The wingnuts will have to come up with another angle on Warren

[BeyondGeography]

Last edited Tue Oct 8, 2019, 09:59 AM - Edit history (1)

Elizabeth Warren stands by account of being pushed out of her first teaching job because of pregnancy

On the campaign trail, Elizabeth Warren often tells the story of how she was fired from her first teaching job in 1971 because she was pregnant, a pivotal moment that ultimately put her on a path to Harvard, the United States Senate, and quite possibly the presidency. But recently, several media outlets have questioned the veracity of these claims. In an exclusive interview with CBS News on Monday evening, Warren said she stands by her characterizations of why she left the job. "All I know is I was 22 years old, I was 6 months pregnant, and the job that I had been promised for the next year was going to someone else. The principal said they were going to hire someone else for my job," she said.

...In an interview that year at the University of California, Berkeley, Warren gave the first known public account of her time at Riverdale. "I worked in a public school system with the children with disabilities. I did that for a year, and then that summer I didn't have the education courses, so I was on an 'emergency certificate,' it was called," Warren said in 2007. "I went back to graduate school and took a couple of courses in education and said, 'I don't think this is going to work out for me.' I was pregnant with my first baby, so I had a baby and stayed home for a couple of years."

Asked by CBS News why she told the story differently at Berkeley a decade ago, Warren said her life since her election to the Senate in 2012 caused her to "open up" about her past. "After becoming a public figure I opened up more about different pieces in my life and this was one of them. I wrote about it in my book when I became a U.S. Senator," she said in a statement from her campaign.

...Warren also told CBS News that she was, in fact, officially offered the job for the following year as the school board minutes indicate. "In April of that year, my contract was renewed to teach again for the next year," Warren said. She also said she had been hiding her pregnancy from the school. "I was pregnant, but nobody knew it. And then a couple of months later when I was six months pregnant and it was pretty obvious, the principal called me in, wished me luck, and said he was going to hire someone else for the job," Warren said. Asked repeatedly whether she meant she was fired when she said the principal showed her the door, Warren said, "When someone calls you in and says, the job that you've been hired for for next year, is no longer yours, we're giving it to someone else. I think that's being 'shown the door.'"

...Interviews with retired teachers who worked for the Riverdale Board of Education at the same time as Warren suggest that while they do not remember Warren or the circumstances of her leaving the school, the workplace culture at the time may have left Warren with no option but to move on when her pregnancy became apparent.

Two retired teachers who worked at Riverdale Elementary for over 30 years, including the year Warren was there, told CBS News that they don't remember anyone being explicitly fired due to pregnancy during their time at the school. But Trudy Randall and Sharon Ercalano each said that a non-tenured, pregnant employee like Warren would have had little job security at Riverdale in 1971, seven years before the Pregnancy Discrimination Act was passed. ”The rule was at five months you had to leave when you were pregnant. Now, if you didn't tell anybody you were pregnant, and they didn't know, you could fudge it and try to stay on a little bit longer," Randall said. "But they kind of wanted you out if you were pregnant."

As the school board minutes show, no member of the Riverdale school board at the time was a woman. A full year after Warren's dismissal, the Associated Press wrote that a recent New Jersey State Division of Civil Rights decision meant that "pregnant teachers can no longer be automatically forced out of New Jersey classrooms."

More at https://www.cbsnews.com/news/warren-stands-by-account-of-being-pushed-out-of-her-first-teaching-job-because-of-pregnancy/

Warren's tweet on pregnancy discrimination this morning:

Link to tweet

[seaglass]

1. Yes, if you're including left wingnuts in that. As many women are aware, being pregnant

often has an impact on your career.

In the early 90s when pregnant with my son (but not showing) I applied for a promotion and absolutely would not tell anyone I was pregnant. Too much of a risk. And this was in a female dominated industry.

[BeyondGeography]

3. I certainly do/nt

[Blue_true]

7. One of the issues, if I can use that word, with female workers getting pregnant

is how to fill-in their job during their absence. Men don't get pregnant, but men also have not had to worry about losing their jobs due to injury, if they came back fit. The issue is even more complex for professional level women, if a female manager goes out due to pregnancy, a subordinate or someone else would ideally fill in until the female manager returns - the procedure is done regularly with men, but with women there has always been "what ifs", what if the fill-in does s super job?, what if the lost time sets the female manager behind. The problem is that regardless of what level the female reach, she faces these questions. Instead of having children as a manager, she could wait until she becomes a vice-president, the same questions stare her in the face, questions that men don't face.

One solution for me is to keep the fill-in at the same salary, but pay him or her a bonus for filling in for his or her pregnant superior, as long as the total pay doesn't exceed the superior's base pay grade. When the superior returns after having the child and parental leave, she resumes her old role, the fill-in keeps getting paid the bonus so as to not lose pay upon the return of his or her superior. If the fill-in was outstanding then a look out for promotional opportunities for him or her would be part of planning, as long as the promotion doesn't put him or her higher in rank than the superior, assuming that the superior returns and performs at past levels. The idea is that no female employee loses out because of becoming pregnant, but those that fill-in and do an outstanding job, get opportunities to move up down the line as well as get more pay. For management and executive level women, the company policy insures that if they perform their jobs well, pregnancy doesn't knock them out of rising higher as a manager or an executive.

[blm]

2. All their deep dives and they've produced little. No wonder

they’re left with manufacturing scandals.

[Blue_true]

8. Like with Hillary in 2016, some on the left are helping the right attempt to bring down

one of ours.

[Bleacher Creature]

4. Do Republicans not realize that women aren't visibly pregnant for the full nine months?

This is such a dumb argument as the supposed gotcha (that her contract was renewed while she was pregnant, but before she was showing), proves the exact point she was trying to make.

And P.S., after Trump, they never get to accuse anyone of lying ever again.

[comradebillyboy]

5. Republicans aren't the only ones smearing Warren, nor are they

the only ones smearing Biden.

[Blue_true]

9. Exactly. Notice how they had a woman lead the assault.

Hillary 2016 2.0.

[bobbieinok]

6. Is it 5hat 5hese people have to have something vs her. Or are just ignorant of women's history?

It's like they think 'if I didn't experience it personally what any woman says about her life and experience cannot be true! It's a lie!'

[Blue_true]

10. They had a young leftwing woman lead the assault on Senator Warren's account.

Of course in their eyes, they young women being a women made her above reproach. They really don't give a crap about the environment in 2019 is dramatically different from that for a very young Liz Warren in 1971.

[oasis]

11. Weak.

[BlueMTexpat]

12. Never dear, they

will! What most disgusts me is that some of these appear to call themselves Democrats!

And never fear, they will smear and lie about ANY candidate who receives the Dem nomination.