Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site timeinc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!timeinc!greenber
From: greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Changing Roles
Message-ID: <321@timeinc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 16-Jul-85 16:16:24 EDT
Article-I.D.: timeinc.321
Posted: Tue Jul 16 16:16:24 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 19-Jul-85 02:36:04 EDT
References: <993@ubc-vision.CDN> <202@ihlpl.UUCP> <282@timeinc.UUCP> <206@ihlpl.UUCP> <288@timeinc.UUCP> <217@ihlpl.UUCP>
Reply-To: greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg)
Organization: Time, Inc. - New York
Lines: 70
Summary: 

In article <217@ihlpl.UUCP> zubbie@ihlpl.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) writes:
>
>>(Quoting me): 
>> 
>> Anyway, she walked off and said "Go ahead! Try to sue me. You can't --
>> I'm pregnant!". ...
>> 
>This obviously shows that perhaps not all of your selection process was
>as good as you thought it to be because the selfishness the this person
>as you describe her (are you being as honest as you might be if you
>were not so financially involved ('=)( /2   ) is a major character
>flaw which should have shown up in the screening process.

I admit it! I wasn't SuperEmployer, All-Knowing and All-Seeing.
Then I didn't expect this to ever be something that would (or should)
happen in the workplace.

> Honesty and
>professional pride are hard quantities to subjectively test for today
>but selfishness is not.

Really? What is the foolproof test?

>One last thought.
>
>One woman who takes a job knowing that because of a pregnancy she will
>not be able to complete it or who becomes pregnant and deliberately
>hides the issue untill she has to leave and then tell t to sue her for it 
>does not mean all women will do the same thing.

Of this, of course, I am aware.

>What is your opinion than of a man who takes on such a project and
>then accepts a better position with another employer and tells you 
>to sue him. While your chances of recovering your money may be better
>would the fact that it was a man and he was moving up in his profession make
>any difference to you? ( I really would be interested in your thoughts.)
>
Certainly this is one of the risks that *any* employer has with *any*
employee.  Of course, by you asking me to break it down on a man-women
basis, you must think that I would treat such individuals differently
as per their sex.  This would be sexism, which I do not practice.

Any employee foolish enough to leave my wonderful employ (Free trips
to Europe, all the nose-candy they can toot, bare-breasted nuabian
maidens to fan them when the AC goes out, personal Vax8600, and only
one hour of work per week required (the rest devoted to netnews!) )
simply because the grass was greener elsewhere would be expected to
perform in a workperchildlike (Gimme a break! "workmanlike!") manner:
enough notice to hire someone to replace them, and the possibility
of them staying on until project completion.

I have hired both women and men, and have found that there are, in
fact, differences between the sexes.  Some indicate that I should hire
more women for certain fields of endeaver, some say less.

But that (as they say) is another story.



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ross M. Greenberg  @ Time Inc, New York 
              --------->{vax135 | ihnp4}!timeinc!greenber<---------

I highly doubt that Time Inc.  would make me their spokesperson.
----
"I was riding a wombat this morning, 'till it broke its leg. I had to
 shoot it"  -- Ranger on Camel