Pregnant and new job

Person_one

AimeesMum wrote: »

Claire, being a midwife surely you agree that you simply cannot plan ahead just a short time off work due to how different peoples labours are and how they cope with motherhood?

Equally, someone who knows they'll need time off for say, surgery or chemotherapy can't know that they won't have complications or a slow recovery and be off for much longer than planned.

Would it be wrong for a man to accept a job knowing he was scheduled for a heart bypass or a knee replacement a couple of months in?

clairec79

Yes, and if she ends up with a section then she will need longer off but saying that she plans on returning in 2 weeks (but would explain that it would depend on how she feels physically afterwards nd is dependent on a straightforward birth) is still valid

Oldernotwiser

Person_one wrote: »

Would it be wrong for a man to accept a job knowing he was scheduled for a heart bypass or a knee replacement a couple of months in?

Actually, I do think that this would be wrong.

Person_one

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Actually, I do think that this would be wrong.

Seriously? You think someone should be unemployable because of a planned surgery?

Anybody, at any time, can find themselves temporarily or otherwise unable to work. They can be hit by cars, contract an illness, have a stroke etc. The world can't stop because of the possibility of ill health occurring.

Googlewhacker

Person_one wrote: »

Seriously? You think someone should be unemployable because of a planned surgery?

Anybody, at any time, can find themselves temporarily or otherwise unable to work. They can be hit by cars, contract an illness, have a stroke etc. The world can't stop because of the possibility of ill health occurring.

But an employer should have to sit around and accept being screwed over?

Person_one

Googlewhacker wrote: »

But an employer should have to sit around and accept being screwed over?

Right, because people are gleefully planning their operations while rubbing their hands together thinking of how they'll be getting one over on their employers.

Who wouldn't love to be paid for going under anaesthetic, then all that lazy lying around people do while they're 'healing'. They should all just go straight back in with oozing incisions and their drains still in, workshy bunch.

Googlewhacker

Person_one wrote: »

Right, because people are gleefully planning their operations while rubbing their hands together thinking of how they'll be getting one over on their employers.

Who wouldn't love to be paid for going under anaesthetic, then all that lazy lying around people do while they're 'healing'. They should all just go straight back in with oozing incisions and their drains still in, workshy bunch.

I never said that did I? But I can well understand an employer being peed of if someone who has only just started goes on maternity or gets an operation that keeps them out for months and costs the company extra money that could have been avoided.

Person_one

Googlewhacker wrote: »

I never said that did I? But I can well understand an employer being peed of if someone who has only just started goes on maternity or gets an operation that keeps them out for months and costs the company extra money that could have been avoided.

What's the alternative?

Women could stop having babies, bit of a short term fix though, the companies would run out of new workers within a couple of decades.

People could turn down medical treatment and just keep working through ill health till they drop. It happens in plenty of developing countries, and nobody has to pay out for pensions.

Or, maybe, employers could act in a humane manner, realise that their employees aren't robots who exist merely to generate profits for the top bods and show some compassion from time to time. Maybe that would result in employees who feel loyal and committed to their bosses, work harder for them and feel less inclined to 'screw them over' should they get the chance.

FBaby

I am really surprised people are making such a big deal of the fact the OP didn't disclose her pregnancy at interview and saying this is dishonest. How does the fact she will be off for a few weeks in a few month any different to someone who will be pregnant 6 months after starting the job? The moment you employ a age bearing woman, you take the chance she will be off on maternity leave at some stage in her employment. Personally, if I was an employer, i would be more bothered with employee who end up with 4 kids and taking a year off each time (as one of my friend) even though that is her right too and showed no dishonesty. In this case, the OP will be off shortly after starting, but is intending on taking very little maternity leave.

Just one thing to consider, rather than telling them that you intend on working until a week before your due date and coming back two weeks later, I would suggest you test the waters and see how they would react with a 6 weeks maternity leave. That is still a very short time and would give you a little bit more time with your baby. No offense at all, but I think giving birth and looking after a newborn does come as a shock and might not be what you expect at all. To start with, you seem to already think that you will be able to breastfeed and -therefore I assume - express milk for whoever is looking after the baby to give it in a bottle, but many newborn breastfeeding absolutely refuse to take on a bottle, not very pleasant compared to the warmth and softness of a breast! The last thing you want to is to feel under massive pressure to come back when you and your baby just physically can't.

Googlewhacker

Person_one wrote: »

What's the alternative?

Women could stop having babies, bit of a short term fix though, the companies would run out of new workers within a couple of decades.

People could turn down medical treatment and just keep working through ill health till they drop. It happens in plenty of developing countries, and nobody has to pay out for pensions.

Or, maybe, employers could act in a humane manner, realise that their employees aren't robots who exist merely to generate profits for the top bods and show some compassion from time to time. Maybe that would result in employees who feel loyal and committed to their bosses, work harder for them and feel less inclined to 'screw them over' should they get the chance.

I quite agree but surely you can understand why companies are annoyed when someone takes a job and then suddenly goes of for months at a time which DOES incur costs to the company (Holiday pay for a start).

You are also under the impression that all companies are national companies that can cope with this type of thing happening and not small to medium companies where it is alot harder for these companies.