Letters to the Editor
healthyskeptic
Published Letters: 671 Editor's Choice: 14
-
true, but
[Read the article: The costs of asking for a higher salary]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I always ask for more and mostly get it. Even from men, and my last male boss hired me, at least in part, BECAUSE of my assertive personality. -- gensing
True, that works, for people who can back it up. But it would be a mistake to give "one size fits all" advice on the matter. One has to learn whether they're better suited to assertive, or passive, or where in between.
Also, a person who gets a slightly larger starting salary from being assertive may pay for it later. It'll always be expected for that person to represent them self maximally, which some people really don't like.
So it's a tightrope walk.
Experienced people know their worth. For entry level people, I've always tended to hire people who don't over estimate themselves. They tend to try harder, learn faster, and complain less later. And if they do well, they'll be appreciated and in a great position to bargain later.
-
@Traduced!
[Read the article: The costs of asking for a higher salary]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]'ohmigod the patriarchy.'
Well, that's pretty much what jebldmm was saying, and it was starred. And that's exactly the kind of faux feminism BS panders to.
For example, jebldmm says:
Which really doesn't make sense.
By asking for more pay, one is indicating they're either unhappy with their current pay, which might indicate they're malcontent and planning to slack off, or indicating their desire to take advantage and see if they can finagle a raise, which usually isn't appreciated.
One should avoid pressuring managers for raises unless it's really deserved. If the raise isn't a certain demand, one has to be very careful to ask for it in a lighthearted way. That is a skill. Guys learn at a young age how to spar and kid with each other in a friendly, but competitive, manner. And without stepping on toes.
And that is a skill the study didn't control for.
It would be good to see a study treating negotiating as a skill, and looking at whether people unable to get raises are going about it the right way.
-
missing quote
[Read the article: The costs of asking for a higher salary]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The quote I was critical of:
I don't have a problem with my current pay, but it doesn't seem right that I would be penalized for asking for more.- jebldmm
Which doesn't seem fully aware of the relationship dynamics in bargaining.
-
not that much.
[Read the article: Battered and fired]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Does it matter at all to your arguments that the victim was struck by her EX-husband ?
Not that much.
There's still a good chance she is showing bad judgement.
And if there is any chance this is pattern behavior, or if she was herself a participant in the violence (which she could have been) then the daycare is entitled to be wary.
The daycare can't reasonably be expected to investigate deeper into her personality or state of mind under the circumstances. Whether she's divorced but still involved, etc. Especially not in the middle of an ongoing legal criminal investigation.
Presumably, she was still meeting him, unless he ambushed her. Also, chances are this isn't the first time there has been violence. Meaning her judgment is likely to be less than great.
And the job she's applying to, a director of childcare, requires her judgment on these matters be not just good, but the best. If she was a truck driver or computer programmer, fine. It wouldn't be relevant. But as a teacher, let alone the director of a childcare, it certainly is relevant.
Regardless, she couldn't even show for her first day. That's cause enough.
She's sounds like she'd been a victim, but the daycare can't reasonably be victimized by this too.
-
@juliebird
[Read the article: Battered and fired]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Clearly, healthyskeptic notwithstanding, most posters feel Ms Beccerril was unjustly fired.
Most people on the BS faux-feminist site that is. That's a fringe of a fringe.
In the real world, plaintiffs in these cases have the far higher burden. Especially with a law so vague. And doubly so when the particulas are so unusual (a battered woman applying to be director of a childcare) an oddity the law certainly didn't generalize towards.
No way this case stands. Wait and see.
-
both and more
[Read the article: Battered and fired]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't think the problem is that she would be exposing children to the "concept" of domestic violence. I think the concern is that her presence would expose children to the risk of physical violence itself.
It's both. And more.
If she exposes the kids to risk of violence, due to a stalking EX, that's one disqualifier. Presuming he was criminally at fault (which sounds very likely) he still may have bailed out of jail and could be a serious risk. If the state can pay for police to monitor the school and otherwise deal with the situation, great. But otherwise, it's not really fair to them.
Exposing the kids to the gruesome outcome of DV is imo another disqualifier considering she hasn't even worked there one day and it's unnecessary. I still remember show and tell from kindergarten where a girl brought her tonsils in a jar, mild by comparison. I don't think kids should know of DV or violence against anyone at that age, let alone see their teacher brutalized.
And the possibility that she lacks judgment and has tolerated DV, and is continuing relations with a violent person, and has jeopardized her own children, that also is a huge disqualifier.
-
other countries cope with the problem
[Read the article: Battered and fired]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Somehow, we have to make sure as a society that victims of physical abuse aren't punished financially, as well as make sure that collateral damage doesn't occur. It's a tough balance.
--Anonymous
Right. That's what I keep saying.
Other countries see the dillema, and have services to deal with this.
This false dilemma of dumping her on the street, or dumping her on the employer, is a product of our cruel system. The people in this thread who think they're fighting for justice to dump her on the childcare, are real idiots, and not doing anything themselves to help this woman.
I'm happy for taxes to provide more help to such cases and totally support universal healthcare, better child protective services, etc. Those are real solutions.
In France or toehr developed countries she'd probably get at least six months pay and childcare assistance from the government as the victim of a clear-cut case of DV. That would help her get back on her feet and find a new work or come back to that job next semester. Which is the best possible economic recovery, best all around.
She could work through the legal issues, to make sure the law is properly executed for the welfare of sociiety.
And she could attend to her kids.
It would also help the school go on and do their jobs without putting kids at risk or diminishing their services.
In the long run, it's better for everyone as things get sorted for the best with the least burden and disruption, economically or culturally, for this tragedy.