Our assistant manager is due any day now and it's wreaking havoc on the work schedule, e.g., false labor and inability to perform job meaning someone else has to work her hours at a moment's notice, etc. District manager says local manager should plan better. Should pregnant women be required to undergo induced labor to facilitate a smooth transition into maternity leave? Or should pregnant women be required to take maternity leave prior to due date? Or what?

"District manager says local manager should plan better. Should pregnant women be required to undergo induced labor to facilitate a smooth transition into maternity leave? "

You've got to be kidding. Why don't we just tell the women they can't work unless they promise not to get pregnant. And once they do get pregnant, make them stay home for the entire 9 months - that way no one will have to worry about her not feeling well, having to go to the doctor, or the baby dropping from her uterus in the middle of a business meeting.

Oh, and while we're at it, let's fire anyone with any kind of medical condition, so that the co-workers don't have to cover for them, either. I hope your district manager never has children, or is wise enough to plan her pregnancy & delivery date (as long as the baby does not end up premature, and she doesn't go into labor weeks before the due date or the scheduled c-section).

As Lady Macbeth said:
Do not stand upon the
order of your leaving,
just get the heck out of
here! (thanks RBG)

Good god, this is why we need laws for this sort of thing, to protect workers from people like your District Manager. However, just to be absolutely fair, it may be he was referring to your office not coming up with a plan to deal with the situation, rather than being caught by surprise every time an employee is not able to be at their desk every moment of the day. Are you the one who thought up the idea that women should mess with their pregnancy just to help a business run more smoothly, or was that your District Manager?

I hope you all are able to schedule your sick days for the year as well - please tell everyone which days you'll have a cold and be out this coming winter. Otherwise it could wreak havoc on the work schedule.

First, let mme explain that I work in a predominantly female workplace (in the medical field). Setting up a date to induce pregnancy electively for convenience is the most bizarre thing I've heard of. The best course, when medically feasible is to wait for spontaneous labor to begin. In most cases, nature knows the best time for birth to occur.
The frustrating part of this in the workplace is that many women perceive pregancy as pathology -- not the healthy miracle it is. The majority of women in my workplace feel that it is justifiable reason to expect accommodation far above and beyond what the ADA requires, or they have back discomfort, frequency, etc., all the early symptoms of pregnancy thus rendering them unable to work in thier perception. When the doctor proclaims that they are able, the next step is to communicate with the employer and assert that if their baby is harmed, the employer is liable. Not too many employers are going to take that risk despite the inanity of it. The woman, in her third month requests twelve weeks family and medical leave. This takes her into her 6th month of pregnancy. By now whe has exhausted any benefit time she may have had. That leaves three more months and at least six weeks postnatally before she can return to work. She is angry at the employer because her pay is cut off. Next, she applies for unemployment but is unsuccessful with that because she must be ready, able and available to go to work. She accuses the system of being "out to get" her.
The few who have worked througout their pregnancy and set a date to go on maternal leave have made out fine. I worked in surgery until three days before I delivered. It wasn't always easy or comfortable and there was a lot of physical activity associated with the job.
In the end, if the latter stage of pregnancy is so debilitating that the woman has to take a lot of time off, can't (or won't) perform most of the duties in her job description, and consistently disadvantages her department and/or co-workers who have to pick up the slack, she doesn't belong in the work force.
I'm sure my depiction has made the impression that I'm an ogre but I have been the victim in the workplace in covering poor or no job performance and excessive absenteism. If the person, can not do the job with reasonable accommodation, they are a liability to their place of employment and their co-workers. Few of us would continue to pay someone for a job they aren't doing.

I had two babies, and both births were induced for "the sake of convenience". The first so that the obstetrician could leave on schedule for his vacation, and the second because I lived so far from the hospital and was so close to delivering that on my last appointment at the OB's office, the doctor thought it best to go ahead and have the baby then. I don't think it's such a novel approach to childbirth, but admittedly it is not the "ideal" delivery procedure.

This is a 5 member office consisting of the manager, the assistant manager, one full time employee and two part time employees. The DM will not allow anyone to work overtime; I put in time today to relieve our pregnant assistant manager - for nothing, no compensation whatsoever - to help take some of the stress off the manager. I don't think this is a very good solution. PS...one of the part time employees is also pregnant, due in a couple of months.

I understand the problem, and I probably didn't focus enough on what you were saying. You make a good point - it is a real problem to have someone unexpectedly absent repeatedly. I think it was one of the solutions you suggested (inducing labor) that got my hairs up. I think in your case, the woman should simply go on PAID maternity leave, with a temp hired to fill in, and let the woman handle her pregnancy at home. Maternity leave is about being able to take time off from work if you need/want it. It sounds like this woman needs to take time off, as long as it doesn't cause her financial hardship.

My wife is 4 months pregnant right now. Some days she feels fine. Other days she is barely able to get up. She is trying to finish up a master's degree at the same time and it is a challenge. She commented the other day, "How do women keep working all day every day when they feel like this?" I would hate the answer to be "Because they have to."

I read your question to my pregnant wife, and she was sympathetic to both sides of the issue. But what intrigued her was that out of five people in an office, three of them are managers.

I was okay until we got to the part of paid maternity leave. There are women who work in my service related organization. They missed one period, took an EPT, immediately ran to the doctor or clinic and wer "out" for the eight and a half months til they delivered and another six weeks post partum. You're saying that I need to pay them AND hire a temp--in effect, pay two people to do one job for the better part of a year? How long do you think a business could survive with that kind of practice, particularly in a female dominated environment?

To soften a bit, those who work a minimum of 30 hours a week (not the company's policy, th insurance company's policy) are provided at no cost to them, short and long term disability coverage. Short term lasts 15 weeks, and long term covers for the duration -- if that means til you're ready for Medicare, so be it. The company I work for is not required to provide this coverage, they choose to do so because they realize that there can be devastating illnesses or accidents that require long term medical management and absence from work. THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE A NORMAL PREGNANCY WITHOUT COMPLICATIONS. Pregancies with pathology are covered.
It is difficult to deal with this subject on an objective basis and I'm sure I sound somewhat harsh and judgmental. That isn't my norm but the frustration of dealing with these issues repeatedly causes a somewhat distorted outlook.

[This message was edited by Galatea on 04-16-01 at 06:08 PM.]

No, no, I completely agree. I sure as heck wasn�t suggesting a paid maternity leave for the full nine months of pregnancy! I was thinking about the woman in question, who seemed to be darn close to her delivery time. (If she is having false labor then I hope she is in her 8th or 9th month.) I was suggesting she not work up until her due date, but instead take a few weeks off starting now. I also figured that would be a period of time covered under a normal pregnancy leave. If she needs more time it becomes a disability. I have to admit that I am unfamiliar with the current rules and regs governing maternity leave. I imagine it is different state to state and company to company. I agree, you could never run a business with everyone getting a full 9 months paid maternity leave! Or even 3 months, for that matter. And I also thought maternity leave was something different from disability. Man, if I�m about to go through this I better get myself educated.

You make an excellent point, Galatea, about the potential for abuse. To the original question of whether maternity leave should be planned in advance, I would say no. But at some point everyone may need to admit it�s time to stop working and take leave � either maternity or disability. Thanks for putting things in perspective, Galatea.

5 member office: one manager, one assistant manager (pregnant), one full-time employee, two part-time employees (one pregnant); District Manager (DM) oversees about a dozen such offices. We're all still waiting for the lady-in-waiting, still volunteering time to cover her responsibilities but not as much as before.

On top of sick pay and long and short term disability, many businesses (especially larger organizations) offer paid or un-paid "family leave" (gotta be gender equivalent) for men and women to take extended time for births, adoptions, and parental -care. With my pregnancies (2) I worked as long as possible, and then took my time off (actually, left each job because I wanted a few years with each infant). Were there days when I was tired from working - yes. Were there days when doctor appointments and/or medical/physical complications caused me to stay out - yes. Luckily I worked for understanding employers, and DID NOT abuse the situation. I don't think anyone would suggest an 8-1/2 month maternity leave, unless it was medically necessary, and then disability would cover the employee.

I still disagree about scheduling normal births for convenience, (of course, if you know you have to have a c-section, then you can work a schedule around that). Both times for me, it became medically necessary to induce labor - I would not want that to become the norm. It still involves medical intervention and introducing hormones into the system.

As Lady Macbeth said:
Do not stand upon the
order of your leaving,
just get the heck out of
here! (thanks RBG)

My last response was not meant to be testy -- I'm sure it could easily be perceived as such. It is such a tricky situation.
Rhon, you are correct. Family and Medical Leave consists of up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave per year for your own or a family member's serious health problems. This is for those who worked a minimum of 2000 hours in the previous year. An employer may elect but is not required to pay any unused sick, hol,iday, or vacation time when an employee is on FMLA. The documentation required (by the law) from the employee and physician(s) is voluminous. Many people will exercise this option only until their benefit time is exhausted. They don't want to take the time without pay, and many believe that the employer is required to pay them full pay and their insurance costs while on FMLA. It can be a real help but it is tremendously misunderstood by the work force in general.
Thanks for your patience and tolerance. I think this will be my last post on this topic!

This is quite a question, I think that women should leave prior to having the baby. This makes it easier on the mother to be. Then they do not have to think about work. They can concentrate on thier baby. Also it would avoid confusion if this was standard across the board.

Yeah it should be very much planned because this would be a leave for a long period, means if you are into a project and not completed with you work then you have got the responsibility to be handle who could take over the work, and you doesn't get hampered with you job.

ebinezer
SuperBabyGuide

Hell, don't you think the woman is under enough stress by doing her job and being pregnant. Let's not add anymore to her stress.

Pregnant women should be able to do their jobs, but their normal jobs and not an increase of work. I am not saying they can't handle the pressure, but why should they have too?

If a guy get's hurt and cannot return to work for days, weeks, and or even months then why don't they plan better days to get hurt????


"If you disagree with something I write, tell me so, argue with me, correct me - but don't tell me to shut up. That's not the American way." -Roger Ebert