The "Pregnant Workers Fairness Act” Will Hurt The Women It’s Supposed To Help.

A new law forces businesses with 15 employees or more to provide pregnant workers with special working conditions.
----
To get our new weekly video from Stossel TV, sign up here: www.johnstossel.com/#subscribe
----
Sounds great!
"These policies...are motivated by good intentions,” says Vanessa Brown Calder from the CATO Institute. "But that doesn't mean that the consequences of these policies will turn out well.”
No, it doesn’t.
Calder-who is pregnant-fears this new law will lead to fewer women being hired.
My new video explains.

[@MoistOwlettes]

I love how they avoided saying “pregnant women” and went with “pregnant workers” as if anything but women can be pregnant.

[@johnteets2921]

I think your question qualifies as "hate speech". Good luck.

[@ultimatespidybawlz2198]

@@johnteets2921hate speech by my definition is threatening someone with harm. Stating an actual scientific fact even if it hurts you’re feelings is not hate speech

[@kablah777]

Hate speech is different than speech that you hate, @@johnteets2921 .

[@ndkskwbbuekfbsgsuwkneje]

​@@johnteets2921no, no, no! NOT hate speech, TRUTH!! is very different! PREGNANT WOMEN, perfect speech😊

[@ndkskwbbuekfbsgsuwkneje]

Well said!🎉🎉🎉

[@neilreynolds3858]

No problem. The government will pass a law telling you how many pregnant "people" you have to have.

[@krdiaz8026]

"C'mon, Melissa, it's your turn to get pregnant or the company will get fined!"

[@Emppu_T.]

@@krdiaz8026 cmon leavet for jonathan instead

[@MichelleCWeber]

The government, at least the current one, doesn’t want pregnant women. They want to just pay for abortion and send you back to the mine.

[@ryancooper5647]

Soon they will have abortion quotas

[@ernsttrekiew198]

@@krdiaz8026 And of course, seeing as how this country is rapidly going down the toilet --- companies will soon be forced to hire "pregnant men". Don't be too quick to mock my comment. Just wait for it. Might be sooner than you think.

[@maccurtinequipmentservice8915]

“It’s not that politicians don’t learn. It’s that they’ve learned how much they can get away with, when they blame others.“ - Thomas Sowell.

[@christopherkidwell9817]

This but replace politicians with businesses and you have the truth here. Whenever the government or society in general tries to make businesses stop being shitty towards their employees those shitty businesses try to say "Well... we cannot SURVIVE without being shitty!" I say "If you cannot survive without being shitty towards your employees, your business should not exist in the first place!"

[@nenmaster5218]

Your comment is hilariousy if we take into consideration the massssssive amount of 'pretend-laws' rightwingers implement. I mean, even just the video 'GOP-led House embarasses-itself' by 'SMN' is listing THOUSANDDSSSS. Got the Spine to finish that video?

[@OctagonalSquare]

@@christopherkidwell9817both. The politicians know this will end poorly but still do it. They are not better than the businesses.

[@jamesvoicepro3345]

When I worked in China I had a student ask me, “what should I say at a job interview when they ask if I’m married?” Confused, I asked for an explanation and was told, “Chinese companies prefer to hire single women because they don’t want to pay for mandated maternity leave and lost productivity. So, if you say you are married in the interview, you are guaranteed to not be hired.” This law reminds me of that conversation.

[@askosefamerve]

It's so disgusting too. They want women to have babies, but they don't let them earn the money that is needed for babies. I really wonder how China will emerge from this fertility crisis.

[@myrtlealley]

I'm creating another taxpayer, you'll get paid in 20 years for 40 years.

[@boknow5506]

​@@anon1407they had the one child law of 1979 in China they since up it to three but what it did is not population but gender difference basically china is 85%men now and on 1.5 billion that's a big difference

[@markwoods1530]

in normal places its also illegal to ask if someone is married or is looking to have children

[@askosefamerve]

@@anon1407 And it's getting older. They aren't having children. UN estimates China will lose it's population starting with 2020s.

[@SolomonMagnus819]

As a pregnant man, I am outraged by this new law

[@joeortiz1395]

Fight for your rights, brother,. Sister?✌️😆

[@TheOrangeRoad]

I thought I was pregnant as well, but then I remembered I had 12 beers and 30 hot wings last night

[@raulthepig5821]

Sue for discrimination.

[@jenrey5135]

😂

[@jimturner4812]

🤣🤣

[@pauldarling330]

ADA did exactly what it was supposed to do. Make lawyers rich.

[@Dan16673]

Yup. And hanicapped folks are worse off

[@HollyMoore-wo2mh]

There was a comment I read where there is someone (a LAWYER) suing people in CA JUST for the ada act. He drives around cities to see what they have going and NEVER go in the front door - then start suing. THAT'S what the ada has done.

[@Dan16673]

@@HollyMoore-wo2mh thats quite popular actually. Very easy to find violations

[@vandersnickmcduffle7333]

@@HollyMoore-wo2mh This was in AZ. They tried to disbar the guy several times. Something like 1K lawsuits a month filed on average.

[@HollyMoore-wo2mh]

@@vandersnickmcduffle7333 There is more than one person then because this was in CA.

[@robertbarncord6341]

A few years ago here in Oregon, the idiots in charge passed a new law lowering the number of hours required to be considered a full time employee. They all clapped and patted themselves on the back saying how many people would now have access to the benefits of being a full time worker, of course, these idiots didn't realize that the companies that don't hire full time just reduced the hours of these workers to stay under the new requirements. So effectively all they actually accomplished was getting existing part time worker's hours cut. Ahh, the "genius" of Government...

[@aurograce2983]

Didn't something like that happen to Agriculture workers? They mandated that they pay overtime and ended up getting many worker's hours cut, resulting in even less pay for the people they were trying to help.

[@burgerousbabieous]

It’s the businesses we should be mad at

[@justthinkingaboutallofit]

​@@burgerousbabieousno. I started a business i created a good reputation all alone amd did good work working 7 days etc. Then with more customers that i can help alone I hire you. You did nothing amd learned what you did on the job with yet another person who created your job. A place for you to make a living. Or i teach you everything you. I have those as well. Apart from doing a good job or the bare minimum...that is another discussiom. Work ethic. With all the risk,miney,time i created that space. And then you cam work for me and you are supposed to make enough money through what i , not you, created to pay for yourself and make me some money. I do not do hierarchy etc. But i do not work for you. I worked mu als off to make something all done fornyou to come in and click your 9 to 5. And pay for your life. And i pau well anove average and am flexibele with hours and many extra's. I did not do all that to have it sued to bankrupcy. I only have a handfull of employees. If 2 stay home and i have to pay them 2 years,laws here, and still pay 2 new employees...that is not doable. 50 k salery means is near8ng 400k in revenue! A year to pay that! So no. It isbjustvthat simple. Risk assistent. Nothing to donwith emotion or caring when you make something a risk that could bankrun your company then only bad business owners. Dumb one. Or woke employees of big conoani3s implement that thing. Kust as logical as stolsel says. My wife is pregnant right now. And she works as well. Does not change anything. At last i will day that only bad workers need all this. If you are a good worker you stay employed amd are paid well. Which business owner would let you go. Therefore i pay the ones i have and are good well. Amd do extra's to show my appreciation. They help pay my way. Bit only with all the risk i took amd with my money amd life on the line. And my children deserve my money more then you and the government. I was poir and just worked 70 hoirs as an employee to save up money and did not take vacations etc. You have no right to meddle in what i created this much. Pregnant women should be told to think how they would act if it was their business. Not stay home just because they can. That mentaliteit we all see around us. Business owne5s also go to babyshowers amd birthdays and hear all that you know. With the first kid my wife worked untill she had to take leave. Government trying torso business is something they do not understand. If they foot the bill then comoani3s would be willing to be flexibele. How about they stip soending billions on ridiculous green project theatbimplode andnforeign aid and help pregnant people here like that

[@marigold3687]

Several years ago UPS went on strike for more money. The cut the part-time employees out.

[@msliz1029]

It’s soo funny how these idiots don’t realize companies hold the cards 😂. Gavin just passed $20/hr here in California. I laughed 😂. Guess what’s going to happen?😂 yep

[@JessG_20]

It's almost like juggling a full time job + pregnancy and caring for babies /small children is asking too much. Maybe because we aren't superhuman. Yay, I'm so glad feminism came along to "empower" us women to take on an unrealistically huge burden.

[@peopleofearth6250]

Work until you die. Problem solved. Men can no longer afford to take care of you because they now have to compete with you for your job. Thanks capitalism 😂

[@octopus4925]

Exactly lmao we need the family unit concept back. It would also drive down the workforce competition, making wages higher.

[@peopleofearth6250]

@@octopus4925 No. What we need to do is get rid of the wage system entirely. As long as people are being forced to compete with robots and each other for wages we'll never be able to earn enough money to live. Robots should be working for us. Not the other way around.

[@peopleofearth6250]

@@octopus4925 We need to make open source logistics a thing.

[@hatchettwit]

It's not even feminism at the core as a problem though. It's corporate greed to the point that even a non pregnant individual, even a man, is looked at like they should hold it until they get off work. How dare they have human needs, strengths and weaknesses, human conditions and illnesses, tire and require actual rest to continue functioning without burning out. Seriously. They don't care about burning people out. They will when there's not a population left to abuse any more, we're having significantly less children. We're also getting increasingly burnt out and fed up. The problem is also our government, which passes laws to aid companies in abusing the populace because at the end of the day it doesn't matter to them. They, the politician, is going to be taken care of. Their family is going to be not just fine, but comfortable. That's part of the problem with putting people in office that want power, much less leaving them there till they day they die. You really want to make it easier for that 14 man company? Me too. Throw every single one of these clowns out of office that won't start spending more time repealing the bull crap than passing new fat. In the end, the pregnancy act is a bandaid on larger problems. So start addressing the larger problems. Or come up with a better bandaid in the mean time, because nothing isn't cutting it. Damn country is a hair away from going to war with itself, a step away from literally purging the elites who hoard wealth. I'm conservative, I'm fine with capitalism and less fine with socialism. But at least the socialists are recognizing the underlying problems, looking for solutions, and even recognizing that ANY system can be flawed. That's the thing. Capitalists need to get that realization. Any system can suck if you let a small number of people get away with abusing it.

[@nickrexroth2785]

How to excel in US politics Step 1: Create a problem that doesn't exist or can't be solved by laws Step 2: Draw attention to problem with media assistance Step 3: Create a 3,150 page bill with tons of regulatory overreach and fund things totally unrelated to the problem and give it a cute name like "Save The Polar Bears Act" Step 4: Give Congress 12 hours to read it before they decide to vote Step 5: Vote for your party's side on the issue Step 6: Claim to be a hero while our debt increases and the problem gets bigger

[@kevin6293]

Step 7: Repeat

[@lucyk2371]

Wow the first one sounds incredibly Republican.....let's see make a law about drag shows during the day when no one has ever seen that occur. If you think the treatment of pregnant women isn't a problem, you are incredibly misinformed or willfully ignorant.

[@kevin6293]

@@lucyk2371 you don’t think there’s anything wrong with kids watching drag shows?

[@rogerbartlet5720]

The government will run out of money and taxpayers at some point.

[@nickrexroth2785]

@@lucyk2371 Please do not tell me you think this applies to one party. This is universal. I can give you a dozen examples both ways

[@SnakeHoundMachine]

the "Keep Women Out Of The Workplace Act"

[@flinch622]

You got it. Maternity leave at some point will no longer be a negotiated election of an employee but enforced in some company policy: automatic after x number of months. If the Chamber of [No] Commerce has to lobby for new law to shield employers from being sued under the last idiotic act of congress, then the cash will flow. DC is a clown car in that respect.

[@bikeradam]

I like the way you think! Let's make this happen!

[@jackdeniston59]

Nope, Make women get paid lots without earning it Act

[@dman7668]

​@@jackdeniston59that already happens in this economy lol.

[@TheRadioAteMyTV]

What is a woman?

[@michaelpfister1283]

People who push laws based on emotions are always surprised by the unintended consequences.

[@fordshojoe8080]

Yea and they cemsor stuff or make laws wanting the other side to go to jail not realizing eventually it will bite them them in the ass and will come for them

[@grondhero]

Remember, the politicians don't face any consequences for their actions.

[@raymondpetrovits2336]

Politicians churn out endless laws to make it look like they are actually doing something. We need less not more. Most laws are redundant.

[@pmc2999]

Yes they should be required to repeal 4 laws for every new law they pass!

[@rrmackay]

This bill is just a feel good distraction from WW3

[@the_platform]

Okay. Let's start a revolution. Here are the steps: Grievances and Discontent: Widespread dissatisfaction among a significant portion of the population due to political oppression, social inequality, economic hardships, or other grievances. A catalyst event or a series of events that amplify discontent, such as a government crackdown, a major crisis, or a blatant abuse of power. Ideological Framework: Development of a coherent ideology or set of beliefs that provides a vision for change and inspires people to take action. This may include ideas related to democracy, freedom, equality, or national self-determination. Leadership and Organization: Emerging leaders or charismatic figures who can articulate the grievances and inspire people to mobilize for change. The formation of underground or opposition groups, political parties, or revolutionary organizations to plan and coordinate activities. Mobilization and Protest: Mass mobilization through protests, demonstrations, strikes, or other forms of collective action. The use of propaganda, social media, and other communication tools to raise awareness and rally support for the cause. Escalation and Repression: Escalation of protests and resistance efforts, which may lead to confrontations with authorities. Government attempts to suppress the movement, often through the use of force, censorship, arrests, or propaganda. Foreign Support or Intervention: In some cases, revolutions may receive support from external actors, such as foreign governments or international organizations, which can significantly impact the outcome. Defection and Fragmentation: The defection of key figures or factions within the ruling regime or military to join the revolutionary cause can weaken the government's hold on power. The movement's ability to maintain unity and avoid internal divisions is critical. Escalation to Armed Conflict: In some cases, peaceful protests may escalate into armed conflict if the government responds with violence or if there is a significant armed component to the revolution from the beginning. Negotiations or Transition: If the revolutionary movement gains momentum and exerts significant pressure on the government, negotiations for political change or a transition of power may occur. Outcome and Consolidation: The revolution may lead to a change in government, a new constitution, or broader political and social reforms. The success of the revolution often depends on the ability of the movement to consolidate power, build institutions, and address the root causes of grievances.

[@matthewmechtly5026]

If only they were only "redundant" "Counterproductive" is a more accurate description.

[@TheRadioAteMyTV]

Redundant laws are annoying, it's the contradictory ones that cause havoc.

[@TheWizardGamez]

I always find it funny that politicians after a law fails think “why don’t we have MORE LAW” instead of cutting away at the tumors they birthed

[@jimwall2291]

Politicians don't care about the results of the laws. They just care about presenting the image that they care. This is because that's how they get elected and stay in office. I blame the voters.

[@Emppu_T.]

@@everyisnaadisfabricated3784 then we'll get an equality tax

[@gifthorse3675]

Land of ten billion laws and no way to follow them all

[@chrisdiboll2256]

This is why there’s a 14 step hiring process for every job now. They need to make sure everyone ‘fails’ on at least something as legal cover in case they need to hire based on illegal criteria.

[@georgechoquette5735]

Just TODAY, no kidding, I recommended a 28 year old woman to work in the shipping department of the company I work at. There are 4 men in shipping now. The manager refused to consider hiring a woman in case there could be future problems with HR, in case the guys would say offensive things. This girl I know can totally handle this kind of talk. But the manager doesn't want to take the risk and get in trouble with HR. There's another opportunity loss for woman workers.

[@johnames6430]

it's a smart move, the men just can't learn to keep quiet for some reason. Why is it so hard for them to behave?

[@vaizyh]

@@johnames6430 Are you even effing kidding? Our team is 7 men and 1 woman because "quotas". She keeps talking shit and making dirty jokes, then if a guy replies in kind HE is to blame? Im one of the youngest in the team (in my low 30s) and i know better to keep the F away, still she already complained to HR that i treat her "differently" and "im not friendly" because i wanna keep work stuff at work and funny stuff OUT of work. Thankfully HR was peaches and agreed with me that im not there to make friends, neither they are to force it, im there to do my job. Men are always painted as the devil. fml.

[@markwoods1530]

its illegal to discriminate in hiring on the basis of sex

[@licas3214]

​@@vaizyhLol men always painted as evil, it only recently men is painted as evil, since longgggg ago it's the opposite, have you heard about the witch hunt? Which hunt women because they're considered evil?? I never heard of the opposite in the past

[@killerhellhound]

@@licas3214 ?? The witch hunts targeted different people depending on witch people were doing the hunting. The church hunted heretics (They killed the least as they acctually cared about innocance most of the time) the Rulers hunted political rivals or people that were inconvient (like bankers that were asking for debts to be paid back), And lots of towns started their own hunts to target people they didnt like (someone who was an asshole or someone with wealth that could be taken when they were dead) Many men died to the witch hunts. For example The knights templar a large group of armed men that worked as bankers in addition to other jobs were accused of witchcraft by King Philip the second of France and brutally put to death with the king taking all their wealth

[@nothing4mepls973]

These laws aren't innocent and naive. It's infinitely easier for a massive corporation to comply with overregulation than it is for a small business. It's a way to keep us beholden to them and stamp out competition.

[@quest4adventure495]

Ding ding ding we have a winner 🎉!! You are 100% correct!

[@americansfirst1095]

Yep. Many regulations/requirements/laws are put in place with the help of corporations/big businesses to push/keep the little guy out of business.

[@Delimon007]

This is what it is for.

[@Stresslvls99]

Sound like a man who is suicidal. Don't worry, we'll put you on the finest suicide watch the Clintons have to offer.

[@nover0570]

It's pretty easy for a person to just be a decent fucking person. How in the hell did we get to a point where we want to villianize pregnant woman?

[@leipersgreen6763]

The government should STAY OUT OF IT!!

[@TheCreedBratton]

They should stay out of a lot of things

[@sbyrstall]

Easier said than done. 😢

[@Papadoc1000]

But then politicians would have less to pander to. Good luck with that idea.

[@danielrizzo4927]

This is not about educating politicians. This is about the belief that forced charity is right, but as normal as it appears to be, it is still not right.

[@cypresscustoms]

The rule of unintended consequences- should be the motto of the United States.

[@nenmaster5218]

Says a person who disagrees iwth any 'real actual issue' and instead is obsesssedddd iwth how evil objecivte reality regarding biology like Transgenders and Intersex people existing, isss.

[@allie8442]

Economics in One Lesson is GOAT of explaining this problem.

[@ianbelletti6241]

Even without the act the women could go to OSHA for the employer not making reasonable accomodations that are necessary to the pregnant woman. You cannot prohibit employees from going to the bathroom as needed. You cannot stop employees from drinking as much water as is needed. This law was unnecessary as it is written.

[@jjm152]

Well, you get a parking spot close to the building. That's great, huh?

[@ROGER2095]

Not just unnecessary, but where's the problem this is supposed to address? Is there a nationwide problem with pregnant women not being allowed to go to the bathroom? Is there a nationwide problem with pregnant women being unable to get in from the parking lot? The answer in no. This is just another politician trying to gain favor by bellowing about solving a problem that doesn't exist.

[@OldSaltyBear]

When my younger sister was pregnant and her boss tried that crap with her, her husband and I had a chat with him... and after just a few minutes, we were able to come to an understanding. He would stop harassing her trying to get her to quit... and in exchange he got continued use of his appendages. These days there are laws protecting people with medical conditions, both chronic and temporary, from @sshole employers... but lawyers are expensive and the law takes time. Thus my preference for a more expeditious approach using reason and compromise.

[@necksquad3222]

​@@ROGER2095A lot of women are discriminated against in the workplace just for being pregnant. There is a reason why our anti-discrimination laws were written in the first place. Edit: fixed typo

[@ianbelletti6241]

@@jjm152 not necessarily. I'm in construction and that means I have to deal with parking as it is. If a doctor says that she needs a close space at an office building for her health you better believe that OSHA is going to support that doctor's assessment. Refusing to allow employees to go to the bathroom as needed is a health and safety issue. Refusing to allow employees to drink enough fluids to remain hydrated is a health and safety issue. If a company prohibits or punishes you for using the restroom without proof that the use was unnecessary they are looking at major fines from OSHA. The fines typically start at $10,000 per incident. If you want to allow the company to self correct OSHA does allow you to ask questions which they will give you an answer in response. Once you obtain OSHA's answer you have to file a safety complaint with your company, usually through HR. Sometimes it's worth talking to your bosses about the issue and calling OSHA to come and do a courtesy inspection because they will be more lenient with issues if you're actively trying to identify issues and correct them.

[@remyruff]

Nowadays EVERY law passed is terrible policy. That's what happens when we elect career politicians into office.

[@jimbo9305]

Lawyers making laws. What could go wrong?

[@michaelpowell9164]

Nah, not career politicians. Delusional liberal democrats.

[@grantduke318]

It's almost as if they are intentionally trying to hurt people's pursuit of happiness.

[@mattiaslp9645]

you voted for them..

[@mattiaslp9645]

@@jimbo9305 become a lawyer and make your own laws. or sit there and complain like the typical american.

[@Junger2183]

Remember when the media just reported the news without adding "this is really good" or "this is really bad" lol me neither

[@user-yn3qp9zg7h]

The Government needs to get out of our a personal lives!

[@bbennett40]

The slippery slope of 'good intentions' leading us to a government meddling in every aspect of our lives.

[@SilverShoes174]

As a libertarian I wholeheartedly agree. Less government is good government. But tbh ...I have high functioning autism and the ADA law has been immensely helpful to me in school and elsewhere. It doesn't seem like a very strong argument to say that we shouldn't TRY to protect societies most vulnerable because of negative consequences that may or may not happen. Ya know?

[@fordshojoe8080]

​@@SilverShoes174I was told the other day on here that we should share our wealth with the population. Voluntarily or by force and people are ok with that. They are ok with being forced to give up the money they worked for. If they have the power to force us to do that what's to say they don't start forcing us to do other stuff? How about force us to think and vote a certain way ir we don't get to eat that week? They really want the gov to provide them a house, food, healthcare and money for cloths and stuff. To me that's a fucking nightmare who would be ok with being controlled like that? I really don't understand socialists/communists.

[@SilverShoes174]

@@fordshojoe8080 I absolutely agree, less government is good government. I understand your argument because history has proven that government's love to take what little power societies voluntarily grant them and run amok with corruptness. They are power hungry and ruthless. However, it is necessary for a civilized nation to offer basic, federally enforced protections to societies most vulnerable. I think any reasonable individual would agree it's in everyone's best interest to protect the rights and safety of children, widows and pregnant mothers, the elderly, and those with intellectual or physical disabilities. I agree though, socialism is just a front for making the wealthy filthy rich and making the rest of us into peasants. It's tricky business granting the government powers- but that's why we all must be well educated voters I suppose... Not that the popular vote even matters but that's a whole separate issue!

[@fordshojoe8080]

@SilverShoes174 your comment isn't showing up I'm guessing someone didn't like you talking about the gov that way lol. But yes I agree I'm not against disability,social security, health insurance for old people pregnant women or kids 21 and under. But forcing people to give up their personal property money and stuff with violence is just insane that anyone less of a millionaire would be ok with that. That's to much control and power imo.

[@frankbieser]

Politicians pass laws like this, not because they believe it will have long term and lasting positive effect. That's really not their concern. Their sole concern is reelection. And they will say and pass any feel good law that will serve that cause.

[@d4dr4g0n]

Exactly. They would never learn because they don’t care to learn. I don’t believe only stupidity is to blame but rather it’s simply easier to appeal to the activists and pull the heartstrings of their constituents.

[@frankbieser]

@@d4dr4g0n The problem is, it works. Politicians generally are not stupid or uneducated. They knowingly turn a blind eye to consequences because they know as long as they say and support the things they believe people want, no matter how flawed, it will get them reelected. And for them, that's all that matters. The problem are the uninformed voters who keep reelecting them despite all the failed policies they put in place. Most voters vote for whoever the guy is in their party. They rarely know what their candidate has actually done, or the outcome of policies they supported in the past.

[@davidtherwhanger6795]

Exactly. Politicians don't care if their actions literally end with every one dead, so long as it doesn't kill their chance at getting elected.

[@TheSpicyLeg]

They’re just responding to incentives. The USA is a highly feminized, decaying society. Things like bureaucracy and laws such as this are a result of meeting one of women’s core desires. Because women are physically inferior, they fear confrontation and competition, so they want massive bureaucracies and HR departments that curtail and minimize natural make aggression and competition. Thus, the “more fair” you constantly see. Men are naturally superior at competing, and women always seek to bind men to make it “more fair”. Of course, this can’t last. Men that have their wings clipped do not simply shrug and go on. They check out of the society… until they begin to despise it. You really don’t want a bunch of 18 to 40 men deciding to withdraw their protection.

[@stevenscott2136]

Don't forget the bribes. In this case, probably from lawyers who hope this will enable more lawsuits.

[@sandystanley1237]

I am from the government and here to help...

[@RocketmanRockyMatrix]

ADA also opened the doors for frivolous lawsuits against small businesses.

[@Papadoc1000]

And EXTENSIVE business infrastructure costs. I know numerous businesses that refused to do basic remodeling because of the percentage of business space loss to accommodate ADA requirements. Staying as they were, they were grandfathered in. Small hotels took out their pool rather than pay upwards of $10K for an ADA lift that never got used.

[@StepUPNJ]

When will the population learn that ANYTIME the government does anything the effects are more than likely disastrous?

[@jpennel25]

Based on the past 3 years. Never, not until the whole population is starving

[@vincenzodimeglio2975]

Never. They will never learn.

[@JessG_20]

They're in a trance

[@millennialodyssey5956]

Exactly. In fact it usually has nothing to do with what they saying it does. The government is anti family so I don't tend to believe anything they say concerning that topic.

[@BossItUp911]

when they open a business and have to deal with the issues

[@puddles609]

I've had 4 kids and am currently pregnant with my 5th. And I hold off as long as possible telling employees because I don't like being treated differently. People with good intentions, start telling you what you can and cannot do. So I could see this as an employers way of dictating what a pregnant women can and cannot do.

[@user-mv9tt4st9k]

When I was pregnant, I felt good enough (considering the pregnancy, ha ha) to work until the afternoon of the day before my son was born. I was given four weeks off under state guidelines, with an additional two weeks under Federal guidelines. What I was guaranteed was my position waiting for me and "disability benefits" related to the time I took off.

[@christopherkidwell9817]

Except that we have had pregnant FEMALES like you be pushed to the point where they have literally fainted on the shop floor or even... gasp... DIED! That is the reason for these laws and they in my opinion are quite necessary and if anything should be strengthened.

[@debby8428]

@@christopherkidwell9817 I worked in retail while pregnant with my first child who ended up being 9lbs 10 oz at birth. If at any time I didn't feel well or to tired I would leave or stay home. No job was that important to me that I would risk my life or my baby's life. I had my priorities straight. You have to be smart.

[@djnausea975]

A good employer already does these things. Keep the government out of it!

[@2ndAttemptPOG]

This is a nice reminder that when the Gov't says "I'm going to help you" YOU MUST RUN!!

[@derspeed5796]

Even pregnant men? That’s a thing now, right?

[@lazeppelin1]

Omg spot on. I never thought of that but I’m sure that’s the next BS that’ll come up next.

[@heidiw8406]

That's why it's "Pregnant WORKERS Fairness Act".

[@derspeed5796]

@@heidiw8406That’s what I was thinking.

[@christymartinez2078]

Should read "Pregnant Women", here comes the trans agenda, not good. God help us.

[@generalawareness101]

Yep, and time for some "men" to score big.@@heidiw8406

[@ashkoninsd]

So true. I work exclusively with business owners and witness this first hand. We talk about it openly, but behind closed doors.

[@AdamKlownzinger]

This bill is a consequence of America’s confusing queasiness at embracing a free market. We believe in Keynesian B.S. and government intervention enough to believe that we should put all these special protections into place for all these different categories of people, and yet we don’t believe in it enough to actually put teeth into it and enforce it through a tough socialist government. This means that we force businesses to put out all the stops for these different groups of people, making it harder for good businessmen who DO wish to hire pregnant moms and disabled people (because its harder to afford them now), but then we also make it harder for pregnant moms and the disabled because they can’t find jobs. America thinks it can have the best of both worlds, be free-market and be Keynesian. Instead, we get the worst of both worlds in situations like these

[@johnbaker7322]

If you tell them this, they then simply say "Well then we need another law." Quotas for women in other words. It always goes to central planning and that always does a terrible job compared to the market.

[@Emppu_T.]

This is jow we end up with corporate mascots

[@Objective-Observer]

Hold on there! Not all Birthing People are Women. nudge nudge, wink wink. Yes, this is another means of validating the Transgender crowd.

[@adrianalexandrov7730]

It's great that in 2023 you can fill those quotas by hiring men who identify as women

[@cassiefuchs3657]

Looks like trans women just become really employable. Legally women and can't get pregnant. Plus not all of them are woke so they'd just need to weed out the woke ones.

[@Redmenace96]

Thank you for using the term, 'central planning'. Folks don't use that enough to describe where the Federal govt. is heading with all this.

[@TheSaintFrenzy]

“A society that puts equality… ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom…a society that puts freedom first will, as a happy by product, end up with both greater freedom and greater equality.” Milton Friedman

[@Papadoc1000]

And he didn't even consider "equity". In Milton's day, that form of idiocy was too much plainly a bridge too far to be contemplated with any measure of seriousness.

[@christopherkidwell9817]

Except that reality has proven Mr. Friedman ass-backwards wrong about that statement.

[@NBGTFO]

It's another example of government overreach; solving a problem that doesn't exist and creating all new ones instead with pointless and senseless legislation.

[@tsrocks2029]

It would be nice if we worked in a society where one income was enough to provide for a family. A pregnant woman shouldn’t have to work, her husband should be able to provide for her while she rests and prepares for the baby at home.

[@jennifer7648]

Absolutely!!!

[@roguedragon9992]

That is true, but what if her husband suddenly passes away or becomes disabled and can no longer provide? What if her husband becomes abusive?

[@Cree_Money]

@@roguedragon9992 Everyone should have a life insurance policy. I've got one for $100k and it's $10 a month and reduces my van insurance by $12. So I'm paid $24 a year to have a $100k plan. A husband/father should have a much bigger plan. An abusive spouse is your own problem. If that happens, life will be tough no matter what. This is why fathers and brothers should help women pick a responsible man. I helped my sister and her life is gravy.

[@butchshadwell3613]

Raising minimum wage levels does the same thing for unskilled workers.

[@pacarter7169]

You got that right! I remember when the president at the time years ago, the minimum wage was 3.25 …then raised it to 3.75 with the intention to offset the cost of living. I thought I would be able to rush to the store and afford more, but when I did my shopping? This was my second experience in knowing that something was wrong with the government! But the experience forced me into considering going back to school and getting a better education… I was tired of minimum wage jobs, it was time for a drastic change!

[@Delimon007]

Everyone should still be paid a living wage. If you look at happiness and wellness, countries with a high min wage are very high on that list.

[@KevinJDildonik]

The problem is that so many conservatives and libertarians will tell people don't be afraid to work a minimum wage job, get your foot in the door, pull yourself up by your bootstraps... Then when that person tries to skill up to a new job, they go ew gross you worked at McDonald's get out of my office. Smart people can end up stuck in a garbage career that they hate, and because they're having so much trouble fixing it, they say why not pay people like me a real salary. They're trying to get paid just like you.

[@TheRadioAteMyTV]

No, far worse, raising the minimum wage just raises prices for everyone lowering the standard of everyone above it while keeping the bottom at the same level. The reduction in hiring is temporary, the devaluing of the currency is permanent.

[@TheRadioAteMyTV]

@@Delimon007 A living wage couldn't be anymore subjective. Well done 007, you've killed again.

[@jameslongo2838]

If I were a business owner I would probably look to hire woman beyond child bearing age to get around this law. That way I keep my workforce “diverse” enough to not raise red flags and still have a larger pool of good candidate people to hire from.

[@Emppu_T.]

An army of old maids

[@JeffCaplan313]

​@@Emppu_T.😂

[@stanwolenski9541]

More likely to show up on time, do a days work and go home. As a contractor I looked for guys in their mid thirties as the minimum hire. If a woman applied, which they never did, I would look for women in the same age group. When I had a real job, not self employed, all my cashiers and all the cafeteria servers were women of forty years or older. One woman was 72 working part time just to have something to do during retirement .

[@stevebabiak6997]

Plus you aren’t accused of being “ageist” against older workers (younger workers are another story).

[@angelsrosena]

if you were...

[@russsyracuse8143]

The politicians think we're stupid.

[@Hassebrawbier]

If a new law has "fair(ness)" in its name, it's a bad idea.

[@sixtentore8655]

When I was in Argentina a number of people I met talked to me about how they wouldn't hire women because of the laws that were created in the last 20 years. Mostly similar to this one. The new one is that if your lesbian partner is having a baby you get to leave for 6 months while your employer needs to keep paying your salary.

[@stanwolenski9541]

Does this also apply to non lesbian partners? Man and woman partnerships?

[@sixtentore8655]

@@stanwolenski9541 no, because this is about maternity leave. So the lesbian partner gets to go on maternity leave because she is technically also "a mother" of the baby. A man can get this benefit if they legally change their gender, they have been doing that lately for both maternity leave and early retirement with benefits.

[@juliecramer7768]

@@sixtentore8655🤡Government is the problem as usual

[@jayc342009]

​@@sixtentore8655that is insanely ridiculous

[@Redmenace96]

I've heard of this in Europe. It is an EU participation law. The benefits they extend are astounding to me. But, what do I know. It is the future.

[@johnnynick6179]

Most Congressmen are lawyers. Laws like this are meant to generate more lawsuits. This is the NEW definition of "Legal Aid."

[@Papadoc1000]

And let's not misunderstand, lawyer associations give more toward reelections than any other profession.

[@senorpoodles1755]

These laws do exactly what they're supposed to do: make lawyers richer.

[@SgtLube818]

I had always heard the saying, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". But i think it should have been changed at least 20 years ago to, "The road to hell is paved by the government".

[@azuth11]

Thomas Sowell wrote a book titled "The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy" This is a perfect example. It doesn't matter if this leads to less women being hired. The primary purpose of this law is to let its proponents feel good about themselves. Even after it becomes apparent that this puts women at a disadvantage in hiring, they will keep advocating for it because they think history will show them as being on the side of the angels.

[@prefersoxygen9373]

Also with laws like these and every social program, there are tradeoffs... I.e. to collect welfare the woman must have offspring and there be no man in the same house... Welfare helped to destroy the nuclear family

[@roberte.6892]

what would prevent an employer from hiring less women REGARDLESS of the law? after all, if a female submits a resume for a job and is of reproductive age, couldnt an employer simply not hire her because they wouldnt want to onboard and train her for a job she might leave after getting pregnant? couldnt they also fire them more easily, leading to more unstable work opportunities for women? really, *you're* the one that is trying to make yourself feel better with this type of argument. we can fire women easily and more frequently without the law and we can simply hire less women with the law, so women get hurt either way, which is what you really want anyway.

[@azuth11]

@@roberte.6892 You are right, I am making myself feel better about my argument. Because my argument is for what PRIMARILY helps women. That is my primary concern. If something doesn't help women, then I would not support it. Me feeling good about myself is the SECONDARY effect of actually helping women. Conversely, if I was arguing for something that PRIMARILY makes me feel good about myself, but results in a SECONDARY effect of putting women at a disadvantage, I would feel bad about myself. That's because I actually care about the reality that would affect women more than I care about my own self-congratulation.

[@segsb7085]

​@@roberte.6892You are the problem if you think the ONLY thing that compels people to do what you believe is the right thing is by creating laws which FORCE them to do it. If you don't see how tyrannical and totalitarian that is, then there is just no hope. You ask what makes you think women will be hired regardless of the law. How about the fact that they have been increasingly hired and accommodated without the law in the first place. How about the clear and blatant evidence that shows what happened to disabled workers after the ADA? People were increasingly hiring disabled workers just fine until the law created a risk of losing everything if a business owner makes any kind of missteps...do you own a business? I bet 1000% that you don't. Your kind are the worst...coming up with all kinds of demands of people who actually take the risk of running a business...nobody owes you anything. If you're such a magnanimous soul, why dont you open up your own business and fill it up with pregnant women..there's nothing stopping you from doing that. Instead you sit on your phone, probably on your boss's time pontificating about how evil everyone is..🙄

[@InMyDinoPjz]

That’s an excellent book. Sowell is brilliant.

[@nickamalfitano3613]

When the government names a bill anything having to do with safety, fairness, protection or anything similar you can ensure that it does the opposite.

[@stanwolenski9541]

When I was a union member, closed shop state, the union would try to frame as much as possible in terms of safety when there was a grievance. After all, who would not want a safe work environment?

[@CynicalWolverine]

This will be great for pregnant men too!

[@dempseynevarez9371]

That is why having a big government is such a bad idea!

[@darubra]

In the past, my business has been trapped by a person who wasn't performing but we were advised not to fire due to her recent pregnancy. For a small company, it left a gaping hole in our organization. Fortunately, she left not long after exhausting her PTO/maternity/STD. Once bitten, twice shy.

[@HansBezemer]

You're lucky. She could have asked to switch to a part time contract.

[@MnemonicHack]

Would I hire a more qualified young woman over a man? Yes. Qualification matters. Would I hire a more qualified young woman over a man, who I then must pay a good chunk of money to for no return when she has who knows how many children, and would leave us understaffed for who knows how long, and could potentially bring up sexual harrassment complaints whether real or fake? Ehhhh...

[@fieryjalapenos4442]

It’s a touchy subject. I don’t think they should have to worry about losing a job because they wanted a family but I can also see why businesses would steer clear of hiring women in their “pregnancy years”.

[@FerrisSOCAL]

@@MnemonicHack You want the most qualified person you can get for the amount you are wanting to pay. Sadly, it's not just salary alone, but this includes benefits. Maternity leave, hiring someone short term to cover part of the gap, state mandated breast expressing rooms, time off for the additional appts, reduced hours for daycare, infant daycare at the office, and on and on. You just hired a new family, and she wants lots!

[@darubra]

@@HansBezemer In fact, we have worked with her since on a contract basis, and things have been much better (fundamentally she's a good person who felt pressured to try and do it all). She makes slightly more on a per hour basis now that she's contract but, with her setting her own hours, she works much less than 40 hrs/week and thus earns less from us. Regardless, she's happier to be under less pressure and we're happy to because her work product is now appropriate for her pay. And we were able to use the money saved to hire a more efficient, less risky, full-time person.

[@hyfy-tr2jy]

Here is a real world scenario....my GF is a nurse manager...right now half her staff is on FMLA for pregnancy and is struggling to fill the hours she needs filled and stay on her budget and on top of it...two of them left for FMLA but because of how it is framed out...won't tell the hospital they work for that they have no intention of coming back which locks down the positions that the hospital cannot hire for. Creates a work environment nearly impossible to manage and doubles the payroll expense for the hospital. And you all know well and good...more payroll expense means higher medical bills for us

[@jettrooper101]

Because if they quit before labor they lose insurance, and there are a lot of immediate hospital bills after pregnancy, so there only way to stay on insurance even if they want to quit is by staying employed through FMLA. Solution is to separate health insurance from employment, whether privately or universal healthcare, insurance should not be tied to your job.

[@Redmenace96]

Bingo!

[@hyfy-tr2jy]

@@jettrooper101 The already have such a thing...its called COBRA

[@ollicron7397]

She should just stay home and have the father take care of her needs.

[@catherinegarmon3027]

@@hyfy-tr2jy COBRA costs 2-3x as much, though

[@FreedomIsntFree2023]

Think back 10 or so years ago when these same politicians promised "$15/hr" entry level jobs, like at McDonalds, Walmart, Lowes, etc. Look around today, how many of these stores have automated ordering kiosks or self check out? This all translates to much less needed employment. All these "feel good" laws have consequences that will for sure have a negative impact on "those they intend to help"!

[@macumezahn]

First hand from the medical field. When students sign up for internships or fellowships, etc. I learned that you should NEVER tell them you are married, with a partner or have a child. They will give you a hard pass assuming you will work less hours than a single, "non-burdened" doctor. I began not wearing my wedding ring at all (so I didn't have a ring-tan stripe) and purposely told them that I had absolutely no plans of having children or being married. Lucky I had kept all that off my social media otherwise, I wouldn't have ever obtained the positions I had. Sad, but true. They want someone who is available 24/7 during your employment.

[@ExecutiveAutomotiveSociety]

What we need to do away with in our language is the thinking, “there outta be a law.” Laws never work when they force thinking. You can’t legislate morality.

[@j311ycaa5]

Like when the government passes laws saying trans people can’t use certain bathrooms?

[@mineduck3050]

We need the average person to be less statistically stupid. Dogs can't follow a TV show, average people cannot think past checkers.

[@TheOrangeRoad]

99% agree. Except Louis C.K had that exact line about naming people. "There are *no* laws about what you can name your child...there oughta be a couple laws..."

[@NoobTamer]

@@TheOrangeRoad Know your joking, but at least all the inane names lets you know to avoid them.

[@megabrawndo]

IF Woman want fairness. This is NOT the way.

[@canisblack]

The world makes a lot more sense when you realize that any time an activist opens their mouth they're not actually trying to fix things but make them worse so they can continue their activism. After all if the problem is fixed they no longer have anything to be an activist for.

[@semosancus5506]

We could extend the accommodations to spouses of pregnant "people".

[@shawnpa]

​@@canisblack💯

[@mineduck3050]

Maybe take the mountain of sludge from all our eyes and look at the elephant in the room. Money is now a worthless voltage, but we all have the same if not more energy requirements. Oh yes, money is a literal current now. It's not been a commodity for awhile.

[@hadtocheathimtobeathim6549]

@@semosancus5506that’s one way to solve the discrimination in this law.

[@c45-nr4pk3gu7f]

Private companies are not responsible for your decision to become pregnant

[@Lrules364]

But American taxpayers are on the hook to pay for everything, including abortion through planned parenthood.

[@NeverlandSystemPixie]

"Fairness"... I hate how that word is abused by so many when it's 99% of the time NOT use for anything remotely fair.

[@craigpridemore7566]

ADA was a DISASTER for disabled workers. I'm legally blind and had to FIGHT for jobs I was qualified for because the employer didn't want the headache of possible accommodation. The employer can choose between 2 employees, one he may have to make accommodations for, and another he doesn't. Hmmm...

[@MarianTRitch]

It’s called adapting to your disability not taking advantage of it!

[@Sotanaht0]

It's not the same though. When you hire a blind person you know what you are going to get. You aren't going to fire him later for being blind. Maybe it doesn't work out, but at least you knew. Thats why the ADA is bad, because it amplifies that known risk. You cant mutually agree to take the chance, all the risk goes on the employer. When it comes to women though, thats a risk of future problems rather than immediate ones. You hire her, shes fine for years and then suddenly she cant do her job and you have no choice but to fire her. If that's how it will be, you shouldn't have hired her any more than you should hire a blind man for a job that REQUIRES sight. Hireing now and firing later isnt fair to her, better not to hire at all. Laws like this force employers to consider that risk in advance and make it safer for a woman to get pregnant, at the cost of making it harder to find a job. I think thats a good trade.

[@davidwright873]

it's a free country...NOT hiring you is also a freedom..Wait till you get old....THEN you'll be legally blind and over 60!! whoo hoo!!

[@chrimony]

@@Sotanaht0 What you're saying is that businesses shouldn't hire women. That's silly. Isn't it better for a woman to have a job, get pregnant, take time off, and perhaps get a new job than have no job at all?

[@Sotanaht0]

@@chrimony they should not hire women unless they are willing to take that risk. Men and women are not the same and should not be considered the same, any more than a blind man is the same as a sighted one. That doesn't mean that they should never be hired, but it's only natural it would be harder

[@boofriggityhoo]

This is ridiculous. Any reasonable employer was already doing things to accommodate pregnant employees. I'm in my third trimester right now, and my company had no issues at all accommodating the few times I asked for more flexible hours to go to doctor's appointments or catch up on sleep. Everyone is very understanding and aware of the fact that you require more rest and simply cannot do certain things while pregnant -- any manager or employer who didn't respect that already was putting themselves at risk of a lawsuit. I do have some sympathy for women whose pregnancies are higher risk or come with complications but honestly, if you require accommodations like a special parking spot because you can't even walk a short distance, then maybe you shouldn't be working at all.

[@michaelsorensen7567]

Also, if you're working for an UN reasonable company, who refuses to accommodate, why do you want to keep working for them?

[@boofriggityhoo]

@@michaelsorensen7567 Exactly. I switched careers a few years ago when an employer expected me to come into work when my COVID test came back negative -- it was negative because I had pneumonia, lol. I quit on the spot. People act like they're slaves to their employers, and though it's true we all need to make a paycheck, absolutely no one and nothing is forcing you to work for inhumane or insane people.

[@Puzzlesocks]

@@michaelsorensen7567 Exactly this! I've had this argument before and never been able to figure out why people would rather force an employer to act the way they want than to find an employer they actually want to work for.

[@Ocyla]

Right. Years and YEARS ago my workplace put in pregnancy parking spots, made a nice 'lactating room', etc.

[@filippetrula1234]

What kind of laws do you have in the us ? I can go to doctor as many times as I need without any paycut and I don't have to be pregnant

[@cadthunkin]

Its nice that gov simultaneously demands special rights for pregnant [people], while also fighting for their right to kill the baby. Those are not people that care about you.

[@PianoMan-hx3ev]

The system should be redesigned so women can stay at home and raise quality children.

[@rickkearn7100]

Stossel is so spot-on all the time, I appreciate how he uncovers the lies and deception of our "public servants", this new law being a perfect example.

[@TK-zj7cl]

Are you dumb? Do you understand the situation? America is the worst country for pregant woman and here is a step to help them. Stossel just saying "Companies wont hire women unless they can mistreat them" and your response is "Yeah, let them mistreat women!". Why aren't you a decent human being and stay "so you are not allowed to bring up gender in your application and companies have to decide on skills not your sex."

[@user-mq4vo3mk1s]

“The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”

[@stevexnycautomotive]

Good people are apples to poisonous tree and government is the fertilizer.

[@Zeakthecat]

yea, its the same idea with the laziness lie. there was a lot of good intentions when it was first a thing before the nations founding, then some christians came over and it became blasphemy to take care of yourself, so people worked harder than their bodies and minds could take, and when warning signs flared up, they ignored them, even if it means puking blood. then they collapse bout a decade later, and sometimes they die, sometimes they got treated in time, but that treatment afterwards was worse than death itself, as often times they were seen as lazy or the devils spawn. ill never understand why people felt the need to be shitty for lack of hard work. even today, the laziness lie prevails. forcing companies should be a temporary but necessarily solution to enact positive cultural change, we have to understand as a society that laziness simply doesn't exist, and that theres always a underlying issue. toxic workplaces, mental illness, even physical issues.

[@elLooto]

@@Zeakthecat "Laziness doesnt exist" I can see youve never worked with other people before.... or you are that lazy person. Start your own business, employ a few people, and see how your 'laziness lie' idea holds up to reality. I can guarantee you it will run smack into the brick wall of thermodynamics.

[@Zeakthecat]

@@elLooto ah yes, the old ""Laziness doesnt exist" I can see youve never worked with other people before.... or you are that lazy person." argument against laziness. there is people out there that work 100 hours, the human body is not designed to work anywhere more than 3 hours per shift. i understand tho, that you feel people are lazy, but they are not, as usually they are just relaxing after working 3-5 hours. "Start your own business, employ a few people, and see how your 'laziness lie' idea holds up to reality. I can guarantee you it will run smack into the brick wall of thermodynamics." what does thermodynamics have anything to do with laziness? or starting a business? it sounds like to me, you are a employer who thinks everyone is lazy, and has this mindset, that you can work people like robots, so you rule over a toxic work environment and drive wages lower while making people work 12 hours per shift. please do yourself a favor and declare bankruptcy.

[@elLooto]

@@Zeakthecat "there is people out there that work 100 hours," Yes, we call them owner-operators. I know of no person working more than 10 hours a day, except by their own free will. I am an employer. And an employee. Its clear you are neither. Thermodynamics is the foundation of economics. In this case, one must gather enough energy to cover the daily energy cost of being alive. Extrapolate from there.

[@ArabellaCharm]

The company I work for let's all the pregnant women go on leave, and then a few weeks before each of them returning, they change their schedules, forcing them to quit. It works every single time. They just say "Headquarters ordered it, our hands are tied". Evil

[@SweepAndZone]

Maybe men and woman truly aren't equal. Like the demonic feminazis have led so many countless women to believe

[@TheGuruStud]

Good

[@Cree_Money]

Go on leave... then weeks before coming back... Who pays for all of this? Who does their job while they are gone? If you think replacing absent employees is evil, you have lived a very pampered life.

[@sethgraham4836]

There are 7 million men just sitting out of the workforce completely not doing anything. I don't think women have much to worry about.

[@Animekirk]

I laughed out loud when she said "pregnant workers bring a lot to the table" I'm sure she probably meant something more sensible but on the face of it those are such silly words to say. There is nothing about pregnancy that contributes in a positive way to an employment endeavor. In every single scenario all other factors being equal, a pregnant individual is less valuable than a non pregnant one in a workplace environment.

[@blackbette07]

Women get pregnant not "individuals".🙄

[@randomvideosn0where]

My experience is women who have had children tend to become more responsible and efficient at work (although for lower social tiers it may be different) which more than offsets the phone calls and occasional "sick" day they take for their kids. It also gives them motivation to keep a stable job to take care of the family for a couple decades.

[@fordshojoe8080]

​@@blackbette07excuse me I've been pregnant with a elephant for 32 years. Ya wanna see his trunk?

[@dougdimmadomeownerofthedim2918]

@@fordshojoe8080 ?

[@MA-mh1vs]

​@@randomvideosn0wherewomen that have children are not the same as a pregnant woman.

[@RealWorldGarage]

The law of unintended consequences

[@Emppu_T.]

@@everyisnaadisfabricated3784 they might have to do something about wages

[@elLooto]

also the law of perverse incentives.

[@kerim.peardon5551]

I had to work on ADA litigation related to our commercial properties. We actually had a situation where a change in the ADA rules meant that urinals are now suddenly counted the same as a bathroom stall, which meant that our existing bathroom was now out of compliance because it didn't have enough handicapped stalls relative to the number of regular "stalls." (Oh, and the handicapped urinal didn't count towards the handicapped stall count.) So, I concluded that left us either taking out two regular stalls (there were only 3 to start with) and turning them into one handicap stall, or removing two of the urinals to lower the ratio back into compliance. As this was a bathroom in the food court, there was no option to expand it; it was hemmed-in on all sides. The only option was to reduce the number of toilet options. Of course, fewer standard toilet options means that more able-bodied men will have to use the handicapped stalls in a busy bathroom, meaning longer waits for handicapped people. Everyone loses when the government is involved.

[@CatholicTraditional]

This is no different than the more recent transgendered bathroom bills. Will eventually force all public 🚽 to be single-stalls, just like those in European airports.

[@karenburrows9184]

This law doesn't make women more risky to hire, it inconveniences the employer, so it's "bad". It's like saying if an employee has cancer, he should be laid off because he becomes a liability to the company. It's about compassion and decency, which is evidently also a liability to the business model.

[@christhewalrus2016]

Why should the pregnant woman working next to me be allowed more time off for the same pay as me when I'm expected to cover her work while not being paid more? Especially when she CHOSE to become pregnant?

[@Lolee56]

@@christhewalrus2016I’m sure all their husbands chose to have kids too with their wives. With that being said as a woman who’s currently on her second pregnancy I agree with you… it’s not fair to get equal pay but more time off… even though that time off isn’t really a vacation, you’re literally sick and in pain but that’s not the companies problem. I think kids benefit from women staying at home with them anyway and making woman work while pregnant is cruel however many can’t afford to live without their jobs unfortunately. Before men could take care of the whole family comfortably but thanks to modern feminism the family unit is broken down and everyone’s expected to earn a paycheck

[@karenburrows9184]

@@christhewalrus2016 These are questions you should ask your employer. To your last point: being pregnant is neither a sickness nor a crime. Women should not be penalized for it by losing their jobs, as they did in the past.

[@christhewalrus2016]

@@karenburrows9184 Yes they should. They knowingly took part in an action that could affect their ability to work. If I get blackout drunk the night before I have to come in to work and the hangover the next morning prevents me form coming in, I would get fired. If a woman decides to get knocked up on her time off knowing it will affect her ability to work she should be fired. That's called equality. Your point about cancer is stupid because nobody is choosing to get cancer. Women choose to have sex and become pregnant.

[@karenburrows9184]

@@christhewalrus2016Or, maybe her husband should be fired for getting her pregnant. What about that? How stupid do you want this to get? Should we only hire women over child-bearing age? Or only men (bet you like that one).

[@Generik97]

If I was an employer I would have no problem giving pregnant women special privileges to keep them on my work force but you should never be compelled by the government to do anything more then adhere to the natural rights of others. 🤷🏻‍♂️

[@Objective-Observer]

And when a Man decides he is a woman, without surgery, are you still going to offer him all those special privileges? This is just another means of validating those deluisional people.

[@Shikoku360-trolling-the-scum]

What is a woman though???

[@kinsellakp]

​@@TheGuyBroNintySixDon't be ridiculous you can't discriminate against men, don't you know that men are the cause of all the world's problems and asking people who don't identify as men to work as hard, or under the same conditions as men is slavery and it kills non men people.

[@michajastrzebski4383]

cool, just dont push men you employ to do her job, while she gets paid. Her baby is not our problem, our problem is we'll need to go overtime to accomodate her being absent because of her one-sided private life-related choices. Our free time isnt free, and it doesnt exist for her.

[@patricklee5578]

any issue the 'government' tries to fix gets more broken and costs money and siphons off freedoms.

[@wth2021]

I absolutely hate how Congress can just pass this quietly

[@hiei_99-48]

Government: Here is the new rule! Everyone: Alright, we’ll just work around it!

[@matthewrawlings1284]

To quote Thomas Sowell "there are no solutions, only tradeoffs." There are ALWAYS unintended consequences. In public policy, it should be standard for lawmakers to determine likely additional consequences.

[@4NaturesStory]

Back to square one. Get in the kitchen and clean the dang house!! 🥰🤓🍻🇺🇸

[@Kimberlysauber]

The government has really called things more difficult for its citizens, and we can't sit back and bear all the consequences of the bad governance. It's obvious we are headed for hyperinflation,it is always the poor who take the hit.

[@FrankGillis541]

HOW !! I know it's possible I would appreciate if you show me how to go about it.

[@RhondaSoonias]

I know Mrs Laura Jennifer Reeves. and I have also been trading with her. She's such an amazing woman with good skills that keeps me happy all week, knowing I earn 15thousand extra income trading with her !!!!

[@RhondaSoonias]

@@user-bn5uv3dw9b You can set up your trade anywhere in the world, I live in Germany and invest over here with her

[@Carla-Rains-Walker]

Such kind of information we don't get from most KZbinrs, count me in am placing my trades with Expert Laura Jennifer Reeves

[@Emppu_T.]

@@kasandrajaden3047 wow that's so incredible and related to the topic, it's like being a real person

[@dicktillotson1431]

It's NEVER a good idea for the government to tell us how to run our lives and businesses!!!!

[@HR18990]

It makes more sense for a woman to negotiate with her employer if she needs longer bathroom breaks or has trouble walking long distances. I agree with Stossel-this will lead to discrimination since employers will fear litigation.

[@michaelrfalkowski2446]

Love the pics of young Stossel! Another great piece John, thanks.

[@pmc2999]

My mother was picking potatos at 29 weeks. Filling a basket, picking it up and walking to the barrel and dumping her basket in. Over and over all day. Because back then pregnancy was just a normal part of life. If you had a difficult pregnancy you just didn't work the kind of heavy job that potato picking was. Certainly no one would have been forced to hire you and then make accommodations that basically ment you didn't do the work but you still got payed.

[@Redmanticore]

My mother was sexually harassed for all her life. Over and over all day. Because back then sexual harassment was just a normal part of life. If you had a difficult thought of "consent" you just didn't work. Certainly no one would have been forced to hire you and then make accommodations that basically ment you didn't do the work but you still got payed.

[@TheGuruStud]

​@@Redmanticorestraw man much

[@Estiallina]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. This is insane. Not everything needs to be regulated!!

[@ArmyScoutMom]

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"...

[@oniarrca9431]

The same government that can say what a woman is or who can and can't get pregnant...just passed a law protecting pregnant "workers". *gets bucket of popcorn to enjoy the ensuing show to come*

[@justinbiondi]

"We WaNt EqUaL RiGhTs!" but also give us all the advantages and privileges above what any man would get!

[@Redmanticore]

get pregnant, get periods.

[@TiGGowich]

I mean when you look at the people who are politicians nowadays it makes perfect sense why this sort of stuff emerges on a daily basis. They are not ordinary citizens serving the public, they themselves are activists and all their actions are guided by short term thinking - "securing the next election"... and that's it. It hasn't been about doing useful things for a long time, it is all about doing "the right thing", even though the "right thing" usually makes everyone end up worse and has adverse effects and implications on other areas they didn't even think about...

[@neilreynolds3858]

"Reforms" always make things worse.

[@semosancus5506]

Lots of women in politics too now. And they just think differently.

[@toyboytb]

What I hate the most about John is they always criticize, but never offer a solution to an issue.

[@paulscottrobson]

There's something like this in France ; if you have 50 employees you have to have worker's councils and all that sort of stuff. So there's a lot of 49 person units ....

[@skeetrix5577]

never too early for a stossel video!

[@StillGods]

That it's time to hold the companies accountable for not hiring them. Such a high fine that they can not help but to hurt from it.

[@KathleenWestUSA]

I already felt the need and subtly put "don't have kids" on my resume a long time ago.

[@eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee9531]

"That's why government should protect women," is one of the most unsettling sentences I have heard in my life. It's sad how far the USA has come to end up like this.

[@JeffCaplan313]

Facts.

[@patrickbateman1660]

The government shouldn't protect women? This is why our society is dying.

[@stevenscott2136]

Aren't these the same women who insist they can do anything a man can do?

[@barbarabaker1457]

Crap I wanted to work while pregnant. I'm so sick of the words "there should be a law." Disabled by the way. Never mention it. Just that I have limited hours. Also don't pretend they aren't doing this on purpose. This is not about helping pregnant woman, just new image, control and of course the government dependency that comes from the losses and increased poverty from these laws.

[@dageevil]

If everyone (gov, news, special interests) pushing it, run away!

[@DisabusingTheLeft]

The more benefits the government confers upon employees, the bigger the mine field for employers. I have thought many times over the years of getting into a business of some kind. Then I think of all the legal liability that comes with doing so. Just don't want the headache.

[@AdamSternberg]

As a business owner I hire someone to do a job that will ultimately make the company more money than it costs to hire that person for the job. If I'm being told by government that the person I'm hiring now is costing the company more in lost productivity then there is no point to hiring this person. It's literally this simple.

[@Redmenace96]

Vote down! Too much common sense.

[@MidnightPolaris800]

Best comment on here

[@connieshaw7829]

Yep, when I was younger and of child bearing age I was not hired many times because I might get pregnant. I wouldn’t tell my employer I was pregnant because they would find a way to fire me. Even when I promised I would come back in a month. Now it will be the same problem for the next group of women. Crazy when government gets involved.

[@nate4fish]

Your example is not helping the argument lol. What actually needs to happen is the immoral companies need to get called out and they will suffer from brain drain as the highly qualified women will work elsewhere. Women on average are higher performers than men so companies being sexist are just hurting themselves.

[@BondFreek]

I've seen this with the handicapped workers act this last two years. I was a security guard at a company that used giant computers. The building had the minimum code for handicap people but the rooms that had the computers computers are not handicap compliant and this is a NEW building, as a result the company will not higher handicap people.

[@oldegrunt]

when government claims it's going to help you AND gives the "helping law" a title including the word Fairness, watch out....

[@analyticalmind4493]

Its really fascinating to watch the activist groups try to get things like this done, then when they make the situation worse, they rally to make more of their "improvements." The media falls in step and spouts propganda about how unjust it is. rinse, lather, repeat.