Feeding our babies to the economy monster
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
There you go again.
So.. what exactly is your stand on this anti- age discrimination non-original idea ?
Are you for or against ? Or you cannot make up your mind ? LOL.
its not an idea, its not even anti- age discrimination to begin with. its just something i used to casually summarise my observations.
have i mentioned you have a very standard/distinct style of posts? i've read quite a few of yours in a number of threads and they all appear to give the same message regardless of the topic
-
Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:
its not an idea, its not even anti- age discrimination to begin with. its just something i used to casually summarise my observations.
have i mentioned you have a very standard/distinct style of posts? i've read quite a few of yours in a number of threads and they all appear to give the same message regardless of the topic
well you know.. this is a discussion forum. Seriously.. it will be more constructive for you to contribute what you think about the TOPIC...
Why are you observing me instead ?...LOL
Standard/distinct style of posting is a good thing.. is it not ? That means I am consistent lah... then I graciously accept your compliment.
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
Airline industry.. I don't see the need to have age discrimination.
All I want is good service from the crew. Gay or Lesbian.. young or old..black purple or brown... as long as that person can give me excellent service.. that is what matters most. Unless you say it is for safety reason.. or due to employee health concerns.. then OK.. if not.. please.. pretty girls don't make my journey any more shiok.
If passengers prefer aunties as air hostesses, airlines will discriminate in favour of an older crew. Fact is: passengers prefer those pretty girls. It's a business decision.
-
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
If passengers prefer aunties as air hostesses, airlines will discriminate in favour of an older crew. Fact is: passengers prefer those pretty girls. It's a business decision.
might have been true if the girls are still really pretty..... anyway yes, most ofthe time it's not discrimination but merely business decisions. -
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
If passengers prefer aunties as air hostesses, airlines will discriminate in favour of an older crew. Fact is: passengers prefer those pretty girls. It's a business decision.
It's hardly a business decision. It's more a preference by the top guns.
Passenger as in male passengers ?
Please lah. Go ask female passengers.. they'll tell you they don't give a damn how pretty the crew are.
Yes.. beauty in the eyes of the beholder.. and by who's standard we live by ? The CEO of SIA ?
I've recently flew on SQ. And the service standards have dropped like cow dung. Young and inexperience, that's all there is to it.
-
Originally posted by hisoka:
might have been true if the girls are still really pretty..... anyway yes, most ofthe time it's not discrimination but merely business decisions.
Yah lor.. actually men are the easiest passengers to please lah.Just pack them into a cargo plane.. give em some young naked ladies and a keg of beer... they'll be the happiest passengers on earth.
Very smart indeed. Easier to pander to male passengers than female passengers...such is a brilliant business decision.
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
well you know.. this is a discussion forum. Seriously.. it will be more constructive for you to contribute what you think about the TOPIC...
Why are you observing me instead ?...LOL
Standard/distinct style of posting is a good thing.. is it not ? That means I am consistent lah... then I graciously accept your compliment.
i did actually, but your style attracts a lot of attention like how another thread just got hijacked into a discussion on breast, brains and century eggs. so i thought it warrant a mention.
as for you last line, like i mentioned in my previous post in this thread, it depends on personal values and judgment. since you accept my compliment then you're welcome
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
It's hardly a business decision. It's more a preference by the top guns.
Passenger as in male passengers ?
Please lah. Go ask female passengers.. they'll tell you they don't give a damn how pretty the crew are.
Yes.. beauty in the eyes of the beholder.. and by who's standard we live by ? The CEO of SIA ?
I've recently flew on SQ. And the service standards have dropped like cow dung. Young and inexperience, that's all there is to it.
most women are know to be able to provide better services than man, being more patient and more capable of comunication. naturally when it comes to hiring the "face" of the airline, some do make the choices of opting for a more aesthetically pleasing one.
most will tell you they won't give a damn if you ask them, but society has proven that the beautiful on average have a higher pay and are more popular. just like why the rich have more friends than the poor. whether male or female, first impressions count.
beauty is always in the eyes of the beholder, which is why the ceo's preferences is different from yours. and why certain tribes in africa like BBW.
-
Lets zoom to maternity leave here. The others is just crap to me.
Paid maternity leave will be extended from 12 weeks to 16 weeks, and the extra four weeks can be taken anytime during the baby's first year.
Here is the problem that many people see. If paid maternity leave is so long, are employers going to hire more married women with little or no children during their suitable fertility stage in life? Worst still, if you told them you are going to have a baby soon. Off the list you go.
Employers want to maximise their profits and cut costs. We all should understand this. But, here is the key issue, is the government providing enough to the employers to help in financing the paid maternity leave?
Should I say this? Wives during their maternity leave have no contribution at all to the company, unless their job scope allows them to work at home. They deserve the good rest. So, is the government covering the brunt of the maternity leave costs? Like providing more tax cuts, or directly offering the company money.
If the answer is no, I can safetly say that the policy has failed.
-
Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:
i did actually, but your style attracts a lot of attention like how another thread just got hijacked into a discussion on breast, brains and century eggs. so i thought it warrant a mention.
as for you last line, like i mentioned in my previous post in this thread, it depends on personal values and judgment. since you accept my compliment then you're welcome
Oh baloney !
Why is it always my fault ? Because I'm the female here ?
Did you not see who and what I reply my posts to ?
Why didn't you say anything to that dickhead mushroom ?
You're a really fair person dude.. .. NOT.
-
Originally posted by Evangel:
Lets zoom to maternity leave here. The others is just crap to me.
Paid maternity leave will be extended from 12 weeks to 16 weeks, and the extra four weeks can be taken anytime during the baby's first year.
Here is the problem that many people see. If paid maternity leave is so long, are employers going to hire more married women with little or no children during their suitable fertility stage in life? Worst still, if you told them you are going to have a baby soon. Off the list you go.
Employers want to maximise their profits and cut costs. We all should understand this. But, here is the key issue, is the government providing enough to the employers to help in financing the paid maternity leave?
Should I say this? Wives during their maternity leave have no contribution at all to the company, unless their job scope allows them to work at home. They deserve the good rest. So, is the government covering the brunt of the maternity leave costs? Like providing more tax cuts, or directly offering the company money.
If the answer is no, I can safetly say that the policy has failed.
Actually for the Men, if you tell your interviewer that you are due for "RESERVIST" in the following month, or after the month you get rejected with a "you can wait for an answer."
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
Oh baloney !
Why is it always my fault ? Because I'm the female here ?
Did you not see who and what I reply my posts to ?
Why didn't you say anything to that dickhead mushroom ?
You're a really fair person dude.. .. NOT.
the mushroom is a dickhead, but for that incident he was attracted by your writing style like what attracted me in the few other threads, only he decided to reply in equally stimulating style which you amusingly found distasteful.
and since you think he's a dickhead then why do you think i would want to say anything to him?
plus i'm not exactly the mod here, i'm only here to share my thoughts in a public forum.why do you think i should to take the moral highground and pretend i'm fair? 
you enjoy bringing that female thingy up don't you?
-
Originally posted by Evangel:
Lets zoom to maternity leave here. The others is just crap to me.
Paid maternity leave will be extended from 12 weeks to 16 weeks, and the extra four weeks can be taken anytime during the baby's first year.
Here is the problem that many people see. If paid maternity leave is so long, are employers going to hire more married women with little or no children during their suitable fertility stage in life? Worst still, if you told them you are going to have a baby soon. Off the list you go.
Employers want to maximise their profits and cut costs. We all should understand this. But, here is the key issue, is the government providing enough to the employers to help in financing the paid maternity leave?
Should I say this? Wives during their maternity leave have no contribution at all to the company, unless their job scope allows them to work at home. They deserve the good rest. So, is the government covering the brunt of the maternity leave costs? Like providing more tax cuts, or directly offering the company money.
If the answer is no, I can safetly say that the policy has failed.
i don't believe the policy has failed, but they must fine tune it to suit singapore, maybe maternity leave can involve the fathers as well? since there's always that BS about a whole package from the pap why not include the fathers as well. reservist can be intensified and shorten, everytime i go back i have to spend days sitting around doing nothing. so why not make fathers serve ns this way? who knows? guys might even have more children just to avoid reservist?
-
Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:
the mushroom is a dickhead, but for that incident he was attracted by your writing style like what attracted me in the few other threads, only he decided to reply in equally stimulating style which you amusingly found distasteful.
and since you think he's a dickhead then why do you think i would want to say anything to him?
plus i'm not exactly the mod here, i'm only
here to share my thoughts in a public forum.why do you think i
should to take the moral highground and pretend i'm fair? you enjoy bringing that female thingy up don't you?
Yah .... riiiigghhht.
So why you havta single me out har ? Am I really that attractive ?... heheheheheh...
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
Yah .... riiiigghhht.
So why you havta single me out har ? Am I really that attractive ?... heheheheheh...
jojo, how old are you? haha...
-
Originally posted by Evangel:
jojo, how old are you? haha...
Guess.. if you get it right the first time.. you get to buy me a jug o beer.
-
Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:
most women are know to be able to provide better services than man, being more patient and more capable of comunication. naturally when it comes to hiring the "face" of the airline, some do make the choices of opting for a more aesthetically pleasing one.
most will tell you they won't give a damn if you ask them, but society has proven that the beautiful on average have a higher pay and are more popular. just like why the rich have more friends than the poor. whether male or female, first impressions count.
beauty is always in the eyes of the beholder, which is why the ceo's preferences is different from yours. and why certain tribes in africa like BBW.
Studies have shown that a beautiful woman is more likely to succeed financially. Eat your heart out, Jojobeach :)
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
Oh baloney !
Why is it always my fault ? Because I'm the female here ?
Not because you are female, but a female with a big mouth and a small brain.
-
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
Studies have shown that a beautiful woman is more likely to succeed financially. Eat your heart out, Jojobeach :)
Oh really ? Show me the write up leh.
If that is oh so true.. how come the prostitutes are so pretty leh ?
-
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
Not because you are female, but a female with a big mouth and a small brain.
oooooOOooooo.. tsk tsk.. how you know I got big mouth ah ? You see me before in your wet dreams issit ?
It's ok.. lets just keep it that way.. in your dreams.
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
Guess.. if you get it right the first time.. you get to buy me a jug o beer.
jojo, below 25?
-
Originally posted by Evangel:
jojo, below 25?
Why you don't guess I below 80 ?
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
Why you don't guess I below 80 ?
That would not be fun haha...
Come on give me a hint. In your 20s? 23 right?
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
Yah .... riiiigghhht.
So why you havta single me out har ? Am I really that attractive ?... heheheheheh...
i didn't, you singled yourself out
as for attractiveness, that would once again fall under the category "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"
-
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
Studies have shown that a beautiful woman is more likely to succeed financially. Eat your heart out, Jojobeach :)
studies have shown humans in general to favour lookism, for both men and women. what people generally cannot accept is there are also cultures in this world which have vastly different standards where beauty is concerned.
i've never seen her photo or in person before so when you say "eat your heart out" do you mean you've seen her before? if so are you implying she'll succeed financially or not?
or is this all just bullshiit?