Pregnancy Accommodations

[kermit]

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.

Completely irrelevant. If it occurs outside of work, yet affects the employee's ability to do their job for a period of time, it's all the same to the employer.

 

[AztecSDSU]

Completely irrelevant. If it occurs outside of work, yet affects the employee's ability to do their job for a period of time, it's all the same to the employer.

That's just completely absurd. Reasonable accommodations are all about circumstances. Joe needing a few days of light duty because he pulled his hamstring is not the same as this woman needing months of light duty because she made herself pregnant. Unlike things do not have to be treated in a like manner.

 

[A2SG]

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

And pregnant women can....

Ah, who cares about them.

Right?

-- A2SG, sure seems that way....but we must protect the right to make money!

 

[A2SG]

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

I'm actually saying nothing about UPS. It was intended as a comment about the attitude of conservatives displayed here.

-- A2SG, call it a drive-by random comment, if you like....

 

[A2SG]

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

Um.....

-- A2SG, you know what...sometimes, there really isn't a suitable reply....

 

[A2SG]

.....because she made herself pregnant.

Man, that's something you could sell tickets to see!

-- A2SG, and at this point, some cannot be taken seriously any longer....

 

[AztecSDSU]

Man, that's something you could sell tickets to see!

-- A2SG, and at this point, some cannot be taken seriously any longer....

Derp, she literally exhausted all of her sick time undergoing fertility treatments. So yeah, this is something she went out of her way (and out of pocket) to do to herself.

 

[A2SG]

Derp, she literally exhausted all of her sick time undergoing fertility treatments. So yeah, this is something she went out of her way (and out of pocket) to do to herself.

Yup, all by herself. No doctors, no nurses, no medical personnel whatsoever.

All by her lonesome.

Got it.

-- A2SG, still not relevant, but almost as comical....

 

[bhsmte]

Um.....

-- A2SG, you know what...sometimes, there really isn't a suitable reply....

Sometimes, you can just let a post speak for itself.

 

[AztecSDSU]

Yup, all by herself. No doctors, no nurses, no medical personnel whatsoever.

All by her lonesome.

Got it.

-- A2SG, still not relevant, but almost as comical....

So the doctors and nurses just showed up and her house, forced fertility drugs upon her, and then inseminated her huh? Derp, I'm pretty sure she had to seek out, and pay for a good share of, all these things. So yeah, this is a choice she made, by herself, and a situation she willed into existence. Service providers don't make those choices for people, you do understand this right? Your doctor can't force fertility drugs down your throat and insist you get pregnant.

Therefore, there's plenty of very reasonable cause for an employer to be less forgiving in accommodation of a situation YOU created for YOURSELF as opposed to how someone might treat an accident. In addition to the fact that the scope and duration of this situation is significantly greater than what minor sports injuries require. Of course, that said, in neither instance is it incumbent upon the employer to accommodate off the job injuries.

 

[A2SG]

So the doctors and nurses just showed up and her house, forced fertility drugs upon her, and then inseminated her huh? Derp, I'm pretty sure she had to seek out, and pay for a good share of, all these things. So yeah, this is a choice she made, by herself, and a situation she willed into existence. Service providers don't make those choices for people, you do understand this right? Your doctor can't force fertility drugs down your throat and insist you get pregnant.

Nor does anyone do all of this by herself.

Not that it matters, though. After all, you don't get injured playing football all by yourself either, so we're well into irrelevant country here.

Therefore, there's plenty of very reasonable cause for an employer to be less forgiving in accommodation of a situation YOU created for YOURSELF as opposed to how someone might treat an accident. In addition to the fact that the scope and duration of this situation is significantly greater than what minor sports injuries require. Of course, that said, in neither instance is it incumbent upon the employer to accommodate off the job injuries.

Why? Oh right, because the employer's right to make money is sacred, and family isn't. I forgot. How silly of me!

-- A2SG, welcome to the new conservatism, all about money, all the time: no longer paying lip service to family values!

 

[MachZer0]

Derp, she literally exhausted all of her sick time undergoing fertility treatments. So yeah, this is something she went out of her way (and out of pocket) to do to herself.

A failure to adequately plan on her part does not constitute an emergency on her employer's part

 

[AztecSDSU]

Nor does anyone do all of this by herself.

Not that it matters, though. After all, you don't get injured playing football all by yourself either, so we're well into irrelevant country here.

Service providers are not actors in decisions, they are service providers. She made the decisions herself, and is therefore alone in that decision. If you get hurt playing football you did so because YOU made the decision to play. The difference here is her situation is exactly what she intended to create when she made all these unilateral decisions. Nobody playing sports does so with the intention of getting hurt. It can happen, but its never the desired outcome.

Why? Oh right, because the employer's right to make money is sacred, and family isn't. I forgot. How silly of me!

-- A2SG, welcome to the new conservatism, all about money, all the time: no longer paying lip service to family values!

Taking responsibility for the decision you make is just being an adult. Her choices are not her employer's problem. Just like her employer's choices are not her problem.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Why? Oh right, because the employer's right to make money is sacred, and family isn't. I forgot. How silly of me!

-- A2SG, welcome to the new conservatism, all about money, all the time: no longer paying lip service to family values!

People don't go into business to "help others". They go into business because they have the product that someone wants. This is not a "conservative" principle - it is the model of most businesses. If a business does not generate profit, it cannot survive.

If you want to go into business to help people, it's called a non-profit.

My family is MY family and MY responsibility, not my employer's. This is also not a conservative principle. We don't expect others to take care of us - we do it ourselves.

You want a business to stay out of your bedroom, right? But yet you expect to cover what happens AFTER you're in the bedroom. That makes a lot of sense.

 

[kermit]

That's just completely absurd. Reasonable accommodations are all about circumstances.

That is completely false. I work in management and the circumstances of the need and the duration are not a factor in determining what is and what is not a reasonable accommodating.

 

[bhsmte]

That is completely false. I work in management and the circumstances of the need and the duration are not a factor in determining what is and what is not a reasonable accommodating.

I have been in management for a long time and I agree. In fact, arbitrarily determining accommodations based on certain circumstances can open up a company to law suits and is why how their policy is written (and followed) is so critical.

 

[kermit]

A failure to adequately plan on her part does not constitute an emergency on her employer's part

She should have planned on her doctor ordering a lifting restriction and then planned on her employer denying something that they routinely approve?

 

[AztecSDSU]

That is completely false. I work in management and the circumstances of the need and the duration are not a factor in determining what is and what is not a reasonable accommodating.

Complete and utter nonsense. The term "reasonable accommodation" is, unto itself, a statement that circumstances dictate the accommodation. An employer may have to grant an exception to a no visible tattoos policy to a Coptic Christian for the small cross tattoo on the forehead. While at the same time be completely justified in refusing to allow a Muslim employee to disregard the dress code so she can wear a burqa. An employer may provide a little person a step stool so they can operate a cash register, yet be completely justified in refusing to go through the expense of installing software to make a cash register operable by a visually impaired person. Treating a need for a few days of light duty differently than the need for months of it is also entirely reasonable.

The legal terminology reasonable accommodation exists solely for the fact that circumstances dictate what is, and is not, a reasonable accommodation. You might work for a company that is so lawsuit paranoid they go into meltdown mood constantly, but it's not legally necessary.

 

[AztecSDSU]

I have been in management for a long time and I agree. In fact, arbitrarily determining accommodations based on certain circumstances can open up a company to law suits and is why how their policy is written (and followed) is so critical.

Existing opens you up to lawsuits. What you seem to fail to comprehend is there's a vast difference between being able to sue and being able to win.

 

[bhsmte]

Existing opens you up to lawsuits. What you seem to fail to comprehend is there's a vast difference between being able to sue and being able to win.

Arbitrarily making judgements on what to do with employees with limited physical abilities is a sure loser, when it comes to law suits.