Great...pregnancy discriminaton...

[pisces2473]

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050217065309990023

Pregnant Workers Report Growing Discrimination

By Stephanie Armour, USA TODAY

Discrimination charges are coming from a range of women, from those in entry-level jobs as well as those in executive suites.

The number of women claiming they've been discriminated against on the job because they're pregnant is soaring even as the birth rate declines.

Pregnancy discrimination complaints filed with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) jumped 39% from fiscal year 1992 to 2003, according to a recent analysis of government data by the Washington-based National Partnership for Women & Families. During that same time, the nation's birthrate dropped 9%.

The surge in pregnancy complaints makes it one of the fastest-growing types of employment discrimination charges filed with the EEOC — outpacing the rise in sexual harassment and sex discrimination claims.

The charges are coming from a range of women, from those in entry-level jobs as well as those in executive suites. Well-known employers that have faced pregnancy-discrimination lawsuits include Wal-Mart, Hooters and Cincinnati Bell. Employment lawyers say that, in many cases, employers are simply making honest mistakes as they try to understand a variety of federal and state laws governing issues such as pregnancy discrimination and family leave. And they say it's easy to overlook the very real costs of pregnancy to small employers, who may see productivity suffer significantly when women take time off after having a baby.

But pregnant women claim they've been unfairly fired, denied promotions and in some cases urged to terminate pregnancies in order to keep their jobs.

Mailyn Pickler, 23, of Mesa, Ariz., says she was working for auto dealership Berge Ford when she told a manager about her pregnancy. About a week later, she says, supervisors told her she was being fired. They told her they were concerned that it would not be safe for her to drive, which was part of her job, while she was pregnant, according to the lawsuit.

Berge Ford did not return calls seeking comment.

"I burst into tears," Pickler says. "They thought I was not going to be able to do my job. They thought I would throw up or have a cramp. But pregnant women work every day. It just wasn't fair."

The EEOC filed a lawsuit on Pickler's behalf, and the case was settled out of court for $70,000. Her son, Jesse, is 3, and Pickler, who is now a stay-at-home mom, is pregnant again.

The rise in pregnancy discrimination cases is important now because more women of child-bearing age are in the labor force: Women make up about 47% of the total labor force, and they're projected to account for more than half of the increase in total labor force growth from 2002 until 2012, according to the Department of Labor.

And more working women are having children at a later age, when careers are better established and more is financially at stake. In 2000, the average American woman having her first child was almost 25 years old. In 1970, the average age was 21.4 years for a first birth, according to a 2002 report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Pregnancy discrimination cases also are costing companies more money. In fiscal year 2003, the EEOC and state and local agencies collected $12.4 million from charges of pregnancy discrimination (that amount excludes any awards obtained through lawsuits), vs. $3.7 million collected in 1992. Money may also come from other sources, such as conciliation agreements with employers and benefits obtained through mediation.

The length of time it takes a case to come to trial or settle can vary. Some cases are resolved within a year; some may drag on in the courts for a number of years.

"We've seen an explosion, a huge increase in cases," says Mary Jo O'Neill, a regional lawyer with the EEOC. "The kind of cases we're seeing are very blatant, cases where managers say, 'We don't want pregnant women working here.' "

Several factors may be behind the trend:

• More pregnant women are staying in the workplace rather than going on early leave.

More women are working while pregnant, and they're working further into their pregnancies. In the decade before the 1978 passage of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, more than half of employed women quit their jobs when they became pregnant, according to the National Partnership for Women & Families analysis of government data. The non-profit education and advocacy group also found that, by the early 1990s, that number dropped to 27% of pregnant women.

"The discrimination is more prevalent because there are so many more women who are working pregnant," says Debra Ness, president of the National Partnership for Women & Families. "People think pregnancy discrimination is a thing of the past, that it doesn't happen anymore. But it does."

• Productivity pressures and the economy.

The sluggish economy in recent years has pushed employers to lay off workers and stress productivity, leaving fewer employees doing more work. Employers may see pregnant workers — with pending maternity leave and their possible need for more flexible work arrangements in the future — as a liability.

"Pregnancy is expensive for employers," says Veronica Duffy, an employment lawyer in Rapid City, S.D., who has represented pregnant women filing discrimination claims. "And as health insurance costs rise, costs become more of an issue. Employers are driven to discriminate."

• Stereotypes about pregnant women persist.

Mounting research shows that women who become pregnant are viewed as less competent in the workplace — a view that is held by both male and female co-workers.

In one study published in 1993 in the Journal of Organizational Behavior, pregnant and non-pregnant women performed tasks that were rated by college students drafted for the research. While both subjects performed the same, those who were pregnant consistently received lower performance ratings. They were viewed as overly emotional, often irrational, physically limited and less than committed to their jobs, according to the report.

In another study, pregnant women were interviewed about their own experiences on the job. About half said their supervisors' reactions to their pregnancies were negative, according to the report published in 1997 in the Journal of Business and Psychology.

They also reported intrusive comments from co-workers, including such comments as, "Why are you eating so much?" and, "Do you have stretch marks yet?" About half of pregnant women managers said subordinates became upset or hostile.

"When women become pregnant, they're seen as putting personal life ahead of work," says Jane Halpert, an associate professor of industrial and organizational psychology at DePaul University who worked on the studies. "There's a whole set of separate attitudes that show up at work when you get pregnant."

Roberta Carlton says she's seen it firsthand. When she was working as a manager at a software company, she says she wanted to hire a woman who had just had a baby. She says her boss said the job applicant was a new parent and wouldn't be able to put in the hours. What the boss didn't know was that Carlton was three months pregnant at the time.

"You wonder how many women deal with this," says Carlton, 39, who went on maternity leave and was later laid off. She now is a vice president at a public relations firm in Lexington, Mass. "I thought pregnancy was something people were educated about. I hadn't realized anything that blatant happened anymore."

Employers have concerns

But employment lawyers also point out that there are some valid concerns for companies. Small employers can be especially hard hit if they have a large number of women who go out on maternity leave: Productivity can suffer, and there can be extra work for co-workers who are forced to pick up the slack.

Employers can also wind up in a bind if they hire a woman who goes on maternity leave during a critical time, such as a tax-preparation firm that loses a woman to leave during April, when demand is at its peak.

"It can create an enormous challenge for a small organization," says Michael Lotito, a San Francisco-based employment lawyer. He says employers can also feel unable to take disciplinary action against a pregnant employee who isn't performing because they fear it will be seen as discriminatory.

And Lotito says part of the increase in discrimination claims could be coming simply because employers are making honest mistakes or are confused by conflicting laws. Many states have protections for pregnant women that go beyond the federal law. For example, they may mandate that pregnant women be allowed to get some paid time off through employee payroll taxes. Federal law allows for 12 weeks of unpaid leave.

Generally, under current federal law, an employer shouldn't ask job applicants if they are pregnant; a job seeker also is not required to inform an employer of her pregnancy, legal experts say. An employer also can't force a pregnant woman to take time off during her pregnancy or force her to quit because of fears the work may be hazardous to her or her fetus. Employees who go on maternity leave must generally get the same treatment as other employees with disabilities or time off.

[pisces2473]

Susan Kenna, 38, says her employer didn't make accommodations for her when she became pregnant with triplets. She says managers cut her pay after she needed to go on bed rest, and she says she was cut out of meetings before being put on bed rest and generally pressured to quit. She was on bed rest for one week.

Kenna, who worked as a director at Gitto/Global Corp., went into early labor on Sept. 28, 2001, and her triplets died shortly after birth. She says in a lawsuit filed last year against her employer that stress over discrimination played a role in triggering the early births.

Gitto/Global, a manufacturer of specialty compounds, filed for bankruptcy protection in September 2004 and sold its assets to S & E Specialty Polymers. Gitto/Global has been embroiled in scandal following accusations top officials created bogus customers and bilked lenders out of millions of dollars. A spokeswoman declined to comment, saying the lawsuit originated before the sale. The case was filed in August 2004 and is still pending. A trial date has not yet been set.

"I believe the stress caused my pre-term labor, and I filed a lawsuit because I didn't want my children to die in vain," says Kenna, of Sterling, Mass., who is now the mother of 2-year-old twin girls and a son who is just over 2 months old. "A lot of people at companies are getting away with this, and they have to be called on their bad behavior."


02-17-05 06:28 EST

© Copyright 2005 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc. All Rights Reserved.

[pisces2473]

By the Numbers

47 percent
Portion of the workforce made up by women

27 percent
Portion of women who quit their jobs when they become pregnant

39 percent
Increase in the number of pregnancy discrimination complaints filed with the EEOC from 1992-2003

$3.7 million
Amount collected in pregnancy discrimination cases in fiscal 1992

$12.4 million
Amount collected in pregnancy discrimination cases in fiscal 2003

Sources: National Partnership for Women & Families; Department of Labor

[kimmer23]

The EEOC filed a lawsuit on Pickler's behalf, and the case was settled out of court for $70,000. Her son, Jesse, is 3, and Pickler, who is now a stay-at-home mom, is pregnant again.

i'd stay home too if i had $70k!

i can sorta see both sides though. i dont see it being a big issue for large companies, but i have worked at mostly small companies since i have been in the workforce and when pregnant women are out of work for dr's appt or sick leave it hinders the companies operation A LOT! but i totally see where i would want job security if i were pregnant as well.

[pisces2473]

Kimberly!!!!! $70K isn't really enough to stay at home! LOL They don't say if she's married or living with a partner or whatever...

[kimmer23]

jen,

well i just kinda assumed she was a stay at home mom with a husband in the workforce--if that were the case than that would be a nice little chunk. if not though, yeah you are right. $70k wont last you very long if ya arent working and have no husband!

[pisces2473]

LOL I was just busting you. I know, I assumed she was married too.

[kimmer23]

yeah why should i assume she was married. who gets married and then has kids these days?? i thought pregnancy comes first??!! hehe! :rolleyes:

[pisces2473]

Well, with the people YOU hang out with, I wouldn't doubt that! j/k ;)

[joneshen]

I can see both sides of the issue too.

One of my coworkers had a baby earlier this year, and it was a difficult pregnancy. She essentially stopped coming into the office on a regular basis around the 6th or seventh month, and basically worked from home. She would come in once in a while to do something that required her to come to campus. She had her baby Easter weekend, took a couple of weeks off, and then resumed work from home. Then she went on maternity leave for two months. One week before she was supposed to return, she resigned. This happened in the beginning of August, which is right before the busiest time of year at a university (i.e. before the fall semester begins). My boss was pissed because he had made all these concessions for her, counting on her return.

To this day, her position remains vacant and my other colleague and I are still left to pick up the slack.

[MetFanL]

Not surprising, really. When people are "vital" to the daily operations of an organzation and they tell you that they have to be out for 6 months, that's not exactly something you want to hear. And, it's asking alot of your other employees b/c they are the ones who will be picking up the slack (and not getting any more $$ in the process). It would almost be better to divide up the pregnant woman's paycheck during that period of time and give bonuses to the people who are making up for her absense.

I see it both ways now, but being the selfish person I am, I'll see it from the "of course you should let me walk out of here for 6 months AND hold my job for me" perspective when I get preggers myself.

[pisces2473]

One of my coworkers had a baby earlier this year, and it was a difficult pregnancy. She essentially stopped coming into the office on a regular basis around the 6th or seventh month, and basically worked from home. She would come in once in a while to do something that required her to come to campus. She had her baby Easter weekend, took a couple of weeks off, and then resumed work from home. Then she went on maternity leave for two months. One week before she was supposed to return, she resigned. This happened in the beginning of August, which is right before the busiest time of year at a university (i.e. before the fall semester begins). My boss was pissed because he had made all these concessions for her, counting on her return.
People do that all the time...some b/c they plan on it since they'll get the benefits and stuff while they are home, others are home with the baby and realize they don't want to leave it. I think the planning on it thing is sort of shady, but I can't say I wouldn't do it. I think someone at work did that--was hired, got PG, had the baby/went on leave, and then quit. She worked here just over a year or something crazy like that. Or she was PG at the interview (not showing yet).

[pisces2473]

Not surprising, really. When people are "vital" to the daily operations of an organzation and they tell you that they have to be out for 6 months, that's not exactly something you want to hear. And, it's asking alot of your other employees b/c they are the ones who will be picking up the slack (and not getting any more $$ in the process). It would almost be better to divide up the pregnant woman's paycheck during that period of time and give bonuses to the people who are making up for her absense.

I see it both ways now, but being the selfish person I am, I'll see it from the "of course you should let me walk out of here for 6 months AND hold my job for me" perspective when I get preggers myself.
LOL me too. I'd be SO bitchy while the PG person was out, but you KNOW the minute I found out I was expecting, my attitude would change.

And what's this about 6 months? Who's out that long?

[MetFanL]

People in my workplace disappear for that long... 3-6 months is totally average for baby recovery time around here.

[heatherf]

I'm planning on being out 6 months! :neutral:

Yeah the work has to shift onto the other people, that's just the way it goes here. I'm really scared of telling one woman I work with cause I know her reaction is going to be anything but nice. But screw her. She doesn't pick up her weight of the work as is. :huge:

[pisces2473]

I thought it was like 3 months or so...the state lets employees take off for that long?

What are the standards? Or, what is the legal amount of time you have to get off?

I don't even know what my employer's rules are...I would definitely ask even before planning a pregnancy. I knew someone (from my old internship) who got pregnant and she had to use all her sick/personal/vacay time and then FMLA would kick in; she did not get paid for FMLA, but was covered benefits-wise. So she wasn't getting any income after her paid time off ran out, but she was married, so they lived off of her husband's income. I think the longest she could be out on FMLA was 4 months, and I don't know how much PTO she had...but imagine if you had a problem pregnancy w/ a lot of sick days and leaving early, etc? You'd be screwed. Things are so fucked up with maternity leaves and jobs and stuff. :(

[Crimson King II]

I have represented pregnancy discrimination cases on both sides, Plaintiff and Defendant.

The Family and Medical Leave Act guarantees 12 weeks of unpaid leave during any 12 month period for pregnancy or serious medical condition for yourself, your spouse, your parent, or your child. It also allows 12 weeks leave for pursuing adoption efforts.


Also, I don't believe pregnancy discrimination is on the rise, so much as pregancy removes an employee from the workplace and employers often must have someone to work...then when the pregnant employee returns...the employer faces a tough choice of who to keep in the one position between the two employees. Continuity often favors the replacement. The Plaintiff's lawyers have then simply brought more lawsuits. It's not ever so much a case of, "I hate women, especially pregnant ones," in other words it is not reflective upon employers as much as it is a matter of market necessity combined with a Plaintiff's cash cow that drives up the number of these suits.

[Crimson King II]

Also, while the FMLA requires 12 weeks, various states and employers can guarantee more. If the employer guarantees, say, 16 weeks, and fires a pregnant employee after 13....he's met the FMLA requirement, but not his own. Liability is not automatic, and the courts are somewhat split as to whether that employee could sue or not. In some cases, the employer would be liable if he did not meet his own guarantee. In others he would not be.

[heatherf]

It's cause techincally my union allows for a worker to be out a maximum of 6 months without losing their job. I will get 6 weeks of paid disability, and I will also use up all other time I have, which should be two weeks of sick pay, two weeks of vacation pay, and three weeks of comp time off. So I won't be covered the whole 6 months, but I don't really care. The time home is more important to me.

But my boss has been saying that after three months I can "work" form home for 10-20 hours a week (getting paid and full benefits), just to do maybe a project a time- and just be available to answer email/v'mail about a project, and come in maybe every two weeks for a meeting if needed. Sounds good to me cause then I would get paid doing it that way. But we will see. September is still a ways away.

[pisces2473]

Thanks CK for the clearness of the FMLA stuff. But see, what you just described about the employers' sides is what's wrong with it all. Being pregnant isn't a bad thing. No wonder so many women used to quit when they started showing--they feared that if they went on leave, the job wouldn't be there when they wanted to come back.

[lawya girl]

People usually take 6 months around here too. 3 months paid, 3 months unpaid I think.

[pisces2473]

It's cause techincally my union allows for a worker to be out a maximum of 6 months without losing their job. I will get 6 weeks of paid disability, and I will also use up all other time I have, which should be two weeks of sick pay, two weeks of vacation pay, and three weeks of comp time off. So I won't be covered the whole 6 months, but I don't really care. The time home is more important to me.

But my boss has been saying that after three months I can "work" form home for 10-20 hours a week (getting paid and full benefits), just to do maybe a project a time- and just be available to answer email/v'mail about a project, and come in maybe every two weeks for a meeting if needed. Sounds good to me cause then I would get paid doing it that way. But we will see. September is still a ways away.
Will you get benefits for the entire 6 months you're home? Would you be getting full pay for the 10-20 hrs/wk or is it pro-rated? I think it wouldn't be so bad to work PT from home b/c there's only so much you can do all day with a newborn. That's cool that your boss is so flexible, Heather.

Hmm, paid disability...now that would be nice.

[pisces2473]

People usually take 6 months around here too. 3 months paid, 3 months unpaid I think.
And how many ulcers will they have after they announce their pregnancy!? lol It's funny how "generous" your firm is, even though it's such a stressful, long hours, job.

[pisces2473]

You can always use the maternity leave to search for other jobs! haha

[Crimson King II]

I agree being pregnant is not a bad thing. But companies and employers must make money. They must remain solvent. Family leave is fine, but it creates a real economic reality when the employee returns and you are paying 2 times the salary for 1 time the need. The economic reality hits one place or the other. Do you terminate the formerly pregnant employee.....or the new one, especially one who is doing a good job. And even if the new employee is a better employee merit-wise...the leave employee will probably hit you with a lawsuit....so is the productivity of the new employee going to overcome the potential loss due to a lawsuit...or will that loss be less than the loss you suffer by keeping the leave-though-less-meritorious employee. And what if the replacement employee is African American? You may just be picking which lawsuit you want to defend...race or gender?

My point is merely that it does create an economic reality where employers are required to give leave and are then met with realities that threaten solvency where they are paying 2x the normal cost of their work force...so not only are they losing manpower during the leave, but absorbing double cost of manpower once leave is over...which under ANY circumstances, if repeated over and over and over will not reflect solid performance by the company and over time will be a threat to it.

I think it's a fine law...but once the leave is over, I think there needs to be an outlet for the Employer.

[coll214]

6 months, or longer is pretty standard around here too... Yale is definitely kind to people who take maternity, or in the case of men, paternity leave. Generally they will hire a temp in a persons' absence or depending on the job, ferret stuff out among other employees (at least in my experience working w/ women pregnant). And since people can save up so much time, they are allowed to use up all their vacay, sick time if they want... I know of one woman who was out for almost a year w/ her baby... and another family friend who once his wife ran out of maternity leave, he took off 3-4 months on leave...

[heatherf]

Yes I will get my benefits the whole time. Tecnically when Jan 1st rolls around I'd have 2 more weeks of paid vacation I could use, too.

Greg will be working for the public defender too, and he'll have better benefits than I do cause technically he'll be management. As for money too- we've got some stashed away that we can take out if needed while I'm on leave too.

[pisces2473]

Coll, you sure you don't wanna go work at 155? You can be the HR/Benefits guru. ;)

And CK, I know that it's the reality. I understand that, but it's just sad that you can be almost punished b/c of your desire for kids. Men don't have that fear. They can want kids and want to stay home/go on leave, but they don't have to have the recovery time after giving birth that women HAVE to have.

[coll214]

Coll, you sure you don't wanna go work at 155? You can be the HR/Benefits guru. ;)
LOL, c'mon you had to know i'd pop in w/ my .02 :huge:. sigh- it's what happens when either i've been here to long or know to many ppl who've worked here over the years. LOL.

[Crimson King II]

I agree Jen...but companies live on profit...and that sustains jobs, benefits, tax revenues, investment returns (which boost savings and real wealth for millions of Americans), and entire industries which affect almost everyone. It's a sad thing, but I don't think it's inherently evil or wrong, and it is understandable from a market perspective. It's a cross conflict without a great solution for anyone involved.

[pisces2473]

Yeah, CK. While I don't like it, I do agree. Here's something to throw in...if women don't have babies, there would be less consumers to buy products to make a profit ;)

Coll--no one knows anything around here, I'm glad you do.

[lawya girl]

And how many ulcers will they have after they announce their pregnancy!? lol It's funny how "generous" your firm is, even though it's such a stressful, long hours, job.


Yeah, they are really good about stuff like that. At my firm, it's not really the firm, but the clients, who make life difficult. They are the ones bitching and moaning if they can't contact a woman who is working half-time after a baby on the day that she is not supposed to be working which, in turn, affects the firm's profitability.

I disagree (C.K.) that there is no good solution. The problem is more that there needs to be mammoth, sweeping change and no one wants to the be the first to do it. There are lots of creative solutions but companies don't care enough. The culture we live in values money, money, money to the exclusion of everything else. Companies don't HAVE to change, so they won't. Good thing I'm not bitter...

[pisces2473]

Lawya, definitely. I know I just said I agreed with CK, I do agree with you as well. Clients need to stop thinking the lawyer is their lifeline, and that the lawyer does have a life too. And companies have to stop being so money hungry.

[lawya girl]

Lawya, definitely. I know I just said I agreed with CK, I do agree with you as well. Clients need to stop thinking the lawyer is their lifeline, and that the lawyer does have a life too. And companies have to stop being so money hungry.

Yes - if everyone, and I mean EVERYONE just took a collective deep breath and a step back we could all live better lives. Unfortunately, those of us who are normal are constantly playing catch-up to the workaholics of the corporate world. They are evil and they must be destroyed! :evil:

[pisces2473]

I'm trying to take a step back. No more keeping up with what I think are what the "Jonses" are doing. No new car til I'm done with grad school, I'm putting money away for vacations instead of doing silly shit with it, etc. I don't want to be a corporate slave. Thank god I don't work for one.

[Crimson King II]

"Mammoth, sweeping change" is fine...but a little indefinite. What change are we talking? I mean....do we guarantee a job for the leave-worker? If we guarantee a job for the leave-worker, the worker must guarantee a commitment to a single company...which means we're no longer an at-will work society...goodbye free enterprise and the ability of the individual to change his/her situation.....

I mean...where do you wanna go?

[lawya girl]

Well we're not entirely an "at will" society - contracts make people do a lot of things they wouldn't ordinarily do. And if you want to make people sign a contract saying they promise to work so long for that company when they return if their job is held open, I don't really have a problem with that. People sign employment contracts all the time.

HOWEVER, the kind of change I was referring to is a general change in corporate culture. A change in the idea that work and money come before all else, including family and personal time - A realization on the part of corporate America that people can be pushed only so far. For example, I don't want to sit here until 3 in the morning reviewing contracts and I am doing a good job only up until abou 11 pm - after that, I'm useless. The client is paying $250 per hour and my work is no longer worth that. Nobody is getting a good deal in that situation. We need to stop being such an impatient culture and learn that quality takes time. It is an indefinite concept but I think it's something everyone can understand - not everything needs to be diagrammed and charted before it can be implemented. That being said, I don't hold out hope that this sea change is on the horizon.

[Crimson King II]

Well, we are at will and contract law is an exception to at will. Contracting for various arrangements entirely binds both the employee and employer. Regardless, such an arrangement is fine...but should never be mandatory on either party by law.

Second...this change in corporate culture is fine in theory, but as you note...not likely. People need things. Money provides things. How do you make money? Work or invest? I'm not going to be inclined to work if my return is minimal...so I'll work for myself in an effort to make more money...and when I do, I'm going to hire those who earn me the most...for then I don't have to work as hard. Corporate culture? Yeah...because those corporations are designed not to be proactive, but to earn money...for their owners (who are often everyday investors). There has never been any function of any business but to make profits. A corporations job is not to make everyone's life better, but to make life better for its owners and investors. Which is why you should own or invest or find ways to do so if you can't. God bless Milton Friedman.

[lawya girl]

[QUOTE=Crimson King II]Well, we are at will and contract law is an exception to at will. QUOTE]

And therefore, we are not an ENTIRELY at will society. I stand by my statement.

You must be hanging with a different crowd than me because all I see is people who have their own businesses but still bust their asses because it's never enough - they always need more. I don't ask the corporate world to provide me with a happy existence - I just ask that they don't interfere when I am trying to create one. I should be able to work and have a life outside work. I don't think that respect for employees is too much to ask, even in capitalist society.

[pisces2473]

Lawya, needing more out of absolute necessity, more money to put food on the table? Or need more as thinking that they need more, like bigger houses and such?

I think people are too caught up in acquisitioning things that they don't really need, and they sacrifice their health and lives trying to do that.

[lawya girl]

Lawya, needing more out of absolute necessity, more money to put food on the table? Or need more as thinking that they need more, like bigger houses and such?

I think people are too caught up in acquisitioning things that they don't really need, and they sacrifice their health and lives trying to do that.

No, no - meaning I "need" another house in the Hamptons and another porsche. Few people know the meaning of the word "need" anymore. I'm as guilty as that as the next person but it will be a cold day in hell before I put work before my husband and future kids.

[pisces2473]

That's what I thought you meant, and I completely agree. I'm trying not to buy into the hype so much, but it's hard!

[WeirdBrake]

Don't you people have anything better to do than argue the law on the QLC board? :p

[GetMeOuttaDC]

Don't you people have anything better to do than argue the law on the QLC board? :p

No.


:evil:

[lawya girl]

Don't you people have anything better to do than argue the law on the QLC board? :p


Not really - it's a lot more interesting this way.... ;)

[sunshinecat]

Wow, this article scares me because now that I'm pregnant, I'm becoming so much more interested in how pregnant women are treated. I am scared to tell my employer because I know there will be the "freak-out" factor of losing me for 12 weeks.

I have noticed discrimination against pregnant women vs. other types of medical leaves in the workplace. I've noticed, in the companies that I've worked for, that if a pregnant women requests leave, she is treated differently than say, someone, who needs 12 weeks to recover from some other medical condition. By different, I mean more harshly. She is more often "let go" or given a lesser job.

In my case, I haven't told anyone at work yet. I'm just as productive as before my pregnancy, and completely committed to returning after my leave (I've been here over 4 years and it is a fairly good position).

We also have cases where employees can take sabbaticals after (I think) eight years of employment. These employees can take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to go on vacation or do whatever they want. It creates a burden for the rest of the department and the company and yet these employees are often not treated as harshly as pregnant women. Why? It is all about the circumstances and perceptions that pregnancy is somehow "bad" or, at least, not as acceptable as other situations.

I do agree that some pregnant women abuse the system - they go on leave, continue to take-in benefits, while knowing that they are just going to quit. So, I don't know what the solution is because companies must remain profitable but pregnant women deserve fair and just treatment.

Anyway, my 2cents.

~ sunshinecat ~

[WeirdBrake]

OK, I stand corrected. ;)

The Battle of the Forms. How many died? lol

[joneshen]

Hmm, paid disability...now that would be nice.

My university offers the option to buy short-term disability insurance. So, the co-worker that I mentioned in an earlier post bought some. She used that when she went on maternity leave. I think the policy will allow one to draw about half of one's normal salary.

[pisces2473]

SunshineCat--you know what it is? It's the fact that employers can't deal with the bond between a mother and child. There's no bond created when you take sabbatical or have a knee replacement or something. Employers know that a woman might become so attached to her baby that she does not want to come back to work. Or that it's easier for her to stay home. If working conditions were easier for moms, then maybe more women would come back to work.

[lawya girl]

OK, I stand corrected. ;)

The Battle of the Forms. How many died? lol


All I know is the "Mailbox Rule." lol. The mailbox rule rocks! :p

[Crimson King II]

Contract employment falls under the auspices of contract law. Contract laborers are not subject to employment law. Employment law is the domain of the employee-employer relationship. 48 states recognize exclusive at will employment. 2 others recognize at will though not exclusively. Fine...you win....there ARE circumstances where employees are not at will employees. That said, nothing changes because anti-discrimination laws apply to at will employer-employee relationships.

I mean, I don't practice employment law everyday, but....oh wait, I do. Now...your change theory is fine, but essentially what you seem to want is for everyone to reach an arrangement with their employer which will bind them to each other in an employment marriage. This is an exception to at will, because it is opposite to it. It is therefore contrary to 48 states exclusively and the legislative status of current employment law as set forth by the United States Federal Government.

[Crimson King II]

Moreover, at-will employment is a staple and fundamental requirement of capitalism. So let's hear it...let's hear you say you are against capitalism? Is that what you are saying?

[lawya girl]

[QUOTE=Crimson King II]This is an exception to at will, because it is opposite to it. QUOTE]

Wow - is that how it works CK? I'm glad you were around to let me know. There's no need to get nasty because I don't agree with your views.

You're right - I'm not a labor and employment lawyer though the domain is not foreign to me. I'm not saying everyone has to enter into an "employment marriage" but I still do not agree that all employment arrangements would be antithetical to the "the law as set forth by the United States government."

I'm not going to argue with you about this anymore because your attitude is frustrating. Many people just spout this "damned if you do, damned if you don't" rhetoric and say there's no better way. Usually those are the people who aren't very interested in finding one.

[Crimson King II]

Yeah...that is how it works. The assumption should not necessarily be that the "better way" favors the employee who needs leave. Last I checked businesses and employers tend to support vast millions of Americans and their families. My point is that you do not get to claim the monopoly of keeper of the "better way."

[Crimson King II]

Further, there is a vast difference between an AGREEMENT between an employer and an employee and a MANDATE by the government. You seem to want to mandate the relationship currently found only in mutual agreements. That is NOT a "better way."

[pisces2473]

I'm not going to argue with you about this anymore because your attitude is frustrating. Many people just spout this "damned if you do, damned if you don't" rhetoric and say there's no better way. Usually those are the people who aren't very interested in finding one.

Lawya Girl, remember though, CK is a guy, so of course he has no real interest in needing to find another way when it comes to making things fair for pregnant women. And he's also stated on previous occassions that he doesn't see himself having children.

CK, this was not an attack, just stating facts.

[lawya girl]

Moreover, at-will employment is a staple and fundamental requirement of capitalism. So let's hear it...let's hear you say you are against capitalism? Is that what you are saying?


Did I SAY "let's do away with at-will employment? I don't think so..."

And I do not claim to be the "keeper of the better way" but I do claim to be a woman who has a responsibility to find one.

[Crimson King II]

I understand Pisces.

My point is simply this....if you want to legislate something that makes it even more fair for pregnant women...something currently only found in mutual agreements that most employers are not willing to enter into, then potentially businesses collapse....when they do, people lose jobs and the resultant kids of the pregnancies find themselves hungry because unemployment is now 10% and neither parent can find a job.


Certainly it's more fair for the pregnant woman, sure. But let's not assume this is some "better way." Knee jerks do not work.

[WeirdBrake]

Contract employment falls under the auspices of contract law. Contract laborers are not subject to employment law. Employment law is the domain of the employee-employer relationship. 48 states recognize exclusive at will employment. 2 others recognize at will though not exclusively. Fine...you win....there ARE circumstances where employees are not at will employees. That said, nothing changes because anti-discrimination laws apply to at will employer-employee relationships.

I do believe you get your ass kicked for saying something like this. :huge:

[lawya girl]

Further, there is a vast difference between an AGREEMENT between an employer and an employee and a MANDATE by the government. You seem to want to mandate the relationship currently found only in mutual agreements. That is NOT a "better way."

I NEVER suggested a government mandate either. I think you need to re-read my posts. I was suggesting a more family-friendly corporate environment where companies would take the initiative, on their own, to make arrangements.

[lawya girl]

Lawya Girl, remember though, CK is a guy, so of course he has no real interest in needing to find another way when it comes to making things fair for pregnant women. And he's also stated on previous occassions that he doesn't see himself having children.

CK, this was not an attack, just stating facts.


Oh yeah, I know.

[GetMeOuttaDC]

people lose jobs and the resultant kids of the pregnancies find themselves hungry because unemployment is now 10% and neither parent can find a job.

But that's just it... these kids won't be "hungry", they'll be on the public dime. And the fact is that the birth rate is NOT falling among those who do let their kids grow up that way (ie, teen pregnancies, welfare lifers, illegal immigrants) it is rising. It is FALLING among educated people, who you would theoretically WANT to reproduce - older, more educated, and more mature can make you a better parent who is more likely to provide for your child finnanciall and more likely to educate your children so that they grow up to be high tax-revenue-generating people. if you make it easier for corporate women to have children and still hold onto their jobs, (much of which is settled by not being an asshole, realizing people have to procreate, and don't assume that every time a young woman has a health problem that necessitates her taking time off work, she is pregnant!), then maybe this would not be the case! The fact is that life is so expensive these days (housing, healthcare, education, not to mention most parents are still in heavy educational debt!) that you NEED two incomes in most places... living in a high-cost area of the country, I don't think I know any stay at home moms. What I'm saying is, it is NOT true that most people will quit after they have a baby. And when they do come back to work, why is it such a problem that they are not willing to live and breathe their job? Shouldn't you never be asked to do this in the first place?

What they might do however, is decide, hey I want to be a mom, and therefore screw this stressful, elite job that I am really good at; I am going to go get a job teaching or in HR or something that will let me have a life. And they are thus discriminated against for following a natural process inherent to their gender, while being smart and capable at the same time.

[pisces2473]

PREACH IT SISTER!!!!!!

The only stay at home moms I know of live in the south and midwest. And they are all of the "we love Jesus, we home school, I do everything my husband says because he is the king" camp. I belong to a PCOS message board and ALL the sahm are like that.

[GetMeOuttaDC]

The only stay at home moms I know of live in the south and midwest. And they are all of the "we love Jesus, we home school, I do everything my husband says because he is the king" camp. I belong to a PCOS message board and ALL the sahm are like that.

Well, don't you have to jump through all these extra hoops to get pg when you have a condition like PCOS? These ladies probably aren't SAHM entirely by choice; I'll bet their employers got pissed with their time spent trying to fix their PCOS (getting fertility treatments or whatever), and their time spent being pg and on maternity leave, and told them to take a hike.

[lawya girl]

[QUOTE=Crimson King II] then potentially businesses collapse....when they do, people lose jobs and the resultant kids of the pregnancies find themselves hungry because unemployment is now 10% and neither parent can find a job.
[QUOTE]

Nice parade of horribles...

I'm sure that if I work from home for a couple of months after I have a baby, the economy as we know it is not going to come tumbling down around our ears. The same is true for many women. If enough people cared, we could develop solutions that worked.

And MY reaction is "knee-jerk"?

[pisces2473]

LOL Kelly, I'm dead serious--most of the women on there are of that camp. Where they stay at home because Jesus and their husband told them to. You should see their signatures in their posts. I hate to be stereotypical but they are living in the south/midwest and are probably evangelical protestants, so there you go. I would be a SAHM but NOT b/c Chris TOLD me to!

Not all women have trouble conceiving with PCOS, but some do (I know we've talked about that)...and if you're 40 by the time you have baby #1, why NOT stay home? I do understand what you are saying though.

[Crimson King II]

But see GMODC, I think the perspective is wrong...it's a two way street, not a one way. Employers are not as often saying, "Hey...you need to be 145% into your job," as much as they are noticing some of the young professionals who are like that anyway. Well, if I hire a guy who busts his ass and so happens to earn me 175% on my investment in him, then no way do I bump him because my previous employee who was only getting me 95% is now ready to return. See, we have a competitive economy.....the employees know this as much as the employers. It's when you start talking about the dark forces of the employers and the unfairness to the employees that Marx comes to mind and I get twitchy.

[Crimson King II]

No, lawya, it won't be like that when you do. But when 20% of the workforce does reproduce and take leave, and are then replaced and then return and you are now paying 20% extra in wages and taxes on those wages but only clearing 5-15% which is often a good return....then yeah, small businesses collapse...and small businesses hire the vast majority of workers in America.

[pisces2473]

and small businesses hire the vast majority of workers in America.
Um no they don't. Outsourcing and Walmart have been the scourge that has killed small businesses in America.

[Crimson King II]

And you're right, you can develop a solution that works.......for the pregnant women. But again, employers employ to earn money....more money makes them more solvent and allows them to hire more jobs, which pays everyone's bills and raises your children and keeps your taxes and interest low. With 50% of the workforce being women, there's huge potential for doubling your costs, with a reduction of profits long term.

Read your Friedman.

[lawya girl]

No, lawya, it won't be like that when you do. But when 20% of the workforce does reproduce and take leave, and are then replaced and then return and you are now paying 20% extra in wages and taxes on those wages but only clearing 5-15% which is often a good return....then yeah, small businesses collapse...and small businesses hire the vast majority of workers in America.

I understand the stress of this kind of thing on small businesses and that is something that would definitely need to be addressed. I think in many cases the work that someone does can be pared back for a while and during that time, perhaps the employee can still take care of most if not all of it through working from home or work can be redistributed. When that's not the case, things can be more difficult. Every situation is different and the problem can be alleviated to a greater or lesser extent depending on the job and the circumstances. I'm not saying the employer has to be the only one bending over backwards - employees should do their part to make alternative arrangements work. BUT, they are not impossible.

[GetMeOuttaDC]

Employers are not as often saying, "Hey...you need to be 145% into your job," as much as they are noticing some of the young professionals who are like that anyway.

Um, I was not advocating Marx.

That's just the problem, though, is that just because some kid a year or two out of school is busting their ass, does NOT mean they are not going to burn out or realize that they are living their life according to fucked up priorities.

I busted my ass for my first 2 years out of school, was 145% there, then said FUCK IT... there is more to life. It's not because I'm lazy, it's a wisdom/age/maturity thing.

Most of the people beyond their early 20's who are that way are like my psycho boss (see my threads) and people hate them. In fact, he is so into his job that it's worn away at his sanity and job performance, and he got demoted this afternoon back down to my level - and I am 12 years younger.

A lot of these corporate women on maternity leave are not in a position that some 23 year old has the experience to fill... they may be in their late 20's, 30's, even 40's. And anyone with commensurate experience to fill their position is very likely to have the "work isn't everything" attitude, if not husbands, children, and other responsibilites (aging parents, etc) of their own.

[lawya girl]

[QUOTE=GetMeOuttaDC]Um, I was not advocating Marx. QUOTE]

CK seems to be taking the position that anyone who suggests that the employees' well-being should be even the tiniest consideration is a follower of Marxist principles.

[Crimson King II]

I'm tracking down the statistics, but most Americans DO work for small businesses. Over a majority work for businesses of less than 100 employees. Outsourcing is a political myth that has NOT outpaced new job creation. When I find it, I'll post a link.




SBA Stats (http://www.sba.gov/aboutsba/sbastats.html )


50.1 percent of the private workforce
majority of old and young workers
99.7 % of all employers

[lawya girl]

And you're right, you can develop a solution that works.......for the pregnant women. But again, employers employ to earn money....more money makes them more solvent and allows them to hire more jobs, which pays everyone's bills and raises your children and keeps your taxes and interest low. With 50% of the workforce being women, there's huge potential for doubling your costs, with a reduction of profits long term.

Read your Friedman.

No, real solutions would work for everyone. The most successful businesses are those that have dedicated and creative people and I can guarantee you that a business that doesn't give a flying crap about its employees is not going to retain those people. Sure, it may attract the workhorses who give 145% but those people burn out and crash eventually. Talent is not synonymous with workaholism. A business that is profitable now would be even more profitable were it to find a way to get and keep these people. I know that I have the potential to bring in lots of clients to my firm but if my firm doesn't work with me, I won't work with it. I am not one of those people who is going to bust my ass non-stop at the expense of my personal life but in the end, I would, if given the chance, bring in more money and business than those fools ever could. Quality people don't just stand around and take whatever crap their employers dish out. They leave, start their own businesses and compete. And hopefully, they remember what they were taught be working at a place that values quantity over quality.

[pisces2473]

You preach it too, Lawya!

[Crimson King II]

Yeah...they leave, start their own businesses and compete....until some government mandate comes along requiring them to effectively double the pay of their workforce, cut their profit in half, and wither on the vine. Then, their workforce and the employer find themselves out of a job, and the unemployment rate increases and prices increase.

[Crimson King II]

You can Preach It All you want. It's Economically Unviable.

[pisces2473]

CK, shut it.

[lawya girl]

Yeah...they leave, start their own businesses and compete....until some government mandate comes along requiring them to effectively double the pay of their workforce, cut their profit in half, and wither on the vine. Then, their workforce and the employer find themselves out of a job, and the unemployment rate increases and prices increase.

Let me repeat this, one more time, to see if I can't get you to read it this time:

I NEVER SAID "GOVERMENT MANDATE"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Does everyone ELSE understand what I was saying?

Do you really have to make my words out to be something that they are emphatically NOT in order to make a good argument??????????????????

[Crimson King II]

Fine. There's nothing stopping you from reaching those deals with any of your employers today. Good luck with that.

[cornflakegirl]

PREACH IT SISTER!!!!!!

The only stay at home moms I know of live in the south and midwest. And they are all of the "we love Jesus, we home school, I do everything my husband says because he is the king" camp. I belong to a PCOS message board and ALL the sahm are like that.


i know alot of stay-at-home moms, but they are of a different demographic - upper class women whose husbands make enough that they have the luxury of staying home (all in ohio and the bay area). they are on equal grounds as their husbands & are not jesus freaks.

i think it is sad that women have to hide their pregnancies from their workplace. a coworker of mine hid her pg when she was hired, but because i work in such a woman friendly environment she was not penalized when she made it known. currently, we have 1 pg woman & another just got back from maternity leave today. it is nice to know that i ever decide to stay at my job that i won't be a bad situation like a lot of women.

[lawya girl]

Fine. There's nothing stopping you from reaching those deals with any of your employers today. Good luck with that.

Sigh... Can someone else take over?

[WeirdBrake]

CK, you're now arguing with Jen, Kelly, Liz, and Lawya Girl. Two words: STRATEGIC RETREAT!!!

[heatherf]

I thought it was "Strategery Retreat"?? :eek:

[Crimson King II]

I KNOW it Brake! It takes 4 or 5 these days to keep up with me!

J/K you guys.

Strategically retreating. This discussion is veritably boring anyway...

[lawya girl]

This discussion is veritably boring anyway...

Right. Because it's not about you or something that will affect you so it's BORING. Nice...

[pisces2473]

That, and he doesn't care. Great.

[Crimson King II]

Yeah...change in employment laws never affect employment lawyers.

It's boring simply because it's boring.

[Crimson King II]

Oh good, here comes the "we care and you don't" brigade.

[WeirdBrake]

CK.... you missed the "retreat" part of "strategic retreat." :googly:

[lawya girl]

Yeah...change in employment laws never affect employment lawyers.

It's boring simply because it's boring.


It's not boring to women who have to deal with this very real issue every day. If you don't care because you only care about issues directly affecting you - fine, but don't categorically dismiss an important topic as "boring." I find your attitude boring because it's so frickin' predictable.

[Crimson King II]

I never "categorically dismissed it." I recognize it's important. But I also recognize there are real issues related to the other side of the coin too. I simply happen to find it dull when there are bigger and more pertinent issues out there.

[pisces2473]

Bigger and more pertinent to whom? You have your issues and we have ours. And someday you're gonna have a woman working for you and you're gonna go through this same shit.

[lawya girl]

I never "categorically dismissed it." I recognize it's important. But I also recognize there are real issues related to the other side of the coin too. I simply happen to find it dull when there are bigger and more pertinent issues out there.

I don't think there really are for lots of women. And if it affected YOUR career, I'm sure it would become suddenly much more "pertinent."

[lawya girl]

Bigger and more pertinent to whom? You have your issues and we have ours. And someday you're gonna have a woman working for you and you're gonna go through this same shit.

Actually, I think he'll be working for a woman.... I hope.

[Crimson King II]

Actually national security is the new women's issue of our time. Excess pregnancy leave is down on the list. It's very 1997.

[WeirdBrake]

Bigger and more pertinent to whom? You have your issues and we have ours. And someday you're gonna have a woman working for you and you're gonna go through this same shit.

Either that, or he'll be the one working for a woman.

CK.... know when to hold em, know when to fold em. Ummmmmkay?

[pisces2473]

Actually national security is the new women's issue of our time. Excess pregnancy leave is down on the list. It's very 1997.
You know what, CK? That's enough. You're being a real pigheaded misogynist right now.

[WeirdBrake]

LOL- Lawya! You must have posted that as I was writing! GMTA!

[cornflakegirl]

Right. Because it's not about you or something that will affect you so it's BORING. Nice...

you're right. it is not about him & it is not about any other man; however, the men are the ones making the rules & screwing over women, because of their need to overwork every individual for the corporate machine.

thess men need to remember that they & the ones before them are screwing over their mothers, wives, daughters & sisters. by messing with pregnant women's jobs, maternity leave etc., they are screwing over the partners, usually men, whose are burdened with being the sole provider.

[pisces2473]

Yeah, and women give birth to little baby boys who might want to be lawyers some day and be CK's junior partner.

[Crimson King II]

I'm not. Chris Matthews said the SAME thing during the election year. Women who have largely been concerned with so-called "women's issues" pushed them down the list in favor of security. This year's soccer moms became "security moms." My contention is that that is a far bigger issue.

[lawya girl]

Actually national security is the new women's issue of our time. Excess pregnancy leave is down on the list. It's very 1997.

Spare us the Republican propaganda. I suppose "W" stands for women too? Right.....

You know, I'm actually a moderate democrat but you make me WANT to become a socialist.

Just because some in the Republican party are trying to convince women that "national security" is the most important women's issue doesn't make it so. We have our own set of issues, as much as you hate it, and this is one of them. Don't tell us what our concerns are.

[cornflakegirl]

Actually national security is the new women's issue of our time. Excess pregnancy leave is down on the list. It's very 1997.

except more college educated, upper/middle class women are opting to stay home nowadays so, no, it is not like so 1997.

[GetMeOuttaDC]

a coworker of mine hid her pg when she was hired, but because i work in such a woman friendly environment she was not penalized when she made it known.

hehe, if I worked at an abortion clinic, I'd hide it too! :)

[pisces2473]

CK, that is even MORE misogynist! Saying that ALL women want the same things and have the same issues?? Where do you get off!?!??!

[cornflakegirl]

hehe, if I worked at an abortion clinic, I'd hide it too! :)

since i started working there, we've had 2 pregnant employees. people just try to hide it during the interview process.

[Crimson King II]

I'm not telling you what your concerns are...I'm simply reading the polls. Security has become a huge issue among women. Sorry if you disagree. I don't know if W stands for women or not, but it seems like women have taken a powerful position consistently within this administration unlike any other...so if the question is who trusts women and will empower them....Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton don't win that battle.

[lawya girl]

Actually national security is the new women's issue of our time. Excess pregnancy leave is down on the list. It's very 1997.

And you're very 1953.

And by the way, I'm a lawyer too, CK. Do you think I don't know that changes in employment law affect employment lawyers? You knew exactly what I meant.

[Crimson King II]

It's not misogynist....it's what the polls said. The gender gap has closed and it has done so on the strength of security concerns.

[pisces2473]

hehe, if I worked at an abortion clinic, I'd hide it too! :)
Heeee, I'd be afraid they'd tie me down and make me have one for an in-office demonstration!

[pisces2473]

since i started working there, we've had 2 pregnant employees. people just try to hide it during the interview process.
Why? So they won't try to get a freebie? :p

[Crimson King II]

1953. Hmmmmmm....I'd like to think I'm more 1962. Or 1985. Or 2008. But '53 wasn't a bad year either.

[pisces2473]

The polls are not the end all be all for what the American people want.

[lawya girl]

I'm not telling you what your concerns are...I'm simply reading the polls. Security has become a huge issue among women. Sorry if you disagree. I don't know if W stands for women or not, but it seems like women have taken a powerful position consistently within this administration unlike any other...so if the question is who trusts women and will empower them....Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton don't win that battle.


Security is an issue to women just as it is an issue to men. It is NOT, however, the ONLY issue and does not supersede other issues. The republicans, who have not been supportive of traditional women's issues - have started a campaign to convince women that this is their new issue. I don't buy it.

[cornflakegirl]

i, personally, could care less about national security. what bs! i know that the issues that affect me & will affect me as a woman are more important than bush pulling the wool over our eyes.

of course, i'm just some crazy, liberal woman. thank god i work with similar minded woman :D

[pisces2473]

Seriously Liz, the chances of me needing any kind of reproductive health services are much higher than my security being at risk.

[lawya girl]

of course, i'm just some crazy, liberal woman. thank god i work with similar minded woman :D

Yeah - silly hormones! Luckily they'll get you out of the workplace during pregnancy when those things are really rampant! :rolleyes:

[Crimson King II]

First, you've got it backward...it's the administration trying to sell security to everyone, but it's the women who are hearing the message and demonstrating more concern for it than men. Second "traditional women's values?" Do the Dems really want to say they are the traditionalists? Please. Their very failure to do so cripples them and has put them in the wilderness, probably for an entire generation or two.

[cornflakegirl]

It's not misogynist....it's what the polls said. The gender gap has closed and it has done so on the strength of security concerns.


I don't think so. perhaps in the polling of couple hundred people in the midwest.

gender gap being closed. hmm, i wonder if a woman i met today at work believes this. she will never get promoted at her job bc she is a woman in a man's industry. no woman at her company has any chance of being promoted.

[lawya girl]

First, you've got it backward...it's the administration trying to sell security to everyone, but it's the women who are hearing the message and demonstrating more concern for it than men. Second "traditional women's values?" Do the Dems really want to say they are the traditionalists? Please. Their very failure to do so cripples them and has put them in the wilderness, probably for an entire generation or two.

Because women are the ones who feel they have primary responsibility for their children's safety - they probably do demonstrate more concern. But that doesn't make it THE issue.

And yes, I want to say that Democrats have been the voice for traditional women's values which are equal pay, reproductive freedom, etc. Silly of me to have assumed you would know what those are.

[cornflakegirl]

Heeee, I'd be afraid they'd tie me down and make me have one for an in-office demonstration!

you forget, i work with all women in power postitions. this would never happen under a woman.

[pisces2473]

Ahh right.

[Crimson King II]

First...all of these examples of "who at work believes what" are ridiculous. It's like when Howard Dean said "look at all these young people who are going to be energized and vote and let me win..." Well, they never turned up. My point is that all women don't work at your office cornflake. My point is that we can see in the polls why women voted how they did, and security closed the gender gap, not any other issue. Further, the gender gap is not the same as the glass ceiling, which is what you are talking about. The gender gap refers to the traditional gap that showed women voted for Dems at far greater rates than men, propping up the Dems base, not an inability to be promoted. Moreover, I didn't say it was THE issue...but the traditional issues didn't move the result, security did. In that respect it was determinative, and therefore it was THE story.

Secondly, the problem Dems have lawya is that they want to be the traditional issues party for everyone....but oops...those traditional issues are starting to collapse in conflict with each other and they're left pandering. Black voters are typically anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion (why? Most black voters are concentrated in the South and are evangelicals!). Women are pro-gay marriage/pro-abortion. Fine. Fall on that sword of traditional issues. We'll take the majority. THEN we'll put women in REAL positions of power, not patronize them by putting them in figurehead jobs and meaningless assignments.

[lawya girl]

Fall on that sword of traditional issues. We'll take the majority. THEN we'll put women in REAL positions of power, not patronize them by putting them in figurehead jobs and meaningless assignments.


Right - so long as they don't get pregnant.

[Crimson King II]

Um....no. Just ask Mary Matalin and Karen Hughes. Besides...there is NO chance of Barbara Boxer or Nancy Pelosi getting pregnant ANYTIME soon...so you guys can't be THAT worried about it either.

[heatherf]

Ck- I am whole heartedly disappointed in you. I just can't get over the fact that you continue to post in this thread. It's about PREGNANCY- one of the most feminine intimate journeys of life a woman can go through. Women are going to be VERY biased about this subject as a whole. Regardless if you are only trying to discuss the economics of pregnancy leave. You'll understand once Callie is pregnant that it's just sacred. Don't mess, even if it is about economics. Really, you should just let the women win on this one.

[Crimson King II]

Fine.

I'm going home for the weekend.

[heatherf]

You know I don't mean it to be mean- it's just pregnancy dude. We are women. It's a no win situation. I'm trying to help you out here. You'll find out from Callie soon enough I'm sure- in a good way. You will become so over protective overnight it'll blow you away. :0

[cornflakegirl]

Ck- I am whole heartedly disappointed in you. I just can't get over the fact that you continue to post in this thread. It's about PREGNANCY- one of the most feminine intimate journeys of life a woman can go through. Women are going to be VERY biased about this subject as a whole. Regardless if you are only trying to discuss the economics of pregnancy leave. You'll understand once Callie is pregnant that it's just sacred. Don't mess, even if it is about economics. Really, you should just let the women win on this one.

thank you, heather :)

[GetMeOuttaDC]

Um....no. Just ask Mary Matalin and Karen Hughes. Besides...there is NO chance of Barbara Boxer or Nancy Pelosi getting pregnant ANYTIME soon...


Yeah, but when they do... they'll change their tune real fast.

[pisces2473]

We can't win, ladies. Callie told CK awhile ago that she wasn't really into kids. So THEY don't have to worry about it. So, you see, CK still gets his way.

Unless...Callie gets "accidentally" pregnant.


Kelly--Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer are old enough to be grandmothers ;)

[cornflakegirl]

We can't win, ladies. Callie told CK awhile ago that she wasn't really into kids. So THEY don't have to worry about it. So, you see, CK still gets his way.

Unless...Callie gets "accidentally" pregnant.

)


as of now, yes. people change their minds though, especially as the get older & others around them have kids.

on the plus side, ck won't be passing down his beliefs. :razz: