Would you hire someone at 30 weeks pregnant?

Owain_Moneysaver

Any wrote: »

.. 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..

You would apply to the employer, using pre-Tribunal Disclosure and the Data Protection Act if necessary, for the employer's recruitment assessment and scoring sheets.

If you're the best scoring candidate but didn't get the job you've got a good case. If there's a mention of 'pregnant' on any of the paperwork you've got a very good case.

Wise employers will take great care in completing those scoring sheets.

An employer is not bound to recruit anybody; it is quite possible to end recruitment without employing someone, and open recruitment for another job with a different job description and person specification. Ask the candidates if they wish to be considered for a different but similar job that has come up. Score the applications against that different spec and you will end up with different results favouring your preferred candidate.

Discrimination? Possibly. Provable? Unlikely, if you make sure all the paperwork supports your position.

an9i77

Any wrote: »

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.

you don't have to prove you were discriminated against - burden of proof at a tribunal is on employer to prove they hadn't discminated against you

thegirlintheattic

I think people are getting the issues confused. There is a clear difference between saying you will not employ any woman in case she gets pregnant and saying that a heavily pregnant woman is not a good choice to employ because of they WILL take maternity leave soon.

Any

Owain_Moneysaver wrote: »

You would apply to the employer, using pre-Tribunal Disclosure and the Data Protection Act if necessary, for the employer's recruitment assessment and scoring sheets.

If you're the best scoring candidate but didn't get the job you've got a good case. If there's a mention of 'pregnant' on any of the paperwork you've got a very good case.

Wise employers will take great care in completing those scoring sheets.

An employer is not bound to recruit anybody; it is quite possible to end recruitment without employing someone, and open recruitment for another job with a different job description and person specification. Ask the candidates if they wish to be considered for a different but similar job that has come up. Score the applications against that different spec and you will end up with different results favouring your preferred candidate.

Discrimination? Possibly. Provable? Unlikely, if you make sure all the paperwork supports your position.

I am not denying there are ways, but as I said - it would take great amount of time and money and every candidate gets rejected few times and so the interviewer would have to make it quite obvious for anyone going for it..

We don't use scoring sheets, we get the personality of a person as well as qualifications and other stuff, we are not that massive to need/use scoring sheets, we interview quite few people just to try to pick the one best suited to the company.

And this was the process in every job I have ever had. How do you go for these small businesses?

scheming_gypsy

Any wrote: »

We don't use scoring sheets,

A scoring sheet in this scenario is easy.

1 - is the person suitable for the job.... no.

scoring over.

an9i77

Any wrote: »

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.

Sure I understand how difficult it can be for companies in this situation particularly small companies. But those who have not been pregnant and unemployed (or 'vulnerably employed' as i was) can't understand how stressful that is also. Luckily I was made permanent before I started to show, but that was only due to a permanent member of staff leaving and me getting her post. Had she not left, I'd have been out on my ear (due to temp contract ending) when I was starting to show (about 5 months) . My strategy if it had happened, would have been to start to look for jobs earlier when I didn't look pregnant (and failing that wear a very big coat) and basically lie through my teeth until I had got a new job. And probably have a difficult time of it once they found out in the new job too. I couldn't afford not to work because I needed the money

Any

an9i77 wrote: »

you don't have to prove you were discriminated against - burden of proof at a tribunal is on employer to prove they hadn't discminated against you

Again, WHY would you go for it unless you were sure there was discrimination? And HOW would you know (unless they told you) you were the best candidate?

It might be the way it is written - but juries are not thick you know. They recognise "ambulance chasers" (no idea what the expression for people making money out of businesses they never actually had any business with) if they see one.

Again, it would have to be quite obvious.

an9i77

Any wrote: »

Again, WHY would you go for it unless you were sure there was discrimination? And HOW would you know (unless they told you) you were the best candidate?

It might be the way it is written - but juries are not thick you know. They recognise "ambulance chasers" (no idea what the expression for people making money out of businesses they never actually had any business with) if they see one.

Again, it would have to be quite obvious.

a lack of documentation would work in the applicant's favour. when I worked in recruitment we always documented everything to minimise this risk

Pete111

Uncertain wrote: »

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.

Very doubtful indeed Uncertain. Any employer with an ounce of nous should be able to cover their backs effectively in this situation.

If the Op has been silly in interview or when giving feedback then yes, there is a risk here. Otherwise...not so much

pelirocco

an9i77 wrote: »

Well I was nearly in the position of having to look for work at apx 20 weeks pregnant (and if i'd not found something straight away could have been 30 weeks) but luckily my employer made me permanent at apx 12 weeks (and no he didn't know I was pregnant at that point) and even more luckily was absolutely fine when I told him, even when illness in pregnancy made it difficult for me to work and I had a lot of antenatal appointments etc. I shudder to think how I'd have coped if I'd not been made permanent or had a more sympathetic boss. 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. Pregnant women need to earn money too! And I will go back to my job and be good for the company so they will get their return in the long run. To the poster who said it was ok to break this law if you wouldn't get caught, do you apply that to other laws too? Would you steal from someone, or a shop, if you were sure you would not get caught? Why don't we break all laws where there is no chance of being caught? because most people have some respect for the law even if they do not completely agree with it.

And so do companies !

The poster didnt say it was ok to break the law , they said people had the choice