A Study of AUNT

[scottycelt]

Are you saying that there a shirkers at John Lewis, people not pulling their weight?

I blame the management..

I can speak with some experience here but would prefer to 'pass' on your first question.

Yet I tend to agree with you wholeheartedly on your last point, amsey!

[scottycelt]

I don't think that scotty got that one immediately

Think again, amsey ...

[french frank]

All I'm saying ... which you, in turn, continue to ignore ... is that there is a clear economic case for a company offering a young woman slightly less than a young male because of the pregnancy possibility/probability.

Some people will and some people will not find it offensive and against natural justice to pay someone less according some generalisation regardless of whether the general pertains in each particular case. If an employer wishes to make some sort of actuarial calculation, the fairest thing is to build his possible losses into his general payment practice i.e. calculate the value of his possible loss and spread it out among all employees. This is what a tradesman will do when pricing up a job: he will estimate the value of possible wastage as a matter of course, and will charge indifferently: some he loses, some he wins. But the system is fair for him and his customers.

As for sickness rates: there are various factors our employer should weigh up: obese people should be offered less pay, as should smokers and older workers. Women take more sickness days than men but this can include for the sickness of a child where the woman is, more often, the chief carer and will have time off to look after the child. So the employer must have a contractual arrangement that there should be complete parity between fathers and mothers in the matter of caring for sick children. This may be difficult where the parents work for different employers. Men whose attendance record is poor through sickness should have a reduction in pay, and young women should have their pay differential made up at the end of each five year period in which they do not become pregnant.

[vinteuil]

engineered 'Equality' is against human nature and therefore unattainable.

... could Mr Celt let us know what he means by "human nature"?

[ahinton]

... could Mr Celt let us know what he means by "human nature"?

You really do ask a lot, don't you?!...

[scottycelt]

... could Mr Celt let us know what he means by "human nature"?

Oh here we go again ... :laugh:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nature

Nuffin' to do with me, M. Vinteuil!

[scottycelt]

Some people will and some people will not find it offensive and against natural justice ...

I feel certain M. Vinteuil and other definition-challenged members are just itching to know what you mean by 'natural justice', ff ...

[amateur51]

Oh here we go again ... :laugh:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nature

Nuffin' to do with me, M. Vinteuil!

Which is why your link simply won't do, scotty - the gentleman asked what you mean by 'human nature' [my emphasis]

[french frank]

I feel certain M. Vinteuil and other definition-challenged members are just itching to know what you mean by 'natural justice', ff ...

Then for M.Vinteuil, and any others, I use the word as a 'general concept', thus:

"In English law, natural justice is technical terminology for the rule against bias (nemo iudex in causa sua) and the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem). While the term natural justice is often retained as a general concept, it has largely been replaced and extended by the more general "duty to act fairly"."

In certain circumstances, which Richard Barrett has already adumbrated, the chances of any individual young woman becoming pregnant are zero; it would be against commonly held opinions of what is 'fair' to pay that young woman less on the grounds that she might become pregnant when she will not. Our employer would have to put himself [sic] to considerable expense to establish whether any potential young woman employee might or might not or would not become pregnant and to pay her accordingly. But in order to be seen to act 'fairly' towards any individual young woman, that is what he would have to do. And if he opted not to employ any young women to remove all prospect of involving himself in unnecessary additional expense, I trust she would take him to court for sex discrimination. And that he would be fined a great fat sum.

I suppose that makes me 'anti-business'...

Or the OED definition: Principles, procedures, results, etc., which are instinctively felt to be just and fair, even if not formally enshrined in law. Which is why I said 'some will, some won't' - some have different instincts.

[vinteuil]

... still waiting for M Celt to tell us what he understands by the term "human nature".

As the link he kindly provided makes clear, the term has had many meanings over time for different people. What does he mean?

[scottycelt]

... still waiting for M Celt to tell us what he understands by the term "human nature".

As the link he kindly provided makes clear, the term has had many meanings over time for different people. What does he mean?

Human beings are by nature not 'equal'. Each person is unique, therefore they can't be 'equal'. Some are good-looking like me and others are pot-ugly like you. Some have brains, others don't appear to have any. We are not meant to be 'equal', if we were we'd all look alike and agree with each other.

Competition is everywhere. We choose life-partners and they choose us through it. We naturally choose what we consider the best available.

It's the same with employers. Nothing very mysterious about it. It's human nature. We all choose what we think is the best (or safest) option.

[Richard Barrett]

We are not meant to be 'equal, if we were we'd all look alike and agree with each other.

How do you make that out then? You seem to be a bit unclear about the difference between "equal" and "identical" as applied to human beings. The reason nobody asked French Frank about her use of the term "natural justice" is that her meaning is quite clear, because she doesn't twist words to suit herself as you do. And you still haven't said what you mean by "human nature", apart from citing a Wikipedia article, which, if you'd read it, you'd have seen contains a number of opposing views on what's meant by the term.

The idea that "human nature" is to be selfish and competitive is often met with, especially from people who are looking for ways to justify inequality and/or injustice, but it doesn't hold much water. One could just as easily say that "human nature" is to be cooperative; otherwise it's hard to imagine how the first large human communities could ever have got started - as an example the Neolithic site of Çatalhöyük in Turkey is estimated to have had a population of 10 000 at its peak, where, moreover, "the uniform amenities and comforts of the separate buildings paints Çatalhöyük as a strikingly egalitarian ancient society. Adding to this is the absence of any rich landowner class; studies of the artifacts reveal a balanced distribution of wealth and influence; it is no surprise equality was experienced by both genders with the absence of a competitive wealth-seeking male hierarchy," according to archaeologists. This is almost ten millennia ago.

[french frank]

Human beings are by nature not 'equal'. [...] Competition is everywhere.

'Law of the jungle': the code of survival in jungle life, now usually with ref. to the superiority of brute force or self-interest in the struggle for survival.

1950 A. Bryant Age of Elegance x. 329 In the manufacturing districts..the old framework of society..broke down completely. Here only the law of the jungle held.

[scottycelt]

How do you make that out then? You seem to be a bit unclear about the difference between "equal" and "identical" as applied to human beings. The reason nobody asked French Frank about her use of the term "natural justice" is that her meaning is quite clear, because she doesn't twist words to suit herself as you do. And you still haven't said what you mean by "human nature", apart from citing a Wikipedia article, which, if you'd read it, you'd have seen contains a number of opposing views on what's meant by the term.

You really are being very silly, even by your own standards. I don't simply provide links to support my view like you but mostly in response to members who only seem to understand what they wish to understand and put up barriers to proper argument. Vinteuil asked what I meant by 'human nature' in much the same way as the definition of 'equality' now seems to be a bone of contention among those who previously and constantly espoused it! I did answer Vinteuil's question, after Wiki's account of the very common term ... you may have been far too busy thinking up your next barrier to forum discussion.

If one is queried on the meaning of the term 'human nature' it follows as day follows night that the same debating tactic can be employed in the very similar case of 'natural justice'. You claim ff's meaning is 'quite clear'. I agree. But so is the meaning of 'human nature'. Selfishness, competing for the best jobs, most attractive partners, all that sort of thing. So you don't understand that? What planet do you live on? I merely demonstrated that anyone can put up rather tiresome barriers to proper debate when they discover that they've lost the logical plot!

I have worked for 'co-operatives' which contained amongst the most self-serving folk I've ever come across. Of course there are people who genuinely strive to be less selfish and share with others but I'm sure they might be the first to admit they often have to fight their basic instincts (human nature) to do so.

Does that answer your question, if you are really all that interested?

[french frank]

Competition is everywhere. We choose life-partners and they choose us through it. We naturally choose what we consider the best available.
It's the same with employers.

1. Not everyone is seeking to work for a gorilla. Most human beings seek to work, directly or indirectly, for a human being.
2. Human beings have evolved to make more of their lives than the business of choosing a mate and reproducing. The purpose of employment, in the human world, is not about finding a mate and reproducing.
3. 'Equality' is not about the natural qualities and characteristics of each human being which make them different from each other, but about all human beings being treated equally.

However under your notion of 'equality':

4. A young man - or indeed any man at all, of any age - should be offered lower pay on the grounds that he is likely to become a father and may elect to be the main carer and take most of the parental leave, in the same way that a woman of child-bearing age should also be offered lower pay than older women, but more than a man, who has more years during his working life in which to become a father.