Calm Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 18 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: Or incredible (godly) patience, faith, and love. Sister Gui and I have a good friend who fits that description. While I have no knowledge about individual situations so I have no intention of judging your friend's situation, I believe there can be huge fallout for children who grow up in homes where one spouse does not respect or value the other and expresses that lack of true appreciation through abuse. The presence of an improper model will impact their youth and adulthood and may create more problems with being able to trust and value others and trust and value God than the lack of a proper model. While great love may be the motivator to stay, it is imo most likely that taking children out of an environment where disdain, anger, even hatred are present and seen by the children consistently will protect them better from absorbing those qualities into their own behaviours, even identities than simply being a wonderful example. There are definite disadvantages to single parenthood for children in terms of times and resources and multiple adults to rely on, but with an abusive parent in the home daily and another who accepts the abuse---even when a child knows the abuse is wrong---it can be very difficult to avoid having the children not pick up some habits of thought that devalue others in order for them to feel safe. Often times children identify with the abuser and believe at least in part the rationalizations the abuser uses to justify attacking the other parent even when they believe the abuse is wrong. So to be fully open, I believe just because the abused parent can function well because of their godly love, patience, and faith and protect themselves from being twisted, there is no guarantee they can protect their children from having current and future dysfunctions in their ability to love and interact with others because no matter how good a model one parent is, if the other is abusive they have that model to learn from as well and nothing the loving parent can do will prevent the children from learning the wrong things from the wrong parent unfortunately. "However, the Utah Divorce Commission reports that children who grow up with parents who have a “high conflict marriage” and stay together generally have poorer outcomes than children in similar families whose parents divorce. In other words, children fare better when they are not exposed to abusive, stressful dynamics, even if it means parental separation." https://oureverydaylife.com/emotionally-abusive-marriage-vs-divorce-effects-children-42336.html Note: If someone prefers closer to the original source, let me know. Got a bit of a headache and so don't want to do major research right now. 2
Storm Rider Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 1 hour ago, Gray said: Probably just about everyone who is fired is fired based solely on allegations. Usually based on alleged poor performance. So then, I think you are saying that whereas in most situations a supervisor who does quarterly or annual reviews of an employees performance tracking when an employee is failing to perform is the equivalent of another employee reporting that you did something they personally deemed offensive. I don't agree with you position that employees are fired just based on allegations - in fact, I don't know of a single company that does that. There are a few government entities that would immediately step in and correct that action particularly if the employee fits within several special classes of people. Your expert position previously appears not to understand the activity of the EEOC. No, you are off base and speaking from ignorance of the topic. Poor performance is tracked and verified through performance reports or actually having reports put in an employee's file. Companies learned long ago that you don't just will-nilly fire someone unless you want to be slapped with a lawsuit that you will lose. Come on, Gray, you are both better and smarter than that.
Storm Rider Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 7 hours ago, ttribe said: You have GOT to be kidding. Even in the most employer-friendly states, this would be a totally illegal thing to do; not to mention immoral. TT, it is not immoral to protect a business based on risks. It is not immoral to avoid significant risk. Are you saying that companies must forget about risk? Strange concept - I take it you have never owned or managed a business. It is not difficult to document the shortcomings of any employee. As long as there is cause anyone can be fired - it does not matter what gender you are. Nope, tt, it is not illegal. There is more than one way to skin a cat. I grant that a company must mind their Ps and Qs, but it can be done. I expect it will be done if this continues. Alternatively, maybe you should open a business and employee just women - real far left kind that just think men are wonderful. Let's see how it goes. I am sure you will have a smashing success as the manager until one makes an allegation and then it is all down hill. Merry Christmas
Bernard Gui Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Calm said: While I have no knowledge about individual situations so I have no intention of judging your friend's situation, I believe there can be huge fallout for children who grow up in homes where one spouse does not respect or value the other and expresses that lack of true appreciation through abuse. The presence of an improper model will impact their youth and adulthood and may create more problems with being able to trust and value others and trust and value God than the lack of a proper model. While great love may be the motivator to stay, it is imo most likely that taking children out of an environment where disdain, anger, even hatred are present and seen by the children consistently will protect them better from absorbing those qualities into their own behaviours, even identities than simply being a wonderful example. There are definite disadvantages to single parenthood for children in terms of times and resources and multiple adults to rely on, but with an abusive parent in the home daily and another who accepts the abuse---even when a child knows the abuse is wrong---it can be very difficult to avoid having the children not pick up some habits of thought that devalue others in order for them to feel safe. Often times children identify with the abuser and believe at least in part the rationalizations the abuser uses to justify attacking the other parent even when they believe the abuse is wrong. So to be fully open, I believe just because the abused parent can function well because of their godly love, patience, and faith and protect themselves from being twisted, there is no guarantee they can protect their children from having current and future dysfunctions in their ability to love and interact with others because no matter how good a model one parent is, if the other is abusive they have that model to learn from as well and nothing the loving parent can do will prevent the children from learning the wrong things from the wrong parent unfortunately. "However, the Utah Divorce Commission reports that children who grow up with parents who have a “high conflict marriage” and stay together generally have poorer outcomes than children in similar families whose parents divorce. In other words, children fare better when they are not exposed to abusive, stressful dynamics, even if it means parental separation." https://oureverydaylife.com/emotionally-abusive-marriage-vs-divorce-effects-children-42336.html Note: If someone prefers closer to the original source, let me know. Got a bit of a headache and so don't want to do major research right now. The abuse was not physical or emotional. I’ll not give any more details other than the children are adults and they are OK. She has explicit faith in the Atonement and redemption. Edited February 17, 2018 by Bernard Gui
Calm Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: The abuse was not physical or emotional. I’ll not give any more details other than the children are adults and they are OK. She has explicit faith in the Atonement and redemption. I am having a hard time imagining what abuse could not be emotional, but totally get more info would be too much invasion of privacy.
ttribe Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 10 hours ago, Storm Rider said: TT, it is not immoral to protect a business based on risks. It is not immoral to avoid significant risk. Are you saying that companies must forget about risk? Strange concept - I take it you have never owned or managed a business. It is not difficult to document the shortcomings of any employee. As long as there is cause anyone can be fired - it does not matter what gender you are. Nope, tt, it is not illegal. There is more than one way to skin a cat. I grant that a company must mind their Ps and Qs, but it can be done. I expect it will be done if this continues. Alternatively, maybe you should open a business and employee just women - real far left kind that just think men are wonderful. Let's see how it goes. I am sure you will have a smashing success as the manager until one makes an allegation and then it is all down hill. Merry Christmas Do your research. I know plenty about running a business, about risk management, and about working with women. I also know that gender discrimination is illegal. 2
Calm Posted February 17, 2018 Posted February 17, 2018 (edited) On 2018-02-16 at 3:41 PM, Storm Rider said: No need to buck up - my counsel to every small business owned by a man - get rid of every woman in your employ and never hire another one. Women represent a liability too great for any small to medium sized business to accept. You can lose your entire business based solely on an allegation. If the issue to dismiss a gender is solely to remove risk of accusations and not to protect/isolate actual predators from having the opportunity to assault or rape, it makes more sense to fire all the men as false accusations are likely only 2% which means 98% are valid. Even the high end is only 8%, so that is still 92% of accusations being appropriate. This still leaves women who predate on other women, of course, but risks are still lower. Edited February 17, 2018 by Calm 3
Gray Posted February 18, 2018 Posted February 18, 2018 (edited) 23 hours ago, Storm Rider said: So then, I think you are saying that whereas in most situations a supervisor who does quarterly or annual reviews of an employees performance tracking when an employee is failing to perform is the equivalent of another employee reporting that you did something they personally deemed offensive. I don't agree with you position that employees are fired just based on allegations - in fact, I don't know of a single company that does that. There are a few government entities that would immediately step in and correct that action particularly if the employee fits within several special classes of people. Your expert position previously appears not to understand the activity of the EEOC. No, you are off base and speaking from ignorance of the topic. Poor performance is tracked and verified through performance reports or actually having reports put in an employee's file. Companies learned long ago that you don't just will-nilly fire someone unless you want to be slapped with a lawsuit that you will lose. Come on, Gray, you are both better and smarter than that. You don't seem to understand what I said - either that or you don't understand the EEOC. It doesn't protect people against allegations of poor performance or behavior. It protects people against workplace discrimination based on race, age, gender, religion, etc. Performance is sometimes tracked, depending on how together the organization is (many don't even bother). But even that level does not rise to the legal standard of evidence required for conviction you were proposing earlier. Mostly performance tracking has to do with subjective opinions of supervisors and coworkers - equivalent to allegations. Edited February 18, 2018 by Gray
kiwi57 Posted February 18, 2018 Posted February 18, 2018 9 hours ago, Calm said: If the issue to dismiss a gender is solely to remove risk of accusations and not to protect/isolate actual predators from having the opportunity to assault or rape, it makes more sense to fire all the men as false accusations are likely only 2% which means 98% are valid. Even the high end is only 8%, so that is still 92% of accusations being appropriate. This still leaves women who predate on other women, of course, but risks are still lower. Your numbers work, but Storm's hypothetical was of a business owned by a man (presumably as a sole trader or similar.) He can't very well fire himself, can he?
Calm Posted February 18, 2018 Posted February 18, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, kiwi57 said: Your numbers work, but Storm's hypothetical was of a business owned by a man (presumably as a sole trader or similar.) He can't very well fire himself, can he? He can hire a female managerto deal with females he is afraid of libeling or exposing him. He likely is a timid man, after all he is going to sacrifice the productivity of his crew by dumping a good portion of valuable workers who are one gender and homosexual and bisexual one way or the other just on the possibility that he place gets hit with an accusation, accusations being the thing, false or real. Edited February 18, 2018 by Calm
Storm Rider Posted February 18, 2018 Posted February 18, 2018 12 hours ago, Gray said: You don't seem to understand what I said - either that or you don't understand the EEOC. It doesn't protect people against allegations of poor performance or behavior. It protects people against workplace discrimination based on race, age, gender, religion, etc. Performance is sometimes tracked, depending on how together the organization is (many don't even bother). But even that level does not rise to the legal standard of evidence required for conviction you were proposing earlier. Mostly performance tracking has to do with subjective opinions of supervisors and coworkers - equivalent to allegations. Yup, let's just agree to disagree.
bcuzbcuz Posted February 18, 2018 Posted February 18, 2018 On 2018-02-16 at 11:41 PM, Storm Rider said: No need to buck up - my counsel to every small business owned by a man - get rid of every woman in your employ and never hire another one. Women represent a liability too great for any small to medium sized business to accept. You can lose your entire business based solely on an allegation. Wow. Your comment is mind-numbingly ignorant. I can only assume it is your attempt at humour or sarcasm, to which it is entirely unsuccessful. If you’re married, I’d suggest you read your comment, out loud, to your partner and then wait for a response. If you’re dating or seeing someone, be sure to make your stance known before proceeding any further. If you are a business owner with female employees, please let them know that they have no future in your employment. Good luck with that.
Storm Rider Posted February 18, 2018 Posted February 18, 2018 3 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said: Wow. Your comment is mind-numbingly ignorant. I can only assume it is your attempt at humour or sarcasm, to which it is entirely unsuccessful. If you’re married, I’d suggest you read your comment, out loud, to your partner and then wait for a response. If you’re dating or seeing someone, be sure to make your stance known before proceeding any further. If you are a business owner with female employees, please let them know that they have no future in your employment. Good luck with that. Another intelligent comment. This is getting to be a place filled with the truly enlightened. I am just so grateful that they let me one here being such a stupid individual that has lived his professional life working with businesses, economics, and achieving a modicum of success, but obviously nothing compared to everyone here that appears to be business titans and at the very pinnacle of business accomplishments of all kinds. If possible, could we remove the topic of gender and all of the other new sacred cows society has chosen to worship of late. Put yourself, I know it is hard, in the position of a lowly business owner. You have just learned that you have a business risk that has been identified that has the potential that could destroy your business. There is nothing that you can do at present to prevent the liability from occurring in the future given the current circumstances i.e. there is no way to change the way of doing business, implement new policies, etc. However, if you could make changes in your staffing you could eliminate the liability form occurring in the future. As the business owner what would you do? Would you: ignore the liability and hope for the best? make staffing changes that will eliminate the liability? or Just shut down the shop because business has gotten too complicated? Getting back to our regularly scheduled programming: Most of what I said in a few of the previous posts is based on attempting to forecast what impacts these social changes may have on business and the public at large. I think there are a number of unintended consequences that will occur and I don't pretend to think that I can envision all of them. However, I do know several business owners who have been confronted with how they might hedge against potential liabilities in their family businesses - these are small to medium sized businesses. If you don't think that businesses of this size are thinking about how to eliminate any liability then you are grossly naïve. Lastly, bcuzbcuz, what I find "mind-numbingly ignorant" is the number of social elitists, such as yourself, that think that social upheaval occurs within a vacuum. Further, the lack of any business sense demonstrates an overwhelming ignorance of free enterprise.. It is time to take off those rose colored glasses. My wife thought you were cute to be concerned about me - she asks that you might consider reading as a new pastime. Her first recommendation is an old book, Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith. We both wish you good luck with that. What could make it work? How about a little common sense? Allegations have all the value of speaking into the wind. If there is no evidence then a company or, anyone else for that matter, should do an investigation in attempt to identify wrong doing. All businesses of any size should have training in what is and what is not acceptable behavior in the office. This should include a policy that there is no dating between any employee regardless of their position.. There are no second chances - you date a fellow member of the company and both are fired on the spot. Clear definitions of what is appropriate and what is not - there can be no grey areas and no self-definitions. Specifically, this is not about personal feelings this is about actions. If the business world violates an individual's personal feelings that individual needs to find a new form of employment. Given that humans are social animals everyone needs to learn new forms of company behavior. New situations will develop that will need to be addressed and policies will change or be added to as things evolve. poster removed: continued rudeness
ttribe Posted February 18, 2018 Posted February 18, 2018 (edited) 6 hours ago, Storm Rider said: Another intelligent comment. This is getting to be a place filled with the truly enlightened. I am just so grateful that they let me one here being such a stupid individual that has lived his professional life working with businesses, economics, and achieving a modicum of success, but obviously nothing compared to everyone here that appears to be business titans and at the very pinnacle of business accomplishments of all kinds. If possible, could we remove the topic of gender and all of the other new sacred cows society has chosen to worship of late. Put yourself, I know it is hard, in the position of a lowly business owner. You have just learned that you have a business risk that has been identified that has the potential that could destroy your business. There is nothing that you can do at present to prevent the liability from occurring in the future given the current circumstances i.e. there is no way to change the way of doing business, implement new policies, etc. However, if you could make changes in your staffing you could eliminate the liability form occurring in the future. As the business owner what would you do? Would you: ignore the liability and hope for the best? make staffing changes that will eliminate the liability? or Just shut down the shop because business has gotten too complicated? Getting back to our regularly scheduled programming: Most of what I said in a few of the previous posts is based on attempting to forecast what impacts these social changes may have on business and the public at large. I think there are a number of unintended consequences that will occur and I don't pretend to think that I can envision all of them. However, I do know several business owners who have been confronted with how they might hedge against potential liabilities in their family businesses - these are small to medium sized businesses. If you don't think that businesses of this size are thinking about how to eliminate any liability then you are grossly naïve. Lastly, bcuzbcuz, what I find "mind-numbingly ignorant" is the number of social elitists, such as yourself, that think that social upheaval occurs within a vacuum. Further, the lack of any business sense demonstrates an overwhelming ignorance of free enterprise.. It is time to take off those rose colored glasses. My wife thought you were cute to be concerned about me - she asks that you might consider reading as a new pastime. Her first recommendation is an old book, Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith. We both wish you good luck with that. What could make it work? How about a little common sense? Allegations have all the value of speaking into the wind. If there is no evidence then a company or, anyone else for that matter, should do an investigation in attempt to identify wrong doing. All businesses of any size should have training in what is and what is not acceptable behavior in the office. This should include a policy that there is no dating between any employee regardless of their position.. There are no second chances - you date a fellow member of the company and both are fired on the spot. Clear definitions of what is appropriate and what is not - there can be no grey areas and no self-definitions. Specifically, this is not about personal feelings this is about actions. If the business world violates an individual's personal feelings that individual needs to find a new form of employment. Given that humans are social animals everyone needs to learn new forms of company behavior. New situations will develop that will need to be addressed and policies will change or be added to as things evolve. Let's see if I have this straight - The risk of a male business owner being falsely accused of harassment or abuse is unknown, but can we agree it is less than 100%? I might even submit it is less than 5%; what do you think? The risk outcome, here, seems to be the potential loss of the business; correct? Furthermore, the opportunity cost is that the male business owner may have had the opportunity to hire a stellar employee (perhaps even the best ever) who just so happened to have female genitalia, but he passed on that opportunity. Alternately, if a male small business owner follows your advice and rids himself of all female employees and refuses to hire any females going forward due specifically to gender it will not be a difficult case to make before the EEOC should any one of those females (both past and rejected employees) choose to file a complaint of sex discrimination (here's the definition: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sex.cfm). Given the power the EEOC has, and the egregiousness of actions you are recommending, I submit that the risk of severe penalties against said male business owner quickly begins to approach 100%. I also submit that the penalties likely to be enforced will also have the same net result - loss of the business. So, if I were to put the probability of these three outcomes into a greater-than-less-than format, I submit the equation would look like this: Probability of loss of business due to severe EEOC enforcement > Probability of losing out on stellar female employee > Probability of losing the business due to false accusation. Consequently, the optimal decision in the associated decision-tree, is to NOT discriminate based on the sex of the employee or potential new-hire. In short, your proposed advice is stupid. Edited February 19, 2018 by ttribe 1
bcuzbcuz Posted February 18, 2018 Posted February 18, 2018 2 hours ago, Storm Rider said: Another intelligent comment. This is getting to be a place filled with the truly enlightened. I am just so grateful that they let me one here being such a stupid individual that has lived his professional life working with businesses, economics, and achieving a modicum of success, but obviously nothing compared to everyone here that appears to be business titans and at the very pinnacle of business accomplishments of all kinds. If possible, could we remove the topic of gender and all of the other new sacred cows society has chosen to worship of late. Put yourself, I know it is hard, in the position of a lowly business owner. You have just learned that you have a business risk that has been identified that has the potential that could destroy your business. There is nothing that you can do at present to prevent the liability from occurring in the future given the current circumstances i.e. there is no way to change the way of doing business, implement new policies, etc. However, if you could make changes in your staffing you could eliminate the liability form occurring in the future. As the business owner what would you do? Would you: ignore the liability and hope for the best? make staffing changes that will eliminate the liability? or Just shut down the shop because business has gotten too complicated? Getting back to our regularly scheduled programming: Most of what I said in a few of the previous posts is based on attempting to forecast what impacts these social changes may have on business and the public at large. I think there are a number of unintended consequences that will occur and I don't pretend to think that I can envision all of them. However, I do know several business owners who have been confronted with how they might hedge against potential liabilities in their family businesses - these are small to medium sized businesses. If you don't think that businesses of this size are thinking about how to eliminate any liability then you are grossly naïve. Lastly, bcuzbcuz, what I find "mind-numbingly ignorant" is the number of social elitists, such as yourself, that think that social upheaval occurs within a vacuum. Further, the lack of any business sense demonstrates an overwhelming ignorance of free enterprise.. It is time to take off those rose colored glasses. My wife thought you were cute to be concerned about me - she asks that you might consider reading as a new pastime. Her first recommendation is an old book, Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith. We both wish you good luck with that. What could make it work? How about a little common sense? Allegations have all the value of speaking into the wind. If there is no evidence then a company or, anyone else for that matter, should do an investigation in attempt to identify wrong doing. All businesses of any size should have training in what is and what is not acceptable behavior in the office. This should include a policy that there is no dating between any employee regardless of their position.. There are no second chances - you date a fellow member of the company and both are fired on the spot. Clear definitions of what is appropriate and what is not - there can be no grey areas and no self-definitions. Specifically, this is not about personal feelings this is about actions. If the business world violates an individual's personal feelings that individual needs to find a new form of employment. Given that humans are social animals everyone needs to learn new forms of company behavior. New situations will develop that will need to be addressed and policies will change or be added to as things evolve. poster removed: continued rudeness Social elitist? That is definitely a new one for me. I should read ”The Wealth of Nations”? I own two copies of it, but I confess to not having opened it for more than 35 years. It is, as you undoubtedly know, a book fast approaching 250 years old. And its age is showing. I fail to see how you would use it as a modern economic text, or even how it could be used to defend the idea of not employing women. I was a Keynsian economist during the time. Now I know that most economists are full of BS, trying to guess outcomes. Game theory is far more fascinating. But thanks for listening and asking your wife, regarding your employment counsel. Your chauvinism is perhaps not so severely engrained as you would have us believe. I also asked my wife, who is a school principal, to review your suggested hiring policies. Such policies would be considered illegal here in Sweden. She just found them amusing, to the point of hilarious. My oldest daughter, who is a top economist for one of Sweden’s foreign aide organisation, found your suggestions both wasteful and lacking in foresight, with a good measure inefficiency, since she thinks the real progress in the running of the services come from the female employees and executives.
Recommended Posts