Pregnancy Accommodations

[HorsieJuice]

They accommodated her within the law as much as they could.

If her packages weren't that heavy, and a coworker could help, why make a big deal out of it?

While I was working at Home Depot I reinjured my back. I didn't do it at work, I did it outside of work. I knew this could be an issue when I started working, and I did let them know that it could possibly happen. I told my store manager and then I asked people to help me. If I couldn't lift a box, I got a team member to help me. We're instructed to do that anyway, even though the job routinely calls for being able to lift 50 pounds.

I never got an exception while I was working, although my physical therapist said she'd give me one. But *I* made the arrangements to make sure *MY* job got done.

According to the complaint I just posted, she claims that she did make arrangements with other drivers for them to cover the heavier packages, but that UPS refused to allow her to drive anyways.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

According to the complaint I just posted, she claims that she did make arrangements with other drivers for them to cover the heavier packages, but that UPS refused to allow her to drive anyways.

Her mistake was even involving UPS then. If she had the issue solved, it didn't make a difference. She shouldn't have asked for light duty if her job was already mostly light duty and she help with the other stuff.

I guess it would depend on how much it affected the other drivers. Maybe one of them didn't really want to help...


I think it's great when companies can offer more than just the minimum. Good for that company and good for the employees. But when a company is still abiding by the law, I don't have a problem with that either.

 

[HorsieJuice]

Her mistake was even involving UPS then. If she had the issue solved, it didn't make a difference. She shouldn't have asked for light duty if her job was already mostly light duty and she help with the other stuff.

You're assuming that drivers have the freedom to modify their routes w/o informing the company.

I think it's great when companies can offer more than just the minimum. Good for that company and good for the employees. But when a company is still abiding by the law, I don't have a problem with that either.

Whether or not they were abiding by the law remains to be seen.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

You're assuming that drivers have the freedom to modify their routes w/o informing the company.

Right. That's why I said it would depend on how much it affected the other workers. Maybe she had a ton of help and somebody else got a little petty because they didn't get help.

Whether or not they were abiding by the law remains to be seen.

This is most certainly true.

 

[HorsieJuice]

Right. That's why I said it would depend on how much it affected the other workers. Maybe she had a ton of help and somebody else got a little petty because they didn't get help.

What I meant was that even if the other drivers offered to help, she may not have had the authority to accept their help w/o informing UPS.

 

[bhsmte]

What I meant was that even if the other drivers offered to help, she may not have had the authority to accept their help w/o informing UPS.

I think that is a given.

I used to work for a healthcare provider that provided onsite medical services at one of UPS's largest hubs. Trust me, every possible detail of their business and people's roles, are designed with a purpose and are well thought out.

 

[Hetta]

Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case | Fox News

So, I've had four kids, and I was working when I was pregnant with each of them. I took the minimum time offered (in one case I was not offered my job back since I was a temp) and I never asked for special consideration. When I was pregnant with my last little guy, and I needed to go on modified bed rest, I voluntarily left my job.

So I'm not big on the government setting MORE rules for maternity care, because I think that's gonna scare employers away from women even more.

What do y'all think?

I think that the employer should change the duties. From their pov, it makes sense anyway, because if she receives a specific injury related to her pregnancy (I understand that ligaments are looser during pregnancy therefore it's smart not to lift heavy items) she is likely to claim sickness benefit, and they will not have her in the workplace during that period of time which will be additional to the sick leave she can utilize during birth/after the birth. So why wouldn't they want to protect their investment in this woman?

I worked through five pregnancies but I didn't lift and carry anything. I have always worked in a business environment where I had to lift nothing heavier than a pen.

 

[DaisyDay]

Her mistake was even involving UPS then. If she had the issue solved, it didn't make a difference. She shouldn't have asked for light duty if her job was already mostly light duty and she help with the other stuff.

She didn't ask for light duty.

Her doctor's note - which she was told to get when she informed them she was pregnant - mentioned that she should lift more than 20 pounds. She asked to keep her current route and duties.

I guess it would depend on how much it affected the other drivers. Maybe one of them didn't really want to help...

Really? Which one?

I think it's great when companies can offer more than just the minimum. Good for that company and good for the employees. But when a company is still abiding by the law, I don't have a problem with that either.

That's the question, isn't it? Can they accommodate conditions such as having a suspended license or a stroke and not others such as pregnancy?

 

[bhsmte]

She didn't ask for light duty.

Her doctor's note - which she was told to get when she informed them she was pregnant - mentioned that she should lift more than 20 pounds. She asked to keep her current route and duties.

Really? Which one?


That's the question, isn't it? Can they accommodate conditions such as having a suspended license or a stroke and not others such as pregnancy?

To answer your last question, it depends.

Lets say a UPS location has 10 drivers and five of them are women. If all five become pregnant and are not able to perform the physical demands of the job they accepted, will that location be able to reasonably accommodate all five women on light duty, which would either force UPS to hire additional drivers to do the physical work and or, put the burden on the other five drivers.

What I am saying is this, many companies can offer a certain amount of light duty, either from injury or pregnancy as does UPS, but there is not an unlimited amount of light duty available, without placing an undue burden on the business.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

She didn't ask for light duty.

Her doctor's note - which she was told to get when she informed them she was pregnant - mentioned that she should lift more than 20 pounds. She asked to keep her current route and duties.

We must be reading two different accounts then.

Really? Which one?

Why are you asking this? I said MAYBE. It is pure speculation.

That's the question, isn't it? Can they accommodate conditions such as having a suspended license or a stroke and not others such as pregnancy?

It is indeed the question. Also, is accommodating a pregnant woman sexism? I had someone ask me that and I've asked it elsewhere, since men can't get pregnant. Someone else countered with Prostrate Cancer, which doesn't really answer the question. Anyone can get cancer. But only women get pregnant.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Who said I suffered?



Two of my jobs were applied for and gotten while I was pregnant.



Well, theoretically we do. You just have to work for a time before you qualify. And for me, I've currently chosen to accept a job that is classified as temporary, and will be temporary at least through February of 2015. That means I do not qualify for insurance, sick time or vacation days. I get holiday pay and I will get a bonus check this next week. I am an hourly employee (when I go permanent I will be salary) so if I need time off I take it unpaid. I can make it up, though, and I also have the ability to work from home.

So...there's some tradeoffs depending on where you work.

I do with the US would get in line with the rest of the world when it comes to maternity leave for both moms and dads though.

As for this specific case, she used her paid time off when she was getting fertility treatments.



This isn't about family values. I applaud her decision to get fertility treatments and I am glad she was able to get pregnant. But I think she is going over and beyond in suing UPS. I think UPS made the accommodations it was supposed to BY THE LAW. They have since changed those policies so that they are even more accommodating, but they were within the law to do what they did. She did NOT get fired, she had a job waiting for her when she returned.

This was 7 years ago, come to think of it.

I did not say you personally did or did not face that I said the law should be changed to make it so a woman has NO right to expect her job back OR be protected from not being hired since with that condition you KNOW you will NOT meet the standard year requirement for job protected leave provided by the Family Medical Leave Act.

 

[Hetta]

I did not say you personally did or did not face that I said the law should be changed to make it so a woman has NO right to expect her job back OR be protected from not being hired since with that condition you KNOW you will NOT meet the standard year requirement for job protected leave provided by the Family Medical Leave Act.

Last I heard, you were on benefits and not expecting to marry or have a family, so I don't know why you think that you get to put limitations on other women who do work and have a family. Is it jealousy that drives these comments? Thankfully you're not in charge of these policies.

 

[DaisyDay]

We must be reading two different accounts then.

Yours is the Fox News account, right? Mine are NPR and the Washington Post.

Why are you asking this? I said MAYBE. It is pure speculation.

Yeah, based on what? It had already been mentioned by two posters that she did have the cooperation of her coworkers.

It is indeed the question. Also, is accommodating a pregnant woman sexism? I had someone ask me that and I've asked it elsewhere, since men can't get pregnant. Someone else countered with Prostrate Cancer, which doesn't really answer the question. Anyone can get cancer. But only women get pregnant.

So this particular temporary disability should be treated differently from all others because only women can be pregnant? If pregnant women were accommodated because they were women, then yes, it would be sexism, but if they are accommodated because they are temporarily disabled from certain tasks, then no, it is not.

How is your attitude towards this case not "suck it up, kiddo, I did fine"?

 

[Hetta]

I kind of find it hard to understand the attitude of many people towards pregnant women. OTOH, the fetus is sacrosanct, holy, and should be protected but OTOH tough luck if you're pregnant and have to lift a box that causes a miscarriage, it's your fault for being pregnant in the first place. WTH? So is pregnancy only holy and protected when the woman stays at home and does nothing? Or when she's tough enough to handle anything thrown her way? I don't get it. It's like well she made her bed she has to lie in it.

Protection of pregnancy only matters when a woman is considering an abortion. Otherwise, nobody cares.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Last I heard, you were on benefits and not expecting to marry or have a family, so I don't know why you think that you get to put limitations on other women who do work and have a family. Is it jealousy that drives these comments? Thankfully you're not in charge of these policies.

maybe, however I do WANT to work and quite frankly if I WERE intending to have a family, which for health reasons and others I plan not to do so but if I was GOING to I would indeed hold myself to that standard.

In addition, remember I DO believe in holding EVERYONE to that standard not just women and not just women that are expecting ANY person who finds that HE OR she will need to take an extended leave prior ANY time prior to reaching a year with a particular employer.

As for marrying, I may I may not I am in NO hurry to do so, but I do not recall stating I do NOT intend to do so.

 

[HorsieJuice]

maybe, however I do WANT to work and quite frankly if I WERE intending to have a family, which for health reasons and others I plan not to do so but if I was GOING to I would indeed hold myself to that standard.

In addition, remember I DO believe in holding EVERYONE to that standard not just women and not just women that are expecting ANY person who finds that HE OR she will need to take an extended leave prior ANY time prior to reaching a year with a particular employer.

As for marrying, I may I may not I am in NO hurry to do so, but I do not recall stating I do NOT intend to do so.

The reality that you fail to appreciate is that your perspective is grossly skewed by your disabilities and by the fact that you've never had to support yourself. You have no idea how challenging it can be to actually go out and live, including finding work that pays well enough to keep the lights on. Your theories and notions about what should and should not be are not borne out of experience, but rather out of reading things on the internet. Your existence is only as pleasant as it is because of the safeguards put in place for which you begrudge others for using.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Yours is the Fox News account, right? Mine are NPR and the Washington Post.

I've read more than just the article I linked here. I've read several times that she asked for modified light duty.

Yeah, based on what? It had already been mentioned by two posters that she did have the cooperation of her coworkers.

Do you know what speculation is? Do you know what guessing is?

Sheesh, Daisy. I made a comment. Why are you being so hostile about it? Do you think it's impossible that someone might not like having to help out a coworker?

So this particular temporary disability should be treated differently from all others because only women can be pregnant? If pregnant women were accommodated because they were women, then yes, it would be sexism, but if they are accommodated because they are temporarily disabled from certain tasks, then no, it is not.

Is that your answer? I clearly remember ASKING A QUESTION. I didn't say it was sexism. I asked if it could be.

How is your attitude towards this case not "suck it up, kiddo, I did fine"?

Oh there's someone here with an attitude, alright, but it ain't me.

I did what I had to do. I knew one job I wouldn't be able to do the job I was hired for, so I left voluntarily. I didn't expect the business to accommodate me. That's not "suck it up", that's "this is what I did".

 

[Hetta]

The reality that you fail to appreciate is that your perspective is grossly skewed by your disabilities and by the fact that you've never had to support yourself. You have no idea how challenging it can be to actually go out and live, including finding work that pays well enough to keep the lights on. Your theories and notions about what should and should not be are not borne out of experience, but rather out of reading things on the internet. Your existence is only as pleasant as it is because of the safeguards put in place for which you begrudge others for using.

QFT x a billion.

It's interesting to read how the other half lives and how they don't have to make any decisions whatsoever for themselves, but think they should or could be able to make decisions for millions of others. SMH.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

QFT x a billion.

It's interesting to read how the other half lives and how they don't have to make any decisions whatsoever for themselves, but think they should or could be able to make decisions for millions of others. SMH.

Yeah, government does it every day.

 

[Hetta]

Yeah, government does it every day.

I think it's kind of silly to suggest that senators don't have to make decisions for themselves. So far as I'm aware, the majority are married, have kids, and kind of have a job too.