because a baby is a choice

a heart attack, generally, is not

althought some people do ask for it

Let's assume this as a fact, for the sake of the argument.

Let's say that corporations do not consider the higher likelihood of heart attacks. Let's say there is an obese man and a pregnant lady.

Which one should they hire?

Okay, then if we can mandate birth control for a woman then can we mandate a healthy vegan diet for employees? Where does it end?

you could

It depends on the expected cost/benefit ratio for the company. If there was really an undue prejudice against women, while ignoring heart attacks among fat men, then bad decisions by corporations will eventually show up in the bottom line.

i mean, if its healthy, what is the problem? it should be better for everyone involved

Funny thing

Shigeru miyamoto by contract cannot ride a bycicle

If there is anothe company who figures out that it's better to hire the pregnant women, instead of the fat, heart attack men, then they will outcompete the company with the prejudice that ignores reality.

So I could insist on a lipid panel every year and if someone has elevated LDLs and trigs, or low HDL, two years in a row I can fire them?

Whichever company is misaligned with reality will drop in competitiveness.

Or if their BMI is above 25?

also, i beg to differ that man out for 3 months is treated all that different outside outward appearance. if not for legal reasons, i'm willing to be most companies would not pay for that time. at least smaller ones

a person out for any length of time is causing the same problem

Federal Law requires 3 months leave but not that it be paid

Yes, if you had models that predicted performance well enough, then it might make sense for you to "discriminate" against men.

But most employers have some amount of sick leave

Either way, discrimination means that you select based on some heuristic.

some,. most don't usually have 3 months.

its liek 2 weeks

For example, there is another metric that has such a predictive value, but is actually banned from being used, which is IQ.

maybe

even then, outside positions where you are rare, taking any more than a day or two is treated like you might be fired for it

welcome to the world most millennials grew up in. Work 24/7, the moment you work 23 hours you are fired because there is a line to replace you

But IQ isn't necessarily predictive. At least not alone. Smart people (IQ) with little wisdom (EQ) are a disaster in the workplace.

oh, you have sick days? thats great. try and take one, see how fast someone finds a "problem" with your work performance and fires you.

There are social skills, but IQ has been shown to be one of the best predictors for many performance related metrics in engineering fields.

>engineering fields

EQ has no firm scientific basis.

i'm pretty sure IQ has a very firm basis lol

yes, ability to do math is helpful for math related fields.

Yes, IQ does.

it's one of the most accurate predictor of future success

As a manager I consider it my most important responsibility to ensure my staff take their allotted time and have work-life balance.

high IQ is also linked to narcissism, and lower ability to get along with others

That said, I am much happier when they take their leave in a planned rather than unplanned manner

IQ has turned out to be one of the most solid predictors that has come out of the field of psychology, together with the Big Five personality factors.