• 12-03-2014
    tednugent
    PREGNANCY: should companies accommodate?
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/03...mination-case/

    UPS is my preferred company for shipping.... Looks like they just got demoted
  • 12-03-2014
    obed
    If a light duty position was available she should have had the opportunity to fill it, but I do not think one should have to be created for her.
  • 12-03-2014
    Bill2
    A shame you haven't figured out pregnancy leave, like the rest of the world. :(
  • 12-03-2014
    Snakebit
    No.......
  • 12-03-2014
    tednugent
    PREGNANCY: should companies accommodate?
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Bill2 View Post
    A shame you haven't figured out pregnancy leave, like the rest of the world. :(

    It's called maternity leave

    And doesn't cover the whole pregnancy plus some time after.... The rest of the world included

    And due to the publicity of the Supreme Court case, UPS is now changing their rules to accommodate

    The timing is great Due to Christmas season when demand for UPS, USPS and FedEx sharply increased
  • 12-03-2014
    Bill2
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tednugent View Post
    doesn't cover the whole pregnancy plus some time after.... The rest of the world included

    You have no idea
  • 12-03-2014
    love4himies
    If she has a high risk pregnancy, then she should be accommodated or go on sick leave. If she becomes unable physically to lift boxes due to her belly size in her final couple of months, then they should find her a desk job to do. Or that's how it would be handled in other first world countries.

    AND the US should catch up and give 1 year maternity leave like Europe & Canada does. Time for US to get out of the dark ages when it comes to supporting women.
  • 12-03-2014
    obed
    if that were to happen small business would avoid hiring women of child bearing age.
    maternity leave is not paid leave in a lot of places...it just means you still have a job when your child is old enough to go to day care.
  • 12-03-2014
    crit_boy
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by love4himies View Post
    If she becomes unable physically to lift boxes due to her belly size in her final couple of months, then they should find her a desk job to do.

    Even if you look at pregnancy as a ADA issue, the limit of reasonable accommodation is when it is drawn to the essential function of the job.

    Years ago, I worked at FedEx. My essential function was the ability to lift a 50 lb box. I had to demonstrate this ability before getting hired.

    Her job was to lift boxes. She underwent a voluntary physical change. That voluntary physical change prevents her from performing the essential function of her job. But, you think the company should make up a new position and give it to her - even if the company does not need the position (as evidenced by the fact that it does not exist) and/or she is not qualified to do it? She should just get a new job because she chose to be pregnant (unless she is experiencing immaculate conception or is victim of sex crime - she chose).

    That attitude is definitely treating women as equals to men. You know giving them a job just because they are a pregnant woman, not because they are the best person for the job.

    Don't see why an employer should be expected to act as some form of a private welfare system expected to support some pregnant women that cannot do the job they were hired to do.

    If you cannot work during pregnancy, you can take FML, quit, or get terminated.

    All that is said with the experience of my wife who had a very hard pregnancy. It was not planned - we were just practicing. She was not able to work. We lost her income, but made it work.
  • 12-03-2014
    TerminatorX91
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by obed View Post
    if that were to happen small business would avoid hiring women of child bearing age.
    maternity leave is not paid leave in a lot of places...it just means you still have a job when your child is old enough to go to day care.

    And for gender discrimination in hiring they can and should be found in violation the law.
  • 12-03-2014
    TerminatorX91
    Replying to the thread
    Nothing like watching a bunch of sexist conservative male knuckle-draggers chime in on this - so completely predictable.
  • 12-03-2014
    crit_boy
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TerminatorX91 View Post
    Nothing like watching a bunch of sexist conservative male knuckle-draggers chime in on this - so completely predictable.

    So you think employers should act as a private welfare system to support some pregnant women that cannot do the job they were hired to do?
  • 12-03-2014
    TerminatorX91
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by crit_boy View Post
    So you think employers should act as a private welfare system to support some pregnant women that cannot do the job they were hired to do?

    For this very specifically, put them on a desk job for as long their physician says they can stay on the job. If the doctor says no then they should get 55% pay for the duration of the pregnancy. I also support 35 weeks parental leave with 55% pay shared with father.
  • 12-03-2014
    NJBiker72
    Re: PREGNANCY: should companies accommodate?
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by obed View Post
    if that were to happen small business would avoid hiring women of child bearing age.
    maternity leave is not paid leave in a lot of places...it just means you still have a job when your child is old enough to go to day care.

    Ding ding ding. Winner. Unintended consequences.

    But can you rationally make the decision to hire an equally qualified woman if she could just take a year off. Paid?
  • 12-03-2014
    NJBiker72
    Re: PREGNANCY: should companies accommodate?
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TerminatorX91 View Post
    And for gender discrimination in hiring they can and should found in violation the law.

    Unless the law mandates discrimination as you advocate.

    You cannot rationally hire someone who is entitled to a year paid leave on their choosing.
  • 12-03-2014
    NJBiker72
    Re: PREGNANCY: should companies accommodate?
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TerminatorX91 View Post
    For this very specifically, put them on a desk job for as long their physician says they can stay on the job. If the doctor says no then they should get 55% pay for the duration of the pregnancy. I also support 35 weeks parental leave with 55% pay shared with father.

    And if there is no desk job available?

    Maybe transfer the person who earned the desk job to the lifting job? What if the person in that job is also incapable of lifting? Maybe they have the boogeyman pre-existing condition?!?:eek:

    Or ok the company should pay 55% of pay because of something an employee chose? Where does that money come from? Maybe you can make up for it by doing her job for 45% of her pay?
  • 12-03-2014
    crit_boy
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TerminatorX91 View Post
    For this very specifically, put them on a desk job for as long their physician says they can stay on the job. If the doctor says no then they should get 55% pay for the duration of the pregnancy. I also support 35 weeks parental leave with 55% pay shared with father.

    So, what you are saying is that I can retire by having a series of babies' mamas (maybe parallel and series babies' mamas). The babies' mamas will get 45% of their pay and give me 55%. Sweet. Your welfare system is even better than I thought.

    Or a woman can have a lifetime of pay by just staying pregnant.

    Or, quite reasonably a family could have 5 or 6 kids with a "working" mom who does no work for 5 or 6 years, but gets paid during that time.

    Does your welfare plan also include performance and cost of living raises?
  • 12-03-2014
    spdntrxi
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TerminatorX91 View Post
    And for gender discrimination in hiring they can and should found in violation the law.

    agreed... but gonna be tough to prove.
  • 12-03-2014
    NJBiker72
    Re: PREGNANCY: should companies accommodate?
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by crit_boy View Post

    Does your welfare plan also include performance and cost of living raises?

    Cost of living? Let's go old school porter's wage increases.

    As for performance bonuses. That could be tricky if all they are doing is getting pregnant unless . . .
  • 12-03-2014
    TerminatorX91
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by crit_boy View Post
    So, what you are saying is that I can retire by having a series of babies' mamas (maybe parallel and series babies' mamas). The babies' mamas will get 45% of their pay and give me 55%. Sweet. Your welfare system is even better than I thought.

    Or a woman can have a lifetime of pay by just staying pregnant.

    Or, quite reasonably a family could have 5 or 6 kids with a "working" mom who does no work for 5 or 6 years, but gets paid during that time.

    Does your welfare plan also include performance and cost of living raises?

    Let it DERP.
  • 12-03-2014
    crit_boy
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TerminatorX91 View Post
    Let it DERP.

    Scholarly retort demonstrating thorough knowledge and thoughtfulness.
  • 12-03-2014
    oily666
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by love4himies View Post
    If she has a high risk pregnancy, then she should be accommodated or go on sick leave. If she becomes unable physically to lift boxes due to her belly size in her final couple of months, then they should find her a desk job to do. Or that's how it would be handled in other first world countries.

    AND the US should catch up and give 1 year maternity leave like Europe & Canada does. Time for US to get out of the dark ages when it comes to supporting women.

    This ^^

    As watched this piece on another network, I thought what a "non-story" this would be in the rest of Western society.
  • 12-03-2014
    oily666
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by crit_boy View Post
    Even if you look at pregnancy as a ADA issue, the limit of reasonable accommodation is when it is drawn to the essential function of the job.

    Years ago, I worked at FedEx. My essential function was the ability to lift a 50 lb box. I had to demonstrate this ability before getting hired.

    Her job was to lift boxes. She underwent a voluntary physical change. That voluntary physical change prevents her from performing the essential function of her job. But, you think the company should make up a new position and give it to her - even if the company does not need the position (as evidenced by the fact that it does not exist) and/or she is not qualified to do it? She should just get a new job because she chose to be pregnant (unless she is experiencing immaculate conception or is victim of sex crime - she chose).

    That attitude is definitely treating women as equals to men. You know giving them a job just because they are a pregnant woman, not because they are the best person for the job.

    Don't see why an employer should be expected to act as some form of a private welfare system expected to support some pregnant women that cannot do the job they were hired to do.

    If you cannot work during pregnancy, you can take FML, quit, or get terminated.

    All that is said with the experience of my wife who had a very hard pregnancy. It was not planned - we were just practicing. She was not able to work. We lost her income, but made it work.

    Does anyone else detect jealousy here?
  • 12-03-2014
    crit_boy
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by oily666 View Post
    Does anyone else detect jealousy here?

    Yes, I am jealous. I want to be paid for not working. Seriously. I would spend more time ride my bike and fishing.

    Back to the issue: So you think employers should act as a private welfare system to support some pregnant women that cannot do the job they were hired to do?

    I am honestly surprised that people believe a business should financially support a person who is not able to do the job.

    Didn't realize that people living on government welfare are bad, but people living on corporate (corporate in the business sense) welfare are good.
  • 12-03-2014
    spdntrxi
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by crit_boy View Post
    Yes, I am jealous. I want to be paid for not working. Seriously. I would spend more time ride my bike and fishing.

    Back to the issue: So you think employers should act as a private welfare system to support some pregnant women that cannot do the job they were hired to do?

    I am honestly surprised that people believe a business should financially support a person who is not able to do the job.

    Didn't realize that people living on government welfare are bad, but people living on corporate (corporate in the business sense) welfare are good.

    there is "bonding time" for fathers too.. atleast in California that is. I have no idea of how long it is though... it came after I was done having kids.