3.5 months pregnant interview for new job

Uncertain

Acc72 wrote: »

If I were recruiting for a 12 month contract, I would consider it reasonable to ask the candidates if they were able to commit to the duration of the contract (this would be irrespective of whether they were female and of child bearing age or not).

Well maybe you do "consider it reasonable" but it would be extremely risky. More relevant is what a tribunal would consider reasonable.

Acc72 wrote: »

You believe that it is ok to deliberately mislead a potential employer and others do not.

What I said was the OP had done nothing legally wrong. I don't impose my morals on others but clearly you do.

Acc72

Uncertain wrote: »

Well maybe you do "consider it reasonable" but it would be extremely risky. More relevant is what a tribunal would consider reasonable.



What I said was the OP had done nothing legally wrong. I don't impose my morals on others but clearly you do.

Why would it be risky ? - do you know what a tribunal would consider to be reasonable ?

It appears that you are regurgitating some kind of urban myth that is without substance.

How many cases do you know have gone to a tribunal because the recruiter asked if the candidate could commit to a 12 month contract ?

In the first comment the OP asked for "any thoughts ideas, please share" on a public forum - and people shared their thoughts.

It just so happens that both yourself and the OP disagreed with some of the comments - such as is life.

I would be interested to see where I have "imposed my morals" - I gave my thoughts and ideas as the OP requested.

Uncertain

Acc72 wrote: »

Why would it be risky ?

Because it is both pointless and, at the very least, good ammunition for anybody minded to bring a discrimination claim. In such a claim the onus is on the employer, in the first instance, to prove that they did not discriminate.

Even if somebody answers your question "yes" in total good faith something can always change. There could be a family emergency, illness or they may simply hate the job. Few people are going to turn down a good permanent job offer simply to work out the last four or five months of a fixed term contract unless they are sure it will be extended.

At best, as an employer, you will get three months notice although this would be unusual in the first year. There are no real guarantees beyond that and, as has been said so often, little real redress if that is not honoured.

Again, just pointing out the real world facts not making judgments.

Catherine_Johnson_2

I just hope the OP has a thick enough skin to get through this. I know I couldn't do it.

I really can't imagine, in my first week with a new company, when I've just signed a 1 year contract, to walk in and say 'Oh, by the way, I'm pregnant'. That's really not going to endear her to her new employer.

Ok, there's not an awful lot they can do but I bet they are not going to be congratulating her!

Not a position I'd want to put myself in, personally. When I go to work I like to feel wanted and valued by my employer. I don't think the OP will be getting that feeling from her new employer.

Legally, she's in the clear. Morally, no. I can foresee the OP being off with stress before too long, and that's not going to help the pregnancy one little bit.

Uncertain

Catherine_Johnson wrote: »

I really can't imagine, in my first week with a new company, when I've just signed a 1 year contract, to walk in and say 'Oh, by the way, I'm pregnant'. That's really not going to endear her to her new employer.

Ok, there's not an awful lot they can do but I bet they are not going to be congratulating her!

I would agree.

In some ways she would be well advised to say nothing for as long as possible. However, there is a risk in doing this. Should they suspect and decide to dismiss (officially for no reason if they had any sense) it would make it far harder for her to prove discrimination. If she formally tells them then she has a good deal of legal protection.

Difficult........

Acc72

Uncertain wrote: »

Because it is both pointless and, at the very least, good ammunition for anybody minded to bring a discrimination claim. In such a claim the onus is on the employer, in the first instance, to prove that they did not discriminate.

Even if somebody answers your question "yes" in total good faith something can always change. There could be a family emergency, illness or they may simply hate the job. Few people are going to turn down a good permanent job offer simply to work out the last four or five months of a fixed term contract unless they are sure it will be extended.

At best, as an employer, you will get three months notice although this would be unusual in the first year. There are no real guarantees beyond that and, as has been said so often, little real redress if that is not honoured.

Again, just pointing out the real world facts not making judgments.

It is a pretty standard question when recruiting for a fixed term contract - it may be pointless with regards to the interviewee will invariably reply "yes", however I do not see how it is a "risky" question to ask.

As I asked previously, if you can provide any information as to how many such cases go to tribunal I would be interested to understand these "real world facts".

As I also said previously, peoples circumstances may change - however it is one thing to start a contract with the intention of fulfilling it and starting a contract in the full knowledge that you cannot fulfilling that contract.

Savvy_Sue

Spamfree wrote: »

What is the criteria for a man to get paternity leave I wonder.

Could any guy could say he's got three women on the go and get three lots of paternity leave over say the space of a year and a half?
At least with a woman, the employer more or less knows for a fact that the woman has been pregnant( ie the big bump )

It's slightly more complicated than that, the mother has to transfer the unused part of her m/l entitlement, so there does have to be proof of the birth and confirmation of the relationship with the mother.

I don't know if there are limits to how much p/l can be taken, but obviously an employer with this problem will probably be able to find a way to re-organise the workforce if someone can take p/l several times in quick succession.

Spirit wrote: »

I work for a large organisation and have had more than one instance of managers asking for advice when faced with two lots of generously paid 'paternity' leave in short succession from an individual.

Of course, it's unusual for p/l to be generously paid!

glasgowdan

I think going for a short term job when you know you will not be able to complete it is incredibly selfish, low and actually a bit cruel/nasty.

It's unfair to the employer, hard working people who simply want to hire someone to help their business make profit and run smoothly. You take advantage of the overly-lenient, skewed by PC-bias and unbalanced laws in this country.

Savvy_Sue

I ask again: is every woman who is

trying to become pregnant / accidentally pregnant / surprisingly pregnant / pregnant after numerous miscarriages / feeling ill but not yet aware she is pregnant / currently undergoing fertility treatment / insert other pregnancy options here

supposed to put the rest of her life on hold, NOT apply for new jobs, and sit at home until the hoped for birth?

and if so, should all men with any health problems stay in their current employment status in case those problems worsen and they are unable to meet their employer's expectations?

The OP hasn't said how much maternity leave she intends to take. It could be as little as two weeks. Is that so unreasonable?

mrsreynolds

glasgowdan wrote: »

I think going for a short term job when you know you will not be able to complete it is incredibly selfish, low and actually a bit cruel/nasty.

It's unfair to the employer, hard working people who simply want to hire someone to help their business make profit and run smoothly. You take advantage of the overly-lenient, skewed by PC-bias and unbalanced laws in this country.

I needed a job as my other had finished what am i meant todo sit around on hand outs or help a company which works privately for the governmentand earns a massive amount of money so i am not worrying about their lose i intend to give them 14 weeks of hard work and know i can do the job - this job will always be required but by giving 1 year contacts the employer protects themselves against employment laws then having permanent staff as I stated earlier business is business and I am doing what I feel is morally right rather than sit and claim benefits etc

Everyone is completely entitled to their opinion but unless faced with these circumstances I don’t really feel you can really understand esp calling me nasty that seems very harsh