A pregnant woman's right to pee

[Miss Chicken]

I have just read this article a part of which says

Bathroom breaks for pregnant women are a privilege, not a right.

So claims National Processing of America, a call center being sued for unlawful termination after firing a pregnant employee, whom they believed took too many trips away from her desk to either vomit or just urinate. Their solution to her needing to run to the lavatory to be sick? She was provided with her own wastebasket to keep at her desk. So, besides being expected to vomit in front of her coworkers, apparently she and they were all expected to cope with the post-puke smell as well.

Nausea and the need to frequently urinate are pretty common when pregnant, and the employee had a high risk pregnancy as well. The company, however, was less than sympathetic.

On another occasion, defendant’s manager told plaintiff that defendant did not ‘pay [her] to pee,’ objecting to plaintiff’s necessity to use the bathroom when plaintiff experienced nausea or dizziness due to her pregnancy conditions. Defendant’s manager claimed to plaintiff it was not ‘fair to other employees’ for plaintiff to take excessive bathroom breaks. When plaintiff complained about being told that defendant did not ‘pay [her] to pee,’ defendant characterized plaintiff’s need to take bathroom breaks due to the conditions of her pregnancy as being ‘constantly out of her desk.

Rest of article here

Opinion please.

 

[RoJoHen]

This should have nothing to do with pregnancy. If you have to pee/poop/vomit/whatever, you should be allowed to do so. I don't care who you are or what you do.

 

[Amaris]

I have just read this article opart of which says

Bathroom breaks for pregnant women are a privilege, not a right.

So claims National Processing of America, a call center being sued for unlawful termination after firing a pregnant employee, whom they believed took too many trips away from her desk to either vomit or just urinate. Their solution to her needing to run to the lavatory to be sick? She was provided with her own wastebasket to keep at her desk. So, besides being expected to vomit in front of her coworkers, apparently she and they were all expected to cope with the post-puke smell as well.

Nausea and the need to frequently urinate are pretty common when pregnant, and the employee had a high risk pregnancy as well. The company, however, was less than sympathetic.

On another occasion, defendant’s manager told plaintiff that defendant did not ‘pay [her] to pee,’ objecting to plaintiff’s necessity to use the bathroom when plaintiff experienced nausea or dizziness due to her pregnancy conditions. Defendant’s manager claimed to plaintiff it was not ‘fair to other employees’ for plaintiff to take excessive bathroom breaks. When plaintiff complained about being told that defendant did not ‘pay [her] to pee,’ defendant characterized plaintiff’s need to take bathroom breaks due to the conditions of her pregnancy as being ‘constantly out of her desk.

Rest of article here

Opinion please.

If this is true, then they are heartless, soulless assholes who should pay out a huge sum of money as punishment for discriminating against a pregnant woman. They're also a debt collection agency, so I'm not really surprised at how they treat their workers, particularly vulnerable ones who need support.

This should have nothing to do with pregnancy. If you have to pee/poop/vomit/whatever, you should be allowed to do so. I don't care who you are or what you do.

It's about profit. All about it. You are not an employee, you're a statistic. When I worked at a catalog warehouse about ten years ago, we were on a system called the STAR program, which calculated minute by minute how long you were expected to resolve an order or troubleshoot a problem. If you had to go to the bathroom, for any reason, that worked against you, and there were no allowances for restroom breaks. A 5 minute restroom break meant working harder to balance the numbers and raise your percentages back to acceptable levels.

 

[RoJoHen]

Well, thank god I've never had to work anywhere like that. If I gotta go, I go.

 

[Amaris]

Well, thank god I've never had to work anywhere like that. If I gotta go, I go.

Yeah, it sucked. I was on a water pill at the time, for high blood pressure. I had to go every hour or so, couldn't help it. I worked my ass off just to keep my numbers at the "safe" level (around 80% to 90%, though they expected MUCH higher). I used to call the STAR program "Standard Training As Robots", even setting that phrase as the default screen saver for every computer on that floor. They were not amused.

 

[CorporalClegg]

National Processing of America: we answer every call except nature's.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

It's about profit. All about it. You are not an employee, you're a statistic. When I worked at a catalog warehouse about ten years ago, we were on a system called the STAR program, which calculated minute by minute how long you were expected to resolve an order or troubleshoot a problem. If you had to go to the bathroom, for any reason, that worked against you, and there were no allowances for restroom breaks. A 5 minute restroom break meant working harder to balance the numbers and raise your percentages back to acceptable levels.

That's appalling. I'm glad you're not there anymore (for whatever reason). Is that kind of thinking common or did you just have poor luck in working for a business that operated like this?

 

[Amaris]

It's about profit. All about it. You are not an employee, you're a statistic. When I worked at a catalog warehouse about ten years ago, we were on a system called the STAR program, which calculated minute by minute how long you were expected to resolve an order or troubleshoot a problem. If you had to go to the bathroom, for any reason, that worked against you, and there were no allowances for restroom breaks. A 5 minute restroom break meant working harder to balance the numbers and raise your percentages back to acceptable levels.

That's appalling. I'm glad you're not there anymore (for whatever reason). Is that kind of thinking common or did you just have poor luck in working for a business that operated like this?

Just from personal experience, it's more common today than it was then, though it was still pretty bad. That company was the most oppressive of the bunch that I worked for.

To round it out, the best company I've ever worked for was Dell, the computer company. Our managers took a more hands off approach. As long as shipping goals and repair goals were met, you could do whatever you wanted. I miss that job. I could have worked there the rest of my life and been happy, but it just wasn't meant to be. The company got the idea that it was cheaper just to act as a shipping/receiving hub and sold our facility to a logistics company, who promptly laid off most of the higher performing, higher paid employees. We went from "Troubleshoot the problem so it doesn't come back" to "Just scan this and don't ask questions, we have numbers to meet."

It's where nearly every business is heading, if they haven't made it already.

 

[Owain Taggart]

That's deplorable. When you gotta go, you gotta go. I'd hate to see the explanation for the mess due to holding back someone like that. And yeah, my Dad worked tech support for a major cable company and he was constantly on the clock. He quit last year as he found it hard to get away from and get any form of holiday. For Christmas, for example, you had to request it and you weren't guaranteed to have it. In the end, it wore him down. Everything would also be recorded so that they'd be constantly reviewing their performance. If you were even a tiny bit slow in getting the problem resolved or if the customer was on the line too long, you'd hear of it.

 

[DimesDan]

I have just read this article a part of which says

Bathroom breaks for pregnant women are a privilege, not a right.

So claims National Processing of America, a call center being sued for unlawful termination after firing a pregnant employee, whom they believed took too many trips away from her desk to either vomit or just urinate. Their solution to her needing to run to the lavatory to be sick? She was provided with her own wastebasket to keep at her desk. So, besides being expected to vomit in front of her coworkers, apparently she and they were all expected to cope with the post-puke smell as well.

Nausea and the need to frequently urinate are pretty common when pregnant, and the employee had a high risk pregnancy as well. The company, however, was less than sympathetic.

On another occasion, defendant’s manager told plaintiff that defendant did not ‘pay [her] to pee,’ objecting to plaintiff’s necessity to use the bathroom when plaintiff experienced nausea or dizziness due to her pregnancy conditions. Defendant’s manager claimed to plaintiff it was not ‘fair to other employees’ for plaintiff to take excessive bathroom breaks. When plaintiff complained about being told that defendant did not ‘pay [her] to pee,’ defendant characterized plaintiff’s need to take bathroom breaks due to the conditions of her pregnancy as being ‘constantly out of her desk.

Rest of article here

Opinion please.

And what pray you is your opinion on this matter?

Personally I think it's disgusting, but that's what happens when the most important person in a company in a shareholder and not, say the plebs on the ground doing the hard work to keep the business in business.

 

[Miss Chicken]

My opinion?

When I was pregnant with my first child 35 years ago my employer allowed to go to the toilet whenever I needed to (which was quite often). I was working in a nursing home and my fellow workers were considerate and wouldn't allow me to do any lifting.

I did leave work when i was about 14 weeks pregnant but that was because I was suffering from severe morning sickness and was exhausted., not because of any intolerance from my employer though they only wanted me to work until my 5th to 6th month (which was common in those days).

To think that any employer today wouldn't be as considerate as my employers were 35 years ago surprises me.

 

[rhubarbodendron]

Presumably people who work with humans that have special requirements are more sensitive to the requirements of their colleagues and employees as well.

National Processing of America: we answer every call except nature's.

That'd be an excellent signature. Or a slogan for a helpline.

I've always considered myself to be lucky to not having to work in the US. The rights employees have - or lack of, rather - are simply shocking. In Germany, your employer pays half of your health and unemployment insurance, grants you 30 days vacation per year and must give you notice at least 6 weeks ahead (usually it's 3 months). And nobody would dream of counting your potty breaks. Not paying for them would be unthinkable and would get the employer in serious legal trouble.
Pregnant women can't be fired either and if they chose to stay at home after the birth for up to 3 years, the employer must give them their old jobs back when they return, or at least an equal job. Alternatively, the employer can offer to pay a compensation.
Pregnant women are supposed to work up to about about 6-4 weeks before the estimated date of birth. (I really loathe the expression "delivery" - a baby is no parcel!)

I never understood why the workers in the US don't organize nationwide strikes to get decent working conditions. Ours did in the early 1900s and look what it got us.

 

[Deckerd]

It would be illegal in the UK. The employer wouldn't have even tried it.

 

[Timewalker]

This is one reason I always preferred to be self-employed. If I had to go, I went. And if I was sick, I decided for myself if I was capable of working. The only time I figured I was too sick was when a client considerately sneezed all over me when he was sick, and I ended up with a horrible bout of the flu.

Just in time for Christmas, naturally.

 

[Amaris]

This is one reason I always preferred to be self-employed. If I had to go, I went. And if I was sick, I decided for myself if I was capable of working. The only time I figured I was too sick was when a client considerately sneezed all over me when he was sick, and I ended up with a horrible bout of the flu.

Just in time for Christmas, naturally.

The sickest I've ever been was when I was a Santa Claus for our local farmer's market. I loved those kids, and it was so much fun, but oh my god, by the end of the third week, I could barely breathe.

 

[Trekker4747]

I never understood why the workers in the US don't organize nationwide strikes to get decent working conditions. Ours did in the early 1900s and look what it got us.

Unfortuantely, half our country think that groups of workers organizing and demanding things like livable wages, time off, and the such are evil. So evil, that many politicians in our country (again, about half of them) work STRONGLY to prevent such organizing.

 

[propita]

Hey, if she wasn't abusing things--and by that I mean saying she had to pee/vomit but really just slacking--then let her go pee/vomit. I know, that could lead to the"pee police." I'm sure there are plenty of people who have difficulties "going" sometimes or have food poisoning and can't stop going, and there are even more people who claim this but are just killing time. Somehow, go after the latter and leave the former alone.

I'm on a diuretic. Sometimes I have to go NOW, even when the quantity is minuscule. Doesn't stop the urgency but sure pisses me off. No pun intended.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

It would be illegal in the UK. The employer wouldn't have even tried it.

It's a violation of federal OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) standards here as well (and most likely whatever state occupational agency has jurisdiction too), and if an OSHA inspector were contacted on this they would most likely fine the company and force compliance. The OSHA standards are the minimal level of compliance that must be met nationwide, and state agencies can go over and above that if they so desire.

Under the general industry sanitation standards 29 CFR 1910.141, employers must provide restrooms for workers and permit reasonable access to toilet facilities when the employee needs to use them. Employers who violate these worker safety standards are subject to fines and penalties. OSHA permits employers to set reasonable limits on restroom usage. For example, in a factory setting where one missing employee can shut down the entire production line, an employee may have to signal for a replacement before using the restroom. However, in cases where the employee had to wait too long for the replacement, OSHA has ruled that the employer is in violation of the standard.

 

[Trekker4747]

It would be illegal in the UK. The employer wouldn't have even tried it.

It's a violation of federal OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) standards here as well (and most likely whatever state occupational agency has jurisdiction too), and if an OSHA inspector were contacted on this they would most likely fine the company and force compliance. The OSHA standards are the minimal level of compliance that must be met nationwide, and state agencies can go over and above that if they so desire.

Under the general industry sanitation standards 29 CFR 1910.141, employers must provide restrooms for workers and permit reasonable access to toilet facilities when the employee needs to use them. Employers who violate these worker safety standards are subject to fines and penalties. OSHA permits employers to set reasonable limits on restroom usage. For example, in a factory setting where one missing employee can shut down the entire production line, an employee may have to signal for a replacement before using the restroom. However, in cases where the employee had to wait too long for the replacement, OSHA has ruled that the employer is in violation of the standard.

Could depend on what "reasonable access" means. By whose standard? To pregnant woman having severe morning sickness or something along the lines of that Harry Potter spell-cast that Kate Middleton is suffering from "reasonable access" could mean "whenever I feel like it." To an employer "reasonable access" could be "only once per hour."

So what's the metric on "reasonable access."

Granted a pregnant woman should be given more leeway and the actions of the employer here are absurd and SHOULD call for OSHA or some other organization to step in. (Do pregnant women fall under any "disability" protections?) But there could be more here, maybe every time she went to the restroom on her way back she got stopped to talk to other employees on the way back to her desk/workstation? Or maybe she did it occasionally but the employer only saw those occasions -or mostly those occasions- so from his perspective she's getting up to go talk to co-workers under the pretense of "going to the bathroom."

There's likely more here than the story in the OP suggests. Needless. The woman should seek OSHA or other avenues of help.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

This company fails the OSHA "reasonable access" guidelines on time sensitive or complete denial grounds, since they're delaying access to the bathroom too long (until the employee has a designated break period) or denying access entirely (as indicated by them giving the employee a trash can to use instead).

It fails on medical grounds, since they're preventing someone who has a genuine medical need to use the bathroom often and since there's no standard number of bathroom breaks a person needs anyway; everyone is different and sex, age, or health concerns come into play.

And it fails on reasonable cause for denial grounds since a call center is not an assembly line or other similar situation where the sudden disappearance of a worker on the line would shut down the whole operation (and even then, they are expected to quickly provide replacement workers to fill the gap and allow the employee to use the bathroom).

I'd say the employee or her coworkers have ample cause to report this specific incident or the policy in general and get OSHA on the case.