Pregnancy Accommodations

[kermit]

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.

Having taken multiple courses that my employer demands that all managers take regarding the ADA and reasonable accommodations, it's abundantly clear that you have no idea what what it means.

The factors that determine what is reasonable are the nature of the restriction (ie. lifting, standing, use of both hands, etc) and the nature of the job (does it require lifting, standing, use of both hands, etc). Generally speaking, finding a new job for the person is not a reasonable accommodation, but in this case UPS has shown that it is one for them.

 

[AztecSDSU]

Having taken multiple courses that my employer demands that all managers take regarding the ADA and reasonable accommodations, it's abundantly clear that you have no idea what what it means.

The factors that determine what is reasonable are the nature of the restriction (ie. lifting, standing, use of both hands, etc) and the nature of the job (does it require lifting, standing, use of both hands, etc). Generally speaking, finding a new job for the person is not a reasonable accommodation, but in this case UPS has shown that it is one for them.

If your position were in any way accurate than no employer would ever grant any accommodation..... Not to mention that UPS would only need argue in past cases finding altered jobs fit the needs of the business. If the situation were not the same in this case they'd be entirely justified in not granting the request. And people wonder why employers increasing have to take hardlines all the time.

 

[kermit]

If your position were in any way accurate than no employer would ever grant any accommodation.....

My definition is completely accurate. One of my employees pinched a nerve in his shoulder. This meant that he couldn't sit for very long without his arm getting numb. He's a computer programmer, so sitting is part of the job. He found that certain chairs made it much better. So he picked out a chair at Staples and we bought for him. A more comfortable chair is a completely reasonable accommodation.

Not to mention that UPS would only need argue in past cases finding altered jobs fit the needs of the business.

That's not what I said. I said that they established that finding a different temporary position is a reasonable accommodation for someone with a lifting restriction. Once that precedent is set it's set. You can't unring that bell. If another of my employees had some condition that affected their ability to sit for extended periods and I didn't get them a more comfortable chair they be well within their rights to sue as I have demonstrated that it's a reasonable accommodation.

If the situation were not the same in this case they'd be entirely justified in not granting the request.

Stating that the same accommodation is reasonable in one situation but not another is a sure way to get sued and lose.

 

[RobinRobyn]

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.

There is such a thing as fostering loyalty. When I was pregnant, I had a few complications, and my boss bent over backwards to accommodate me and my situation, even granting me longer paid leave than was required. Because of that, I've been loyal to him and have gone beyond my job description many, many times to help out wherever needed. On the other hand, when I was younger, I had a job where the boss was always watching, always micromanaging, even docking you if you were two minutes late to work. I left that job the second I found another one, even one that paid a bit less, in fact.

If you treat your employees badly, or only give them the bare minimum required by law, you get bad employees who only give you the bare minimum effort. But if you want good employees, treat them better.

 

[Joykins]

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.

Actually there is a new thing called a "benefit corporation" which has a dual purpose, to help others and to make a profit.

Benefit Corporation Law Aims to Help Progressive Businesses Stay Honest

 

[PreachersWife2004]

There is such a thing as fostering loyalty. When I was pregnant, I had a few complications, and my boss bent over backwards to accommodate me and my situation, even granting me longer paid leave than was required. Because of that, I've been loyal to him and have gone beyond my job description many, many times to help out wherever needed. On the other hand, when I was younger, I had a job where the boss was always watching, always micromanaging, even docking you if you were two minutes late to work. I left that job the second I found another one, even one that paid a bit less, in fact.

If you treat your employees badly, or only give them the bare minimum required by law, you get bad employees who only give you the bare minimum effort. But if you want good employees, treat them better.

Yes, I've worked at plenty of jobs where they went over and beyond the call of duty. This is good.

It is NOT something the government should be regulating. Otherwise it no longer is companies doing it because they want to.

 

[kermit]

There is such a thing as fostering loyalty. When I was pregnant, I had a few complications, and my boss bent over backwards to accommodate me and my situation, even granting me longer paid leave than was required. Because of that, I've been loyal to him and have gone beyond my job description many, many times to help out wherever needed. On the other hand, when I was younger, I had a job where the boss was always watching, always micromanaging, even docking you if you were two minutes late to work. I left that job the second I found another one, even one that paid a bit less, in fact.

If you treat your employees badly, or only give them the bare minimum required by law, you get bad employees who only give you the bare minimum effort. But if you want good employees, treat them better.

Many on this forum appear to believe that employers only owe their employees a paycheck and that by virtue of getting paid that the employees should be content. But on any study about employee satisfaction pay is pretty low on list. In fact, treating people as merely compensated cogs is a sure way to get very low productivity.

 

[FreeSpirit74]

Most places here do not offer paid vacation or paid sick days.

If you get sick, you either come to work hacking and throwing up, or you take a hit to the paycheck. This is part of the reason why I think businesses are greedy and need to be kept in check by regulations...

My job gives us everything: Vacation time that accrues every week up to 200 hours; 40 hours Personal Time every July 1 (which you have a year to use it or you lose it), and 40 hours of Long Term Sick Time (up to 12 weeks) every year on on your hire date.

Vacation and Personal we can use for anything; the Sick Time is for serious illnesses (as in cancer or operations) or if you are caring for an ill family member, and you have to use up your Personal Time before you can use the Sick Time, and they can require proof of the severity of your illness before approving the use of Sick Time.

They offer maternity leave up to 6 months, and you can use whatever time you've saved up to cover it. We actually don't have any women working here who are of child-bearing age anymore; I'm the closest to that at 40, but I don't want kids. The other 4 women are all in menopause or approaching menopause.

They're also spoiling us this month with December 25, 26 and January 1, 2 off with Holiday Pay for all. Two 4-day weekends.

 

[AztecSDSU]

My definition is completely accurate. One of my employees pinched a nerve in his shoulder. This meant that he couldn't sit for very long without his arm getting numb. He's a computer programmer, so sitting is part of the job. He found that certain chairs made it much better. So he picked out a chair at Staples and we bought for him. A more comfortable chair is a completely reasonable accommodation.

It would depend on many factors as to whether the chair is a reasonable accommodation. For a large company a few hundred dollars for a chair is reasonable, for a small business it may well not be a reasonable expense. If you needed some short of special chair that cost many thousands of dollars that would again make the accommodation an unreasonable burden to the employer, it's all about circumstances.

That's not what I said. I said that they established that finding a different temporary position is a reasonable accommodation for someone with a lifting restriction. Once that precedent is set it's set. You can't unring that bell. If another of my employees had some condition that affected their ability to sit for extended periods and I didn't get them a more comfortable chair they be well within their rights to sue as I have demonstrated that it's a reasonable accommodation.

Again, it would depend upon the circumstances. Any time you see the word "reasonable" in legal terminology it there to say that circumstances from case to case will vary and that individual circumstances determine what is and is not a reasonable accommodation. Allowing someone to do a light duty job for a few days to accommodate a short term lifting restriction is not the same thing as giving someone a different job over the long term. Giving someone an available light duty job does not guarantee every employee that those circumstances will exist. In the case you present an employee needing a slightly different and reasonably priced normal office chair is not going to be treated the same as an employee that needs a $30,000 specialized medical chair. It's all about circumstances, that's why it's called reasonable accommodation and not absolute accommodation.

Stating that the same accommodation is reasonable in one situation but not another is a sure way to get sued and lose.

Not in the least, that's why the term reasonable is in reasonable accommodation. Different circumstances dictate what is, and is not, reasonable.

 

[FreeSpirit74]

I hate to tell you, but it will stay that way.

Sometimes it is greed, bit I will say this sometimes the employees bring it on themselves.

You will not be the first or the last one to take a dock when you choose to work by the hour and get sick.

The entire company I work for works "by the hour" (with sales and steel fabrication estimators getting hourly plus commission), yet we get the full gamut of Vacation, Personal and Long Term Sick Leave, plus we have health insurance. If I had to call in sick tomorrow I have 20 hours of Personal Time or 178 hours of Vacation Time to cover my pay for the day (our Sick Time is only for illnesses requiring a doctor's care - and I have 440 hours of that if I needed it).

There's a reason why most of the employees here have been here for 20-30+ years. Because this company takes care of its own.

 

[AztecSDSU]

Many on this forum appear to believe that employers only owe their employees a paycheck and that by virtue of getting paid that the employees should be content. But on any study about employee satisfaction pay is pretty low on list. In fact, treating people as merely compensated cogs is a sure way to get very low productivity.

It may be, but that's the employer's prerogative. If you don't like your employer find another one.

 

[FreeSpirit74]

It is common to see an employee start out with little or not paid vacation time and as he or she works for the company longer get more weeks per year up to sometimes 3-6 weeks.

That's how my employer does it. When you first get hired, you only accrue .77 hours per week. After your first anniversary, that increases to 1.85 hours. On your 9 year anniversary it increases to the maximum of 2.77 hours per week. They cap vacation time at 200 hours, which is 5 weeks' worth for the full timers (we only have 3 part time employees - people who retired but still want to work). Vacation time rolls over because you get paid for that when you leave the company, even if it's from being fired. That's why they decided to cap it, because there were people who had accrued 300-400 hours of vacation time and were just sitting on it and not using it.

Personal time kicks in every July 1, but you lose whatever you don't use by the following June 30. So, you will see people working here who have the maximum 6 weeks of time off, plus the maximum 480 hours of Sick Time. I'm in my 13th year, so I get the 2.77/week of Vacation Time. At this point, my total time off accrual is at 638 hours between my Vacation, Personal and Sick Time.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

My job gives us everything: Vacation time that accrues every week up to 200 hours; 40 hours Personal Time every July 1 (which you have a year to use it or you lose it), and 40 hours of Long Term Sick Time (up to 12 weeks) every year on on your hire date.

Vacation and Personal we can use for anything; the Sick Time is for serious illnesses (as in cancer or operations) or if you are caring for an ill family member, and you have to use up your Personal Time before you can use the Sick Time, and they can require proof of the severity of your illness before approving the use of Sick Time.

They offer maternity leave up to 6 months, and you can use whatever time you've saved up to cover it. We actually don't have any women working here who are of child-bearing age anymore; I'm the closest to that at 40, but I don't want kids. The other 4 women are all in menopause or approaching menopause.

They're also spoiling us this month with December 25, 26 and January 1, 2 off with Holiday Pay for all. Two 4-day weekends.

This is how my company works as well. Most of the people working here have been here for 10 years or more. There is one lady getting ready to celebrate 50 years on the job.

Currently I am a temp employee, so I don't get sick time or vacation time, but I'm pretty much allowed to take off when I need to, and I can work from home. Fortunately for any of our line/assembly workers, there's always packaging to be done so if anyone has restrictions they get to package.

 

[Kalevalatar]

This thread seems to be pregnant with the narrow political ideological posturing, excuse the pun in the oven here.

Everything you've heard of those Stalinist "socialist" Nordic policies, forget it.

In fact, our policies are not dictated by our (multi-party, pluralist 7+, mind you) partisan ideologies but 99% of no-nonsense, non-partisan/bi-partisan academic resreach science. In fact, we don't, our government does not, give a fig about the "feelings" or emotional or physical well-being of the mother.

All we care about is the €€€€ bottom line.

And it is a calculated fact that proactive prevention is cheper than reactive damage control. Proactive fire prevention comes cheaper than paying for the aftermath & replacement of fire damage, never mind the priceless emotional toll.

Global research proves that the two most crucial basis for a good and productive (pro-GDP) life, both emotionally & physically, are 1) the baby's first early months 2) the parent's relationship, i.e. the damage of divorce for kids & teenagers. Therefore, for best €€€/$$$ investment, early intervention/investment pays off in dividents.

Which is the very reason why we here in the Nordic countries invest in the taxpaid maternity/paternal/parental leaves and family services. Not to give the new fathers and mothers a taxpaid holiday. To give our newborn citizens and future taxpayers the best, most secure start and basic foundation for a productive life. Because the first months of a baby are the most crucial ones for the baby's sense of basic security, i.e.
a constant friendly care-giver face, be that the mother, the father, or a paid babysitter. The key-word here is "constancy".

Babies that are deprived of this constant care-giver to provide for that lifelong crucial basis for basic security are exponentially more exposed and vulnerable to risk behaviour -- teenage pregnancies, substance abuse, violence and the life of crime, which all are going to cost €€€€/$$$$. Thus, being proactive, early investment/intervations is cheaper than dealing with the damage already done.

Pretty much the same goes with the kids and teenagers subjected to the divorce of their parents. Therefore, taxpaid family councelors come cheaper in the long run than imprisoning troubled kids for taxpaid 2,000 dollars a day only to academically educate them to the higher life of crime and substance abuse.

I'm a card-carrying Christian Democrat, politically a "conservative Christian" for those brainwashed by the bitterly bipartisan pro-Politics, pro-Business US political environment. And this is what being a politically pro-family, pro-Bible Christian stands for. Not the me-me-me and my $$$, $$$, and $$$s.

 

[DaisyDay]

five years? that is ridiculous. I don't even think that is possible with interning.. unless you've been in school forever.

That's why some people pad their resumes.

 

[FreeSpirit74]

That's why some people pad their resumes.

That can come back and bite them in the rear if they apply to a company with a diligent HR dept. that actually checks everything.

 

[Joykins]

What really amuses me is when they ask for 5 years of experience in a 3-year-old technology.

 

[DaisyDay]

That can come back and bite them in the rear if they apply to a company with a diligent HR dept. that actually checks everything.

But they wouldn't have been hired anyway, so it may be worth the risk. However, after a year or so, they would do well to jump to another company for a promotion. Before too long, they can drop the padding.

 

[kermit]

It would depend on many factors as to whether the chair is a reasonable accommodation. For a large company a few hundred dollars for a chair is reasonable, for a small business it may well not be a reasonable expense. If you needed some short of special chair that cost many thousands of dollars that would again make the accommodation an unreasonable burden to the employer, it's all about circumstances.

Absolutely correct.

Again, it would depend upon the circumstances. Any time you see the word "reasonable" in legal terminology it there to say that circumstances from case to case will vary and that individual circumstances determine what is and is not a reasonable accommodation. Allowing someone to do a light duty job for a few days to accommodate a short term lifting restriction is not the same thing as giving someone a different job over the long term. Giving someone an available light duty job does not guarantee every employee that those circumstances will exist. In the case you present an employee needing a slightly different and reasonably priced normal office chair is not going to be treated the same as an employee that needs a $30,000 specialized medical chair. It's all about circumstances, that's why it's called reasonable accommodation and not absolute accommodation.

Absolutely incorrect. If an employer establishes that X is a reasonable accommodation then it's a reasonable accommodation. You can't say that it's reasonable in one circumstance but not another.

Not in the least, that's why the term reasonable is in reasonable accommodation. Different circumstances dictate what is, and is not, reasonable.

Absolutely incorrect. If something is established as a reasonable accommodation, denying it to some is inherently discriminatory and grounds to be sued and lose.

You clearly have no experience is this matter yet you are rejected the experience and fighting with people who do. The #1 rule of managing people is that you need to equitable. Even the appearance of playing favorites will can you fired.

 

[bhsmte]

Absolutely correct.


Absolutely incorrect. If an employer establishes that X is a reasonable accommodation then it's a reasonable accommodation. You can't say that it's reasonable in one circumstance but not another.


Absolutely incorrect. If something is established as a reasonable accommodation, denying it to some is inherently discriminatory and grounds to be sued and lose.

You clearly have no experience is this matter yet you are rejected the experience and fighting with people who do. The #1 rule of managing people is that you need to equitable. Even the appearance of playing favorites will can you fired.

Agree.

Some who have posted in this thread, have no clue about employment law and typical practices.