Would you hire someone at 30 weeks pregnant?

Lovelyjoolz

smileylondongal wrote: »

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!

Unfortunately, that's exactly what I'm saying. My company is small, only 18 employees. I need staff that I can rely on to be there, pulling their weight. Maternity leave, emergency leave, poorly children are a nightmare for small businesses.

Perhaps I've been unlucky in the past, but that has been my experience and as such, colours my judgement. If I can avoid employing a woman of child-bearing age, I will. It's no more discriminating than choosing someone because their previous work history has been one of good, loyal service.

Uncertain

Lovelyjoolz wrote: »

It's no more discriminating than choosing someone because their previous work history has been one of good, loyal service.

Oh yes it is!

This is a perfectly legal way to make recruitment decisions and the other is not.

Sooner or later this will bite you hard. Remember, in cases like this the onus is on YOU to prove that you haven't discriminated unlawfully.

an9i77

Well if I hadn't already been a feminist before reading all these posts i certainly would be one now. Sadly these posts prove that there is more of a need for a feminist movement than ever. Didn't know having a womb would make me so much of a liability. Right I'm off to burn some bras...

Any

smileylondongal wrote: »

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.

Well, good luck with that.
In real life, there is tens of candidates applying for each job. Even non-pregnant employee will have to go to few interviews before getting as far as the final at one of them.
So in real life, the interviewer would have to make it quite obvious that the problem is pregnancy for the woman to have easy job of proving that she was discriminated against.

Once you are in, that is different matter (ie when you are going for promotion at existing workplace or something)... But how out of ten candidates applying for one job you are going to prove you were the best for the job (bearing in mind you have no idea about the other candidates) and the only reason you didn't get it is that you are pregnant is beyond me.. That would require lot of time and money..

Edit: just to add - I am a woman. But I can see that if one is hiring it is because they need a job doing. I can just see the sense in that.
I am not against women in the job getting pregnant (obviously, being a woman) - and then looking for cover. But that is a bit different then hiring a person and at the same time knowing that now you are also looking for cover.
And again - I would hire person straight out of maternity, no problem.

One poster said that some women go to work straight after 6 weeks - that is good point. But as at interview you cannot make any comment on the pregnancy, how are you going to find that out.

scheming_gypsy

an9i77 wrote: »

Sadly these posts prove that there is more of a need for a feminist movement than ever. .

the only feminist movement that's needed is for you to loosen your tampax; it's clearly too tight.

30 weeks pregnant = soon to have x months maternity and then possibly want to work part time
employer = looking for a member of staff because the workload demands it.

If you have an increased work load why would you even want to employ somebody who's going to be taking 6 / 9 months off shortly?

an9i77

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

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.

yes obviously that is the 'easier' option. What I am discussing here is what is the (morally) right option.

an9i77

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

the only feminist movement that's needed is for you to loosen your tampax; it's clearly too tight.

30 weeks pregnant = soon to have x months maternity and then possibly want to work part time
employer = looking for a member of staff because the workload demands it.

If you have an increased work load why would you even want to employ somebody who's going to be taking 6 / 9 months off shortly?

because the whole point of our discrimination laws is that people have a right to work and shouldn't be discriminated against because of factors not under their control such as their age, race, sex etc. Or do you think it is ok to discriminate?

scheming_gypsy

The 'morally right option' is to employ the best person for the job and that's the one who'll be able to start work, do the job and not take 9 months off within a couple of months of starting.

scheming_gypsy

an9i77 wrote: »

because the whole point of our discrimination laws is that people have a right to work and shouldn't be discriminated against because of factors not under their control such as their age, race, sex etc. Or do you think it is ok to discriminate?

I'm guessing the pregnant woman is called Mary, her husband is called Joseph and she's been knocked up by God?

the fact she's 30 months pregnant is pretty much well under her control.

redcard

an9i77 wrote: »

yes obviously that is the 'easier' option. What I am discussing here is what is the (morally) right option.

How do you define who is best suited to the job if the two candidates are equally matched?

Person A went to a better college. Pick them?
Person B has points on her driving license. Pick them?
Person A is morbidly obese. Pick them?

It's alright saying employ the pregnant woman when you're the one who doesn't have the responsibility of running a business. You can pick the right answer from a college textbook, but thankfully not all business are run by textbook, and some use common sense instead.