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.

(Yahoo)   Oklahoma Board of Education member objects to hiring of a pregnant woman: ""If she has that baby in April and takes off six weeks, she's worthless to us"   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 310
    More: Dumbass, local church, Mary Fallin, Oklahoma, extinct states, pregnancy, Oklahoma Legislature, school boards, state schools  
•       •       •

11351 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Jan 2011 at 12:50 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



310 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-01-28 12:09:52 AM  
It was rude... but, someone, tell me how it was inaccurate?
 
2011-01-28 12:15:20 AM  
Technically, she gets 12 weeks under FMLA.
 
2011-01-28 12:20:40 AM  
She is worthless anyway.
 
2011-01-28 12:28:47 AM  

RodneyToady: It was rude... but, someone, tell me how it was inaccurate?


Got me.... if they need her in April and she won't be there during that time she is useless for their purposes.
 
2011-01-28 12:32:59 AM  
Was the Ironic tag too drunk at Choctaw Indian Casino to show up for work?


/pot
//kettle
///noir
 
2011-01-28 12:34:42 AM  
I'd actually feel bad for an educational employee mis-timing a pregnancy and having to take FMLA during the school year.
 
2011-01-28 12:47:54 AM  
Not OK....
 
2011-01-28 12:53:33 AM  
....problem?

a blunt way of putting it, but he's right.
 
2011-01-28 12:53:43 AM  
Yeah, the trick is, you're never supposed to SAY why you're not hiring someone.

Just say you found a more suitable candidate, for crying out loud.
 
2011-01-28 12:53:57 AM  
Yeah, hire her and then hire a sub for 12 weeks, that's a good use of taxpayer dollars.

It's one thing if she's been an employee for years, it's another if she's applying for a damn job while 5 months pregnant. Honestly, she's being a terrible mother.
 
2011-01-28 12:54:42 AM  
Never has the dumbass tag been more aptly applied.

/I'm feeling somewhat verbose tonight my dear.
 
2011-01-28 12:55:02 AM  
Ok women, this is your cue to come out and tell me all about how sexist it is to pay women less money for the same job when they get FMLA and men get fark-all.
 
2011-01-28 12:55:48 AM  
Lawsuit in 3...2...1...
 
2011-01-28 12:56:51 AM  

RodneyToady: It was rude... but, someone, tell me how it was inaccurate?


Well, for one thing, it's friggin' illegal. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act clearly states:

An employer cannot refuse to hire a pregnant woman because of her pregnancy, because of a pregnancy-related condition, or because of the prejudices of co-workers, clients, or customers.

An employer may not single out pregnancy-related conditions for special procedures to determine an employee's ability to work.
 
2011-01-28 12:57:32 AM  
Maybe impolitic of him to say it, but it sounds like sound hiring practices to me.

You're federally banned from not hiring people due to potential pregnancy, sure, but I'm pretty sure being pregnant isn't a federally protected class. If you're definitely not going to be able to work for over a month within your first term of an employment contract, don't expect to be hired for most things, honestly.
 
2011-01-28 12:57:38 AM  

Arthur Jumbles: RodneyToady: It was rude... but, someone, tell me how it was inaccurate?

Got me.... if they need her in April and she won't be there during that time she is useless for their purposes.


She can't now. She'll prove him exactly right
 
2011-01-28 12:58:12 AM  

FormlessOne: Well, for one thing, it's friggin' illegal. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act clearly states:


I'm not disputing that it's illegal. I'm asking how it's inaccurate.
 
2011-01-28 12:58:37 AM  

Asa Phelps: Yeah, the trick is, you're never supposed to SAY why you're not hiring someone.

Just say you found a more suitable candidate, for crying out loud.


The fun part is that, now that he's publically prejudiced the entire situation, he's given her grounds to go after the Board of Education if they don't hire her, especially if the Board did not have a suitable candidate already in consideration.
 
2011-01-28 12:58:47 AM  

Savoir-Faire: Ok women, this is your cue to come out and tell me all about how sexist it is to pay women less money for the same job when they get FMLA and men get fark-all.


Men and women both get FMLA, and it's unpaid.

/U trollin?
 
2011-01-28 12:58:51 AM  

FormlessOne: RodneyToady: It was rude... but, someone, tell me how it was inaccurate?

Well, for one thing, it's friggin' illegal. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act clearly states:

An employer cannot refuse to hire a pregnant woman because of her pregnancy, because of a pregnancy-related condition, or because of the prejudices of co-workers, clients, or customers.

An employer may not single out pregnancy-related conditions for special procedures to determine an employee's ability to work.


typically, that addresses why it was imprudent to say, but doesn't address whether or not his argument was correct: that hiring someone who is potentially going to become pregnant is a greater liability than hiring someone who doesn't have that chance.

learn to tell the difference.
 
2011-01-28 12:59:08 AM  

FormlessOne: RodneyToady: It was rude... but, someone, tell me how it was inaccurate?

Well, for one thing, it's friggin' illegal. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act clearly states:

An employer cannot refuse to hire a pregnant woman because of her pregnancy, because of a pregnancy-related condition, or because of the prejudices of co-workers, clients, or customers.

An employer may not single out pregnancy-related conditions for special procedures to determine an employee's ability to work.


Right. You just keep looking for a candidate until you find one who is not pregnant, and has some random quality that is superior to the pregnant candidate.

I've never worked in HR and even I know that.
 
2011-01-28 01:00:53 AM  

FormlessOne: RodneyToady: It was rude... but, someone, tell me how it was inaccurate?

Well, for one thing, it's friggin' illegal.


I stand corrected. Didn't remember that part of title 7.

Double fail for the board member, then. This is why you don't publicly state cause.
 
2011-01-28 01:01:16 AM  
Gov. Mary Fallin called Rozell's remark "demeaning" and "disgusting," while Sen. Clark Jolley and Sen. John Ford called for Rozell to resign. Jolley said Rozell's comment was "archaic, misogynistic and deplorable."

Jackie Chiles will have a field day with this.
 
2011-01-28 01:01:37 AM  

FormlessOne: Asa Phelps: Yeah, the trick is, you're never supposed to SAY why you're not hiring someone.

Just say you found a more suitable candidate, for crying out loud.

The fun part is that, now that he's publically prejudiced the entire situation, he's given her grounds to go after the Board of Education if they don't hire her, especially if the Board did not have a suitable candidate already in consideration.


Yup. Drooling moron. Probably gonna get fired for this. Deserve it, too.
 
2011-01-28 01:01:48 AM  

RodneyToady: It was rude... but, someone, tell me how it was inaccurate?


Because arguing someone is useless in whole because of one extended absence is idiotic. Oklahoman kids for a decade should miss out on a great teacher because an incompetent one had better immediate availability? This kind of thinking got us the current batch of teachers, lets change course a bit.
 
2011-01-28 01:02:05 AM  
Is she hot?
 
2011-01-28 01:04:11 AM  
Come on, families and children? That's not what schools should be about.

School is all about guns and getting randomly physically assaulted every day.
 
2011-01-28 01:04:37 AM  

FormlessOne: Well, for one thing, it's friggin' illegal. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act clearly states:

An employer cannot refuse to hire a pregnant woman because of her pregnancy, because of a pregnancy-related condition, or because of the prejudices of co-workers, clients, or customers.

An employer may not single out pregnancy-related conditions for special procedures to determine an employee's ability to work.



They wouldn't not hire her because she was pregnant. They wouldn't hire her because she wouldn't be available during the period she would be needed for. If she'd said she was going on vacation for six weeks in April, they wouldn't have hired her either, and it wouldn't have been discrimination then, either.

It's like hiring for the Christmas rush in retail, and having someone try and ask for a religious exemption for the Christmas season on the grounds that they're Christian. You're not going to hire them, not because they're Christian and you're discriminating, but because they've said they won't be able or willing to do the job they're interviewing for.
 
2011-01-28 01:05:48 AM  

Asa Phelps: FormlessOne: Asa Phelps: Yeah, the trick is, you're never supposed to SAY why you're not hiring someone.

Just say you found a more suitable candidate, for crying out loud.

The fun part is that, now that he's publically prejudiced the entire situation, he's given her grounds to go after the Board of Education if they don't hire her, especially if the Board did not have a suitable candidate already in consideration.

Yup. Drooling moron. Probably gonna get fired for this. Deserve it, too.


Drooling moron? Maybe, gonna get fired? No way.
How do you fire a Senator?
Impeach maybe but you cant fire "Sen. Herb Rozell", and I doubt you'd get enough votes for impeachment.
 
2011-01-28 01:06:51 AM  

firefly212: RodneyToady: It was rude... but, someone, tell me how it was inaccurate?

Because arguing someone is useless in whole because of one extended absence is idiotic. Oklahoman kids for a decade should miss out on a great teacher because an incompetent one had better immediate availability? This kind of thinking got us the current batch of teachers, lets change course a bit.


First sentence:

A member of Oklahoma's Board of Education drew heated reaction Thursday after saying a newly hired administrator would be "worthless" as a legislative liaison if she took immediate maternity leave.


Not a teacher. Probably why the next couple of months are the crucial ones.
 
2011-01-28 01:06:56 AM  
to be absolutely politically correct now requires idiotic hiring practices
 
2011-01-28 01:07:24 AM  
"Oklahoma Board of Education"

Is that the joke?
 
2011-01-28 01:10:45 AM  
I knew FML was becoming kind of widespread these days, but when did it become the law? Ouch.

~FML.
 
2011-01-28 01:10:47 AM  
Repeat after me, Mr. Rozell:

"This position requires that you represent the Department at the Capitol each year during the months of April and May. Is there any reason that you would not be able to be our full-time representative for the entirety of those two months?"

Farkin' Peckerwood.
 
2011-01-28 01:11:48 AM  
The guy is entirely right, and oklahoma taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for her choice to have a baby. You are either capable of doing the job or not.
 
2011-01-28 01:14:27 AM  
The guy needs a HERO tag. Dumbass should be for the people who condemned him.

I'm sick and tired of our stupidly weak society of "nobody can have their feelings hurt" nonsense.

If the pregnant woman was applying to be an astronaut at NASA, with her child due the day after launch, would people still support her?

WTH, people? Women need to get off their high horses and realize that the decision to become pregnant WILL affect their ability to perform job duties.

If your job begins with a six month training session that leads up to a one month work session, then your absence during that month makes the whole previous six months worthless. There are some jobs that are not compatible with pregnancy.

Get pregnant after you're hired? Well, that's one thing. This is different. They KNOW the timeframe when her job duties will be affected, so it's ridiculous for them not to consider that.
 
2011-01-28 01:14:47 AM  

velvet_fog: Lawsuit in 3...2...1...


Oh yeah. Good news, they can probably find someone to fill in for April and May. Even better, the woman in question will probably settle for a few years' worth of her salary. And that will come out of what they would have paid the Board of Education member once they ditch him outright.

Everybody wins! And I can see how her lawyer would pose the question: "Oklahoma treats women unfairly. If she was getting an abortion, she would be villified. She decides to have a children, she cannot work. This woman wants to work and make children's lives better while having her own. But apparently, the Oklahoma Board of Education wants women barefoot and naked in the kitchen, as shown by this particular member...."
 
2011-01-28 01:16:35 AM  

RodneyToady: firefly212: RodneyToady: It was rude... but, someone, tell me how it was inaccurate?

Because arguing someone is useless in whole because of one extended absence is idiotic. Oklahoman kids for a decade should miss out on a great teacher because an incompetent one had better immediate availability? This kind of thinking got us the current batch of teachers, lets change course a bit.

First sentence:

A member of Oklahoma's Board of Education drew heated reaction Thursday after saying a newly hired administrator would be "worthless" as a legislative liaison if she took immediate maternity leave.

Not a teacher. Probably why the next couple of months are the crucial ones.


Ah. That explains the remark. If not the legality of his comments.

Still, that Board of Ed member should resign immediately. He just lost them the huge multimillion dollar lawsuit she's going to file and win immediately upon those words landing on her attorney's desk. They should just sign the settlement check and ask how many zeroes will make her happy,.
 
2011-01-28 01:17:19 AM  

Asa Phelps: Yeah, the trick is, you're never supposed to SAY why you're not hiring someone.

Just say you found a more suitable candidate, for crying out loud.


THIS

Jesus are people complete fools? Announce the winning candidate. Let lawsuits ensue from people that didn't get the job.
 
2011-01-28 01:17:41 AM  
TFA doesn't mention that the woman in question was in the room, and she left in tears.
 
2011-01-28 01:17:45 AM  
If a man applied for a job to help during a businesses' holiday rush, knowing, for example, that in only a short time he would be going in for surgery and be unavailable during the busiest part of that holiday, which is the sole purpose of him being hired, he would not be hired because he would be unable to perform the role he was being considered for.

It sounds like she chewed him out and called off the meeeting before it could even be addressed whether she would be coming to term during the session. the applicant could have been only a couple months along! That would have made a perfect, logical rebuttal to the guy's concerns. But no, she had to blow a gasket at the mere possibility that the woman would be denied the position for being pregnant. Moreso she publicly humiliated him, threatened his job, and disrupted the entire meeting.

/Having a vagina does not entitle you to be a dick.
 
2011-01-28 01:18:02 AM  

Asa Phelps: FormlessOne: RodneyToady: It was rude... but, someone, tell me how it was inaccurate?

Well, for one thing, it's friggin' illegal. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act clearly states:

An employer cannot refuse to hire a pregnant woman because of her pregnancy, because of a pregnancy-related condition, or because of the prejudices of co-workers, clients, or customers.

An employer may not single out pregnancy-related conditions for special procedures to determine an employee's ability to work.

Right. You just keep looking for a candidate until you find one who is not pregnant, and has some random quality that is superior to the pregnant candidate.

I've never worked in HR and even I know that.


Hmm, lesbians can't get pregnant. And they can teach Phys. Ed. like nobody's business. Any of you sperm-shunning Fark dykes out there looking for a career in the circus that is the Oklahoma Public School System?
 
2011-01-28 01:19:43 AM  
Be a mom, or have a career. Can't have both. Either your career will suffer, or your child.

The dumbass responses to this post will prove my point.
 
2011-01-28 01:19:52 AM  
Good 'ol boy Herb Rozell. If only he could have applied that "honesty" when evaluating his grandson, who was a one man crime wave equipped with a helicopter. Well, at least until said grandson met his maker in said helicopter. Link (new window)
 
2011-01-28 01:21:42 AM  
Gyrfalcon: Still, that Board of Ed member should resign immediately. He just lost them the huge multimillion dollar lawsuit she's going to file and win immediately upon those words landing on her attorney's desk. They should just sign the settlement check and ask how many zeroes will make her happy,.


Not if I was on the jury or if the defense attorney was worth anything.

"Ms. Russell, is there any reason you would not be able to perform your duties during the months of April and May as a full-time representative? What? There is?"
 
2011-01-28 01:25:26 AM  
There's education in Oklahoma?
 
2011-01-28 01:26:03 AM  

ZachF81: Yeah, hire her and then hire a sub for 12 weeks, that's a good use of taxpayer dollars.

It's one thing if she's been an employee for years, it's another if she's applying for a damn job while 5 months pregnant. Honestly, she's being a terrible mother.


No. She's simply defrauding the system by abusing the fact that she is pregnant.
 
2011-01-28 01:28:09 AM  
Thorak does make a good point. Why would you hire someone to work if they can not work the hours they are required to work? Disabled people deal with these unwritten policies everyday. A man would have to take this kind of rejection in stride, with no baby in the oven to roast behind.

/Dude, she's pregnant. Of course she is going to cry. She is more emotional than a person off his meth for 3 days, everyday.
 
2011-01-28 01:28:51 AM  

FormlessOne: Well, for one thing, it's friggin' illegal.


That's circular logic and thus invalid. Got an actual argument of why that was wrong?

You can dance and prance around the issue all you want, those laws do absolutely nothing except make lawyers rich. If someone doesn't want to hire someone there are a million reasons they can use and there is effectively no chance of getting caught. Meanwhile anyone can accuse someone of discrimination and drag them to court. There is no way to objectively tell if discrimination is going on only subjective interpretations that change from courtroom to courtroom.

Example: In the company I work for there are no female techs. Is this because my boss doesn't like females working with technology or is it because there just aren't many females interested in and experienced in my line of work? If female tech comes along and applies for employment and is passed up for a male tech for perfectly valid reasons, work experience, education level, references, hours willing to work, how is my boss supposed to defend himself against a discrimination suit? It's just a big he said/she said clusterf*ck and the only ones who benefit are the lawyers.

If someone wants to discriminate, let them. If someone doesn't want to hire Asian people why should an Asian person waste their time trying to apply for that job when they could instead be applying for a job elsewhere? Why should they take a job that the discriminating boss is going to make miserable so they quit?

You can't legislate morality, see the drug war, and you can't change it at the barrel of a gun, see Afghanistan, and the only these things pipe-dream policies have done is push certain practices underground where they can fester and amplify other problems.
 
2011-01-28 01:30:58 AM  
Jolley said Rozell's comment was "archaic, misogynistic and deplorable."

Notice that while they call the comment "archaic, misogynistic and deplorable" they do NOT say that it is untrue.

The next thing you know she will be coming in late and asking to leave early. And when it comes to working late, or working weekends, or working holidays, guess who will want special treatment. You want the job? Then you are expected to DO the job. If not then GTFO.
 
Displayed 50 of 310 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report