User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 70

Thread: Federal Court rules in favor of breastfeeding cop who sued City of Tuscaloosa

  1. #21
    Points: 47,380, Level: 53
    Level completed: 19%, Points required for next Level: 1,470
    Overall activity: 0.2%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteranTagger First Class25000 Experience Points
    Perianne's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    11366
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    6,767
    Points
    47,380
    Level
    53
    Thanks Given
    2,360
    Thanked 2,534x in 1,379 Posts
    Mentioned
    41 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cletus View Post
    Yeah, it inconvenienced the department and resulted in less efficient policing for the community.
    Cletus, I love you, sir, but everyone has a right to take a break. She chose to pump her breasts during her break. I don't see anything wrong with that at all.

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Perianne For This Useful Post:

    Adelaide (09-18-2017),Green Arrow (09-19-2017)

  3. #22

    tPF Moderator
    Points: 152,027, Level: 93
    Level completed: 47%, Points required for next Level: 2,023
    Overall activity: 1.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialTagger First ClassCreated Album picturesYour first GroupRecommendation First Class50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Adelaide's Avatar tPF Moderator
    Karma
    341325
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    N. Pole and VA
    Posts
    30,757
    Points
    152,027
    Level
    93
    Thanks Given
    4,025
    Thanked 18,449x in 11,739 Posts
    Mentioned
    1723 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Perianne View Post
    Cletus, I love you, sir, but everyone has a right to take a break. She chose to pump her breasts during her break. I don't see anything wrong with that at all.
    Yeah, exactly.

    Most women that I have worked with who went back to work early (in Canada, you get a year so most are not still pumping), they would use their 30 minute lunch and their two 15 minute breaks to pump and eat.

    Not a big deal at all.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Adelaide For This Useful Post:

    Green Arrow (09-19-2017)

  5. #23
    Points: 9,465, Level: 23
    Level completed: 27%, Points required for next Level: 585
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    25000 Experience PointsVeteran
    HoneyBadger's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    29264
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    1,240
    Points
    9,465
    Level
    23
    Thanks Given
    193
    Thanked 1,001x in 574 Posts
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Adelaide View Post
    Again, she would not go home to breastfeed the child. She would pump and store the breast milk.
    Which can't be done from a patrol unit. She would have to return to the station which extends her "break" time, twice a shift. During that time, someone else has to pick up the slack.
    It could be that the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others.

  6. #24

    tPF Moderator
    Points: 473,135, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 69.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassYour first GroupVeteranRecommendation First ClassOverdrive
    Awards:
    Master Tagger
    DGUtley's Avatar tPF Moderator
    Karma
    200769
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    52,922
    Points
    473,135
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    17,060
    Thanked 46,039x in 24,874 Posts
    Mentioned
    886 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cletus View Post
    She should have resigned when she got pregnant instead of becoming a burden on her department.
    I'm going to assume this was a joke.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cletus View Post
    It depends on the burden she places on her employer. If the employer is fine with her taking x amount of time off and not replacing her and understanding that a newborn is going to have certain requirements that will affect work performance, that is great. What is not great is an employer being forced by law to accept that.

    The legislative branch has decided differently.
    Last edited by DGUtley; 09-18-2017 at 03:26 PM.
    Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect. -- Woody Hayes​

  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DGUtley For This Useful Post:

    Green Arrow (09-19-2017),Nicole (09-18-2017)

  8. #25
    Points: 5,932, Level: 18
    Level completed: 31%, Points required for next Level: 418
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    5000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Nicole's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    8431
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    319
    Points
    5,932
    Level
    18
    Thanks Given
    298
    Thanked 132x in 90 Posts
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cletus View Post
    It depends on the burden she places on her employer. If the employer is fine with her taking x amount of time off and not replacing her and understanding that a newborn is going to have certain requirements that will affect work performance, that is great.
    What is not great is an employer being forced by law to accept that.
    So women should put their job before having children? Or quit to have children and stay home once they are pregnant or having delivered?

    Should employers be permitted not to hire women unless they commit to not getting pregnant?
    Quote Originally Posted by Common View Post
    Not nearly as much as first responder public service jobs
    My last question to cletus, to you as well. Also, should women be excluded from taking those jobs?

  9. #26

    tPF Moderator
    Points: 74,308, Level: 66
    Level completed: 51%, Points required for next Level: 1,142
    Overall activity: 14.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Cletus's Avatar tPF Moderator
    Karma
    195693
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    32,309
    Points
    74,308
    Level
    66
    Thanks Given
    3,678
    Thanked 27,378x in 15,847 Posts
    Mentioned
    412 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DGUtley View Post
    I'm going to assume this was a joke.
    Why would you assume that?

    Look at it this way... an employer hires a woman in a critical position. She gets pregnant and suddenly he finds himself without her. He can't replace her because he has to hold the position for her. That means hiring a temporary replacement, who will eventually be fired through no fault of his or her own or he tries to get by without the slot being filled. Then, when she does come back, there are all the issues of dealing with a newborn the EMPLOYER has to deal with. Increased absenteeism, juggling schedules... It places an unfair burden on the employer.

    If he wants to do that in order to retain the employee, that is fine. It is his choice, but to FORCE him to do so is plain wrong.

    The legislative branch has decided differently.
    Well, they don't exactly have the greatest track record when it comes to doing the right thing, do they?
    “Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.” - Barry Goldwater

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Cletus For This Useful Post:

    Cthulhu (09-18-2017),MisterVeritis (09-19-2017)

  11. #27
    Points: 47,380, Level: 53
    Level completed: 19%, Points required for next Level: 1,470
    Overall activity: 0.2%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteranTagger First Class25000 Experience Points
    Perianne's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    11366
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    6,767
    Points
    47,380
    Level
    53
    Thanks Given
    2,360
    Thanked 2,534x in 1,379 Posts
    Mentioned
    41 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cletus View Post
    Why would you assume that?
    Look at it this way... an employer hires a woman in a critical position. She gets pregnant and suddenly he finds himself without her. He can't replace her because he has to hold the position for her. That means hiring a temporary replacement, who will eventually be fired through no fault of his or her own or he tries to get by without the slot being filled. Then, when she does come back, there are all the issues of dealing with a newborn the EMPLOYER has to deal with. Increased absenteeism, juggling schedules... It places an unfair burden on the employer.
    If he wants to do that in order to retain the employee, that is fine. It is his choice, but to FORCE him to do so is plain wrong.
    ...
    I see your point.

  12. #28

    tPF Moderator
    Points: 74,308, Level: 66
    Level completed: 51%, Points required for next Level: 1,142
    Overall activity: 14.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Cletus's Avatar tPF Moderator
    Karma
    195693
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    32,309
    Points
    74,308
    Level
    66
    Thanks Given
    3,678
    Thanked 27,378x in 15,847 Posts
    Mentioned
    412 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicole View Post
    So women should put their job before having children? Or quit to have children and stay home once they are pregnant or having delivered?
    That is between them and their employer. If he wants them back and is willing to work around their schedule, more power to them. However, if he is not willing to do so, he shouldn't be required to do so.
    Should employers be permitted not to hire women unless they commit to not getting pregnant?
    If that is a something the employer wants as a condition of employment, he should be able to make it one. If the woman doesn't like it, she can look for a different job and a different employer.

    Since when did people start believing they have a RIGHT to a particular job?

    My last question to cletus, to you as well. Also, should women be excluded from taking those jobs?
    What jobs?

    The employer starts a business for HIS benefit. If the employee is of no benefit to him, he shouldn't have to retain her or him if a male creates a similar situation.
    Last edited by Cletus; 09-18-2017 at 04:11 PM.
    “Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.” - Barry Goldwater

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Cletus For This Useful Post:

    Cthulhu (09-18-2017),MisterVeritis (09-19-2017)

  14. #29
    Points: 174,768, Level: 99
    Level completed: 28%, Points required for next Level: 2,882
    Overall activity: 23.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience Points
    Dr. Who's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    870666
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Gallifrey
    Posts
    69,091
    Points
    174,768
    Level
    99
    Thanks Given
    12,827
    Thanked 12,929x in 8,807 Posts
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cletus View Post
    That is between them and their employer. If he wants them back and is willing to work around their schedule, more power to them. However, if he is not willing to do so, he shouldn't be required to do so.


    If that is a something the employer wants as a condition of employment, he should be able to make it one. If the woman doesn't like it, she can look for a different job and a different employer.

    Since when did people start believing they have a RIGHT to a particular job?



    What jobs?

    The employer starts a business for HIS benefit. If the employee is of no benefit to him, he shouldn't have to retain her or him if a male creates a similar situation.
    Except that a police department is a public institution, not a business. The PD sees fit to make allowances for people with illnesses, but discriminates against female officers with a specific physical need to pump the milk that is naturally being produced, and if it's not pumped results in excruciating pain and potential health problems. Not accommodating such physical conditions should be and is against public policy as it would otherwise lead to some women choosing not to have children. With inverse population growth, discouraging working women from having children is incompatible with the national goal of sustainable population levels.
    In quoting my post, you affirm and agree that you have not been goaded, provoked, emotionally manipulated or otherwise coerced into responding.



    "The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems.”
    Mahatma Gandhi

  15. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Dr. Who For This Useful Post:

    Green Arrow (09-19-2017),Nicole (09-18-2017)

  16. #30
    Points: 122,776, Level: 84
    Level completed: 98%, Points required for next Level: 74
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsTagger Second ClassVeteran
    Safety's Avatar Nationalist
    Karma
    2616415
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    GA/FL
    Posts
    50,789
    Points
    122,776
    Level
    84
    Thanks Given
    25,014
    Thanked 22,901x in 15,599 Posts
    Mentioned
    1237 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Common View Post
    No law works 100% as intended, just like the ADA law we discussed that have small business being sued be nefarious individuals making a living off the law.

    First responder public servants have always had to be under a different set of rules. Better than her disrupting the entire dept, it would be better to extend her maternity leave till the baby is on solid food, most public service jobs have 1 yr maternity leave as it is.
    I know, but remember my first post in the the thread, let's not focus on the $#@!s that are trying to get rich off of taking advantage of the law.
    “Conscientiously believing that the proper condition of the negro is slavery, or a complete subjection to the white man, and entertaining the belief that the day is not distant when the old Union will be restored with slavery nationally declared to be the proper condition of all of African descent, and in view of the future harmony and progress of all the States of America, I have been induced to issue this address, so that there may be no misunderstanding in the future”

    - Jefferson Davis

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts