Preggers and riding...

[Trip]

Originally Posted by RACER X

i wasn;t so much worried about the liability standpoint. esp. since the state had pretty much said it was ok, it was more on my $.02. and how i felt about the condition and the activity.

Originally Posted by azoomm

OK, then that makes you an arrogant prick. Would almost make me want to take your class looking like I'm pregnant just so I could sue you for discrimination.

Not smart Ed. You don't own the business, it's not your decision to make.

Originally Posted by The Chi

I have to agree. My first thought upon readn your first post was, "who are you to tell me what to do?". If there isnt something stating that it is not allowed, than it is allowed. Refusing someone based on your personal beliefs is discrimination. You dont have the right to make someone elses decision like that. Just saying.

Here where I work, we are taught that if you aren't comfortable with the work that is about to be performed, that job needs to be stopped immediately to either you are comfortable or you find a replacement that is comfortable with the work to be performed. This is a quality and safety issue. If he wasn't comfortable with the lady in his class, she shouldn't be in his class. His over attention to her safety would impact the overall class in his reduced attention in the rest of them by monitoring her. That would be unacceptable.

As for his decision to make, yes it is his decision to make. If he thinks it is a safety risk on the customer, you can make that call. It's like Walt Disney World refusing a customer to ride rides because they are a safety risk. This is not discrimination. If the employer thinks it's not a safety risk, they can bring in another employee who is willing to take that safety risk.

Safety is not discrimination and you are allowed as an employee to say to your company that you do not want to perform a task because you think it is a safety hazard. It's every employees responsibility to question the tasks they are asked to perform.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by cbrchick

Already in the works. Like I said, I've driven neither. Haven't even registered the bikes. I kept the insurance on the scooter b/c it leaves my claim open and I can add the bike back on in within 2 ears and wont have my insurance go up.

I personally wouldn't ride b/c there's a totally differen't risk of trauma if I were to fall, get hit on a bike verses in a car. I just see too much at work, and I don't want to take any chances in putting my baby in harms way.

Plus, if I were to get into an accident, a pregnant ER nurse on a motorcycle, it would be in the front page for weeks.

Oh, and I don't bring home infectious strains like you'd think I have a pretty strong immunity. Rarely sick

strong immunity is good but you still carry. Luckily you should pass a lot of those on

[Apoc]

yup, in canada, we have the Unsafe Work Act, which gives anyone the right to refuse any kind of work they think will be harmful to anyone involved. Ed had every right to do what he did.

[HurricaneHeather]

Originally Posted by Trip

Here where I work, we are taught that if you aren't comfortable with the work that is about to be performed, that job needs to be stopped immediately to either you are comfortable or you find a replacement that is comfortable with the work to be performed. This is a quality and safety issue. If he wasn't comfortable with the lady in his class, she shouldn't be in his class. His over attention to her safety would impact the overall class in his reduced attention in the rest of them by monitoring her. That would be unacceptable.

As for his decision to make, yes it is his decision to make. If he thinks it is a safety risk on the customer, you can make that call. It's like Walt Disney World refusing a customer to ride rides because they are a safety risk. This is not discrimination. If the employer thinks it's not a safety risk, they can bring in another employee who is willing to take that safety risk.

Safety is not discrimination and you are allowed as an employee to say to your company that you do not want to perform a task because you think it is a safety hazard. It's every employees responsibility to question the tasks they are asked to perform.

You are putting too much faith in Ed.

[Trip]

Originally Posted by Apoc

yup, in canada, we have the Unsafe Work Act, which gives anyone the right to refuse any kind of work they think will be harmful to anyone involved. Ed had every right to do what he did.

yeah, we got the same thing in our OSHA laws.

[Trip]

Originally Posted by HurricaneHeather

You are putting too much faith in Ed.

yeah, that could be true, just the way he worded first made it seem he was in it for safety. He could be just against preggers though.

[shmike]

Originally Posted by Apoc

yup, in canada, we have the Unsafe Work Act, which gives anyone the right to refuse any kind of work they think will be harmful to anyone involved. Ed had every right to do what he did.

Maybe so but it doesn't make him less of a prick.

If someone at the DMV refused to allow a pregger chick to take her driving test, would you say the same?

[Apoc]

Im not saying eds not a prick, check his firefighters came to open my door threads, you'll see what I think of him there.

But in this situation, I cant say I wouldnt have done the same.

[RACER X]

so at a driving test, are they learning how to drive or already know? how many people crash on driving test, my guess far fewer then MSF class. but thats only a guess.

[shmike]

Originally Posted by Apoc

Im not saying eds not a prick, check his firefighters came to open my door threads, you'll see what I think of him there.

But in this situation, I cant say I wouldnt have done the same.

I know your thoughts on Ed.