Huguenot

I'd be really a little concerned if I had a highly elevated temperature for three weeks. Whilst high temperature does reflect your body fighting off infection, it also does reduce your body's efficiency. However, are you sure it is high? Normal range is from 36.2C to 37.2C, but for some people (around 1 in 20) they are permanently outside that range. Are you keeping a record of it - say taken the same time in the morning at the point that you wake (without getting up or drinking water/tea etc.)? How much higher is it? Your treament seems odd - you shouldn't be taking antibiotics for a viral infection, they're for bacterial, fungal and protozoan infections and in general should show results in a few days if not before. The antibiotics themselves alter your body's natural state and can have an impact on body temperature, or feelings of well being. I'd be thinking of revisiting your doctor with your temperature calendar. I'd also be thinking of running a few tests - if you're male, in your prime and social I might be thinking of a liver function test? However, I ain't no health professional - just a middle aged chap with the usual concerns who often considers such stuff when travelling.

But would we have the right to BTB?

I think you're right about Obama in general Ladymuck, but I'm not so sure about your perspective. For example, healthcare plans haven't been imposed to take cash from rich people, it's been about delivering healthcare to those without. In fact Obama's been at pains to point out that the proposal is budget neutral. Progessive taxation also isn't about taking money from the rich to make them poorer - it's about carrying the burden of social responsibility according to your means. I may have been wrong, but your arguments about financial equality seemed to focus on the gap between rich and poor, and you seemed to see government activity as a way to make this smaller by taking the money away from rich people. In response to your final question about why you can't just take from the rich, it's because in general they have generated their wealth by providing good and services for other people. If you refuse to let them reap the rewards of this then they just won't provide the good and services. We all lose. The only plausible outcome for that is agrarian subsistence farming.

You think that I'm being rude legalbeagle? Try this direct quote from you: "Has it ever occurred to you that your way of employing encourages that [negative] reaction in them?" That was a direct attack, and entirely inappropriate. Apart from making out that the impact of working practices don't 'occur' to me (a professional slur), I've already said that '[my] way of employing' matches everything you've asked for and more. I'm just saying (and repeated so often it's getting my goat), that you can't impose this approach through legislation. You may not give a monkeys about that, but I'm sure you can understand why I'd get annoyed at your apparently wilful misinterpretation of my position? Brum, there's nothing getting misconstrued here - I agree (and have agreed many many times on this thread) that flexibile working practices and engaged, motivated workforces are hugely beneficial for companies. I believe I even said quite clearly earlier 'I agree with Brum'. I simply don't believe it can be delivered through legislation. I had to repeat that then just for you too! Can you see why I'm getting annoyed? If you need to go back, then read the title of this thread which is about government, the OP which is about legislation, and the post which dragged me in which was about using force on businesses to impose flexible working. All that you've requested is a matter for management schools, MBA courses and senior management. If you're lucky you may be able to negotiate directly, but don't be surprised if you don't get treated as a special case: after all, if you bring sweets into the classroom you've got to bring enough for everyone.

I'm teasing about the idlers, but I've clarfied the argument for you ;-)

So now we're equating part time working with racism, gender discrimination and topping it off with disabled rights? It is errant nonsense, but requires some nerve to be righteous about it. Let's make it absolutely clear. You want to work fewer hours, only when it suits you not the company, you want more resonsibility, you want a pay rise and a promotion ahead of workers who work full time and meet the comapny's needs. Instead of recognising the ridiculous nature of these demands you start talking about racism and disabled rights, how the world revolves around your needs, and how you're going to make a law to force the company to give you everything you want. That's just a mugging mate, and nothing to be proud of.

The horse I saw him on was brown?

On the legislation side I think equating an aversion to part time workers in senior positions with racism is hyperbole to the point of ridiculousness. It deserves a Godwin's. Also I think 'forcing people to consider' is moronic law. "I've considered and the answer is no". Same result. You quite simply miss the point on business and profits, and your argument is confused. Businesses are only about profits. What you actually seem to be saying is that the business can be more profitable / effective if the employees are happy. I don't doubt this. Quite the opposite. I full heartedly support it and make it an absolute foundation to my own business. Your comment "Has it ever occurred to you that your way of employing encourages that reaction in them?" seems to be suggesting I have a Victorian attitude that I don't. I have already told you that we don't even have an office, that my employees all flexbile work from wherever they want (their bed if they choose), that their remuneration is linked to the success of the company and they they have clear and identifiable objectives. My employees are mainly deliriously happy. I'm proud that my way of working creates that reaction. The fact that I fire lazy idiots makes them even happier. Most people hate whiny greedy 'world owes me a living' types staining the coffee bar with their whinges. In that sense I've ticked every one of these petty boxes. However, you appear to have put your hands over your ears and said 'la la la not listening la la la'. I would hazard that this habit may have a more damaging effect on your career than your requirements for flexible working. This thread is about legislation, it's about government (or at least that's the title). Govenrment and legislation have absolutely no part in the creation of successful businesses through the law to support part timers. Part time working is not about gender discrimination and not about racism. It's about good practice.

The really annoying thing is that for a bloke who committed so many crimes against humanity he ended up being snuffed by a 15 year old over a wage dispute. It really needed a much more spectacular end after a protracted public campaign that supported and reinforced ethical values. Still, I suppose he died in a manner befitting his station. His attackers had diminished his importance to the point that his very existence had been trivialised. Same as what he did to everyone else.

This Amina Graham character is coming across as increasingly flaky. No sign of the man himself. Just a shedload of (inconsistent) party line that feels manipulative and duplicitous. Amina, mate, change it. Your head's in the wrong place. You started off by assuming your audience was stupid, and then in spite of the evidence you decided like a blind bull in a crockery shop to continue the strategy.

Totally agree chap, but the thread's about feminist orthodoxy in government - which is about intervention and legislation. I can't identify any possible government which can make people value other people. Will they also make people love you? You're talking specifically about productivity ("the business will reap it's rewards"), of which the government doesn't have a clue. What you would prefer for employees is besides the point. If you want to feel warm, lovely and included then go live in a teepee in Devon. If you want to be rewarded for providing goods and services, then provide goods and services.

Sure, and of course I'm not talking about your particular situation, I'm taking about government and legislation. It just seems irrational to me that anyone can expect to take a leadership position in a company by only working when it suits them. Leadership requires many attributes ranging from engagement to shared endeavour that can't be demonstrated adequately by taking Fridays at home (or off). What kind of message is this sending to the rest of your workforce? It's because of this plain and obvious truth that some people want to make it a gender prejudice issue and then 'force' companies to promote them. Frankly, if someone suggested this to me I would seriously consider whether such arrogance and duplicity has any place in a company I ran. If someone wants to work flexible hours and they have a value to my company then I'd try to come to a negotiated solution that met both our needs (Fridays off never would). If someone tried to tell me I was obliged to indulge them, and then tried to 'force' me to promote them I'd fire them. I actually can't think of any family requirements that can be delivered by having Fridays at home unless the indidvidual is not working. I can think of many family obligations that could be achieved by alternating lates starts or early finishes with one's partner - however most requests don't reflect this, which is because Fridays off probably isn't about family obligations. ;-)

I think the Administrator simply 'is' rather than is or was something. In dealings with deities I tend to scratch my nose and take an interest in passing cars rather than address them, you know, directly. ;-)

It's interesting reference to the fact that you can't always choose your own name. The Doctor clearly prefers to be call the Doctor. However, I have a friend called Adam whose name is actually Donut (apologies for spelling). It's necessary in practical encounters that he responds to Donut, because othwerwise his social life would become dysfunctional. I'm aware that both he, his wife and his parents prefer Adam. I'm aware that there's an argument that says his parents have first dibs on the naming process, and that there is a technical and legal issue with the moniker 'Adam'. But he isn't Adam, he's Donut. That's his name. So too is Doctor Who. The Doctor, not Adam.

Was that Eugenics thing an April Fool? I know that SteveT, bless him, can be thoroughly fourth month. ;-)

"and the condition to be made a partner was that i had to work full time" Come on, does this sound wrong? A partner takes a share in the business, part timers don't take an equal share in the workload! This isn't discrimination, it's a righteous rejection of a freeloader! I think that sometimes people are deluding themselves. Work isn't a 'right'. It's a provision of goods and services to someone else in a manner that they find attractive and valuable. The key is what 'they' find attractive and valuable. If it was what 'you' find attractive and valuable then you'd never find a buyer. For crissakes stop pretending the world owes you a living. This craving for legislation is simply ducking the issue. I agree with Brum, the world would be a better place etc., business would be more effective etc. This is about education NOT legislation.

All good points. I may have this wrong, but I had the impression that in order to gain the maximum benefit of maternity payments from work there was an obligation to return to work afterwards. There's more than a few ladies who have worked for me and others who confided they took the cynical position of claiming they would return to work in order to derive maximum financial benefit - when they had no intention to and didn't. Legisltation can't cover this eventuality, and I'm not convinced that patriarchy is to blame. Mind you Siduhe, the situation you describe is already in breach of the law isn't it? No new legislation would be needed?

Hmmm maybe, it seems that we do exactly what you want - flexible hours etc. The only area in which we differ is that I reckon we don't need legislation.

I don't have to surprise myself, I employ the best people for my business and we don't have an office, there are no 'hours', only business objectives. I don't offer attractive salaries, I offer revenue share and performance bonuses. I'm also familiar enough with business to know that for every two committed individuals there's a timewasting clock watching idiot. A good business will identify great contributors regardless of the legislation - but you write flexible working hours into law and it'll be a magnet for indolents. Besides which, I don't think it's part of a feminist orthodoxy, I think it's gender-blind stupidity.

Agreed with you on most counts. Earlier though, you were talking about forcing businesses to take on flexible hours and part time work. If you're right that there's an untapped pool of brilliant talent that business is discovering then it doesn't need legislation - just a good sales pitch. However, if you're seeking to take on a higher role and greater responsibility, I can't see how you can do this if you're not actually around.

I think it's brilliant mate - I almost wish I was back in Blighty to make the most of it! Your website looks great too.

I don't know - there's at least 66 here...

Lol! I'm saying they'll have kids anyway, it's not some generous act of charity or nation building that they need a reward for. If we have gender problems looking after baby that has nothing to do with creating legislation against businesses to 'force' them to employ uncommitted, inexperienced or underqualfied staff. If you're good enough - committed, experienced and qualified, as Brum pointed out - you'll get employed anyway. Businesses aren't prejudiced: they will employ the best person for the job.

I'm not trying to be harsh - but frankly having a family is a lifestyle choice that comes with certain benefits and costs. It's completely illogical to legislate how a couple decides who's going to look after baby, and if you come out with cock-eyed legislation about flexible working then you're treating the symptom not the disease. What family people want to do is have their cake and eat it. I would be outraged if someone who indulged their desire to have a family and worked part time for several years was given professional equivalence with someone who'd worked 60 hours a week nose to the grindstone for the same period - and sacrificed the joys of a family. Likewise, career person can't knock on your door and take your family away. It's neither true nor fair.

I'm not sure about your immovable facts m7. The birth rate to UK women is 1.84. This figure needs to be 2.1 for population growth - so 'procreation' is below that required for growth. This means that whatever is driving population growth in the UK, it ain't babies - so a UK tax break isn't going to change anything here. As it happens the more educated you become, the fewer babies you pop out. Hence if you want to control global population growth, then the best and most social, moral and ethical solution would be universal education, rather than telling people to stop having kids.