Small business sued for abortion stance

[Formaldehyde]

The Pinellas County Sheriff's office requires all employees to be tobacco-free for a period of six months before hiring them. Are they also discriminating against their employees for medical reasons?

 

[Archbob]

Bet if we had a national health care system, we wouldnt have to worry about stuff like this.

Not really, if you read the case he offered to pay for the abortion, medical expenses, and even college bills. Even if you had socialized healthcare, she still can't come to work for a period of time. And not being able to come into work would fall into the category of "not being able to perform the job accurately".

Realistically private employers can fire you for any BS reason they make up.

 

[BvBPL]

Under current Texas law, the woman has no case. I disagree with it, but then I understand that Texas has idiotic laws anyway.

Yes she does. Being pregnant is an EEOC protected class.

The Pinellas County Sheriff's office requires all employees to be tobacco-free for a period of six months before hiring them. Are they also discriminating against their employees for medical reasons?

Whereas using tobacco is not.

Had she been fired because she was fat, or unattractive, or had a funny first name then there would be a relatively weak case for her to claim discrimination, but because she's pregnant (and because she was fired quite explicitly because she's preggers) she's got legs.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Employers have to give no reasons in the US for the most part, especially in right to work states. She is merely speculating as to why she was fired. Good luck trying to prove it in a court of law unless her employer is really stupid.

 

[innonimatu]

Or it will lead to woman returning to traditional model (man makes money, woman either does not work or take the jobs which compatible with pregnancy). The generous benefits to pregnant employee certainly works in socialist environment but it is hard to convince business especially small one they should share this attitude.

I was under the impression that the issue is more with caring for the child than with the time of the pregnancy itself. And if that is the case then a possible solution is to extend equally to father and mother the mandatory parental benefits at work. Some countries already to it.
Still doesn't solve the problem completely (single mothers, for example), but covers mots of the situations.

Yep, I know. Christians believe that "soul" enters fetus almost immediately, so it is considered as real kill. Though if to think about it - this soul will go to the paradise, so I do not really think here is any problem.

Nonono, no baptism, no paradise. They get to limbo for eternity. Or get the limbo. Or whatever.

 

[CKS]

At least, I guess I can understand that view. I'm not totally sure I understand it. I wouldn't really have a legal problem if a boss told a female employee to use contraception because she'd be fired if she had kids. I think I'd have a moral problem with it, but not really a legal problem, because carrying a child and being a mother would make her less of an asset to a business, at least theoretically.

Do you really believe that only non-parents should hold jobs? That it should be perfectly legal to fire employees because they become parents? Would you like to have no legal recourse when your employer fires you upon learning that your first child is on the way?

 

[bhsup]

Let's switch the target and see if anyone's mind is changed.

"Woman fired from small business because she refused to shoot a man in Reno and watch him die"

So then, is it okay to fire someone because they refuse to commit murder for you? No? Yeah, didn't think so.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Let's switch the target and see if anyone's mind is changed.

"Woman fired from small business because she refused to shoot a man in Reno and watch him die"

So then, is it okay to fire someone because they refuse to commit murder for you? No? Yeah, didn't think so.

Employer's rights.

/thread.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Do you really believe that only non-parents should hold jobs? That it should be perfectly legal to fire employees because they become parents? Would you like to have no legal recourse when your employer fires you upon learning that your first child is on the way?

I think if it would interfere with their ability to do the job it should be legal to fire them. If not, I guess not.

Let's switch the target and see if anyone's mind is changed.

"Woman fired from small business because she refused to shoot a man in Reno and watch him die"

So then, is it okay to fire someone because they refuse to commit murder for you? No? Yeah, didn't think so.

This

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

So then, is it okay to fire someone because they refuse to commit murder for you? No? Yeah, didn't think so.

No, but I'm pretty sure it's legal in right-to-work states.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Let's switch the target and see if anyone's mind is changed.

"Woman fired from small business because she refused to shoot a man in Reno and watch him die"

So then, is it okay to fire someone because they refuse to commit murder for you? No? Yeah, didn't think so.

The better question is: would you want to work for someone like that?

I wouldn't be fired, because I'd quit.

 

[GhostWriter16]

No, but I'm pretty sure it's legal in right-to-work states.

I'm amazed a state conservative enough to support pro-life policies would allow it.

Why is this called "Right to work"? What does "Right to work" have to do with this?

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

I'm amazed a state conservative enough to support pro-life policies would allow it.

Why is this called "Right to work"? What does "Right to work" have to do with this?

Propagandistic naming. Kind of like "pro-life", "pro-choice", "Obamacare", or "DREAM act". You want to call it whatever makes it sound good, or if you're against it, whatever makes it sound bad.

 

[Zack]

Why is this called "Right to work"? What does "Right to work" have to do with this?

Regulation of business is only something evil freedom-hating liberals do.

 

[Cutlass]

The better question is: would you want to work for someone like that?

I wouldn't be fired, because I'd quit.

At 8% unemployment and no welfare eligibility.....

 

[BvBPL]

Why is this called "Right to work"? What does "Right to work" have to do with this?

Unions.

The application of the term "right to work" for a system of laws that actually makes it easier for companies to terminate workers is one of the most brazen forms of doublespeak in American politics.

 

[bhsup]

Basically, Ghosty, a right-to-work state is one that does not force you join some pinko organization just for the priviledge of working someplace. A non-right-to-work State will force you to join said organization.

 

[JollyRoger]

Not necessarily. Some states give you greater protections from firing than "right to work" states even if you do not counter collective capital with collective labor.

 

[squadbroken]

Basically, Ghosty, a right-to-work state is one that does not force you join some pinko organization just for the priviledge of working someplace. A non-right-to-work State will force you to join said organization.

Said pinko organizations being created to fight the very sort of employee abuse detailed in the OP.

 

[Cutlass]

Basically, Ghosty, a right-to-work state is one that does not force you join some pinko organization just for the priviledge of working someplace. A non-right-to-work State will force you to join said organization.

So everyone makes less money, the American dream is strangled to death, and the Chicoms take over the world....