Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was rereading articles regarding the pregnant UPS worker case which went to the Supreme Court and wondered what peoples thoughts were on the subject. They still haven't made a decision on that case.
How much does a company really owe a woman just because she decided to get pregnant? Other than what's on the law books of course. Shouldn't she have thought about the consequences before she decided to get pregnant while working at a job that requires a lot of lifting?
It just seems like a lot of these women expect a lot of preferential treat to the detriment of the rest of the corporate and working world. If they put a pregnant women into a light duty job doesn't that take a job away from someone else? The light duty work was there regardless of whether she got pregnant or not. So someone must have been doing that work right?
As an old millennial that has never had kids I just don't know what to make of it after some things I have seen in the corporate world. I might have a skewed view since I'm one of the people that think people with kids in general get a better deal in the corporate world compared to the people without children.
I think this one falls under the heading, "Just because you CAN, doesn't mean you SHOULD."
You can fire a pregnant woman because she can no longer do the heavy lifting, but you shouldn't. It's a PR nightmare.
My workplace has a special room for nursing women who need to use a breast pump. Nobody required them to provide that room, but they decided it would be a nice perk. It's a good idea. Keep your employees happy.
Also, say they do fire the pregnant woman. Now all the breeding age women that work at UPS will be terrified at the idea of getting pregnant. Is that a good work environment? Is it really that much of a hardship for these companies to reassign these women to desk jobs? What about employees that get too old to do the heavy lifting? Do you fire them because they chose to get old?
I think legally, UPS was in the right. But it's still a stupid business decision.
I can see both sides of this. On one hand companies make concessions for other health related issues so why not pregnancy? On the other hand its your responsibility to make arrangements if your condition is going to affect your work responsibilities. I agree with book lover that it is in the best interest of any company to make some concessions for employees. In the case referenced I think if the company would have just allowed her to keep her insurance until she came back to work this might not have been an issue.
I'm not really sure how parents get a better deal than non parents.
I was rereading articles regarding the pregnant UPS worker case which went to the Supreme Court and wondered what peoples thoughts were on the subject. They still haven't made a decision on that case.
How much does a company really owe a woman just because she decided to get pregnant? Other than what's on the law books of course. Shouldn't she have thought about the consequences before she decided to get pregnant while working at a job that requires a lot of lifting?
It just seems like a lot of these women expect a lot of preferential treat to the detriment of the rest of the corporate and working world. If they put a pregnant women into a light duty job doesn't that take a job away from someone else? The light duty work was there regardless of whether she got pregnant or not. So someone must have been doing that work right?
As an old millennial that has never had kids I just don't know what to make of it after some things I have seen in the corporate world. I might have a skewed view since I'm one of the people that think people with kids in general get a better deal in the corporate world compared to the people without children.
You didn't have any children, so you can't relate on that level but you did have a mother didn't you? Mother's are the bearers of life and insure the continued future of humanity. They deserve respect and special treatment when they are in that state. I do admit that some will abuse the position but generally not for the most part.
If your mother supported a family with a UPS job, would you be fine with her lifting 50 lbs or more all day long when she's 8 months along? Or would you prefer she be fired after the 4th month to avoid any injury liability for the company and you and her could go on food stamps and welfare?
I have a sneaking suspicion that those who would want her fired for not meeting the physical requirements due to pregnancy, are the same ones who would deny her the right to have an abortion before birth and the same ones who would eliminate welfare for single mothers and children, calling them lazy leeches on society.
I can see both sides of this. On one hand companies make concessions for other health related issues so why not pregnancy? On the other hand its your responsibility to make arrangements if your condition is going to affect your work responsibilities. I agree with book lover that it is in the best interest of any company to make some concessions for employees. In the case referenced I think if the company would have just allowed her to keep her insurance until she came back to work this might not have been an issue.
I'm not really sure how parents get a better deal than non parents.
Other health related issues are usually not a choice.
Should ups give someone a desk gig because they gained a bunch of weight and cannot lift boxes anymore?
And to the person talking about a pumping room, that is actually required by law.
I think it should be left to private companies to decide; my self. Many should allow it as sick leave but the they need to equaioze that usage for men.
Can't they just put her in a different role until after she gives birth and returns from leave? I love how men get to pass laws about things they will never be able to do. Good thing their mother's weren't treated the way some pregnant women are treated. They're not invalids, they're carrying a life in their bodies.
Oh and let me guess - these same men are the same one's who are pro-life, do I have that right?
Whatever the answer, it has to be applied equally to everyone. If the company provides extended, paid vacation for pregnant women, they should do exactly the same for non-pregnant women and men. If they are going to put them on "light duty" for several months due to a choice they made, they should do the same for everyone. Equal treatment for everyone. Same pay for the same job.
Otherwise you are unfairly taking compensation away from other people that are on the job every day, doing their jobs.
Best solution is a sick/vacation time policy that lets employees accumulate PTO (paid time off) and carry over a significant account from year to year. If you save up YOUR time off, you get paid when you take time away from work, for whatever reason. If not, not.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
