Is Maternity Leave a Form of Employee Discrimination...?

[SincereOnlineGuy]

Uh...try again. Maybe you need to read the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Employers can't legally discriminate based on gender.

 

 

And maybe you need to look up the meaning of "discriminate".

 

 

You are so incorrect it is amusing.

 

 

So yeah, try again.

[USMCHokie]

And maybe you need to look up the meaning of "discriminate".

 

 

You are so incorrect it is amusing.

 

 

So yeah, try again.

 

Here you go, unlawful employer practices in context of the Title VII statute itself:

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

 

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

 

Courts have had a difficult time defining what "discrimination" actually means in the context of the phrase "otherwise to discriminate." There have been several Supreme Court cases which have shed some light on its definition, but there appears to be no statutory definition of the word that I have found.

[Emilia]

This entire thread makes me very sad. I can't believe we are even debating this issue.

 

The OP is debating it purely from a theoretical point of view. Nothing to be sad about

[LovelyLife]

This thread is crazy. If its not maternity leave I am sure there will be something else for employees to biatch about. Seriously, get over it.

 

Very very spot on. I'm Management - OP content comes across as employing whining in an annual 360 degree review.

 

Now if he had added in: I think women should have to be sterilized to be employed - then at least he would have offered a viable solution/alternative.

 

Not that I agree - but - if you don't come to me with a solution/alternative when you whine - :)I pretty much look behind you and at the person who is brave enough to offer even the whackiest of solutions as first in line for promotion.

 

But that solution opens up a whole new can of worms. If we (women) have to be sterilized to be employed - then shouldn't that decision be made by our parents prior to entering kindergarten. At least in the US . . . we wouldn't want to waste money educating the female who is designated to be a breeder versus a producer - correct? And then who/how do we decide who is a breeder and who is to be a producer. Then - can we also do the same thing to men? I.E. Limit it so that we have men who are breeders and men who are producers. This way all the producers can produce and not be irritated by Tom (a breeder) leaving early every M-W-F to coach his son's little league team.

 

 

:pAnd then how do we support all of their asses anyway? Seriously. Do the producers have to pay more taxes to feed, clothe, house the 'breeder' families?

 

 

And with that - I should probably start a thread in a Sci Fi Forum somewhere or write a book about this alternative reality! LOL

[SincereOnlineGuy]

Here you go, unlawful employer practices in context of the Title VII statute itself:

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

 

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

 

Courts have had a difficult time defining what "discrimination" actually means in the context of the phrase "otherwise to discriminate." There have been several Supreme Court cases which have shed some light on its definition, but there appears to be no statutory definition of the word that I have found.

 

 

 

You too should probably familiarize yourself with the meaning of the word "discriminate" before you agree with the completely idiotic phrase:

 

"Employers can't legally discriminate based on gender."

 

 

That unless you live in an Ally McBeal world...

[HokeyReligions]

The protected classes in the US are race, color, national origin, religion, age, sex, and disability.

 

Correct. It is perfectly legal to discriminate against overweight people and smokers. Drunks are apparently OK. Seriously I saw an ad this past weekend for a great sounding job but they will not hire smokers and do have a nicotene panel done as part of preemployment drug sceening and applicants must have a BMI below a certain amount. This is a major employer too.

 

Its not against the law. So I guess you could consider maternit leave a form of discrimination but unless you have given birth and had to recover from it you wouldn't understand. I relate it more to short term disability like one would have after an illness or injury. And some companies give maternity leave to new dads too. Lack of sleep and emotional turmoil can impact job performance.

[USMCHokie]

You too should probably familiarize yourself with the meaning of the word "discriminate" before you agree with the completely idiotic phrase:

 

"Employers can't legally discriminate based on gender."

 

The law accounts for this with the exception for "bona fide occupational qualifications." This is why you don't see men wearing short shorts serving at Hooters or women serving in infantry positions in the military.

[USMCHokie]

Its not against the law. So I guess you could consider maternit leave a form of discrimination but unless you have given birth and had to recover from it you wouldn't understand. I relate it more to short term disability like one would have after an illness or injury. And some companies give maternity leave to new dads too. Lack of sleep and emotional turmoil can impact job performance.

 

Well of course people who receive any sort of preferential treatment will justify that treatment...no different from a corporate executive justifying all of his posh extra benefits because of all the extra work he has to do...

 

And what about those women who come out of childbirth without physical disability...? Should they waive their right to maternity leave...?

[Fugu]

Well of course people who receive any sort of preferential treatment will justify that treatment...no different from a corporate executive justifying all of his posh extra benefits because of all the extra work he has to do...

 

And what about those women who come out of childbirth without physical disability...? Should they waive their right to maternity leave...?

 

The reason maternity leave is in effect is basically because congress decided that there was an economic interest involve, and it has the constitutional power to enact laws that promote commerce among the states.

 

You're going to have a hard time making a case that men are being victimized by maternity leave laws. Last time I checked, men couldn't become pregnant, though who knows what might happen with the advent of future technologies. Whatever the case, the law applies to a specific set of circumstances that, unfortunately, do not apply to men. Outside of these circumstances, the law, in theory, applies equally. Individuals of both genders make similar choices and, in theory, they are to be treated without favor by an employer. Again, not hard to understand.

[SincereOnlineGuy]

The law accounts for this with the exception for "bona fide occupational qualifications." This is why you don't see men wearing short shorts serving at Hooters or women serving in infantry positions in the military.

 

 

Don't change the subject:

 

Did you look up the meaning of the word "discriminate" yet?

 

 

(by your previous statements, you appear to have no functional understanding of what the word discriminate even means)

[clia]

And maybe you need to look up the meaning of "discriminate".

 

 

You are so incorrect it is amusing.

 

 

So yeah, try again.

 

Are you disputing what the statute says? I seriously don't understand what point you are trying to make. I would agree that what constitutes discrimination may be up for debate, and I would also agree that discrimination happens even though it isn't supposed to. Does that make you feel better?

[anna121]

Are you disputing what the statute says? I seriously don't understand what point you are trying to make. I would agree that what constitutes discrimination may be up for debate, and I would also agree that discrimination happens even though it isn't supposed to. Does that make you feel better?

 

He is trying to use a dictionary definition for a term - discrimination - that clearly is being discussed in a legal as opposed to a general context.

 

I don't know what he is feeling so smug about.

 

I would also point out that there is some blurring in this thread of statutory versus constitutional entitlements. Which likely adds to the confusion.

[johan]

Right. In the US, we have paternity leave too. But what about those individuals (men and women) who elect not to have a child while employed?

 

Does everything have to be fair all the time?

[USMCHokie]

The reason maternity leave is in effect is basically because congress decided that there was an economic interest involve, and it has the constitutional power to enact laws that promote commerce among the states.

 

Ah, the good ol' interstate commerce argument...we need children so that they can one day conduct commercial transactions across state lines, therefore Congress is allowed to legislate on the future implements of interstate commerce...

 

I probably wouldn't go there if I was on their side...maybe just the general public policy route that mothers need time off work to raise babies...

[123321]

Husbands can take maternity/paternity leave.

[SincereOnlineGuy]

Are you disputing what the statute says? I seriously don't understand what point you are trying to make. I would agree that what constitutes discrimination may be up for debate, and I would also agree that discrimination happens even though it isn't supposed to. Does that make you feel better?

 

 

 

This thread is only here as the result of others like yourself who simply refuse to accept the actual meaning of the word "discriminate" rather than pretending to know what discriminate means.

 

It would be so simple for you to take a few moments out of your life and refresh your understanding of what "discriminate" really means, before you try to suggest that discrimination is illegal in the workplace.

[Fugu]

Ah, the good ol' interstate commerce argument...we need children so that they can one day conduct commercial transactions across state lines, therefore Congress is allowed to legislate on the future implements of interstate commerce...

 

I probably wouldn't go there if I was on their side...maybe just the general public policy route that mothers need time off work to raise babies...

 

More like, there are women and men in all fifty states, and in all fifty states, a rather large number of adults of both genders are impacted by this issue. Whether congress has to be involved in this issue is one thing; what matters is that they are involved in this issue, because enough people have decided that they should be. If it upsets you that the average person in this community think that maternity leave is in the best interests of working families, you're free to disagree. If it really bothers you, you could always try life in Saudi Arabia.

[tbf]

Should there be a non-breeding tax since singles aren't investing in the future of the nation?

[sb129]

Preferential treatment such as workers comp, performance bonuses, hazard/combat pay, etc. are paid due to circumstances directly resulting or arising from the job. Maternity leave is preferential treatment paid for a woman making a personal choice, i.e., bearing a child.

 

Unless there's a job that puts babies inside women...?

 

Yeah, its called an embryologist. With help from an OB-GYN

 

If you are a mother, THAT should be your job.

 

Why? Why should I ignore the years I spent at university training to do a job that I am very good at? If I took ten years off, I'd pretty much have to retrain- that would be expensive and pointless.

 

I can do BOTH. I can be a good mother AND do my job well. Its not an either/or choice.

 

I can be a positive role model to my daughters (I have two) by modeling a good work ethic to them and a respect for higher education. AND that there is more to life than just being a mother- kids leave home eventually.

 

If I was a full time SAHM, I would be miserable and broke, and I would be a poorer parent for it. This way, when I AM at home, because I am stimulated and earning outside the home, I am 100% invested in the kids when I am there. They get a better happier mother because of it. One who isn't feeling like she has no identity and is struggling to make ends meet every week on one income.

 

And the money that our government pays parents is a fraction of what I actually earn- its not some all expenses paid larkabout.

[HokeyReligions]

Well of course people who receive any sort of preferential treatment will justify that treatment...no different from a corporate executive justifying all of his posh extra benefits because of all the extra work he has to do...

 

And what about those women who come out of childbirth without physical disability...? Should they waive their right to maternity leave...?

 

Big big difference. Let me know how you feel after giving birth. Maybe my boss should have come back to work the day after he had major surgery too. Or maybe I should tell the best employee I have that if she has another tumor removed anr isn't back at work right away I'll hire someone else. Of course that will cost me a lot in training and employee expense plus it sets me back in building the best talent pool. I could always triple my rates so I don't lose money. And of course stop my voluntary charitable contributions. Nope - I don't see discrimination in maternity leave.

[Lauriebell82]

Yeah, its called an embryologist. With help from an OB-GYN

 

 

 

Why? Why should I ignore the years I spent at university training to do a job that I am very good at? If I took ten years off, I'd pretty much have to retrain- that would be expensive and pointless.

 

I can do BOTH. I can be a good mother AND do my job well. Its not an either/or choice.

 

I can be a positive role model to my daughters (I have two) by modeling a good work ethic to them and a respect for higher education. AND that there is more to life than just being a mother- kids leave home eventually.

 

If I was a full time SAHM, I would be miserable and broke, and I would be a poorer parent for it. This way, when I AM at home, because I am stimulated and earning outside the home, I am 100% invested in the kids when I am there. They get a better happier mother because of it. One who isn't feeling like she has no identity and is struggling to make ends meet every week on one income.

 

And the money that our government pays parents is a fraction of what I actually earn- its not some all expenses paid larkabout.

 

The government pays parents?

[sb129]

The government pays parents?

For 12 weeks after you give birth.

 

It's not much, but its something. It's called paid parental leave.

 

The mother can have it all or you can split it between both parents.

[ImperfectionisBeauty]

Exactly!

 

With my first child I tore all the way to my rectum. I bled for weeks after.

 

With my second I had a c section, I was on strict bed rest for five days and was told to lift nothing heavier than my child for a minimum of six weeks lest I split my stitches (they cut you hip to hip)!

 

Its very rare that women just push out a kid and are ready to work, most need to recoup. The uterine wall where the placenta detaches is quite literally an open bleeding wound for some time after labor, which is WHY breast feeding is important (it causes contractions which close the blood vessels).

OMG that happens!? I thought it was like not true... gross

[sb129]

OMG that happens!? I thought it was like not true... gross

 

Yes its true. Happened to me first time round too.

 

And this time after a "routine" C-section I lost nearly 2 litres of blood and needed a transfusion.

 

Childbirth is pretty tough on your body.

[Mme. Chaucer]

I was just reading a random article about Yahoo's CEO boosting the amount of maternity leave granted new mothers. Are the benefits afforded new mothers a form of discrimination against employees who don't bear children while employed? Is it a form of discrimination against male employees who can't bear children? Should these employees be entitled to the same paid leave and benefits?

 

No. Fathers should be granted paternity leaves, though.

 

Our society and all the others I can think of still value procreation and to some extent, the proper care of children. Unless this changes, working women who bear children will be given maternity leave.

 

And why would people cry discrimination if an employer chooses not to hire a woman of child-bearing age so that he wouldn't have to deal with paying for an employee that contributes nothing while she's on maternity leave? It just seems ironic that someone would cry discrimination because an employer did not want to give them preferential treatment (i.e., discriminate against those who don't bear chlidren).

 

Well, if your preferred scenario became reality, what do you propose that all women of childbearing age DO? Would welfare be provided for them until they were past menopause?

 

Or maybe put in some kind of an institution?