Doc,First of all, Canada has done away with cents. We do not produce nor use
pennies any more. At the stores, they add up your bill and then round it off to
the nearest number divisible by 5 cents. As such, you need to claim your next
opinion is worth 3 cents or more, else it remains worthless ;-)
What is worthy about the Herald case is that their policies so incensed an
editor that she decided to resign.
I have seen many a manager examine an unfair situation effecting junior staff
and get repulsed. The managers then think of their mortgage, the people they
have to feed at home, etc etc and decide to use blinders. It is the exceptional
person that decides to take a stand. To make a change for herself and her
children - else all other women who follow her will get the exact same
treatment that the Herald is dishing out today.
I am curious to find out if the Herald has only male subscribers. On the other
hand, perhaps the Herald will soon find out for themselves i.e. when women
start cancelling their subscriptions......
Mervyn
Jose wrote:
Mogal Mervyn,
My two cents based (solely) on the info made available....thus far
1: IF the expected day of delivery was within 6 weeks from the date of Going
Off on Leave OR IF the young ladies' obstetrician had provided a medical
certificate recommending bed rest/ reduced activity etc, the HERALD would be in
the wrong (and in violation of the Maternity Benefits Act 1961)
2: IF NOT, please advise me WHY you believe the Herald is in the wrong?
3: HOW is the Herald decision - gender biased?
4: On the face of it, there is a TINY but IMPORTANT difference between what the
HERALD wrote and what Sequeira noted. Please vide Appendix infra
BTW: I believe that IF "internal" email has to be publicly made available, it
should be referred to accurately. Do you disagree?
jc
