Should bosses be allowed to fire pregnant women? Should mothers be entitled to paid maternity leave?

When studying law, I came across a case where a woman was fired on the basis of pregnancy, although her boss argued that for the sake of smooth operation of the company, this was justified. Out of the whole class, only I said that this was a perfectly good reason for fire her. I’m a pragmatist.





In Australia, there is currently a hot debate about whether mothers should be entitled to paid maternity leave. I think no. Basically, it was her choice to become a full time mother and I don’t think that the company should have to pay, unless they wish to as a token of gratitude for her service.





I’m probably committing answer suicide here, but the reason I’m asking is because I want other opinions. Criticize me or comment – I have to know where I’m wrong in order to know why I’m wrong.

Should bosses be allowed to fire pregnant women? Should mothers be entitled to paid maternity leave?
You're not committing suicide as far as I'm concerned. We've becomed conditioned to exalting the feminist ideal of "choice" to the point that those unwilling to subsidize it are marginalized.
Reply:"Options without responsibility".





You are not wrong (except cases like this under a socialist government). When employees performance and/or ability drops due to a choice by the employee that has nothing to do with their employment, they should not be rewarded at their employer's expense.





As always, this whole premise is based on that of wanting society to finance the choices of individuals.





If anyone is incapable of performing their job there are options that are available and should always be the company's options, not the employee's:





Sick leave (depending on company policy).


Leave of absence (unpaid).


Termination (with or without severance depending on company policy).


Reclassification to a duty that the employee can satisfactorily perform with adjustments to pay as required.





Try the mental exercise of replacing "pregnancy" with "drug addiction" and see if the same applies. After all, both are choices of the employee that adversely affect the employee's ability and dependability. Neither will benefit the company. I'm not saying that pregnancy is like drug addiction in reality but from an employer's point of view, they are not so different.
Reply:The employee's focus will clearly shift from her duties to the company to her duties of motherhood in these cases.





The company will experience this as a loss in performance, and has the right to terminate the employee.





The baby will experience this as a gain, however. And that's a very good thing!
Reply:It is illegal to fire a pregnant women in America just because she's pregnant. This is based, in part, on pregnancy being a perceived disability, which it is not. What's wrong about firing one person because it negates a smooth operation of the company is that what if her pregnancy came about because of something she had no control of like rape? Does she deserve to lose her job just because of that? No, she doesn't.





Also in America, she has a right to unpaid leave after she has the baby. If she decides to come back to work, then she has a right to go back to the same job.





EDIT: Employers should not fire pregnant women just because they're pregnant because you don't fire the man when his wife gets pregnant. Only she can get pregnant, and shouldn't be penalized for this.





However, I don't agree with paid maternity leave, either. To do so would be to pay her for taking time off, and pay a temporary worker for replacing her while she's gone. The average employer cannot afford to pay two people for the same job, one working at it, and one at home.
Reply:Nah bosses should just hire robots instead of people. According to your "pragmatism" companies and humans are incompatible.
Reply:I have two reasons for supporting some protections for pregnant women in principle (specific policies open to further discussion).





First, it is generally undesirable for children to grow up in poverty .


Second, it is generally undesirable that women have abortions. (No, I am not saying ban it. I am saying that it's not something we went to push women into.)





That said, because I do recognize the legitimacy of the points you're making, I would not oppose a company's having the right to make a condition of the employment contract, upfront, that the employee not become pregnant for the period of employment.





Having this spelled out explicitly allows people to plan accordingly.
Reply:Hmm...not sure if this is on topic, but I think if a woman should be given paid time off work (without using vacation) so should the father of the child. People are pushing to make fathers more involved in child rearing but do not push to give him the same benefits. When my ex was pregnant with my son I asked my employer for time off around his birth. I was told I would have to burn vacation time.





In an attempt to get more on topic of your question, I do think there are too many exceptions being given to pregnant women or nursing mothers. I saw a brief piece on a morning news show where a nursing mother is suing to get exceptions for her MD exams. She says she requires extra break time to express milk. My thought, wait to take your exams when the baby is off breast milk. The last I check, med school is two years long. You should have made yourself aware of the requirements at the beginning. You chose to engage in actions that caused your pregnancy. Now you have to wait until such a time you can fulfill the requirements of your medical exam.
Reply:just because a woman is pregnant does not mean she is entitled to a job, BUT an employer should not fire an employee for being pregnant or health problems related to the pregnancy. If a woman has been employed long enough (usually 3-6 months) then yes she should have paid maternity leave of at least two weeks.
Reply:you are right....Its wasnt the company that got her in that condition so, why should the company pay........good luck
Reply:Yes women need maternity leave. They cannot fire women. Its very cruel... Atleast they can transfer her or ask her to join post the delivery. But firing is hard and sad.
Reply:I think you should try not to look at it on a modern females can choose when and what they want and plan and all that, and think of it on a more human basis. When women get pregnant they can work up until a certain point but, once the reach the point where it can kill them or there baby just for being over stressed or on there feet to long.. The shouldn't be punished because god, or germs or a ooze pit that all man spawned from made it so women are the ones who carry theses children. Even i dont want kids right now and probably would ask for an abortion if i culd get one from the girl,but i dont want her or my child to die because of work. There not going to be gone forever, and its not like she is going to be a diff. person afterwards, i think they should atleast be able to take a leave and come back even if they dont get full pay.
Reply:1st question: No. You can also receive a leave for tending to a sick family member, for being sick, and so on.... there are certain things that should be allowed for the betterment of the community as a whole(and that's to not put a lot of women out of work, and to allow them to reproduce---a disruption in either of these would hurt our economy and community as a whole).





2nd question: No. To not work and still get paid for it... this would encourage women to get very high paying jobs, and then get pregnant every 10 months so they never have to work their entire lives, and still get paid. Absolutely silly idea. Also, this is complete inequality.





--- Compromising solution: Set up government sponsored savings programs for women to save for the months that she is out of work. Of course, the details would need to be fair, but still.
Reply:Yeah this is a touchy subject...where I live in BC, canada the government not your employer pays you a year's maternity leave, it's basically unemployment insurance for a new mom. I don't think the company should have to pay for you becoming a mom, it has nothing to do with them other than you work for them. The government itself in the other countries that do not have paid leave need to step in and create a paid leave. Women should not be punished for having babies, what do you think would happen if no had any more babies, there would be a huge shortage in the years to come to fill positions as the working class got older and those would be babies grow up to adult hood to join the working class. A new mother should not have to struggle to raise her family and have to rush back to work days or a couple weeks after giving birth. It puts a lot of pressure on a mom who wants to nurse to struggle to manage that and the cost of daycare keeps rising. What about bonding time and the post partum period, having to run back to work in such a short time I believe creates more stress on the new mom and can lead to higher cases of post partum depression and anxiety which puts more pressure on the healthcare systems.
Reply:Think logically. Actually, I was going to answer this thoroughly, but if you can't see why your position is problematic, I don't think anyone can help you. Good luck with your law career. I can see why people dislike lawyers.





Edit: Okay, I get hostile with this type of logic, so I apologize and will chill. Some people have said a few things that are great, and raised important issues. A country's priorities, and ultimate value, rests in how it treats its children/vulnerable. Countries like France, Sweden, Denmark, Norway are progressive because they take it for granted that women need time off after having children. The length of time given by both companies and government is incredible. People in these countries don't have to plan to have a baby over the weekend to be back at work on Monday.





Children and parents and happy families are created because the government sees the value in having a contented, healthy population. In the US, there is nothing but talk about family, yet everything that helps to create and sustain family units is undermined, unavailable, unattainable. There is no universal health care, there is no universal daycare, there is no collective voice telling the world that the country cares for its citizens of all ages, but especially children. They are the future.





So, I get irate because I don't think it should even be a question. Children should be everyone's first priority, and people should be willing to contribute to the future however we can. Yes, there are people who abuse the system, but why should all pay for the ill deeds of some? In Canada, in some workplaces, the government tops up what the company pays out in mat/pat leave (and since I work in post-secondary, I can tell you that every contract there stipulates both father and mother). I see no logical argument against providing paid paternity/maternity leave. Maybe these future kids will fix up some of the holes we put in the atmosphere.
Reply:to fire a woman because she is pregnant is not a good reason, although it can happen... i believe that she should be able to work up until maternity leave, and she shall be paid for it, unless she decides that she will become a full time mother..
Reply:I am currently pregnant and work full time and know many women that have been in the same situation...I would be upset if the company that I have been working hard for for 2 years dropped me just cause im pregnant..Pregnancy isnt a disability I can still perform my job duties the same. my being pregnant doesnt slow me down. I take better care of myself so i dont tire myself out and i dont get any special treatment... I am still the same employee..as for maternaty leave..I believe that if an employee is a true asset to their company they want to see them back after their leave they would pay her for her time gone but the truth is most people are replacable and companies dont want to take a loss i can see their logic on that so i think that is up to the company to decide.