I'm disgusted

[andrewducker]

If you are a woman, know one, or are related to one then you'll almost certainly be as sickened as I am by this article on discrimination against pregnant mothers.  But not terribly surprised by most of it.  The bit that gets to me is that an advisor to the government is saying it, and nobody is speaking out to contradict him...

Comments

[erindubitably.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure of the research - though I'm sure it exists - but it seems likely that if pregnancy *does* affect job performance, it's not going to affect every woman's performance in the same way. Discriminating on that basis means discriminating on assumptions that probably aren't true. Judging each case on an individual basis, where the actual employee's productivity and performance are evaluated? Seems okay to me. But saying it's the same across the board and not allowing a woman to prove that she is capable of the job? That should be forbidden.

[marrog.livejournal.com]

Aww, look at you, debating on Andy's journal! Socuuute. *Pets*

[erindubitably.livejournal.com]

Shuttup. This are serious thread. I are serious LJer.

[cairmen.livejournal.com]

That's true of almost anything. For example, if both Andrew Ducker and I go for a job requiring a programming language we don't know, this will affect us in different ways. We'll have different learning speeds and so on.

Nonetheless, it clearly may have an effect, and so employers should be able to consider it, along with mitigating and aggravating circumstances.

Just because something may affect people differently is no reason to exclude it from consideration.