Supreme Court considers pregnancy in the workplace - Polidicks

[QUOTE=J!NX;46645641]I'm really curious as to how this got a disagree[/QUOTE] I would think because pregnancy is not a vital, nor mandatory function. It's 100% optional.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;46645663]I would think because pregnancy is not a vital, nor mandatory function. It's 100% optional.[/QUOTE] For individuals, but not as a society. We definitely shouldn't be opposing or disincentivizing women from having children, else we end up like Japan.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;46645663]I would think because pregnancy is not a vital, nor mandatory function. It's 100% optional.[/QUOTE] it's not 100% optional 100% of the time though still, even then

[QUOTE=bravehat;46645333]Holy shit that's fucking rancid, mate in the UK you get a basic 6 months plus a possible additional 6 months and for that time you get 90% of your weekly wage for the first 6 weeks, then £133 or 90% of your wage again, depending on what's lowest. Fathers are also entitled to 1 or 2 weeks off when their kid is born but I think that's changing next year so parents can split leave and pay between them and share out the time as they see fit between them. This shit' retarded yo, if someone can;t perform the job due to pregnancy you move them into a simpler/easier role, in this case instead of carrying heavy shit just leave them in a sorting office.[/QUOTE] dang, that idea of allowing the parents to split the leave time if they want seems really reasonable to me we need what the UK does on this issue already

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];46645676']For individuals, but not as a society. We definitely shouldn't be opposing or disincentivizing women from having children, else we end up like Japan.[/QUOTE] I agree with you. Jinx just asked why it would get a disagree, and that's just the only logical reason I can think of why somebody would disagree.

[QUOTE=Flapadar;46645530]For a really small business that could be a killer blow. Maybe they've only got money for 2 employees, now they're paying for 3. Better solution is have the government pay a living allowance during pregnancy[/QUOTE] You still have the issue of a employee suddenly not being able to do her job properly, it can still be a drain on resources and a decreased work-rate. For the employer there's no real win-win in the scenario - you take some but lose some. That's why so many companies dismiss or avoid hiring women with family plans.

[QUOTE=Vasili;46645797]You still have the issue of a employee suddenly not being able to do her job properly, it can still be a drain on resources and a decreased work-rate. For the employer there's no real win-win in the scenario - you take some but lose some. That's why so many companies dismiss or avoid hiring women with family plans.[/QUOTE] A potential solution could be for the federal government to cover the employee's wages while they're unavailable. That way the employee still gets paid, and the business just has to hire a temp or make do with the reduced labor.

(sarcasm) Forget the baby, think of the money lost! How can someone be so selfish that they need to time away from work to raise a child! What kind of person does this! We should thank our American corporations for giving us the ability to keep working for the benefit of the free market.

[QUOTE=J!NX;46645322]imagine being sexually assaulted now you're pregnant with a baby you don't want and abortion laws say that you can't abort, and now because of shitty regulations you get fired from your job[/QUOTE] Republican voter's paradise.

Businesses shouldn't have to pay any more than they already do to somebody just because they decide to make different life choices, getting pregnant is a choice (abuse and rape are obviously different) and the business shouldn't have to support you if you are unable to work because you choose to have a child

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46648137]Every state has legal abortion and contraceptives are very inexpensive. It's pretty much 100% optional at this point whether or not you carry a pregnancy to term. Even if your state has assinine laws, you can drive to another state that doesn't. If expenses are an issue then compare, what's more expensive: 100$ worth of gas, or 180,000 dollars for a kid. Birth control is super fucking cheap. I mean SUPER FUCKING cheap: [url]http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/alpha-consumer/2012/03/05/the-real-cost-of-birth-control[/url][/QUOTE] Oh yeah instead of fixing the law lets encourage women to get abortions in the name of corporations. Great idea.

[QUOTE=lilgrill;46648101]Businesses shouldn't have to pay any more than they already do to somebody just because they decide to make different life choices, getting pregnant is a choice (abuse and rape are obviously different) and the business shouldn't have to support you if you are unable to work because you choose to have a child[/QUOTE] So women have to choose between having children and having a job. Personally, I wouldn't want to die childless at my old age. But then again, I don't want to die impoverished either.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;46648230]So women have to choose between having children and having a job. Personally, I wouldn't want to die childless at my old age. But then again, I don't want to die impoverished either.[/QUOTE] Businesses shouldn't pay for your months long vacation. They are not responsible for your family decisions and holding them liable in terms of pay imo is wrong. Instead as someone suggested, government should pay the mother and business. It will encourage both making more babies and equal hiring grounds for both genders since business doesn't have an incentive to pick one gender over another.

[QUOTE=itisjuly;46648260]Businesses shouldn't pay for your months long vacation. They are not responsible for your family decisions and holding them liable in terms of pay imo is wrong. Instead as someone suggested, government should pay the mother and business. It will encourage both making more babies and equal hiring grounds for both genders since business doesn't have an incentive to pick one gender over another.[/QUOTE] Since when is raising a newborn "vacation"? Have you ever been around a newborn longer than 5 minutes? I'm not disagreeing that the government plan is a bad idea but your whole attitude toward mothers is bullshit.

Why is everybody looking at this as though pregnancy is some kind of unforeseen condition brought about by unknown circumstances. When it comes down to it, the majority of women make the decision to have sex with their partners. This, in turn, can sometimes result in pregnancy (unwanted or not). The fact is, they specifically chose to do something that resulted in their current inability to do work. In this case, it's specifically stated that UPS "has a generally applied policy that does not accommodate disabilities that occur off the job." If you want to argue that being pregnant isn't somehow a disability, well, you would have to convince me that being pregnant doesn't prevent you from doing anything that you would otherwise be able to do under normal circumstances. The fact of the matter is, if someone chooses to do something that might result in them NOT being able to do their job, their employers shouldn't be responsible for that. ESPECIALLY when they have specifically accounted for it in their general employment policies.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46648332]It's 100% optional to have a kid the vast majority of the time. A business shouldn't have to pay for your life choices and your family plans. The government should, but that's simply because the entire function of government is to exist for the well being of the citizens.[/QUOTE] If every woman was encouraged to work and not have kids, the population of the US would start to have a problem. There is a reason that woman get maternity leave, it is an incentive to have kids and sustain or increase the population.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46648137]Every state has legal abortion and contraceptives are very inexpensive. It's pretty much 100% optional at this point whether or not you carry a pregnancy to term. Even if your state has assinine laws, you can drive to another state that doesn't. If expenses are an issue then compare, what's more expensive: 100$ worth of gas, or 180,000 dollars for a kid. Birth control is super fucking cheap. I mean SUPER FUCKING cheap: [url]http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/alpha-consumer/2012/03/05/the-real-cost-of-birth-control[/url][/QUOTE] 1. Driving to another state could be totally out of the question financially or physically for some women [QUOTE=ilikecorn;46648243]I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm merely pointing out that carrying a pregnancy to term (or indeed getting pregnant at all) is 100% optional unless extenuating circumstances exist (like rape or incest). I personally am not a fan of abortion at all, but it's a thing, it exists, and it's not going away.[/QUOTE] 2. Birth control is not an absolute solution and can fail, women can't reject getting pregnant just because they don't want to. If they get pregnant, the only thing they can do at that point is abort. Not all women are willing to abort. of course my point is also generally moot since it's extremely effective to the point of being easily more than good enough to not worry. [QUOTE=ilikecorn;46648332]It's 100% optional to have a kid the vast majority of the time. A business shouldn't have to pay for your life choices and your family plans. The government should, but that's simply because the entire function of government is to exist for the well being of the citizens.[/QUOTE] 3. A business should be responsible for their workers, regardless of whether or not abortion is illegal or not, it was rape, incest, accidental, or planned, or because they were abducted by an alien. of course I agree the government should help as well but they should help by making businesses less shitty towards they're employees. The government has better things to pay for. Like more tanks to keep in warehouses.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;46648314]Since when is raising a newborn "vacation"? Have you ever been around a newborn longer than 5 minutes? I'm not disagreeing that the government plan is a bad idea but your whole attitude toward mothers is bullshit.[/QUOTE] From the business' perspective, it is a vacation. In fact, it's even worse than a vacation since you don't come back refreshed.

[QUOTE=Mmrnmhrm;46648847]From the business' perspective, it is a vacation. In fact, it's even worse than a vacation since you don't come back refreshed.[/QUOTE] It's only that perspective because they're cheap. It's tacky to just write off any extended time away from work as "vacation" without looking at the subjective reasons behind the absence. They know damn well it's not a vacation yet they treat as such so they can avoid caring for their workers.

By brother in law sister got work in a school and few month later she got pregnant. And then when her maternity leave was close to and end she got pregnant again. And it was all planned. Imagine you hire someone like that and before you even get to know them they go away and you need to wait 2 years for them to come back.

[QUOTE=AntonioR;46648990]By brother in law sister got work in a school and few month later she got pregnant. And then when her maternity leave was close to and end she got pregnant again. And it was all planned. Imagine you hire someone like that and before you even get to know them they go away and you need to wait 2 years for them to come back.[/QUOTE] I doubt this is done majority of the time to take advantage of the system.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46649207]Businesses exist to make money, not take care of their workers. Government exists to take care of the people. The government doesn't have better things to pay for, it's literally their responsibility to take care of the people. If the government isn't taking care of the people, then it's not fulfilling its job. [/QUOTE] They then ought to stop lying with those mission statements about promoting the goodness and wellness of everyone and everything like so many of them claim.

I'm sorry, but there's just some jobs pregnant women shouldn't do. It puts the baby and the woman at increased risk. I do think she should of been given maternity leave though

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46649207]Businesses exist to make money, not take care of their workers. Government exists to take care of the people. The government doesn't have better things to pay for, it's literally their responsibility to take care of the people. If the government isn't taking care of the people, then it's not fulfilling its job. [editline]5th December 2014[/editline] You'd be surprised how many military women suddenly get pregnant when their unit gets deployment orders..[/QUOTE] Funny thing about that though... [U]Businesses wouldn't exist without workers[/U]. So what you're saying is workers aren't important to them at all? that's how they make money. seriously, I agree'd the government should take care of its people, I agree'd with you, but they should do it by making businesses not fucking suck and treat their workers like ass

[QUOTE=J!NX;46651118]Funny thing about that though... [U]Businesses wouldn't exist without workers[/U]. So what you're saying is workers aren't important to them at all? that's how they make money. seriously, I agree'd the government should take care of its people, I agree'd with you, but they should do it by making businesses not fucking suck and treat their workers like ass[/QUOTE] Businesses pay people to do work. Why pay 2 people to do one job? People pay taxes so the government can function. The government exists to take care of citizens. Thus, it should be the government which props people up during pregnancy, not businesses. Whether or not the government does this by providing tax breaks/credit to the business who then keeps the employee on payroll, or directly to the employee isn't important. The important part is we don't shaft small business by making them do the governments work for them.

Firing some one because of pregnancy should not only be mandatory for jobs like UPS, but they should have some type of disability compensation to help out with the child that is to come. Personally, people just need to stop fucking breeding.

If it's not a work related injury or accident, business is not liable in any way. Government is and they should do their job too. Offering paid mat/paternity leave should be absolutely optional to any business and only done if they want to. Instead government should be dealing with this. Businesses exist to circulate money, government exists to care for its citizens. Business has to pay if a worker gets injured at work because that is preventable and in many cases is business' fault for providing poor safety. A business cannot prevent you from getting pregnant or predict that in any way. I don't see why they should pay for something they have no control over. This is a problem if we want equal opportunities for both genders.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;46648230]So women have to choose between having children and having a job.[/QUOTE] From the business's perspective, that's exactly what it is. If a woman chooses to have children then she isn't doing her job. Trying to force businesses to subsidize population growth is not fair, and preventing the inevitable hiring discrimination that it encourages is not practical. Proper support should come from the government. [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;46648880]It's only that perspective because they're cheap. It's tacky to just write off any extended time away from work as "vacation" without looking at the subjective reasons behind the absence. They know damn well it's not a vacation yet they treat as such so they can avoid caring for their workers.[/QUOTE] I don't know why so many Facepunchers seem to think all businesses are evil, giant money-grubbing corporations. There are small businesses all across America that operate with minimal profit margins, and something as minor as the loss of an employee (let alone while still having to pay them) can and does force small businesses to close their doors. If someone is going to disappear for months at a time, you cannot reasonably expect a business to continue paying them for work they aren't doing because it's for the public good. Providing for the public good at their own expense is not the function of a private business, it's the function of welfare programs instituted by the government. Treating businesses as an extension of public welfare is why we have nonsense like bank bailouts and it's not a good system.