EEOC: Bias against pregnant workers persists
Pregnant workers still face the threat of firings and other discriminatory practices despite a federal law against such practices, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and an MSN report.
The EEOC pursued 20 cases last year against employers suspected of discriminating against pregnant workers, one more case than the year before. Claims filed by workers, however, are up about 15 percent from a decade ago and numbered nearly 5,800 last year, the agency says.
MSN cited a $1.64 million settlement that Akal Security Inc. reached with the government in 2010 after claims that the company, the largest provider of contract security services to the federal government, routinely forced pregnant employees working as guards on U.S. military bases to take a leave of absence or discharged them because of their pregnancy.
Discrimination can also include harassing pregnant workers. Low-wage pregnant workers, especially those who have few if any sick days, appear to be the most vulnerable, the report says.
The law states pregnancy discrimination involves treating a woman (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of pregnancy, childbirth, or a medical condition related to pregnancy or childbirth. From the EEOC:
If a woman is temporarily unable to perform her job due to a medical condition related to pregnancy or childbirth, the employer or other covered entity must treat her in the same way as it treats any other temporarily disabled employee. For example, the employer may have to provide light duty, alternative assignments, disability leave, or unpaid leave to pregnant employees if it does so for other temporarily disabled employees.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
99 comments Add your comment
TLW
February 16th, 2012
4:17 pm
The women I have a problem with is the ones that have children without being married. I know one woman who had two children with the same man. They have lived together for over 20 years but they never got married so she is considered a “single-mom”. She has gotten all kinds of help from the goverment over the years because of that which I consider stealing. She hardly gets any taxes taken out then gets to file “Head of Household” at the end of year because she is supposedly single. She had her kids on medicaid until she was making too much money. She got help with childcare. Our children are about the same age. Do you think I got any help? I know another lady who has had three children with three different men. She is living with the current boyfriend. She just had her baby and guess what? She is on medicaid because she is a “single mom”. Our system is set up for people to cheat.
Mother and breadwinner
February 16th, 2012
4:23 pm
I am the working member of my family team, my husband is the stay-at-home parent. I will be taking off five weeks to go on maternity leave. My childless co-worker took off 8 weeks of work due to an operation. I’ve not missed any days of work this year, and 1 day of work last year. My childless co-workers have missed many more than that. I often watch my childless co-workers leave work before I do; therefore, arguments that parents and/or pregnant women are “slacking” is not justifiable. That’s the opinion of a few, not statistical fact.
Another point for my childless brethern to consider…who is going to be your doctor when you are 70? Who is going to run the company that you put your retirement savings into? Who is going to pick up your gabarge when you and your fellow co-workers have retired? That’s right…the children that are being born today! To say that you have no stake in the children being born in our country suggests that you either 1) plan on dying young or 2) have not really thought about the consequences if EVERYBODY decided to stop having children. You should be glad that some of us are willing to bear the financial, physical, and emotional responsibilities of raising our future generation. Those measly tax breaks and paltry “time-offs” that must be made up later do not compensate for the enormous amount of energy we put into raising productive members of society. And so, to all of you without children…you’re welcome!
Sincerely,
Mother of 5 –
3 of which are in Special Activities for Gifted Education;
2 of which are in advanced math, science and literature;
1 of which won two science fair competitions
1 of which won the spelling competition, math competition, poetry recitation, and national honors band
4 of which receive all As
1 of which is waiting to be born
Sharon
February 16th, 2012
4:27 pm
Pregnant women and mothers want to be revered in this country. Rats, mites, dogs, cats, roaches, etc all get pregnant and raise babies. It isn’t that special. Get over it, save your $, have the kids. Jeez.
just another mommie
February 16th, 2012
4:33 pm
too bad this is still happening, I was kicked out of high school 1 month before graduation because they found out I was pregnant, not showing and was married 1972 with no education had to get at a sewing factory, same story found out I was pregnant fired
College educated now but ironically I use this “mommy” prejudice to help overcome a worse prejudice….AGE.
I just landed a job over some very stiff younger competition because I drilled it into the interviewers brain that I had raised my family (hint hint, no pregnancy or missing work cause of babies) and could devote myself to the company (actually true) hey don’t hate on me young cute girls, it is a rough world out there.
There's a Sickness In GA
February 16th, 2012
4:53 pm
The comments here make me want to puke. I mean wow, just…wow. I had a female friend who worked as a hedge fund manager, main bread winner in the family, got great reviews, was awesome at her job, she was pregnant was 5 months with twins when her firm decided that it needed to lay some people off. Guess who had to go. Yeah, not only that, out of the three people they pink slipped two were women and one was a man, both women (including my friend) were pregnant. They gave her a severance package ( a weak one at that), but only if she and the only women agreed not to file EEOC charges. On top of that, her husbands employer did offer healthcare so they lost their health insurance coverage and only had health care insurance access via a very expensive COBRA plan. Of course, they could have taken the hedge fund to court, but then she would be black listed in her field. So, she and her husband were basically screwed, good luck trying to get a job when your 5 months pregnant. She eventually found work again, but not until over a year later.
These EEOC laws are in place, not only to protect women, but also families. Very few families could afford to have children knowing that every time they got pregnant, the wife would essentially be rolling the dice as to whether to not she’d be fired. And due to 30 years of wage stagnation (thanks Republicans), very few can afford to have only one spouse working.
It’s pretty simple. Without EEOC laws, more people will be on government assistance, fewer people would elect to have children, and the economic strength of this nation would be severely undermined as fewer and fewer workers would be available to support more more retirees and older Americans.
Business owner
February 16th, 2012
4:55 pm
I have had several pregnant ladies work for me. For 4-5 months of their pregnancy they missed lots of work, barely did any work while they were here, and basically got paid for doing little to nothing. I would have fired any man that did a similar amount of work but couldn’t fire the women because of nondiscrimiation laws (It wouldn’t have been for discrimination due to pregnancy – it would have been for poor performance – plain and simple). Why should business owners have to pay someone that isn’t doing their job? Are you ok with paying for something and getting nothing in return? If you are then go ahead and give $800 a week to the next pregnant lady you see for several months.
cb
February 16th, 2012
4:59 pm
Mother and Breadwinner, I wish all kids were as achieving as yours. That way I wouldn’t be so fearful of who will be taking care of me when I’m old and in the hospital. I worry about the state of the world in about 20 years. I fear it will be pretty close to the characters in the movie “Idiocracy”. Yes, I am pessimistic and too young to be a misanthrope, but I can’t help it. I feel, as does my 61 year old mother, that values, kindness, and education are being replaced by encouragement to be “divas”, “princesses”, and “princes”. Maybe all generations have felt this way, but I’m scared, I really am.
Quacks
February 16th, 2012
5:00 pm
That is why I never hire women or fat people for anything, period!
There's a Sickness In GA
February 16th, 2012
5:03 pm
@TLW She gets Medicaid for the babies benefit, not her own. You think she is gaming the system and imply that she should get kicked off, fine. What happens to her child at that point, should they pay for her “fraud.” Here’s a thought, maybe if we had greater access to birth control that lady wouldn’t be having some many kids…if only someone out there, like the President for instance, would help make birth control more available.
FYI
February 16th, 2012
5:08 pm
As a woman who worked 38 years and had two children during that time and who took maternity leave and returned to work after each child’s birth, I only expected to be treated the same as any other employee. I was only paid for time that I had leave accrued; the rest was leave without pay. I don’t feel that employers should be mandated to pay for maternity leave; they are already having to either hire a temp to come in and do the job while the employee is on maternity leave or having to redistribute the work to others. If the employee has enough vacation time or personal leave time and want to use it . . fine. I certainly don’t think we should emulate other countries; that’s what is wrong now and why so many are in the mess they are in now. People need to be responsibile for themselves. I do think employers should not discriminate against pregnant employees, however. It is tough being a working mother. There were some times I was not able to attend functions for my children because my job did not permit, but whenever possible, I made sure a relative substituted or I would rotate with my husband to ensure someone was there.
Elaine
February 16th, 2012
5:25 pm
First off pregnacy is a choice and when that choice is made then you also made the choice to go through the morning sickness, lost time off from work. Can you imagine giving women 18 months off work for a pregnancy and how women are having babies now at an alarming rate. We the tax payers would be paying these fat buts to stay pregant all the time for free handouts.
Bay
February 16th, 2012
5:27 pm
SugarHillDog said: “She had a hand in it!” First of all, you speak of pregnancy as though it were a universal crime (let me guess, you’re against abortion too?). But as for who had a hand in it, so did the man! Perhaps the fathers should also receive the same treatment as the pregnant woman then, just to be fair? Otherwise that’s just discrimination, because due to anatomy the woman is the only one paying the price.
I don’t know why I’m arguing with such a stupid comment, though. Sounds like you don’t attract too many women.
Bay
February 16th, 2012
5:30 pm
To everyone against maternity leave: do realize there is more to life, and to society’s health, than profit. We should not be discouraging the creation of a new generation (that will support us in our old age and pay into our Medicare benefits) with unpaid leave and tough conditions. Preganancy should not be treated just as any other disability since most women go through pregnancy, whereas most people do not experience disability. Therefore women take an unfair hit to their earnings just because they were born with a uterus.
Jamal
February 16th, 2012
5:34 pm
This does happen my wife’s former company (a bank in the metro area) would not give her maternity leave. Claimed she had to be there for a full year. So she was told she would be placed on administrative leave for two months and her status would be evaluated at the end of those two months. Later on that year I was in a car wreck that totaled my car so me and my wife tried to get a loan through that credit union and they said no because she wouldn’t be working in 6 months. They never looked at our records just flat out said no. Then on her last day at the credit union the same day she was going to get induced she was told to submit a letter of resignation from her job. She said no and refused to sign any paperwork. I believe she could have gotten unemployment but she never filed. I believe her former company was trying to make sure they were not on the hook for anything. These small companies are sneaky and pull this type of garbage a lot.
Bay
February 16th, 2012
5:38 pm
Jenn @1:48:
“It isn’t that it costs more to have children.” – WRONG. Have you checked the cost of college tuition or health insurance lately?
“It’s already been proven that both parents working full-time is a luxury, not a necessity.” – WRONG. Are you referring to the “proof” of the 1950s? When college and heath insurance were much cheaper? Most economic studies show that working full time is a necessity.
“If anything, one parent’s salary goes only to support the costs associated with working (lunches out, attire, public transit fare or gas for commuting) and then day care for the children.” – Oh, sure. I’d like to see YOU do that on $40,000 a year. Riiiighhhttt….
Edward
February 16th, 2012
5:45 pm
Prego Pro- just to respond to your comments:
1. “The parent HAS a definable reason they want/need to take time off versus just feeling like not coming into work on time or wanting to leave early for their own personal recreational activities.”
I believe you are a person that takes their job seriously and actually does make that time up. There are many (most?) who do not. They do not understand the concept of making up that time and feel it is “owed” to them because they are taking care of their children. I’m looking at it from the company’s perspective…why is it ok to lose those hours of work for one person and not for another? If I’m paying for 40 hours or work (ah, I miss those days when I only worked 40 hrs/wk), then why does one person only have to work 36, while another works 40 or more? It means that the childless person is getting paid less per hour of work. Why is it acceptable for a business to pay for a parent to go to a child’s pageant (if they’re not making up the time), but not acceptable for the business to pay for a childless person to just take off a couple of hours to go to a baseball game? In both cases, there are 2-3 hours of lost productivity, but one is accepted and one is not.
2. “Just as it’s a choice to have a family, it’s also a choice NOT to. So whining about a child tax credit seems moot.”
You know, I actually have friends who use that argument, and I can only shake my head. It is a tax credit…therefore someone else has to make up the credit with their taxes. Money is coming out of my pocket for someone else’s child. I don’t see how that’s right. I don’t see how it would be more right just because I chose to have a family and now I’m taking more money out of someone else’s pocket.
3. “And having a family does not automatically equate to an adverse affect on society.”
I did not say that. I said it “doesn’t mean that your choice (to have children) should adversely affect others in society”. It’s a small, but very real difference. Having a family does not adversely affect society in general, but you can’t argue that someone else having children does not potentially have an adverse affect on others. Co-workers have to pick up the slack (not in your case, but in most), childless people have to pay for schools that they certainly will never use, etc.
4.”If at any point in life you do, you’ll become the ‘drain on society’ that you so woefully abhor.”
Wow…I believe you’re putting words into my mouth there. I assume you’re comparing potential injury, etc disability vs pregnancy time off. Well, I guess I was somewhat off topic since I didn’t even discuss pregnancy time off. My discussion really related more to what happens after the child is born. But, from a fairness standpoint, is a planned (or at least “chosen”) action equivalent to an unforeseen accident/injury? Eh…I’m sure I’m in the minority on that one.
And just a couple of other examples:
1.I know someone who gets an additional sick day for each child he/she has. I’m not going to argue that they are more likely to need the sick days. But, when compared to a childless person making the same salary, I would say that you are affectively paying the parent more per day worked. Does that really seem right?
2. How often does the parent have to leave right at 4 or 5 to go pick up Bobby from daycare, leaving the childless to sit there and keep working on that project that needs to be completed? Again, preferential treatment resulting in lower pay/hour for the childless.
Mother and breadwinner
February 16th, 2012
5:58 pm
cb,
I understand your concerns because I, too, see much in our society that leaves something to be desired. Many of the posters that “slam” pregnancy as a “drag on productivity” because they are afraid they might have to sacrifice some time while the woman is on maternity leave typifies this “diva”, “prince”, and “princess” attitude. I believe the cure to this is to embrace making sacrifices to our fellow humans. I volunteered to take up some of the work for my co-worker who had an operation…out of kindness and concern for her condition. I also cheerfully stay late to work to finish a report when I could, as my co-workers, leave, because I want to save my boss the extra work of finishing our paperwork. I do this out of kindness, not expecting anything in return. Therefore, I know the world is a better place because I perform these acts not for personal gain but out of sheer gratitude for all the gifts I have been given. I hope my sons (yes, they are all boys) follow my example, and then I will have quintupled my affect on the world. If you want to change the attitude in our country, it has to start with the individual. As Mother Teresa said, “Never worry about numbers. Help one person at a time and start with the person nearest you.”
Get Real People
February 16th, 2012
6:05 pm
First of all the article talks about the EEOC handling these cases and protecting women from discrimination on this basis so it sugests the law IS IN FACT WORKING when utilized – the FMLA actually provides leave for Women AND Men (so long as both do not work for the same employer then it is split between them) when a child is born or adopted – that is unpaid leave except in circumstances of extreme hardship for the employer which is a high burden to meet. Title VII deals specifically with gender discrimination and there’s a specific pregnancy law as well.
Many employers in this country have paid maternity leave – some states have even higher levels of protection.
Pregnancy may be seen by some as “a choice” but women should not be relegated to having to choose between being employed and having a family.
Those countries that provide extended leave WITH PAY for women who are pregnant/give birth do so through a different mechanism than requiring the employer to foot the bill — it’s typically a social benefit program funded through treasury dollars – i.e. taxes or a “disability” insurance style mechanism.
Like it or not guys – you can’t get pregnant. So to take adverse employment action against someone on this basis is PER SE gender discrimination plain and simple. The EEOC is there to police and enforce so women have an advocate on their side. That’s the way it is designed to work and it does when utilized.
But, it is not a peremptory right – merit based decisions in cases of actual failure to meet the requirements of a job, so long as they are truly due to poor performance not related to pregnancy or other gender related factors – are completely within the law. In my experience most employers who get in trouble with this do so based upon poorly trained supervisors or HR people who don’t know how to do evaluations and document performance issues appropriately. That’s in regards to every employee – male or female. Has nothing to do with any specific protected class.
The only “gap” if you will, is small companies — less than 15 for Title VII and less than 75 for FMLA, except in states with other laws. There is a place there where protections aren’t available and it can be a difficult issue. The system is set up to try and provide as much protection as possible without creating such a burden on employers budgets and other employee work responsibilities that they simply can’t meet the demands of the law.
It’s not perfect – but it does at least give most workers some means to protect themselves. And – it should. That’s one man’s opinion. Everyone is entitled to their own but when they are simply sexist, selfish and mean spirited they simply hold no merit.
Mother and breadwinner
February 16th, 2012
6:10 pm
oops, that should be “effect”.
Lynn
February 16th, 2012
8:18 pm
I’m single with no children and I think a lot of these commenters are incredibly ignorant. For the person who said that the childless are discriminated against….are you serious? And there was another one wishing they too could take 3 months off…because a woman taking off 3 months after giving birth…well that’s just like a hiatus to the sunny beaches of Barbados?? My God, the complete idiocy is stunning.
Sherri
February 16th, 2012
8:48 pm
Lynn…yes, the childless are discriminated against. They often end up working extra time when parents have to go home for their children or for other parenting responsibilities.
Not taking anything away from those who do have children and all they do, but when it comes to fairness in the workplace, the result is that parents often get time off or other allowances that the childless do not.
If you haven’t seen this in your workspace, congratulations…I would think you’re one of the few.
DC Law Firm Accused of Un-Hiring Pregnant Woman – Wall Street Journal (blog) | Rss News Desk | Daily News Magazine
February 16th, 2012
9:47 pm
[...] Employment Commission sued a Washington DC law firm Thursday for allegedly rescinding a job …EEOC: Bias against pregnant workers persistsAtlanta Journal Constitution (blog)Working pregnant women face rampant discrimination: [...]
bbold
February 16th, 2012
9:49 pm
So maybe things would be better if people just quit having children. No problems between the childless and the parents. Better for the environment. Kind of hard when you get old and there aren’t any younger people around, but as they say you can’t have everything.
Where I worked one of the men (with a brand new baby) was encouraged to be on the road as much as possible but the childless woman wassupposed to stay home (to do house work I guess). Either could have done all the work.
DC Law Firm Accused of Un-Hiring Pregnant Woman – Wall Street Journal (blog) | Latest News
February 17th, 2012
1:38 am
[...] Employment Commission sued a Washington DC law firm Thursday for allegedly rescinding a job …EEOC: Bias against pregnant workers persistsAtlanta Journal Constitution (blog)Working pregnant women face rampant discrimination – [...]
DC Law Firm Accused of Un-Hiring Pregnant Woman – Wall Street Journal (blog) | Best News Feed - Daily News Magazine
February 17th, 2012
2:40 am
[...] Employment Commission sued a Washington DC law firm Thursday for allegedly rescinding a job …EEOC: Bias against pregnant workers persistsAtlanta Journal Constitution (blog)Working pregnant women face rampant discrimination – [...]
BaBaBinx
February 17th, 2012
6:24 am
The people who are complaining will be the first to scream for their FMLA rights when they need to use them. And as another poster said, FMLA is for more than just pregnancy and is for women AND MEN.
I think Bella posted above about 3 months of pay. Sweetie, I don’t know where you work, but that isn’t the case the majority of the time. You legally are allowed 12 weeks away from your position. Whether or not you are paid is up to your employer. I work for one of the most prominent corporations in this city, and even with their great benefits, you aren’t fully paid for maternity leave.
In my career I’ve been employed by 4 corporations and quite frankly have never seen people expected to stay late to make up the slack of people with children. And I can promise you not one individual has had to do work for me. What I see more often is the childless taking 1.5 hour lunches while I work through mine. If I ever leave early, that time is 100% made up. And quite honestly, I’m typically in the office long after my “8 hours” are up anyway. And on a side note – the childless typically aren’t the ones pulling any overtime in my experiences – just wanted to point that out!
Again, if someone is slack they are going to milk whatever opportunity arises – whether it is pregnancy, a child, whatever. Get over it, focus on yourself and move on. People like that exist in every company.
catlady
February 17th, 2012
6:50 am
As someone who had 3 kids, did not take sick days, and took only 3 weeks (once) and 16 days the next time as my “pregnancy leave” STFU, Randy et al! BTW, Randy, come back to work 16 days after giving birth, THEN we will talk!
Buzz G
February 17th, 2012
7:36 am
You want to know why manufacturing is leaving the US? It is the EEOC, EPA, NLRB, Dept. of Labor, Obama’s Justice Department, etc. In a word, our Federal Government. We have met the enemy, and it is the Democratic voter.
Quacks
February 17th, 2012
10:05 am
Preg ladies still have to do a day’s work for a day’s pay, after all, it was not the little lady’s employer who knocked them up! Abolish the EEOC, it is an on going criminal enterprise, much like the US Congress!
LPD
February 17th, 2012
10:32 am
This would not be an issue if men that the babies instead of women.
Moses007
February 17th, 2012
10:43 am
some of you dbags act like it comes out of your pocket when a woman takes paid leave. You do realize that if the only people that had babies were the ppl that had tons of money to absorb the hit, the USA would eventually vanish, and most of you would not even exist.
Moses007
February 17th, 2012
10:44 am
on the contrary, these costs are absorbed by a company, a private institution, not tax payers. Seeing as the woman HAS a job to take leave from, chances are she is not receiving anything YOU pay for in the form of government aid, so stfu.
blkbltchik
February 17th, 2012
10:46 am
Ok, so I am pregnant and still working my full time job AND my part-time job, along with my husband who is working, too. I don’t expect to be given any preferential treatment just because I am pregnant. This baby was not planned, but most definitely a pleasant surprise. We may not be in the most ideal financial situation, but we will make it work. I do agree that some women use pregnancy as a crutch, and I do not believe that should be allowed.
Moses007
February 17th, 2012
10:48 am
This is why some companies choose to hire fewer women, which is illegal, but can be done easily. If you hire a woman between 20-35, you should know there is a high probability that at some point in her tenure, she will be squeezing out some babies. To combat the inconvenience this poses to employers, there are many things. Unpaid leave (legal) Hiring a temp to fill in (legal) giving some other workers overtime pay (legal and lots of time appreciated) It isn’t like the company is absolutely crushed by a woman having a baby.
Moses007
February 17th, 2012
10:52 am
The only thing the law requires is that when the woman takes time off to have the baby, she has a job when she returns. They do not require the company pay her. They don’t require she get extra days off for doctors appointments. Any of you that look at a woman taking 2 months off to give birth obviously have 0 kids. This is the furthest thing from “a vacation” as can be. Try the constant pain leading up to the birth in the back and legs then the pain of actually pushing a watermelon through your ahole, and the proceeding healing process. Then add to that having no more than an hour of uninterrupted sleep while you tend to a baby that screams a cries for about 40% of every day.
Moses007
February 17th, 2012
10:53 am
The above sounds like a sweet vay-cay right? If it wasn’t for the saints going through all the trials and tribulations that IS childbirth, mankind would cease to exist, get over yourselves, you nazi blowhards.
Moses007
February 17th, 2012
11:04 am
I am curious how the nazi blowhards feel about the guy that gorges himself with twinkies and has a heart attack and takes 4 months of medical leave. Or the lady that lives in a tanning bed and develops insane cancers all over and requires constant time off for various reasons. Or the smoker with lung or heart disease. Or the guy that races dirtbikes on the weekend that ends up in a full body cast and takes 3 months off to heal.
Those guys all made (choices) that adversely affected their coworkers. Should their employers be exempt from paying them sick leave or required to hold their jobs for an entire quarter because of their bonehead decisions?
shockedandamazed
February 17th, 2012
11:09 am
Wow, I am completely shocked and amazed by some of these comments. I know when I began searching for a job after my son as born (as I was laid off 2 months prior to him being born so they could send my job to China), I was very honest in every interview to say that I needed flex time and that my son came first. I guess I am lucky I work in the IT industry and can make up time easily, In my world, keeping core hours doesn’t matter, getting the job done on-time and with intergrity and quality matters. If that means I work nights and weekends because I have to stay home with a sick child or want to catch a recital or ballgame, so be it. Which by the way, most recitals and ballgames are after work hours so I am not sure who is taking off from work to participate in these activites. I don’t see how anyone I work with or know has paid the price for me being a working mom or pregant (which I currently am now). My employer seems to be very pleased with my results seeing as I just received a raise in bonus this past year. My son is a very happy, well adjusted child but that is my opinion and the opinion of those that spend time with him on a daily basis. Of course that is subjective.
I think it is very sad to look down on pregnancy. I have worked my 80 hour weeks as a your developer. I am honest to tell my potential employers I am not capable of that kind of workload anymore. Sometimes experience is more valuable than “putting in your time”. With experience, I can do a job in 2 hours that some idiot who is running around complaining people are not pulling their weight can do in 8 hours. That idiot spends more time complaining then working. Also spends more time writing on these blogs than working. Maybe his lack of so called support in the workplace because people are out pregnant and doing things with their families is truly his inablility to manage his time properly and get his work done…
When I have coworker that is sick or has to deal with their children, I never mind picking up a little slack for them. Guess I am lucky to work with such a good group of people that are more than co-workers… they are friends! Please let me know where these other jerks work so I am sure to NEVER do business with them nor work with them or their companies.
All I can say, is always be honest with your employer otherwise you will end up in a bad situation. There are plenty of great companies that openly support working moms, pregnant employess, and flex time to do fun family activities.
Prego Professional
February 17th, 2012
11:15 am
Thank you Mother and Breadwinner & BaBaBinx – agree completely!
To all the people so concerned about having to pick up the “slack” for us pregnant, working professionals – get real. I have many coworkers, some of whom are single and/or childless who barely carry their weight, come in late, leave work early and generally do as little as possible to maintain their employment status. And I work at a Fortune 500 technology company, not some small, privately-owned business! So let me turn the tables on this – how is it “fair” then that these coworkers should have the luxury of coming & going as they please and doing just enough to keep their positions while I have busted my butt all throughout my career to provide the best level of teamwork, service and dedication I can to prove my worth as a valuable contributor? If I have to skip out of work for an hour or so to check on the well-being of my child, whether I make it up or not or whether I use PTO is really none of your business. Concentrate on your OWN work ethic, I’ll concentrate on mine, and I truly believe that you get what you give.
Quacks
February 17th, 2012
11:17 am
Dear shockedandamazed – I bet you wrote and posted this long blog from work, on work time, using your employers computers, and internet connection. I bet that is a firing offense too.
Staying the Course
February 17th, 2012
11:21 am
Welcome back Prego … “fair” … what is “fair to you is not “fair” to me … there is nothing truly “Fair” … or “equal” and there is nothing “guaranteed”.
“Fairness” is in the eyes of the beholder.
Traditionalist
February 17th, 2012
11:27 am
Women are ruining america, I long for the days when they were but chattel! Bring back the “rule of thumb” in marriage, and divorce rates will go to zero! In the interests of multi culturalism, I suggest that after 40, women be required to wear a burka at all times, unless a heterosexual man will testify that she is still adequately hot (we will limit the number of exemptions to 1% of the female population, or less). Hom-os are to all be deported to an Islamic country of their choice, talk about freedom of choice! Hot les-bians can stay, they are entertaining, but must agree to be freely available to any male who wishes to attempt to cure them of their affliction, and of course we get to watch all their perverted les-bo acts! Lets put God back into America!
Casey
February 17th, 2012
11:34 am
I am an Ob/Gyn Nurse Practitioner and I cannot tell you how often perfectly healthy women who are pregnant ask to be put on bed rest for no reason. Generally, this is the “low wage, vulnerable” women. Strangely, the women we want to go on bed rest resist it the most…….Anyway, if you choose to have a child then you should plan accordingly with your allotted time off. However, I choose to not have children and have no desire whatsoever to stay late so you can leave early. Pregnancy is not a disease or disability and articles like this one make it really hard for health care providers to make patients understand that.
Give me a breal
February 17th, 2012
11:49 am
As a mom of one, I can honestly say that during my pregnancy and the first year of my child’s life; I worked HARDER than one of my single and childless co-workers. This person left every day as soon as the clock hit 5. I,on the other hand, still worked late. So the assumption that single childless people work harder and “pick up the slack” is silly. My single co-worker isn’t as worried about supporting a family (and I don’t just mean the traditional family) so a job loss isn’t as devastating to him as it is to me…I work very hard to make sure that my family is well taken care of. I’m sick of the sterotype that moms don’t work as hard or take more time off than other employees. I have seen the exact opposite in my workplace…most of the single people leave early
and come in late!!
Give me a break
February 17th, 2012
11:54 am
And no I don’t leave work when my child is sick…her grandmother picks her up and cares for her until either my husband or I get home!!
cb
February 17th, 2012
1:48 pm
Give me a break,
Job loss sucks for everyone. Yes, the stress would be even greater for one with children. Bills are bills and when I got laid off 3 years ago it was not a positive situation.
In general, I think the point of all of this is that everyone should care about their job performance and pulling their weight. And several of you are right, there will ALWAYS be ones who don’t do what they are supposed to do and milk the system for whatever reason is convienent. In short, DO WORK, be kind to your co-workers, and be grateful for your jobs!
Just Wondering
February 17th, 2012
2:08 pm
Lavarsha – “Whether or not you approve of why or how the worker became pregnant the reality remains that pregnancy creates temporary physical limitations which can affect job performance.”
So one can say that the merit reviews/increases should be less than fully capable employees? Could/should this be a reason that women are paid less than men?
Scott Behren
February 17th, 2012
3:38 pm
If you have questions on your employee legal rights against pregnancy discrimination check our out blog http://www.takethisjobnshoveitblog.com.
Loura Hutts
February 18th, 2012
6:40 pm
Interesting justification. I love see clearly Martha