Posted on 11/28/2006 11:10:16 AM PST by freemarket_kenshepherd
I actually read this article in the Harvard Business Review this morning. What a bunch of fluff.
It ended up being a whinefest about how women who can't work 70+ workweeks are being discriminated against because they jump off the extreme job track to spend more time with their kids.
Their solution is for corporation to pay higher salaries to women who don't want to work extreme hours and would rather spend time with their families.
What a bunch of nonsense. These women can't have it both ways.
Maybe some -- or even most -- of them are. But that trial lawyer sure as hell isn't an "entrepreneur" in any sense of the word.
It's been two months since I had a day off. 280-320 hrs/mo is normal. NO, I am not a lawyer!
Perhaps he should put his effort into the extreme jobs that require putting your life on the line every single day. A job where most of the junior people with families are eligible for food stamps. Where they work 7 days a week, and are on duty 24 hours a day................!
That being our fighting men and women in the Armed Forces. Oh wait, MSM is not interested in them. They were to stupid to go to college and get good grades, so they "had" to go into the military. /sarcasm off
Gunner
Another thought.....people who work long hours probably don't make watching TV, drinking with friends, shopping, and reading the newspaper priorities.....so, saying that you are cutting a family out of your life with long hours doesn't isn't always true. Some people use the aforementioned to ignore their families.....while they work 40 hours a week.
Dude, no. And anyway, yer never gonna be self employed if you're always asking someone for permission.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.