Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
John Stossel :: Townhall.com Columnist
Pregnant Women Have No Right to Their Jobs
by John Stossel
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Sales consultant Holly Waters says she was a top performer for the drug maker Novartis. But when she was about go on maternity leave, she was fired.

"I was seven-and-a-half months pregnant. There was no way I was going to be able to go out and find a job at this point," she told me for my ABC special "You Can't Even Talk About It."

Waters knew the law is on her side. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act makes it illegal to fire, or not hire, a woman because she is pregnant. The law even restricts workplace speech. Employers are warned that in a job interview they must never ask questions like, "Might you start a family?"

If Congress thought the law would end claims of workplace discrimination, it was wrong, as usual. Companies are increasingly being sued. Even a maternity-clothing chain was sued.

Waters's lawyer, David Sanford, filed a class-action lawsuit against Novartis. "If you get pregnant, you're in trouble at Novartis," he told me.

Novartis denies wrongdoing and points out that Working Mother magazine named it one of America's 100 best companies for women.

Sanford claims that his $200-million lawsuit will teach Novartis and other companies not to discriminate.

But Carrie Lukas says such lawsuits do more harm than good. Lukas is also a working mom, vice president of the Independent Women's Forum.

"If my employer decides they no longer want me as an employee, then it should be their right to fire me." she told me. "I understand the desire for people to have government step in and try to protect women, but there's real costs to government intervention."

These costs are rarely talked about publicly. But once Congress creates protected groups, some employers avoid hiring members of those groups. After the Americans with Disabilities Act became law, it was assumed more disabled people would enter the workplace. But a study by economists at MIT found employment actually "dropped sharply."

Likewise, "pregnancy protection" creates problems for women.

"Sometimes laws that are intended to help women like me actually end up hurting women like me," Lukas said. "All of a sudden, a potential employer is looking at me and thinking, 'She just might turn around and sue us.' That makes it less likely that I'm going to get hired. You raise the cost of hiring a woman like me."

And while some pregnant women work harder than any man, she says, let's be honest: Most pregnant workers impose costs on employers.

"Responsibilities are shifted each time I go to a doctor's appointment," Lukas said. "That means I'm unavailable to do whatever work needs to be done during that time, which means one of my colleagues is often picking up the slack."

As free-market economists have long suggested, there's a way to resolve such a conflict: voluntary exchange for mutual benefit. Carrie and her employer made a deal that works for both of them. She works fewer hours and earns less money.

I confronted Sanford with the idea that lawsuits he files actually harm women because companies view them as potential lawsuit bombs.

He was unfazed: "If they do take that position, they'd be violating the law. If companies lose money because of it -- and they may -- that's not necessarily a bad thing from a societal perspective."

I think it's a very bad thing. Employment and productivity matter. But viewers agreed with him. I got hate mail:

"It is unbelievable that ABC would consider airing this piece! ... This turns back the clock 30 years, and Betty Friedan is rolling in her grave!"

"What in the heck is wrong with you, John Stossel? This kind of backwards thinking only exists in third world countries."

"Fire Stossel."

How would the job market work without discrimination laws?

"You don't have to hire me, and I don't have to work for you," answers Carrie Lukas.

Who would hire pregnant women?

"Plenty of employers. ... Women are incredibly productive members of the workforce," Lukas said. "We have a lot to offer. If an employer is going to discriminate against enough people, it's going to be bad for them in the long run. It's a bad business practice. And that's the best way to prevent discrimination."

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
John Stossel blogs at http://blogs.abcnews.com/johnstossel/ is an award-winning news correspondent and author of Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel--Why Everything You Know is Wrong.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read John Stossel's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
If that child is a 'choice'...
...then lefties need to shut the hell up about 'protecting' women. As usual, the left wants to eat their cake, force you to pay for it, and whine for half of yours when you get a piece for yourself.

It's time to resist the feds, People.
If the fed'ral gov't take you to court, don't settle. Instead, call their bluffs.

Don't argue about whether or not you are in violation of their unConstitutional laws. Instead, argue that their laws--and worse, rules and regulations set forth by unelected bureaucrats rather than elected legislators--are unConstitutional and therefore null and void. Tell the court, "It is written..." and then quote the relevant sections of the fed'ral Constitution. Get a jury, appeal to them, show them that you're on their side--the side of liberty--and employ jury nullification.

So much is wrong with this
type of thinking. I would say an employer cannot discriminate. He should be entitled to hire and fire whomever he pleases based on whatever criteria he wishes to employ. That said a business man is given his best reason to discriminate by these very laws. It is his right to run his business any way he wishes. As he does his life and the choosing of his wife. I would be more likely to discriminate against a pregnant woman when choosing a wife. How is a job any different? It is not the govt's decision to make because they do not have to live with the consequences of that choice nor did they take the risks or front the capital required to create jobs in the first place.
Secondly what is a person who cries "discrimination" but a whiner. They have been faced with some adversity. Instead of taking it as opportunity or wondering what choices they made which led to the current problem they whine "It's not fair" and run to authority. Who among us thinks life is fair? Who among us likes a whiner? Who among us took adversity and learned from it? I'll bet many of those doing the hiring and firing are such people.
That very accusation of discrimination proves that the employee is more concerned with themselves than with the company. I'd be willing to bet if that same employee made it their business to see to it that the company came first the company would hang on to that employee no matter what.

Alice writes:
Pregnancy is and can be a very serious medical disability (often temporary)! Why, because, it limits your ability to work and physically engage in many of the activities of daily living, including work.
______________________________________________

Let's see. This was some unforseen illness or disability due to an accident? No! It was a situation where the man & the woman decided to have sex without any protection either intentionally or unintentionally. Now how is this the problem of the employer again?

12 weeks leave...no pay! The law is clear.

David writes
I don't know what! Bullsh!t!

let's see how the case turns out
fact finding, etc.

All of you want to stop medical mal suits, but this one is ok? Why?

Bork renny, Darrell, John Stossell
BelleStarr, etc

LuLu; Pregnancy is and can be a very serious medical disability (often temporary)! Why, because, it limits your ability to work and physically engage in many of the activities of daily living, including work.

See
like ol darrel there back a few. You all seem to assume some Imacculate Conception. Like the woman just wished she was pregnent at IT WAS SO! So darrel ,you didn't hav nuffen t'doo wid it,eh? She did her waifly dooties and now it's her fault. OK genius. Ya wan it boff waiz. GOD is this country down the drain.

Typical
right wing obfuscation on a well thought out-but almost always misunderstood law. But,no surprise from Stossel who will always lie to make a point to some mouthbreathing inbred to 'keep der wermn dowen and puten em in derplash' unquote.Stossel's audience rues the day that women got the vote(we won't even mention other non-white citizens) and were no longer chattel.'Da biabul suz ah caim beet ma waife an ma keeids toooo'. unquote. Well,bubba welcome to the 21st century. We can't force you to concider women 'equal under the law'(that's the constitution),but The Law will force you to obey it.

Here's the deal....
It's called the "family leave act". Esentially, it requires employers to provide at least 12 weeks of "unpaid" family leave for a variety of things such as pregnancy.

Upon return, the employee will be given their old job or an "equivalent" one at equal pay.

*
sorry, Darrell

Darrel
I mean, I would agree with you in a pecfect world, or even in a early to mid 20th century America, but nowadays its not that simple...Most men don't make enough to take care of a family by themselves, we can debate the causes of this but it is true...

nt250
seems disinterested in the big picture to say something like that...a woman who is about to give birth to a new baby (potential producer/consumer/citizen...etc), this is not is not of the same consequence of a man with a broken leg...why doesn't this matter?

Work with forked priorities.
A woman that is pregnant needs to bow out, go home and plan to raise a child. If more women did that the home would be a better place for children. You can't have it both ways. You'll make one of the other suffer.
No I am not a male chauvenist just using common sense.

It's called equal treatment
I didn't bother reading all the replies so I hope someone pointed out that firing a pregnant worker should be treated the same as firing a man who broke his leg. Or anybody else who takes a medical leave for any reason. If you're going to fire everyone who gets sick, fine. But you can't just fire the pregnant woman while the guy with the broken leg gets leave.

Tammy
Just because a government does something, that does not mean they have the legitimate authority to do so.

When governments made laws which criminalized runaway slaves, did they REALLY have the authority to allow one man to own another?

Governments do all kinds of unconscionable things because they have the POWER, not the authority. In our country, the authority of government comes from the consent of the governed. Once the governed stop consenting, the government is overstepping its authority and their actions have become UNAUTHORIZED.

Tammy, you seem to favor a national system in which the government can do whatever it pleases simply because it has the power. And what’s worse, the more the people are stripped of their power, the more comfortable you are with the whole set up.

You are right about one thing. From the beginning of time and in every part of the globe there exist people who want to forcibly acquire the fruit of another’s labor. There are always those individuals who want what other people produce, but they don’t want to work for it. They get government to confiscate the fruit of other’s labor for them. It’s called slavery and it has been a part of the story of mankind from the beginning.

Lily, Tammy,
PLAN.
Besides, this isn't saying you CAN'T work, if pregnant, nor that you WILL be let go if you are. It is saying two important things: 1. Pregnant women do not have a "right" to a job, 2. Enforcing the law as indicated in the Holly Waters case will result in fewer women hired or kept.
There are still dozens of easy-to-use reasons to let someone go and it would be unlikely you could prove the "real" reason unless someone "slips".

If Holly Waters was such a "top performer"; one would assume her worth to the company would be high enough they would accomodate her.
Just who states she is a "top performer", anyway?

Thank you Carrie!
The absolute basic, liberated, unequivocal equality: "You don't have to hire me, and I don't have to work for you"

To take such a stance - to walk the high road, the hard road. It is the type of stance all Americans in these US of A should have the strength and fortitude to take.
And John Stossel is one of the very few with the courage to write this.

I applaud and salute you both.

Sanford seems to have Cheez-Whiz for brains (sorry, Cheez-Whiz)- but the LAW is on his side.
It is very unfortunate that we have stumbled from the Rule-of-Law into Rule-BY-Laws - but with so many people actually believing the government is the venue for fixing everything, it doesn't look like there will be change any time soon.



Limited choices
I pretty much came to age right after the cusp of women being teachers, nurses, secretaries or home makers. A scant few years ahead of me, if a woman got pregnant, it was either the back alley or marriage. Excuse me for not feeling sorry for you women that are blowing, in this age of information, everything that women of previous generations have fought for. I am simply not willing to pay for your stupidity.

Jack
Again you're putting up a straw man. NOBODY these days would willingly discriminate on the basis of race alone or of sex alone. Those who do will find themselves on either the business end of a lawsuit, or eventually out of business altogether. The times they have changed. Only a Statist thinks otherwise. You must be a Government worker bee to believe we'd go back to Jim Crow.

Further, I know of no conservative employer who would discriminate on the basis of those characteristics. But the fact is, it tends to be more expensive to employ women than to employ men, simply because women get married, then get pregnant, then decide they want part-time work, or to be home full time. Men don't change their priorities when they get married-and tend to earn higher salaries when they do marry. Thus for the full-time ladies we have maternity leave, time off for Dr visits, time to express breast milk, etc and so on, world without end. Been there, done that. Each time a woman must leave her station for the time off to do this or that, work needing to be done is delayed, or put upon others to do. The coworkers get no additional compensation for doing their colleague's work. And, the employer must leave her slot open so she may return if she chooses. Of course, temporary help may be available, but then there's the expense of using a temp agency, the time needed for at least minimal training since every office runs its own way, as well as the hassle of finding another full-timer should Mom decide she'd rather be home after all. My DH, who is in a position to hire and fire, being president of his company, has said as much, for he's had to deal with it up close and personal. Efficiency pays, and results in larger salaries as well as returns on investment. Gov't has no such motivation, since it can only function at the enforced expense of others.

So tell me, Jack, do you still believe that jobs belong to the employees, or to the employer?

Lenard:
"Lilly you show me by what authority a man is entitled to the fruit of another mans labor, then I'll listen to you. In the meantime you are a thief. Does it matter whether theft is formalized or if it is the raw violence of the criminal or the nation invading another? If rights are not "

****
To put it bluntly, by the authority of the
government of which you are a part. You
show us which countries do not tax. You
show us a country which does not spend its
revenues for both the common good and for
individual good. And truth be known, the
rich benefit a great deal more from govt
expenditures of taxes than do poor people.

Quit pretending that the US has developed into
some vile ogre who gobbles up your money and
leaves you on the curb begging for money.
Or maybe you really do believe it. Can you
truly be that uninformed, that naive?
Maybe it is time for you to figure out what
is going on in the world, and has been from
virtually the beginning of time.

It might be an eye opener.

John Stossel:
It is a rare person who sues a company that has
given her/him satisfaction on the job and treats
them fairly.

""If my employer decides they no longer want me as an employee, then it should be their right to fire me." she told me. "

This is such a
stupid quote, particularly when discussing the
case of Holly Waters, who was a top performer.
Companies want top performers. Apparently
they didn't want a pregnant woman. And the
law protects her for that.

When the government actually tells a company
which individuals they can hire and fire,
write another column. This isn't what happened. It was a law written to protect
women from discrimination.


Jobs Belong To Employers
Jobs do not belong to employees. This is just another attempt by Statist/Leftists to separate Americans into grievance groups. Everyone needs protection. After all, straight, white males are all born with 130 IQs, perfect teeth, flawless bodies, fat bank accounts and all of the advantages the people in the other groups are denied.

Married women typically vote Republican. For the Statist/Leftists this is a way to make those women a category of victims that they can "champion."

edgycater.blogspot.com

lilly and civilized
Lilly you show me by what authority a man is entitled to the fruit of another mans labor, then I'll listen to you. In the meantime you are a thief. Does it matter whether theft is formalized or if it is the raw violence of the criminal or the nation invading another? If rights are not unalienable, then there is no such thing as rights, period. What matters then is only the artifical and arbitrary decisions of man.
You willingly force another to provide for others, you try to cowardly hide behind so called government to justify your perversion. Lilly they had elections in the USSR, ditto Cuba, but in the meantime the people were slaves, forced to do one thing, perpetuate the government.
Lilly the essence of what you espouse is tyranny, the desire to control all.

Ladykrystnya
so you have done it well and right, as have I. How much are you willing to forfeit for those that haven't? that is what it comes down to with socialism or communism. From those that have to those that need no matter what got them there in the 1st place. I was around 17 when the pill became readily available and got myself on it-no help from mommy or daddy or the government. I've known so many women that have made thoroughly lousy life choices and I simply do not want to pay in any way for them. If that makes me selfish, so be it but obviously if the pill came out when I was 17, I'm no spring chicken here and I want to enjoy my wise choices and all that I've worked for and not be robbed by the government for other women's stupidity.

no man owes another
Always, always the leftist seeks to force another who has risked his resources, spent his time and effort, and succeeded to give of what is his by right. It is his property, his business, his fruit of labor, yet the leftist, the immoral, the thief in heart seeks to take away from man. The leftist rants about the wrongs in this country of slavery, but does not recognize his hypocrisy, in that he is merely inducing slavery in another form, in that a man is not free to what is his. The scope, the degree does not matter, what does matter is that protection of life, liberty and property/fruit of labor must be the purpose of government.

Lily Part 2
The CHOICE is up to the individual, Lily. Whether or not to have children is ENTIRELY IN YOUR OWN HANDS AND NO ONE ELSE'S. Stop trying to create strawmen. Conservatives don't care if you personally take birth control or not. In fact, they often point out birth control (although perhaps not for underage people), as well as abstinence. It's like HIV - it's 100% PREVENTABLE. Imagine that. A disease that is 100% preventable, if only people would either stop doing drugs and sharing needles or stop having promiscuous sex, especially without a condom.

It's really not that difficult.

We should be teaching our youngsters to PLAN AHEAD. If you want to have children, start figuring out a general plan early on, even before you've met your spouse. Have an idea about where you want to go in life and be prepared for side trips and bumps.

We don't teach our children SURVIVAL in the real world anymore. We teach them that the gov't will come and save them, or their parents will bail them out. That's the problem.

Teach independence and self-reliance and the kids will start making better decisions. And offer better opinions that Lily's. Can you sound anymore like a 16 year old brat?

Lily, Part 1
Lily, I used to think the same as you. Then I became a conservative and started thinking more maturely. No conservative is saying that YOU can't take birth control if you want. You don't want to have children right now or ever, then make sure you don't. The choice is yours, we just don't like the gov't having to pay for your birth control (shoot, last time I checked Planned Parenthood gave out BC for FREE!).

So the first CHOICE is up to the INDIVIDUAL and no one else. Yes, oopses do happen; it happened to me the second time, but it was my own dang fault and my husand and I muddled through the best we could. We changed daycare centers, we scrimped, etc. The fault was mine (and his of course) and no one else's.

I later got lucky and my mom watches my kids now, but still, you have to take responsibility.

If more women stopped trying to "work the system" and showed employers that they really were hard workers and not looking for an excuse to slack off (and trust me, for every productive, hard working woman [or man] out there, there are 100 more slackers of both genders and family situations that make the rest of us look bad), then maybe employers wouldn't be so apt to overlook us and even get us fired.

life, liberty, property/fruit of labor
Why government? As stated to protect life, liberty and property/fruit of labor. It is a perversion and immoral twisting of government to no longer protect rights and go even further and be the violator. When government does such it must be abolished.
Many accuse those who support the right to make as much as possible, or possess as much as possible, as supporting greed. Greed it may be, but it is only God that has the right to judge the heart. In the meantime, the truth is that greed and jealously are actually exalted by the leftist. How so? Well the leftist looks at the success of people and says it's not right, and that they deserve a piece of someone else's success. How is this not greed and jealousy?

Binc and MerryColin
Binc, I can't answer for Tish, but Carrie Lukas (the woman in Stossel's article) DOES work for less and she's fine with it and quite frankly I would say most reasonable people would also be fine with that as well. They could negotiate a salary that was less, but that was still enough to help pay the bills and go from there. The importance of what Lukas and Tish was saying, IMHO, is that employees should be able to negotiate with employers. It's up to the employers as to whether or not such a negotiation would work out for their mutual benefit, but they should at least be able to address the matter, especially if they are otherwise valuable employees.

I've done the same thing - I'm an independent contractor so that I can make my own hours and negotiate what I get paid and I do not have to live by anyone's leave. My choice and it works for me. It may not work for everybody, of course, but in regular "employee" jobs, I don't see anything wrong with negotiating out different hours and different pay. Yes, there will always be the lowlife that wants it all and just slacks off. They should be fired and the perks reserved for loyal employees that work hard and produce.

MerryColin - While I technically agree with you - gov't is not required to fix our lives for us - I would have a bit more compassion for Tracee and for many women. It may be the "right" of the company to hire who they will, but it is a shame that an otherwise productive worker is basically being discriminated against because of "perception". Although, I do believe, as Stossel does, that it's because of those very anti-discrimination laws and the people who abuse the system.

If I were Tracee, I would keep on trying because I do believe there are "employers with a heart" so to speak that will see your potential and work with you for mutual benefit.

life, liberty, property/fruit of labor
From the D of I...That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..Now before some ninnie says something stupid, there is a very obvious reason this was not included in the federal constitution,...it was created for the benefit of the states.
So how about the states? Well several either included in it's entirety or adopted language very similar to the D of I. It is important to realize this, and see how far we've come and just how illegally those in power are acting. It is also important to know this to understand that the federal government has NO, NOT ONE BIT of authority to act on behalf of individuals. Some might say the 14th says yes, but they neglect the reality that in violation of the US constitution which guarantees to every state a republican form of government, states were forced to ratify it.
I am merely anticipating a few of the weak, fallacious arguments that leftists will put forth, but now to the importance of the D of I....

Switzerland bankrupt
also Lilly, go to google and type in "Switzerland bankrupt".

Take the Pill already
Lilly, #1-if you don't want a baby, use contraception-#2-Abortion should be limited to extreme cases-not oops cases#3Right, no thinking ahead, no contraception and the cake's in the oven#4- Pregnant women are not invalids unless , of course they balloon to 300lbs. plus so no reason to not work other than a legitimate medical one #5 A good conservative family probably wouldn't take out a $2400. mortgage if they wanted a family and couldn't do it on one salary. So Lilly, why shouldn't a woman with a high school education and 3 babies by the age of 21 not be able to live in a 500,000 house and have a few more kids while she's at it? Let's throw in a nanny while we're at it because it's what she wants and fair is fair. Oh wait Lilly, that's just not fiscally feasible.

Free Education
Want some free education? Go to your Google page and type in "Maternity benefits Switzerland". Read what comes up. Then try "Maternity benefits Holland". Next, "Maternity benefits Denmark" etc "Sweden" etc "Poland" etc "Norway" etc "France" etc "Austria" etc "Italy" etc "Luxembourg".

Then go visit all these countries. See if people are all lying around the streets drunk and lazy or are conducting themselves in an orderly and businesslike manner. Notice carefully if Communist parades are marching down the street.

Try and figure out why the United States is less civilized than all those other nations.

I Need Some Help Here
My head is swimming but I learn so much from townhall posts that I want to sort this out and keep it straight. Check me out here:

1) Married couples should accept all the children that God sends. contraception is evil; that's why pharmacists can refuse to fill the prescriptions.
2) Abortion is totally out of the question.
3) Ergo, pregnancy occurs and must be sustained (or, maybe the couple shouldn't be having sex; I'm not clear on that point but will check with the Palins.) Just assume that in my hypothetical family, the cake is now in the oven.
4) Pregnant women have no right to work and definitely no right to have the pregnancy accommodated if they are ill, have a doctor's appointment, or need maternity leave.
5) But the mortgage payment is $2400 a month and this is a good Conservative family that doesn't believe in Blue Cross so they are paying all their medical costs out-of-pocket. Also, they don't believe in public schools and Mom can't stay home to homeschool so they are paying tuition at the local Christian Academy. And they tithe at their church. Plus, they patriotically drive a huge SUV, which costs them. All this adds up and they need two incomes. Ooooops. Daddy just got laid off.

6) What to do? Possibilities include a) Conceal the pregnancy by adopting loose ethnic garb, perhaps a sari or a muu-muu in a bright African print. b) Do not take ANY time off to have the baby; squat over a tub, like a Chinese peasant of yore, and give birth in the ladies' room, on coffee break, then stuff the newborn inside the blouse and return immediately to the desk. c)Carry the infant everwhere on a binding board, which can conveniently be hung from a coat rack when Mom is occupied with job. If the baby is covered with an artfully hung overcoat, nobody will even know it's there.

Tracee
You say you are a "divorced, single mom". Notice there is choice in your statement. The choice you made in a spouse and who you had kids with. No, you didn't have a crystal ball and you could have been married to the biggest P.O.S. on the planet. However, these are your life choices and forcing employers to do something to make it easier for you is wrong as well as unconstitutional. If you were widowed, I still wouldn't believe gubmint has any business in keeping you afloat. This is the job of churches, charities, and plenty of benevolent businessmen who value someone with a flexible schedule as yours seems to be. I wish you the best--- really I do!

valuable employee
OK Tish, so you must be a valuable employee-at least valuable enough so that your boss is willing to work with you and good for you and Him/Her. Do you think you, however, should make the same amount as the guy or gal next to you that chose not to have kids and instead puts in 120% at his job? We're not a bunch of worker bees, we have different wants, needs and abilities. Socialism and it's sneaky little first cousin Communism wouldn't differentiate between you and the sloth sitting next to you when your kids are raised and out of the house-when you're all about climbing the corporate ladder. When you're done raising the kids, ready to take on the world, do you want to work 60 hours to make up for the young lady with little ones in the next cubicle working 20 hours, just to make the same amount as her and get the same promotions? I doubt it.

Nate said
"So, in today's economy where it's most likely that both the husband and wife have to work to support a family, and because we wouldn't dare have them receive any financial assistance, how is a woman supposed to get pregnant and risk losing one income while being saddled with the additional costs of a pregnancy and a new child?"

Duh----gee! Guess she shouldn't get pregnant if she can't afford to raise a child without both parents working full time. Such is life buster. I am sick to death of paying for other people's kids. I had mine when I could afford to and raised them without taking from my neighbors and fellow taxpayers. Since when is getting pregnant and having a family a right to be covered by gubmint laws? The only part of your point that has validity is when existing families are beat over the head with new taxes and the parents must work just to survive. In that case we must attack the cause which is the taxes themselves. Like nitwit gubmint programs today (and most charities) the well meaning but wrong headed boobs address the symptom rather than the cause. This simply perpetuates a bad situation. Of course gubmint jumps in to "defend" the worker----- THEY WANT THEIR MONEY! Anyone who thinks this situation is going to get better for the cuople with children is in la la land. Hang on to your wallet folks; beating up employers will never work. It's THEIR company and they WILL pack up and leave if pushed into this insanity.

Tracee, Tish, and the Dilemma Part 4
BTW - this goes for MEN and WOMEN - men shouldn't necessarily have to sacrifice time with their children so that they can work 70 hours a week for some schlupp that doesn't care about him anyway. They should be able to make it to the kids' games, etc.

Personally I feel like the discrimination is not just against women, but against families. The single guy who can spend 70 hours a week kissing the boss' behind is more prized than the dad who sacrifices ever seeing his kids to do the same, but who is then most likely spiritually broken by it.

In other words, I think companies can have "family values" and can probably make it all work while still making a profit if they get creative enough. There has to be the WILL to do it. I mean, if we can put people on the Moon, I think we can have employment that doesn't just cater to the workaholics, but also to the working families that work because they need to put food on the table, not just to have a career (which I'm sure encompasses the majority of us).

I'm just not a big fan of ALL OR NOTHING choices. I think it's a false choice IMHO. I like the idea of having the opportunity of a myriad of choices, again NOT BY GOV'T FIAT, but because I think that is what works best for society and I think all reasonable employers who can do it will see the light and do it because it is mutually beneficial.

Tracee, Tish and the dilemma, Part 3
The only "solution" I could think of that was compatible with conservatism was this: employers probably need to re-evaluate their "business models" and make sure that they can still make a profit (as they should) while understanding that the workforce has changed, whether they like it or not. More women are in the workforce and many have families. Productivity, as someone else said, is not always about TIME SPENT, it's the work you do while you are there. I knew a paralegal that worked 5 hours a day, but SHE WORKED HARD. Her productivity was better than mine and I was there 9 to 10 hours a day!

What I like about Tish's and Lukas' stories is this: negotiation with your employer so that each is satisfied with the deal and each is getting what they need without anybody having to be fired. That kind of gels with my idea of a "new business model".

Of course, there will always be jerks who don't care, but hard working, valuable workers will find the employers that will negotiate with them and they will get the best workers and the jerks will be left with nothing and then maybe they will change their minds. Of course, that takes time, but I think it is the better more "organic" solution, then the gov't telling people what to do, which just creates backlash.

Showing employers that they can work with valuable employees and still meet the bottom line is the best way to go IMHO.

Tracee, Tish and the dilemma, Part 2
Tish - you and and Lukas have good employers who must value your work greatly so that they are willing to work with you.

If only more employers were like that.

Because the fact is, many of us HAVE to work. I would hate to think that I would not have children just because in order to afford them I would have to work. I love my children and they are a gift from God.

Right now I'm an independent contractor, so I give up a lot of benefits, but I get to see my children more, participate in their school activities more, etc. I'm also lucky because my mom is my babysitter.

It's a difficult dilemma because, to be honest, when it comes to making babies, women and men are simply not equal. The burden is on the woman, sometimes even afterwards when women just tend to be the primary caregivers (not to say that men don't help out, mine does and I know many that do).

I struggled with this dilemma for a long time, even after I identified as conservative, because it was so personal to me after my firing back in 2002.

(cont'd)

Tracee, Tish and the dilemma, Part 1
Tracee - I feel for you. Although I'm not a single mom, I did get fired when I was 6 months pregnant by an attorney who actually represented plaintiffs for EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION! Part of his reason was the pregnancy, but also because of the new girl, who was nothing but a flaming liberal and who didn't like that she couldn't push me around (that's the short of it anyway).

I had to wait until after I had my child to look for work and so, sorry to say, I had to use the system and went on disability. Luckily I found a job about 2 1/2 months after having my baby. And, like many of you, when I was pregnant with my second (which was an oops btw), I worked as hard as I could, as many hours as I could (I'm an attorney), I made my doctor's appointments for as early in the morning as possible so that I could work as full a day as possible. I came back after my baby was born and worked until we parted ways for other reasons.

Loyal Democrat ...
does satire, don't just love him. Does he have the liberal mind set down or what!

I always look forward to reading his comments.

binc
binc
Location: IL
Reply # 27
Date: May 27, 2009 - 9:11 AM EST taking advantage
How many women here and in general have taken a paid maternity leave to never return to the job? How many women here have ever run a business with employees? And how many women here understand that businesses exist to make profits, not just to feed and house them?


Hello -- I've had two children while working and returned to the same job. I would not leave my job for much...unless I was told by my children's doctors that they would not be able to attend childcare facilities.

Point blank...my family depends on my paycheck and my sanity depends on my job. My employer works with the fact that I have two boys in Little league this time of the year, one child with vision and other difficulties which means trips to the children's hospital on a regular basis and a daughter that wants to be on her dance studio's dance team next year. In return, when a deadline is coming up, my family works with me so that I can put in as much time at my job as possible.

Am I moving up the corporate ladder? no. But I am making pretty good money and I am able to keep my sanity...I think that 's a pretty good trade off.

John Stossel: Anti familly Values
Protecting pregnant women is about family values pure and simple.

What value. The value that barring children has value. That value as quantified in law, as the cost of protecting a job for a women so she can continue her career after child birth.

Getting things straight
If you are an employee, you do not possess a job. The job is the possession of the EMPLOYER.

The only thing an employee possesses is job skills and work habits.

Anti business
I'm finding, to my dismay, that there are a great number of economic morons in this country. Anything-ANYTHING, that harms businesses in this climate is lunacy. Those that have jobs and want to keep them need to shut up about getting anything more. Maybe eventually with a little luck perks will be handed out again but at this time, those that have jobs, roofs over their noggins and food on the table should count their blessings.

Sickening!!!
paranoidmystic from California is right. Businesses should never be worried about making money or running efficiently. That's the first step towards the downfall of this country!!!

Sickening.
What is the matter with the human race?

This unquenchable greed. It's truly awful.

John is WRONG again as usual.
No one is going to hire a pregnant woman until after she has delivered and comes with a written note from her MD stating she is healthy enought to return to work. This is reality and the same goes for men who get injured on or off the job.
Ms. Lukas was most likely able to "negiotate" with her employer for more friendly working conditions due to the impetous the laws have created. She had leverage and being a vp of some company is a far cry from being the rank-and-file peons that most of us are. I remember what is was like before the passage of the laws to protect various classes of employees; the law is needed for the vast majority of employees as that is the only leverage or protection they have against unfair employer work practices.
Ms. Lukas should be happy; at least she works for a more family friendly employer; which is not the case for most of us. Advocating for the repeal of the laws that help level the playing field is not folly, it is fairness and a recognition that in this country, women and men should not be penalized for having kids and needing to work. Then there is the nasty old issue of getting and keeping medical insurance-which for most of us, is employer-based.
I suggest, Ms. Lukas as John stop being so short-sighted and selfish as to remove what little protections there are for the least of us.

One thing for sure.

Pregnant Mexican women don't sue their employer.

Ever wonder why Job's are leaving the United States?

bk,christine
lol i think loyal democrat is pulling your chains folks. i doubt he is a loyal democrat.

Loyal Democrat is joking
I hate to tell you, but I'm pretty sure LD is pulling ya'll's legs. I've always thought of TH as an echo chamber. And here we have the proof: conservatives are arguing with conservatives pretending to be liberals.
It'd be amusing if it weren't so sad.

Christine writes:
BK: This cat is NUTS!!!!
___________________________________

LOL. Yup. Sounds like a typical Marxist Socialist response. Of course, he neglects to say that not only would this person NOT be working but all other people in this or any firm would be out of work as well.

We've spent or are going to spend some 3.7 trillion dollars. Where da jobs?

End all hiring discrimination.
Response to Loyal democrat:

How would corporations exist if they did not remain profitable? You are a nim-rod and I submit, have never been self-employed.
At least on the surface you appear to be "unqualified" for anything, that is why you are making ridiculous comments like that in your paragraph.

LOYAL DEMOCRAT SAYS:
Plus, corporations would finally be forced to fulfill their obligations to the poor and unskilled by putting such people into important positions that are normally only held by the privileged.

The "priviledged"? Are you freakin' kidding? What would their competency be?

We have a bunch of them already, they work for the federal Government!

BK: This cat is NUTS!!!!

World Gone Mad

Why the heck does everyone think they need to be part of a special protected class? It is absolutely ridiculous. We have so many protected classes, hate-crime laws, anti-discrimination ordinances etc. it is ridiculous. True equality is having one set of laws that apply to everyone. Any thing deviating from that, is discrimination.

The concept of intrinsic "right" to job
is basically shaganappi--and not just for pregnant women.

Loyal Democrat writes:
Employers should indeed be forced to hire certain people even if it ends up costing them extra money, or causes a loss in production. It is entirely wrong for corporations to base hiring decisions on a profit motive rather than a social motive. Corporations exist to serve the public, not to profit from the needs of the public.
_______________________________________

Are you nuts or just braindead?

End all hiring discrimination.
Employers should indeed be forced to hire certain people even if it ends up costing them extra money, or causes a loss in production. It is entirely wrong for corporations to base hiring decisions on a profit motive rather than a social motive. Corporations exist to serve the public, not to profit from the needs of the public.

Any time a job opening occurs, the government should select the candidate who will fill the vacancy. That way, the members of our society who lack training or education, or who may suffer from drug or alcohol addiction have a chance at some of the high paying jobs that are out there. The government would fill positions based on the need and the social category of the worker, thereby removing all unskilled workers from the unemployment lines.

This concept would further the national dream of an egalitarian society by ensuring that everyone has access to influential, financially rewarding jobs. Plus, corporations would finally be forced to fulfill their obligations to the poor and unskilled by putting such people into important positions that are normally only held by the privileged.

Remember, corporations exist to serve the common people, not greedy stockholders.

Nobody has the right to a job
Nobody has the right to a job. Employers (should) have the right to hire anybody they want for any reason and they should also have the right to fire anybody they want for any reason.

(Yes, unfortunately that includes bad reasons, like racial discrimination. But do you really want to work there? Freedom means the freedom to make choices others disagree with.)

People have the right to seek better jobs.

Whining
Too many Americans are always whining about something, because too many Americans think others should be responsible for them. Take responsibility for yourself! First of all, if you can't afford to support a child throughout its life, don't get pregnant in the first place. If someone needs food stamps, welfare, or any other kind of help, they should NOT get pregnant. If you want to have children, make the sacrifices yourself and save for it. Change your lifestyle and expenditures and save first. Don't expect others (TAXPAYERS) to support you and your whims. You don't have to get pregnant. Make responsible choices instead. And yes, if it happened to my sister or even my daughter I'd tell them the same thing! And I'm a woman, too! It's time to act responsibly. An employer should not have to pay for you to be out pregnant, nursing, and/or pumping milk; and others should not have to take up the slack while you're out. All of this is ridiculous!

@AliveinHim
To answer your question, Stossel's thinking would imply the repeal of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964--the law that forbid discrimination in employment. While that would only bring back the private discrimination part of Jim Crow, you're going to have trouble convincing most women and minorities that the best way to liberate them is to allow them to be discriminated against. Even your reply seems to praise Jim Crow as some idyllic paradise of black empowerment. If it was so great, it's hard to see why blacks even bothered with that whole civil rights thing!

Conservatives always argue that racism is over, and so that would imply that Title VII achieved some success. While more study would be needed to disentangle causality and correlation, Stossel chooses to instead cite one twenty year old study. Would presenting more evidence undermine his case, or is he afraid that offering a substantive amount of data would go over his reader's heads? Either way, this sloppy journalism displays a profound lack of respect for his readers' intelligence.

Gregory in AZ
You said "You’re not entitled to a job; you’re only entitled to opportunity to obtain a job."

NOT SO!!!!! You are not "entitled to ANYTHING in life except to be treated equally UNDER THE LAW by government. You do not have the right to equal opportunity in life; that is a moral issue that law must be blind to. The only time you may have the right to equal opportunity in hiring is if you are applying for a gubmint job. And even then, since we are not all equal in our skills, we will (or should) be discriminated against in the most natural and logical manner, by someone who wants the best person for the job.

As I said in my first post, the Bill of Rights is a Bill of Protections for the INDIVIDUAL in cases related to GOVERNMENT. The Preamble to these first ten amendments makes it clear that the people wanted to protect themselves from government---beneficent ends of the INSTITUTION (of government). They wanted good government that would not trample on the rights of the person. Employers ARE NOT BOUND in any way to abide by the ridiculous employment laws of today. If an employer doesn't want to hire you, for whatever reason, you are not "entitled" to even be interviewed.

C'mon Gregory--- you are from AZ, a right to work state and a right to be stupid state! You should know better; that is unless you are one of the CA, NY, NJ and other type of recent transplants.



Follow the money...
Not mentioned here, is the real basis for these lawsuits. They have little to do with "rights" and everything to do with tons of free money flowing into the coffers of trial attorneys. I wish, for once, Stossel or someone, would track lawsuits like this one...and find out how much the "class" collects per person as compared to how much the law firm collects per person (be sure to include the "costs" the law firm reports. For example, at Kinko's you can get a copy for 10-cents. At a law firm, all copies cost at least $1 up to $10/page, or more. It is the biggest ripoff in the world. Trail attorneys cry buckets of crodocile tears for their clients,then use the buckets to haul the loot to the bank and could care less about "what's-her-name" clients.

another suggestion
An employer could head this off by refusing to hire women, or refuse to hire married women, especially Catholics. Alternately it could insist that all female employees be on the pill. Of course there would have to be regular inspections to make sure they stay on it.

Conservatives talk about family values, and how in some unspecified way gay marriage is going to hurt the heterosexual family. However, if the market erects a major impediment to having a family they rush to defend it. It would appear that if there is a conflict between the family and the market, the market comes first.

Jack
Tell us specifically which conservatives have ever said we need to go back to Jim Crow and other forms of outright discrimination. Waiting...

Long before Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, Jesse Jackson and others of their ilk appeared on stage to tell us all what victims we are of those nasty evil white corporate males, both women and blacks HAD been owning their own businesses, were doctors, lawyers, and other professionals, were authors, artists, inventors, entertainers and legislators. Did they face obstacles? Sure, who hasn't? They, like the tough ones today, got around them. They were hardy souls who did not whine to the Feds about what victims they were, demanding they kiss the boo-boos and make them all better. They just went out and did it. I'm not saying life was perfect, for it was wrong to prevent women from having credit in their own names, to keep separate but equal facilities for blacks, etc. But to imply that women and blacks were simply incapable of living independently, much less successfully prior to the late 60's because of 'discrimination' and the Republican Party is simply balderdash.

It was the DEMOCRAT Party who did and still does keep people from their best chance at personal success, if you're gonna be political about it.

Choices
Pregnancy is a CHOICE. Last time I checked, choices have consequences/responsibilities accompanied with them. Why should a woman who chooses to have a child have special/preferred treatment?
This is not discrimination ladies! Everything in society is a trade-off.
Be thankful, you have health benefits, time off for doctor's office visits, and a current job.
Everytime groups of people ask for "rights" after making personal decisions in their life, they diminish SOMEONE ELSES rights and burden others' with that choice. SELFISH, plain and simple. GROW UP LADIES!

Keep up the good work!
Stossel's argument implies that we should eliminate all anti-discrimination law. With conservatives arguing for discrimination against women and a return to Jim Crow, the wingnuts ensure that they will permanently keep their minority status. Add in race baiting the new Hispanic SC nominee, and the GOP has pulled the trifecta: alienating women, hispanics, and blacks. White males are less than 40% of the electorate, meaning Stossel's strategy=epic fail.

On another note, citing one study about the ADA from nearly twenty years ago isn't conclusive. Surely there are other studies on the effects of anti-discrimination law--why doesn't Stossel talk about them?

But you MUST have the baby
Even if you are raped, you must have the baby. Circumstances do not matter.

Then you may be fired for your job. You simply are no longer useful to your empoloyer, and money is the main goal. Gooooo Free Market!

Then it is not up to anyone but those fine Conservatives to help you out.

Sounds like a fun, fair world in Con-ville. No wonder you were ousted in the past elections. Here's to hoping people don;t forget how cold and sterile Stossel's world is. He would be the first to complain if he were fired. remember the hypocrite Santorum? Lawsuits are for the wealthy, not for the peasants.

My say...
As a divorced, single mom there is a part of me that disagrees with this article, however when I was married and had my child I was a working mother. I worked up until the day I delivered and at the end of my 7 weeks(one of which was my personal vacation) of maternity leave, I went back to the company and stayed for 3 years until downsizing lay-offs occurred. Even though there are many who do use the system and take the maternity leave, never to return, there are many of us who do the right thing and are loyal. However, when it came time to downsize, I was just a number that had to go. While I agree that we need LESS government involvement, I think that corporations don't have brains and hearts, just bottom lines. And now that I am an unemployed single mom, it is a huge strike against me. As a single mother who cannot work nights, weekends, or overtime because of my responsibilities at home, my opportunities are very limited. Even though I can offer 40 hours a week and have to put food on the table, I'd be a good employee, that doesn't seem to be enough. So what do we do as a society, toss all of the mothers out because 99% of the time we are the ones who have to shoulder the responsibilities for our children. It's a tough question at best.

Game, Set, Match
John, meet the new referee, Sonia Sotomayor. The lines drawn on the tennis court no longer mean anything; it's all about the player for whom the referee has empathy. Guess what--you don't stand a chance.

John the truth teller...
I remember way back in the 70s while in my residency one of our residents became pregnant. Although her husband, also a resident, helped greatly it was a burden on the rest of us to take call and do other duties. We had loved ones too; we had the need to rest too etc.

I like the idea of exchanging less time and money while the woman is pregnant. This benefits both and forces both to deal with the pregnancy in an honest and open way.

I can tell you that employers do worry about hiring women in childbearing age, particularly after they just got married.

WOMENS RIGHTS ??

It is just flat-out amazing how many people really believe that the primary purpose of a company is to provide jobs ---not to produce , service, etc. ---make a profit and grow the company !! When all that happens then the employees get hire pay and more benefits---but NOT before !!! IF YOU DON'T PRODUCE YOU DON'T SURVIVE !!

Totally illogical ....
Logic & common sense, where have you gone? We are all doomed! Will we ever again be what we use to be: a smart, reasonable, logical, caring, and free country? I am waiting on the government to tell me I can only use the bathroom on odd days (due to my birthday), as often as I want or need to on my birthday (gees thanks!), but I must use only blue toilet tissue (since I am a male) & only so much – my allotment per trip! Totally illogical (even stupid, if you dare say that!), isn’t this? Well, how much better is most all governmental regulations, laws, rules, etc.?

What about...
One of the realities not addressed by the column or the feedback discussion is precisely why some married fare so badly financially when an unplanned pregnancy takes place. In my own case, had it happened in my father's time I would have been quite all right due to the tax structure. But with the constant revision of the tax code we -- and just about any other working couple -- found ourselves being, to use the title of a popular book, "Nickel and Dimed to Death." And precisely why did the taxes have to go up so dramatically? Well, it's not the constant wars or money for foreign aid: It is to pay for the intergenerational waves of people who subsist wholly on the government; the government largesse in this case is money extracted from working people and proportionally from the businesses that employ them.
Frankly, most couples working two jobs (not positions, mind) will by definition never be able to afford to have children unless they are willing to take the hardship of one of the parents losing a large proportion of income. Unless the husband abandons the family, and government steps in as Daddy -- with other working families' money extorted as taxes.

free market
and how is one supposed to learn of a company's discriminatory practices in order to let the free market correct it? aren't most personnel files confidential? how would the general public know about it?

We Have Gone Too Far
Mr. Stossel,

It is interesting to see how our government is attacking from all directions instead of doing the job it was hired to do. More and more, Big Brother under the guise of protecting our "rights" is actually eliminating them. They forget that when you give special rights to some you have to take certain rights away from others to do so. Which is more important to our society, a company that hires two hundred people or one individual who's actions can destroy the jobs for the rest of the people in the company? The woman may win the lawsuit, and huge damages may be awarded which may force the company to close. The woman will have her money, and child, and one hundred and ninety-nine people may be jobless thanks to her "rights." What about their "rights?" What will the government do to compensate them for their loss? I'll tell you, absolutely nothing!

Clifton L. West

John, you like to rankle and raise heck.
That's your style John. Is it effective to make a point? That depends on how seriously you want your point and any premise taken.

I don't like this articles style, but I do appreciate the overall intent.


Gregory, you're point of view has flaws
It's not all wrong, personal responsibility is a good thing, but so is ensuring the social fabric of family life.

Creating a family is still not done the way an economist goes about studying microeconomic indicators. Nor a business analyst studying cost/benefit analysis.

You're going about the premise in an inept manner in my opinion. There are far more considerations involved than being able to afford the child. Affordability is often not the number one reason, when and if a choice is actually considered for creating a new life.


terry
I liked your post.

Companies have no interest but self-interest in survival and success.

Off of their backs are others who succeed through employment, job creation, benefits, charity, non-profits who receive grants, community contributions, etc.

For a society to think itself entitled to the wealth of those who created for themselves, is nothing short of a thief - taking that which does not belong to him

No person is forced to work somewhere or purchase the goods/services generated - that's why it's a FREE market, so we can all freely pick & choose subjectively that which supports our self-interest in life.

Cheers to your point of view.

Rights !$#&*!!%

Every 'Right' the government gives someone was stolen from someone else unless the citizen was directly crossing constitutional law.

Nate
It's interesting observation that you seem to think that a person is absolved of personal accountability & the ability to respond(response-ability) for choices made in life.

Don't have a child unless you can afford to raise that child - not paycheck to paycheck - but having funded yourself to the point where you can weather a financial or employment storm.

It's grossly irresponsible to think that somehow a personal choice is now entitlement for extortion of an employer because the employee didn't prepare for life's ups & downs.

It's why we're in the national financial crisis we're in now: people making choices at a cost to others without their consent; people making choices for which they were unable to respond at any level, then laying the invoice at the feet of the American people.

csl
exactly when in the past did this happen?

Nate #31
"how is a woman supposed to get pregnant and risk losing one income while being saddled with the additional costs of a pregnancy and a new child? "

So who is supposed to cover those costs if not the parents.

How about doing financial planning, i.e. saving, etc. in ADVANCE to that the family can meet the increased financial obligations?

How about not having children?

How about not having children until you can afford them?

Don't get me wrong. I believe our country needs more children, not fewer. However, they need to be born to parents who are up to the job of supporting and educating them. In the past men did not marry until they could support a wife and couples did not have children until they could provide and care for them.

Now, as is the case with so many things, there is this unspoken assumption that somebody else is supposed to pay for what you decide to do.

Responsibility
AliveInHim, to further your comment, a woman's (as well as a man's) right to choose is over when copulation begins. Both sex's need to exercise self control and keep their knees together until their wedding night. As far as feminism is concerned, I do not listen anymore, I was filled with their hateful bilge in junior high, high school and college throughout the 1970's. I realized in the '80's that feminisms' basic existance was to hate men.

Controversy About Elephants in the Room!
Of course some companies will "discriminate" against pregnant women -- they can't do what they're hired to do! In many cases, that is. But they're not discriminating against someone because they're "pregnant" -- they're discriminating because they can't do the job.

Some people act as if the purpose of a business is to create jobs and give people a place to go and get a paycheck.

So somehow or another, women are supposed to be able to have a job and have children at the same time. If women want to work - then work. If they want to have children - have children. But to make laws that "require" an employer to restructure his work force and incur the additional costs, just so that a woman can have a job and raise children at the same time -- is absolutely insane! And on top of that insanity, we want to have it so attorneys can go out and sue the companies for millions -- possibly putting everyone else on the payroll out of a job!

When you sue a company like that folks, they're going to lay-off people and/or possibly go out of business. So everyone at the business will loose their jobs because one woman wants a job and to raise children too. A woman wants to have the cake and eat it too -- so everyone else be damned!

We've gone insane.


simple answer
Ms. Waters should have a safe and legal abortion. Bearing children is a great burden for a working woman. If we want children, we can import them from Mexico, the way we do with so many other things.

Repeal them All
Civil Rights Act, ADA, everything. Why? I'd like to know who is discriminatory or not. All these laws do is push the discrimination under the table where we can't see it and generates useless lawsuits over every quibble. I want to know who discriminates, that way, I know who not to invest my money with or trade my time for wages for.

We don't need these laws. If rejecting a profitable person over something like gender, age, race (stupid term), etc is something a business does, it means they don't know how to operate a business. The market punishes business far more heavily than any law can. This is why big business tends to support regulation, it's better to be punished by government than by going out of business from competition.

Women have more opportunities
and choices in life than when I was a kid: nurse, teacher, and/or wife.

Law, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, helped change that.

With all such *good* ideas, we get followed by Title IX (which is now being interpreted to mean if 500 boys in a school are out for a sport than 500 girls MUST be also--it's proportionality), yadda, with more and more narrow details to force society into a preconceived *perfect* paradise.

A Germany cousin (GE runs 10-14% unemploy. w/hout considering it a problem) started and retired early from two businesses, one employing 400 in a village of 1500, a major employer, because the socialist system forced him to hire nearly anyone who applied and refused to let him fire anybody.

GE employees pay 60% of their salaries in order to get 6 wks.' vacation, 12 sick days, 12 personal days, 12 holidays, and nearly perfect job protection (which is why they are rioting in France over business closings). Employers also pay 50% of the employees' salaries in taxes for the employees, BEFORE they pay taxes on whatever they make.

Gov't punishing work and production is the way to loss, bankruptcy, and unemploy. Gov't forcing banks to lend to bad creditors in the *good* name of putting more people in houses ended up killing the entire credit system. It took decades to do, but it finally happened.

The best values are those that founded the US. You come here on your own, you support yourself, you contribute to charity and volunteer for the social good, and the gov't provides protection from criminals and invaders.
For the most part, much of our gov't fails at the two basic necessities (protection) and also fails at the social engineering the left so desires.

Bork Sotomayer.

So
So, in today's economy where it's most likely that both the husband and wife have to work to support a family, and because we wouldn't dare have them receive any financial assistance, how is a woman supposed to get pregnant and risk losing one income while being saddled with the additional costs of a pregnancy and a new child? God forbid the woman have any medical complications from the pregnancy that add even more costs.

Oh that's right, free market. The cure-all. Free market is what got us where we are today, with a little help from a government not doing it's job by regulating those that needed it the most.


stossel
well you just hosed motherhood, lol. whats next? baseball and apple pie?

Special Circumstance
You’re not entitled to a job; you’re only entitled to opportunity to obtain a job.

Ability has nothing to do with equality.

Ability is your personal decision of investment.

The law is blind to your personal circumstance, as it ought to be.

Entitlement of circumstance is the extortion by which privilege is sought and forced on others without their consent.

Discriminaton in Subterfuge
In any free market, the benefit & cost to the employee & the employer is a contract for which no government or court of law need busy itself with.

Our Constitution upholds contracts once made, but if the terms change, then either party can exit.

What is the extortion by which lawyers or legislators seek to moralize a society through imposing what is otherwise a negotiation between any two or more people?

Unions play this game; lawyers play this game; all because people don't want to be accountable for their choices in negotiating, be response-able to those choices and make such choices at no cost to others unless there is consent.

Protectionism for women or any special interest group only seeks to blackmail. Each individual caring for self will themselves negotiate a contract & work to fulfill it.

As an actor in New York at one time, if I negotiated a contract then my looks or appearance did not remain, any director or producer would be foolish not to release me from my contract; I didn’t hold up my part of the bargain.

However, if I was able to maintain my appearance while being able to enjoy my life irrespective of the job and while not imposing my life at a cost to my employer without his consent, then what would it matter? It wouldn’t. I make choices in the face of circumstances for which I agreed. If I decide to make new choices, I must then have the ability to respond (response-ability) to those choices if my employer says, “this isn’t what we bargained for”.

Instead of employees and employers having upfront conversations about negotiations, each seeks to protect self-interest by not disclosing potential outcomes and coming to an agreement of how to manage such changes when they present themselves.

Discrimination doesn’t have to happen overtly, it usually happens in subterfuge and now we know why.

taking advantage
How many women here and in general have taken a paid maternity leave to never return to the job? How many women here have ever run a business with employees? And how many women here understand that businesses exist to make profits, not just to feed and house them?

renny
If America can not afford to buy cars then the Auto industry will go belly-up. Very few couples could afford 2 cars if they do not have 2 paychecks coming in. The same is true about every product out there. There is no perfect employee. The employees of the world buy the products of the world. Just keep OBAMA out of it and we will be just fine. When my sister became pregnant she was fired immediately that was 35 years ago. I don't think we need to go back there. We may have gotten carried away in the other direction. Most people are wise enough now to know that because of government largesse and wastefulness women have to work to pay burdensome taxes and inflation and for private schools.

Pregnant with ideas?
but nowhere to go LEGALLY to express your disgust with the way Obama is running this country into the ground?

Join the online American Grand Jury movement today. No race, color or creed profiling, no gender discrimination, or restriction of rights due to pregnancy. Read, believe and act.

http://www.americangrandjury.org

"We the people under the AGJ are given the right to ferret out government corruption." Roger Root. J.D. Creighton Law Review Vol. 33 #4 1999-2000, 821.

Justice Scalia in US v. Williams: "the Grand Jury, and "we the people" when sitting as grand jurors are a constitutional fixture in its own right. The Grand Jury is an institution separate from the court, over whose functioning the courts do not preside."

http://www.americangrandjury.org/history_power.html

Been to a Tea Party? Well, this is the We the people Party-AGJ.

Aniko sez
Hypocrisy is what the Republican Party’s extreme right-wing is accused of, and rightly so. They want ALL women, to bear to full term EVERY pregnancy, yet working pregnant women should not be treated as a special protected group.

Well, it was the WOMEN who demanded 'equal rights' in the first place! Why SHOULD they expect to be treated differently from men, pregnant or not?? For that matter, what is equal about the MEN taking and holding the most dangerous jobs, as they do to this day?

You can't have it all ways-either you're willing to be treated like a man all the time, or you need to accept the limitations that come with being a woman. No doubt you give the man who'd hold a door for you 'that' look.

As to the abortion issue, if you're a big enough girl to have sex, you're a big enough girl to take the consequences. There is nothing hypocritical about expecting a grown woman to accept the conequences of her behavior, rather than shrieking like a helpless little girl who wants it all to just go away.

Feminist = a woman who wants to be treated like a man, except when she wants to be treated like a woman.

Faugh!

my question is
that without the law, would the employer even have bothered to work out a plan for the pregnant employee...the law may have also driven employers to be more open to a just compromise -
When I sought my first job in 1969, I was told I why would any business hire me - I'd get pregnant and then they'd have to pay for me - I didn't even get an interview because of my "potential" for creating life -
perhaps the law needs to be rewritten - I would expect no special treatment for being pregnant (although I understand women who do demand special treatment create morale problems and great resentment - as a woman in the workplace, I resent women who play on their roles as mothers), but I also do not expect to be jobless because I might get pregnant -
I agree, however, that our government has long overstepped its rights to CONTROL our lives and people need to fight the government -
Obama is a dangerous anti-Constitutional enforcer of limited freedom -
Voters should rise up -
Americans should picket Congress and the White House - a 30,000,000 citizens march on DC - and throw the bums out in the ballot box

Motherhood is Moonlighting
The thing that never seems to be discussed is the fact that motherhood is actually a full-time occupation while children are small. A mother who works outside her home while her children are small must outsource some of her responsibilities in order to go to work, yet there are some things that only she can do. If her motherhood were treated as a second job, and her employer's actions toward her then compared with her employer's actions toward any other employee working a second job, the decisions and actions of the employer would become crystal clear. How many promotions, raises and career-broadening opportunities would a man get if he frequently arrived late, left early, took numerous non-work phone calls, and was on leave without pay for long periods in addition to vacations because of working a second job? I'd guess that the answer would be "not many".

By the time you
pay for formula, diapers, doctors and child care there usually isn't anything left in the paycheck.

If corp. Am. did not look
at the bottom line, there would be no corp. Am. and no hiring of anyone.

You can see the results as GM and Chrysler go belly-up and all the BILLIONS $$$ of my tax monies given them so they could crash a year after the 2008 bailout go down the drain, and King Elect O's favored UAW goes with it and entire era of American car making.

We can all cry, but if you can't sell a product for a profit, you cannot employ anyone.

And, Aniko, family values are for families and not for gov't to impose on private businesses. You can see how well all the *benefits* of gov't-imposed values work: Post Office lost another billion--more layoffs, higher postage; Amtrak, lost another billion--fewer trains, more layoffs--and the trains are crowded and people want to ride them.

Gov't cannot take care of the private cultural matters of individuals. The fallen USSR and entire Eastern communist bloc proved so decades ago.

Perhaps a wise doctor
would have evening and weekend office hours.

What about Dads?
many new dads are now sharing the responsibility of taking their children to doctor appointments. Are they going to also be fired? Are you okay with that too? Who owns these companies? Muslim extremists? The burden of having woman in the workplace involves motherhood. Dad's can't share the burden of pregnancy. All society must accept that share of the burden so our society will continue to reproduce. Personally I believe mom's should stay home but many do not have the option and will then end up being a burden on the taxpayer.

Aniko
And you are qualified to speak of the thinking of others HOW?

You Libtards amaze me. YOU decide how others think and then judge them based on your fantasy.

Here's something for you. YOU and your ilk don't think at all. I pass gas that makes more sense than you holy writ.

Sales consultants for Pharmaceuticals
are all about beauty. They assume doctors will put down everything if the sales person is attractive. Pregnant woman are not attractive.

Women rights v abortion issues
Hypocrisy is what the Republican Party’s extreme right-wing is accused of, and rightly so. They want ALL women, to bear to full term EVERY pregnancy, yet working pregnant women should not be treated as a special protected group. That means, that a woman whose paycheck is as important as a man’s (even if it’s less than a man’s), should be handled as “collateral damage”, if she needs to shorten her work hours, or needs flexibility for a time? How do you manage to balance your platform? BEAR CHILDREN: THAT IS YOUR GOD ORDAINED DUTY, AND IF YOU DON’T HAVE A HUSBAND WHO CAN AFFORD YOU OUT OF WORK, SUFFER! No wonder the Republican party looses its youth vote! I am a “compassionate” conservative Republican, but I don’t consider Rush Limbaugh or other anti-women conservatives to be spoke-persons for the Republican party. Rush, cannot hold a woman in his life long enough to have a child of his own (he prefers cats, I guess because they don’t need the kind of love and a woman needs), yet he wants to criminalize ALL abortions! Nice!
My fellow, TRULY conservative Republicans! WE have a big, multifaceted fight on our hands, and we need UNITY of ideas, even if some compromise has to be reached. Let’s discuss where the compromise CAN be reached, before it is too late!

Women in the workplace...
Yes, some women are productive; others aren't, just as men. But, realistically, women also happen to be the main family care takers of their family, and as such, will have to have employers who appreciate their white collar female employees for what they "produce" rather than how many hours are able to put in.
I worked for a company, where I was hired for full time work. My family went through a difficult time with my younger child, and since my husband could not take time from work (construction), I asked my employer to allow me to work only 6 hours a day (and pay me for only as much). Even though I was able to fulfill my job I was hired in that amount of time (Jr cost accountant), I was let go, because due to "down sizing" of the eighties, they expected me to "fill-in" as customer service rep (pick-up the phone) in my "spare time", so they would not have to hire a CS person.
Sorry to say, corporate America looks at the bottom line, and consequently can discriminate against women with families. I tried to apply for "part time" jobs, but when I was asked why don't I want to work full time to be a "team player,” and answered truthfully, I didn't get a job!
Let's face it: some regulation regarding young mothers in the work place has to be law, because corporate America cannot "regulate itself"! The law-suit however, should be thrown out of court, if the work-place at Novartis is as good an employer for women, as it is claimed to be. As conservative Republicans are all for women never needing an abortion, against "welfarism", and "protected groups", should take into consideration the special needs a woman may have, and "fight for family values" , by putting their "money where their mouth is".

Mother of 4
Because Left Liberals have a brain dysfunction called stupidity.

Good Intentions,
Why is it that left-liberals never manage to grasp that good intentions are not sufficient to guarantee good results?

Why is it that when the data shows that the left-liberal policies have an effect that is the exact opposite of the intention their reaction is not to reverse the policy to a more effective one but to entrench themselves further in defense of their good intentions?

In Liberaland
if a woman is pregnant on the job, she's very special and carrying a precious little baby so she and the baby have very special needs. If she gets murdered, it's a double murder because two complete human beings were killed. If she decides she doesn't want to be a Mommy, she should be able to get rid of the useless bundle of fetal cells at whatever point in the pregnancy she chooses. How Liberals can't see their own hypocrisy is beyond me.

Women expect life conforms to them
Whatever stage of life women are in; college, work, get married, have babies, divorce, get old, they believe they are special. Contrary to the glass ceiling myth, women run quite a bit.

I worked with a new mother. She was moody, turned her cubicle into a shrine to her baby, demanded to work at home for a while (which she did), came back to the office, missed numerous days of work and finally after warnings, was fired. Even the other women couldn't stand her after about six months of that. As a matter of fact, I think us women talked worse about her than the men.

I had a client who's son was paralyzed in a car accident at the age of 15. He told me he thought that ADA laws made employment opportunities for his son much harder because of the potential to cause trouble for employers. There was an opportunist that went around a small northern Michigan town measuring ramps, thresholds, etc. and shaking down the small businesses for money to avoid lawsuits regarding accessibility issues.

Government is a Fat-Fingered Lummox
Here we go again, employee and employer nimbly structure a deal, and government wrecks it with its fat fingers.

"Right to Work"
There are two ways to define this term. One, as it is used in red states, refers to the right of individuals to work in a job without being a memeber of a union, even in a union shop. For example, teachers in Virginia, a right to work state, do not have to belong to (or pay dues to) the National Education Association. This definition of the right to work is good, it gives employees the choice whether or not to belong to the union, pay the union dues (which may go to a politial cause that the employee doesn't like) and allows his performance to be the guiding factor on whether he gets or keeps a job.

To the Left, "right to work" means that everyone has the right to have a job. And if they lose or do not get that job and even THINK there was some form of discrimination, they can sue for far more money than the job was worth (200 MILLION? Please.) The "right and duty to work" is a feature in most Communist constitutions since the Communist ideal is to give the appearance of supporting the laborer. As such, the Left generally favors practices that make it impossible to dismiss bad employees and sometimes promote the good ones. My brother-in-law is not a supervisor in his union plant only because of seniority. He's the best worker they have on his shift, but the union rules put the oldest guy in the plant at the top of the list for promotion. All this because of that Left-wing version of the "right to work."

Yes, sometimes the right's version of "right to work" can come to mean "right to fire." But that's actually a good thing. A company NEEDS to be able to dismiss bad employees or risk losing money and running into problems we're seeing in the auto industry (among others.) If federal managers could summarily fire employees, the government might actually run effectively.

Hiring of Women in the Workplace
As a middle manager responsbile for the hiring and firing of employees for a major international hotel/motel chain. There are some jobs that women can do better than any man and then there are some jobs that men can do better than women in this business as in any business. The trick is finding those individuals out of a pool of hunderdes of appts. Then there are the jobs that both are as equal with, but the turn over rate is so high that we are training individuals on a constant bases. This year alone (2009) we have had 13 different employees hired to be guest reps. Some I have had to fire, while other just quit because they can not deal with working with the public. We have had our share of employees who became pregnant and was given their required time off as laid out by the law. We had to hire a temporary workers and upon the employee's return they have quit because they no longer have the same shift that they started their meternty leave. Let it be noted that each employee is required to learn each shift requirements. But because they now have a baby they believe they are to get special treatment above the other employees. This is where a lot of trouble comes into play...after they come to work from the meteraly leave.

There is all kinds of speculation...
...that can be made on a case like this,but there is one certainty:A male applicant will not get pregnant.They may be equal in the eyes of the law as human beings,but not necessarily in the eyes of the man or woman doing the hiring as an employer.It is a crap shoot for him and he must play the odds correctly if he is going to succede A man with a drug,physical,or mental problem, or other handicap,is also a crap shoot,and the person doing the hiring would not be doing his job if he gambled his or his employer's money in that manner.That's why we don't see any women playing linebacker for the NFL,even in the interest of "equality".How many men do we see being hired for the role of Scarlet O'Hara in the movies?

I rest my case.

MerryColin
Might as well forget it. The government started hiring, and their gigantic and near endless suctioning of enormous amounts of tax dollars and their massive borrowing without end allowed them to let their employees have the most outrageous employee demands met, and like ignorant doofs, they said "if we can do it everyone should and has to!"
Add that insantiy to their racist and sexist mantra demonrat party and there you have it.
Now the bigger a business is the more the government had it's nose on every little hiring pecadillo - and the lawyers and greed soused victimology perpulace reels in the millions in a self righteous "new right to fight to take it all from everyone" just like the government that taught them how.

John Stossle hits a home run.

The end result of these protected groups are emplyers are less likely to interview, hire and retain them for fear of lawsuits.

The Less protected people you have on your payroll, the less likely you are to be sued.

Once again more damage Liberals have done to society.

LuLu
Pregnancy is NOT a medical disability!

I'd go along with
no protections for pregnant women as long as there are no medical disability or job protections for employees with other health problems. As long as a company offers medical disability payments and holds jobs for the fat middle-management guys who have heart attacks they should have to offer the same for all medical conditions. Women specific conditions should be treated no differently than predominately male conditions as they once were.

I do think being a woman of child-bearing age is held against you in terms of hiring though -- not so much the perceived costs should you become pregnant (outside of small business) but when it comes to hiring, training, and promotions. Many managers think why waste the money or opportunities on someone who will just get pregnant and leave or scale back their work hours.

John
Let them send the hate mail and I will send you a love letter with a great big "A" for amen.

What part of the sentence, "It's my business and I will run it as I choose!" don't people get? Oh yes, when it is time to pay the bills, taxes, insurance, unemployment funds, worker's comp, disability, life and health insurance premiums it THEN becomes the employers business. Unfortunately many, if not most people employed by others do not invest themselves in the business so they truly feel like it is partly theirs. My husband is blessed enough to have a man who does and he can never be replaced by anyone else.

Aside from that, the bozos that create employment law are so incredibly ignorant of the Constitution that it defies logic or demonstrates their absolute ignorance. The preamble to the Bill of Rights (actually the Bill of Protections)says it all:

"THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution..."

All of these rights are those of the INDIVIDUAL in relation to the GOVERNMENT. No class of person can use these protections of human rights against another person, group, employer, etc. PLEASE TELL THE PUBLIC ABOUT THIS PREAMBLE AND WHY IT IS SUPERIOR IN LAW TO ANYTHING WRITTEN IN THE BODY OF THE CONSTITUTION!

Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.