the kid gets sick. Women are more likely to quit jobs in order to start a family. Women are more likely to leave work early due to kid-related functions. Women also need paid time off (not to be deducted from the vacation time) when the kid is born.

And as I R A Darth Aggie implies, there is an interesting bit of irony involved. Having children in general makes women less productive, but makes men more productive. Men now have the added incentive of having kids to provide for.

And Conan, thank you for the correct information.