ZachF81: Honestly, she's being a terrible mother.

A good mother would do the right thing and go on welfare right?

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.

I wouldn't apply for a job where I was going to be absent during the busiest time of the year. Who the fark does she think she is? Or she could make it clear (since she was right there), that she doesn't intend to take the maternity leave.

But you know she's going to. That's probably part of the reason she wanted the job. "I can have my baby and a 6-week paid vacation, woo-hoo!"

But since she was already hired, the guy should have just kept his mouth shut.

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.

Look when you can squeeze and ten pound baby out of your junk you can have FMLA too. FFS what do you think women who have a baby should do? Just suck it up and go back to work for the rest of the day?

sethstorm: relcec: sethstorm: relcec: I have no problem with FMLA, but demanding a prospective employer hire you when you are going to be out for 6 weeks for a new baby right after you begin work is as asinine as it would be for me to demand employers hire me even though I tell them I'm taking a 6 week vacation right after I start working for them where they like it or not. the girl up this thread who tried to file a complaint (because her prospective mentor had the gall to want to want an intern that was actually available to come to work) is a selfish asshole. how can you still possibly think he was in the wrong there? she's in the wrong for even entertaining the idea that someone she has no relationship with has some personal obligation to waste their time and money on you because you decided to get knocked up. work isn't welfare. I'm flabbergasted by her sense of entitlement.

Then you'll have no problem paying for her welfare payments through your tax dollars. Of course, if you could choose for her to be productive afterwards, you wouldn't have that problem. But you chose derp, and have no problem paying for your mistake.

so you think my prospective employer should legally be told "just deal with it" when I tell him I'm going on the 6 week vacation I planned before I decided to interview for a job? I can always threaten society that I'll become a bum and go on welfare, right? that's the way you operate?
in any event she's not on welfare, moron. she's productive. she just didn't get to f*ck up another person's shiat with her massive sense of entitlement this time. score one for reasonable outcomes.

Random 6 week vacation != this situation.

That, and your "reasonable outcomes" got thrown out the window by the existence of employers who don't derp that way. If enough employers do refuse her, she will be on welfare, and that's not to say there aren't ones already in that situation because their employer (or prospective) was as derpy as this one was.

Why do you act as if the employer is entitled to be more unreasonable and derpy because they're an employer?

Why do you act as if an EMPLOYEE is entitled to be more unreasonable and derpy because they're an employee?

Obvious tag is on maternity leave, collecting FMLA benefits, and suing for discrimination.

Pre-existing conditions are a biatch.

Next thing you know I'll have to make my rental property available to protected classes...oh, wait.

Okay, dude lacked class and tact, but what he did was not illegal as he did not actually bar her from getting employment because of her pregnancy.

That being said, deliberately looking for employment when you know you will not be able to actually do the job for an extended period of time is a douchey thing to do. Pregnancy notwithstanding.

sethstorm:

I hope your idea of fair hiring practices gets killed off. You're just trying to throw unreasonable combinations and pass them off as justification for farking over someone who has a reasonable case.

I love America as well, and that it is not diminished by the people like you that want to make the US worse off. Our nation isn't about giving employers more power.

I want to work for you sethstorm. I work for a government agency, who has excellent hiring practices that follow all the anti discrimination laws. But it sounds like you'd offer way more hiring benefits to minorities, hell sounds like i'd get hired simply because I was a minority.

I can see the interview now...

Sethstorm: What would make you a good employee at Xcorp?
Me: I'm a minority!
Sethstorm: Excellent, excellent. We have an important project that we're hiring you for, and all the action will happen in April, will you be available?
Me: Nope, I'm having optional surgery to have a penis attached to my forehead, and I'll be taking advantage of your healthcare and sickleave to do it during April.
Sethstorm: that sounds great! Final question: what would you do to improve X-Corp?
Me: I plan on stealing office supplies and petty cash!
Sethstorm: sounds great! you're hired!

I'm surprised you get so offended Sethstorm when people have morals and/or an ethical guideline they follow. A woman stealing healthcare sponsored by taxpayer money seems to be the ideal of virtue in your world, but I don't see any reason to get angry at people with common decency.

EdNortonsTwin: Obvious tag is on maternity leave, collecting FMLA benefits, and suing for discrimination.

Pre-existing conditions are a biatch.

Next thing you know I'll have to make my rental property available to protected classes...oh, wait.

I've seen ads for rentals in the Seattle area saying 'no section 8'. That seems like it would weed out quite a few.

So this lady's duties happen over a two month period.... why are they hiring a salaried year round employee then? I mean, if we're talking about waste, it ought not be the whole "she cant do her job because she'll be gone six weeks thing"... it ought to be in the context that we're paying people all year to do six weeks of work.

SweetSilverBlues: Okay, dude lacked class and tact, but what he did was not illegal as he did not actually bar her from getting employment because of her pregnancy.

That being said, deliberately looking for employment when you know you will not be able to actually do the job for an extended period of time is a douchey thing to do. Pregnancy notwithstanding.

This needs to be repeated:

SIX WEEKS IS NOT AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME!!!!

firefly212: So this lady's duties happen over a two month period.... why are they hiring a salaried year round employee then? I mean, if we're talking about waste, it ought not be the whole "she cant do her job because she'll be gone six weeks thing"... it ought to be in the context that we're paying people all year to do six weeks of work.

This.

I'm assuming it's because most qualified professionals won't work on a temporary two month per year basis.

AbbeySomeone: EdNortonsTwin: Obvious tag is on maternity leave, collecting FMLA benefits, and suing for discrimination.

Pre-existing conditions are a biatch.

Next thing you know I'll have to make my rental property available to protected classes...oh, wait.

I've seen ads for rentals in the Seattle area saying 'no section 8'. That seems like it would weed out quite a few. i learned the hard way not to rent to teh elderly. Once I finally got them out, their kids begged me to let them stay. They lived the next town over. It was good enough to let them live in my rental house for free, but they didn't want them to live with them either. Gramps had sold every other fixture in the house by the time I got them out of there. It's hard enough supporting my own family - why people think you owe them a living too is beyond me.

CA is a tough state to own property in.

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.

Sure. Men get FMLA as well. So since they BOTH get it, it is sexist to pay men more because of it.

/hint - FMLA is UNPAID.

firefly212: So this lady's duties happen over a two month period.... why are they hiring a salaried year round employee then? I mean, if we're talking about waste, it ought not be the whole "she cant do her job because she'll be gone six weeks thing"... it ought to be in the context that we're paying people all year to do six weeks of work.

Surely, her duties aren't confined to a two month period, it's just the busiest part of the year.

Exactly why hiring a pregnant woman isn't such a big deal in the context of a career...yeah, it stinks that she won't be available for this year's particular busy period, but will be for the rest of the year, and the year after that, and the year after that, etc. etc. etc.

What if this candidate hadn't come along for another month or two? What if they've been interviewing for months and she's really the only qualified person available in the area? What if they've been dragging their heels getting someone hired? They'd have been too late anyway...

What if she just left a previous position and therefore was either not looking for an opportunity until already pregnant - should she not actively seek available positions she's qualified for, to you know, earn a living?

What if it was the board that had approached her to take the job?

Six weeks is a dreadfully pathetic maternity leave. Babies going to day care at 6-weeks of age? Ugh. If that's the face of American exceptionalism, well, you can have it.

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.

Guy here, I took a month of FMLA when my child was born. Applies to men in the US also.

Grass Hopper: 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.

I used to have a manager who was a real winner. One of my coworkers came back from a management meeting in tears. Our manager had told her that she would not be getting a promotion because she was pregnant and they didn't think she could handle the extra responsibility.

FARK (and I know many will not believe this): My manager was a woman. AND pregnant at the time.

I told my coworker to contact her lawyer.

It may have been she was a LOUSY worker and the pregnant manager knew she was only gonna get worse.

Wytchone: 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.

Guy here, I took a month of FMLA when my child was born. Applies to men in the US also.


Exactly, and you didn't need to pull a bowling ball out of your nostril to get it either.

How much does anyone want to bet that this guy is the sort that goes around spouting-off about 'family values' all the time...'what about families?' 'what about our children?'

Just not, you know, actual families...he means the ones in the Norman Rockwell paintings.

KWess: How much does anyone want to bet that this guy is the sort that goes around spouting-off about 'family values' all the time...'what about families?' 'what about our children?'

Just not, you know, actual families...he means the ones in the bibleNorman Rockwell paintings.

Shotgun_Mosquito: But I thought that FMLA did not apply until:

EMPLOYEE ELIGIBILITY
To be eligible for FMLA benefits, an employee must:
• work for a covered employer;
• have worked for the employer for a total of 12 months;
• have worked at least 1,250 hours over the previous 12 months; and
• work at a location in the United States or in any territory or possession of the United States where at least 50 employees are employed by the employer within 75 miles.

How could she get FMLA if she's already pregnant, and hasn't been in the job at all yet? She's required to be there for at least a year first, right?

Pregnancy Discrimination Act is part of Title VII, not the FMLA.

KWess: What if it was the board that had approached her to take the job?

I think your point raises another one. Why choose this particular woman out of all the skilled unemployed people who are ready to work right now? Who is she BFF with or related to? Which state senator is she married to?

/living in Illinois, it's natural to assume these things happen everywhere else too.

KWess: SIX WEEKS IS NOT AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME!!!!

Dear Asscracker,

1. turn off capslock
2. THOSE SIX WEEKS ARE THE MOST CRUCIAL TIME OF THE YEAR FOR THAT JOB!!!!!

It's like getting hired to be Santa at your local mall's Christmas Spectacular and then telling them that you can't be Santa until March because you are pregnant. They aren't firing you for being pregnant. They are firing you because you suck.

sethstorm: Begoggle: If you fire someone, or don't hire someone, NEVER give a reason.
Not even a generic one.

That's part of the problem, such that giving no reason is out of fear that you actually screwed up.

If accurate disclosure was required, perhaps some of these shenanigans that employers pull would be in shorter supply.

And if employees would quit trying to GAME the system, employers wouldn't need to CYA all the time. If an employee fires you cus you are a screwup, they can't say that because some lawyer somewhere will show that screwups need love too.

I'm with the school board member on this one. We've had this crap happen at my office. We hire a pregnant woman and then she goes out on maternity leave, leaving others to pick up her workload. And sometimes she decides that she just wants to be a mommy and quits at the end of her leave. It costs the company an lot of money for nothing.

Oh and no, men rarely get more that a week of time off for a new baby. I feel so sorry for the new dads where I work. They work all day long, while wifey is on maternity leave. And then they get home and because wifey is "tired" he has to be the one to get up throughout the night for changings, feedings, etc. It's BS.

this is precisely why it should be legal to do a pregnancy test at the same time the drug screening is done.

of course, I think it should be legal for an employer to dig into an applicant's history of filing workers comp claims, too...

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.

I'm going to tell you all a story of how a woman could get caught in this position. It's a true story because it just happened to a dear friend. Her husband got a job and his employer told him he was definitely going to be working for them for a long time, so they both moved to where the job was and she got pregnant-- because it's now or never. She found a job, too, and was honest with her boss, who said she could work from home. He fired her for not being able to do more than 40 hours a week, and then her husband was laid off. They both applied to hundreds of jobs, while her belly grew bigger and bigger and their school loans weighed on them more heavily.
Luckily this story ends well; her husband got a job and even though he'll have to work more than 60 hours a week while his kids are young, they're happy to have money.
Now... what if they had gotten so desperate that they had started to argue and bicker? What if he had left her? She needs the health insurance and needs the financial support-- and no family members were able to give it to her. She would have needed to find a job or go into further debt just for having a kid. And then, as a new mother, she wouldn't have had the money to buy all that baby stuff-- not the bottles, not the maternity clothes, not the special car seat, not the crib that guarantees your baby won't die of SIDS, nothing. So she and her child would be much worse off.
There's nothing about working that makes you a terrible mother.


I don't ever intend to have children of my own; I think that's an irresponsible decision in an overpopulated world. However, I understand that pretty much all of our lives are controlled by biological urges to procreate... and it's not unreasonable to act on those. So what if it were your sister? Your wife-- and you couldn't find a job? What if the condom broke and the birth control failed and you were married to a Catholic? Should she really be punished for circumstances beyond her control?
Besides that, should women really be disadvantaged just because they're the ones who got stuck with uteruses? I don't really appreciate that 1) some dude is going to expect me to carry his child someday and 2) the general population thinks that this is not a worthy endeavor. Make up your mind, everyone... either stop reproducing because it's really not a bright thing to do-- or stop penalizing people for choosing to exercise a basic bodily function.

illogic: ZachF81: Honestly, she's being a terrible mother.

A good mother would do the right thing and go on welfare right?

No, a good mother would plan it so it doesn't disrupt her work/lively hood/ or non participants life.

A good mother doesn't make the rest of the world do something to make HER life better. She makes decisions that are conscious of other people as well as her and her crotchfruit.

Same type of things that make a good father.

umad: 1) We've decided, as a nation, that allowing gay people to marry is wrong. We have made doing so impossible. We've said it's wrong. Maybe those of you who will never be in a situation that could potentially involve marriage can't understand why the majority thinks that gays being married is a bad thing. I don't care. You're all irrelevant pimple-faced Cheetos-eaters who are too busy mining with your elf mage in WoW to even scratch the surface of the issues involved. No one cares what you think.

legal!=right dumbass

Sure, and if a government official declared that he would get to marry a man while no one else could, because it isn't immoral when he does it, that would also be scandalous. A former Senator should know better than to go against the rule of law. If the law states that a woman can't be fired for being pregnant, government officials should also be held to that. An appeal to authority does not seem fallacious when trying to bind authority to its own rules.

Nem Wan: "This law's purpose is reduce disparities in career advancement between men and women by declaring that it is not legitimate business to set productivity goals premised upon employees not being pregnant...This is called progress. If you don't think it's fair, it's because you're looking for fair where it used to be, and not where it is."


The trouble with that is, it IS legitimate business in the countries that we compete with. If you're the manager of a basketball team, you don't unilaterally decide that the players on YOUR team should be allowed to play in wheelchairs because it's not legitimate sportsmanship to set scoring goals premised upon players not being injured. Although noble, that is not fair and is definitely not called progress.



KWess:
"This needs to be repeated:

SIX WEEKS IS NOT AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME!!!!"


That depends on your job. If you're, say, a tax accountant, six weeks starting at the beginning of March is an eternity. If you're an administrator (as this woman was hired to be) for a board of education and your job is to help get the district through the end of the academic year, six weeks starting in April is an extremely extended period of time.

Frankly, nobody should've even had to be in the position of turning her away from this job or pointing out reasons not to hire her. It was unethical for her to apply. You don't join a platoon when you know you're going to desert in the heat of battle...even if there IS a law saying they have to let you.

This is why you don't get knocked up unless you have a job or married because you can get some kind of financial support if your husband decides to leave you.

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

Agreed.

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.

How is she being a terrible mother? She's being a terrible employee, though.

ham006: No, a good mother would plan it so it doesn't disrupt her work/lively hood/ or non participants life.

Obviously none of you have ever had a child or knocked someone up... or been within five feet of anyone who has ever been knocked up, or anyone who knows anyone who's ever squeezed out a crying vagina turd.
Sure, for a lot of women, they can stop using their birth control method and get knocked up when they intend to.
But conception isn't that easy for everyone.
Some people have a lot of trouble and try for months without results. I used to wonder if they were doing it right, but now I know-- not everyone gets preg-o on the first try and it's not as simple as "choosing" when you want to give birth. There's something like a two month period where you might give birth before and after the due date, too, so it's not like you can really plan for a specific day or week-- even if you could get pregnant exactly when you wanted to.


/I know, it's fark... did I really expect that anyone would know anything about pregnancy and babies?

Outside of the pregnancy issue and one of our state senators being a knuckle dragger, he has lots of company, the real issue is the board is made up of a bunch of democrats from the previous administration who rubber stamped the outgoing superintendent's work. The new one is a complete idiot who came in on the tea baggers vote and will probably set Oklahoma's education department back farther then they are now. The new administration gives great lip service to education but I doubt they are going to really do much beside try give vouchers to everybody and try and kill the teachers union.

Should be a fun couple of years, expect Oklahoma to completely melt down and return to the time before statehood in most of their policies.

umad: chascarrillo: 1) We've decided, as a nation, that discriminating against pregnant women is wrong. We have made doing so a crime. We've said it's wrong. Maybe those of you who will never be in a situation that could potentially involve pregnancy can't understand why the majority thinks that discrimination is a bad thing. I don't care. You're all irrelevant pimple-faced Cheetos-eaters who are too busy mining with your elf mage in WoW to even scratch the surface of the issues involved. No one cares what you think.


1) We've decided, as a nation, that allowing gay people to marry is wrong. We have made doing so impossible. We've said it's wrong. Maybe those of you who will never be in a situation that could potentially involve marriage can't understand why the majority thinks that gays being married is a bad thing. I don't care. You're all irrelevant pimple-faced Cheetos-eaters who are too busy mining with your elf mage in WoW to even scratch the surface of the issues involved. No one cares what you think.

legal!=right dumbass

I think you're forgetting about this whole other branch of government we have that makes sure that particular laws, even if they reflect a majority opinion or morality, do not unfairly impact or disenfranchise others.

Employment regulations and non-discrimination laws have been repeatedly upheld in court on national and regional levels. Therefore the principles behind these laws, these judgments that you find so incorrect, have been established as fair by democratic legislation and judicial authorities. Yes, laws can be and have been wrong, but, as I think you'll see with the gay marriage rights, these laws are ultimately overthrown or disbanded.

It could've been stated more appropriately, but I don't disagree with the decision. When those babies start pushing against the bladder, momma spends more time producing urine than results.

The system is designed to make money not to nurture a productive society.

As a woman planning to take a few weeks off with the birth of my kid in September (and not looking forward to that, let me tell you), I want to know one thing:

IMHO she shouldn't have applied in the first place. And this is from someone who held off having kids for nearly ten years. I'm three years into this job now, and still uneasy about taking a break, even if it's for four weeks. But -

...why on earth did they hire her in the first place? Did she straight out say 'I will be available during those two months' or something?

Were there just no other applicants available and they *really* needed that job filled? Couldn't they have just said "Sorry, we just haven't found the right applicant to fit" and not hired anyone?

KWess: SweetSilverBlues: Okay, dude lacked class and tact, but what he did was not illegal as he did not actually bar her from getting employment because of her pregnancy.

That being said, deliberately looking for employment when you know you will not be able to actually do the job for an extended period of time is a douchey thing to do. Pregnancy notwithstanding.

This needs to be repeated:

SIX WEEKS IS NOT AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME!!!!

It is in MOST people's lives. Example, most AMERICANS don't get more than 2 weeks paid vacation. THAT is an extended period of time.

tuinkabouter: 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.

I'm going to tell you all a story of how a woman could get caught in this position. It's a true story because it just happened to a dear friend. Her husband got a job and his employer told him he was definitely going to be working for them for a long time, so they both moved to where the job was and she got pregnant-- because it's now or never. She found a job, too, and was honest with her boss, who said she could work from home. He fired her for not being able to do more than 40 hours a week, and then her husband was laid off. They both applied to hundreds of jobs, while her belly grew bigger and bigger and their school loans weighed on them more heavily.
Luckily this story ends well; her husband got a job and even though he'll have to work more than 60 hours a week while his kids are young, they're happy to have money.
Now... what if they had gotten so desperate that they had started to argue and bicker? What if he had left her? She needs the health insurance and needs the financial support-- and no family members were able to give it to her. She would have needed to find a job or go into further debt just for having a kid. And then, as a new mother, she wouldn't have had the money to buy all that baby stuff-- not the bottles, not the maternity clothes, not the special car seat, not the crib that guarantees your baby won't die of SIDS, nothing. So she and her child would be much worse off.
There's nothing about working that makes you a terrible mother.


I don't ever intend to have children of my own; I think that's an irresponsible decision in an overpopulated world. However, I understand that pretty much all of our lives are controlled by biological urges to procreate... and it's not unreasonable to act on those. So what if it were your sister? Your wife-- and you couldn't find a job? What if the condom broke and the birth control failed and you were married to a Catholic? Should she really be punished for circumstances beyond her control?
Besides that, should women really be disadvantaged just because they're the ones who got stuck with uteruses? I don't really appreciate that 1) some dude is going to expect me to carry his child someday and 2) the general population thinks that this is not a worthy endeavor. Make up your mind, everyone... either stop reproducing because it's really not a bright thing to do-- or stop penalizing people for choosing to exercise a basic bodily function.

Plenty of things are a worthy endeavor, but do them on your own time like your friend eventually did.

thaumx: sethstorm:

I hope your idea of fair hiring practices gets killed off. You're just trying to throw unreasonable combinations and pass them off as justification for farking over someone who has a reasonable case.

I love America as well, and that it is not diminished by the people like you that want to make the US worse off. Our nation isn't about giving employers more power.

I want to work for you sethstorm. I work for a government agency, who has excellent hiring practices that follow all the anti discrimination laws. But it sounds like you'd offer way more hiring benefits to minorities, hell sounds like i'd get hired simply because I was a minority.

hurp derp derpity durp

I'm surprised you get so offended Sethstorm when people have morals and/or an ethical guideline they follow. A woman stealing healthcare sponsored by taxpayer money seems to be the ideal of virtue in your world, but I don't see any reason to get angry at people with common decency.

NOT THIS.

Not at all. You want to confuse the extreme with the normal, which is not at all what I wish to suggest.

You keep on brin

sethstorm: NOT THIS.

Not at all. You want to confuse the extreme with the normal, which is not at all what I wish to suggest.

You keep on bringing the extreme examples to put down normal ones.

fixed.

Ball of Confusion: this is precisely why it should be legal to do a pregnancy test at the same time the drug screening is done.

of course, I think it should be legal for an employer to dig into an applicant's history of filing workers comp claims, too...

So you want employers to be able to be more thuggish? This isn't the Victorian Era, tyvm.

If you want that, go to some Third World country - and not come back.

tuinkabouter: 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.

I'm going to tell you all a story of how a woman could get caught in this position. It's a true story because it just happened to a dear friend. Her husband got a job and his employer told him he was definitely going to be working for them for a long time, so they both moved to where the job was and she got pregnant-- because it's now or never. She found a job, too, and was honest with her boss, who said she could work from home. He fired her for not being able to do more than 40 hours a week, and then her husband was laid off. They both applied to hundreds of jobs, while her belly grew bigger and bigger and their school loans weighed on them more heavily.
Luckily this story ends well; her husband got a job and even though he'll have to work more than 60 hours a week while his kids are young, they're happy to have money.
Now... what if they had gotten so desperate that they had started to argue and bicker? What if he had left her? She needs the health insurance and needs the financial support-- and no family members were able to give it to her. She would have needed to find a job or go into further debt just for having a kid. And then, as a new mother, she wouldn't have had the money to buy all that baby stuff-- not the bottles, not the maternity clothes, not the special car seat, not the crib that guarantees your baby won't die of SIDS, nothing. So she and her child would be much worse off.
There's nothing about working that makes you a terrible mother.


I don't ever intend to have children of my own; I think that's an irresponsible decision in an overpopulated world. However, I understand that pretty much all of our lives are controlled by biological urges to procreate... and it's not unreasonable to act on those. So what if it were your sister? Your wife-- and you couldn't find a job? What if the condom broke and the birth control failed and you were married to a Catholic? Should she really be punished for circumstances beyond her control?
Besides that, should women really be disadvantaged just because they're the ones who got stuck with uteruses? I don't really appreciate that 1) some dude is going to expect me to carry his child someday and 2) the general population thinks that this is not a worthy endeavor. Make up your mind, everyone... either stop reproducing because it's really not a bright thing to do-- or stop penalizing people for choosing to exercise a basic bodily function.

The first part of your story is called LIFE, it happens.

The second, life too.

If you are in the position of CHOOSING to get pregnant, you are CHOOSING to deal with the consequences of that choice.

If you LIE to get a job knowing that you will not be able to do the job for the time period the job is for, then you are less than honorable. When you lie, you are not giving the other parties to your decision the information they need to make a good decision for them, that is VERY selfish.

It is no better than an employer firing a pregnant woman just for being pregnant.

She was NOT fired(but should not have been hired-based on the needs of the business). The member that said something was stupid because if they did choose to let her go FOR ANY REASON, they can't now because the pregnancy will be the reason the lawsuit is won by the woman.

Kinek: If she wanted the job, she should've gotten an abortion. I mean. C'mon.

This is Oklahoma, they'd have been criticized for that too.

Nothing, and I mean nothing, pisses people off more than being told the truth. That was this guy's only mistake.

Starry Heavens: umad: 1) We've decided, as a nation, that allowing gay people to marry is wrong. We have made doing so impossible. We've said it's wrong. Maybe those of you who will never be in a situation that could potentially involve marriage can't understand why the majority thinks that gays being married is a bad thing. I don't care. You're all irrelevant pimple-faced Cheetos-eaters who are too busy mining with your elf mage in WoW to even scratch the surface of the issues involved. No one cares what you think.

legal!=right dumbass

Sure, and if a government official declared that he would get to marry a man while no one else could, because it isn't immoral when he does it, that would also be scandalous. A former Senator should know better than to go against the rule of law. If the law states that a woman can't be fired for being pregnant, government officials should also be held to that. An appeal to authority does not seem fallacious when trying to bind authority to its own rules.

And if she is fired, then I am sure she will sue and 'rightly' win. That does not make it right to lie or hide pregnancy when she KNEW what the job entails and the 'busy' time for that job. If she is so qualified for the job, she would know that she would need to actually be available when the area she is lobbying is actually in session. That speaks volumes regarding her ethics.

For fark's sake...

FMLA qualifying Women and Men can take unpaid leave for up to 6 weeks.

More men need to take advantage of their FMLA leave if they can afford it so the onus isn't entirely on women.

The woman FTFA doesn't qualify, so the Oklahoma State School Board can hire a temp for a few weeks pretty easily.