Quote:
Originally Posted by Freebase Dali
You do realize that becoming pregnant is not a part of equal opportunity rights, right?
If an employer feels that you will, at some point, not be able to maintain contribution to his/her company, you are in completely legal grounds to be fired. Regardless of circumstance.
If you're LUCKY, you might keep the job.
Just because guys can't get pregnant doesn't mean it's unfair treatment. Businesses look out for their business. Maintaining a proper work force is part of their obligation to their own business. Just because you become pregnant does not mean they have to suffer for it.
Companies don't owe anything to their employees except pay and whatever else is in their agreement. Male OR female.
If you're making a case about the fact that males don't get fired for becoming pregnant and unable to work, then you're barking up the wrong tree.
|
Well I guess it depends on the kinda job. But for the most part I think you're right.
The only problem is, a lot of women are laid off for this reason without being told the real reason they were laid off.
It's not that I don't sympathize with these women and that they feel like they're being persecuted, but you gotta look at it from a business standpoint, if they're doing something that will interfere with their performance and I'm sure getting pregnant qualifies, that's a perfectly legit reason to fire them.
I know there's maternity leave, not a lot of companies are fond of it, and for good reason. I think it's quite sexist actually, if you want
equal rights for women, then perhaps you shouldn't imply that women have such special needs as to justify getting 50 weeks pay for missing work. Seriously that's a bunch of bullsh*t.
So yeah, I'm such a huge retard for thinking feminism is obsolete in America. And yet this is the big equality issue we are discussing?
It's not equality if you're giving women special pay for special needs. And yes, pregnant women DO have special needs, so we can't be truly equal can we?