NY Times: Miscarrying at Work - The Physical Toll of Pregnancy Discrimination

[Destino]

1 hour ago, TryTheBeal! said:

Oh lord...here we go.

Indeed.

 

Quote

On a personal and professional level, I do care.  Our company has cultivated a reputation for being family-friendly and very accommodating for our employees regarding family issues.  But understand, that’s not because we’re angelic or such.  It’s because we need to be that to attract and keep good people.  This also leads to broad leniency to our employees without children/families because we lean on them so hard to help us cover for our folks with newborns/sick kids/etc...because, in all honesty, they are more productive.  But that’s really a different topic, I suppose.

So you definitely care.. but you (now a collective you) are really only showing this totally genuine caring so that you're good people won't leave?  Then you end this paragraph with a swipe at employees with families being less productive.  This reads like one of Donald Trump's transparently insincere attempts to convince people he has a soul.

 

For the record, I know you do care about people and the wording of that paragraph isn't doing doing you justice.  My caffeine reserves are low though, so I'm cranky. 

 

Quote

Medicare for all...I’m down.

Paid maternity/paternity leave...I’m also down.

Broad, vague legislation aimed at corporate America designed to decrease miscarriages and increase birth rate?!?  How is that supposed to work?

Why would this need to be vague?  Seems like something easily built into the social safety net.  I agree with you that it can't just be about employers choosing to do this out of the kindness of their hearts and being demonized if they do otherwise.  That won't solve the issue.   

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

26 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

Who does the work that the pregnant worker was hired to do?  Are you removing an office worker and allowing the pregnant worker to do their job?  You can't just "create" a position for a worker, and have the rest of the workforce absorb her work.  You are effectively telling a company they have to create 2 new jobs to accommodate a pregnancy...

 

EDIT: Normally, a bad back causes a worker to miss work and they go in STD/LTD and the employer is relieved of the obligation to pay the salary of the disabled worker.  They can hire a temporary replacement to complete the work that was normally done by the worker.  None of that exists for pregnancy (with exceptions for certain conditions).

 

If you read the entire article and what I pointed out, which was "IF" there were other options for the pregnant worker that would comply with doctors orders (e.g. some type of administrative work, dept or loading that satisfied the max 15 lbs, etc.) then you would know I never said to create any positions or swap out other people, firing other people, etc.  

 

I never said to create two new jobs to accommodate a pregnancy.  

 

In some of these instances described in the article, they were working first in a dept/area that wasn't strenuous and were then moved to another area where greater physical labor was required.  And when they talked to their supervisor and presented doctors note/orders, they simply did not care and help them out.  That is ****ty.  Period.

 

I also stated that if the job was one that only had one option, which was strenuous manual labor and no other options, then I understood that the pregnant worker would have to make a decision to continue working, quit and find another job, etc.  

 

 

[Destino]

5 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

Our for-profit health system is irrevocably flawed.  And Verizon or XPO or even your local Mazda dealer is not the source of the problem.

Agreed about the health care system, but these large companies are also likely to resist changes that benefit workers. 

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

28 minutes ago, Springfield said:

No, if I hired you for a job that requires manual labor then I’m not changing your position if you become pregnant.  I can curtail your intensive tasks, but I’m not simply moving your position or creating a new one because you’ve become pregnant.  That’s absurd.

 

Where is all of this "creating a new job" BS coming from?  If there are options to assist the pregnant worker (like you said, curtail intensive tasks) or other areas/depts they can work in during the pregnancy that are not as physically demanding, then why shouldn't the company help them out?  

 

 

[TradeTheBeal!]

12 minutes ago, Destino said:

Indeed.

 

So you definitely care.. but you (now a collective you) are really only showing this totally genuine caring so that you're good people won't leave.  Then you end this paragraph with a swipe at employees with families being less productive.  This reads like one of Donald Trump's transparently insincere attempts to convince people he has a soul.

 

Why would this need to be vague?  Seems like something easily built into the social safety net. 

 

I merely offered an honest perspective from a business owner that has had to juggle workplace pregnancy/family issues first-hand.  All the while keeping the bottom line as a primary, overriding priority.

 

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

10 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

This.  You can update the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and pass all manner of workplace legislation you want, but it’s still just a band-aid at best.  You have to take the onus off of the employer.

 

I disagree.  They could update the act to where it could both benefit the pregnant worker and not harm the employer.  It could be something as simple as this:

 

1.  Employers are required to relocate pregnant employees to a department/task that meets the doctors recommendations during the pregnancy, if that is an option (one that will not require additional hiring/creating a new job).  

 

2.  In the case where all the work is intense manual labor and there is no other place for the pregnant employee to be relocated during pregnancy then the employer/employee has the following options:

     a.  The employee will be granted unpaid leave the remainder of the pregnancy with their position being guaranteed upon return.  And the employee may seek out temporary employment (e.g. part-time job) that meets the medical recommendations of her treating provider.

     b.  The employee may continue working their current position during the pregnancy, but in doing so, acknowledges that any complications of the pregnancy that may occur in doing so, that they cannot hold the employer liable.

     c.  The employee can decide to terminate their employment.

 

 

[TradeTheBeal!]

I also want to offer an informed and pragmatic prediction that most of you will find horrifying...but it is an absolute certainty.

 

If we wallpaper over our cost of childbirth/cost of healthcare core issue by legislating onerous and costly regulations on employers, employers will simply drastically reduce hiring women under the age of 40.  Bank on it.

[Why am I Mr. Pink?]

The Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) is a federal law that gives certain employees the right to take up to 12 weeks off work per year for specified health and caregiving reasons, including pregnancy disability and caring for a new child. FMLA leave is unpaid, but you can use your accrued paid leave (like sick time or vacation) during FMLA leave to get paid for at least some of that time.

 

While you’re on FMLA leave, you can continue your group health benefits (although you’ll have to pay your usual share of the cost, if any). When your leave ends, the FMLA gives you the right to return to your former position, with restoration of all of your pay, benefits, and other job perks. (See Returning to Work After FMLA Leave to learn more.)

 

The FMLA applies to employers with 50 or more employees. Employees are eligible for leave if they have worked for the employer for at least a year, for at least 1,250 hours in the year before taking leave. Employees must also work at a job site where the employer has at least 50 employees within a 75-mile radius to use the FMLA. (Learn more about your right to take FMLA leave.)

 

If your employer denies you leave for before or after childbirth, or refuses to give you your job back when your FMLA is over, you have the right to sue to take the leave, be "reinstated," and/or get money damages. For more information, see our article on what you can win in an FMLA case.

 

https://www.disabilitysecrets.com/resources/taking-fmla-leave-pregnancy-and-childbirth.htm

 

Slippery slopes to a complicated issue. Not sure there is a comprehensive good-for-all solution here.

[Springfield]

29 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

Where is all of this "creating a new job" BS coming from?  If there are options to assist the pregnant worker (like you said, curtail intensive tasks) or other areas/depts they can work in during the pregnancy that are not as physically demanding, then why shouldn't the company help them out?  

 

 

 

I don’t think that every company has that flexibility.  If a worker is unable to perform the task that they are hired for then what is that company supposed to do, just pay them?

 

I think that most companies will try and work with their employees so that they can continue to make money and support their growing families, but in no way are they obligated to.  The company is not responsible for the employees who choose a job that yeields them unusable after they become pregnant.  The company did not force them to become pregnant.  Pregnancy is a choice, not a right.

[thegreaterbuzzette]

Oh, this is fun. 15 years of working HR, 30 something years of being female, and currently working on my MBA. And you know what my honest opinion is.....raising humans is a huge responsibility, and I believe a mom should be at home with her kids.

I know, that is very old school - and some would claim impossible and evil of me to even suggest.

But when did this whole women should be able to be everything to everyone thing become acceptable?

 

Yea, we can do it all, but not well, not at the same time (and neither could men). There is give and take. I always said I wanted a huge family....then I got bitten by the amazing job and the lifestyle that affords....couldn't pay me to have children now. But if I was to have a child(ren), I would quit my job, make sacrifices, and stay at home with them. 

 

The article leaves out very important points and if current laws were actually enforced, they'd be more then sufficient. You can't blame a bad manager on the company as a whole. Wait....actually legally you def can. Yes, the manager shouldn't have been a butt, and given her the light duty, and advised her to go to her doctor to get a note. 

But like one of the early people who commented on this forum stated. Women should be treated equal, not privileged. 

 

I've said for years, if you want equality - then companies should give everyone 3 months off, once every 2-3 years for an employee to do whatever they want. Be it have a child, adopt a child, build a home, travel to Rome. Do I think it should be required to be paid? Nope, but awesome if it is. 

 

If you want 3 months off work to have a child, save up to do it, and plan. It really is that simple. 

Everyone wants to point out how our society has declined....i've worked in the school system before....all that....it starts at home, and the lack of tuned in parents. Let's set up our next generation for success, and stop this unrealistic expectation that they can go 1000mph and still have 100% accuracy. 

 

 

 

 

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

22 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

I also want to offer an informed and pragmatic prediction that most of you will find horrifying...but it is an absolute certainty.

 

If we wallpaper over our cost of childbirth/cost of healthcare core issue by legislating onerous and costly regulations on employers, employers will simply drastically reduce hiring women under the age of 40.  Bank on it.

 

You keep talking about regulations being costly.  How is it costly to be required to relocate a pregnant woman to another department or lighten their work load if that option is available?  

 

Sure, I get that at a lot of places, that's not going to be an option.  But when it is an option, how is that costly?  I'm not a business owner, so correct me if needed, especially since you live in a different state than I do.

 

In NC, employers have to pay unemployment tax for each worker (iirc), so would it be possible (from an employer standpoint) that in the event a pregnant worker can no longer perform their duties and there are no other options for them (e.g. relocate to another dept/task during the pregnancy) that they could use their unemployment benefits during the pregnancy.  

 

I know that's not how unemployment benefits work right now, and there would have to be updates to the current process (like adding pregnancy to the list of reasons one can claim unemployment benefits).  Maybe some special cases where they can no longer do their job and can apply for those benefits during the pregnancy while their position is still held for them.  Maybe not even the entire pregnancy, say 20 weeks (looking at a list of states, most unemployment benefits are 26 weeks).  

 

Since employers are already paying these taxes, could that be a possible solution?  

[tshile]

Even at large organizations replacing a higher up employee for 3 months is really difficult. You can’t just hire someone, there are temp services but they’re costly and the person won’t be up to speed, so naturally all the other (already overworked) people at that level pick up the slack. 

 

Even if the government covered the money for leave, the company is in a bad spot if an important person disappears for 3 months. 

 

I think Beal is just pointing out the reality and you all are shooting the messenger. 

[TradeTheBeal!]

32 minutes ago, tshile said:

Even at large organizations replacing a higher up employee for 3 months is really difficult. You can’t just hire someone, there are temp services but they’re costly and the person won’t be up to speed, so naturally all the other (already overworked) people at that level pick up the slack. 

 

Even if the government covered the money for leave, the company is in a bad spot if an important person disappears for 3 months. 

 

I think Beal is just pointing out the reality and you all are shooting the messenger. 

 

Nah, I’m a fascist.

[tshile]

@Dont Taze Me Bro you keep using phrases like “if the option is available” in terms of reassignment. 

 

I think if you try to craft and enforce legislation around “if the option is available” you’re going to find the results aren’t what you were looking for. 

 

But back to the general conversation, I think an important step is to be honest about the drag having a new child puts on people. It starts with pregnancy and through maternity leave, but it doesn’t stop there. It continues until the kid can operate somewhat independently.

 

my oldest is 3 1/2 and I still can’t take a snow day and work from home and honestly call that work. I might get an hour or two where he’s occupied by the tv (which we hate doing so I don’t consider that and option anyways) but that’s at best. My 8 hour day is reduced to almost nothing. So I take the whole day.  

 

Kid being sick, doctors appointments, you getting sick... in addition, I don’t function well getting 2 hours of sleep at a time (like I currently get....) I maybe am getting 6 hours of sleep a night and it’s coming in spurts of 2-3 hours.

 

Last week I went to bed at midnight and woke up at 4 to watch the newborn and 3 year old until 7 so my wife could take a break. Then I worked all day. Then I did **** around the house till midnight. I did that 3 days in a row. 

 

Anyone who thinks my productivity hasn’t been shot for the last two months is an idiot. And I’m the father in this situation, I’m significantly better off than my wife in this whole situation. 

 

The drag on the employer is real and needs to be recognized. 

[Renegade7]

OP talked about woman having a doctor's note for her pregnancy and it being ignored.  Instead we've gone down the path of saying stuff like people should save more money to prepare for having a family in a time where millennials are already incredibly strained financially.  I'm not surprised.

[tshile]

7 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

OP talked about woman having a doctor's note for her pregnancy and it being ignored.  Instead we've gone down the path of saying stuff like people should save more money to prepare for having a family in a time where millennials are already incredibly strained financially.  I'm not surprised.

 

The conversation quickly went to: it shouldn’t be hard for employers to accommodate pregnant women/new mothers.  Which a few of us think is a bogus outlook. That’s how we got to here. 

[Destino]

58 minutes ago, tshile said:

Even if the government covered the money for leave, the company is in a bad spot if an important person disappears for 3 months. 

 

Easier than losing your career because you committed the great sin of having a child though right?  If we can tell women “too bad it’s your own fault” then I can sleep like a baby telling businesses “too bad you should have planned for your human employees doing human things.”  

 

Also I’ve been self employed and/or a business owner for most of my adult life.  I can’t imagine living any other way.  It works like this, you tell me the rules and I figure out a way to make it work.  Or I don’t and someone else does.  The US should be more business friendly in some ways and less in others imo, but ultimately reasonable accommodations for pregnant women is a drop in the bucket that’s not going to bring the economy tumbling down.  Amazon would survive.  

 

Speaking of which, you know what is a bigger threat to businesses than pregnant women needing slightly different responsibilities for a limited time?  ****ing Amazon.   

[tshile]

1 minute ago, Destino said:

Easier than losing your career because you committed the great sin of having a child though right?

 

Your whole tone with this topic is ridiculous. 

 

Youre shooting the messengers. You called beals post fascist and now you’re patronizing me about having a child. 

 

Whether you recognize what we’re saying or not is irrelevant. It’s true whether you think so or not. 

[Why am I Mr. Pink?]

Just now, Destino said:

 

Easier than losing your career because you committed the great sin of having a child though right? 

 

FMLA protects a pregnant woman's job and if she has built up sick leave or PTO, she can get paid for that time.

 

Not all jobs can accomodate a light duty restriction of no lifting over 15 lbs, no prolonged standing etc. Ive seen companies do it for a short period of time, basically have them answer phones but that is short term. We could be talking about 3-5 months here and that is just up to birth and not afterwards.

 

Companies should not have to pay a pregnant lady for months and months while she is off. Not practical and they would stop hiring pregnant able women.

 

Its a tough discussion. I dont see any sides being absolutely right on all aspects.

[thegreaterbuzzette]

12 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

OP talked about woman having a doctor's note for her pregnancy and it being ignored.  Instead we've gone down the path of saying stuff like people should save more money to prepare for having a family in a time where millennials are already incredibly strained financially.  I'm not surprised.

Why are millennials incredlybstrained financially? 

 

I'm a millennial.

 

Went to a state college. Started from the bottom repeatedly as I relocated for my spouses military assignment. I climbed the later within those 3 years, 3 times. Doubling and then some my salary in those 3 years, 3 times. 

 

Paid off my college loans in those times. 

 

Drove a humble vehicle. Made smart financial decisions. All til I got where I am today. 

 

What makes millenials so special that they can't be financially set too?

[tshile]

1 minute ago, Why am I Mr. Pink? said:

FMLA protects a pregnant woman's job and if she has built up sick leave or PTO, she can get paid for that time.

 

But only if the company has 50 people within a 75 mile radius. 

 

When you work for a small company none of that exists. You may not even get STDI if I remember correctly?

[Destino]

7 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Your whole tone with this topic is ridiculous. 

 

Youre shooting the messengers. You called beals post fascist and now you’re patronizing me about having a child. 

 

Whether you recognize what we’re saying or not is irrelevant. It’s true whether you think so or not. 

I’m not shooting the messengers, I’m just tired of hearing the same message presented as the only relevant truth.  I credit Beal for accepting that their are other ways to deal with this problem than simply leaning on businesses, but there is no solution that doesn’t inconvenience business in some way.  

 

Women have to work and women have every right to have families.  We have to make that work better than it doesn’t now, and yeah, it’s going to cause some hardships that don’t exist currently.  We’ll survive.  It’s true, whether you think so or not.

[Renegade7]

5 minutes ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

 

What makes millenials so special that they can't be financially set too?

 

Great Recession had something to do with it, there is a student debt crisis, health care is higher then it's ever been before, inflation, the fact affordable housing is becoming nonexistent in some parts of the country... I can think of a couple more. 

 

I'm a millennial and made it through, too, that doesnt mean I throw in people's face the fact I made it when research is backing this being a much more more difficult period for people starting off then previous times.  

 

This is a big picture discussion that trying to figure out who to blame or dump responsibility on isnt going to resolve.  In this while staring a demographic timebomb in the face.

[Bozo the kKklown]

10 minutes ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

Why are millennials incredlybstrained financially? 

 

I'm a millennial.

 

Went to a state college. Started from the bottom repeatedly as I relocated for my spouses military assignment. I climbed the later within those 3 years, 3 times. Doubling and then some my salary in those 3 years, 3 times. 

 

Paid off my college loans in those times. 

 

Drove a humble vehicle. Made smart financial decisions. All til I got where I am today. 

 

What makes millenials so special that they can't be financially set too?

Because millennial wages haven't risen with inflation (its more expensive to buy a house today than it was 20 and 40 years ago for instance. Even small-scale stuff like gas prices being double and even triple what it cost 20 years ago)

 

I am glad you made it out, but you are in a dual-income family. A lot of millennials don't have that.

 

Congratulations on your success, but your story is your story. It is not the story of everyone.

 

(And this is coming from a millennial who has paid off his student loans and earns a comfortable salary)

 

 

 

But going back to the point of this thread, workers rights is something I want to hear from any candidate running. That is very important for me and I want to see more done to prevent stuff like this from our elected leaders.

25 minutes ago, Destino said:

Speaking of which, you know what is a bigger threat to businesses than pregnant women needing slightly different responsibilities for a limited time?  ****ing Amazon.   

exactly

[PleaseBlitz]

8 minutes ago, Destino said:

 

 

Women have to work and women have every right to have families.  We have to make that work better than it doesn’t now, and yeah, it’s going to cause some hardships that don’t exist currently.  We’ll survive.  It’s true, whether you think so or not.

 

And it takes two to tango, so to speak; the female side of the relationship shouldn't have to bear all of the consequences (just the ones involving hosting a parasite for 9 months).