I really wanna know (so keep it real)

Provided that the pregnancy does not hinder job duties

 

"No, arrangements should be made for her like everyone else"- UNFORTUNALLY this is the united states so it's stupid to expect anything different. I have female friends in quite a few other western countries and a pregnant woman (or a woman that has just given birth) is allowed a year off PAID with her job being held and often up to two more years off unpaid with her job being held.

Here? Haha, it's a joke but whatever... I wouldnt expect anything else from this country.

 

Well, would you hire somebody that you know will be taking lots of time off? Get a trained employee and then give 6 weeks off...they need someone to do the job while you are bonding and recovering. I know a baby is the most important thiing to the parents, but to the employer, all they want is somebody qualified AND present.

 

In the U.S. ALL RIGHTS and discretions have been handed to businesses. Except for a handful of states you can be fired/denied employment for any reason- including no reason at all- exceptions being if you are member of a so-called minority group You might have something being a woman. The trick is proving the discrimination. In general, individuals have no real rights here. Collectively we have been napping as our leaders have signed our rights and dignity away to the high bidder under the guise of stimulating the economy and creating jobs. As a result, you can be forced to pee in a cup in order to secure employment. There's also a growing movement toward teminating and denying employment because of legal conduct off the job- like smoking and drinking habits. Just cause for grass roots revolution is at hand. The problem is too many people are too comfortable to be sufficiently pissed off to do any more than complain.

 

Yep, at my ex boyfriends job they made a new rule, that everyone that smoked cigerettes had two weeks to quit and if they did not quit and were found out to still be smoking, they would be fired.

And, it was legal but somehow didn't seem like it should be...

 

i don't know about virgina, but i was told that a woman does not have to even tell her employer she's pregnant. seems a little weird, but i guess it's a law? in california.


i don't see whay anyone wouldn't hire you. you have other children that i'm sure you have some sort of daycare for. unless they were worried you wouldn't come back after having the baby or the time you'd have to spend away, getting behind in work, so they'd have to "replace" you for the time being.


good luck either way.

 

I had heard aout business doing that...seems like those companies are gonna spend lotsa time in court....

 

but that's an assumption.

when i was working in a warehouse in a very physical job, i was back at work when my baby was 4 weeks old. my point is that anybody you hire could have health problems or break a leg or be in a car accident so pregnancy (like those things) should be considered part of life. the job i'm up for now, i only plan to be out two weeks (i'm a beast, I can do it). jason's dad doesn't have to worry about any of this but he and i performed the same act to create jason. he only has a high school education and I'm college educated so he should be able to work and i become unemployable because i'm the woman?

 

Yup- perfectly legal. Basically the claim is they want to reduce health insurance costs. The punch line is that costs won't go down because the for-profit insurance industry is not going to endanger its own bottom line. If premiums are set at a certain level then the business has shown an ability and willingness to pay. The most that can happen is the agent will show a hypothetical increase that "won't happen" (yeah, right!). The United States is all about money. We are in Iraq to protect our access to a strategic resource by eliminating as many unfriendly regimes as we can.

As citizens our job is to shut up and pay our taxes.

 

Niiiice.

 

Not likely. The practice is perfectly legal- no lawyer is going to take anyone's case against an employer.

 

Basically yes. If given the option between hiring someone with no forseeable medical issues and a pregnant woman, I would pick the able body. Now that doesnt mean I wouldnt hire a mother that wasnt pregnant, nor does it mean I would fire a current employee that became pregnant. As a business, my bottom line is more important to me.

 

my friend got offered a job that included a hair test (after two piss tests). they almost took the offer back because he didn't have enuff hair to test. he had to convince them that it wasn't intentional and that if he used drugs he wouldn't have made it 12 years in the air force. they said ok but that he has to grow his hair out and retest

 

I think the reason is that sine you would be a new employee, they will have to invest time and money into training you to work the way their company wants. I think they believe that taking on a new employee with a pre-existing condition that will no doubt interfere with the job for at least a month that if you had an option at another equally qualified person without that issue then yes it would be a smart business move to pass on the medical condition applicant.


I dont think I like any better than you there mam but thats the sick sad world of big business.

 

A lawyer wont sue a business frivilously? what planet are you living on?

 

Exactly.

 

*snaps back to reality*

Good point- no ETHICAL lawyer! Enough are unscrupulous enough to take your retainer in an exercise in futility. I stand corrected

 

well I guess I better start looking for adoption agencies for this kid and my other kids since i can't work

 

See, I never said the employers would lose, just that they would be present in court. Even winning a lawsuit as a defendant is expensive.

 

Pregnancy is a temperary condition. After you give birth, you will be completely employable again.