- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Posted on 2/3/14 at 10:29 am to PrettyBird
quote:
In all of my adult working life, I have never had female coworkers stay home because of their period.
So....are you saying your anecdotal evidence is better than the statistical analysis referred to in the Freakonomics books?
quote:
Bunch of idiots in here, to be expected.
seems like there's only one idiot in here and that's you
Posted on 2/3/14 at 10:40 am to WikiTiger
quote:
.are you saying your anecdotal evidence is better than the statistical analysis referred to in the Freakonomics books?
I'm saying that by using real life experience of myself and other females around me, I have not seen evidence of this. Ever. Most companies give you ~6 sick days. So if 12 are taken (one per month) then that is pay docked from that person, which would negate the whole "unfair" argument in the first place.
And my idiot comment was directed towards those who were just spitting out opinion, not facts. If I am an idiot, fine, but I am CERTAINLY not the only idiot in the present thread.
Posted on 2/3/14 at 10:45 am to PrettyBird
quote:
I'm saying that by using real life experience of myself and other females around me, I have not seen evidence of this. Ever. Most companies give you ~6 sick days. So if 12 are taken (one per month) then that is pay docked from that person, which would negate the whole "unfair" argument in the first place.
Wow, you work for some shitty companies if that's all the sick days you are getting.
I'll freely admit I take a lot of sick days, but I've also blown out multiple organs at this point in my life (age 25)
This post was edited on 2/3/14 at 10:46 am
Posted on 2/3/14 at 10:46 am to PrettyBird
quote:
I'm saying that by using real life experience of myself and other females around me, I have not seen evidence of this. Ever. Most companies give you ~6 sick days. So if 12 are taken (one per month) then that is pay docked from that person, which would negate the whole "unfair" argument in the first place.
you didn't take that to mean they miss every month right? i find it hard to believe you don't know any women that have missed because they were cramping.
Posted on 2/3/14 at 10:49 am to Topwater Trout
The person who posted said they noticed a trend of every 28 days... I would take that as every month, if a trend was able to be detected?
Maybe I'm just not sissy like all these women apparently are... and I don't miss work for trivial reasons.
Maybe I'm just not sissy like all these women apparently are... and I don't miss work for trivial reasons.
Posted on 2/3/14 at 10:54 am to PrettyBird
quote:
The person who posted said they noticed a trend of every 28 days... I would take that as every month, if a trend was able to be detected?
Couple things to keep in mind, this was an Italian company, and the sick time they are given over there is typically a lot more than we Americans are used to.
Furthermore, a person doesn't have to take the sick day EVERY 28 days for a trend to be detected. They could take a sick day for 2 consecutive cycles, not take a sick day for 1 cycle, then do it for 3 consecutive cycles, not take it for 2, take it for 1, not take it for 1, take it for 3, not take it for 1...etc. And an analysis would still be able to determine a trend.
This post was edited on 2/3/14 at 10:55 am
Posted on 2/3/14 at 10:56 am to PrettyBird
quote:
The person who posted said they noticed a trend of every 28 days...
well it did say "pretty regularly" I take that as not every month but it could be
quote:
Maybe I'm just not sissy like all these women apparently are... and I don't miss work for trivial reasons
I have dated a few that would miss work quite often for cramping. I don't think it was the cramps but they were just lazy and looking for an excuse to stay home.
Posted on 2/3/14 at 10:56 am to Mr.Perfect
Women are stupid and I don't respect them!
Posted on 2/3/14 at 11:00 am to Topwater Trout
quote:
i find it hard to believe you don't know any women that have missed because they were cramping.
I worked at a Victoria's secret for 3 years and never once heard this excuse when someone called in. I'm with Pretty Bird on this one.
Posted on 2/3/14 at 11:00 am to WikiTiger
I found the quote from the book. It's on page 17 of Super Freakonomics:
ETA: and here's the study citation.
The price of menstruation: see Andrea Ichino and Enrico Moretti, “Biological Gender Differences,
Absenteeism and the Earnings Gap,” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 1, no. 1 (2009).
anyone have the ability to pull that up?
quote:
The economists Andrea Ichino and Enrico Moretti, analyzing personnel data from a large Italian bank, found that female employees under forty-five years old tended to miss work consistently on twenty-eight-day cycles. Plotting these absences against employee productivity ratings, the economists determined that this menstrual absenteeism accounted for 14 percent of the difference between female and male earnings at the bank.
ETA: and here's the study citation.
The price of menstruation: see Andrea Ichino and Enrico Moretti, “Biological Gender Differences,
Absenteeism and the Earnings Gap,” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 1, no. 1 (2009).
anyone have the ability to pull that up?
This post was edited on 2/3/14 at 11:03 am
Posted on 2/3/14 at 11:01 am to PrettyBird
quote:
I'm saying that by using real life experience of myself and other females around me
quote:
my idiot comment was directed towards those who were just spitting out opinion, not facts.
interesting
Posted on 2/3/14 at 11:01 am to Topwater Trout
I don't doubt it happens. But in my opinion, with the medicine available today, women should no longer use this as an excuse to stay home. Unless there was some extreme case...
And it just takes a few to ruin it for us all. I often wish I worked with more men and less women because of the BS in the office.
I just think the original argument being that women take off more time and therefore are less knowledgeable/experienced being a justifiable reason they are paid less.. is not a good argument.
And it just takes a few to ruin it for us all. I often wish I worked with more men and less women because of the BS in the office.
I just think the original argument being that women take off more time and therefore are less knowledgeable/experienced being a justifiable reason they are paid less.. is not a good argument.
Posted on 2/3/14 at 11:02 am to Topwater Trout
quote:
you didn't take that to mean they miss every month right? i find it hard to believe you don't know any women that have missed because they were cramping.
It's a VERY common excuse!
Posted on 2/3/14 at 11:03 am to More beer please
quote:
More beer please
It's a fact, in my world, what i stated. That I have never, nor women I have worked with to my knowledge, used their period as an excuse for staying home.
So, glad you think my input is interesting.
Posted on 2/3/14 at 11:04 am to PrettyBird
here, I found a link to the study: https://www.nber.org/papers/w12369
Posted on 2/3/14 at 11:04 am to WikiTiger
here's the summary of the study:
quote:
In most Western countries illness-related absenteeism is higher among female workers than among male workers. Using the personnel dataset of a large Italian bank, we show that the probability of an absence due to illness increases for females, relative to males, approximately 28 days after a previous illness. This difference disappears for workers age 45 or older. We interpret this as evidence that the menstrual cycle raises female absenteeism. Absences with a 28-day cycle explain a significant fraction of the male-female absenteeism gap. To investigate the effect of absenteeism on earnings, we use a simple signaling model in which employers cannot directly observe workers' productivity, and therefore use observable characteristics – including absenteeism – to set wages. Since men are absent from work because of health and shirking reasons, while women face an additional exogenous source of health shocks due to menstruation, the signal extraction based on absenteeism is more informative about shirking for males than for females. Consistent with the predictions of the model, we find that the relationship between earnings and absenteeism is more negative for males than for females. Furthermore, this difference declines with seniority, as employers learn more about their workers' true productivity. Finally, we calculate the earnings cost for women associated with menstruation. We find that higher absenteeism induced by the 28-day cycle explains 11.8 percent of the earnings gender differential.
Posted on 2/3/14 at 11:05 am to PrettyBird
PB, you gals have a pretty complicated piece of equipment down there. If it takes some upkeep to allow it to continue to function, I am OK with that.
I'm probably not going to pay you as much as I would a man though. I mean, that's just silly.
I'm probably not going to pay you as much as I would a man though. I mean, that's just silly.
Posted on 2/3/14 at 11:05 am to tylercsbn9
quote:
The truth is, that is women really made 20% less than men for the same job, companies would be hiring them like crazy to help the bottom line.
Good point
Also, I believe they are comparing men and women in the same job.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News