If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NYPost)   Mother who used up all her maternity leave and vacation time a week before her child was born doesn't understand why her company fired her   (nypost.com) divider line 664
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

28260 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Apr 2008 at 8:29 PM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



664 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-04-29 08:28:12 AM
As a woman who works in an all-female environment where three staff members have gotten pregnant in the last two years (and one has quit after taking the full amount of leave), I'm totally in favour of maternity leave... provided men and non-breeding females such as myself, get to take paid time off equivalent to at least two maternity leaves over the course of their working lives. This leave would be "I just got a new x leave", where x my be a dog, house, baby, car, vacation to Tahiti or similar.
 
2008-04-29 08:32:11 AM
So who's doing the work of the mother while she's out? Her coworkers. Are they getting extra pay or overtime for the extra work? Doubt it. But the workplace is being pressured to pay for an employee who's unable to show up for an extended period of time? New moms deserve to be cared for, to be sure, but a business can't run on absent employees forever.

This is why is sucks to be a female in her 20's looking for a job. Every potential employer looks at you like you're just waiting to get your clutches on their maternity leave and benefits so you can split after 3 months of work.
 
2008-04-29 08:57:20 AM
Firefly4F4: falkone32: get a year of paid vacation off from work?

I don't believe it's paid -- at least, not by the company (any Canadian mothers out there, please correct me if I'm wrong). It's "leave" -- it just means you can take the time off and then go back to your job once the year is over with no loss of position.


It's paid by the government... BUT you get 55% of your salary for a year.

They have to hold your job for you.
 
2008-04-29 09:07:51 AM
James T. Kirk: ... 1 year of paid leave is the minimum that we can provide ...


Ah, the Royal form of "we".

How about YOU pay people not to work if you like, and let the rest of us make our own decisions?
 
2008-04-29 09:15:05 AM
amanogowa: mrshowrules: The US is officially in the stone ages. A woman has a high risk pregnancy and needs to work 30 hours instead of 60 hours. This is unpaid reduction in hours. Unpaid!!!

In Canada a woman gets 1 year off for maternity paid by the federal government. Where is the labour equality if a woman loses her job for being pregnant.

What kills me is that the same self rigteous people who biatch about welfare moms, are also the same people who typically don't give a crap about a woman's employement protection related to pregnancy.

/pure stone ages

Because you know, getting only 1/2 her job done will work out well for the company. Or paying to do a search to fill 1/2 her position... for a month or two...


She is not the only one that matters. Her employer, and the other employees who will be worse off due to her mismanagement suffer.


You know that this type of labour legislation only applies to companies with a minimum number of employees (10, 20, 30). It is easy to backfill when you have a company with 20 employees. You should be prepared to backfill anyways in case the employee gets hit by a bus. It is the price of doing business and it is an equal playing field if every company of a certain size is subject to the same legislative requirements.
 
2008-04-29 09:15:52 AM
Im so sick of parasites and professional victims whining about how 'we' are evil if we don't CARRY their sorry asses through life.
 
2008-04-29 09:19:26 AM
The system is already massively unfair, in that women are given preferential treatment when it comes to childbirth, but still expect to be paid the same and kept on staff. If a woman uses up all of her maternity leave and vacation time and then takes even more time off, she shouldn't expect to keep her job - it's up to her husband, not her former employer, to subsidize her difficult birth.

Otherwise, businesses end up going bankrupt, and a lot more than a few people are out of work.
 
2008-04-29 09:21:46 AM
AfternoonDelight: So who's doing the work of the mother while she's out? Her coworkers. Are they getting extra pay or overtime for the extra work? Doubt it. But the workplace is being pressured to pay for an employee who's unable to show up for an extended period of time? New moms deserve to be cared for, to be sure, but a business can't run on absent employees forever.

This is why is sucks to be a female in her 20's looking for a job. Every potential employer looks at you like you're just waiting to get your clutches on their maternity leave and benefits so you can split after 3 months of work.


Your hitting the nail on the head. The realy issue is equal access to the job market and for this legislatiion is required. The Government should pay a portion of an employee's salary while she is having a baby. The employer responsibility is to keep her job for her.
 
2008-04-29 09:22:53 AM
Gotta love the 'logic' that claims that because people think this particular individual is suffering from an entitlement complex, there is an inherent hate against women and children.

/carry on
 
2008-04-29 09:24:07 AM
Confused. So she had one week fo maternity time and vacation time combined, and she used it a week before the baby is born?

Not going to bother clicking the link. The hed confused me enough.
 
2008-04-29 09:24:59 AM
cartoon corpse: Im so sick of parasites and professional victims whining about how 'we' are evil if we don't CARRY their sorry asses through life.

You are the same type of person who gets all pissed off about welfare mom's but also doesn't give a crap if a woman loses her job because she was pregnant.
 
2008-04-29 09:29:49 AM
SpeelChuck
Read TFA. It's not as cut-and-dried as you think. She had a high-risk pregnancy and was medically ordered to cut back on hours, but her employer said her contract didn't entitle her to cut back. So she took unpaid maternity leave, and then vacation days, and when those were gone and she still wasn't allowed (by her doctor) to work the full 60-hour workweek, they fired her.

It has nothing to do with parenting. It has nothing to do with being a good employee either. And she wasn't asking them to pay her for the time off, she took unpaid leave. She just wanted to remain employed.

I wonder how you'd react if this happened to your wife, and her job was an economic necessity in your household.


THIS.

Also, I love how people slam others for having kids - how 'bout slamming their own parents for recklessly breeding?

60 hour work-weeks are insane even for a healthy person. Look up the stats for median salaries currently compared to 30 years ago, or salaries vs productivity in the US compared to other countries. I'm by no means a bolshie, but a American workers get screwed.
 
2008-04-29 09:32:08 AM
j0ndas: The system is already massively unfair, in that women are given preferential treatment when it comes to childbirth, but still expect to be paid the same and kept on staff. If a woman uses up all of her maternity leave and vacation time and then takes even more time off, she shouldn't expect to keep her job - it's up to her husband, not her former employer, to subsidize her difficult birth.

Otherwise, businesses end up going bankrupt, and a lot more than a few people are out of work.


Subsidize? This is about job protection not the employer paying her wages while she is on maternity leave. There is a secondary benefit to backfilling people's position. Additional staff gets trained on different procedures, they become more well rounded employees and you become better prepared should you lose any employee permanently. Any employer who can't handle losing an employee for a few months, will eventually go out of business anyways.
 
2008-04-29 09:32:34 AM
gluestickralph: Fark her. Fark Her. FARK HER. Farking self entitled stupid spoiled whore. I am blown away at times be people who think a self inflicted state should allow them to get special perks. Kill her and give the new crotch dropping to someone worthy. Nobody forced her to get knocked up. End of story. You pays your money and takes your chances susie stupidass.

Ok, I'm female and this made me want to put in my .02. While my frustrated associate here is speaking a little strongly, i do find that picking up the slack while my engaged/pregnant/new mother co-workers f*ck around endlessly discussing their various miracles, it pisses me off that I'm pulling a 10-12 hour day while these women scream about their rights while watching Dr. Phil from the depths of the sofa.

And while they are at it they can stop bringing them into adult establishments, too. you decided to be a mommy, accept the consequences.
 
2008-04-29 09:51:40 AM
Her kid might be the one who gives you life saving surgery or at least changes your diaper when you are an old fart.

Or her kid might be the one who rapes your poodle and sets fire to your house.
 
2008-04-29 09:52:27 AM
giantpiraterobot: BlockBug: entitled

I have never seen this word used in a case where I agreed with the sentiment.


Well, I guess everyone's entitled to his/her own opinion.

/oh, now I see what you mean
 
2008-04-29 09:55:43 AM
Companies that do not benefit society should be classified as hostile entities.
 
2008-04-29 09:57:59 AM
TheAntiElite: Gotta love the 'logic' that claims that because people think this particular individual is suffering from an entitlement complex, there is an inherent hate against women and children.

/carry on


Well, based on the comments in this thread, looks like that "logic" may be bang-on.
 
2008-04-29 09:58:04 AM
Did it occur to anyone that maybe this woman sucked and after the company exhausted their obligation to accommodate her pregnancy, found an opportunity to can her?
 
2008-04-29 10:00:37 AM
It's not special treatment, is it? Alright, where is my maternity leave? How much do I, as a male get? I demand the same salary as those that choose not to take months off work, and equal treatment --- BUT extra vacation.

I mean society, (by which YOU meant my employer) owes it to me!


It's called paternity leave, and many employers offer it. In Scandinavia, I believe, it's mandatory for employers to offer. Your baby momma has a kid, and you can stay and help. Granted, it's usually not as long as maternity (considering the guy doesn't have to recover physically), but it does exist. My husband got three weeks.

/Jebus, I hope none of you whiners ever breed
 
2008-04-29 10:01:47 AM
Did it occur to anyone that maybe this woman sucked and after the company exhausted their obligation to accommodate her pregnancy, found an opportunity to can her?

I'm wondering that myself...
 
2008-04-29 10:02:27 AM
RemyDuron: In the third case, they should pay them until they stop working, then stop paying them. Being pregnant is a choice in this country, abortion is legal everywhere and contraceptives widely available. No one has to be pregnant. If someone wants to willfully disable themselves, employers shouldn't have to pay for it.

Actually, complications due to pregnancy are a coverable cause for disability. A normal pregnancy is not. Few women get knocked up expecting to have complications. Check your disability coverage... you'll see pregnancy not covered, complications from pregnancy are. The same holds true for regular health insurance.

Here's the thing. I think no one should have a baby if they can't afford it. That being said, I don't think someone should lose their job for a definable medical issue resulting in 'disability'.

This wasn't about getting PAID to be disabled, this was about having a job when she came back. Or reducing her hours. Had her employer reduced her hours to 40, she could have just made due. Mandating a 60 hour work week when someone has a note from their doctor is not right.

I don't think it's right for an employer to try and fire someone for jury duty, active duty, reserve duty, or any other kind of medically defined disability. If the laws didn't protect against that sort of thing, then you could argue it.

Women get pregnant all the time. And most of the time, its men who knock them up. Its a fact of life. Most of the time there aren't problems. Sometimes there are. There is no reason to fire someone who has a doctor's note, and isn't demanding pay.

So they had a bad roll of the dice. Since she isn't demanding a handout, there is no reason for all the hate about paying for her. If you have group insurance, you pay for complications in pregnant women every month. Since most of you pay taxes, you pay for poor pregnant women all the time. Why not go hate on them, instead of someone not asking to get paid, but just have a job when the baby pops out?

(Now, working 60 hours/ week with a new baby... my guess is she'd be quitting fairly quickly. But then, her quitting is LEGAL. They should have just waited a couple of months.)
 
2008-04-29 10:06:13 AM
tinman: Said danae00:
consistently shocked by how horrible the maternity/paternity leaves are in the US

And why should there be any? Having or not having a child is a conscious choice on the part(s) of the participant(s). If you make the choice to have a kid why should your employer be penalized? If I make the choice to break the law and have to go to jail should my employer be forced to keep my job open for me? Or even better, pay me while I'm inside?

Please.

Think about it for a g-d second.


One, your employeer isn't the one paying. You get government EI (employee insurance), which as an employee you've been paying into for your entire career. You're just taking out money that is basically already yours.

And don't you guys have temp workers and contractors down there? Unless you're in a major labour crunch, it's really not hard hiring a contractor for a year. And at least in my field, employers often prefer contractors (don't have to pay benefits, can let them go easier), and many employees prefer being contractors (make more money). Temp jobs are also popular for the less techincally skilled.
 
2008-04-29 10:07:35 AM
DaShredda: Companies that do not benefit society should be classified as hostile entities.

Agreed.

Lots of people focusing on bashing other people because they'll never need a maternity leave and don't see other people have the right to do so... why not complain and united so everyone can get the right to a prolonged leave ever X years of work? I never got this concept of wanting people to lose "perks" that we don't have ourselves, I would rather concentrate on claiming that more people should have it. And it should be in any company's best interest to keep their employees happy/healthy/productive, 2 weeks of vacation time per year isn't enough for that.
 
2008-04-29 10:17:53 AM
amanogowa: It's not special treatment, is it? Alright, where is my maternity leave? How much do I, as a male get? I demand the same salary as those that choose not to take months off work, and equal treatment --- BUT extra vacation.

You do realize that many countries have government "parental leaves". That's right. Either the father or the mother can take it. And it can be divided up between the two however they see fit (i.e. first 30 weeks the mother takes it, next 22 weeks the father takes it).

In Canada I think the only stipulation is that something like 12 or 14 weeks of the leave *must* be taken by the mother, as it's inteded for physical recovery after birth and nursing. Something that fathers just don't have to deal with.


/didn't read the thread, so I'm sure this has all been mentioned before.
 
2008-04-29 10:26:51 AM
AfternoonDelight: This is why is sucks to be a female in her 20's looking for a job. Every potential employer looks at you like you're just waiting to get your clutches on their maternity leave and benefits so you can split after 3 months of work.

This is an easy thing to take care of. While a prospective employer cannot ask you about your reproductive plans, it is perfectly legal for you to volunteer the information. I never had a problem getting a job, I just made very sure in my interviews to make it well known I had no intentions of procreating.

This causes problems further down the road however, because all the men have wives and children, and so you get the short end of the shaft until you get married. And then, once you do get married, they all strongly imply you need to pop a few out like their wives did.

If your business can't afford issues like maternity leave, and unpaid absences due to child bearing, they should hire contractors. I have all the time off I want. Any time I don't want to be paid, I can take the time. If I were to want to have a baby, I could time my contracts so that I could be off during the last month or so, and first month it was alive. The companies I contract with are types of companies whom would not have a problem with my not contracting with them for a while because I was procreating. I would not hold it against the companies I contract with to just not have any staffing needs when I decided to work again. And I would go elsewhere. I've taken 2-4 month breaks before.. it ain't no big thang. And not for makin' babies either.

But if you're going to have salaried workers, and give them benefits and protections offered to salaried workers, than you have to deal with things like medical leave and disability. Sucks to be you. Get a different business plan.
 
2008-04-29 10:29:01 AM
thatvoiceguy: KaponoFor3: I'm sure this will be a totally levelheaded discussion by people who really grasp and understand the ins and outs of employment law

No, actually, this is FAR --- oh, I see. Heh.


that won't happen.

fmla lasts for 3 month with her pto time, she was out on leave for like 4 months top.

what i don'tunderstand is why she didn't take a non-management job.
 
2008-04-29 10:37:21 AM
QuantumPhaseShift: AfternoonDelight: This is why is sucks to be a female in her 20's looking for a job. Every potential employer looks at you like you're just waiting to get your clutches on their maternity leave and benefits so you can split after 3 months of work.

This is an easy thing to take care of. While a prospective employer cannot ask you about your reproductive plans, it is perfectly legal for you to volunteer the information. I never had a problem getting a job, I just made very sure in my interviews to make it well known I had no intentions of procreating.

This causes problems further down the road however, because all the men have wives and children, and so you get the short end of the shaft until you get married. And then, once you do get married, they all strongly imply you need to pop a few out like their wives did.i>

I too have benefited from making it clear discreetly at interviews that I have no children, no intentions to have children, and thus can be counted on for few to no 'emergencies'. As I am also married, my bosses know they aren't going to lose me to wedding plans and the whole script that follows.

 
2008-04-29 10:38:12 AM
Rose Red: QuantumPhaseShift: AfternoonDelight: This is why is sucks to be a female in her 20's looking for a job. Every potential employer looks at you like you're just waiting to get your clutches on their maternity leave and benefits so you can split after 3 months of work.

This is an easy thing to take care of. While a prospective employer cannot ask you about your reproductive plans, it is perfectly legal for you to volunteer the information. I never had a problem getting a job, I just made very sure in my interviews to make it well known I had no intentions of procreating.

This causes problems further down the road however, because all the men have wives and children, and so you get the short end of the shaft until you get married. And then, once you do get married, they all strongly imply you need to pop a few out like their wives did.i>

I too have benefited from making it clear discreetly at interviews that I have no children, no intentions to have children, and thus can be counted on for few to no 'emergencies'. As I am also married, my bosses know they aren't going to lose me to wedding plans and the whole script that follows.


Last paragraph is mine. Sorry.
 
2008-04-29 10:42:12 AM
Rose Red:
I too have benefited from making it clear discreetly at interviews that I have no children, no intentions to have children, and thus can be counted on for few to no 'emergencies'. As I am also married, my bosses know they aren't going to lose me to wedding plans and the whole script that follows.

So what happens if you ever (a) have a child; (b) get divorced (and maybe remarried); or (c) have some emergency come up, like a health problem or death in the family? Will that make your boss think "Hmmm, maybe she can't be trusted"? I'd argue that the better policy is just to not bring it up in the first place.
 
2008-04-29 10:48:42 AM
If I can work it into the conversation and I think it will give me a leg up (and often does) I do. I will not be having any children, as I stated, would no expect a divorce/remarriage to affect my career (it hasn't thus far) and if I work for someone who has a problem with a death in my family, then i seek alternate employment. I agree with the other posters who say planning is crucial.

I am also careful not to get involved with overly "family friendly" companies, as it often means I get stuck with baby sitting detail/covering someone else's work because EVERYONE LOVES BABIES. As it is my boss' wife brings in her newborn twins way too much. It's disruptive.
 
2008-04-29 10:50:08 AM
mrshowrules: amanogowa: mrshowrules: The US is officially in the stone ages. A woman has a high risk pregnancy and needs to work 30 hours instead of 60 hours. This is unpaid reduction in hours. Unpaid!!!

In Canada a woman gets 1 year off for maternity paid by the federal government. Where is the labour equality if a woman loses her job for being pregnant.

What kills me is that the same self rigteous people who biatch about welfare moms, are also the same people who typically don't give a crap about a woman's employement protection related to pregnancy.

/pure stone ages

Because you know, getting only 1/2 her job done will work out well for the company. Or paying to do a search to fill 1/2 her position... for a month or two...


She is not the only one that matters. Her employer, and the other employees who will be worse off due to her mismanagement suffer.

You know that this type of labour legislation only applies to companies with a minimum number of employees (10, 20, 30). It is easy to backfill when you have a company with 20 employees. You should be prepared to backfill anyways in case the employee gets hit by a bus. It is the price of doing business and it is an equal playing field if every company of a certain size is subject to the same legislative requirements.


If an employee got hit by a bus, the employer does not continue to pay wages beyond the sick leave and vacation -- insurance does. BIG difference.
 
2008-04-29 10:52:49 AM
kittylittle: SpeelChuck
Read TFA. It's not as cut-and-dried as you think. She had a high-risk pregnancy and was medically ordered to cut back on hours, but her employer said her contract didn't entitle her to cut back. So she took unpaid maternity leave, and then vacation days, and when those were gone and she still wasn't allowed (by her doctor) to work the full 60-hour workweek, they fired her.

It has nothing to do with parenting. It has nothing to do with being a good employee either. And she wasn't asking them to pay her for the time off, she took unpaid leave. She just wanted to remain employed.

I wonder how you'd react if this happened to your wife, and her job was an economic necessity in your household.

THIS.

Also, I love how people slam others for having kids - how 'bout slamming their own parents for recklessly breeding?

60 hour work-weeks are insane even for a healthy person. Look up the stats for median salaries currently compared to 30 years ago, or salaries vs productivity in the US compared to other countries. I'm by no means a bolshie, but a American workers get screwed.


My parents didn't demand special treatment, or unreasonable accommodation from their employers. In fact, my mother didn't even use her full allotment of maternity leave. Big difference.
 
2008-04-29 10:54:56 AM
astoreth: It's not special treatment, is it? Alright, where is my maternity leave? How much do I, as a male get? I demand the same salary as those that choose not to take months off work, and equal treatment --- BUT extra vacation.

I mean society, (by which YOU meant my employer) owes it to me!


It's called paternity leave, and many employers offer it. In Scandinavia, I believe, it's mandatory for employers to offer. Your baby momma has a kid, and you can stay and help. Granted, it's usually not as long as maternity (considering the guy doesn't have to recover physically), but it does exist. My husband got three weeks.

/Jebus, I hope none of you whiners ever breed


Wait -- WE are the whiners because we think that people should be treated equally, and should pull their own weight?

I fail to see the logic.
 
2008-04-29 10:57:35 AM
danae00: tinman: Said danae00:
consistently shocked by how horrible the maternity/paternity leaves are in the US

And why should there be any? Having or not having a child is a conscious choice on the part(s) of the participant(s). If you make the choice to have a kid why should your employer be penalized? If I make the choice to break the law and have to go to jail should my employer be forced to keep my job open for me? Or even better, pay me while I'm inside?

Please.

Think about it for a g-d second.

One, your employeer isn't the one paying. You get government EI (employee insurance), which as an employee you've been paying into for your entire career. You're just taking out money that is basically already yours.

And don't you guys have temp workers and contractors down there? Unless you're in a major labour crunch, it's really not hard hiring a contractor for a year. And at least in my field, employers often prefer contractors (don't have to pay benefits, can let them go easier), and many employees prefer being contractors (make more money). Temp jobs are also popular for the less techincally skilled.


They are not talking a year -- or even full time. This bint, here wanted to work 1/2 time -- for an indeterminate length of time.... Most GOOD job canidates are looking for better offers than that...
 
2008-04-29 11:01:00 AM
amanogowa: astoreth: It's not special treatment, is it? Alright, where is my maternity leave? How much do I, as a male get? I demand the same salary as those that choose not to take months off work, and equal treatment --- BUT extra vacation.

I mean society, (by which YOU meant my employer) owes it to me!


It's called paternity leave, and many employers offer it. In Scandinavia, I believe, it's mandatory for employers to offer. Your baby momma has a kid, and you can stay and help. Granted, it's usually not as long as maternity (considering the guy doesn't have to recover physically), but it does exist. My husband got three weeks.

/Jebus, I hope none of you whiners ever breed

Wait -- WE are the whiners because we think that people should be treated equally, and should pull their own weight?

I fail to see the logic.


As do I. I get pulled off a trading/operations desk because someone with a kid has a crisis? By that I mean, he's throwing up and has to leave daycare? women who want it all need to try not to be a burden. I don't see an effort that often.
 
2008-04-29 11:07:53 AM
Rose Red: amanogowa: astoreth: It's not special treatment, is it? Alright, where is my maternity leave? How much do I, as a male get? I demand the same salary as those that choose not to take months off work, and equal treatment --- BUT extra vacation.

I mean society, (by which YOU meant my employer) owes it to me!


It's called paternity leave, and many employers offer it. In Scandinavia, I believe, it's mandatory for employers to offer. Your baby momma has a kid, and you can stay and help. Granted, it's usually not as long as maternity (considering the guy doesn't have to recover physically), but it does exist. My husband got three weeks.

/Jebus, I hope none of you whiners ever breed

Wait -- WE are the whiners because we think that people should be treated equally, and should pull their own weight?

I fail to see the logic.

As do I. I get pulled off a trading/operations desk because someone with a kid has a crisis? By that I mean, he's throwing up and has to leave daycare? women who want it all need to try not to be a burden. I don't see an effort that often.


At the last job I had, there were 48 employees, only 7 of which were programmers, the rest were SysAdmin, CRM, Sales, or webdesign.

Of the 7 programmers, 5 worked mainly on PHP, 2 were on C... when the one C programmer got knocked up and took a month off, was the other C programmer supposed to work 80-100 hours a week? the PHP guys knew enough to troubleshoot, and provide bug fixes, but there productivity dropped tremendously when switching languages, cutting into their profitability.
 
2008-04-29 11:09:54 AM
Rose Red:
As do I. I get pulled off a trading/operations desk because someone with a kid has a crisis? By that I mean, he's throwing up and has to leave daycare? women who want it all need to try not to be a burden. I don't see an effort that often.


So what would you propose that woman do? She's trying to work when the daycare phones... they have her sick kid who they can't properly care for, and who may pose an infectious risk to other kids there. She has to make some arrangements suddenly... many parents may have some sort of back-up plan for these cases, but she's still got to go and at least deliver the kid to the grandparents, friend, whatever...

So what would you suggest? Should the woman just stay out of the workplace entirely? Or downgrade to some job for which she is overqualified, for those (hopefully) infrequent times when something like this happens? Or should she stay in her current job with unsupportive co-workers? There's no easy choice here.
 
2008-04-29 11:17:52 AM
docmattic: Rose Red:
As do I. I get pulled off a trading/operations desk because someone with a kid has a crisis? By that I mean, he's throwing up and has to leave daycare? women who want it all need to try not to be a burden. I don't see an effort that often.

So what would you propose that woman do? She's trying to work when the daycare phones... they have her sick kid who they can't properly care for, and who may pose an infectious risk to other kids there. She has to make some arrangements suddenly... many parents may have some sort of back-up plan for these cases, but she's still got to go and at least deliver the kid to the grandparents, friend, whatever...

So what would you suggest? Should the woman just stay out of the workplace entirely? Or downgrade to some job for which she is overqualified, for those (hopefully) infrequent times when something like this happens? Or should she stay in her current job with unsupportive co-workers? There's no easy choice here.


I would hope she uses her alloted, and ONLY her alloted leave. I would further hope that she has conciquences for going over that amount and she is treated the same that I would be, were I to have an emergency and leave my post.
 
2008-04-29 11:18:48 AM
eff ewe: Two words-- Family Medical Leave Act.

She used most of it up before she had the baby. its about 12 weeks of protection and thats about it. After that the company can ask what are your intensions, if you hemm and haw, they can fire you.

Don't like it tough, jobs are moving to areas where they don't have that protection. Companies in countires that offer all those "incredible" leave and protection policies also don't hire very many new workers. That's the down side of being civilized.
 
2008-04-29 11:20:40 AM
docmattic: Rose Red:
As do I. I get pulled off a trading/operations desk because someone with a kid has a crisis? By that I mean, he's throwing up and has to leave daycare? women who want it all need to try not to be a burden. I don't see an effort that often.

So what would you propose that woman do? She's trying to work when the daycare phones... they have her sick kid who they can't properly care for, and who may pose an infectious risk to other kids there. She has to make some arrangements suddenly... many parents may have some sort of back-up plan for these cases, but she's still got to go and at least deliver the kid to the grandparents, friend, whatever...

So what would you suggest? Should the woman just stay out of the workplace entirely? Or downgrade to some job for which she is overqualified, for those (hopefully) infrequent times when something like this happens? Or should she stay in her current job with unsupportive co-workers? There's no easy choice here.


How about go get your puking kid, then come back and work until you've covered the time you missed, rather than expecting your co-workers to do your work.
 
2008-04-29 11:21:33 AM
docmattic: Rose Red:
As do I. I get pulled off a trading/operations desk because someone with a kid has a crisis? By that I mean, he's throwing up and has to leave daycare? women who want it all need to try not to be a burden. I don't see an effort that often.

So what would you propose that woman do? She's trying to work when the daycare phones... they have her sick kid who they can't properly care for, and who may pose an infectious risk to other kids there. She has to make some arrangements suddenly... many parents may have some sort of back-up plan for these cases, but she's still got to go and at least deliver the kid to the grandparents, friend, whatever...

So what would you suggest? Should the woman just stay out of the workplace entirely? Or downgrade to some job for which she is overqualified, for those (hopefully) infrequent times when something like this happens? Or should she stay in her current job with unsupportive co-workers? There's no easy choice here.


Agreed. There is no easy solution. My difficulty is that I encounter an attitude like I am expected to pick up the slack when I have responsibilities of my own. I've had co-workers bring their sick children into the office...appalling. My point is simply that I'd like to see a reduction in the sense of entitlement. Not gonna happen.
 
2008-04-29 11:26:10 AM
amanogowa:

I would hope she uses her alloted, and ONLY her alloted leave. I would further hope that she has conciquences for going over that amount and she is treated the same that I would be, were I to have an emergency and leave my post.


But what if her alloted leave is inadequate? I mean, FTA, this woman had a high-risk pregnancy and was told by her physician to reduce her workload to a max. of 30 hours per week. She took all the time off she could, but it wasn't enough. She was still in a situation where at least her fetus was at risk, if not her own health as well.

Maybe the answer was to allow her to use time off to reduce her work to 30 hours per week, or maybe it was to give her longer unpaid time off. But she was between a rock and a hard place, and her employer wasn't accomodating enough. I wonder if she notified her employer promptly once she was told to cut back... or if that would have made any difference.
 
2008-04-29 11:28:38 AM
Helena Handbasket: docmattic: Rose Red:
As do I. I get pulled off a trading/operations desk because someone with a kid has a crisis? By that I mean, he's throwing up and has to leave daycare? women who want it all need to try not to be a burden. I don't see an effort that often.

So what would you propose that woman do? She's trying to work when the daycare phones... they have her sick kid who they can't properly care for, and who may pose an infectious risk to other kids there. She has to make some arrangements suddenly... many parents may have some sort of back-up plan for these cases, but she's still got to go and at least deliver the kid to the grandparents, friend, whatever...

So what would you suggest? Should the woman just stay out of the workplace entirely? Or downgrade to some job for which she is overqualified, for those (hopefully) infrequent times when something like this happens? Or should she stay in her current job with unsupportive co-workers? There's no easy choice here.

How about go get your puking kid, then come back and work until you've covered the time you missed, rather than expecting your co-workers to do your work.


Ehhh...I don't want the vomit machine anywhere near me. I would like to determine my own sick and personal time, thanks. (Not being snarky)
 
2008-04-29 11:28:51 AM
docmattic: amanogowa:

I would hope she uses her alloted, and ONLY her alloted leave. I would further hope that she has conciquences for going over that amount and she is treated the same that I would be, were I to have an emergency and leave my post.

But what if her alloted leave is inadequate? I mean, FTA, this woman had a high-risk pregnancy and was told by her physician to reduce her workload to a max. of 30 hours per week. She took all the time off she could, but it wasn't enough. She was still in a situation where at least her fetus was at risk, if not her own health as well.

Maybe the answer was to allow her to use time off to reduce her work to 30 hours per week, or maybe it was to give her longer unpaid time off. But she was between a rock and a hard place, and her employer wasn't accomodating enough. I wonder if she notified her employer promptly once she was told to cut back... or if that would have made any difference.


She used her vacation, sick leave and Family medical leave time. At what point does the accommodation become unreasonable? I would say when she gets extra vacation over other employees, and over what the law requires.
 
2008-04-29 11:39:32 AM
amanogowa:
She used her vacation, sick leave and Family medical leave time. At what point does the accommodation become unreasonable? I would say when she gets extra vacation over other employees, and over what the law requires.


So, in this case, let's say she knew early on in her pregnancy that the required amount of time off, as recommended by her physician, would exceed what she could get from her various leaves. Her choice then becomes:
(1) Abort and keep her job; or
(2) Keep the pregnancy and lose her job

Don't you think that, if her employer would have given her extended time off without pay, that would have been a reasonable accomodation?
 
2008-04-29 11:46:37 AM
docmattic: amanogowa:
She used her vacation, sick leave and Family medical leave time. At what point does the accommodation become unreasonable? I would say when she gets extra vacation over other employees, and over what the law requires.

So, in this case, let's say she knew early on in her pregnancy that the required amount of time off, as recommended by her physician, would exceed what she could get from her various leaves. Her choice then becomes:
(1) Abort and keep her job; or
(2) Keep the pregnancy and lose her job

Don't you think that, if her employer would have given her extended time off without pay, that would have been a reasonable accomodation?


Assuming A) She is a good enough employee to accommodate, and b) someone can be found to complete her job on a temporary basis. If I can't hire someone at her rate of pay to do her job for a month, but can replace her and find a full time employee to do her job, I would do so, as her employer.

Just because she "can't" do the job doesn't mean it doesn't need to be done.
 
2008-04-29 11:51:55 AM
docmattic: Rose Red:
I too have benefited from making it clear discreetly at interviews that I have no children, no intentions to have children, and thus can be counted on for few to no 'emergencies'. As I am also married, my bosses know they aren't going to lose me to wedding plans and the whole script that follows.

So what happens if you ever (a) have a child; (b) get divorced (and maybe remarried); or (c) have some emergency come up, like a health problem or death in the family? Will that make your boss think "Hmmm, maybe she can't be trusted"? I'd argue that the better policy is just to not bring it up in the first place.


I actually got married recently. I had a couple of weeks where I had lawyer appointments preparing for the event, and thus only worked 45 hours instead of 50, but let me boss know way ahead of time I had a lawyer appt at such and such time. And I took a week off afterwards to switch my name, and again, my employer knew 6 months ahead of time I wanted a week off. I had someone trained to cover for me, and left things in a manner that no one would really have to do anything while I was gone. I worked through Christmas and New Years to ensure my work was ahead enough to compensate.

But then, my time off is unpaid as well. So its just free money for them to not have to pay me for a week. As long as my duties are done, they'd rather not have to pay me to surf the web anyway.

If I were to get preggers or divorced, or something like that, I'd expect the same kind of deal. As long as my work is able to coast and I'm not getting paid, I don't expect them to have a problem with it. If they do, I'll go work elsewhere.
 
2008-04-29 11:54:15 AM
Well, if she worked for a high-end salon, it seems like it would be easy for her to find a new job...that is until she filed the lawsuit.
 
2008-04-29 11:55:03 AM
Looks like I missed an epic thread here.

Nothing like women and babies in distress to bring out the misogynistic a**holes. I read the article, she'll probably lose. IMO, she should have gone on short term disability or forgone pay altogether but not been fired. She was under doctor's orders, the company was in fully aware of her condition.

If you substitute "pregnant" for any other medical condition that requires light load and high recovery time, a lot of these people would be singing a different tune. Would you feel the same about being fired after a heart attack guys, or a stroke? How about a catastrophic car wreck? How much sick leave do you have banked tough guys?

As a side note...I can't believe Elizabeth Arden wouldn't see this as anything other than a PR disaster. Good work there PHB! You're going to pay $$$ to fix a $ problem, if you could have just gotten your head out of your ass.

/lame
 
Displayed 50 of 664 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report