Applying for a job while pregnant

the_syco

Well, considering that in my job, if you miss one day, within the probationary period (1st three months), without calling in sick, etc, you can get sacked, I'm sure that an employer may find a way to get rid of someone who popped the baby 2 weeks into the job.

Also, I'd say most employers don't give the full benifits, such as ML payment, untill after the probation period is up... which the employer can extend as they see fit.

daisychain

I wouldn't expect an employer to pay me, whether I was working there 3 months or 3 years. I would probably manage on the €249 a week that the social give, as my hubby earns more than me anyway. Child benefit of €150 a month will buy a lot of nappies etc. I have most of the baby equipment already like buggy, cot, steriliser etc. and what I don't have I can borrow.

Contrary to what irishjobs.ie suggests, I wouldn't reveal the pregnancy on accepting the job, I'd wait til a few weeks into the job and see how it was going first. If she tells them when accepting the job, the job could be "put on hold" all of a sudden, that happened me before when I wasn't pregnant or anything, I just accepted a job (granted it was a temp job) was told to start monday and then the next day had a voicemail saying it was put on hold and they would contact me, they never did.

dbnavan

dublindude wrote:

OK. Don't tell him. I hope he fires you and you're left with a big black hole on your CV.

It's a scummy thing to do. As a previous poster said, sometimes your actions can affect the employer too (his example: he'd end up going out of business.)

I know it's a difficult concept for some people, but sometimes you have to think beyond yourself.

Go easy tiger, Major exageration comes to mind, I dont think a pregnant woman going on materity leave from say tesco or a call centre will put them out of business, all these examples been given you'd swear she was working for a small business with 2-3 employees, besides if anybody took a job and broke there leg and couldnt come in to work, would the business go down the tube?

BTW..... And I know this is totally different, I know a guy started work for IBM a week later wrote his car off and broke his back, wasnt able to work for 18 months they kept the job open for him

Last time I was in tesco's there was about 5 pregnant girls on the checkouts, plus she intends to work as long as possible which will be at least 5 months.

also you said I hope you end up with a black hole in ur cv, if you learn to read, I am a man, hardly pregnant am I?:rolleyes:

b3t4

WhiteWashMan wrote:

by that reasoning, not hiring someone because they are pregnant is also valid grounds for discrimination....

Unfortunately I am finding it difficult to read your mind and am unable to come to a conclusion as to what the "..." means. Could you please elaborate on this statement as I am unclear as to what you are saying?

Also, I have linked to both the www.equality.ie website and the Equality Act. Could you please, also, back up your statements with quotes from said act?

Discriminating against a prospective employee according to their sex (as pregnancy can only effect women) and their family status is against the Equality Act which is therefore against the law.

If a prospective employee were to tell their prospective employer at an interview that they were pregnant and they then went on to be unsuccessful with regard to obtaining the job it would be difficult to proove discrimination.

However, if the employee is offered the job, they then tell the employer that they are pregnant and suddenly the job offer disaapears, I believe it would then be somewhat easier to proove that it was as a result of the employee being pregnant and therefore discrimination.

A.

seamus

b3t4 wrote:

Unfortunately I am finding it difficult to read your mind and am unable to come to a conclusion as to what the "..." means. Could you please elaborate on this statement as I am unclear as to what you are saying?
...
Discriminating against a prospective employee according to their sex (as pregnancy can only effect women) and their family status is against the Equality Act which is therefore against the law.

Now you're into shaky ground though. Discrimination because of pregnancy is not the same as discrimination because of sex. Yes, pregnancy can only affect women, but her sex is not the reason why she's not getting the job. Try and prove that discrimination against a pregnant woman is equivalent to discrimination because of sex (especially when they hire a different woman to do the job).

Also the text of the "family status" item says

that one has family status and the other does not or that one has a different family status from the other (the "family status ground")

Now, this is a much firmer case than sexual grounds, but it could be argued that this actually refers to discriminating against someone either because
a) They don't have a family, and you want someone who has a family in your company
or
b) They do have a family, and you want someone who's free to work all hours.

It's not 100% clear that this could be applied to discrimination because of pregnancy - i.e. The discrimination is not actually against the person's intention to have a family, rather against of the short-term effect of the pregnancy. Again, if the company ended up hiring some in the exact same situation, only they've finished their maternity leave - does the "Family status" ground still hold, given that both people have an equal family status?

I'm not trying to argue that you're wrong, you'd need a good solicitor to argue my two points above, but it is a valid alternate interpretation.

daisychain

I'm not up to speed with the legislation but I do know that if a woman loses/leaves her job at or after 26 weeks of pregnancy, they will pay statutory maternity pay from the date on the womans P45. This is obviously a reflection on them thinking if you're past 26 weeks, you have less than 14 weeks to go, it's not worth your while looking for another job so she'd be on maternity leave from leaving the last job, even if she was only 6 months gone. Obvious downside of this is that if she takes 14 weeks ML before the birth she's only got 8 weeks paid left.

If I had found myself in this situation leaving my current job, I was going to try get a few weeks work in mcdonalds, convenience store etc. because it would have meant as much time as possible with the baby after the birth, I can't afford to take unpaid leave. But it didn't happen anyway so I'm looking for a permanent job now and am very NOT pregnant!

Litcagral

dublindude wrote:

you'll have been in the company less than 12 months so the Unfair Dismissals Act won't cover you.

You're incorrect on the application of the Unfair Dismissals Act.

Generally, the Act only applies to employees with more than 365 days service. However the Act will apply to the dismissal of an employee who has less than 365 days service if the dismissal results wholly or mainly from:


(a) trade union membership or activities

(b) an employee's pregnancy, giving birth, breastfeeding or related matters

(c) the exercise or proposed exercise of a right under the Maternity Protection Act 1994

(d) the exercise or proposed exercise of a right under the Minimum Wage Act 2000

(e) the exercise or proposed exercise of a right under the Adoptive Leave Act 1995

(f) the exercise or proposed exercise of a right under the Parental Leave Act 1998

(g) the exercise or proposed exercise of a right under the Carer's Leave Act 2001

rubadub

I can't see how the law would be left open to obvious scams.
Housewife at home gets pregnant, finds a nice high paying job, maybe not showing much (I know some women who barely showed) joins the company and gives immediately 4 weeks notice of maternity leave, works for 4 weeks gets her paid maternity leave, comes back for a week and quits!

Year later decides to have another kid and does the same scam.

seamus

rubadub wrote:

I can't see how the law would be left open to obvious scams.
Housewife at home gets pregnant, finds a nice high paying job, maybe not showing much (I know some women who barely showed) joins the company and gives immediately 4 weeks notice of maternity leave, works for 4 weeks gets her paid maternity leave, comes back for a week and quits!

Year later decides to have another kid and does the same scam.

I would say most companies put a minimum service period on when people can get paid maternity leave. As someone else posted above, there are also certain qualifications for state paid maternity leave, such as a number of weeks' paid PRSI.

I wouldn't be surprised if some self-employed people do run such a scam though. For example, self-employed man pays his partner (not wife) the maximum amount he can that keeps her out of the tax bracket, though she doesn't actually work for him. He must also pay PRSI on this (but he can write that amount off against his tax bill). If she becomes pregnant, "ill", or is otherwise unable to work, she can claim social welfare due to her PRSI payments.

Simple.

WhiteWashMan

dbnavan wrote:

If you should tell them why is illegal for them to ask, I am getting sick of people saying......in principle......or....your cheating......your not the fact is you dont have to tell them by law, anyone agruing the other side is giving opinions and cannot legally back anything up, whereas I have legally backed up my side,

Legalalities and moralities are different things.

no, you have not backed up anything.
nor for that matter has anyone backed up the legality of being able to fire someone in that situation.

if you want to discuss the morality of the situation, take it to humanities. otherwise, stop ignoring me telling you that you have not provided evidence.
you havent.

WhiteWashMan

b3t4 wrote:

Unfortunately I am finding it difficult to read your mind and am unable to come to a conclusion as to what the "..." means. Could you please elaborate on this statement as I am unclear as to what you are saying?
A.

why? its left to you to think about. there is no point in me telling you what the point is. the excercise is to get you to think about it yourself.

you made a statement, i made the polar opposite, but both could possibly be true.

b3t4 wrote:

Also, I have linked to both the www.equality.ie website and the Equality Act. Could you please, also, back up your statements with quotes from said act?
A.

i think you are missing the point here. no one has said that you can fire someone for getting pregnant, or for being pregnant.

what statements would you like me to back up exactly?

b3t4 wrote:

Discriminating against a prospective employee according to their sex (as pregnancy can only effect women) and their family status is against the Equality Act which is therefore against the law.A.

thats not what this is about though.

this is the point i think you keep missing.

its about someone not telling a prospective employee about something that is going to take them out of the work force for 3 months, and possibly longer.

do you not think that if someone lies to a prospective employee, that they are untrustworthy?
does this now allow me to say i am a nuclear physicist on my CV, and then sue if the sack me after 2 hours....?

b3t4 wrote:

If a prospective employee were to tell their prospective employer at an interview that they were pregnant and they then went on to be unsuccessful with regard to obtaining the job it would be difficult to proove discrimination.A.

sure it would. but what makes you think that they just werent the best candidate?

b3t4 wrote:

However, if the employee is offered the job, they then tell the employer that they are pregnant and suddenly the job offer disaapears, I believe it would then be somewhat easier to proove that it was as a result of the employee being pregnant and therefore discrimination.

A.

i agree that it would 'seem' more likely to be discriminiation, but what if the appointment was then not in the best interests of the company, and you can prove it?

WhiteWashMan

dbnavan wrote:

BTW..... And I know this is totally different, I know a guy started work for IBM a week later wrote his car off and broke his back, wasnt able to work for 18 months they kept the job open for him:

so, youre saying that he was driving for 9 months before he crashed his car, all the while knowing it was going to happen?

come on now, lets equate apples with apples here, and pears with pears.

dbnavan

WhiteWashMan wrote:

no, you have not backed up anything.
nor for that matter has anyone backed up the legality of being able to fire someone in that situation.

if you want to discuss the morality of the situation, take it to humanities. otherwise, stop ignoring me telling you that you have not provided evidence.
you havent.

Read back I have provided many links and quotes.

WhiteWashMan

i havent seen one specifically about your original question.
if you have, then please, by all means post it up again.

this isnt a stupid nit picking debate on after hours here, i actually want to see the official line on this.

im begining to get bored of this ethical debate. if thats what you want, or if you want to play silly 'ive posted it before' buggers, then off to humanities with you.
i only want the facts, and i dont believe i have sen them.

dbnavan

I have emailed the department of trade and employment as well as a number of TD's to get a official answer on this so we may put it to bed.

WhiteWashMan

cool.
let us know what you get.