"John D. Giorgis" schreef:
> At 05:47 PM 2/4/01 +0100, Sonja wrote:
> >I'm not against legal protection for pregnant women (In case you might
> have read
> >that into my statement). But in my special case it hurt more then it saved.
>
> Well...... it was just one Libertarian thought...... :)
>
> I'd argue, however, that there are a lot of government regularions/programs
> that do a lot of hurting as well. Perhaps its possible that since women's
> rights has advanced so much as of late, that the pregnancy-laws are no
> longer necessary, so as to avoid hurting women like yourself?
I'd rather argue that due to the imperfection of language there is no single law
that will ever be perfect enough that it'd be only used the way it was intended,
without also an inherent possibility to dodge it or even to do some harm.
In the case of legal pregnancy protection I'd like to see it as a first (albeit
enforced) step toward incorporation of a more human or should I say women
friendly attitude in the work area. As well-educated workers are getting scarcer
and a lot more mobile, more and more companies are slowly turning the, in origin
forced, pregnancy protection into a more voluntary, workable and general company
policy. Alas, it is a very slow process and I don't think that the time has come
to make this process voluntary, just yet. Too many companys are still throwing
out pregnant women, or simply don't hire them if they get half a chance to do so
without legal hassle.
Sonja
"We think you and your talents would very much suit our organisation and we
would like to keep your application on file, just in case of job openings. But
I'm afraid that we'll only be hiring people again in September. I don't think
that there are vacancies to be expected any sooner, that might suit your
talants.... bla bla bla "
If you ask me I think it's a very lame excuse, bloody basterds.... why do they
keep inviting me for job interviews I wonder. I always tell them I'm pregnant
_before_ I go to an interview....... GRRRRRRR.
