3.5 months pregnant interview for new job

Savvy_Sue

One thing to bear in mind is that if there are any risks to pregnancy associated with the new job, then you will have to say sooner rather than later. Or risk the pregnancy. But you don't HAVE to say anything at this stage.

slickc2100

congrats on you pregnancy hun..
go for the interview see how it goes...if u get the job tell them when you are ready if you still want to go for it...

If you dont get it you got nothing to worry about & you will know its not pregnancy related.

Good Luck to you in whatever you decide..

Best of Luck x x x x x x x

Dangermac

slickc2100 wrote: »

congrats on you pregnancy hun..
go for the interview see how it goes...if u get the job tell them when you are ready if you still want to go for it...

If you dont get it you got nothing to worry about & you will know its not pregnancy related.

Good Luck to you in whatever you decide..

Best of Luck x x x x x x x

Hopefully the lucky new employer will be large enough to be able to deal with the burden of having to recruit a 2nd temporary employee, to cover the 1st temporary employee who is off on maternity leave.

I think that it is an accurate and sad reflection of the way that this country is going/has gone.

The system completely stinks, and I think there is a complete moral isssue over someone taking a 1 year temporary role knowing that they are almost 4 months pregnant and will be unable to fulfil their obligations.

As for anyone who is supporting this 'lady', I hope that, one day, your workload is made unbearably horrendus following a similar situation (i.e someone using their 'employment rights' in order to feather their own nest - whether it be sick pay/maternity pay etc).

DM

ktothema

Dangermac wrote: »

Hopefully the lucky new employer will be large enough to be able to deal with the burden of having to recruit a 2nd temporary employee, to cover the 1st temporary employee who is off on maternity leave.

I think that it is an accurate and sad reflection of the way that this country is going/has gone.

The system completely stinks, and I think there is a complete moral isssue over someone taking a 1 year temporary role knowing that they are almost 4 months pregnant and will be unable to fulfil their obligations.

As for anyone who is supporting this 'lady', I hope that, one day, your workload is made unbearably horrendus following a similar situation (i.e someone using their 'employment rights' in order to feather their own nest - whether it be sick pay/maternity pay etc).

DM

There is seriously nothing wrong with attending an interview and not mentioning being pregnant. Nothing at all. The OP may not even get the role, but at least she'll know she had a fair shot at the interview.

If, and only if, the 1 year role was taken with nothing mentioned then there's a potential moral argument, although not a legal one. But these people may like OP so much that they could offer her the role, she could then tell them and they may feel that their position is better employing her for 4 months rather than carry on hunting or employing someone they don't for a year.

I recently took a 3 month contract on at 3.5 months pregnant. I didn't tell the agency or employers I was pregnant not because of the job but because there was serious reason to worry enough that I was waiting on the all clear from the second scan. When I did tell them the company were happy, the agency weren't. I was informally told by the agency they probably wouldn't have put me in the role if they'd knew, despite me being perfectly able to complete a longer assignment and the company only ever wanting it to be a 3 month thing. Company got an employee they were happy with, I got a job, neither of us were unhappy, just the stupid agency.

Dangermac

ktothema wrote: »

There is seriously nothing wrong with attending an interview and not mentioning being pregnant. Nothing at all. The OP may not even get the role, but at least she'll know she had a fair shot at the interview.

If, and only if, the 1 year role was taken with nothing mentioned then there's a potential moral argument, although not a legal one. But these people may like OP so much that they could offer her the role, she could then tell them and they may feel that their position is better employing her for 4 months rather than carry on hunting or employing someone they don't for a year.

I recently took a 3 month contract on at 3.5 months pregnant. I didn't tell the agency or employers I was pregnant not because of the job but because there was serious reason to worry enough that I was waiting on the all clear from the second scan. When I did tell them the company were happy, the agency weren't. I was informally told by the agency they probably wouldn't have put me in the role if they'd knew, despite me being perfectly able to complete a longer assignment and the company only ever wanting it to be a 3 month thing. Company got an employee they were happy with, I got a job, neither of us were unhappy, just the stupid agency.

You make a fair point, however:

• The OP originally asked if she had to disclose her pregnancy (which legally she doesnt)
• Assuming that she gets the job, and bearing in mind the employer could not retract an offer on the basis that the OP is pregnant, how thrilled do you think the employer will be when he finds out that replacement worker No.2 is almost 4 months pregnant, when the temporary contract is only for 1 year?
• What I am saying is, the law is completely geared towards the employee's rights, with little or no consideration towards the employer. Do you not feel, not even a little bit, that someone applying for a 1 year contract should be able to fulfil the contract, and if they cant, the employer should be able to make a sensible decision?

I agree that employee's rights need protecting, and no-one should be discriminated against because of their sex, but the pendulum seems to have swung too far.

DM

ktothema

Dangermac wrote: »

You make a fair point, however:

• The OP originally asked if she had to disclose her pregnancy (which legally she doesnt)
• Assuming that she gets the job, and bearing in mind the employer could not retract an offer on the basis that the OP is pregnant, how thrilled do you think the employer will be when he finds out that replacement worker No.2 is almost 4 months pregnant, when the temporary contract is only for 1 year?
• What I am saying is, the law is completely geared towards the employee's rights, with little or no consideration towards the employer. Do you not feel, not even a little bit, that someone applying for a 1 year contract should be able to fulfil the contract, and if they cant, the employer should be able to make a sensible decision?

I agree that employee's rights need protecting, and no-one should be discriminated against because of their sex, but the pendulum seems to have swung too far.

DM

Some may prefer someone they really like for 4 months rather than endlessly search for a person that can do a year. It's rare, but I've known it to happen. That's why I think the job centre were correct in their advice to me, tell them if and only if you get an offer. Then the company get to chose.

I don't think someone should preclude themselves for applying and interviewing for any role they are capable of doing, even if they can't fulfil the full time regardless of the reason being pregnancy, disability or anything else. It's a negotiation point is all.

Also, no one has to take more than 2 weeks (or 4 for manual roles) off for maternity. Again, it's rare they don't but I've known it to happen. Not much different to taking a holiday then.

fleesaurus

ktothema wrote: »

There is seriously nothing wrong with attending an interview and not mentioning being pregnant. Nothing at all. The OP may not even get the role, but at least she'll know she had a fair shot at the interview.

If, and only if, the 1 year role was taken with nothing mentioned then there's a potential moral argument, although not a legal one. But these people may like OP so much that they could offer her the role, she could then tell them and they may feel that their position is better employing her for 4 months rather than carry on hunting or employing someone they don't for a year.

I recently took a 3 month contract on at 3.5 months pregnant. I didn't tell the agency or employers I was pregnant not because of the job but because there was serious reason to worry enough that I was waiting on the all clear from the second scan. When I did tell them the company were happy, the agency weren't. I was informally told by the agency they probably wouldn't have put me in the role if they'd knew, despite me being perfectly able to complete a longer assignment and the company only ever wanting it to be a 3 month thing. Company got an employee they were happy with, I got a job, neither of us were unhappy, just the stupid agency.

Did you manage to get a positive reference?

ktothema

fleesaurus wrote: »

Did you manage to get a positive reference?

As far as I'm aware yes. All the reports from the company were glowing. I stayed up until contract end, was very flexible and even upped my hours during the time. There'd be no reason to not give me a good reference.
Plus the agency offered me further short term temp work since the contract ended, but I'm thankfully on maternity now (thankfully because the last place I worked didn't have working lifts so I was having to haul my generous sized backside and a large bump up several flights of stairs every day!!!)

BobQ

I am very supportive of employees employment rights (which this government is generally trying to degrade in favour of employers) but I do not feel very comfortable about this situation.

The law was intended to protect women from disrcimination and ensure that rogue employers do not prevent them from taking time off work to have a baby and for other things connected with pregnancy. I'm not sure its within the spirit of the law to enable a woman to take a contract for a year knowing she is unable to work for more than a third of the contract. It is however within the letter of the law to do so.

If the OP has a moral quandary about the matter maybe she should be applying for jobs on a shorter term contract than 1 year.

Savvy_Sue

BobQ wrote: »

I'm not sure its within the spirit of the law to enable a woman to take a contract for a year knowing she is unable to work for more than a third of the contract.

BUT a) a woman is not required to take more than 2 / 4 weeks of maternity leave, and the OP may choose to return that quickly and b) is a woman supposed to put her whole life on hold every time she falls pregnant, or even tries for a baby?

I ask b) because I have known women who have suffered repeated miscarriages. And the OP says this is a bit of a miracle. And I have known women start a job and then announce they are pregnant soon afterwards, and I have known women NOT start a job because they have found they are pregnant, and in each case it was because they were waiting for the first 12 weeks (or other milestone) to pass, because they hadn't dared hope before that.