i can see it being a factor in terms of promotion (if say you need someone to head up a three year project, you dont want them buggering off after a year) , but i fail to see how it should affect the wages of a woman who all other things equal is doing the exact same job as a bloke, at the current time.

I can even understand how once people have had kids their commitment to work can suffer, but that's hardly female specific once the maternity leave is done and dusted, either.

Not every woman buggers off to have kids, nor do those that have kids invariably have to let their career suffer, same as not every bloke is a dedicated workaholic.
(Matty73, Mon 4 Jan 2010, 2:13, 1 reply)

basing a salary on what someone 'might' do in the future
is that not stereotyping?

I can see how pregnant women might be 'inconvenient' to a business, then again, if you approach recruitment of staff purely from a mechanical standpoint of hours clocked, what kind of staff do you want? OK I've never worked in human resources and I know thats obvious

I for one, wouldn't want an employer who sees me just as a workmule as opposed to living breathing human being, but then, maybe I'm just idealistic.
(maggotriddendirtbox fast, feral and sharp as a tack since, Mon 4 Jan 2010, 4:38, closed)

Insurance premiums
are based on speculation of what you 'might' do in the future, and stereotyping, that's why young men pay the most. It's not a huge jump from there really.
( greedyostrich Cheese is evil! Cheddar is VOODOO!, Mon 4 Jan 2010, 15:50, closed)