E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
The number of pregnancy discrimination charges increased about 15 percent in the last 10 years to 5,797 last year.
It’s hard to imagine we still have to tell employers this today, but here goes: Pregnancy discrimination is illegal.
While it may sound obvious to some, blatant pregnancy bias is still alive and well in the workplace. A pregnant woman who applied for a job at a Subway franchise in Phoenix was told by a manager “we can’t hire you because you’re pregnant.” Last month, she won punitive damages against the employer.
It’s just one example of the types of flagrant pregnancy discrimination that the federal government is trying to stop.
“A few employers have forgotten, or never learned, that it’s against the law to discriminate against women because of pregnancy,” David Lopez, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's general counsel, said during a public meeting before the EEOC commissioners Wednesday.
It’s unlawful, he stressed, to deprive a pregnant woman "the opportunity to sustain herself or her family based on stereotypical assumptions” that she won’t be as dedicated to her employers as a man or a woman who isn't pregnant.
The number of pregnancy discrimination charges increased about 15 percent in the last 10 years to 5,797 last year. That's down slightly from 2010's total claims of 6,119, according to the EEOC.
While the EEOC is doing outreach to employers so they understand the law, the agency is also using the big-stick approach.
The EEOC has increased the number of cases it has filed against employers when it comes to pregnancy bias, Lopez said, reaching 20 cases last year, inching up from 19 in 2010.
He pointed to a $1.64 million settlement reached with Akal Security Inc., the largest provider of contract security services to the federal government, in 2010. The agency claimed Akal had a national policy “of forcing its pregnant employees, working as contract security guards on U.S. Army bases, to take leave and discharging them because of pregnancy.”
Such conduct, the agency maintained, violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which prohibits gender discrimination in employment, including pregnancy discrimination.
This type of bias can hit low-wage workingwomen the hardest, said Sharon Terman, senior staff attorney in the gender equity program at The Legal Aid Society Employment Law Center, who spoke at the EEOC event.
“We’ve heard from many women who were fired immediately upon announcing their pregnancy and whose employers explicitly told them the pregnancy was the reason,” she explained.
Low-income women who become pregnant, she continued, are routinely denied minor workplace accommodations that would help them continue working. A common example of accommodations would be allowing a worker to sit on a stool instead of standing all day, or letting her carry a water bottle.
She offered one case of a pregnant janitor who was fired via text message by her boss after she told him her obstetrician was late for her appointment.
Many poorer workers also don’t have paid sick days, she pointed out. The United States is one of the only industrialized nations that does not mandate paid sick days for employees. While some states have passed laws requiring some paid sick time, the majority of workers nationally are not covered by such legislation.
Although many employers have anti-discrimination policies, it still occurs. Employment attorney Sara Begley said, “Unenlightened managers who are simply focused on getting the job done may violate a pregnant employee's protected rights by taking adverse action for taking maternity leave, not provide salary increases or bonuses to employees on leave, assume an employee will not return post leave and transfer her duties to another employee, assume an employee will be on Mommy Track post maternity leave."
Such outdated assumptions, she added, “can and must be remedied by training and enforcement of applicable policies."
The biggest “knowledge gap” when it comes to the law, she added, appears to be with smaller firms who just don’t have adequate training.
While reaching out and educating employers is important, said EEOC Commissioner Stuart Ishimaru, he shared his frustration that so little has changed in the 35 years since the Pregnancy Discrimination Act was passed.
“Why have we missed the boat?” he asked the panelists assembled at the hearing. Why, he added, does pregnancy bias persist? “It’s a puzzle to me.”
Judy Lichtman, senior advisor to the National Partnership for Women and Families, who spoke at the hearing, said it was all about long-standing stereotypes, and not just regarding pregnancy but for caregiving too. Our society doesn’t value people with family responsibilities, she said. “What are our real obligations to change an engrained paradigm?”
Leave a Comment:
Which is it libs? Does providing birth control save businesses (insurance companies) money vs paying for births/and vaccinations or not? A few days ago you libs were saying Obama was doing the nation a favor demanding free birth control be provided to all so we don't have to endure the societal costs of births (coming socialized medicine) ... we need to stop births at all costs. But now the liberal media tells us we need to NOT discriminate against those who ARE pregnant ... women's rights and all. Can't have it both ways, pick one.
Only a Texan can be this stupid. Yes you can be for providing contraception and being against pregnancy discrimination. And its not having it both ways as you claim. See contraception allows women to choose when to become pregnant, doesn't mean any individual woman taking birth control never wants to have kids. And when she does she shouldn't be punished for being pregnant.
yes these issues do provide a measure of equality for women, which is what frightens you into a state of irrationality.
it's not a matter of asking for it both ways. if you can't see that on your own no one else will be able to help you.
STexan - Are you that ignorant? Providing women access to birth control and not discriminating against a pregnant woman in the work place are two very different issues. I would assume such ignorance though from someone in Texas.
Which is it, Teabaggers? You tell us life is sacred so you're sticking up for the unborn. However, the second these children are born to women who can't afford them, it's her problem and she doesn't deserve food stamps, tax credits, help paying for childcare, etc. Progressives never said women shouldn't have any pregnancies. It's about having as many children as she wants when she wants to have them. Who's the hypocrite, STexan (I assume the S stands for stupid)?
Which is it, pretend Republicans?
Do you actually vote morally and show your insanity? Or do you pretend to be moral while being a complete hypocrite?
You are the EXACT SAME person as a stark raving PETA member, and it is funny that pretend Republicans think they actually are even in the slightest way different.
Thinking conservatives and liberals let this pass. Its the Moon fever that actually get up in arms over this drivel.
Pregnant women are discriminated against, mainly due to purposely ignorant employers. You have a free country that allows anyone to run a business. Don't expect your boss to know. If you have a pregnant wife, or are pregnant yourself, kindly remind the employer that you'll be taking your rightful benefits while you have your child.
There is no difference about this than soldiers who come back from war and their previous company won't hire them back. Discrimination is exactly what it is, and to think otherwise means you should move to China.
STexan you are an idiot
Say STexan, nice going....and I mean it. By posing a really pertinent question to the libs, you got insulted five times, but elicited not one civil, intelligent counter argument. Says a lot, huh?
IOW you think families should have no choice in the matter. If they DONT want to be a breeding machine they have no choice. If they DO want to do so, they have no choice. The right wants NO healthcare at all...NONE...for families. To the right wing, the middle class is an enemy to be destroyed.
Your comment is as senseless as your reasoning. If a women doesn't want to get pregnant then she should have access to the legal prescription drug or method she wants to use to prevent it. If a women does want to get pregnant, she has the right to work during pregnancy and after. However, you've revealed that you are 100% of the problem and Zero percent of the solution because you view pregnancy as something that happens during masturbation, i.e. a single person act. How many times have you heard, 'she got pregnant on purpose just to do X to her man?' This will never change until women stop putting up with it and call males out on this BS like I'm calling you out. Guys like you never bring up viagra, which was covered by insurance IMMEDIATELY. Take responsibility for your sperm and be damn glad your creator, your mother, even wanted you. I'd be totally disappointed if you were my son, what a waste of 18 months and 9 years to produce something that doesn't respect their Mother, literally your maker. Pathetic.
American-American back away from the computer, take a lick off your premarin salt lick ,cover up your tattooed arms , brush your tooth,Leave the trailer and go get some fresh air. Christ ,do you think you could hate men anymore than you do? Please consider getting some help. Your rant is a little Psycho. Hopefully the man in your life ran into the night screaming before you hurt him. Next on Jerry women who hate men. Your episode awaits!
Pregnancy discrimination IS illegal. Those that don't understand that or adhere to it deserve exactly what they get - SUED. Sued not only for the legal reason, but for SHEER STUPIDITY as well.
WCF,
Actually, American-American is totally and absolutely RIGHT.
Not only is STexan STUPID, but totally ignorant as well. And any attempt to defend him shows sheer ignorance.
The fake conservatives always make me laugh. Douche bag party members who blather small government, but suddenly want big government when it comes to putting Christianity into law. I don't really see the difference between a Douche bag party member and a loyal Iranian.
Yes Stexan, We liberals actually do care for babies and the rights of women. Your post seems very confused, as you try to reconcile your hatred of women, your buy into the corporate culture and something you may have read in the bible.
So I can understand YOUR confusion.
Come on now...Don't you mean something someone told him was in the bible, lets not be to ambitious here....
Yeah, wow... what an unskillful choice to make public your inconsistent and incompassionate perspective, STexan. Your comment, "Can't have it both ways, pick one," was especially short-sighted. That's like saying, "Can't have both Houston and Dallas in Texas, pick one."
I wonder how widespread this lack of understanding about the nature of compassion extends within right-wingers - this idea that we cannot be fair both to women who choose not to get pregnant and to women who choose to. I suppose the Republican approach is to pick and choose who is to be granted justice and who is justice to be withheld from, instead of taking the moral approach that Democrats take, i.e., that all Americans are due equal protection under the law and therefore all are entitled to respect and dignity.
I'm not arguing FOR pregnancy bias, but I want someone to tell me what they'd do in this situation: Your applicant pool is down to two women. ALL ELSE equal, one woman is 3 months pregnant and the other is not pregnant. Who are you going to hire?
If you own a small business, and someone basically tells you, "Hey, I'm pregnant, which means I have to miss for some prenatal care, and then I'll need a couple months off after I have the baby"...can you actually afford to hire somebody who is going to miss that much time? You are opening a position for somebody to work and produce for your business, which they can't do if they're not at work, no matter the reason.
The article picks out particularly egregious examples, but the issue isn't as black and white as it seems.
You are correct. I wonder that pregnant women do not see that their condition makes them different than non-pregnant women. I had six children during my working years - each time I scaled back my work hours and involvements in the bureacratic processes - I did this for my health, and the health of my unborn child. I had two children in 2 years - and missed raises for 2 years since I was off on maternity leave for 3 months both years - I considered this reasonable.
Matt, I agree it's not black and white. Over the years I have had several employees become pregnant after they were hired and had work for the company several years. Since they were really great employees I worked with them and, of course, their positions were still there when they came back to work. But during their time off after the baby's birth, it was really hard on the department missing a key member for that length of time. Production was down, overtime pay was up and for a small business that creates a hardship. Thank God I have never been placed in the position (scenerio) you have posted because I know what my answer would be and unforturnately that's an unfair bias towards the pregnant woman. (I'm basing this answer off the fact the women were both competely equal in skill and knowledge.) I know many won't like my answer but I'm just being truthful.
You also lost out on your Social Security contribution, so when your husband leaves you will be impoverished.
I am a small business owner, and have had a number of young women become pregnant while working for me. I was very accomodating with time off for appointments, morning sickness, etc. All said they would be back 3 months after the birth. We paid their insurance for those three months because it was the right thing to do, and held their jobs open. I only asked that they be honest with me about committing to coming back to work.
All three did not come back to work. It did create a huge hardship for us. We not only had to hire new people and train them, but the other employees had to do the work of two people in anticipation of their return.
I would never discriminate against an employee I already have if they become pregnant, but I would run as fast as I could in the opposite direction of someone coming in to interview for an open position if they were pregnant. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but I have been burned many times.
arguments about 2 people doing the person's work while they're gone are ridiculous. hire a temp since you know what's coming and the day the original employee can't make it, in call that temp.
Hatr Hurter: The jobs my employees performed were not just a "temp" type job. It takes 3 months just to train them on the systems, learn the accounts and all the product. Not even worth the effort for a temp.
So again, others had to do their work in anticipation of their return. When they did not return, we had to hire and train, which took months more.
Hatr, your argument is rather simplistic. Most work can't be done by a temp off the street. Generally, if someone is going to miss work, you will have to do without them or have everybody else pitch in to fill the void.
Even if you are expecting them to miss 2 months, you still may not be able to hire someone who is worth hiring. People qualified for the job are not going to agree to a 2 month term employment.
What a hoot!! I think its the exact OPPOSITE -other people having to cover for them, being asked to do their work, stay late, etc and then once the spawn is born, extra time for school functions, appointments, sick kids, etc. its disgusting. Just because you pop out a kid, you have no right to special treatment. Work the same amount - days, hours, etc as your co workers, or quit
Gee. All the vomiting the right wing does about being 'pro family' is shown to be a lie, isn't it? They're profamily as long as families don't get healthcare, bear ALL the cost of having kids and businesses don't have to do squat. Funny how NO other rich country feels this way. None. Other countries are pro family. The US right is pro serfdom
hatr hurter just because you can be replaced by a half trained chimp doesn't mean everybody can.
This whole conversation is ridiculous. Of course if someone is going to sit in front of you as a small business owner and your 8 months pregnant that maybe their health premiums are gonna skyrocket. Its a thought? DUH.....So you hire someone else. Its an economic decision. Nothing personal. You make it a business owner decision before hiring you? Did they get you pregnant? Really? No honest dialog or am I extreme!!! .... You can pass all the flippn happy go lucky glib requirements or laws you want but why the heck would you not choose someone else as an equally qualified applicant.....The way out of it is to pass a tax credit to offset the loss. Its no different than any other issue. Take abortion, It may be religeously bad for a lot of folks but they don't offer the pregnant party an opportunity to have her health care paid along with wage loss in return for putting the child up for adoption. If people have an economic choice with no way out. What do think they are gonna do? I mean this whole thing is riduculous.
Lilly is right, same boat here - i've gone through 3 PW's (pregnant women, not to be confused with POW's - that was us while they were out of the office ha ha ha!) 2 are still on board, 1 ended up leaving after coming back for a month (lovely that we were required to hold her position till her return, only to turn in a two week notice, but I digress). It is not possible for the PW situation to be a 'win/win' scenario. I believe that is why it is a tough pill to swallow as the system makes everyone drink 'win-win' kool-aid. Having a PW on staff is an endurance test for everyone - a boot camp if you will. It's a challenge, an obstacle, a road block - perfect time for a team to bond and figure out together how you are going to overcome, prevail and detour around it - that I believe is the proper mental approach to it vs the "oh, everything is lovely, nothing will change and everything will continue just as it always has" - gimme a break, it's not called a life-changing event for nothing.
Your comment assumes way too much.
1. That the pregnant employee will take any more time off than a non-pregnant. If you are not asking everyone employee how much time they expect to take off, then you cannot assume that the pregnant employee will take more time off than other.
2. Are employers entitled to ask men if their wives are pregnant, or girlfriends, mistress or random other woman? It really is a privacy issue. What goes on with a woman's body & with a woman's family is her own business, not the employer's.
Unfortunately, pregnancy discrimination dispropotionately affects poor or lower income women. Higher income woman, higher level management woman will often return to work sooner (better health care & resources at home?) or work from home & be equally if not more productive than nonpregnant workers (including their male counterparts). Recall, women (on average) get paid 70-80 cents on the dollar which men earn. I think they have earned some "sick" time.
1.business that employ less thant 50 people are not required to hold the position for a person taking Family/medical leave
2. in order to be covered by the family medical leave act,the employee has to have been working for the employer for at least 12 months prior to leave, and had worked at least 1200 hours
3. don't add all new staff to medical insurance immediately, many places have a 90 day waiting period, jsut be consistent with men and women
@bob1008224
Why is this a right wing left wing thing for you? Does everything have to be political? I'm sure they're plenty of right wing employers that bend over backwards for their pregnant employees, and their are plenty of liberal employers that discriminate because they don't want to go through the inconvenience of hiring a pregnant woman.
What I couldnt belive was a woman hired on the same day as I that took 3 months off for each of her 2 pregnacies and called off sick on a christmas and easter she was supposed to work as she didnt have child care arranged, was higher on seniority than me due to her name being farther forward in the alphabet than mine. By the time I left that job I had worked there 9 months more than she had, not including her gimp months.
Does the employer have to pick up the health insurance? I've seen several cases where the underling motive for the prospective employee was to get health coverage and then blow off the job post pregnancy. It's got to be fair both ways.
I was discussing this, just today, since I am 9 months pregnant. Silly how this discrimination is still around.
Then after the baby comes, and you still want to work, you are not accomidated for a place to pump breast milk, that is against the law, too.
Just curious, how many employees are in your workplace?
In my workplace, the nursing moms leave the workplace for 20 minutes every 2-3 hours to pump their breast milk. We are nurses, and the frequent breaks leave the floor for the rest of us to manage, understaffed.
I am a retired registered nurse and I bet this, so called nurse, is not complaining about the smokers who vacate the premises every hour or two.
I sincerely hope that I never find myself in a hospital in which the nurses want new mothers to take a serious financial hit just when they need their jobs to take care of a newborn.
But, hey...who cares whether a newborn baby is provided for? What really matters is whether or not "God bless America" has to do a little extra work.
junicon, why does your baby need to be everyone's burden? i didn't have a baby, why am i doing extra work?
richard, not everyone smokes or thinks it's ok for smokers to take a smoke break anytime they want.
Hypothetical question HATR: would you say the same thing about a fellow employee who was responsible for an elderly parent? If they needed occasional time off, etc?
no, cause that's not a choice.
HATR-HURTER I've had co-workers and friends lose their jobs because they had an elderly parent to help care for. Employers used the excuse that, "You've become unreliable." It's certainly not a 2-way street.
I have a question, I was working with a pregnant woman and we both had to go to the other end of the building. I am about 2 feet taller than her but even when not pregnant she was wider around the waist than I am at the shoulders. I got to the other end of the building & started to work several min. before she waddled up. She had complained to my supervisor that I ran away from her. I told my supervisor that running involves not having a foot on the floor & that we can swing by security and prove that I did not via CCTV. I explained that I had carried 15pounds of stuff and she had nothing, but was short of breath from the waddle there.
My question is should I have walked at moonlit stroll waddle speed with my co-worker or should I have taken the stuff I carried and been half way done by the time she got there basicly leaving her doing nothing but catching her breath?
Explain why walking together has anything to do with the nature of your job responsibilities. Were you prohibited from going to the bathroom instead of walking with her, for example?
I believe you're leaving important information out of the story, that would tend to discredit whatever point you think you were trying to make.
Blah, blah, blah. Someone is always being discriminated against. How about not discriminating against employers who want productive employees?
You are so politically incorrect - my favorite!
exactly, if the subway applicant was given the "minor accomodation" that they mention in this article of a seat to sit in instead of standing she would barely be doing anything. how many people do you think are gonna wait for her to move her stool 4 times down table for each sandwich she makes? it's not fair to her but it's not fair to the employer either. the reason people are standing in most of those situations is because they are about to have to move again.
there's a way around it anyway though. just don't say that you can't hire them cause of the pregnancy. sorry but we offered the job to someone else will do.
Guess this right wing idiot kinda forgot: women get pregnant. Families happen. Betcha he thinks he just was born a nice, rich, god-perfect guy with no mom at all.
Poorly stated, but a point well taken with me. And they should have titled the article as Discrimination, not bias (since bias is not a bad word, and that is not what they meant).
Discrimination is against the law...some bias...well that is life. Best move past it. There is a bias that exists for single people too...the bias is they are expected to take up the slack to accomodate others, to pay more taxes so married (w and wo/kids) don't have to. We all got something to complain about...but we should all try to accomodate others.
Since it was called bias I thought it would be about how preg women get over at work. Light duty means sit and gossip for many jobs. Unless the job is flipping burgers a temp would have to get at least a weeks worth of orientation before being productive
I have a question, I was working with a pregnant woman and we both had to go to the other end of the building. I am about 2 feet taller than her but even when not pregnant she was wider around the waist than I am at the shoulders. I got to the other end of the building & started to work several min. before she waddled up. She had complained to my supervisor that I ran away from her. I told my supervisor that running involves not having a foot on the floor & that we can swing by security and prove that I did not via CCTV. I explained that I had carried 15pounds of stuff and she had nothing, but was short of breath from the waddle there.
My question is should I have walked at moonlit stroll waddle speed with my co-worker or should I have taken the stuff I carried and been half way done by the time she got there basicly leaving her doing nothing but catching her breath?
Explain why walking together has anything to do with the nature of your job responsibilities. Were you prohibited from going to the bathroom instead of walking with her, for example?
I believe you're leaving important information out of the story, that would tend to discredit whatever point you think you were trying to make.
Thanks for providing us with a great example of the kind of bizarre thinking that is all too common from today's conservatives.
There is no inconsistency whatsoever. No one has denied that pregnancy costs businesses money. (Maternity leave, for example.) However, ***DESPITE THAT FACT*** it is unethical, immoral, and illegal to discriminate against pregnant women.
I know this is hard for the conservative mind to grasp, but some things are just WRONG -- and they are ALWAYS WRONG. Immoral actions do not become morally acceptable merely because they can save you money.
Do you get it now?
Come on! I guess if you ever actually owned your own business you can see that a pregnant woman will not be able to perform most physically demanding jobs. You have the right to hire the best candidate for the job and a task that requires physical labor, like standing on your feet and making sandwiches for 8 hours, cannot be performed unless the workplace has the capasity to be able to accomodate. The guy was stupid in saying that she was pregnant and she can't have the job. He should have taken her application, thanked her for the interest, and hired someone that can perform the task.
Exactly.
Just a note, since I worked at subway myself during college- there would be tasks she could do while sitting on a stool there. Not the whole shift, but at least part of it. Prep work, such as slicing veggies, filling condiment bottles, etc., could be done sitting rather than standing. She also could have been stationed at the register during busy times when they have three people at the counter to help customers.
All of which are unnecessary labor costs and unneeded production delays. Subway is there to sell sandwiches not save the world. I'm sure there were other jobs she could have done in other businesses as well. In the end, she got paid and never lifted a finger.
Make up ypur mind, is it descrimination (uneducated preference) or bias (educated preference)?
It's reality. Subway didnt knock her up.
They only want to protect fetuses until they begin to grow into a child.
sorry richard but you are so off on that one.
At what point can we expect a pregnant woman to realize she may be the inappropriate candidate for a position, due to the demands of pregancy and caring for a newborn? Businesses can't discriminate, but perhaps a pregnant woman could have a bit more realization about her circumstances.
if you were pregnant and neede the money the last thing on your mind would be anyone else. you'd only be thinking about surviving.
Why does the right hate families while telling us they're pro family? These guys expect children to be born....somehow. They don't want to pay for them, but they sure as hell want the workers. It's about time business owners realize human beings aren't machines for their pleasure. THIS is why we need UNIONS. You guys think the need for unions is dead? Just look at the comments on this thread
If having or not having a job is going to make or break your "survival" you probably are not in any kind of financial position to be having a kid anyway. People need to start waiting until they have sufficient income streams outside of their jobs before having kids.
So only wealthy people should have kids? I'd guess 99% of Americans need a job to survive.
This will probably shock you, but back in the day, couples used to actually save money and plan for their children.
Really.
According to the NY Times, it costs the average family over $222,000 to raise a child from birth to age 18. Don't know how much it cost "back in the day", but I do know that at most income levels, by the time a couple had that much money set aside, the woman would be too old to get pregnant. The way most people do it is, they both work. Like it or not, there will be women of child-bearing age in the workforce, and they will get pregnant. Most first world countries have figured this out. Why can't the US?
DRK-what about the ladasha with her 15 illegitimate kids. She didnt have to put any money aside. See the youtube vid- I Got 15 Kids & 3 Babydaddys-SOMEONE'S GOTTA PAY FOR ME & MY KIDS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bavou_SEj1E
It shouldnt be illegal.. pregnancy is a CHOICE. Why should yopur employer be burdened with YOUR choice to have a child. They have a business to run and other employees to take care of. So I guess YOUR selfish decision to have a child means the other employees have to pick up YOUR slack while your out?
And as far as "low income women who become pregnant".. if your're low income WHY IN THE H3LL are you having a kid?? You can barely feed yourself and now due to your irresponsible behavior we all have to take care of you AND your kid?
Why dont some of you selfish, entitled goons learn some personal responsibility and stop expecting society to subsidize your personal choices.
while you're out they can hire a temp. from the entitled part i would assume you're a republican. if you don't want to take care of their child offer the birth control that republicans are so against and you wouldn't have to. a pregnancy is not necessarily a choice, accidents happen.
HATR_HURTER
Perhaps the pregnant woman is a republican as well ..... after all, she is having the baby.
Hobgoblin - Not always a choice....birth control is not 100% and it can fail. What makes you assume that all pregnant women are irresponsible or even one pregnant woman is irresponsble. What's make you think that a pregnant woman is any less deserving of providing for her family than any other person. Pregnancy is a protected state now in this country directly because of attitudes like yours.
Hobgoblin - Not always a choice....birth control is not 100% and it can fail. What makes you assume that all pregnant women are irresponsible or even one pregnant woman is irresponsble. What's make you think that a pregnant woman is any less deserving of providing for her family than any other person. Pregnancy is a protected state now in this country directly because of attitudes like yours.
Obviously there are some jobs where a pregnant woman can not perform the job. I have worked for a big pharmaceutical company that simply had the pregnant women do the parts of the job that did not expose her to potential harm. Other people covered for what a pregnant woman couldn't do and those people stopped doing other parts of the job that the pregnant woman was now doing. It wasn't completely fair...but it was a good compromise. Junicon is right. There are some things that are not "profitable" and not always fair to everyone but they are the RIGHT things to do. I don't understand why so many conservatives are completely willing to crawl up a women's uterus and tell her what to do with it- but are the same people who don't think society should help any child that needs help. WTF?
The right apparently feels pregnancy is a disease. Children are not to be encouraged. Families are to be controlled. But they're pro life. However the hell this works out. What this is is a call to serfdom on the part of the right against the middle class. This is class warfare. If they had their way, only the rich would have kids. More proof the right views the US middle class as an enemy.
Of course only those who can be financially independent outside of their jobs should have kids. Have you LOOKED at the world lately? No job is certain in this world anymore. Without multiple streams of income, people shouldn't be having kids.
Come on now...at this point everyone should be aware of the misogynist Rightwing agenda. They are NOT "Pro-LIFE".... they are "Pro-BIRTH". They want to overpopulate the earth but have no intentions of helping the children of the poor, immigrants or middle class. They want to FORCE these women to have the children but don't give a rat's ass what happens to them afterwards. On the other hand these biblethumping hypocrites are wrecklessly pumping out kid after kid w/absolutely no concern for the environment, the planet or it's rescources. They want to deny the rest of us the right to chose when or IF we even want to have a family. They want all women to be stay-at-home breeding machines.... barefoot, continually pregnant and absolutely subservient. Republicans see women as 2nd class citizens who deserve NOTHING and who must be DEPENDENT on them for everything... only if you're not a biblethumping white conservative woman they pretty much just want you dead.
That's BS. Yes, once in a blue moon, but it's not nearly as common as the excuse. In other words, most women who claim their birth control failed are lying.
I absolutely agree. A person has no business bringing a child into the world until they are able to properly care for them. And that might mean saving money/vacation time so that you can stay home post-partem. If you intentionally get pregnant, you are making a lifestyle choice that will cost you dearly, in so many ways. Some people think having a child is like adopting a puppy. And, if you truly can not afford to leave work for a few months, have not finished your education, are unemployed, or can not count on the financial support of a husband, I need to point out that abortion is still a safe and legal option. And then have a baby when you are more able to bear the burden of decreased work productivity. It really is a Mother's burden to bear..fair or not.
pregnancy is not always a choice. It happens. Hmm, if those who are against contraception have their way, it will happen more often.Anti contraception, Anti abortion, Anti working pregnant mothers. Yikes, sounds like the return of the cave man days.
justsaying1043
Did we read the same article?
Pregancy is not always a choice? What? As a father, I know exactly how children are made. And it sure as heck was a choice. I chose to have sex with my wife. And now I have children. You knew the risks going into it. You chose to have sex (rape victims aside). It is a choice.
Do I think it's wrong to discriminate against a pregnant woman, yes. Do I think it makes good business sense to hire someone that isn't pregnant? Absolutely. But it doesn't make it right.
Hobgob-what about the ladasha with her 15 illegitimate kids. She didnt have to put any money aside. See the youtube vid- I Got 15 Kids & 3 Babydaddys-SOMEONE'S GOTTA PAY FOR ME & MY KIDS
Hater- Not all jobs can be done by someone off the street. Some jobs require licences and even flipping burgers requires some orientation. For many jobs temps are only 1/2 a worker but still more capable than a preg woman.
You know conservatives always love to have it both ways.....try to deny access to birth control anyway they can then blame the women and say it's her fault that she got pregnant with her irresponsible behavior!! If women and like minded men don't see the real agenda behind every Republican and every conservative then this little excerise on this vine will prove it. It's discrimination against women plain and simple. It's wanting to take women out of the competition for good jobs and for any possibility of equality with men. As usual....men of the conservative persuasion are feeling emasculinated by successful women and they read too much bible nonsense that tells them they are superior. The simple truth of the matter is that in this day and age it is illegal, unlawful, discriminatory....any way you want to say it....to fire or deny women access to jobs strictly on the basis of a pregnancy. Now that the cat's out of the bag...how long will it be before some Republican bozo brings forth a bill allowing employers to discriminate against pregnant women? Any takers.....
I don't understand why she is out there anyway. She should be at home preparing meals and doing laundry.
Barefoot, pregnant and chained to the stove?
How 16th century thinking.
If you had your druthers, you'd deny them the right to vote, prohibit them from driving, and make them walk X number of feet behind you when both of you are out in public.
There are several countries in the Middle East that would accommodate your thinking. Of course, you'd have to change your choice of religion. Maybe Iran? Maybe Saudi Arabia?
The advantage (in your perverted thinking) would be that you could have up to four wives to mistreat as you wish.
Mike in Baltimore:
Actually 1950s but I think it goes farther back than the 16th Century especially if you cite Middle Eastern nations. I mean we are talking Old Testiment stuff Mike. You have 4 wives you mistreat ... you're my hero. But I bet they had many more in the 16th Century.
You're a total moron. You represent that fringe liberal loser that feels the need to take issue and get angry at every opportunity. No sence of humor. I guess you must unemployed and pregnant.
That was some funny $hit. Get a life. Then again, you are from Baltimore.
Dang it, that is what I am doing, (chained to a stove, running laudry cycles, but also holding a sick baby too. )
Hi HO, HI Ho, off to do laudry and prep dinner I go....( I am so darn valuable to my family as a female at home mom, taking care of my beloved children and husband.)
And I am doing it with a smile on my face, while I blab on here a minute or two, inbetween cycles.....
If a pregnant woman or one who has children can no longer do an adequate job due to absenteeism or other factors, she should be terminated. Businesses need reliable employees.
ken - It's attitudes like yours that prompted the Pregnancy Discrimination laws in the first place. Accomodations can and should be made for pregnant women in the workplace....it's a no brainer. The only reason these biases still exist is that for many decades and possibly centuries, women were discriminated against...men got away with this because they didn't get pregnant and labor and business practices focused around the paradym of males. Not so much anymore since women make up at least 50% of the labor force and maybe more. Get used to it buddy and stop your knuckle dragging perspective.
Ah, the profamily right. People have no rights. Only business owners have rights, including the right to reproduce.
God, we need UNIONS!
Apparently Retardicans have never heard of "Temp" services. ::::eye roll::::
Bob-1008224
Communism failed Bob. I guess you didn't get the memo.
pregnant women are not efficient in the workplace(subway has a counter that is not wide enough for a pot bellied tag along). They dont value the job and they dont really have to work as they get everything from us the taxpayer. why would an employer want to hire someone who will only work 3out of 12months, and has no expectation that he will ever see that employee again after the childbirth. It may not be ethical to discriminate against a pregnant woman but it is financial suicice to hire one.
Who the hell are you to speak for ANY woman, let alone pregnant women? THIS is what the American right has become. So anti-middle class that even FAMILIES are prohibited! Is there NO limit to the power of the right wing elites who are destroying this country? No rights for the middle class at all.
Families aren't prohibited. It's just that irresponsible procreation is a bad thing. It's bad for the employer, it's bad for society, it's bad for the child, and it's even bad for the mother.
Irresponsible procreation would involve trying to work at a job that isn't compatible with pregnancy and returning to any job before the child is old enough to be in school.
You should not have children unless you are married, because yes it takes two parents to provide an appropriate environment in which to raise a child, and unless you can afford the appropriate time to bond with mommy -- not daddy. Mommy. Babies and toddlers need uninterrupted time with and attention from their MOTHERS.
Anything less is irresponsible. Period. Flame away, it won't change the fact that you're just selfish if you have children you can't care for properly. That's why the kids are such a mess today. Oh yeah -- I know -- not YOUR kid. YOUR kid is perfect, and will be until he shoots up the school or hangs himself in the closet. And you still won't have a clue.
I've worked for my company for nine years, and had two children in that time. I took 8 weeks maternity leave the first time, and 4 weeks the second (both were medically necessary c-sections). Some of my work was covered by others, some was left waiting for me to catch up on when I got back. Luckily I have an office job and was able to work until 24-48 hours before delivery. After I got back, pumping milk was done during lunch breaks, off the clock. Maternity leave and doctor visits were/are covered by my sick time and vacation time. I'm not efficient, don't value my job, and get everything from the taxpayer? I don't think so.
Jim, you beast! A pot belly drag along????? U are something else. What a beast! May a thousand pregnant women descend upon your drooling carcass and beat you about with their diaper bags, while chanting what an ass y are! Ye beast! PS, I hope you are audited by the IRS and that God sends you a raging case of boils, hemorrhoids and diarrhea! Also, may you get a fungal infection and a bad cold today and have your favorite pair of shoes eaten and discover your wife inside and outside has painted the house your least favorite color...and that you would pee yourself today at work.....u suck!
Hey Cassie, Judge much? And returning to any job before the child is old enough to be in school. What about the woman who was married under the eyes of god and their husband divorces them. What are her choices... Does she work? Does she stay home and collect welfare since " Babies and toddlers need uninterrupted time with and attention from their MOTHERS."
Just curious to what works in your anger filled one sided strange utopia you live in .
It's not the "Liberal Media" telling anyone anything, it happens to be the laws of the United States, which applies to all of us. Why are so many people always complaining about the "liberal Media", it' supposed to be liberal, otherwise it is just a mouthpiece for the government and our blessed forefathers and the wisdom to see that a free and fair press is the only weapon against state-dominated media. Just ask the Russians how they like having the government own and operate their media, thank the lord for the internet.
That Subway manager wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed. There's lots of ways to not hire someone if it's obvious they aren't right for the job.
You know there wouldn't even be an argument if males could have children. Then they would all whine about the accomodations needed. It is sad in this day and age that we even have to have these laws and there are employers out there that still don't follow the law. If a man had to pump his breasts, companies would build a special office...if a man bore a child they would get 6 months off paid! The only reason laws like this have to be enacted is because men and woman are most of the time not treated alike in the workplace. And yes, I work in Human Resources. Luckily enough my executive director and most of our office are women, the men are the minority.
It's amazing that for years and years most infants made it just fine on formula now all these women demand breast pumping breaks.
Call me cynical,don't really care.
Um, it's why nature GAVE breasts.
FYI... over time research has shown that formula is a poor substitute for breast milk which is "complete" in nutritive and immunizing properties. Also the breast-feeding experience creates a strong bond between mother and child. Your statement just shows that all you care about is "convenience". It is truly sad that the men in this country are such misogynists. All of Europe and other industrialized countries laugh at us. Their businesses value FAMILIES and people are expected to work to live, not live to work. They have 4 days weeks and 6-8 wks of vacation a year because employers realize that to have happy, productive employees you have to let people have balance between their personal and business lives. That's also why they have happier, healthier, more satisifed citizens and a much higher standard of living. I can't understand how Rightwingers claim to be "family this and family that" when in reality they HATE doing or contributing or sacrificing or making accomodations to ensure their employees even have time to SPEND w/their families or the money to support them !!
Breastfeeding also helps to pass along antibodies from the mother to the child- which means less time off work to care for a sick child.
JIM-2140001: wow, just wow. So wrong on so many levels, not sure where to start but, okay, one by one.
"Pregnant women are not efficient in the workplace" - define 'efficient'; which workplace?
"Subway has a counter that is not wide enough for a 'pot bellied tag along'" (really?? can you get any more offensive?) So I suppose Subway won't hire or keep employed a man whose big ol' pot belly hangs over his belt because he's too big to squeeze around the counter, right? At least hers is temporary.
"They don't value the work" - based on what assumption? They applied for it, have been doing it, presumably have not hit the Lotto in the interim so, you know, NEED THE MONEY, which does indeed put a certain value on the work.
"...and they don't really have to work..." -- even if they are supporting themselves, children, extended family "...as they get everything from us the taxpayer." Everything, huh? So you are assuming every woman who gets pregnant immediately is anxious to drop a paying job to take a chance on getting a much lesser amount of temporary money, no guarantees they will quality.
" why would an employer want to hire someone who will only work 3out of 12months,..." why indeed, except most women are not on bedrest for 9 months. I've had 2 kids, was out for 6 weeks and 8 weeks -- and I worked right up to the day I delivered (first one was 2 weeks late, too.) I ran a one-person department but had all those months in advance to plan coverage for my absence, and even fielded questions at home while I was "on leave."
"... and has no expectation that he will ever see that employee again after the childbirth...." Most women DO return after short-term maternity leave, which in this country, unlike the rest of the world is largely unpaid. You have no guarantee that ANY employee who is off on leave for any reason will return to the workforce, or at least to your employ. I wouldn't be surprised if they use their leave time to find a better employer.
"It may not be ethical to discriminate against a pregnant woman [damn straight it's NOT] but it is financial suicice to hire one." I believe you mean SUICIDE. Newsflash: businesses that are predominantly female do not go belly up (pun intended) any more frequently than male-dominated companies.
None and I mean NONE of these men saying these vile things about women should EVER be able to have the pleasure of sex again-ever! ( in a strange and round about way, they are arguing that their mom's who bore them made a bad choice in choosing to have sex and create them, or that if they did make the choice, they should have been stripped of the option to work, if that is what is right for their family.) Jerks!
The problem with these protections is that some of these "reasonable accommodations" may cost more than a low wage employee is worth. Employers should not have to give paid sick leave/maternity leave. Being forced by the government to pick up the tab for someone else's personal decision is tyranny.
Let's see. The right doesn't want govt healthcare. The right doesn't want employers to pay. Seems like the right wants no healthcare at all.
@Bob
Do you have a real argument in favor of these protections, or do you always just rely on non-sequiturs?
Right... so the right doesn't want contraceptives around = more pregnancies. They want to outlaw abortion = more pregnancies. And they don't want to guarantee a woman's job while pregnant. Sorry but it doesn't add up.
This country exists for its people, not for its businesses. People have families. If you don't want to pay for it then move to China where your view of right wing socialism is all the rage. People have rights. Businesses don't.
Without businesses those people you seem to think this country exists for would be starving, It is a two way street, Yes businesses have to make some accomodations for their employees but at some point it makes running the business a losing proposition meaning that when they employees cost more than the amount needed to cover them and make a small profit then the business fails. Then all those people you seem to think that this country exists solely for starve. As far as telling someone to move to China who the heck are you to tell anyone anthing. People like you are why many companies and businesses have fled this country.
bob-1008224:
Communism failed. I guess you didn't get that memo.
It's fair to force small businesses to provide sick/maternity leave if they simply do not have the budget. In many cases everyone should be happy they are providing employment at all. Additionally, however that is not discrimination. It is indeed completely unfair to terminate a person for becoming pregnant or eliminating their position while they are on leave. For the majority of the businesses they focus on in this article the women most likely will indeed return to work because they have to. Although I have seen about a 40% chance that women will return to work immediatley after maternity leave and the rate is even lower for a second child. This still does not give any excuse for companies who eliminate the job while she is still on leave or in some cases before. Have an honest discussion with your employee and schedule a follow up meeting before she is scheudled to return to work so that intentions of both parties are clear and no one is discrimintated against.
When I was young, I had a good job when I became pregnant and then after maternity leave, did not return to work afterwords. There are no guarantees that every pregnancy will end with a live child! I also stayed home with my children 15 years, but I lived a conservative "50s" lifestyle with a working husband. You make your choices! I could have wanted a child as an unwed mother but then I would have "had" to work or "had" to go on welfare.
So yes, I am pro-choice and if an unplanned pregnancy is a financial hardship -Abortion or adoption should be the answer and there should be no discrimination or lack of health care dollars for those choices. Current climate is that abortion is discriminated against.