Trojan-Horse Pregnancies in the Workplace

consultech

Whether the recession is to blame for prompting a marked increase in pregnancy or not; One thing seems to be a constant in each of the 3 workplaces I've plied trade at over the last 24 months:

Last week my colleagues and I received an office email informing us of the wonderful news that yet another female employee of <1 year (2nd employee in 3 weeks) is expecting a little "bundle of joy", as she put it. 1 employee is also currently on maternity leave here, and 3 women were doing so in my last company (staff of 30-40).

We all know the dance by now, I've certainly seen it enough to merit harsh scepticism. What now follows is the politically correct and accepted practice of allowing them hold a struggling company to ransom for maternity leave pay, with little likelihood of actually returning to the company. The latest revelation from this particular worker came a full two days after the end of her probationary period. Her office wear has also accordingly changed, to one that proudly displays her wee bump.

Do you think this practice/culture is fair? Would you/your partner do it if you could get away with it, or do you consider it merely a shameless exploitation of all-too-PC rules on unfair dismissal etc?

orourkeda

People cant afford the Hire Purchase on their 56 inch plasma tv in their bedroom anymore.

Consequently, married couples are actually beginning to have sexual intercourse again.

alwaysadub

My work don't pay maternity leave. Even if they did,i wouldn't be going getting up the pole just for the money.

A child is for life,not just for holidays :pac:

consultech

alwaysadub wrote: »

A child is for life,not just for holidays :pac:

Very good!

bonerm

Nah we should fire them. I really enjoy paying their social welfare.

Lux23

I don't have a problem with it, think people are awfully strange if they do. All of the women I work with who got pregnant have returned to work not that they got much thanks for that.

pickarooney

It's a difficult one. My girlfriend lost her job about three weeks after she found out she was pregnant (but obviously hadn't told them; there was no connection between the two). She could have tried to get another job, and we could really have done with the money but had she mentioned the pregnancy she would never have been hired and in the end she just didn't feel it was honest to not mention it and get hired only to go on maternity leave six months later.

The company would not have been out of pocket as maternity leave is paid by the social security but they would have had to find and train a replacement and she would have felt very uncomfortable once they found out (and it was just a little too late to pretend she didn't know until after she got the job).

So I understand why someone would do it and I understand why someone would not do it and wouldn't judge either negatively.

bonerm

Lux23 wrote: »

I don't have a problem with it, think people are awfully strange if they do. All of the women I work with who got pregnant have returned to work not that they got much thanks for that.

Why should they get thanks?

consultech

pickarooney wrote: »

It's a difficult one. My girlfriend lost her job about three weeks after she found out she was pregnant (but obviously hadn't told them; there was no connection between the two). She could have tried to get another job, and we could really have done with the money but had she mentioned the pregnancy she would never have been hired and in the end she just didn't feel it was honest to not mention it and get hired only to go on maternity leave six months later.

The company would not have been out of pocket as maternity leave is paid by the social security but they would have had to find and train a replacement and she would have felt very uncomfortable once they found out (and it was just a little too late to pretend she didn't know until after she got the job).

So I understand why someone would do it and I understand why someone would not do it and wouldn't judge either negatively.

I may have my facts wrong on the actual source of financial support for ML, but there must be some level of contribution by both my current and former employers, as it's been referred to as a drain on finances any time I spoke with the directors in an informal way about it, in a "between us lads" kind of way. I even lost my last job in downsizing while ML workers were kept on (obviously).

SugarHigh

It does kind of make women more of a financial risk to employ.

I'm not suggesting anything should be changed though so don't kill me.

pickarooney

consultech wrote: »

I may have my facts wrong on the actual source of financial support for ML, but there must be some level of contribution by both my current and former employers, as it's been referred to as a drain on finances any time I spoke with the directors in an informal way about it, in a "between us lads" kind of way. I even lost my last job in downsizing while ML workers were kept on (obviously).

I don't know how it works in Ireland, to be honest.

Saint_Mel

pickarooney wrote: »

It's a difficult one. My girlfriend lost her job about three weeks after she found out she was pregnant (but obviously hadn't told them; there was no connection between the two). She could have tried to get another job, and we could really have done with the money but had she mentioned the pregnancy she would never have been hired and in the end she just didn't feel it was honest to not mention it and get hired only to go on maternity leave six months later.

I know a woman who was pregnant (not visibly though) when she was being interviewed for a job. Fast forward 6 months or so, all trained up, probation over and straight out on maternity leave.

orourkeda

Jerking off seems like the most financially prudent and babyless option.

Alternatively, up the sphinc also guarantees no impregnation. Tried and tested

orourkeda

Saint_Mel wrote: »

I know a woman who was pregnant (not visibly though) when she was being interviewed for a job. Fast forward 6 months or so, all trained up, probation over and straight out on maternity leave.

Did she do her medical in Tallaght?

Lux23

bonerm wrote: »

Why should they get thanks?

Its more a personal thing to do with the company than anything.

NothingMan

Hmm. Thinking of buying a series of pillow of increasing size to eventually build up to some maternity leave for me too.

Hope my deep voice and cock don't give it away that i'm faking though.

2ygb4cmqetsjhx

I love pregnant chick porn.

geeky

consultech wrote: »

I may have my facts wrong on the actual source of financial support for ML, but there must be some level of contribution by both my current and former employers, as it's been referred to as a drain on finances any time I spoke with the directors in an informal way about it, in a "between us lads" kind of way. I even lost my last job in downsizing while ML workers were kept on (obviously).

TBH I don't know why they're moaning. Employers aren't obliged to pay women on Maternity Leave.

(here's more info: www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/employment/employment-rights-and-conditions/leave-and-holidays/maternity_leave).

Basically, if an employer writes provision for maternity leave into someone's contract, they shouldn't get uppity if/when they avail of it. It's always a pain in the bum training up someone new, but people leave their jobs for all kinds of reasons.

pickarooney

Saint_Mel wrote: »

I know a woman who was pregnant (not visibly though) when she was being interviewed for a job. Fast forward 6 months or so, all trained up, probation over and straight out on maternity leave.

Can you understand why she would do that though, rather than be on the dole for 6 months? I'm sure she wanted to prepare as best she could financially for the baby and to be fair she was performing a useful function during the 6 months, and contributing to the social security fund rather than taking from it if she were on the dole. If she had decided not to get a job would you commend her for that - an able bodied adult draining society instead of getting a job?

It is a pisser for the company though, no denying that, especially if they're required to keep her on and pay her during her leave.

edit: this should go in humanites to avoid the drooling imbecile factor endemic in AH threads (and I drool with the best of them, don't get me wrong)

stovelid

Should women stop reproducing to make things easier for companies?

Maybe you're overestimating how much fealty you should give to your employers? I took a job before at what I felt was a lower wage (because I had been made redundant - a fact that they used to drive down my wage expectation) than I deserved. I worked hard when I was there but I left after after a year when a better offer came my way. I'm sure most people would have done the same?

orourkeda

Daleyza Jealous Minus wrote: »

I love pregnant chick porn.

Squirt porn is better.

stovelid

Daleyza Jealous Minus wrote: »

I love pregnant chick porn.

The yellow fur puts me off a bit.

seamus

consultech wrote: »

I may have my facts wrong on the actual source of financial support for ML, but there must be some level of contribution by both my current and former employers,

There is no mandatory contribution for Irish employers in relation to maternity leave.

The only costs associated with maternity leave for employers are the costs associated with covering the workload while the employee is out on maternity leave. On the other hand, they don't have to pay that employee for the maternity leave, so depending on the role maternity leave may actually save the company money.

Most companies consider it a headache because women who have babies very often opt to not return to work, or ask to return to work on a part-time basis. In both cases, you have the costs associated with finding and training a new employee and a reduction in productivity while they find their feet. They are also unlikely to put in any extra effort and will run out the door the minute their working day is over. Whereas someone with no children will be less rigid about their working hours.

Companies like young single men and women to do their grunt work and mature married men to be management - the former will work like trojans, the latter will make them work like trojans to get more pay for their kids.

It would be a very dishonest thing to do, to get hired for a job while pregnant and not let them know until your probationary period is up. While the company can't fire you, you can be the subject of less tangible ceilings and you're unlikely to thrive in such an environment unless you're insanely good or insanely hot/charming.

On the other hand, if you get pregnant while on probation, I don't think it's dishonest to keep it to yourself until the probationary period is up, lest you taint the outcome of the employment.

Dudess

Besides the lack of necessity for sneering at the affectionate phrase this woman used about her unborn child, the mentioning of the maternity-wear at work (who gives a fuk?) and the bizarre notion that a woman should have a certain amount of time clocked up before she can get knocked up, these women are fulfilling a role which is essential to mankind (for want of a less melodramatic, Darwinian phrase), it's not like they're going backpacking.

Oh and on what basis is this policy only existence to be "politically correct"?

bonerm

orourkeda wrote: »

Squirt porn is better.

I think they prefer to be called "little people".

consultech

geeky wrote: »

TBH I don't know why they're moaning. Employers aren't obliged to pay women on Maternity Leave.

(here's more info: www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/employment/employment-rights-and-conditions/leave-and-holidays/maternity_leave).

Basically, if an employer writes provision for maternity leave into someone's contract, they shouldn't get uppity if/when they avail of it. It's always a pain in the bum training up someone new, but people leave their jobs for all kinds of reasons.

That's a fairly Irish response in fairness. Hiding behind a provision that's most likely there for corporate/social responsibility reasons is no excuse.

faceman

I have no issue with maternity leave. Its important that the state and business world respect it too. Employers don't gave to pay maternity benefit so the financial argument is void

the flipside though is that I wish that many people (including some pregnant ladies I've encountered!) would stop going on like pregnancy is a disability. Pregnancy doesn't restrict your ability as a human being!

orourkeda

bonerm wrote: »

I think they prefer to be called "little people".

No squirt as in female ejaculation as opposed to midgets. >>>>>>>>>redtube

consultech

faceman wrote: »

I have no issue with maternity leave. Its important that the state and business world respect it too. Employers don't gave to pay maternity benefit so the financial argument is void

the flipside though is that I wish that many people (including some pregnant ladies I've encountered!) would stop going on like pregnancy is a disability. Pregnancy doesn't restrict your ability as a human being!

I probably phrased my initial rant incorrectly; I intended the retrospective/future costs (training etc) to be considered as the primary financial drain.

It should also be considered (and hasn't been so far) that getting pregnant grants job security for at least the period of pregnancy, in that no-one is gonna fire you while you're on ML. This is unfair imo too.

geeky

stovelid wrote: »

Should women stop reproducing to make things easier for companies?

I can imagine the IBEC statement now.

'The Government must introduce stricter limits on procreation to protect recovery', stated a brazen, brain-dead fker today. 'The seflishness of women in having sexual intercourse, getting and availing of the maternity leave their employers so generously include in their contracts is threatening the future of many small businesses which, by importing things for €1 and selling them for €2, make up the backbone of Ireland's knowledge economy. To protect our future, we must place a limit on the natural, but regrettable phenomenon of pregnancy,' he added.
'IBEC proposes that women in the workforce be prohibited from sexual intercourse as a preventative measure. Should a woman in employment be found to have engaged in sexual intercourse, this should be deemed a dismissable offence. Women who are so brazen as to get pregnant while in employment should be dispatched to England forthwith, as a measure to discourage brazen hussyness among working women,' continued the empty suit, before issuing a string on non-sequential buzzwords. 'Green jobs... knowledge economy... light-touch regulation... public sector pay... ENTERPRISE! ENTERPRISE! ENTERPRISE!' he concluded.

pickarooney

consultech wrote: »

It should also be considered (and hasn't been so far) that getting pregnant grants job security for at least the period of pregnancy, in that no-one is gonna fire you while you're on ML. This is unfair imo too.

Is there really any extra protection afforded pregnant employees over non-pregnant ones? you can't really fire anyone without a very good reason and a pregnant woman guilty of gross misconduct would surely get the boot the same as anyone else. And if it's for economic reasons, they're not going to leave the company/department running with just one, inactive employee.

ejmaztec

orourkeda wrote: »

Jerking off seems like the most financially prudent and babyless option.

Alternatively, up the sphinc also guarantees no impregnation. Tried and tested

Where'd you think the little sh1ts come from?

bazmaiden

I have noticied this increase also but don't mind it really I think that if my OH were to get pregnant I would hope that see gets what she is fully enitled to.

Although one of my collegues (social worker) just came back from maternity leave pregnant again!! and was talking to one of my mates and he reckons that this is common enough,

Anyway as a man I won't get this time off but we are entitled to parental leave etc so as I said before i think its fair

pickarooney

bazmaiden wrote: »

Anyway as a man I won't get this time off but we are entitled to parental leave etc so as I said before i think its fair

I thought Irish fathers weren't entitled to Jack ****?

WindSock

I got knocked up to stay in this company a little longer and now all I have is this lousy human to look after for the next 20+ years.

bazmaiden

pickarooney wrote: »

I thought Irish fathers weren't entitled to Jack ****?

It depends on your contract

geeky

consultech wrote: »

I probably phrased my initial rant incorrectly; I intended the retrospective/future costs (training etc) to be considered as the primary financial drain.

It should also be considered (and hasn't been so far) that getting pregnant grants job security for at least the period of pregnancy, in that no-one is gonna fire you while you're on ML. This is unfair imo too.

But the retrospective and future costs apply whenever anyone leaves employment - I don't think anyone's suggesting them employees be prevented from leaving. And keeping someone 'employed' ain't such a drain when you don't have to pay them.

In my experience, business owners love any excuse for a good whinge. This issue seems to be one of those excuses.

Dudess

pickarooney wrote: »

I thought Irish fathers weren't entitled to Jack ****?

Certainly not unmarried ones (not that married ones are entitled to much more).

faceman

consultech wrote: »

It should also be considered (and hasn't been so far) that getting pregnant grants job security for at least the period of pregnancy, in that no-one is gonna fire you while you're on ML. This is unfair imo too.

that's not true. I've witnessed two cases where women on maternity leave were made redundant, the decision being made while they were on M/L. (in both cases their team was being made redundant bar one or 2 key roles) With redundancy you are making a position redundant so whether or not someone is pregnant is largely irrelevent.

Although if you are specifically referring to sacking someone for being on M/L then that's true. But why would you sack someone for being on M/L?

faceman

faceman wrote: »

I have no issue with maternity leave. Its important that the state and business world respect it too. Employers don't gave to pay maternity benefit so the financial argument is void

Id imagine almost all employers pay for a good amount of the maternity leave though. Anyone I have known to go on it got around 6 months full pay and then in some situations reduced pay for another while and maybe then no pay if they are too long.

I have no problem with maternity leave and paid maternity leave at that. You cannot just get rid of someone who has a baby as women were having children long before people were working in organised employment. I think it is much better for a child to be looked after by their mother for at least 6 months or more before going to childminders etc.

Saint_Mel wrote: »

I know a woman who was pregnant (not visibly though) when she was being interviewed for a job. Fast forward 6 months or so, all trained up, probation over and straight out on maternity leave.

This is taking the p**s though and abusing the system.

stovelid

Basically, we're talking about pregnancy here. The trivial matter of giving birth to future generations and all that. Not 6 months off to go shoe-shopping or on a cruise.

If companies are going to employ women, they have to accept that they reproduce although I do accept that the scenario of accepting a job while pregnant (and keeping schutm) is a little mean, but most people are self-motivated in matters of employment, especially employers who want to get shot of you.

soups05

am i the only one thinking that consultech is the most fertile man in ireland? every job he goes to results in women getting pregant.


stud.



:D:D

pickarooney

Ronald Angry Shark wrote: »

This is taking the p**s though and abusing the system.

As per my post in response, what would you do if you were (a woman and) pregnant and unemployed?

NothingMan

Dudess wrote: »

Besides the lack of necessity for sneering at the affectionate phrase this woman used about her unborn child, the mentioning of the maternity-wear at work (who gives a fuk?) and the bizarre notion that a woman should have a certain amount of time clocked up before she can get knocked up, these women are fulfilling a role which is essential to mankind (for want of a less melodramatic, Darwinian phrase), it's not like they're going backpacking.

Oh and on what basis is this policy only existence to be "politically correct"?

I completely agree with Dudess, if women get maternity leave with pay then men and sterile women should get backpacking leave with pay. Very good point Dudess.

bonerm

NothingMan wrote: »

I completely agree with Dudess, if women get maternity leave with pay then men and sterile women should get backpacking leave with pay. Very good point Dudess.

It's the fresh-air argument. Smokers get "smoking breaks" but I don't get a "fresh air break." :mad:

Gone Drinking

If there's any women here, looking for some no strings attached, paid leave from work.. i'm offering my services.

geeky

consultech wrote: »

That's a fairly Irish response in fairness. Hiding behind a provision that's most likely there for corporate/social responsibility reasons is no excuse.

I agree that what the employee did (if she knew she was pregnant when she took the job or was planning to get pregnant and didn't say anything) was an abuse of the employer's social responsibility.

The clubby, ladsy b1tching about maternity leave in general, though, is a bit rich. They don't have to pay anything, so I fail to see how it's different to anyone leaving employment - which is a pain, but the days of owing your employer a lifetime of service are thankfully gone.

pickarooney

pickarooney wrote: »

As per my post in response, what would you do if you were (a woman and) pregnant and unemployed?

It is a difficult one in fairness. As I said I am in favour of giving maternity leave in general. I understand why she would do it especially in the current climate. I would probably do it (if I was a woman and pregnant) but I would feel quite embarrassed doing it, walking up to my boss and asking for maternity leave after just being trained up.

I would imagine this is probably a fairly isolated incident. Maybe I'm wrong though.

consultech

geeky wrote: »

But the retrospective and future costs apply whenever anyone leaves employment - I don't think anyone's suggesting them employees be prevented from leaving. And keeping someone 'employed' ain't such a drain when you don't have to pay them.

In my experience, business owners love any excuse for a good whinge. This issue seems to be one of those excuses.

...and 6 months worth of employer PRSI contributions are paid by who?

Saint_Mel

pickarooney wrote: »

Can you understand why she would do that though, rather than be on the dole for 6 months?

Oh I wasnt giving out, just adding another story to the list.
Compared to what some other crooks are doing to companies and tax payers, claiming maternity benefit is fairly mild

pickarooney wrote: »

... to be fair she was performing a useful function during the 6 months

Thats where come people might disagree. x amount of those months were spent training and learning the systems ... then when shes up to speed on everything she's gone and they have to invest more time and money training up someone else.

But as you rightly said, she was indeed contributing to the economy, paying tax and all that for the time she was in work.

geeky

consultech wrote: »

...and 6 months worth of employer PRSI contributions are paid by who?

The state it appears.

Citizensinformation wrote:

PRSI contributions: you will automatically be awarded PRSI credits while you are getting Maternity Benefit. If you avail of unpaid additional maternity leave you must get your employer to complete an application form for maternity leave credits after you return to work.

Seriously, I went to the bother of finding this link to the relevant information and posted it several pages back. Maybe it's too much to expect from AH but, if people are going to weigh in on something, it would be nice if they bothered to get their facts straight.

On the hard case of women taking a job without telling an employer they're pregnant, it's not good form and probably colours employers against maternity leave women and women in general. That's why I think it's selfish. But we don't look down on people for leaving a job after six months, do we?