Introducing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act: A Game-Changer for Expecting Mothers
Activists argue that the United States desperately needs this law in order to protect pregnant workers, especially those in physically demanding jobs or low-wage positions, who often face a challenging choice between their health and their paycheck.
Vanessa Brown Calder, the director of family policy at the esteemed Cato Institute, sheds light on how this new legislation may actually have unintended negative consequences for many women.
“While these policies are well-meaning, it doesn’t guarantee that they will yield positive outcomes,” explains Calder during our conversation. Interestingly, Calder, who is herself pregnant, believes that this law may result in a decrease in the employment prospects for women altogether.
This can be exemplified by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). When President George H.W. Bush signed this landmark law, it received bipartisan support and was widely celebrated across the nation.
However, over time, the ADA ended up negatively affecting disabled individuals seeking employment. Prior to its enactment, the employment rate for disabled people was consistently rising. Right before the law was passed, almost 30% of disabled individuals were part of the workforce. However, after the ADA became law, employment for disabled workers was cut in half!
Strangely enough, this decline in employment opportunities for disabled individuals was a consequence of the job “protection” provided by the ADA.
Employers became increasingly apprehensive about potential disability-related lawsuits, fearing that once they hired a disabled person, they would never be able to terminate their employment if it didn’t work out. This concern is similarly applicable to the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which could make hiring young women a risky proposition.
“Essentially, employers may view hiring women as a potential lawsuit bomb,” I suggest to Calder, who nods in agreement. “Pregnant workers become riskier and more expensive to hire because employers cannot predict what accommodations the woman may request.”
Therefore, it becomes more enticing for employers to reject the idea of hiring women altogether. After all, the government cannot ascertain the specific reasons for a hiring decision.
Calder counters, saying, “Companies become adept at finding ways to navigate around these types of regulations.”
However, government officials often assume their laws will achieve their intended effects and strive to appease special interest groups. The chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission even boasted that this law has garnered support from businesses, faith-based organizations, health organizations, women’s organizations, and civil rights organizations!
But so what?
“Activists tend to focus on the short-term effects of such laws,” discusses Calder. “It’s relatively easy to get behind a surface-level analysis of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and believe that it could be beneficial.”
“The momentum is always in favor of more regulations,” I interject.
“Often, guidance is issued years after the law is passed,” Calder reveals. “This is likely just the initial phase.”
These mounting regulations end up stifling job growth in numerous ways. Since the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act applies to companies with 15 or more employees, it inadvertently incentivizes businesses with 14 employees to remain small.
“As you grow, the penalties increase,” Calder highlights.
“Without a law like this, who would hire someone like you?” I inquire. “You might encounter more medical issues and require extended leave.”
“Pregnant workers bring immense value to the workforce,” Calder affirms. “Many employers recognize that. However, when you implement a one-size-fits-all policy like this, it raises concerns among many employers.”
I pose a thought-provoking question, “Shouldn’t the Cato Institute have the right to terminate your employment because you became pregnant?”
Calder responds thoughtfully, “I believe they should. Because ultimately, I want individuals like myself to have the opportunity to be hired in the first place.”
Indeed.
I, too, have faced adversity in the job market due to my stutter. When I first applied for jobs, I hadn’t yet gained control over my speech impediment. If the ADA had existed back then, I may have demanded special accommodations.
“Disability lawyers” would have been ready to defend my “rights.”
No television network would have taken a risk on hiring me! I would have never received a chance to prove myself.
Now, with the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act in motion, countless opportunities for women may vanish.
John Stossel, the renowned author of “Give Me a Break: How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media.”
