If the fear that you might be sued is so great?

I mean that is ass backward logic if I ever heard it. I've had other lawyers in the private sector tell me that they won't even hire a married woman of a certain age b/c they "might" want to have kids, and they need "total dedication" to the job. The one even admitted to asking a female applicant if the ring she was wearing was "a wedding band or a fashion band" (which is kind of funny in a stupid sort of way) Now, law is a notoriously dick-ish profession, but seriously, if that is not text book gender discrimination I don't know what is! Ludicrous!

That's all I have to say.

I'm not surprised that hack John Stossel would be promoting her.

The fact that she's pregnant tells me that she's too young to remember the days when women had few rights in the workplace. If she thinks businesses are concerned about losing business because they discriminate against anyone then she needs to pick up a history book or two. The reason why we have regulations in the first place is because of the history of abuse by businesses against their employees. Expecting CEOs to put compassion over profit is naive and foolish.

"If Congress thought the Pregnancy Discrimination Act would end discrimination, it was wrong. In recent years, complaints have steadily gone up."

Wait a second. The law has failed because complaints have gone up since it was enacted? Isn't this the expected, indeed desired, result of a law which codifies illegal activity?

Exactly! I remember those days only too well. One child was born before there were any protections, one just after. Not that it made any difference; after #2 they were supposed to give me back either my job or an 'equivalent position'. In a large corporation of 2,000+ turns out there just were not any - although they were advertising in the paper (that's how long ago this was) for all kinds of jobs that seemed pretty 'equivalent' to me.

Of course, the bottom line was that they would have had to pay me at higher salary I was earning and they preferred to hire someone with less experience for less money. No lawyer wanted to take my case because there was no case law or precedent.

I don't know whether to be happy or sad that women today don't remember how it used to be.

"If an employer is going to discriminate against enough people, it's going to be bad for them in the long run. It's a bad business practice, and that's the best way to prevent discrimination," she says.

________________________________

This is a straightforward reworking of the puerile argument used by Stossel and other "free market", anti-regulation pundits.

You know, the one that claims that the Free Market contains its own effective feedback loops making government-regulated consumer protection not only unnecessary but harmful.

Because it's in the manufacturer's own self-interest to manufacture safe, quality products. Otherwise, consumers won't purchase products, and (even without regulation) will bankrupt the company with lawsuits!

So laws aren't needed to reduce the chances of buying a car with an exploding gas tank, or toys coated in lead paint, or dog food and baby formula packed with toxic melamine!

Going back a bit further, it's also the argument used by anti-abolitionists disputing that slaves are subject to abuse. No way! Obviously the Master is already as committed as possible to treating his or her slaves well! After all, they're an investment-- and what good would slaves be if they were starved and beaten and raped and treated like animals?

This is just more of the same nonsense about capitalism being self-correcting. The Stossels of the world can always find tools to suit their nefarious purposes.

I agree that laws outlawing pregnancy discrimination were a good thing. I however have problems with the ways in which it has been implemented -- it seems to me we are doing some reverse discrimination. As a childless woman, I have been asked to do things women with children weren't asked to do in my office, such as mandatory weekend overtime and evening overtime (salaried so it was unpaid and no comp time). I'm the one who got stuck covering when women with children had child care troubles and was late or missing work; I'm the one who picked up the slack when women were out on maternity leave. Because I didn't have children, my off-work time was seen as less valuable to me. The men in the office weren't asked to do this; mothers weren't asked cover for one another. Only those of us women with no children were asked.

And missing time for your children didn't count against you in the performance evaluation. So I had to do all my work and theirs and got the same rating as the women who were missing work for their children. I came into work sick (and against doctor's advice) because I didn't want to get docked for "abusing the sick time policy" but this wasn't an issue if you had kids. So I was discriminated against because I didn't have kids.

I am really familiar with the kinds of theoretical discussions of the negative impact of rules around discrimination on the basis of pregnancy. These were the kinds of discussions we were having in Ontario oh about 20 to 25 years ago, when we ended this sort of discrimination.

Women (and pregnant women) still ended up getting hired. Maybe these conservative types might look at the empirical evidence elsewhere before they make these absolutely absurd claims.

Cheers

Andrew

News flash - unemployment is over 8%. There are plenty of non-breeders who can do that pregnant woman's job without all the time off and attendant baby drama.

Also, as a non-breeding woman, I feel like any potential employer is going to look me over b/c I "might" get pregnant.

but no I don't.

but I do in a way.

but not in THAT way.

this works though, as long as you do not figure out how it hurts you.

but OK, I can see now how I need to help change the law again because of the unintended consequences of the prior law.

but men suck, so there should not be a similar law for them.

and oh yeah, I reserve the right to eviscerate and destroy you because of the way you looked at me that one time.

and I am a victim.

and the definer of life and death.

please make more laws for me, and only me (meaning me, because I am a woman) and all women for that matter.

oh, and, one more time: men really DO suck.

and I get to reserve MY right to treat others like crap despite just telling you to outlaw such behavior in others.

because I am special.

and make sure to spell my name right even though I just made up the spelling one night on a whim.

`

`

`

`

I can always count on Broadsheet to be my comics page...