Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

mikekohr

(2,312 posts)
19. Perhaps this deserves another thread, but this is a great article on topic
Sat Dec 6, 2014, 10:53 AM
Dec 2014

-clip-
The U.S. Supreme Court is grappling with how employers should treat pregnant workers like Peggy Young, who sued UPS after the parcel company forced her to take unpaid leave rather than accommodate a doctor’s recommendation that Young lift no more than 20 pounds.

It’s a question many other countries settled long ago.

Take Germany. And a law called “Mutterschutz Gesetz,” or “The Maternity Protection Act.”

It works like this: As soon as a woman discovers she’s pregnant, she tells her employer. The employer automatically modifies the workers’ job duties so she can continue to work without harming herself or her pregnancy. Women in physical jobs may be transferred to desk jobs for the during of their pregnancies, for instance, or prohibited from lifting heavy loads.
-end of clip-


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/local/wp/2014/12/05/whats-fair-treatment-for-pregnant-workers-the-u-s-isnt-sure-other-countries-are/?tid=sm_fb

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

This is a tough one NV Whino Nov 2014 #1
non-sense, there are plenty of jobs at UPS that doesn't involve lifting heavy weight itsrobert Nov 2014 #2
Of occur se there are jobs like that NV Whino Nov 2014 #3
You may want to reread the article as it clearly states they have provided light duty cstanleytech Nov 2014 #4
Thanks. NV Whino Nov 2014 #5
I worked at UPS for 17 years, 12 in management mikekohr Nov 2014 #6
Ease up there Mike, I wasnt defending them for this. cstanleytech Nov 2014 #8
Actually I was, kinda. mikekohr Nov 2014 #10
Upon Further Review I ammend My Position mikekohr Dec 2014 #13
Being injured isn't a choice though Snow Leopard Dec 2014 #17
UPS has already began modifying their policy on pregnancy mikekohr Dec 2014 #18
She delivered envelopes and light parcels and only occasionally had packages tammywammy Dec 2014 #14
Another opportunity for the Scalia 5 Kelvin Mace Nov 2014 #7
Yeah, want to bet what the decision on this will be? Hugin Nov 2014 #11
I prefer the term "Fascist Five" it has a nice ring to it. nt okaawhatever Dec 2014 #15
True, Kelvin Mace Dec 2014 #16
The key words are "reasonable accommodation" and that it's intuitive that a company with the size 24601 Nov 2014 #9
With this "Corporations are people too" SCOTUS INdemo Nov 2014 #12
Perhaps this deserves another thread, but this is a great article on topic mikekohr Dec 2014 #19
When you consider that a pharmacist can refuse to give a customer crim son Dec 2014 #20
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»EX-UPS driver's pregnancy...»Reply #19