Would you hire someone at 30 weeks pregnant?

an9i77

scheming gypsy - so you are basically saying that women have to choose between having a job and having a child? Ok so why don't men have to make this choice, is that fair?

redcard

an9i77 wrote: »

scheming gypsy - so you are basically saying that women have to choose between having a job and having a child? Ok so why don't men have to make this choice, is that fair?

Because we can't get pregnant? Simples.

an9i77

exactly - and until men can get pregnant then discrimination against women will always happen.

scheming_gypsy

an9i77 wrote: »

scheming gypsy - so you are basically saying that women have to choose between having a job and having a child? Ok so why don't men have to make this choice, is that fair?

nope, that's what you're trying to make out.. possibly because being a feminist is clouding your view.

what i'm saying is that if the employer needs more staff it's because they need the staff there working, not at home changing nappies. Why should they offer somebody a job, then wait for references, arrange the CRB checks, wait till they start, send them for training and then wave them on their way for a year.

an9i77

so now that they've passed a law to allow women to transfer up to six months maternity leave to the man would you say a man with a pregnant partner is also a liability?

danielley

I once employed a young girl, and between interview and job commencing, she called up and said she was early stages pregnancy.

Obviously we had to continue the job offer, as we couldn't discriminate. She had a very bad pregnancy, from 5 months onwards she was off ill with pregnancy related illness and didn't come back after having the baby.

We were really glad, as the time she was in work before giving up , she was really poor at her job, but we didn't feel that we could discipline her as she pregnant.

As a woman, if I was 30 weeks pregnant and unable to survive on jobseekers, I would look for temp work until after the baby was born.

I may be wrong, but you wouldn't get more than Statutory from a new employer anyway, but I suppose you would have the security of knowing there was a job to go back to.

emsywoo123

Lovelyjoolz wrote: »

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.

Well, more fool you, as I was a good employee before having children, but I became excellent once I had had them.

I HAD to work to provide for them, I took on a far more responsible attitude and stretched myself far more in my employment to ensure I maximised my achievements.

I was there early and never left before my end time, to avoid prejudiced and narrow minded colleagues (and/or employers ) thinking I was taking the mick as a mother.

In essence, having children (for me) made me grow up and change/improve my work ethic.

redcard

an9i77 wrote: »

so now that they've passed a law to allow women to transfer up to six months maternity leave to the man would you say a man with a pregnant partner is also a liability?

Now you have equality in the workplace. :T

redcard

emsywoo123 wrote: »

Well, more fool you, as I was a good employee before having children, but I became excellent once I had had them.

I HAD to work to provide for them, I took on a far more responsible attitude and stretched myself far more in my employment to ensure I maximised my achievements.

I was there early and never left before my end time, to avoid prejudiced and narrow minded colleagues (and/or employers ) thinking I was taking the mick as a mother.

In essence, having children (for me) made me grow up and change/improve my work ethic.

The post above yours tells a completely opposite story. So we conclude that employers are taking a massive chance when employing a pregnant woman.

Any

The fact is, until one is in the situation of paying for cover staff, having the stress of paying and training for staff, the stres with cashflow and the fight for companies survival, they will never know how difficult these situations are.

Having a baby is completely natural thing and business needs to be ready for it - I am not denying it. And most are.

But here we are discussing hiring a person who is going to get us into this situation without giving us time for preparation.

It has nothing to do with women being discriminated against, it has to do the fact that you would not hire guy without a driving licence to drive a truck, would you? It would take you months of paying him to train him to drive a truck, so you would just hire one with licence already.