-
SuburbanFarmer
- Posts: 25281
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 6:50 am
- Location: Ohio
Post
by SuburbanFarmer » Fri Oct 06, 2017 11:55 am
Dand wrote:It's a great solution to the obvious scenario of a male employee saying he is a woman in order to gain preferential treatment.
These people need help, not encouragement and changes to our laws.
According to the law, there should be no preferential treatment for female employees. Non-issue.
Speaker to Animals wrote:Society should not be throwing gasoline on the fire of mental illness. These people need serious help.
And that issue will be resolved by making them unemployed?
-
Speaker to Animals
- Posts: 38685
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:59 pm
Post
by Speaker to Animals » Fri Oct 06, 2017 11:56 am
GrumpyCatFace wrote:Dand wrote:It's a great solution to the obvious scenario of a male employee saying he is a woman in order to gain preferential treatment.
These people need help, not encouragement and changes to our laws.
According to the law, there should be no preferential treatment for female employees. Non-issue.
Speaker to Animals wrote:Society should not be throwing gasoline on the fire of mental illness. These people need serious help.
And that issue will be resolved by making them unemployed?
Are you willing to say the same thing for every other mental illness?
-
SuburbanFarmer
- Posts: 25281
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 6:50 am
- Location: Ohio
Post
by SuburbanFarmer » Fri Oct 06, 2017 12:05 pm
Speaker to Animals wrote:GrumpyCatFace wrote:Dand wrote:It's a great solution to the obvious scenario of a male employee saying he is a woman in order to gain preferential treatment.
These people need help, not encouragement and changes to our laws.
According to the law, there should be no preferential treatment for female employees. Non-issue.
Speaker to Animals wrote:Society should not be throwing gasoline on the fire of mental illness. These people need serious help.
And that issue will be resolved by making them unemployed?
Are you willing to say the same thing for every other mental illness?
Do I think we should fire or refuse to employ people with any mental condition? That's about half of the current workforce
that we know of.
It's not the employer's job or concern to determine mental health. If we're really depending on them to do so, then we are severely fucked.
-
Speaker to Animals
- Posts: 38685
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:59 pm
Post
by Speaker to Animals » Fri Oct 06, 2017 12:07 pm
GrumpyCatFace wrote:Speaker to Animals wrote:GrumpyCatFace wrote:
According to the law, there should be no preferential treatment for female employees. Non-issue.
And that issue will be resolved by making them unemployed?
Are you willing to say the same thing for every other mental illness?
Do I think we should fire or refuse to employ people with any mental condition? That's about half of the current workforce
that we know of.
It's not the employer's job or concern to determine mental health. If we're really depending on them to do so, then we are severely fucked.
I didn't say we should bar all people with mental illness from employment. Try to use the brain God gave you. Can you imagine situations in which a mental illness might render a person unacceptable for some position of employment?
-
Fife
- Posts: 15157
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:47 am
Post
by Fife » Fri Oct 06, 2017 12:09 pm
GrumpyCatFace wrote:It's not the employer's job or concern to determine mental health.
What exactly is the employer's "job or concern?"
Is social justice, feelz, gibs on that list?
You've got your fucking armed goons in uniform to take care of all that shit.
-
Dand
- Posts: 571
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 4:57 pm
Post
by Dand » Fri Oct 06, 2017 12:12 pm
GrumpyCatFace wrote:Dand wrote:It's a great solution to the obvious scenario of a male employee saying he is a woman in order to gain preferential treatment.
These people need help, not encouragement and changes to our laws.
According to the law, there should be no preferential treatment for female employees. Non-issue.
lmao
-
SuburbanFarmer
- Posts: 25281
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 6:50 am
- Location: Ohio
Post
by SuburbanFarmer » Fri Oct 06, 2017 12:18 pm
Fife wrote:GrumpyCatFace wrote:It's not the employer's job or concern to determine mental health.
What exactly is the employer's "job or concern?"
Is social justice, feelz, gibs on that list?
You've got your fucking armed goons in uniform to take care of all that shit.
Effectiveness at the position applied for. Potential utility and value to the business. That's it. That's all that should ever matter to an employer.
If they're stupid enough to hire based on their feelz, then they deserve to go out of business.
-
SuburbanFarmer
- Posts: 25281
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 6:50 am
- Location: Ohio
Post
by SuburbanFarmer » Fri Oct 06, 2017 12:20 pm
Speaker to Animals wrote:GrumpyCatFace wrote:Speaker to Animals wrote:
Are you willing to say the same thing for every other mental illness?
Do I think we should fire or refuse to employ people with any mental condition? That's about half of the current workforce
that we know of.
It's not the employer's job or concern to determine mental health. If we're really depending on them to do so, then we are severely fucked.
I didn't say we should bar all people with mental illness from employment. Try to use the brain God gave you. Can you imagine situations in which a mental illness might render a person unacceptable for some position of employment?
Of course. But that's not the same thing as saying "nobody with this illness can work for me, because my feelz say so".
That would be no different than saying "colored need not apply".
-
Dand
- Posts: 571
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 4:57 pm
Post
by Dand » Fri Oct 06, 2017 12:20 pm
Never heard of affirmative action?
-
SuburbanFarmer
- Posts: 25281
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 6:50 am
- Location: Ohio
Post
by SuburbanFarmer » Fri Oct 06, 2017 12:39 pm
Dand wrote:Never heard of affirmative action?
Sure. It's a pathetic response to a problem that shouldn't exist.