Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Question of the day

Posted in:

Illinois

* The setup…

Legislation sponsored by Sen. Terry Link, a Waukegan Democrat, would make it a civil rights violation for an employer to refuse to hire, promote or renew employment based on pregnancy [or childbirth]. The employer would not be allowed to segregate, punish or discharge an employee on that basis either.

The Illinois Senate approved the legislation last week, and it now moves to the House.

Link said he heard about multiple cases of discrimination toward women who were entering or coming back from maternity leave, and he wanted to strengthen the state law to federal standards. […]

Sen. Chris Lauzen, an Aurora Republican, said he fully supports women’s rights, but Link’s proposal opens too many possibilities for false claims of discrimination. Lauzen said an employer who chooses a more qualified candidate over a less qualified pregnant woman could be unfairly sued under Link’s proposal.

“When I hear pieces of legislation like this, I put myself back in the desk in my office interviewing people,” Lauzen said. “And I say I am sure, I’m positive, I would not offer a job under these circumstances because I will not take the risk of someone suing me.”

The bill is here.

* The Question: Should pregnant women be made a protected class in employment? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please. Thanks.

Online Surveys & Market Research

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Apr 5, 11 @ 1:04 pm

Comments

Is it at all clear that this isn’t already covered by existing Federal and state law? Isn’t this just a press release bill?

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Apr 5, 11 @ 1:14 pm
I say yes, but I thought they already were. I thought that since you can’t discriminate based on gender, and only women can be pregnant, that this would suffice. I’m no legal expert, however, so maybe I’m missing something.

Comment by Small Town Liberal Tuesday, Apr 5, 11 @ 1:16 pm
Yes, to be honest, I assumed the federales had this covered already. It’s a pretty nasty thing to do, I hope it doesn’t happen too often. I mean, we all had mothers once, didn’t we?

Having said that, I worked for a guy years ago who once told me after a few cocktails that he wouldn’t hire newly married young women on the assumption that they would soon get pregnant. He didn’t want the hit to his health plan and the cost of a temp worker during maternity leave.

Yeah, he was that kind of boss. On 9/11, he told everyone they had to remain at work (30th floor in the Loop) even after it became clear what was going on. We all went home and got out kids out of school, anyway.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Apr 5, 11 @ 1:19 pm
I thought they were already protected.

Comment by Cheryl44 Tuesday, Apr 5, 11 @ 1:28 pm
Discrimination against women going on or returning from pregnancy leave is a major complaint of the sex discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart and is the target of new accusations being made against Bayer:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11094/1136209-499.stm

Comment by Emanuel Collective Tuesday, Apr 5, 11 @ 1:28 pm
I’d be interested in knowing from any employment lawyers whether this isn’t already covered. If it’s not, that’s stunning.

Comment by Coach Tuesday, Apr 5, 11 @ 1:28 pm
Good to see the real problems are all solved so the GA can get back to the Gotcha Votes.

Comment by Red Fred Tuesday, Apr 5, 11 @ 1:42 pm
looks like the wing nuts are flexing again on the poll results…very sad

Comment by CircularFiringSquad Tuesday, Apr 5, 11 @ 1:46 pm
You can’t ask someone if they are pregnant. What if you can’t tell or don’t know. I think the federal laws adequately cover discrimination.

Comment by blogman Tuesday, Apr 5, 11 @ 1:52 pm
This practice is currently prohibited under federal law but not state law. The feds are not as quick to prosecute these cases as some would like them to be.

This bill basically gives the Attorney General enforcement powers. If the bill passes, the AG’s office can look into such complaints and her office will probably focus more on pregnancy discrimination than the feds.

Comment by Da Bus Tuesday, Apr 5, 11 @ 1:52 pm
- If they want to work, then dont get pregnant. It’s that simple. And if it were a mistake, there is 3 months to take care of the problem. -

This has to be snark, right? There’s no way you’re seriously suggesting women should have to choose between their job and having children.

Comment by Small Town Liberal Tuesday, Apr 5, 11 @ 2:00 pm
Wow “matty” that’s harsh. Yes, women who are pregnant deserve to be protected from people who share matty’s views. If men could get pregnant we would have 6 months paid maternity leave.

Comment by Bonsaso Tuesday, Apr 5, 11 @ 2:01 pm
Matty, half of all pregnancies in the US are unplanned. And I guess someone really needs to point out the obvious to you that getting pregnant (or rather engaging in activities which cause pregnancy) are NOT always a choice.

Comment by danny Tuesday, Apr 5, 11 @ 2:05 pm
- NOT always a choice. -

Aside from this, it shouldn’t have to be a choice. This is 2011, women have the right to have careers and have children.

Comment by Small Town Liberal Tuesday, Apr 5, 11 @ 2:11 pm
no, my comments were not intended to be snarky. Upon reading the post, that was my very first reaction. This democrat stands by his previous comments

Comment by matty Tuesday, Apr 5, 11 @ 2:18 pm
as a woman with two small children(and many friends with young children) I know from first hand experience that women are STILL being pushed from work when they inform their employers of pregnancy. you can file an EEOC claim, but at that point you can kiss your job goodbye anyway. maybe if there was a law very explicitly on the books it would make employers think twice. particularly employers with not a lot of people watching how they treat their employees, i.e. legislators…

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Apr 5, 11 @ 2:24 pm
Matty,

I’m frankly surprised that Miller has allowed your ignorant self to remain standing in this comment section. He must be taking an afternoon nap or getting his boat ready for the big first launch of the year.

Comment by Coach Tuesday, Apr 5, 11 @ 2:25 pm
Am I missing something here. The poll shows the “No’s” are leading yet the comments are clearly overwhelmingly on the “Yes” side.

Yes, they should be protected for all the reasons stated above. If women lost their jobs when they took a maternity leave their positions would gracually revert to men who wouldn’t be leaving. That would be clearly gender bias.

It would be an interesting study to watch those who say that they should not be able to leave to have children and then come back, that it should be kids or a job. In today’s economy that group would probably not prosper or they would not procreate. A couple of generations down the road they would be extinct.

Comment by Irish Tuesday, Apr 5, 11 @ 2:26 pm
Irish,

I’m guessing that many of the “no” votes are from folks who believe pregnant women to be already protected under the law and who therefore believe another law is unnecessary. Then again, that may be wishful thinking on my part - perhaps we’ve all stepped into Matty’s time-warp and jumped back 40 or 50 years.

Comment by Coach Tuesday, Apr 5, 11 @ 2:31 pm
Interesting that there are 9 votes from outside the state on this poll, 8 of which are “No”. I’m glad the employment rights of the pregnant women of Illinois are such a nationwide issue!

Comment by Emanuel Collective Tuesday, Apr 5, 11 @ 2:32 pm
While federal law addresses the issue, record shows that enforcement is week. Further state enforcement is needed to step into the gap and provide support for women and children–especially in these economic times when jobs are tough to find.

Comment by D.P. Gumby Tuesday, Apr 5, 11 @ 2:34 pm
Emanual Collective - 2:32pm Those are Wisconsin Republican Senators - lol

Comment by Irish Tuesday, Apr 5, 11 @ 2:42 pm
You had me until segregated. There are some jobs and situations (not many) where it might not make sense from a safety perspective to have pregnant women do.

For example dealing with lead, cat fecal matter or some jobs involving radiation it might make sense to keep those who are pregnant out of those roles temporarily.

Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Apr 5, 11 @ 2:44 pm
Discrimination against mothers in the workplace is very real, and sometimes the boss thinks he’s doing the mother a favor. “You know, she has kids, she doesn’t want all the extra work that would come with a promotion!” Whereas, for fathers, the thought is different. “He has kids, so he’ll need to work hard and make money, so let’s give him the promotion!”

Comment by lakeview Tuesday, Apr 5, 11 @ 3:05 pm
Duplicating the federal law in Illinois law is what’s being proposed, right? Then our own attorney general can enforce it. Aren’t most of the people who are opposing it the same people who want local control?

And OneMan, don’t you hope that jobs dealing with lead, cat fecal matter and radiation have excellent protections for everyone? Then if a pregnant woman is so desperate for work that she has to try for one of those, she, too, will be protected.

Comment by been there Tuesday, Apr 5, 11 @ 3:10 pm
I don’t favor increased protections above those they already have under the law. As Lauzen pointed out it is just too easy to abuse. I once fired a girl for not showing up (among other things) and, since she was pregnant at the time, she put in a claim on me saying she had been fired because she was pregnant. She was a terrible employee, but from the state’s perspective she was a fired pregnant woman until/unless I could prove otherwise. How much worse would that be under even more protections?

I shouldn’t have to worry about hiring or firing based on whether someone is pregnant or not…just whether they are a good employee. As more and more restrictions and controls are placed on the businesses of Illinois, why are we even wondering why places are leaving? The business turnover rate in my town is pretty bad right now. Unless there has been some sudden spike or discovery of pregnancy being abused? If not, it is not the time to invent scenarios where savior legislators can save the day.

At what point to entrepreneurs become a protected status?

Comment by Liandro Tuesday, Apr 5, 11 @ 3:17 pm
Liandro, if you aren’t creating a paper/electronic trial with multiple write ups/warnings, anyone can sue you for wrongful termination. I fired a woman within months of returning from maternity leave but I had the emails/memos to show her lawyer if it got that far.

I also fired a guy on Christmas Eve one. Man, I’m mean.

Comment by Cheryl44 Tuesday, Apr 5, 11 @ 3:51 pm
So, what’s the “pro-life” stance here?

Comment by Boone Logan Square Tuesday, Apr 5, 11 @ 3:51 pm
Trail, not trial.

Comment by Cheryl44 Tuesday, Apr 5, 11 @ 3:52 pm
~So, what’s the “pro-life” stance here?~

That women are only fit for staying barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen.

Comment by Cheryl44 Tuesday, Apr 5, 11 @ 3:55 pm
It’s instructive that the self-proclaimed prolife party cast all the NO votes on protecting pregnant women from discrimination.

Comment by reformer Tuesday, Apr 5, 11 @ 3:57 pm
I voted yes, perhaps in sympathy with my 25 year old married daughter who I hope will make me a grandfather in three or four years. But she intends to teach, and this is disruptive to the class of students - to have one or more subs for months at a time following birth.

Comment by Capitol View Tuesday, Apr 5, 11 @ 3:58 pm
Yes, I agree the state needs this law. I’ve heard of women in lower paying jobs that were dumped when they became pregnant.

Comment by Wensicia Tuesday, Apr 5, 11 @ 4:12 pm
I can see where certain employers might believe pregnant women aren’t the best choice for particular jobs. Like this industry for example:

http://www.redeyechicago.com/sports/redeye-ladies-strut-their-stuff-at-lingerie-football-league-tryouts-20110404,0,1491520.photogallery

I voted yes on the question, but I’d hope Senator Link would consider some obvious cases where pregnant women might need to stay on the sidelines. (all in good snark)

Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Apr 5, 11 @ 4:30 pm
Word,

Regarding your ex-boss, his view regarding young married women is probably held by a lot of business owners. Think about it, suppose you had two female candidates both of equal talent, but one was middle-aged (probably not going to have any more children) and a newly married women, the business owner would have to break the law and consider the pregnancy aspect. After all, by making pregnant women a protected class, the law essentially shifts some of the costs associated with children and child birth onto the employer (i.e., hiring temp. workers, reduced productivity, increased health care costs, etc.).

Is this illegal? Yes. Is this a jerk move? Yes. However,the employer, especially the small business owner, does have to hit a bottom line to support his own family. Thus, the real reason the business lobby does not really want to make pregnant women a protected class is because there is an actual expense associated with a pregnant employee unlike when a business hires a minority or a gay. Hiring a minority does not ussually cost a company money, but hiring a pregnant women normally does.

Still, discussing economic issues involving pregnant woment is squimish and politically sensitive. Thus, most people will just say “no” to the question and not give a reason as to their vote or will hide behind the “too much regulation argument.” Further, if you say no to this poll question, some here will accuse you of being anti-woman. That may be why the “no” vote is winning the poll but the “yes” voters are dominating the comments.

Comment by Cuban Pilot Tuesday, Apr 5, 11 @ 4:45 pm
CB, the wealthiest, freest societies on the planet Earth are those that are the most advanced on the emancipation of women and children.

The most backward societies on the planet are those that work to keep their women down and their kids out of school and working for chi-chi beans.

Just like the South couldn’t be integrated into the advanced Northern economy until they got rid of Old Jim Crow, the same principle applies here.

Working women having babies is a blessing for society that should not only be protected, but celebrated from the highest mountain.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Apr 5, 11 @ 5:00 pm
Bless you, wordslinger!

And Gentlemen, Now that we have books and shoes and polyester, we want equal opportunity in the workplace. It was inevitable.

Comment by been there Tuesday, Apr 5, 11 @ 5:14 pm
–Word said, “the wealthiest, freest societies on the planet Earth are those that are the most advanced on the emancipation of women and children.” - -

I don’t disagree with that. But the issue before us is whether Pregnant women should be protected for employment purposes? I don’t know what I believe and most people struggle with it as well in regards to women, work, society, gender roles, etc. That is why it is such a great poll questions. However, the problem still is that on this issue you are a shifting part of the cost of child birth onto a business owner. Why isn’t it legitimate to question why business must shoulder this cost in pursuit of a social policy? Then, if someone does quesiton this issue, they get accused of not wanting women to be free. That is why people don’t want to explain their “no” answer. Also, this is why middle of the road politicians (i.e., the ones whose votes matter on issues like this) dont like touching this issue, it is almost a third rail. Instead of discussing this issue calmly, emotions get all out of whack and then nothing happens.

Moreover, I guess from a practical standpoint, this is all moot. Cheryl showed us how to fire an employee regardless of reason (just leave a good paper trail of negative work results). Since discrimination is tough to prove, issues like this are more symbolic question. On that end, I get your position.

Regarding that Jim Crowe argument, I disagree with the analogy on an economic level. I don’t think we could compare protecting Pregnant women with blacks. If I don’t hire the most qualified candidate because he is black, my business suffers because my product is worse because I didn’t hire the best worker (i.e., it actually costs the business to not hire the minority who would be more productive). However, not hiring a pregnant women potentially (and, again I say potentially) could be a cost decision. So, on that end, I don’t agree with the analogy.

Comment by Cuban Pilot Tuesday, Apr 5, 11 @ 5:33 pm
Also, I have a theory about the timing of Link’s press release. Once April hits, most business owners and conservatives get all worked up because in two short weeks they have to write a big check out to Uncle Sam and the Cousin Pat. Unless, of coarse you are State Senator lucky enough to accelerate your depreciation schedule under the evil stiumulus package. So, knowing this, Liberals bring up unlikely to pass proposals like this one in order to further agitate the business lobby and conservatives. Well played.

Comment by Cuban Pilot Tuesday, Apr 5, 11 @ 6:05 pm
Yes, because there are never too many regulations on private businesses’ hiring practices, even when unemployment is in double-digits.

Comment by Paul, Just This Guy, You Know? Tuesday, Apr 5, 11 @ 6:12 pm
Oh, I did Cheryl, she didn’t win. Ironically the girl who replaced her was already pregnant herself, which kind of contradicts the other girls argument. I do agree with what CP said in regards to shifting costs to the employer…how far are we going to take “protections”? Some companies have paid maternity leave, paid free days, designated breastfeeding rooms, child care options, and large enough workforces that they can switch people in and out easily. However, a small business gets hit hard by things like that. How much is to be expected of business owners vs. how much is the woman (or stay at home dad sometimes) expected to sacrifice when they have kids?

I have no problem with giving my employees unpaid maternity leave, or hiring them back if they want. I have no problem finding replacements for things like doctors appointments, sick kids, etc (and I’ve done it many times). But how much is the state going to mandate? I don’t like this road…there are broad protections already in place, and legislators should have a better reason than desperately wanting to look “pro-woman” before dumping more requirements and, potentially, costs on business owners.

Comment by Liandro Tuesday, Apr 5, 11 @ 6:39 pm
Boy am I going to be unpopular here again.

No.
Unless that is, they do not include pregnancy as an existing condition, and the company insurance policy does not have to cover it. Promotions, or renewing employment should not be affected by pregnancy, but for an unemployed woman to go look for a job now that she found out she is pregnant, and be covered by the health insurance of the new employer is not only unfair to the employer, but also to all the employees on that plan. Contrary to popular belief, insurance payouts are not free money, they are funded by the premiums that the people covered by the policy pay in. When the time comes to renew the policy, the amount that the employees contribute will be raised, kept the same, or (in theory at least) lowered, based on the money paid in versus the money paid out. This law will possibly result in the rates of the women and men who have paid in for years, to be raised substantially in order to cover the costs of the few women who jumped on board after becoming pregnant. This affects all of the employees as well as the employer.

Comment by SO IL M Tuesday, Apr 5, 11 @ 6:55 pm
My guess is that Terry Link has never had a real job.

Maternity leave is one of the most abused benefits around. Women, expecially Gen X and younger, feel entitled to string things out, make a decision to continue or not at their leisure. Businesses, especially manufacturing businesses who have to have a certain number of staff at all times, can’t operate with that kind of uncertaintly. This goes through the House (as it probably will with trial lawyer support), count on continued decline in manufacturing jobs. But hey, they can control the remap so who cares, right?

Comment by Park Tuesday, Apr 5, 11 @ 7:04 pm
CB, if we’re talking business, pro-creation is humanity’s cost of doing business. Women are the key component. And as more than half of humanity, and for literally carrying that load, their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are precious.

Believe me, I understand the costs of health care and maternity leave to good small business owners. But I think the solution, at this point, is to level the field and make sure that all pregnant women can get the same protections and benefits everywhere.

By the way, if anyone thought we were done with the costs of health care as a society after the Tea Party hysteria over the rather bland “Obamacare,” disabuse yourself of that notion.

We’re getting older, we’re living longer, there are more of us, and science is making everything more expensive all the time.

To pay for that, as a start, we might have to let those heroin dealers in Afghanistan give up our $10 billion a month protection.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Apr 5, 11 @ 7:18 pm
Tell it to Obama Word…didn’t he beat Hillary in part by being more anti-war then her? I’m all for drawing down our at least some of our military spending in Afghanistan (and surrounding countries), Iraq, Libya, Korea, Italy, Germany, Japan, and on and on. Not to mention our “foreign aid” on top of all that. I feel like I’m getting off-topic…

Comment by Liandro Tuesday, Apr 5, 11 @ 7:35 pm
Liandro, I got you off topic. My apologies. But defense, and health care (which I don’t have a clue about what to do) is where the real money is.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Apr 5, 11 @ 7:48 pm
Park, I worked with 2 women, they were close friends. Both became pregnant within a few months of each other. Both had the same doctor. Both were ordered to go on bed rest. Both cam eback for less than a week after they had their baby and quit. Both, I assume, kept the money they got while on maternity leave.

This is another bone to the trial lawyers. How does one prove why they did or did not hire someone? How mch will they have to spend to fight charges that may or may not be frivellous?

Comment by Wumpus Tuesday, Apr 5, 11 @ 7:50 pm
==To pay for that, as a start, we might have to let those heroin dealers in Afghanistan give up our $10 billion a month protection.==

Quote of the day.

Comment by Wensicia Tuesday, Apr 5, 11 @ 8:12 pm