| Employed women... |
Therefore, unemployed women
... |
| |
|
| ... have no dependents |
... do not require much in the
way of financial support. |
| |
|
| |
... should not be absent from work
or training programs for "family responsibilities" . |
| |
|
| ... are less productive because
they work fewer hours, earn less, have a higher absentee rate, take part-time
jobs, etc |
... are less likely to be
productive as learners in training programs and will not work hard enough to
succeed. |
| |
|
| |
... deserve lower training
allowances |
| |
|
| |
... will not conduct adequate job
searches and will need to be pushed. |
| |
|
| ... are part-time workers and not
prepared to take on full-time responsibilities (prefer to opt out with a work
disincentive) |
... will not be able to manage a
full- time training program. |
|
|
|
...will not be responsible
students |
| |
|
|
... will use the U.I. scheme
irresponsibly. |
| |
|
|
... deserve only partial U.I.
assistance (can get the' rest from the provinces), and only partial Manpower
allowances. |
This kind of reasoning leaves us with the impression that female
workers and female trainees are non-responsible quitters, who prefer to stay at
home or to be involved only part-time, and whose contributions to both the
family and the economy are of minor importance. CCLOW needs to help change this
impression through re-educating those involved in the policy development
process.
Second, both the CEIC and industry appear to use faulty
reasoning based on deleted or distorted material. Deleted material involves
missing information, particularly where opinions are being stated. For
example:
"Women do not wish to be responsible."................... for
what?
"secondary earners with unstable employment patterns" which
look like what and as compared to what?
We need to recognize this style of statement and request the
complete set of information involved. |