Telling my employer I am pregnant

valos_mummy

iamana1ias wrote: »

Not true, provided they were asked of all candidates.

Even the men? Because they'll have paternity leave. Trouble is, the OP can't exactly go round all the other interviewees asking what was asked of them in their interviews. And the boss doesn't sound like the sort of character who would provide interview records without some sort of doctoring beforehand to try and cover his a$$.

The fact he's commenting on his employee's private lives to the OP at interview stage, all but saying "if you plan on having children you won't get this job" and telling everyone said employee is for the chop when she comes back - it just beggars belief that someone could be so non-professional.

Fine, you have a small business and you don't want to keep paying out for maternity and/or can't afford to. You should still conduct yourself in better ways than this boss IMO. I say the OP should fight if she gets the sack (and she most probably will), join forces with the other woman who's getting made redundant and take him on. I agree with 2520years, if no-one stands up to him, he'll continue to act that way.

edited to add: just read the bit about no other candidates

Clark80

Not word for word - But if you are pregnant you are protected. This doesn't mean that he wouldn't sack you or treat you unfairly etc. but you have a case if that does indeed happen.

It's against employment regulations to discuss kids etc during interview which leads me to believe he doesn't know what he is doing or doesn't care.

Put your baby and health above all else. Best wishes

mrsmoneyworries

Clark80 wrote: »

Not word for word - But if you are pregnant you are protected. This doesn't mean that he wouldn't sack you or treat you unfairly etc. but you have a case if that does indeed happen.

It's against employment regulations to discuss kids etc during interview which leads me to believe he doesn't know what he is doing or doesn't care.

Put your baby and health above all else. Best wishes

I completely agree with this, I went for an interview at a family run business and got questioned about wanting a family etc (i hadnt long been married so hadnt even thought about children), I was honest and told them this.

I subsequently got the job and ended up pregnant also - from that day on they made my life hell and moaned about my work, which was a big suprise as the day before I found out they had praised me for all my hard work !!

Anyway they pressured me that much I had to leave, as it wasn't worth risking my baby.

I would never work for a family firm ever again (from my personal experience - I am not saying they are all ike this)

I just want to say good luck and best wishes.

Proc

Not sure I see the problem.

When an employer is asking "do you plan for children in the future", it's not because he gives a toss about your family life, it's because what he should really be asking is "do you plan to take extended time off work in the near future". You said no, but the answer is yes. He may be underhand with how he words things, but at least he's honest and you know where you stand.

One member of staff, taking long-term leave, can screw over small businesses and I'm sick and tired of seeing people expect immunity to critisicm because they are having a child. Taking time off to have a child is no different to going travelling for 6 months, having a career-break etc. It's (in 99.999% of circumstances) something that's done through choice. I wish employment laws would stop pandering around this subject.

It's an "accident"? What, like he tripped, you fell, and, oh dear.

iamana1ias

Clark80 wrote: »

It's against employment regulations to discuss kids etc during interview which leads me to believe he doesn't know what he is doing or doesn't care.

AGAIN, no it isn't. Unless you'd like to
prove otherwise with some kind of evidence

iamana1ias

valos_mummy wrote: »

Even the men? Because they'll have paternity leave.

Yes, absolutely. Otherwise it's blatant sex discrimination

and 2 weeks off on paternity leave is nowhere near as disruptive as 9 months off on maternity leave. :rolleyes:

jacqhale

Proc wrote: »

Not sure I see the problem.

When an employer is asking "do you plan for children in the future", it's not because he gives a toss about your family life, it's because what he should really be asking is "do you plan to take extended time off work in the near future". You said no, but the answer is yes. He may be underhand with how he words things, but at least he's honest and you know where you stand.

One member of staff, taking long-term leave, can screw over small businesses and I'm sick and tired of seeing people expect immunity to critisicm because they are having a child. Taking time off to have a child is no different to going travelling for 6 months, having a career-break etc. It's (in 99.999% of circumstances) something that's done through choice. I wish employment laws would stop pandering around this subject.

It's an "accident"? What, like he tripped, you fell, and, oh dear.

I understand it's hard on small businesses but does that mean that no woman should be allowed to work just in case she may get pregnant in the future? I know he's not bothered about my personal life but the effect it will have on his business, but he employed me to do a job which I do to the best of my ability and who's to say a guy wouldn't have taken the job and be signed off for months for depression or stress or serious illness/injury. As I said before from what I have been told the guy who did the job before me took most Mondays and Fridays off 'sick' turned up late to work and trade events, presented a bad attitude to suppliers and colleagues and generally did not do very much. I'm not sure why he was allowed to get away with it for so long.
I don't think the law panders to women but rather allows us a fair chance of being able to work and contribute.
Me falling pregnant wasn't an accident but I'm sure plenty of women do have true accidents - vasectomies not working, falling on the coil, medication affecting the pill etc etc ...

woody01

You have the right to get pregnant, no-one disputes that. The thing is, the bloke is trying to run a business and his staff keep getting up the duff!

Its no wonder he is struggling!

jacqhale

He's not struggling because a receptionist got pregnant, the whole industry is struggling because of the economic climate in general .....
I could work with him to try and minimise the disruption if he doesn't just get rid of me. As far as SMP goes, I was under the impression that employers claimed most/all of this back from the government (although that could be completely wrong) so the cost of pay should not be an issue?

There are only 3 women in an office that is predominantly male and one of them can't have children so once I'm back that will be it.

I can see how it is hard on small businesses but it's harder for me if I don't work. The business will still carry on if I go on leave for 6 months and then come back. If I couldn't work just in case i got pregnant we would have to leave our house and lifestyle (which subsequently drips into the economy) and rely heavily on benefits - surely that's not a preferable situation?

Proc

jacqhale wrote: »

I don't think the law panders to women but rather allows us a fair chance of being able to work and contribute.

Contribute what? You think that bringing a child into the world you're helping anyone other than yourself? Parents to new-borns think that the world owes them some massive divine favour for bringing up a child. It doesn't.

The other guy didn't work as he was supposed to. He has been fired/let go/whatever accordingly. Having children is an incredible priviledge...not a right that everyone seems to think they are entitled to.

It's this culture that is leading us to over-population. But that's one for another thread.