GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Baby Break

• 15132
  

  In regard to: Why allow one employee extra breaks and discriminate against her fellow employees by making them work during Clare's multi-breaks? Management also shouldn't have to pay her the same pay if she doesn't perform at the same level as her fellow employees. My reply: This is so funny because again, you assumed that I was a lay screener who whined over not having breaks. Let me school you again in facts. I was an acting lead who hardly took breaks and who let all of her crew take lunches and breaks before even thinking about myself because as you've stated, the job would never get done. So not only did I not have the "guaranteed 15 minutes breaks throughout my shift and a normal 1/2 lunch break," I did it without crying and whining about it. My crew could vouch for that. So again, assuming SATOTC, please don't say that I didn't perform at the level everyone else on my crew performed at because I always went above and beyond.

  In regard to: Management also shouldn't have to pay her the same pay if she doesn't perform at the same level as her fellow employees. Maybe, assuming SATOTC, you shouldn't be paid for your status because clearly, you don't know what management is, let alone, management and policies for the federal government...

  So having said all of this, let me clue you in on the end of this story . . . I've won. Not only all of the little battles leading up to the end, but the actual war. Thanks for not doing your job!

  Clare Posted February 27, 2006 4:28 PM
• 15131
  

  In regards to: Was Clare aware of her physical condition when she applied for the job and did she make management aware of her condition? My reply: No I was not aware of gestational diabetes because gestational diabetes is, as it says, gestational. It comes and goes with pregnancy. And if I were diabetic at the time that I was hired for the position, it would have been disclosed and if you did your research on government and policies, you would know that it is illegal to discriminate based on disability, which diabetes would fall under. So please do some homework before trying to school the public.

  In regards to: Clare made the decision (not management) to get pregnant and I'm sure she was also aware that her decision would escalate her medical condition. Do you think she ever thought about her commitment to her job when she made the decision to get pregnant?

  My reply: This is just idiotic and I don't have to explain it any further, but let's do so because I know you're confused. Let me give you an example, if a female peace officer becomes pregnant and eventually can no longer perform the duties as signed up for due to normal pregnancy issues, do you think that her superiors and in essence, her employer would say, "Uh sorry, but you got pregnant and uh we didn't hire a pregnant woman so uh, you can't work here anymore and we can't accommodate you"? Oh come on now! I would hope that they wouldn't because there would be a ton more of these types of cases because that would mean that they all think like you! And this is very sad yet entertaining because clearly, assuming SATOTC, you do not know your job.

  There is something called maternity leave and FMLA which allows for employers to accommodate life changing situations. Again, I cannot stress to you how much you should have read over these policies before opening your mouth.

  I will continue this on another posting soon to follow.

  Clare Posted February 27, 2006 4:25 PM
• 12223
  

  If the facts are as stated (the press often misses relevant facts) the managers did nothing wrong in a legal sense. What this does illustrate is that the managers are not competent managers. This situation as pointed out by Charlie is rampant throughout the government. There is no reason to punish me by paying this women with my money because of incompetent managers. The managers should pay the costs of the back pay not me! They also should be demoted and not just made to attend some useless training on discrimination.

  taxpayer Posted September 15, 2005 7:05 AM
• 12106
  

  You people who critisize this girl can't be real. I am a current federal-type employee. I have seen managers leave their offices to get their hair cut, see doctors, meet their wives, wait for the cable-man and basically just walk away without authority whatever. On top of this, they don't charge it off as personal leave, etc., they just take it and yet draw full salary with no deductions. You all want to say this woman didn't have any right to a little extra consideration? What kind of world are you in? You wouldn't be here without someone who probably went thru the same things when you were born - mainly your mother. Would you feel this way about her? Her managers should have been fired. Nothing is as worthless as a hypocrite in federal employment.

  Charlie Posted September 10, 2005 12:59 PM
• 12016
  

  SATOTC has it at least partially right, a lot of unanswered questions. Too bad a case so weak is setting the precedent. I have probelms with giving Calire all the extra breaks, unless she was willing to take leave or otherwise make up the time, (don't know, wasn't said) but TSA should have let her go part-time instead of stonewalling. As for denying the promotion, lets see, an employee with health problems that is not at work, and applying for a promotion. When, or if, she (in this case, could have been "he") comes back to work then give her an equal opportunity next time, but they need a supervisor now, not sometime in the future. Proven by her ultimate resignation, not for EEOC reasons.

  GovExec.com reader Posted September 7, 2005 8:04 AM
• 11979
  

  SATOTC is a sick puppy. Hopefully s/he will one day need a little accommodation and have it stuck in the ear. Must be a manager/puke. IT's the SATOTCs that do a disservice to humanity that gives the government the bad rap it deserves. Just remember; your day will come !!

  Mark Edwards Posted September 6, 2005 9:27 AM
• 11961
  

  I think the comments by SATOTC are way out of wack. I too had problems during my pregnancy. I was told that I would need to stay at home possibly for the remainder of my pregnancy and I was only in the 4th month. I was lucky and management allowed me to work at home until the 8th month. At that time, however, one particular manager wanted me back and said I had no choice even though the doctors recommended that I stay at home. So, I came back to work. No sooner did I come back to work and I started having problems. My doctors ended up having to do an emergency c-section and I was told that they almost lost my baby. The attitude should not be that you not get pregnant based on what kind of job you have. It is one thing to apply or maintain a job that you are unable to do. But, to say that you should not get pregnant because you hold that job is ludicrous. The supervisor could have reassigned this woman temporarily. Once the baby was born and the woman was back from maternity leave, she could than resume her normal duties.

  GovExec.com reader Posted September 3, 2005 6:16 AM
• 11954
  

  The comments of *OTC (9/2/05) are out of line. Ms. Domingo may or may not have had some control over "getting pregnant" but she certainly had no control over gestational diabetes. Her need to check her blood sugar was essential not only to her health but also to that of her child. If breaks were not possible, her request for a temporary position off the line should have been the least her supervisor could have done. Maybe you need to be a diabetic or have a debilitating disease before you can see the other side.

  Makes me wonder if *OTC was one of the managers sanctioned in this case.

  GovExec.com reader Posted September 2, 2005 3:43 PM
• 11939
  

  POOR OLD CLARE........normally I'm sympathetic with employees but in this case I must side with management. I believe what the article is trying to say is POOR OLD CLARE wanted EXTRA breaks to take care of her medical condition and pregnancy. Then she wanted them to grant her a part time job, again with these EXTRA scheduled breaks. The article doesn't say how many or how long these breaks were to last. There are a lot of unanswered questions and areas which are unclear, like was Clare aware of her physical condition when she applied for the job and did she make management aware of her condidtion. CLARE made the decision (not management)to get pregnant and I'm sure she was also aware that her decision would escaluate her medical condition. Do you think she ever thought about her commitment to her job when she made the decision to get pregnant? First of all management hired POOR OLD CLARE as a airport security screener which requires her to work the hours required by the job. If all security screener personnel were allowed to take extra breaks and say only work 6 hours a day rather than 8 hours, the job would never get accomplished. Why allow one employee extra breaks and discriminate against her fellow employees by making them work during Clare's multi breaks? Management also shouldn't have to pay her the same pay if she doesn't perform at the same level as her fellow employees. AGAIN this would discriminate against them. If Clare can't perform at the level she signed on to do, she needs to take leave and go home until she can perform the job as she originally agreed to. I say Clare's fellow employees need to contact AFGE and Mr. Gony Frieder so they can file their own descrimination compliant.

  GovExec.com reader Posted September 2, 2005 9:27 AM