Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Pregnancy Work Restrictions and Feminism

Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 12:43:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
How do feminists reconcile the following:

1. A pregnancy occurs off the clock.
2. The resulting off the clock actions limit the ability to perform expected duties (e.g. lift weight restrictions at UPS)
3. The company has a policy to not accommodate temporary work restrictions for events that occur off the clock.
4. If a worker is unable to perform their duties, but with a medical reason, they are sent home without pay until a time when they can perform their duties in full.

Should the woman be sent home without pay, if her work restrictions prevent her from doing her job?
If not, then you must agree to one of these two policies to ensure equality:
1. Anyone, for any reason, must not be let go due to their temporary disabling actions off the clock. This includes being injured due to committing a crime, or hurt playing softball.
2. Women, then, pose a threat to productivity in the event they get pregnant, and actions may be taken to limit this loss of productivity (e.g. not hiring women or having a contract stating you won't get pregnant)

If you disagree, why?
My work here is, finally, done.
headphonegut
Posts: 4,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 12:46:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 12:43:27 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
How do feminists reconcile the following:

1. A pregnancy occurs off the clock.
2. The resulting off the clock actions limit the ability to perform expected duties (e.g. lift weight restrictions at UPS)
3. The company has a policy to not accommodate temporary work restrictions for events that occur off the clock.
4. If a worker is unable to perform their duties, but with a medical reason, they are sent home without pay until a time when they can perform their duties in full.

Should the woman be sent home without pay, if her work restrictions prevent her from doing her job?
If not, then you must agree to one of these two policies to ensure equality:
1. Anyone, for any reason, must not be let go due to their temporary disabling actions off the clock. This includes being injured due to committing a crime, or hurt playing softball.
2. Women, then, pose a threat to productivity in the event they get pregnant, and actions may be taken to limit this loss of productivity (e.g. not hiring women or having a contract stating you won't get pregnant)

If you disagree, why?

o.o but there's that maternal leave thingy.
crying to soldiers coming home to their dogs why do I torment myself with these videos?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 12:50:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 12:46:14 PM, headphonegut wrote:

o.o but there's that maternal leave thingy.

1. Maternity leave is after the baby is born (I think).
2. I never said they lost the job. In fact, neither the pregnant woman nor the sprained knee lose their job. They just don't work, and are not paid, until they can work.
3. Maternity leave is often unpaid.
My work here is, finally, done.
headphonegut
Posts: 4,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 12:52:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 12:50:15 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/10/2014 12:46:14 PM, headphonegut wrote:

o.o but there's that maternal leave thingy.

1. Maternity leave is after the baby is born (I think).
2. I never said they lost the job. In fact, neither the pregnant woman nor the sprained knee lose their job. They just don't work, and are not paid, until they can work.
3. Maternity leave is often unpaid.

No no maternity leave can be taken early I think. I never said anything about losing their job o.o I don't see why 2 or 3 is relevant.
crying to soldiers coming home to their dogs why do I torment myself with these videos?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 1:00:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 12:52:03 PM, headphonegut wrote:
At 12/10/2014 12:50:15 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/10/2014 12:46:14 PM, headphonegut wrote:

o.o but there's that maternal leave thingy.

1. Maternity leave is after the baby is born (I think).
2. I never said they lost the job. In fact, neither the pregnant woman nor the sprained knee lose their job. They just don't work, and are not paid, until they can work.
3. Maternity leave is often unpaid.

No no maternity leave can be taken early I think. I never said anything about losing their job o.o I don't see why 2 or 3 is relevant.

I think you are right that maternity leave can be taken early, but not in the first month, where work restrictions may apply already.
Regardless, this isn't maternity leave, since the worker wants to work, but the employer refuses to accommodate.

Is it fair to accommodate a pregnant woman who wants to work?
My work here is, finally, done.
headphonegut
Posts: 4,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 1:04:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 1:00:58 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/10/2014 12:52:03 PM, headphonegut wrote:
At 12/10/2014 12:50:15 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/10/2014 12:46:14 PM, headphonegut wrote:

o.o but there's that maternal leave thingy.

1. Maternity leave is after the baby is born (I think).
2. I never said they lost the job. In fact, neither the pregnant woman nor the sprained knee lose their job. They just don't work, and are not paid, until they can work.
3. Maternity leave is often unpaid.

No no maternity leave can be taken early I think. I never said anything about losing their job o.o I don't see why 2 or 3 is relevant.

I think you are right that maternity leave can be taken early, but not in the first month, where work restrictions may apply already.
Regardless, this isn't maternity leave, since the worker wants to work, but the employer refuses to accommodate.

Is it fair to accommodate a pregnant woman who wants to work?

Well if the employer is already refusing. So. But the fetus becomes viable at like around 4 months I think. I'd say that's a good totally arbitrary cut-off. And being 1-month pregnant doesn't really impede your work.
crying to soldiers coming home to their dogs why do I torment myself with these videos?
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 1:48:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 12:43:27 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
How do feminists reconcile the following:

1. A pregnancy occurs off the clock.
2. The resulting off the clock actions limit the ability to perform expected duties (e.g. lift weight restrictions at UPS)
3. The company has a policy to not accommodate temporary work restrictions for events that occur off the clock.
4. If a worker is unable to perform their duties, but with a medical reason, they are sent home without pay until a time when they can perform their duties in full.

Should the woman be sent home without pay, if her work restrictions prevent her from doing her job?
If not, then you must agree to one of these two policies to ensure equality:
1. Anyone, for any reason, must not be let go due to their temporary disabling actions off the clock. This includes being injured due to committing a crime, or hurt playing softball.
2. Women, then, pose a threat to productivity in the event they get pregnant, and actions may be taken to limit this loss of productivity (e.g. not hiring women or having a contract stating you won't get pregnant)

If you disagree, why?

I agree with the first policy, except as far as illegal activity is concerned. No employer is required to accommodate employees for the results of their criminal activity.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure the original work policy (your #3 at the beginning) is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act if it includes medical conditions. For all intents and purposes, my understanding is that pregnancy is treated as a medical condition just like breaking a leg or something might be. As an example, my mother-in-law broke her leg a while back and her employer had to make accommodations for her to be able to still do her job from a wheelchair for a couple of weeks. Pregnancy is treated the same way, as far as I know.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 1:52:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 1:48:11 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/10/2014 12:43:27 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
How do feminists reconcile the following:

1. A pregnancy occurs off the clock.
2. The resulting off the clock actions limit the ability to perform expected duties (e.g. lift weight restrictions at UPS)
3. The company has a policy to not accommodate temporary work restrictions for events that occur off the clock.
4. If a worker is unable to perform their duties, but with a medical reason, they are sent home without pay until a time when they can perform their duties in full.

Should the woman be sent home without pay, if her work restrictions prevent her from doing her job?
If not, then you must agree to one of these two policies to ensure equality:
1. Anyone, for any reason, must not be let go due to their temporary disabling actions off the clock. This includes being injured due to committing a crime, or hurt playing softball.
2. Women, then, pose a threat to productivity in the event they get pregnant, and actions may be taken to limit this loss of productivity (e.g. not hiring women or having a contract stating you won't get pregnant)

If you disagree, why?

I agree with the first policy, except as far as illegal activity is concerned. No employer is required to accommodate employees for the results of their criminal activity.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure the original work policy (your #3 at the beginning) is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act if it includes medical conditions. For all intents and purposes, my understanding is that pregnancy is treated as a medical condition just like breaking a leg or something might be. As an example, my mother-in-law broke her leg a while back and her employer had to make accommodations for her to be able to still do her job from a wheelchair for a couple of weeks. Pregnancy is treated the same way, as far as I know.

I don't agree that people who have a disability have a right to a job where their disability impedes their performance. No matter what disability that is. What then? Is /=/ ought
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 1:57:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 1:48:11 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/10/2014 12:43:27 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
How do feminists reconcile the following:

1. A pregnancy occurs off the clock.
2. The resulting off the clock actions limit the ability to perform expected duties (e.g. lift weight restrictions at UPS)
3. The company has a policy to not accommodate temporary work restrictions for events that occur off the clock.
4. If a worker is unable to perform their duties, but with a medical reason, they are sent home without pay until a time when they can perform their duties in full.

Should the woman be sent home without pay, if her work restrictions prevent her from doing her job?
If not, then you must agree to one of these two policies to ensure equality:
1. Anyone, for any reason, must not be let go due to their temporary disabling actions off the clock. This includes being injured due to committing a crime, or hurt playing softball.
2. Women, then, pose a threat to productivity in the event they get pregnant, and actions may be taken to limit this loss of productivity (e.g. not hiring women or having a contract stating you won't get pregnant)

If you disagree, why?

I agree with the first policy, except as far as illegal activity is concerned. No employer is required to accommodate employees for the results of their criminal activity.
How would someone know if my broken leg is from me falling off a roof while cleaning my gutters, or from a meeting with my bookie?

Anyway, I'm pretty sure the original work policy (your #3 at the beginning) is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act if it includes medical conditions. For all intents and purposes, my understanding is that pregnancy is treated as a medical condition just like breaking a leg or something might be. As an example, my mother-in-law broke her leg a while back and her employer had to make accommodations for her to be able to still do her job from a wheelchair for a couple of weeks. Pregnancy is treated the same way, as far as I know.

You assume a few things.
1. That said job can be accommodated. At UPS, you cannot accommodate someone who cannot life 50 lbs. The law is to accommodate, not let them do something else within the company (I think).
2. That your mother-in-law's accommodation was mandated via ADA.
3. I do not think the ADA applies to temporary incapacitates, such as a broken leg, which heals with time. However, disability is defined as:
(1) has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more "major life activities," (2) has a record of such an impairment, or (3) is regarded as having such an impairment.

Pregnancy does not meet this definition, nor does a broken leg.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 1:59:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Further, I want to remind people this is about equality, not necessarily about any existing laws.

The issue at hand is pregnancy, which is something that ONLY happens to women.
So, is it consistent for a feminist to say that a pregnant woman should retain a paying job, but not agree with one of the two polices I outlined in the OP.

Further, which policy would be correct?
My work here is, finally, done.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 2:04:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 1:52:24 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 12/10/2014 1:48:11 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/10/2014 12:43:27 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
How do feminists reconcile the following:

1. A pregnancy occurs off the clock.
2. The resulting off the clock actions limit the ability to perform expected duties (e.g. lift weight restrictions at UPS)
3. The company has a policy to not accommodate temporary work restrictions for events that occur off the clock.
4. If a worker is unable to perform their duties, but with a medical reason, they are sent home without pay until a time when they can perform their duties in full.

Should the woman be sent home without pay, if her work restrictions prevent her from doing her job?
If not, then you must agree to one of these two policies to ensure equality:
1. Anyone, for any reason, must not be let go due to their temporary disabling actions off the clock. This includes being injured due to committing a crime, or hurt playing softball.
2. Women, then, pose a threat to productivity in the event they get pregnant, and actions may be taken to limit this loss of productivity (e.g. not hiring women or having a contract stating you won't get pregnant)

If you disagree, why?

I agree with the first policy, except as far as illegal activity is concerned. No employer is required to accommodate employees for the results of their criminal activity.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure the original work policy (your #3 at the beginning) is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act if it includes medical conditions. For all intents and purposes, my understanding is that pregnancy is treated as a medical condition just like breaking a leg or something might be. As an example, my mother-in-law broke her leg a while back and her employer had to make accommodations for her to be able to still do her job from a wheelchair for a couple of weeks. Pregnancy is treated the same way, as far as I know.


I don't agree that people who have a disability have a right to a job where their disability impedes their performance. No matter what disability that is. What then? Is /=/ ought

What if "reasonable accommodations" (the language used in laws like the ADA) eliminate the disability's effect on performance?
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 2:20:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 1:57:02 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/10/2014 1:48:11 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/10/2014 12:43:27 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
How do feminists reconcile the following:

1. A pregnancy occurs off the clock.
2. The resulting off the clock actions limit the ability to perform expected duties (e.g. lift weight restrictions at UPS)
3. The company has a policy to not accommodate temporary work restrictions for events that occur off the clock.
4. If a worker is unable to perform their duties, but with a medical reason, they are sent home without pay until a time when they can perform their duties in full.

Should the woman be sent home without pay, if her work restrictions prevent her from doing her job?
If not, then you must agree to one of these two policies to ensure equality:
1. Anyone, for any reason, must not be let go due to their temporary disabling actions off the clock. This includes being injured due to committing a crime, or hurt playing softball.
2. Women, then, pose a threat to productivity in the event they get pregnant, and actions may be taken to limit this loss of productivity (e.g. not hiring women or having a contract stating you won't get pregnant)

If you disagree, why?

I agree with the first policy, except as far as illegal activity is concerned. No employer is required to accommodate employees for the results of their criminal activity.
How would someone know if my broken leg is from me falling off a roof while cleaning my gutters, or from a meeting with my bookie?

They wouldn't, unless you were convicted of a crime. If you were convicted, though, they could file a lawsuit to claw back any compensation you received from them due to your injury.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure the original work policy (your #3 at the beginning) is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act if it includes medical conditions. For all intents and purposes, my understanding is that pregnancy is treated as a medical condition just like breaking a leg or something might be. As an example, my mother-in-law broke her leg a while back and her employer had to make accommodations for her to be able to still do her job from a wheelchair for a couple of weeks. Pregnancy is treated the same way, as far as I know.

You assume a few things.
1. That said job can be accommodated. At UPS, you cannot accommodate someone who cannot life 50 lbs. The law is to accommodate, not let them do something else within the company (I think).
2. That your mother-in-law's accommodation was mandated via ADA.
3. I do not think the ADA applies to temporary incapacitates, such as a broken leg, which heals with time. However, disability is defined as:
(1) has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more "major life activities," (2) has a record of such an impairment, or (3) is regarded as having such an impairment.

Pregnancy does not meet this definition, nor does a broken leg.

Yeah, you're right. I missed a word when reading an ADA FAQ.

Anyway, I just looked up the EEOC's page on pregnancy discrimination (http://www.eeoc.gov...), and it says a company just has to treat pregnancy the same way it treats any other type of temporary medical condition, like an injury.

So I guess I disagree with both of your ideas from your OP. #1 just seems wrong and #2 lacks sufficient evidence. To agree with #2, some data would have to be shown that women are more prone to be medically impaired with regard to their work (# of days unable to work could be the metric), including pregnancy, compared to men. Is there such evidence?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 2:27:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 2:20:35 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/10/2014 1:57:02 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

How would someone know if my broken leg is from me falling off a roof while cleaning my gutters, or from a meeting with my bookie?

They wouldn't, unless you were convicted of a crime. If you were convicted, though, they could file a lawsuit to claw back any compensation you received from them due to your injury.

Why is there compensation?
If I broke my hand punching my wife in the face, and worked for three months before they found out, I still worked. What are the damages to them?
Now, if I was being paid short-term disability and an exemption for crime exists and I lied, that is different, but we are talking about accommodating for work.


Pregnancy does not meet this definition, nor does a broken leg.

Yeah, you're right. I missed a word when reading an ADA FAQ.

Anyway, I just looked up the EEOC's page on pregnancy discrimination (http://www.eeoc.gov...), and it says a company just has to treat pregnancy the same way it treats any other type of temporary medical condition, like an injury.

So I guess I disagree with both of your ideas from your OP. #1 just seems wrong and #2 lacks sufficient evidence. To agree with #2, some data would have to be shown that women are more prone to be medically impaired with regard to their work (# of days unable to work could be the metric), including pregnancy, compared to men. Is there such evidence?

It seems you don't have to agree with either of them, as you are agreeing the pregnant woman gets no accomodations. The purpose of this thread is to explore if feminists think they should, and if so, the consequences of such thoughts, in an effort to promote equality.

Also, on a side note, IIRC, women use FMLA (which also applies to one's self) 50% more than men. I think they also take of 50% more time.
Bureau of Labor Statistics is where I think I found those stats.
My work here is, finally, done.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 11:46:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 12:43:27 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
How do feminists reconcile the following:

1. A pregnancy occurs off the clock.
So, we get pregnant on the clock? ;) I kid, but something to entertain.

2. The resulting off the clock actions limit the ability to perform expected duties (e.g. lift weight restrictions at UPS)

Sure.
3. The company has a policy to not accommodate temporary work restrictions for events that occur off the clock.

Poor policy, but, sure.
4. If a worker is unable to perform their duties, but with a medical reason, they are sent home without pay until a time when they can perform their duties in full.

Or make use of vacation pay, borrow against future leave, but yeah, generally, if that is the company policy, that makes sense.

Should the woman be sent home without pay, if her work restrictions prevent her from doing her job?

I think, in general, an employer wouldn't want to throw the dice on when the work might cause complications in the pregnancy. If she is -able-, and in the process of lifting that 50 lb pacakage, some issue results, and the pregnancy is affected, the worker's comp situation you have is gonna be horrendous. It would be in the company's best interest to find/invent some variety of light detail, change her shift, retrain.

If not, then you must agree to one of these two policies to ensure equality:
1. Anyone, for any reason, must not be let go due to their temporary disabling actions off the clock. This includes being injured due to committing a crime, or hurt playing softball.

Minus the crime portion of our show, I would think an employer should practice this just to demonstrate they aren't a d!ck.

2. Women, then, pose a threat to productivity in the event they get pregnant, and actions may be taken to limit this loss of productivity (e.g. not hiring women or having a contract stating you won't get pregnant)

This happens anyways, and I assume you are not arguing the legality of it. In either case, there are short term medical leaves that companies jump in on. Same with long term. All of these feature some variety of pay, and excuse from the job, etc.

I mean, unless you are wanting to paint only the strictest of employers whom works their employees to juuuuuuust under full time status, uses temp employees to duck the AHCA standards, and in general, 'book beats' the crap out their HR department on policy, there already are lots of accomodations that can be made to ensure the employer doesn't specifically bear a cost due to lost time from a pregnant employee.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 8:39:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 11:46:07 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/10/2014 12:43:27 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
How do feminists reconcile the following:

1. A pregnancy occurs off the clock.
So, we get pregnant on the clock? ;) I kid, but something to entertain.

2. The resulting off the clock actions limit the ability to perform expected duties (e.g. lift weight restrictions at UPS)

Sure.
3. The company has a policy to not accommodate temporary work restrictions for events that occur off the clock.

Poor policy, but, sure.
4. If a worker is unable to perform their duties, but with a medical reason, they are sent home without pay until a time when they can perform their duties in full.

Or make use of vacation pay, borrow against future leave, but yeah, generally, if that is the company policy, that makes sense.

Should the woman be sent home without pay, if her work restrictions prevent her from doing her job?

I think, in general, an employer wouldn't want to throw the dice on when the work might cause complications in the pregnancy. If she is -able-, and in the process of lifting that 50 lb pacakage, some issue results, and the pregnancy is affected, the worker's comp situation you have is gonna be horrendous. It would be in the company's best interest to find/invent some variety of light detail, change her shift, retrain.
This is a case that the Supreme Court may hear.
The woman in question had a doctors note limiting her work to 20 lbs until X time, when it was 10 lbs, due to the pregnancy. She was hired by UPS as a package handler (or driver, maybe), and there is no way to accommodate this restriction.

The legal question is, if the woman wants to work, should UPS be forced to give her a job she wasn't hired for (say a phone operator). I say no, but that is not the intent of the thread.

The question I want to explore is, if a feminist believes the company should let her still work due to her pregnancy, then which of the two policies does the feminist support, to ensure equality among the sexes?

If not, then you must agree to one of these two policies to ensure equality:
1. Anyone, for any reason, must not be let go due to their temporary disabling actions off the clock. This includes being injured due to committing a crime, or hurt playing softball.

Minus the crime portion of our show, I would think an employer should practice this just to demonstrate they aren't a d!ck.

Why does crime matter?
Why should the employer accommodate you for breaking your hand due to a DIY home improvement accident, but not me for punching a guy in a bar?
Don't most people say that what you do outside of work is your own business, so, in an effort of equality, there should be no distinction made as to WHY a temporary medical restriction exists.

2. Women, then, pose a threat to productivity in the event they get pregnant, and actions may be taken to limit this loss of productivity (e.g. not hiring women or having a contract stating you won't get pregnant)

This happens anyways, and I assume you are not arguing the legality of it. In either case, there are short term medical leaves that companies jump in on. Same with long term. All of these feature some variety of pay, and excuse from the job, etc.
Not sure what you are getting at, exactly, but I don't think it matters. See below.

I mean, unless you are wanting to paint only the strictest of employers whom works their employees to juuuuuuust under full time status, uses temp employees to duck the AHCA standards, and in general, 'book beats' the crap out their HR department on policy, there already are lots of accomodations that can be made to ensure the employer doesn't specifically bear a cost due to lost time from a pregnant employee.

It sounds like you are saying employers ought to grant accommodations to workers regardless of the medical reasons. So, it doesn't matter what the law is, or the hiring practices.
My work here is, finally, done.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 3:12:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago

Sure.
3. The company has a policy to not accommodate temporary work restrictions for events that occur off the clock.

Poor policy, but, sure.
4. If a worker is unable to perform their duties, but with a medical reason, they are sent home without pay until a time when they can perform their duties in full.

Or make use of vacation pay, borrow against future leave, but yeah, generally, if that is the company policy, that makes sense.

Should the woman be sent home without pay, if her work restrictions prevent her from doing her job?

I think, in general, an employer wouldn't want to throw the dice on when the work might cause complications in the pregnancy. If she is -able-, and in the process of lifting that 50 lb pacakage, some issue results, and the pregnancy is affected, the worker's comp situation you have is gonna be horrendous. It would be in the company's best interest to find/invent some variety of light detail, change her shift, retrain.
This is a case that the Supreme Court may hear.
The woman in question had a doctors note limiting her work to 20 lbs until X time, when it was 10 lbs, due to the pregnancy. She was hired by UPS as a package handler (or driver, maybe), and there is no way to accommodate this restriction.

The legal question is, if the woman wants to work, should UPS be forced to give her a job she wasn't hired for (say a phone operator). I say no, but that is not the intent of the thread.

The question I want to explore is, if a feminist believes the company should let her still work due to her pregnancy, then which of the two policies does the feminist support, to ensure equality among the sexes?

If not, then you must agree to one of these two policies to ensure equality:
1. Anyone, for any reason, must not be let go due to their temporary disabling actions off the clock. This includes being injured due to committing a crime, or hurt playing softball.

Minus the crime portion of our show, I would think an employer should practice this just to demonstrate they aren't a d!ck.

Why does crime matter?
Why should the employer accommodate you for breaking your hand due to a DIY home improvement accident, but not me for punching a guy in a bar?
Don't most people say that what you do outside of work is your own business, so, in an effort of equality, there should be no distinction made as to WHY a temporary medical restriction exists.

Because said person might then be incarcerated, said person exhibits tendencies you don't want in an employee, said person shows they could be compromised by ulterior motive. If a dude gets caught robbing a store, breaks his leg in the process, the employer has means of termination, they don't want to be the next place stolen from.

2. Women, then, pose a threat to productivity in the event they get pregnant, and actions may be taken to limit this loss of productivity (e.g. not hiring women or having a contract stating you won't get pregnant)

This happens anyways, and I assume you are not arguing the legality of it. In either case, there are short term medical leaves that companies jump in on. Same with long term. All of these feature some variety of pay, and excuse from the job, etc.
Not sure what you are getting at, exactly, but I don't think it matters. See below.

I mean, unless you are wanting to paint only the strictest of employers whom works their employees to juuuuuuust under full time status, uses temp employees to duck the AHCA standards, and in general, 'book beats' the crap out their HR department on policy, there already are lots of accomodations that can be made to ensure the employer doesn't specifically bear a cost due to lost time from a pregnant employee.

It sounds like you are saying employers ought to grant accommodations to workers regardless of the medical reasons. So, it doesn't matter what the law is, or the hiring practices.

No, I am saying most of those accommodations are worked into an insurance/benefit/workers comp package. For those to not be extended to an employee, an employer would already be needing to engage in considerations not in line with their employee's well being. 'It would be the nice thing to do' doesn't work well with ought/should, which is usually why those afore mentioned packages are made.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 3:15:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 3:12:52 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:

Because said person might then be incarcerated, said person exhibits tendencies you don't want in an employee, said person shows they could be compromised by ulterior motive. If a dude gets caught robbing a store, breaks his leg in the process, the employer has means of termination, they don't want to be the next place stolen from.

And the woman could have early delivery, or die.
The fact is, up until an event where they are not working, whether the police come or the ambulance, the fact that is was a crime is irrelevant to the injury, and thus the accommodation.
My work here is, finally, done.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 2:05:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 12:43:27 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
How do feminists reconcile the following:

Hey Khaos - great post! First, as a feminist let me clarify that not all feminists agree with the proposition of paid maternity leave. Libertarian feminists in particular recognize the productivity argument that you're making. However I am a libertarian-minded feminist who does support paid maternity leave. I think it is something that should not be guaranteed by law, but collectively bargained for by employees to hopefully be included in most employment contracts. I'll elaborate further...

Should the woman be sent home without pay, if her work restrictions prevent her from doing her job?
If not, then you must agree to one of these two policies to ensure equality:
1. Anyone, for any reason, must not be let go due to their temporary disabling actions off the clock. This includes being injured due to committing a crime, or hurt playing softball.

2. Women, then, pose a threat to productivity in the event they get pregnant, and actions may be taken to limit this loss of productivity (e.g. not hiring women or having a contract stating you won't get pregnant)

If you disagree, why?

The argument for state sanctioned or other paid maternity leave is obvious: women are biologically destined to be society's baby makers, and thus are inherently limited by nature to have limited productivity at a given time. Since this applies to (more than) half the population and can/has disrupted so many potential career opportunities - as well as ruined lives -due to being unable to work as a result of pregnancy - people have advocated on women's behalf to protect them from this inherent burden.

On the other hand, playing softball is not an inherent burden. Committing a crime certainly is not either. I don't think if you support paid maternity leave that you *necessarily* have to support the other as you imply. However, men might realize that it's possible for them to suffer an accident and be physically restricted from working. As such, they may collectively bargain and petition their employers to include something like paid accident leave in their employee contract. I would imagine most people think this is a good idea and could negotiate reasonable terms. For instance, paid accident leave for a limited amount of time (3 months). Recognizing the utility of these contractual agreements is why I think maternity leave pay could be negotiated voluntarily. This is how I can identify as both libertarian and pro-labor.
President of DDO
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 9:34:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 2:05:28 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 12/10/2014 12:43:27 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
How do feminists reconcile the following:

Hey Khaos - great post! First, as a feminist let me clarify that not all feminists agree with the proposition of paid maternity leave. Libertarian feminists in particular recognize the productivity argument that you're making. However I am a libertarian-minded feminist who does support paid maternity leave. I think it is something that should not be guaranteed by law, but collectively bargained for by employees to hopefully be included in most employment contracts. I'll elaborate further...

Should the woman be sent home without pay, if her work restrictions prevent her from doing her job?
If not, then you must agree to one of these two policies to ensure equality:
1. Anyone, for any reason, must not be let go due to their temporary disabling actions off the clock. This includes being injured due to committing a crime, or hurt playing softball.

2. Women, then, pose a threat to productivity in the event they get pregnant, and actions may be taken to limit this loss of productivity (e.g. not hiring women or having a contract stating you won't get pregnant)

If you disagree, why?

The argument for state sanctioned or other paid maternity leave is obvious: women are biologically destined to be society's baby makers, and thus are inherently limited by nature to have limited productivity at a given time. Since this applies to (more than) half the population and can/has disrupted so many potential career opportunities - as well as ruined lives -due to being unable to work as a result of pregnancy - people have advocated on women's behalf to protect them from this inherent burden.

On the other hand, playing softball is not an inherent burden. Committing a crime certainly is not either. I don't think if you support paid maternity leave that you *necessarily* have to support the other as you imply. However, men might realize that it's possible for them to suffer an accident and be physically restricted from working. As such, they may collectively bargain and petition their employers to include something like paid accident leave in their employee contract. I would imagine most people think this is a good idea and could negotiate reasonable terms. For instance, paid accident leave for a limited amount of time (3 months). Recognizing the utility of these contractual agreements is why I think maternity leave pay could be negotiated voluntarily. This is how I can identify as both libertarian and pro-labor.

My concern is not paid maternity leave, nor the law. Just what ought to be considered fair in the minds of a feminist. This is a real case that the Supreme Court may hear next session.

The issue is not maternity leave. The issue is the policy of accommodation.
In this case, the woman had a medical restriction, and, thus, could not due her job. The company refused to accommodate her, per policy, since the job she was hired for could not be accommodated; however, she could have transferred to another position (assuming they had an opening, which is unknown to me).

The fact that she may or may not have been paid is irrelevant.
The question is: should she have been FORCED to take the leave, paid or not? Remember, she was willing to work, just with her restrictions or in another capacity.
If you believe the company should have accommodated her, then you must believe one of the two options I listed, in order to be fair and equal (as a feminist).

The issue of whether a sprained ankle from a softball game should not be paid leave, while maternity leave should be, is another discussion.
My work here is, finally, done.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 9:49:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 9:34:10 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
My concern is not paid maternity leave, nor the law. Just what ought to be considered fair in the minds of a feminist. This is a real case that the Supreme Court may hear next session.

That's an ambiguous concern. You specifically asked about paid maternity leave, but your last post seemed to refer to something different. Can you reference the court case or note any details? I can see from your response that you are referring to a specific incident and not just speaking generally, so I'll try to respond from that perspective as best I understand it (since I am unfamiliar with the details of the case).

The issue is not maternity leave. The issue is the policy of accommodation.
In this case, the woman had a medical restriction, and, thus, could not due her job. The company refused to accommodate her, per policy, since the job she was hired for could not be accommodated; however, she could have transferred to another position (assuming they had an opening, which is unknown to me).

So far, from what I see here I don't see why the woman should have to be accommodated. If they can accomodate her, great! But who is to say that she is qualified for the other roles? Who is to say that the people she would be working with in other role(s) would be okay with it? Who is to say that the training wouldn't take longer than it's worth? Etc.

The fact that she may or may not have been paid is irrelevant.

I would imagine that it is relevant, but okay, if you say so...

The question is: should she have been FORCED to take the leave, paid or not? Remember, she was willing to work, just with her restrictions or in another capacity.

If she couldn't perform the job functions she was hired to do as per her employment contract, then yes she should be forced to take the leave. I don't see why this is an issue in an at-will work environment (which most places are) where employees can be fired at any time for any reason outside of the Civil Rights Act limitations. Oh... well I guess pregnancy can go along with the sex discrimination aspect lol so nevermind. Well, in that case, I think according to the LAW that the women would have to be paid or accommodated. However, I don't agree with the current law (Civil Rights Act) so I personally stand by my former comment... which is exactly why I said you shouldn't assume all feminists agree. Most would probably disagree with me on this.

If you believe the company should have accommodated her, then you must believe one of the two options I listed, in order to be fair and equal (as a feminist).

The issue of whether a sprained ankle from a softball game should not be paid leave, while maternity leave should be, is another discussion.

...then why did you bring it up?

"Anyone, for any reason, must not be let go due to their temporary disabling actions off the clock. This includes being injured due to committing a crime, or hurt playing softball." Clearly you wanted to reference a similar inability to work certain physical tasks (for any reason including softball injury) as something to consider. It's irrelevant to the case tough because injuries are not inherent to one's sex; pregnancy is.
President of DDO
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 10:22:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 9:49:29 AM, Danielle wrote:

I don't recall saying anything about paid leave in the OP, but I can see how I may have been misunderstood.

The case at issue, as I understand it (it was a little blurb of an editorial in the paper a week or so ago) deals with UPS.
A woman was pregnant, as a result, the doctor told her not to lift over 20 lbs until such and such date, and then not to lift over 10 lbs after that (until delivery).
Whatever this woman's job was (I assume sorter or driver) had the requirement to lift 50 lbs.
The doctor's orders prevent her from doing her job.
At the time, UPS had a policy that said if you cannot do your due to medical reasons as a consequence for off-the-job activities, you will not be accommodated.
As a result, she was sent home, even though she was willing to still work.

I do not know if she qualified for any short-term disability or had paid maternity leave.
She lost her case in federal court, and has appealed.

The matter of law is discrimination, and since I disagree with most employment laws, I don't care to argue what is currently legal. I just found the case interesting, as I do not see the violation. And, it made me wonder what is fair and equal treatment to those who claim they fight for equality between the sexes, and I came up with those two bitter pills to swallow, if one is to believe that pregnant women who have medical temporary restrictions due to said pregnancy should be required to be accommodated.

I do believe UPS has since changed their policy, if that matters.
And, frankly, I do agree that this is a bad policy to have, and I would swallow choice number two.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 10:43:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 9:49:29 AM, Danielle wrote:

http://www.motherjones.com...

Likely biased (by title alone, LOL), but it gives information.
Young v. UPS was apparently heard Dec 3, so, we'll see what the court says.
My work here is, finally, done.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 11:12:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 10:43:35 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

I would tend to agree with you. Unless women want to assume the role of baby makers regardless of consent, they have to accept pregnancy as a voluntary condition and thus not inherent to one's sex. Therefore even according to the Civil Rights Act, I don't think UPS should have had to comply because pregnancy is not inherent to womanhood.
President of DDO
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2014 11:44:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 12:43:27 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
How do feminists reconcile the following:

1. A pregnancy occurs off the clock.
2. The resulting off the clock actions limit the ability to perform expected duties (e.g. lift weight restrictions at UPS)
3. The company has a policy to not accommodate temporary work restrictions for events that occur off the clock.
4. If a worker is unable to perform their duties, but with a medical reason, they are sent home without pay until a time when they can perform their duties in full.

Should the woman be sent home without pay, if her work restrictions prevent her from doing her job?
If not, then you must agree to one of these two policies to ensure equality:
1. Anyone, for any reason, must not be let go due to their temporary disabling actions off the clock. This includes being injured due to committing a crime, or hurt playing softball.
2. Women, then, pose a threat to productivity in the event they get pregnant, and actions may be taken to limit this loss of productivity (e.g. not hiring women or having a contract stating you won't get pregnant)

If you disagree, why?

I don't understand all the details of employment law. I'm just disagreeing philosophically with the idea that pregnancy is a choice or an injury like you might get playing sport.

Only women get pregnant, and most women do get pregnant at some stage in their working lives. Further, if we think of humans as a species, then pregnancy is essential for our ongoing survival. In that sense, it is an expected and necessary state of the species as whole.

When we are writing policy for a large group of humans, then, we need to expect pregnancy as part of the healthy human condition. At the individual level, we could possibly argue it's a choice, but at the group level it's as much a choice as sleeping at night is a choice. People choose to sleep at night, but, at the same time it's an expected and healthy human state. Work policies should accommodate expected and normal human behavior such as sleeping and eating, resting, sick days, getting pregnant and so on.

The majority can exclude minority groups in various ways. For instance, we could insist on Christian festivals being public holidays and the minority religions can just deal with it. People who don't get pregnant (all men, 20% of women under 45 and all women over 45) can write work policies to suit themselves and those women who do get pregnant can fvck off. Yes, it's possible of course, but it's not really a fair decision in my opinion.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 8:35:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/15/2014 11:44:49 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 12/10/2014 12:43:27 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
How do feminists reconcile the following:

1. A pregnancy occurs off the clock.
2. The resulting off the clock actions limit the ability to perform expected duties (e.g. lift weight restrictions at UPS)
3. The company has a policy to not accommodate temporary work restrictions for events that occur off the clock.
4. If a worker is unable to perform their duties, but with a medical reason, they are sent home without pay until a time when they can perform their duties in full.

Should the woman be sent home without pay, if her work restrictions prevent her from doing her job?
If not, then you must agree to one of these two policies to ensure equality:
1. Anyone, for any reason, must not be let go due to their temporary disabling actions off the clock. This includes being injured due to committing a crime, or hurt playing softball.
2. Women, then, pose a threat to productivity in the event they get pregnant, and actions may be taken to limit this loss of productivity (e.g. not hiring women or having a contract stating you won't get pregnant)

If you disagree, why?

I don't understand all the details of employment law. I'm just disagreeing philosophically with the idea that pregnancy is a choice or an injury like you might get playing sport.
So, a woman's purpose is to have children?

Only women get pregnant, and most women do get pregnant at some stage in their working lives. Further, if we think of humans as a species, then pregnancy is essential for our ongoing survival. In that sense, it is an expected and necessary state of the species as whole.
See above.

When we are writing policy for a large group of humans, then, we need to expect pregnancy as part of the healthy human condition. At the individual level, we could possibly argue it's a choice, but at the group level it's as much a choice as sleeping at night is a choice. People choose to sleep at night, but, at the same time it's an expected and healthy human state. Work policies should accommodate expected and normal human behavior such as sleeping and eating, resting, sick days, getting pregnant and so on.


The majority can exclude minority groups in various ways. For instance, we could insist on Christian festivals being public holidays and the minority religions can just deal with it. People who don't get pregnant (all men, 20% of women under 45 and all women over 45) can write work policies to suit themselves and those women who do get pregnant can fvck off. Yes, it's possible of course, but it's not really a fair decision in my opinion.

Okay, so you, then, agree, that the fact that an applicant is a woman is a factor to consider, since it is normal and expected human behavior for the woman to not be able to do her job?
If not, why not?
Keep in mind, I do not care about what the law currently is. I care about what is fair and equal. Feminists cannot have it both ways, saying women are equal, but deserve special treatment because of womanly functions, and be offended that due to the special treatment, some are hesitant to hire/promote women.
My work here is, finally, done.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 5:01:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 12:43:27 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
How do feminists reconcile the following:

1. A pregnancy occurs off the clock.
2. The resulting off the clock actions limit the ability to perform expected duties (e.g. lift weight restrictions at UPS)
3. The company has a policy to not accommodate temporary work restrictions for events that occur off the clock.
4. If a worker is unable to perform their duties, but with a medical reason, they are sent home without pay until a time when they can perform their duties in full.

Should the woman be sent home without pay, if her work restrictions prevent her from doing her job?
If not, then you must agree to one of these two policies to ensure equality:
1. Anyone, for any reason, must not be let go due to their temporary disabling actions off the clock. This includes being injured due to committing a crime, or hurt playing softball.
2. Women, then, pose a threat to productivity in the event they get pregnant, and actions may be taken to limit this loss of productivity (e.g. not hiring women or having a contract stating you won't get pregnant)

If you disagree, why?

First of all, pregnancy is not an illness, and thus the analogy doesn't work.
Second, pregnancy is something seeked by both a man and a woman, so the woman is not to take the full responsability of the consequences of pregnancy.
Third pregnancy is necessary to society's survival, and thus it is counterproductive to discourage pregnancy. Because of this, pregnancy should be protected as a right under the law, and pregnant women should be inmune to the kind of policies you have mentioned. In summary, they should still be paid the salary.

About the "not hiring women" is something you can not really control, as businessmen have freedom of choice while hiring workers, and they will never admit they refused to hire a woman because she might get pregnant. I suppose this can only be fixed with the right education and social awareness campaigns.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 5:11:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 5:01:30 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 12/10/2014 12:43:27 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
How do feminists reconcile the following:

1. A pregnancy occurs off the clock.
2. The resulting off the clock actions limit the ability to perform expected duties (e.g. lift weight restrictions at UPS)
3. The company has a policy to not accommodate temporary work restrictions for events that occur off the clock.
4. If a worker is unable to perform their duties, but with a medical reason, they are sent home without pay until a time when they can perform their duties in full.

Should the woman be sent home without pay, if her work restrictions prevent her from doing her job?
If not, then you must agree to one of these two policies to ensure equality:
1. Anyone, for any reason, must not be let go due to their temporary disabling actions off the clock. This includes being injured due to committing a crime, or hurt playing softball.
2. Women, then, pose a threat to productivity in the event they get pregnant, and actions may be taken to limit this loss of productivity (e.g. not hiring women or having a contract stating you won't get pregnant)

If you disagree, why?

First of all, pregnancy is not an illness, and thus the analogy doesn't work.
What analogy doesn't work?
Second, pregnancy is something seeked by both a man and a woman, so the woman is not to take the full responsability of the consequences of pregnancy.
Why does the business care about what a man and a woman seek?
She knows the policy, she and him need to be responsible and prepare for this.
Third pregnancy is necessary to society's survival, and thus it is counterproductive to discourage pregnancy.
Why does a business owner care about society? They care about production.
Because of this, pregnancy should be protected as a right under the law, and pregnant women should be inmune to the kind of policies you have mentioned. In summary, they should still be paid the salary.
Even though this is unequal treatment?
If that is your stance, then do you agree with option 2?


About the "not hiring women" is something you can not really control, as businessmen have freedom of choice while hiring workers, and they will never admit they refused to hire a woman because she might get pregnant. I suppose this can only be fixed with the right education and social awareness campaigns.

If a woman has a decent chance of getting pregnant and costing me six months salary, forced accommodation, and hiring a temp to replace her (or overtime for others doing her job), why should I not be able to factor that into the hiring/promotion/wage determination process?
Is there something wrong with me protecting my company from this liability? It only seems fair that if that is your view, then the consequences for this view should be fair as well.
My work here is, finally, done.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 5:38:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 5:11:15 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/16/2014 5:01:30 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 12/10/2014 12:43:27 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
How do feminists reconcile the following:

1. A pregnancy occurs off the clock.
2. The resulting off the clock actions limit the ability to perform expected duties (e.g. lift weight restrictions at UPS)
3. The company has a policy to not accommodate temporary work restrictions for events that occur off the clock.
4. If a worker is unable to perform their duties, but with a medical reason, they are sent home without pay until a time when they can perform their duties in full.

Should the woman be sent home without pay, if her work restrictions prevent her from doing her job?
If not, then you must agree to one of these two policies to ensure equality:
1. Anyone, for any reason, must not be let go due to their temporary disabling actions off the clock. This includes being injured due to committing a crime, or hurt playing softball.
2. Women, then, pose a threat to productivity in the event they get pregnant, and actions may be taken to limit this loss of productivity (e.g. not hiring women or having a contract stating you won't get pregnant)

If you disagree, why?

First of all, pregnancy is not an illness, and thus the analogy doesn't work.
What analogy doesn't work?

This one: "1. Anyone, for any reason, must not be let go due to their temporary disabling actions off the clock. This includes being injured due to committing a crime, or hurt playing softball."

Being hurt or injured aren't equal to being pregnant. They are both disabilities to an extent, but due to different reasons. To put another example, being disabled for a momentary injure while playing football, doesn't qualify you to get a job closer to your home when you work for the gobernment. However, having a dependant person under your charge, which is a disability to you to an extent, does qualify you to get a job closer to your home. The first case doesn't give you any priviledge because fixing the problem is not important for society to work properly, but the second case is different, it is important to society that dependant people get attended, and thus society gives you priviledges in order for you to keep that atention.

Second, pregnancy is something seeked by both a man and a woman, so the woman is not to take the full responsability of the consequences of pregnancy.
Why does the business care about what a man and a woman seek?

Not business, the law should care, and business are not inmune to State's laws.

She knows the policy, she and him need to be responsible and prepare for this.

My point is, the policy should not apply to pregnant women. Either by the ethical code of the businessman, or by legislative imposition.

Third pregnancy is necessary to society's survival, and thus it is counterproductive to discourage pregnancy.
Why does a business owner care about society? They care about production.

If they didn't care, they could start paying workers half of what they already pay them. Business owners must care about society, either by force or by their own choice. If they don't, they are free to go to any other society willing to be more flexible with them.

Because of this, pregnancy should be protected as a right under the law, and pregnant women should be inmune to the kind of policies you have mentioned. In summary, they should still be paid the salary.
Even though this is unequal treatment?
If that is your stance, then do you agree with option 2?

Pregnancy can not be effectively compared to any other condition, so imo you won't find two objects to compare in order to establish equal or not-equal treatment between them.

About the "not hiring women" is something you can not really control, as businessmen have freedom of choice while hiring workers, and they will never admit they refused to hire a woman because she might get pregnant. I suppose this can only be fixed with the right education and social awareness campaigns.

If a woman has a decent chance of getting pregnant and costing me six months salary, forced accommodation, and hiring a temp to replace her (or overtime for others doing her job), why should I not be able to factor that into the hiring/promotion/wage determination process?
Is there something wrong with me protecting my company from this liability? It only seems fair that if that is your view, then the consequences for this view should be fair as well.

You shouldn't. Above your personal interests, are the interests of society. Pregnant women are needed in order for society to survive, and for obvious reasons they need money, so any policies that prevent them from being hired should be illegal.

But as I said, it's not like anyone could effectively demonstrate that you didn't hire a woman because she could get pregnant. If I were a businessman myself, I wouldn't prescind from women. I'm sure my company would not be ruined by treating pregnant women with affection, plus in exchange of the little moneraty value I lose those months, I will get an increase of my value as a person.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2014 11:22:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/16/2014 8:35:34 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/15/2014 11:44:49 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 12/10/2014 12:43:27 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
How do feminists reconcile the following:

1. A pregnancy occurs off the clock.
2. The resulting off the clock actions limit the ability to perform expected duties (e.g. lift weight restrictions at UPS)
3. The company has a policy to not accommodate temporary work restrictions for events that occur off the clock.
4. If a worker is unable to perform their duties, but with a medical reason, they are sent home without pay until a time when they can perform their duties in full.

Should the woman be sent home without pay, if her work restrictions prevent her from doing her job?
If not, then you must agree to one of these two policies to ensure equality:
1. Anyone, for any reason, must not be let go due to their temporary disabling actions off the clock. This includes being injured due to committing a crime, or hurt playing softball.
2. Women, then, pose a threat to productivity in the event they get pregnant, and actions may be taken to limit this loss of productivity (e.g. not hiring women or having a contract stating you won't get pregnant)

If you disagree, why?

I don't understand all the details of employment law. I'm just disagreeing philosophically with the idea that pregnancy is a choice or an injury like you might get playing sport.
So, a woman's purpose is to have children?

Uh...no.

Only women get pregnant, and most women do get pregnant at some stage in their working lives. Further, if we think of humans as a species, then pregnancy is essential for our ongoing survival. In that sense, it is an expected and necessary state of the species as whole.
See above.

When we are writing policy for a large group of humans, then, we need to expect pregnancy as part of the healthy human condition. At the individual level, we could possibly argue it's a choice, but at the group level it's as much a choice as sleeping at night is a choice. People choose to sleep at night, but, at the same time it's an expected and healthy human state. Work policies should accommodate expected and normal human behavior such as sleeping and eating, resting, sick days, getting pregnant and so on.


The majority can exclude minority groups in various ways. For instance, we could insist on Christian festivals being public holidays and the minority religions can just deal with it. People who don't get pregnant (all men, 20% of women under 45 and all women over 45) can write work policies to suit themselves and those women who do get pregnant can fvck off. Yes, it's possible of course, but it's not really a fair decision in my opinion.

Okay, so you, then, agree, that the fact that an applicant is a woman is a factor to consider, since it is normal and expected human behavior for the woman to not be able to do her job?
If not, why not?

Yes and no. Not all women do get pregnant, and it seems unfair to penalize the ones that don't because of the ones that do. That's unfair stereotyping. I also think that it's not fair to penalize the women that DO get pregnant in terms of lifetime earnings, because mothers need money to raise their children and living in poverty is the single most consistent predictor of bad outcomes for children. About half of mothers are single mothers, and they are often the main provider for their children.

On the other hand, if an employer has two applicants for a job, and one is a man, and one is a pregnant woman, of course they would want to choose the man - because he's not pregnant.

Keep in mind, I do not care about what the law currently is. I care about what is fair and equal. Feminists cannot have it both ways, saying women are equal, but deserve special treatment because of womanly functions, and be offended that due to the special treatment, some are hesitant to hire/promote women.

Yeah, in the US the individual employers take on all the welfare functions such as health insurance. In other countries these function are often taken on by the state, with public health insurance and tax payer funded maternity leave etc. Maybe there should be mandatory pregnancy insurance that is payed by all employees and then money comes out of that fund to cover pregnancy and maternity leave.