Pregnancy Accommodations

[A2SG]

Compensation should be up to the employer and the employee should know ahead of time what the situation will be under those circumstances

Because the employer is sacred.

The family.....not so much.

-- A2SG, so much for all that "family values" nonsense, right?

 

[MachZer0]

Because the employer is sacred.

The family.....not so much.

-- A2SG, so much for all that "family values" nonsense, right?

It has nothing to do with being sacred. It's his money. What he does with it is his decision

 

[kermit]

If there's no guarantee that a woman can get light duty, she needs to plan ahead

The idea that there is no light-duty work available in an organization the of size and nature of the UPS is laughable.

I do see your point that a smaller company might have a very limited number of light-duty positions available. But this case is against the UPS not any other company.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

The idea that there is no light-duty work available in an organization the of size and nature of the UPS is laughable.

I do see your point that a smaller company might have a very limited number of light-duty positions available. But this case is against the UPS not any other company.

Care to cite that UPS always has light duty work?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Because the employer is sacred.

The family.....not so much.

-- A2SG, so much for all that "family values" nonsense, right?

Why are you acting like UPS did nothing for this woman?

They provided her with the benefits she was supposed to have. She took paid time off for her fertility treatments and when she couldn't do the job she was hired to do, she then had to take unpaid leave because had ALREADY USED HER PAID TIME. She had a job waiting for her when she came back from maternity leave.

I get that you want the company to do MORE, but stop pretending that they did NOTHING.

If you're really that upset about it, attack the law that allows business to do the minimum like this. Change the law.

 

[kermit]

Care to cite that UPS always has light duty work?

Having worked for the USPS and seeing letter and parcel handling is done, the vast majority of the jobs don't involve lifting. The could have easily put in in any number of temporary work assignments. Also, if UPS is like the USPS people are always looking for an opportunity to fill-in in other positions so that they have an edge if they bid for the job later.

 

[Joykins]

If you're really that upset about it, attack the law that allows business to do the minimum like this. Change the law.

Isn't that precisely what this lawsuit is intended to do?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Isn't that precisely what this lawsuit is intended to do?

I'm good with the lawsuit - other than the fact that UPS changed its policies some time ago. Will the lawsuit CHANGE the law or punish UPS for following the law?

 

[bhsmte]

The idea that there is no light-duty work available in an organization the of size and nature of the UPS is laughable.

I do see your point that a smaller company might have a very limited number of light-duty positions available. But this case is against the UPS not any other company.

UPS is a very large company, but they have many many individual locations.

Certainly, there would be a limit on the number of light duty positions any one location could have and since I worked with UPS before, I know this to be true.

Now, it would appear, this suit is based somewhat on UPS allowing certain things for some employees in the past and this employee wanting the same benefit.

IMO, this case will come down to this; did UPS have any light duty positions available when this person desired one? If not, is UPS fairly consistent with how many light duty positions they can offer at any point in time? Lastly, the courts have generally supported employers, when they do not offer light duty positions, when it would be an undue burden on the business to do so. In other words, if all the light duty positions were filled, would UPS be compelled to take on undue burden to open up another position for this person with a lifting restriction?

 

[Joykins]

I'm good with the lawsuit - other than the fact that UPS changed its policies some time ago. Will the lawsuit CHANGE the law or punish UPS for following the law?

That kind of depends on the ruling, but usually if the Supreme Court is hearing a case they think there is at least the potential to set some kind of precedent on how the law should be interpreted. If they want to leave it alone, they can let lower court rulings stand. A lawsuit that goes to the Supreme Court is definitely a way that a citizen can work to change the law.

 

[AztecSDSU]

The employee needs massive amounts of time off for fertility treatments, gets pregnant and then demands a new job. At some point the entitlement runs out....

 

[kermit]

The employee needs massive amounts of time off for fertility treatments

Using accrued time-off that she earned.

gets pregnant and then demands a new job.

Demands that the same policy exceptions that were made for off-the-job injuries be apply to anyone who has a doctor ordered restriction.

At some point the entitlement runs out....

How is using your earned time and expecting your employers to apply policies with equity an entitlement?

 

[AztecSDSU]

Using accrued time-off that she earned.


Demands that the same policy exceptions that were made for off-the-job injuries be apply to anyone who has a doctor ordered restriction.


How is using your earned time and expecting your employers to apply policies with equity an entitlement?

You are aware there's a difference between an accidental injury and a condition you went out of your way to create for yourself, right?
I'm not saying she wasn't entitled to use it, but it still creates headaches for a business. Then you show up demanding a new job, and that she isn't entitled to, especially for a condition of her own creation. So there's no issue of equity here. She went out and created a situation where she couldn't do her job, so her option was to go on leave. Frankly, that's more than fair.

 

[kermit]

You are aware there's a difference between an accidental injury and a condition you went out of your way to create for yourself, right?
I'm not saying she wasn't entitled to use it, but it still creates headaches for a business. Then you show up demanding a new job, and that she isn't entitled to, especially for a condition of her own creation. So there's no issue of equity here. She went out and created a situation where she couldn't do her job, so her option was to go on leave. Frankly, that's more than fair.

Let's say you are an employer you have 2 employees asking for work resriction. One hurt himself playing football. The other is pregnant.

• Person A: Can't lift more than 20lbs for several months due to an occurrence outside the work place
• Person B: Can't lift more than 20lbs for several months due to an occurrence outside the work place

Please identify which is which.

Also, are you saying that an accidental pregnancy is different than a planned in this regard?

 

[bhsmte]

Let's say you are an employer you have 2 employees asking for work resriction. One hurt himself playing football. The other is pregnant.

• Person A: Can't lift more than 20lbs for several months due to an occurrence outside the work place
• Person B: Can't lift more than 20lbs for several months due to an occurrence outside the work place

Please identify which is which.

Also, are you saying that an accidental pregnancy is different than a planned in this regard?

I agree with you.

People get hurt, whether it is at work (would be workman's comp) or at leisure activities. In fact, most employers would likely rather have an employee hurt themselves playing football, than on the job.

A physical limitation is a physical limitation, when approved by a physician, no matter the reason the limitation has occurred.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

see Deuteronomy(and ACTS, for good instruction from the Creator on how to care for pregnant wife. Not just for the husband, but for the whole community round. (which, naturally, no one can find these days and
there
is a famine in the land, not of the WORD, but of the HEARING OF THE WORD.
axactly as
it is written would happen when people continually disobey , forsake,
and oppose the Creator and His Word.

i.e. neither employer nor employee nor assembly nor family is or even knows what it means to be 'sacred' , set apart to Yhvh, any more.
but,
for the rare ones, ekklesia, truly set apart,
they have no worries, as Yhvh provides as He Promises, even though and through a lot of necessary suffering.

Hebrews 13:5Amplified Bible (AMP)
5 Let your [a]character or moral disposition be free from love of money [including greed, avarice, lust, and craving for earthly possessions] and be satisfied with your present [circumstances and with what you have]; for He [God] Himself has said, I will not in any way fail you nor [c]give you up nor leave you without support.

[I will] not, [d][I will] not, [I will] not in any degree leave you helpless nor forsake nor [e]let [you] down ([f]relax My hold on you)! [[g]Assuredly not!]

the triple emphasis (perhaps the only one in Torah) of His Promise, from Yhvh, IS IN THE ORIGINAL, YES YES YES and AMEIN AMEIN AMEIN in YAHUSHUA HAMASHIACH. IT IS SO.

Because the employer is sacred.

The family.....not so much.

-- A2SG, so much for all that "family values" nonsense, right?

 

[dogs4thewin]

Yes.



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.

Look, I support people what I do NOT support is the government FORCING me to care for others FORCING me to car.

I ALSO believe that people should live within their means IF they HONESTLY cannot afford stuff then allow them to have only what they NEED.

 

[AztecSDSU]

Let's say you are an employer you have 2 employees asking for work resriction. One hurt himself playing football. The other is pregnant.

• Person A: Can't lift more than 20lbs for several months due to an occurrence outside the work place
• Person B: Can't lift more than 20lbs for several months due to an occurrence outside the work place

Please identify which is which.

Also, are you saying that an accidental pregnancy is different than a planned in this regard?

That's a strawman argument, and I suspect you know it. The football injury is accidental, allowing that employee to use some of his/her acquired sick/leave time while they recover. The intentional pregnancy created a situation where that person exhausted all their leave time. The football injury is more than likely a minor thing that, when paired with leave/sick time, means a short term reassignment before the employee resumes normal duties. It is not a situation that is an ongoing problem for the better part of a year.
And yes, accidental pregnancy would be different as well because again, all of the employee's leave/sick time wouldn't have been exhausted and would be available to use to reduce the headaches having to shuffle workers around causes.

What this really comes down to is more of the old have a vagina = center of the universe mentality.

 

[kermit]

That's a strawman argument, and I suspect you know it. The football injury is accidental, allowing that employee to use some of his/her acquired sick/leave time while they recover. The intentional pregnancy created a situation where that person exhausted all their leave time. The football injury is more than likely a minor thing that, when paired with leave/sick time, means a short term reassignment before the employee resumes normal duties. It is not a situation that is an ongoing problem for the better part of a year.
And yes, accidental pregnancy would be different as well because again, all of the employee's leave/sick time wouldn't have been exhausted and would be available to use to reduce the headaches having to shuffle workers around causes.

What this really comes down to is more of the old have a vagina = center of the universe mentality.

Once again (and speaking of strawmen)...this discussion has nothing to due with time off, it has to due with work restrictions, reasonable accommodations and consistent application of policies.

Also, the time argument is bogus and I suspect you know it. Generally, lifting restrictions for pregnant women is for 6-7 months, some injuries can cause the same restriction for as long or longer.

 

[AztecSDSU]

Once again (and speaking of strawmen)...this discussion has nothing to due with time off, it has to due with work restrictions, reasonable accommodations and consistent application of policies.

Also, the time argument is bogus and I suspect you know it. Generally, lifting restrictions for pregnant women is for 6-7 months, some injuries can cause the same restriction for as long or longer.

True or false: the employee choose to create her own medical condition that left her unable to do the job she agreed to do?

Now, putting on our critical thinking caps, can we see why that would be viewed differently than an injury that occurs as the result of an accident?

Furthermore, we don't really know what the circumstances were related to those sports injuries. Given that most sports injuries for adult athletics are minor muscle pulls or strains, these aren't things at require months of light duty.