Would you hire someone at 30 weeks pregnant?

mountainofdebt

an9i77 wrote: »

I completely understand that it is disruptive to a company to take someone on who is heavily pregnant but like it or not it is the law of the land and this is what our law makers have decreed we must not discriminate against. .

So imagine for one minute you are an employer and you have 2 candidates one heavily pregnant woman and the other is say a man. No difference in the calibre of the candidates.

Who would you employ and why?

I bet in 99.999% of cases it would be the man.

an9i77

mountainofdebt wrote: »

So imagine for one minute you are an employer and you have 2 candidates one heavily pregnant woman and the other is say a man. No difference in the calibre of the candidates.

Who would you employ and why?

I bet in 99.999% of cases it would be the man.

actaully after my personal experience, if the pregnant lady was the better candidate I'd probably go for her! as for what other people would do I agree it probably would be the man. But I'm a feminist so would probably put principles before profit (glad I don't run a business)

mountainofdebt

an9i77 wrote: »

actaully after my personal experience, if the pregnant lady was the better candidate I'd probably go for her! as for what other people would do I agree it probably would be the man. But I'm a feminist so would probably put principles before profit (glad I don't run a business)

No the candidates are of equal calibre.

The point is, is that when you're an employee you can afford ot live in utopia but employers, especially small businesses, can't afford that luxury.

an9i77

mountainofdebt wrote: »

No the candidates are of equal calibre.

The point is, is that when you're an employee you can afford ot live in utopia but employers, especially small businesses, can't afford that luxury.

But it's not really costing the employer that much, I mean if the woman was going for a job at 30 weeks pregnant she is probably intending to return, so any training costs will have a ROI at a later point, and I agree the employer would need to recruit a maternity cover and maybe pay some recruitment costs, but then they'd have to do that anyway if the woman got pregnant at any point during her employment (or are you saying that small employers can't afford to take the risk of any woman becoming pregnant, don't think you are!). The SMP would be paid from the benefits office (actually maternity allowance) so she is actually a better bet cost wise than a woman who gets pregnant after commencing employment and therefore becomes entitled to SMP. Its an inconvenience and hassle rather than a major expense for the employer.

Nicki

Slightly off on a tangent, but if I were an applicant and 30 weeks pregnant, I might be inclined to apply but with a covering letter explaining I was pregnant, and asking for my application to be kept on file in case the appointee left after a short time, or a similar position opened up in 6 months time. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

mountainofdebt

an9i77 wrote: »

But it's not really costing the employer that much, I mean if the woman was going for a job at 30 weeks pregnant she is probably intending to return, so any training costs will have a ROI at a later point, and I agree the employer would need to recruit a maternity cover and maybe pay some recruitment costs, but then they'd have to do that anyway if the woman got pregnant at any point during her employment (or are you saying that small employers can't afford to take the risk of any woman becoming pregnant, don't think you are!). The SMP would be paid from the benefits office (actually maternity allowance) so she is actually a better bet cost wise than a woman who gets pregnant after commencing employment and therefore becomes entitled to SMP. Its an inconvenience and hassle rather than a major expense for the employer.

So the time spent interviewing doesn't have a cost? What about the cost (in terms of time, reduced output) of training that person?

Even if the above had zero cost, many small business employers would avoid that inconvenience and hassle if they had a choice in the matter.

an9i77

mountainofdebt wrote: »

So the time spent interviewing doesn't have a cost? What about the cost (in terms of time, reduced output) of training that person?

Even if the above had zero cost, many small business employers would avoid that inconvenience and hassle if they had a choice in the matter.

I never said there were no costs, but it won't cost as much as people may be supposing.If the woman will be returning to work (no guarantees but likely if she is applying for a job this far into her pregnancy) then the training and interviewing will not be in vain. I agree that there will be a cost to interview and train a cover person, if the company do this, but then there's always that risk if a woman of child bearing age is employed and gets pregnant during her employment. And the human race isn't dying out just yet so I guess a lot of employers are going to have to run with that risk. Also, I used to do a lot of maternity covers on contract and found a lot of the time the employer valued the new skills and breadth of experience of someone coming into the team for a defined period of time, particularly because I could bring a fresh perspective that someone who'd perhaps been there a very long time, could not. So whilst there are costs to recruiting a maternity cover, there are benefits too.

thegirlintheattic

an9i77 wrote: »

But it's not really costing the employer that much, I mean if the woman was going for a job at 30 weeks pregnant she is probably intending to return, so any training costs will have a ROI at a later point, and I agree the employer would need to recruit a maternity cover and maybe pay some recruitment costs, but then they'd have to do that anyway if the woman got pregnant at any point during her employment (or are you saying that small employers can't afford to take the risk of any woman becoming pregnant, don't think you are!). The SMP would be paid from the benefits office (actually maternity allowance) so she is actually a better bet cost wise than a woman who gets pregnant after commencing employment and therefore becomes entitled to SMP. Its an inconvenience and hassle rather than a major expense for the employer.

Many women are convinced they will return after maternity, and many then change their minds once the baby is here. I completely understand the decision but that is what the employer is going to be thinking about.

You are essentially arguing that no women of child bearing age should be taken on - as they might all go on maternity at some point. In the end employers are going to deal with the immediate issue, which is a heavily pregnant woman who will be going on maternity opposed to a candidate who many not ever go on maternity or who may leave the company before they do.

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

It's unwise to assume anything these days. Some of us look pregnant even when we're not ... and age is no barrier!

As employers are not meant to ask these kind of questions then I'm afraid if you look 30 weeks pregnant then a lot of employers are going to assume you are. Although if the interviewers are female, there are tell tale signs they might pick up on.

scheming_gypsy

an9i77 wrote: »

I agree that there will be a cost to interview and train a cover person,

so there's no point employing the pregnant one is there. If they're going to have to find cover they might as well employ the 'cover' in the first place for the job instead of the pregnant one.

pineapple

I feel particularly sorry for small companies in this situation. As a female I wouldn't employ someone 30 weeks pregnant. There is too big a risk of them wanting to take a big chunk of time off before they are properly into the job or trained. OK it's the law but sometimes the law is an a**!
The other thing is that this job would involve building up interpersonal relationships with clients. It might be damaging to them if the new employee disappeared after a month in the job.