Would you hire someone at 30 weeks pregnant?

Tigsteroonie

RedwoodBrook wrote: »

Glad I made the right decision then!

Just out of interest, what would you consider the "cut off" point for starting someones employment? 15? 20? 25 weeks?

Difficult to say. I was actively seeking work still at 24wks and would have liked someone to give me a job ... And then I had our son at 29wks, so wouldn't even have made it to a "30wk cutoff"

Strictly speaking, an employee doesn't have to tell you she's pregnant until 25 weeks (at the latest). Even that I would say is late to be employed in a new job unless there is virtually no training required. You would probably have to start recruiting someone to do maternity cover almost immediately.

Uncertain

RedwoodBrook wrote: »

Glad I made the right decision then!

Just out of interest, what would you consider the "cut off" point for starting someones employment? 15? 20? 25 weeks?

Well I hope she totally screws you for it!

You may not like the law so by all (peaceful) means lobby for a change and feel free to vote for whichever party has policies more to your liking.

However, you don't have the right to pick and choose which laws you obey. What crime do you have planned for tomorrow?

Nelski

No chance what would be the point?

Equally I would not employ a man who told me that in a few weeks time he would need a few months off and I would have to keep his job open.

As for the law lets get real - you clearly would not say it was because the person was pregnant just that another candidate was more suitable.

smileylondongal

Any wrote: »

You don't need to actually give reason... unless they ask and then you can just say you had better candidate!!
I doubt anyone is stupid enough to actually give pregnant woman the pregnancy as a reason... employers are completely entitled to hire the best person for the job and it would be difficult to prove one wasn't...
To be honest I cannot see how person leaving in couple of months time can be the best person for the job one is hiring for...

No cut off point. If I was hiring, I was hiring because I need someone.
I would consider person straight out of maternity leave, but not someone just before it.

If you're going to refuse a candidate based on their pregnancy then your documentation and decision must be air tight. Whilst employers may not be 'stupid enough' to admit why they've made this decision (some are), some are complacent enough to not have an air tight reason. Which is when sex discrimination comes in when they find a candidate challenges their process.

smileylondongal

Lovelyjoolz wrote: »

In a word, No. It's not just the fact that she'll disappear for 6months minimum maternity leave, it's the flexible hours she'll want, the emergency day off when the childminder is sick, or the hour or two off because little Johnny got sick at school. I'm sorry, but every woman (not to be sexist, but it always seems to be the mum that has to leave work in an emergency) with children that I've worked with has always had instances like this. Some much more than others. As an employer, I would always be wary of this, because frankly, having someone who keeps taking emergency leave, just puts a strain and extra pressure on all your other staff. It's not fair.

Maybe women just can't have it all.... I'm ready to be flamed now!!!!

Flaming commencing...:rotfl:

Are you really saying that you'd not employ any woman of child-bearing age because that's what I'm reading. You never know when someone will get pregnant and just because they are, doesn't mean they'll do any of the above, in fact as an HR professional, I've worked with tens of women and those you speak of above I can count on one hand, if that!

Savvy_Sue

Since it's possible the OP was asking about applying for jobs at 30 weeks pregnant, if I had to do this, I wouldn't apply for jobs I considered would put me at risk, and I wouldn't say I was pregnant until I had to, ie after I'd started.

As for employing someone who was 30 weeks pregnant, I wouldn't ask if they didn't say, even if I suspected.

smileylondongal

thegirlintheattic wrote: »

4) Will you become responsible for maternity pay for her?
QUOTE]
No, at this stage the company would not be liable to pay SMP but would need to gve her maternity leave unpaid. Most in this position would come back if they wanted to keep the job they applied for.

smileylondongal

Googlewhacker wrote: »

Well...actually you do, whether you get caught and punished for it is another matter!

It's a hell of a risk to take though, as far as I understand it, as there is no capped financial limit on sex discrimination.

smileylondongal

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

Since it's possible the OP was asking about applying for jobs at 30 weeks pregnant, if I had to do this, I wouldn't apply for jobs I considered would put me at risk, and I wouldn't say I was pregnant until I had to, ie after I'd started.

As for employing someone who was 30 weeks pregnant, I wouldn't ask if they didn't say, even if I suspected.

Couldn't agree with you more - the candidate must be the one to disclose this not the employer ask. OP, gawd, please tell me you didn't!

The OP also hasn't talked much about the actual role so whilst we're all assuming this would require lots of training, quals, and potential risk, we don't actually know this at all. I doubt a woman this far along would put herself at risk.

mountainofdebt

No I wouldn't and tbh I would be might miffed if I employed a woman and then she turned around and told me she was x weeks pregnant.