Thing to Ponder: Pregnant Women in the Workforce

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by TheGuardianofArlon, Mar 2, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    Well, there's already companies that question if someone's a smoker, and it's not unfamiliar that weight can play a role in not getting a job or not getting promotions. Heck, New Zealand restricts immigration based on it. So, I mean, if your logic is the two are similar, and we ARE already doing the latter, then doesn't that justify being hesitant to hire women under your logic?
  2. chibiangi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 16, 2002
    star 4
    You are saying that men should be hired over women because of the chance they might get pregnant. That is discrimination and it is against the law.
  3. Valairy Scot Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Sep 16, 2005
    star 5
    It so happens that I, a female, was on paid leave (sick pay:D ) for a week with 1/2 day off every week since (4 weeks) due to a broken wrist incurred sking (okay, falling [face_talk_hand] ).

    We're a fairly small office - jury duty, family leave, sick leave,snow days, etc. tend to interfere from time to time and affect our ability to serve our customers.

    Under the citeria some have put forth (and I exclude the time sensitive job where hiring a pregnant female would clearly interfere with the job responsibities) should I have not been hired if an equally qualified male had applied because I hike, ski and bike? No? But yes if there was that possibility I might get married (or not) and get pregnant?

    I believe Federal paid maternity leave is now legally "family leave" for businesses of 25(?) employees or larger, so it's not "months" of paid leave nor it is strictly for "women to have babies."

    So is this discussion more or less over a longer term paid leave?
  4. anakinfansince1983 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 7
    I would place not hiring someone based on weight as discrimination and just as wrong as not hiring someone based on gender, unless the job is modeling "skinny clothes," in which case, we wouldn't hire a woman to model men's clothes either.

    I also would think that questioning whether or not someone is a smoker would have more to do with their wanting extra smoke breaks than about whether they were going to be out of work for any reason. Plus smoking is a choice at least to some extent. (And yes, I know it's a habit, I used to do it.) Being born with two X chromosomes isn't a choice. I would place weight as much more of a choice than gender, although genetics do play a factor in weight.

    And we could turn this around, as Valairy_Scot mentioned--do we not hire someone who is athletic because the person might get injured?

    That's the issue here, the idea that a person should not get hired for X Y or Z reason because the person might, at some point in the future, need to take time off. We're talking about not hiring females of childbearing age because she might, at some point in the future, get pregnant. We're not even talking about refusing to hire someone who is already pregnant. And we're also not talking about refusing to hire someone who isn't unhealthy because that person would cause company insurance premiums to rise (a concept I think is worth discussing but in another topic). That's the New Zealand immigration issue, I think Canada has a similar policy of asking potential immigrants about health problems.
  5. chibiangi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 16, 2002
    star 4
    The only factors that should be considered for employment are an applicant's qualifications such as their educational background, certificates/certifications, necessary licensing, past job experience and past criminal history. Gender discrimination is illegal yet it still happens and apparently, is still considered perfectly acceptable to some. I do not think the answer to women needing leave to give birth is to not hire women. The answer is to support the birth process by supporting both men and women in their child rearing. If we do not have children, we do not have a replacement generation of workers (unless you favor immigration as the replacement, which I certainly do not).



Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.