Comments
Dryheavemorning t1_jebjahz wrote
The proposed 3 days a month is a lot, like 13-15% of working days. Why not just give everyone more sick days instead of telling managers they may get 13%-15% less working time from women they hire.
NoREEEEEEtilBrooklyn t1_jebo0gv wrote
Agreed. That would be the best way to go about it. That way it doesn’t touch title IX issues, which this very well could if implemented in the US.
jdmoney85 t1_jebsnc6 wrote
Is it me or are people involved with Temple University always complaining
DonovanMcLoughlin t1_jebspza wrote
I'm sure there would be absolutely no unintended consequences.
[deleted] t1_jebv38r wrote
blodreina_kumWonkru t1_jec557a wrote
The whole point of this is to acknowledge that females have to work through an additional stress that not everyone has.
More sick days would not do anything here. Females would still be using sick days for this when those who don't commonly have pain 3-5 days a month get more self care days than them.
3 days is extreme though. 1 a month would be reasonable.
blodreina_kumWonkru t1_jec5n81 wrote
Yes, probably. But this isn't women leave, it's specifically period leave.
I'm not sure what lengths they go to verifying you menstruate or not. That's the troublesome part.
2020-loss t1_jec6fyj wrote
I don't think any reasonable person would agree with this. It's a complete joke and just discredits the entire base that supports it.
2020-loss t1_jec77o5 wrote
And people with migraines work through additional stress. People with social anxiety work through additional stress. People with chronic pain work through additional stress. Grow up and deal with it like and adult.
Doktor_Konrad t1_jecb2m0 wrote
Communists!
Narwhalbaconguy t1_jecgdrx wrote
Just another example of being “progressive” while accomplishing the exact opposite
tiswapb t1_jecgzd1 wrote
This is a student opinion piece… I read one once about how unfair it was that Temple charged Jersey residents more, just completely ignoring how state funding works.
[deleted] t1_jeci7zv wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jecinap wrote
[removed]
avo_cado t1_jeckqfr wrote
Better dead than cherry red
classicrockchick t1_jeckrml wrote
Oh yeah, I'm sure they'll get right on that right after the graduate student union had to claw a decent wage out of them tooth and nail.
sjm320 t1_jecmpkg wrote
Temple has more pressing concerns at the moment.
cerialthriller t1_jecnkmg wrote
Yeah but if only women get this then why wouldn’t employers pass over women for men when they have the chance. Also not all women have periods and some men have them
[deleted] t1_ject89t wrote
[removed]
porkchameleon t1_jed0n96 wrote
I don't think another anti-incentive would make a difference: while women said to produce the same results as men and reportedly get paid less at the same time, yet companies still keep hiring men.
(Yeah, I don't understand that either).
[deleted] t1_jed929a wrote
[removed]
BottleTemple t1_jee5zpn wrote
I’m sure people who are pregnant or post-menopausal will be thrilled to work more hours for the same pay.
Capkirk0923 t1_jeexv0q wrote
My wife will occasionally have a rough period and take a sick day. She doesn’t call her boss and say she has her period so she can’t come in. It isn’t anyone’s business. Do women really want their supervisors and coworkers to know when their period is?
Capkirk0923 t1_jeey7a5 wrote
And why would a woman want her employer to know she’s having her period?
[deleted] t1_jefbdb9 wrote
[removed]
PicklePanther9000 t1_jebj7ph wrote
This sounds like a good way to disincentivize hiring women