The business owner has power. The employee has, in effect, only the power of the state as a counterbalance.
Edited to grammarize it better
Sounds like someone just finished reading Atlas Shrugged for the first time… 
The employee has freedom, he or she is under no obligation to work for an employer they don’t like. No employer can force any employee to do anything they do not want to do, to work under conditions they don’t like as the employee can leave at any time.
Or they don’t want to advertise their ownership of a business with a bad reputation.
He always pictured himself a libertarian, which to my way of thinking means “I want the liberty to grow rich and you can have the liberty to starve.” It’s easy to believe that no one should depend on society for help when you yourself happen not to need such help.
— Isaac Asimov on Robert A. Heinlein and libertarian ethics
The issue is rather simple, should the state use the force of law (i.e. the threat of violence) to make business owners change working conditions to accommodate a pregnant worker?
It’s not like women only started getting pregnant just now and this is the reason the bill, was introduced, they’ve been getting pregnant for quite a while now, maybe not as long as they’ve been having abortions, but for a while now.
So the answer is yes, because business owners haven’t done it, then the public, through its representing arm of government should decide that that is the standard for its community.
This rights of the business owner vs rights of the worker and the government as something more than than a representation of the community is a smokescreen.
Both the employer and the employee have rights. Though there is a hierarchy to these things, and humans should have their rights trump those of a non-living company/corporation, as we aren’t yet living in an 80s style dystopia.
I am all for capitalism and free enterprise, but we must have some limits and concessions. Read about the early industrial revolution and why we have things such as a 40 hr work week if you want to know why these are good ideas.
Also, the US is one of 9 countries with out mandatory paid maternity leave. IMHO this is outrageous. Countries who are not only poorer but have a much higher birth rate do a better job with new mothers. Countries more like the US in economics still offer more paid time, include the freaking Russians of all people.
No one seems to bat an eye when we suggest investing in companies. Why then is there resistance to investing in PEOPLE. They are what are required (at this point) for an economy to run and a society to function.
Except that the realities of requiring employment for things like rent money, food, and healthcare do not make it that simple. Especially when you’re expecting childbirth.
The employer also has freedom: rather than be “forced” to accommodate basic needs of people who they have a certain measure of power over, they could just not run a business and instead go work for someone else…
I was hunting around for a vaguely-remembered viral thing from a few years ago along the lines of “an open letter to my stupid teenage libertarian self”. Couldn’t find it, but I did find this, which hits many of the same points:
Hows about the workers get together and decide that they figure out what kind of conditions they like together, and then point out helpfully that they will all withdraw their labour if things aren’t how they like them? Or would that somehow be unfair? I’m guessing you don’t like that idea.
I refer you to m’learned friend @M_M’s splendidly concise answer given to you previously.
Should the state allow private entities to use violence (forcing pregnant people to stand under conditions that amount to stress positions, and denying bathroom breaks under threat of loss of employment which may cause them to lose their houses … The threat of which can cause stress that can cause miscarriages. A much more likely scenario them the government sending heavily armed men to the company to enforce employment protections) against people because of an ideology of freedom that only recognizes corporate freedom in a meaningful way?
Until there UBI or universal employment, the power on that still rests almost 100% with the employers. Even if we get UBI or universal employment, we’re still going to want protection for workers because the balance may be improved but the company still has a lot more opportunity to harm their employees than the other way around.
ETA: sassiness toned down.
“Job Creators” are not feudal lords. Employees are not serfs, and even more sadly, well spoken Americans can be as wrongheaded about our responsibilities to one another as you, who likely consider yourself a moral person, are.
Employers have responsibilities to “The People”, if you don’t like it, do business with money that doesn’t have the name of The People on it. Print your own money and you can be king for as long as people take it. For now though, come back down to earth among us mortals and stop kicking down.
The business owner has responsibilities first.
This special message brought to you by: The 19th Century
it’s going to be crowded this year.
pretty much
applies to Tennessee as well (where I’m at). We do have good food in Nashville.
They don’t care about people affected by this. All the TGOP cares about is making the rich richer and companies profitable.
pretty sure you summed up the TGOP thinking right there!
Well done sir!!!
Exactly! The only thing keeping a company from firing you for being too old or non-white is the law. If that’s gone, then bad things will happen.
Love Hienlein’s books. The man himself…hmmm…maybe not?
Tell Drumpf that Putin loves paid leave for mothers and it will get done!
Tougher than I am then, I couldn’t get through it once.
