Declaration of pregnancy for job application

t0rt0ise

Lil_Me wrote: »

Is it moral for an employer who's advertising a permanent job to not employ someone who's capable of doing the job but might have 6 months off but then go on to work for many years for them?

No but it's what happens which was my point. I am also commenting on the specific case of a woman taking a job knowing that she is already pregnant and will not be able to do the job for long. It all seems a little underhand especially when people talk of hiding it and so on.

Jarndyce

t0rt0ise wrote: »

No but it's what happens which was my point. I am also commenting on the specific case of a woman taking a job knowing that she is already pregnant and will not be able to do the job for long. It all seems a little underhand especially when people talk of hiding it and so on.

She will be able to do the job - she will just need some time off to have her baby. Nobody is suggesting she hides it, but that she only need tell the empoyer when she is legally required to - there are reasons these laws have evolved in this way and one of those reasons is to prevent employers exploiting and discriminating against women of child-bearing age. Again - many would argue there is still a long way to go.

t0rt0ise

Jarndyce wrote: »

She will be able to do the job - she will just need some time off to have her baby. Nobody is suggesting she hides it, but that she only need tell the empoyer when she is legally required to - there are reasons these laws have evolved in this way and one of those reasons is to prevent employers exploiting and discriminating against women of child-bearing age. Again - many would argue there is still a long way to go.

I said she won't be able to do the job for long. Twisting the meaning of my words doesn't help or aid discussion.

Several people suggested she hide it.. one said something about getting away with it and another talked of keeping it quiet.

Also I said in my first post that I was talking about the morals of the situation so your reminding us of the legalities is irrelevant.

Jarndyce

In that case I am disagreeing with your morals, which appear to have been collected from a Jane Austen novel.

Women who want to combine career and family are not "doing irreparable damage to the employment situation for others", they are asserting their right to be treated equally and with respect for their choices. I see nothing immoral in that.

heretolearn_2

Legally, no.

Is it moral? Well, all's fair in love, war and business, but don't expect to be popular. I do agree with the suggestion that it's not a very reasonable way to behave.

There is a world of difference between working at a firm, going on mat leave, and returning, than starting a new job knowing you'll be disappearing very soon. It takes us around 3-4 months to get a new person fully trained, so she'd be leaving just when she really got useful. So then we have to recruit a replacement and train them. Then the employee comes back and honestly how much do they retain of what was a new role to them and we'll have to retrain them again.

As a small business, this would be a major major pain in the bum to us and we wouldn't be happy. We'd comply with the law, but we wouldn't like you much. And we have had employees go on maternity and we've been 100% supportive, and we recruit fairly without thinking about who might or might not have kids, and we have several mums here including single parents. so I think we are very family friendly as far as small firms go. It's not like something from Jane Austen for a small firm to not be able to cope with the disruption of A starting/stopping, then B starting/stopping, then A re-starting with all the training/settling in periods required.

magenta22

What are you doing at the moment? Are you in a job currently? If you are, I would say it's best to stay with them and take maternity leave there. Do you also want the added stress of taking on a new job when pregnant?

t0rt0ise

Jarndyce wrote: »

In that case I am disagreeing with your morals, which appear to have been collected from a Jane Austen novel.

Women who want to combine career and family are not "doing irreparable damage to the employment situation for others", they are asserting their right to be treated equally and with respect for their choices. I see nothing immoral in that.

I didn't say anything about women who want to combine career and family. Your reading for understanding is either poor or you are purposely misunderstanding. Neither does you credit.

bevanuk

The cost implications lie in time and the recruitment process. Most employers only offer statutory maternity cover if you have been there less than a couple of years anyway - so no cost to them there, I fail to see the 'damage'.

But yes, it's a pain in the a** to recruit someone and recruit another. Don't forget if you want to change your terms/hours on your return they can say no.

Plans_all_plans

No you don't have to tell them. I should think they wouldn't be able to ask you anyway.

I took a job when I was 4 months pregnant. I told them 6 weeks into the job. Yes, I felt a bit 'off' telling them but at the same time, my child was at the top of my priorities, not my employer. I'd have had to throw myself on the mercy of the state otherwise! No-one would have benefitted if I'd done that.

OP, don't worry about it. I had purposefully applied to companies I thought would have family friendly policies etc and when I told them about my pregnancy, they were absolutely wonderful.

When I returned to work after 5 months maternity leave, I was promoted and got a 4k payrise. I honestly cannot tell you how supportive everyone was.

Best of luck.

Uncertain

heretolearn wrote: »

Legally, no.

Is it moral? Well, all's fair in love, war and business, but don't expect to be popular. I do agree with the suggestion that it's not a very reasonable way to behave.

There is a world of difference between working at a firm, going on mat leave, and returning, than starting a new job knowing you'll be disappearing very soon. It takes us around 3-4 months to get a new person fully trained, so she'd be leaving just when she really got useful. So then we have to recruit a replacement and train them. Then the employee comes back and honestly how much do they retain of what was a new role to them and we'll have to retrain them again.

As a small business, this would be a major major pain in the bum to us and we wouldn't be happy. We'd comply with the law, but we wouldn't like you much. And we have had employees go on maternity and we've been 100% supportive, and we recruit fairly without thinking about who might or might not have kids, and we have several mums here including single parents. so I think we are very family friendly as far as small firms go. It's not like something from Jane Austen for a small firm to not be able to cope with the disruption of A starting/stopping, then B starting/stopping, then A re-starting with all the training/settling in periods required.

I'm sorry but the law is the law and everybody has to obey it whether they agree with it or not.

What you appear to be saying in the sentences I've highlighted is that you would discriminate against the lady providing you felt you could get away with it!