Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 23, 2007 13:43:24 GMT -4
I saw your point, but chose to address the larger issue - that I don't think any economic reason is appropriate for aborting.
I think that if your employer fires you for getting pregnant that it's a good time to use whatever charity your family, church, and government are willing to provide, and that after the child is delivered you should find a different and more compassionate employer.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Dec 23, 2007 18:56:07 GMT -4
I think that if your employer fires you for getting pregnant that it's a good time to use a lawyer to sue them so hard that it'll pay for the kid's college education, and the lawyer's kid's one.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 23, 2007 20:47:48 GMT -4
I think that if your employer fires you for getting pregnant that it's a good time to use a lawyer to sue them so hard that it'll pay for the kid's college education, and the lawyer's kid's one. That too.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 24, 2007 2:37:28 GMT -4
I think that if your employer fires you for getting pregnant that it's a good time to use a lawyer to sue them so hard that it'll pay for the kid's college education, and the lawyer's kid's one. In Washington State, you can be fired without cause. In other words, good luck proving to a preponderance of evidence (the standard in civil cases) that it was due to pregnancy.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Dec 24, 2007 14:57:05 GMT -4
I think that if your employer fires you for getting pregnant that it's a good time to use a lawyer to sue them so hard that it'll pay for the kid's college education, and the lawyer's kid's one. In Washington State, you can be fired without cause. In other words, good luck proving to a preponderance of evidence (the standard in civil cases) that it was due to pregnancy. Same in Texas, we have employment at will here. However employment also can come under Federal laws for most poeple. I believe that pregnancy is protected.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Dec 24, 2007 15:35:54 GMT -4
In Canada, pregnancy leave is 12 months, which can be split between the wife and husband. I've rarely seen the husband use it though, twice I think. Pay is 55% of your regular pay - up to a point. I don't know what the maximum is. hey, why am I doing this on Christmas eve? Finished work at 10 this morning. Just have to clean house and myself up till my wife gets off work at 3:30. Then its off to my Mom's (who used to be my sister!) Tomorrow we go back for Christmas dinner, and then head over to my brother's place for his annual Christmas get-together. I'm glad I don't have to go out of town. Merry Christmas all.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 24, 2007 15:53:41 GMT -4
Merry Christmas.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 24, 2007 16:35:39 GMT -4
Same in Texas, we have employment at will here. However employment also can come under Federal laws for most poeple. I believe that pregnancy is protected. Yes. But you need to provide evidence that you were really fired for pregnancy, surely; a mere allegation shouldn't be enough.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Dec 25, 2007 3:21:03 GMT -4
Dang your employment laws suck, we have paid maternity leave and you can't be fired without a cause. In most cases the employer has to have given written warning, though in cases of serious misconduct they can dismiss immediately. They have to give a reason though and they can be done for wrongful dismissal if they can't prove they were correct in the firing.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Dec 25, 2007 10:22:30 GMT -4
Federal employment law requires unpaid maternity and paternity leave. That law covers most companies but very small businesses are exempt. In practice employment at will does not result in much arbitrary firing, because finding and training employees is expensive. It is also a bad business practice, but that wouldn't stop a some employers. It is far better to get a current employee trained properly than start over. Again though, if you have a small company using low skilled labor, you can pretty much fire at will with little consequence.
There are a number of other employee actions that are protected, such as labor union activity, but as gillianren points out, it is a matter of proof. Most people would need an advocate to support suit and in some cases the government will serve as advocate.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Dec 26, 2007 8:39:50 GMT -4
A lot of minimum wage employers just don't pay very close attention to the law when it comes to the treatment of their employees. I think they often do it because they know their employees won't usually do much more than whine about it.
Well, that's your stance and you are entitled to it. But to someone else, serious financial or economic problems might just be enough. It doesn't have to be the only reason either; it may instead just be a part of the mother's overall decision.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 26, 2007 13:00:39 GMT -4
A lot of minimum wage employers just don't pay very close attention to the law when it comes to the treatment of their employees. I think they often do it because they know their employees won't usually do much more than whine about it. I generally agree. Someone who works for fast food or retail is probably not going to sue their employer, and the issue is getting real evidence that they were terminated because of pregnancy and not something else. Well, again I have to ask, what is the moral difference between aborting a child in the womb for economic reasons and killing a child out of the womb for economic reasons?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Dec 26, 2007 13:25:28 GMT -4
Abstinence education is not responsible for the above statistic. Sex education is responsible. Abstinence education is very much a fantasy.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 26, 2007 13:34:15 GMT -4
So sex education that doesn't necessarily include abstinence will cause more teens to pracitce abstinence, but sex education that emphasizes abstinence won't have the same effect? Is that what you're trying to say?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Dec 26, 2007 13:39:19 GMT -4
I'm saying what is supported by research. Education that centers on abstinence, takes a "let's pretend" view of sex and does not include actual details about sex is a miserable failure. That many teenagers given true sex education then abstain from sex does not in any way support abstinence education.
|
|