Pregnant - being put under pressure to resign by boss

wmpdd3 wrote: »

Thankfuly we and most countries where the majority of women work outside of the home have this:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0034/print.html

MATERNITY PROTECTION ACT, 1994

It is very difficult to let someone go who contracts an illness during their employment and subsequently cannot complete their employment. It only really applies to people who have no hope of recovering in the near future.

Can we ban people from playing sports because they were off for 6 weeks last year when they broke their leg?

That doesn't make any sense. According to this thread, if a person were out for 6 weeks and continued in his/her employment and kept breaking their leg they could just be sacked for not being in work but if a person were out for 6 weeks due to a pregnancy related illness and continued to get pregnant and be out for the same length of time during each pregnancy then they couldn't be sacked?

Neyite wrote: »

I dont understand what you mean by getting pregnant in a cycle. All pregnant women conceive in a cycle. Unless you mean that she gets pregnant on her maternity leave?

But if you are suggesting that women be discriminated towards on their second pregnancies, then that will discourage second pregnancies. Which leaves YOUR old-age pension in a bit of trouble when the birth rate drops. Or we could just do what China does and enforce a one-child policy?

You cannot take limitless sick days off while pregnant. By design, the limit is 38 weeks because you give birth. And its only due to pregnancy-related illness. So the maximum that an employer has to put up with it is 38 weeks.

It seems like your perception is skewed by a few piss-takers that you worked with. I on the other hand, have had the opposite experience in that any pregnant woman I worked with never took a single sick day, never tried to change pr shirk their duties, tried to schedule ante-natal appointments for early morning or out of hours. They (and I ) worked right up until our maternity leave kicked in - in my case I worked several nights until 2am on a tight deadline at 37 weeks with the team. Dont tar all mothers and mothers-to-be with the same brush.

Yes, as I said already, I mean wonen who get pregnant on maternity leave repeatedly.

You know what I mean when I say "limitless", I mean limitless within the confines of the length of the pregnancy. The maximum in that situation isn't 38 weeks, it could be 38 weeks x 4/5 pregnancies, all the while the employer is forced to continue to employ this person by law.

I have also worked with women who have never taken sick days while pregnant etc etc but this thread isn't about those kind of women.

tatli_lokma wrote: »

Realistically how many women get pregnant over and over while still on maternity leave? I have known of a few who got pregnant with number 2 whilst on maternity leave, but they still would have returned to work for at least a few months before going on their next maternity leave. The suggestion of gangs of women having 3/4/5 babies back to back, getting pregnant each time while still on maternity is ridiculous to be honest. And the practicalities of it mean it would very rarely if ever happen - because working life is such that once you have your baby/babies juggling a long term career and children is not easy so the majority of working women have 2/3 children and opt for flexible working arrangement when they can, and by doing so limit their chances of career progression.

I have worked since I was 15 and have never seen a woman take 3 cycles or more of maternity leave as you describe. It's just not something that happens very often at all.

I'll give you 2 very quick examples from my own experience.

I worked in a very large office where there was a HR department with 3 members of senior staff and 1 secretary. During my time working there, each of the 3 members of staff had 3 children each and somehow managed to work their maternity leave and pregnancies around each other - very strange, maybe it was just coincidence. There was always one of them on maternity leave, one just back from maternity leave and one pregnant.

Second example is from my last job. One of the women I worked with got pregnant. She had a complicated pregnancy and spent the last 4 months out of the office, this left everybody else picking up a substantial workload. She returned to work, half days only and within a few months was pregnant again, having never returned to a full day's work. She got pregnant again asap knowing that the complications that affected her in her first pregnancy would affect her in her second pregnancy, and the complications were worse during her second pregnancy and she missed even more time from work. She is now pregnant again. All the while, her employer is forced to continue to employ her.

Anyway, chatting about it here won't make a difference to the law as it stands.
It just doesn't seem fair to those who do not have children and can be sacked for being out sick through no fault of their own in unavoidable circumstances.

sillysmiles wrote: »

It also doesn't seem fair that you seem to have an issue with women getting pregnant. There is more to life that just working and it is important to have a balance and have a family if that is what you want.
These things would be way easier if men and women could take turns being pregnant!

No issue with women getting pregnant, none at all. Don't know where you picked that up from. This thread is about women being out on extended sick leave while pregnant and employers being forced by law to let them continue in their employment compared to someone that isn't pregnant, that's what I have an issue with.

I think you may have a very different take on it if it were you that wanted a family and was unfortunate enough to have difficult pregnancies. In the two examples you cite, were all the women good and productive workers when they were at work? That is the main issue, because even if you are pregnant if you don't do your job you can be sacked. It is usually wise and less hassle to wait until maternity leave has ended but make no mistake you can get rid of someone who is not a good worker you just have to be cleaver about it.

For the majority of cases women don't misuse maternity leave rights and continue to contribute positively to their workplace. On the other hand once the children arrive, many women find it difficult to continue working because of lack of flexible working arrangements. I also have no doubt that there are employers who are still vindictive and begrudging of women who utilise their maternity rights and as soon as they get a chance sack them upon their return.

Being a worker with a functioning uterus does not mean you are not a worthwhile team member. Anyone who begrudges a woman their maternity leave is short sighted as they could well be missing out on a loyal and hardworking employee.

Of course there are lazy workers who were always lazy who play the dying swan and act like they are the first woman to ever have a baby, but then the question is why did you keep them in the first place? You should have sorted that problem before pregnancy was part of the equation!

tatli_lokma wrote: »

No obligation to pay for any sick days, regardless of their cause or duration. The employer paying for any sick days at all is a perk that many employers do not give. All she would be entitled to is her illness benefit from social welfare, but to get this she would have to be out sick for at least 3 days at a time because the first 3 days of each illness are not covered by illness benefit, so this realistically will only work if she is out for a week at a time. A day or two here or there won't get her any benefit.

If you work weekends and you are sick on a Sunday this is not counted. If Sunday is your 1st sick day you have to wait 4 days before any benefit is received...unless this was changed lately.

Big Mouth wrote: »

There you go, that's the spirit! :rolleyes:

Actually, it's a fair point. If the manager (sounds like an owner managed small business) is intent on making her life an absolute misery she needs to think through her options. Pregnancy is hard enough without that sort of pressure. Get a good solicitor to skilfully and with evidence constructively dismiss her and she can have financial security and a stress free pregnancy. It is an option, and my sympathy (as an employer in an SME) with the employer is limited in this situation.

ted1 wrote: »

OP,

could you not just take time off as being Sick, you sound genuinely Ill and if you are missing days here and there it's not really fair on your employer.

A doctor should give you a sick cert which will carry you to your maternity leave, then he can arrange for someone to cover you now and when your on ML. then you return back to work afterwards as normal.

from an employer point of view it is very hard to operate with staff who are not reliable (i fully understand the reason, but the bottom line is he can't be guaranteed that your work will be done)

As said several times, going sick means OP will need to avail of illness benefit which is much less than a salary and in addition she would have to be out sick for more than 3 days at a time. OP says that in general she has been able to manage to work and catch up and is doing as much as she can to minimise disruption. So on the days/weeks where she is well, why would you expect her to sit at home for either no or very little money when she could be working?

Also no two pregnancies are the same - you can have a terrible time on number 1 and then fly through subsequent pregnancies, or vice versa. Not everyone has hyperemisis for the full 40 weeks, some do, some don't. You could have it for 40 weeks on number 1 and only have it on and off on subsequent pregnancies.

Having had a condition previously means you are more prepared that it could happen again but there is no guarantee. Also you could have a totally unexpected and unexplained complication, such as I had when I was diagnosed with pre-eclampsia which can be quite serious.

OP seems to be doing her best to work through as much as she can, I don't think you can expect more than that.

If the pregnancy makes a woman incabable of completing her job, I think it could be argued as grounds for dismissal, not because the woman is pregnant, but because they are incapable of carrying out the job.

Business should be efficient and flexible not centred around a person whose own actions on purpose or not, directly or indirectly impacts on the business.

This shouldnt be confused with women who can work while pregnant and are entitled to maternity leave.

Neon_Lights wrote: »

If the pregnancy makes a woman incabable of completing her job, I think it could be argued as grounds for dismissal, not because the woman is pregnant, but because they are incapable of carrying out the job.

Business should be efficient and flexible not centred around a person whose own actions on purpose or not, directly or indirectly impacts on the business.

This shouldnt be confused with women who can work while pregnant and are entitled to maternity leave.

Dismissed?
Really, are you living in the dark ages. She takes sick leave, then ML, them back to work.

And the medication she refers to can have an effect on the development of the foetus so it is understandable that an expectant mother might chose to avoid it which is her right to do.

tatli_lokma wrote: »

Going out sick and few times is not the same thing as needing to stay off work for months.

And we don't know OP's salary. So to assume €188 a week would be close to a full salary could be very wrong. For my own salary €188 is quite short of my take home salary, even after expenses, and I would struggle to meet my commitments if I needed it on a long term basis of a few months, especially with a baby on the way.

The OP stated she was part time, so I took it that she would be on lower wage, the average wage in Diblin is 41.8 so part time would be 21k . If the difference between take home pay and not taking medication so as to protect the child as mentioned by the baby is only a few euro I know which one I would pick,

On our instance my wife was self employed and closed our shop was she was pregnant as it wasn't logical to keep working It open as she often felt sick