Telling my employer I am pregnant

purplepardalis

jdturk wrote: »

Of course not but there is little consideration given to businesses

Or the bigger picture.

Better to have productive members of society in our future generations than only those who do not have to work for a living or unfortunate ones who have never been shown the value of hard work and reaping what you sow.

Those businesses will benefit in the long run if they they invest in their employees, male or female. Else we'll end up with unskilled workforces, people with no moral backbone and no money to look after us when we are old.

jdturk

purplepardalis wrote: »

Or the bigger picture.

Better to have productive members of society in our future generations than only those who do not have to work for a living or unfortunate ones who have never been shown the value of hard work and reaping what you sow.

Those businesses will benefit in the long run if they they invest in their employees, male or female. Else we'll end up with unskilled workforces, people with no moral backbone and no money to look after us when we are old.

point is why should a company have to pay out for someone getting pregnant, and what about the people like as above get pregnant 3 times in 5 years.....hardly investing in that type of person is it

purplepardalis

jdturk wrote: »

point is why should a company have to pay out for someone getting pregnant, and what about the people like as above get pregnant 3 times in 5 years.....hardly investing in that type of person is it

Erm, bigger picture?

jdturk

purplepardalis wrote: »

Erm, bigger picture?

Ermmm the bigger picture is not in the interest of a business if someone isn't able to do the job they were hired for and causing added costs onto the business

onlyforboards_2

DKLS wrote: »

Oh was looking for a new role, she freely volunteered the fact that she was child free and wouldn't be having any, this went down very positively with recruiters.
Personally I would be reluctant to hire a woman of child bearing years, unless it was on a freelance contract basis.

Then you miss out on the most dedicated of work force. A woman who more than likely is tied to a mortgage and will be willing to do whatever it takes to please an employer who offers flexibility.

hayley_jayne

Not sure why you think you have a right to be supported, a business is a business and whilst they need to act correctly they have no requirement to support the person.

By support in this case, I am talking about being treated in a supportive manner. Therefore, if the employer does act 'correctly' they will in the main be behaving this way .

In terms of small businesses I do think more needs to be done in a number of areas to help them. After all, entrepreneurs are just what we need in the current economic climate. I would imagine the majority of people appreciate how tough it can be. However, I will never accept that poor practice and discrimination is the way forward.

jdturk

hayley_jayne wrote: »

By support in this case, I am talking about being treated in a supportive manner. Therefore, if the employer does act 'correctly' they will in the main be behaving this way .

In terms of small businesses I do think more needs to be done in a number of areas to help them. After all, entrepreneurs are just what we need in the current economic climate. I would imagine the majority of people appreciate how tough it can be. However, I will never accept that poor practice and discrimination is the way forward.

H x

I agree, rules are there for a reason and you are right that help needs to be given to the companies.

And in the whole I do think its a good idea but would change small things if I could

SandC

onlyforboards wrote: »

Then you miss out on the most dedicated of work force. A woman who more than likely is tied to a mortgage and will be willing to do whatever it takes to please an employer who offers flexibility.

You can no more say that a mother is 'the most dedicated of workforce' than any other worker. There are good and bad in singles, marrieds, parents etc. I have no children nor will be having any. I too and tied to a mortgage but even if I wasnt' I still would give total flexibility to my employer as I always have done.

Clark80

iamana1ias wrote: »

That's not what you said though, and as I've stated before, as long as all candidates are asked there cannot be any sex discrimination. Only asking female candidates would be discriminatory. I know plenty of men who have been asked about their family circumstances during interviews.

In the OP's case she was the only candidate, so there can't have been any discrimination.

Do you think this would hold up in a grievance or tribunal?

justcat

Clark80 wrote: »

Do you think this would hold up in a grievance or tribunal?

Exactly. Just because she was the only candidate doesn't mean they wouldn't have hired her if she said was planning on having kids.