Protective labor laws could cost women their jobs rather than help them
Evidence
“Protective” legislation was not always protective; sometimes it could protect women clean out of their jobs. What organized labor wanted, above all, was good solid jobs, and good solid wages for men. — Lawrence M. Friedman, A History of American Law, 3195
Categorization
- XREF: connects to: Stereotypical assumptions about female vulnerability fail to justify gender-based employment restrictions — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 647; Male protections disguised as benefits actually mask women’s subordination — Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, 1972; Ignorance of banana-peel smoking law still cost a worker her job (+3 more)
Broader Connections
- Stereotypical assumptions about female vulnerability fail to justify gender-based employment restrictions
#corroborates(0.82) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 647 - Ignorance of banana-peel smoking law still cost a worker her job
#exemplifies(0.78) - Male protections disguised as benefits actually mask women’s subordination
#qualifies(0.75) — Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, 1972 - Legal protection historically enabled workers to afford collective refusal
#contradicts(0.75) — Jenny Odell, How to Do Nothing, 305 - Nineteenth-century employers preferred women workers because they could be paid less and exploited more.
#qualifies(0.72)