Declaration of pregnancy for job application

gypsyfire

You do not have to declare it, you shouldn't feel pressured to declare it and I wouldn't recommend you did. The only difference is that if you do then the recruiter might discriminate against you on that basis, whereas if you dont then you can be sure you will get the job if you are the best candidate. As long as you give them a reasonable amount of notice (and I'm presuming you're not that far along your pregnancy) they dont even have a justifyable reason to be annoyed with you.

There seems to be a strong sense among some people that you're somehow cheating the system by doing this, which is absurd. If you are the best candidate then the business has gained by hiring you. The only reason an employer would opose this law is if they were actually intending to discriminate against pregnant women, otherwise it makes no difference.

What are skilled and work able women that are unlucky enough to become unemployed during a pregnancy supposed to do? The state pay for them for an extra 9 months while there skills go to waste?

Person_one

Whenever I see people on other sections of the forum declaring that sexism is dead and that women have 'achieved equality' I always direct them to have a quick look at the employment board.

mountainofdebt

gypsyfire wrote: »

You do not have to declare it, you shouldn't feel pressured to declare it and I wouldn't recommend you did. The only difference is that if you do then the recruiter might discriminate against you on that basis, whereas if you dont then you can be sure you will get the job if you are the best candidate. As long as you give them a reasonable amount of notice (and I'm presuming you're not that far along your pregnancy) they dont even have a justifyable reason to be annoyed with you.

There seems to be a strong sense among some people that you're somehow cheating the system by doing this, which is absurd. If you are the best candidate then the business has gained by hiring you. The only reason an employer would opose this law is if they were actually intending to discriminate against pregnant women, otherwise it makes no difference.

What are skilled and work able women that are unlucky enough to become unemployed during a pregnancy supposed to do? The state pay for them for an extra 9 months while there skills go to waste?

Whilst I can see you have the OP's interests at heart, can you not appreciate that if the pregnant woman was the best candidate and had declared the pregnancy , at least the employer would be employing her with their eyes wide open, knowing full well what they were letting themselves in for (ie having to recruit for maternity cover etc)

magenta22

But the OP might be in the very early stages of pregnancy and not want to let people know just yet. If it is already pretty obvious then it's a different matter and she would have to mention as I don't think they would believe it was a bad case of wind!

We don't know what the OP is doing at the moment or what type of role she is going for.

OP best of luck with the pregnancy and the interview

mountainofdebt

So depending on what stage the pregnancy is at, it would be justified in withholding this information?

SHIPSHAPE

mountainofdebt wrote: »

So depending on what stage the pregnancy is at, it would be justified in withholding this information?

An employed woman need not reveal her pregnancy to her employer until after the 15th week.

A job applicant need not reveal it at all.

Annisele

mountainofdebt wrote: »

So depending on what stage the pregnancy is at, it would be justified in withholding this information?

I think the point is that at 8 and a half months pregnant, you might as well tell the employer because they'll know anyway.

If it's not obvious, don't tell them. If it is obvious, you still don't have to tell them.

greenbee

You don't have to declare it, any more than a man has to declare that his partner is pregnant (OK so paternity leave is shorter, but with the proposal for shared parental leave this will become more relevant). If you are pregnant before you start you may not qualify for any enhanced maternity pay the company offers as they usually stipulate that to qualify you have to have been employed for longer than you have been pregnant. I can't remember how we used to work it out, but i'm pretty sure it was based on due dates not actual birth dates as that could potentially cause problems witty very premature births.

hcb42

wow

not all employers are "bad" employers.

an9i77

greenbee wrote: »

You don't have to declare it, any more than a man has to declare that his partner is pregnant (OK so paternity leave is shorter, but with the proposal for shared parental leave this will become more relevant). If you are pregnant before you start you may not qualify for any enhanced maternity pay the company offers as they usually stipulate that to qualify you have to have been employed for longer than you have been pregnant. I can't remember how we used to work it out, but i'm pretty sure it was based on due dates not actual birth dates as that could potentially cause problems witty very premature births.

Not just enhanced maternity pay statutory maternity pay also is not payable if you are pregnant before you start (you have to be employed 26 weeks at 15 weeks before due date). If you give birth after 24 weeks gestation (even if still birth/ late miscarriage) then you are still entitled to maternity leave and/or pay if you've been there long enough.