Pregnancy Accommodations

[PreachersWife2004]

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.

These are guys that will, for the most part, never understand what it's like to live paycheck to paycheck. They won't know what it's like to debate whether to keep a job or quit a job because you're pregnant. They don't know what it's like to stand in the WIC line.

Yet, we trust them to make the decisions that affect those of us who do every day.

 

[Hetta]

These are guys that will, for the most part, never understand what it's like to live paycheck to paycheck. They won't know what it's like to debate whether to keep a job or quit a job because you're pregnant. They don't know what it's like to stand in the WIC line.

Of course that's true. But why is then that you support those who would like to remove benefits to help struggling families?

Yet, we trust them to make the decisions that affect those of us who do every day.

So run for office! Well, you can try, but you will never have the millions that it takes to get there. That is what is wrong with the process.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Of course that's true. But why is then that you support those who would like to remove benefits to help struggling families?

Uh...what?

So run for office! Well, you can try, but you will never have the millions that it takes to get there. That is what is wrong with the process.

I had my fun in politics already. And you don't necessarily have to have millions...I've helped run numerous campaigns where we really had to be tight with the budget. THOSE candidates I appreciate, because they know how to stretch a buck.

 

[AztecSDSU]

I think you should deal with the consequences of your personal decisions, not your employer. It's pretty unreasonable to show up to work one day, announce you got pregnant, and then expect your employer to bend over backwards trying to find something you can do because you can't do what you were hired to do. It's even more unreasonable to propose the government get involved in coercing employers to deal with their employee's personal lives and decisions.

 

[dogs4thewin]

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.

so you are suggesting that I do not know what it takes to run a household? You are suggesting that I figure money grows on trees or that it is easy to find a job in this economy? I am young green in the ways of the world and can be immature but I am not THAT out there.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

I think you should deal with the consequences of your personal decisions, not your employer. It's pretty unreasonable to show up to work one day, announce you got pregnant, and then expect your employer to bend over backwards trying to find something you can do because you can't do what you were hired to do. It's even more unreasonable to propose the government get involved in coercing employers to deal with their employee's personal lives and decisions.

With the rate of 1.21 million abortions in america every year. I support the idea that an employer must do everything in his power to support the mother to be. One human life is worth more than all the money in the world. 21% is because of finances.

Source
http://www.operationrescue.org/about-abortion/abortions-in-america/

 

[Hetta]

No, the fetus is only important if a woman is seeking an abortion. Otherwise, protecting it is "unreasonable."

 

[HorsieJuice]

so you are suggesting that I do not know what it takes to run a household?

Yes.

You are suggesting that I figure money grows on trees or that it is easy to find a job in this economy? I am young green in the ways of the world and can be immature but I am not THAT out there.

Well, based on some of your comments (particularly those relating to how people should just choose to die if they can't afford medical care), I would beg to differ - your ideas ARE "THAT out there." Either you're immature or you're one of the coldest, most openly cruel and sadistic people I've ever come across. Given the option between seeing you as either immature or the embodiment of evil, I choose to give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I think you should deal with the consequences of your personal decisions, not your employer. It's pretty unreasonable to show up to work one day, announce you got pregnant, and then expect your employer to bend over backwards trying to find something you can do because you can't do what you were hired to do. It's even more unreasonable to propose the government get involved in coercing employers to deal with their employee's personal lives and decisions.

I think a GOOD employer will always make every reasonable accommodation.

But what an employer CAN do and what the public thinks they SHOULD do sometimes are two different concepts.

 

[A2SG]

This isn't about family values.

Clearly.

I just find it funny that where once we heard cries of "family values!" from conservatives, and now they're all about how business owners making money is the single most important issue ever, and how everything else takes a backseat to furthering the agenda of business owners making money....even the family, which I guess isn't the backbone of our society any more.

-- A2SG, whereas making money is paramount and sacrosanct.....

 

[A2SG]

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.

Between saying pregnant woman don't have a right to have their job when they get back from maternity leave and saying a fetus or embryo has more rights than pregnant women do....you'd think conservatives hate pregnant women for some reason! I can't understand it....did a pregnant woman kick their puppy or something? You'd think conservatives had a thing against women who want to be mommies.

-- A2SG, nah, that'd be way too freudian.....

 

[AztecSDSU]

With the rate of 1.21 million abortions in america every year. I support the idea that an employer must do everything in his power to support the mother to be. One human life is worth more than all the money in the world. 21% is because of finances.

Source
Abortions In America

Then why don't you volunteer to pay child support to these women? Are you giving them absolutely every spare penny you have?

 

[AztecSDSU]

I think a GOOD employer will always make every reasonable accommodation.

But what an employer CAN do and what the public thinks they SHOULD do sometimes are two different concepts.

We all go to work every day expecting our employers to honor the terms under which they hired us. If you don't agree to work graveyard shifts then you expect that your employer will not ask you to work them. If you agreed to work for $20 an hour you expect your employer to deliver that salary, and so on. Therefore, it is equally incumbent upon employees to go to work and honor their side of the bargain. It doesn't mean your employer is bad for expecting you to own up to the deal you made. I think it fosters good relations when employers do what they can to accommodate situations that arise. But that isn't always possible, it shouldn't be expected, and the government definitely shouldn't be involved.

 

[Kalevalatar]

How do European countries handle this problem? or are Americans too proud to look to someone else for answers?
If something works elsewhere why not copy it, businesses do it all the time.

In Finland, the Occupational Safety and Health Act Section 11 – Work that causes particular risks states that

(2) If work or working conditions may cause a particular risk to a pregnant employee or the unborn child and the hazard cannot be eliminated, the employer shall aim to transfer the employee to suitable work tasks for the time of pregnancy.
​

If impossible, then

Section 23 – Employees leaving off work

(1) If the work causes a serious risk to an employee’s own or other employees’ life or health, the employee has the right to leave off such work.
(2) The employer or his or her representative shall be informed of the employee leaving off the work as soon as possible. The right to leave off work continues to exist until the employer has eliminated the risk factors or in some other way ensured that the work can be done safely.
(3) Leaving off work shall not restrict working on a larger scale than what is necessary for safety and health. When leaving off work, it must be ensured that the danger that may be caused by this action is as low as possible.
(4) If an employee, in accordance with this section, leaves off work, he or she shall not be liable to compensate for the losses caused by this action.
​

 

[kermit]

Hopefully, she'll lose. If a woman gets pregnant, it is not the employer's fault and the employer should not be forced to suffer a loss because of it

The problem with this stance is that UPS routinely puts people on light-duty or changes jobs assignments for any number of things that are not the fault of the employer. In fact, they will change job assignments if they loose their CDL. Let that last one sink in.... the loss of a required certification for the job doesn't get your fired. But pregnancy get's you an unpaid leave.

Also, we can't discount the fact that as of 2014 UPS included pregnanacy in their policy for light-duty work.

 

[kermit]

Yes, I have kids. Last I recall, it takes nine months for them to arrive which gives the woman time to plan

I get it now....you are chiming in, but don't understand the case.

But then I get that...I mean afterall, you had to click a link and read the whole first sentence to get understand

The Supreme Court is taking up a pregnancy discrimination case with the potential to affect many American women who continue to work throughout their pregnancies.

In this case the woman applied for light duty during her pregnancy because she was told by her doctor to avoid lifting heavy items. This has nothing to do with maternity leave which UPS would grant her if she were not on an unpaid leave before she gave birth.

 

[MachZer0]

The problem with this stance is that UPS routinely puts people on light-duty or changes jobs assignments for any number of things that are not the fault of the employer. In fact, they will change job assignments if they loose their CDL. Let that last one sink in.... the loss of a required certification for the job doesn't get your fired. But pregnancy get's you an unpaid leave.

Also, we can't discount the fact that as of 2014 UPS included pregnanacy in their policy for light-duty work.

Getting fired has nothing to do with it. And those workers who got light duty were either injured on the job or had maladies covered by the ADA

 

[MachZer0]

I get it now....you are chiming in, but don't understand the case.

But then I get that...I mean afterall, you had to click a link and read the whole first sentence to get understand



In this case the woman applied for light duty during her pregnancy because she was told by her doctor to avoid lifting heavy items. This has nothing to do with maternity leave which UPS would grant her if she were not on an unpaid leave before she gave birth.

She was granted leave and subsequently returned to work. She has no complaint

 

[PreachersWife2004]

The problem with this stance is that UPS routinely puts people on light-duty or changes jobs assignments for any number of things that are not the fault of the employer. In fact, they will change job assignments if they loose their CDL. Let that last one sink in.... the loss of a required certification for the job doesn't get your fired. But pregnancy get's you an unpaid leave. Also, we can't discount the fact that as of 2014 UPS included pregnanacy in their policy for light-duty work.

Yes they have since changed their policy. Their argument right now is they were merely doing what the law said. Merely = minimally.

This situation happened back in 2007.

 

[kermit]

Getting fired has nothing to do with it. And those workers who got light duty were either injured on the job or had maladies covered by the ADA

Although UPS provides temporary accommodated work to drivers with on-the-job injuries, ADA disabilities, and DOT-disqualifying conditions, it does not do the same thing for drivers who need workplace accommodations due to pregnancy. See Pet. App. 35a.

So someone who has a DOT-disqualifying conditions that happened off the job will get a new work assignment, but a pregnant who asks for light-duty doesn't. Their policy is that if you lose the required certification to do your job they'll find you another, but if you get pregnant you get an unpaid leave.