About to start new job 4 months pregnant **MOD warning 1st post**

LegacyUser

Title says it all really - I am due to start a new job on Monday and I'm currently 4 months pregnant. I had my interview 3 weeks ago where I didn't tell the person interviewing me that I'm pregnant as this job is a huge opportunity for me and I didn't want to reduce my chances of getting it. What I'm looking for advice on is when should I mention it? Day one? After 2 weeks so I've hopefully proved myself a little? It's a reasonably big company, although the team I'll be working on is quite small. Hopefully I'll be working for 4.5 months, then taking 8.5 months off, then back to work full time. I do see a future with this company so in the long term am hoping this won't hold me back too much

//MOD

Right; I've gone through the thread and to call it a train wreck is putting it mildly. First of all there are very clear laws and regulations for pregnancy at work and they are among the most iron tight laws out there; if you wish to discuss if they are correct or how to be implemented I recommend the Legal Discussion forum and if you are a people manager it's strongly recommended you get up to date on them. Secondly there's been a huge off thread discussion about who to hire, when to hire and how to hire which is not relating to the OP. Hence going forward if there's any post that's not helping OP it will be deleted and the user will receive an infraction; that includes replies stating it's not ethically/morally right/wrong etc. Help OP handle the situation the best way she can with her new employer or don't post in the thread. What's happened has happened; help the OP deal with it.

Nody

//MOD

amdublin

Is this a permanent job??

Would you not have just gone for a temporary 3/4 month contract?

It just seems totally unfair to me that a company has hired you and in 4 months you are going to head off for 8.5 months.

stimpson

amdublin wrote: »

Is this a permanent job??

Would you not have just gone for a temporary 3/4 month contract?

It just seems totally unfair to me that a company has hired you and in 4 months you are going to head off for 8.5 months.

People get pregnant all the time. It's a fact of life.

Congrats OP. You can't be discriminated against because you are pregnant, however you can be let go during a probationary period without reason. It may be best to be straight with them and work hard to make yourself indispensible. Any employer worth it's salt would be mad to get rid of a good employee over a bit of maternity leave.

amdublin

Completely agree with your points Stimpson.

But there is a difference between "a bit of maternity leave" when compared to employee in for 4 months, and then going off for 8
(i.e. existing staff member compared to new)

OP - Stimpson makes good points. Work your socks off and make sure they are happy with you and no issues during your probation.

Paulownia

Any employee worth their salt would have told a prospective employer that she was four months pregnant before this. It may be that legally the employer has no option but to continue with your employment but morally your behaviour is questionable and certainly will not impress any employer no matter how brilliant your performance at work

stimpson

Legally the employer cannot discriminate due to pregnancy. They are not even allowed to ask if you are pregnant or planning to get pregnant in an interview. And let's not bring morality into it. It's just business after all.

In fairness the OP may not have known at the interview stage so the employer has no right to be upset.

My missus was waiting 3 months to hear about a job and discovered she was pregnant in the meantime. She ended up turning down the job, but she had no moral or legal obligation to do so.

amdublin

Op states she didn't tell at interview indicating she knew.

Completely different scenario in your wife's case.

stimpson

amdublin wrote: »

Op states she didn't tell at interview indicating she knew.

Completely different scenario in your wife's case.

Sure, but the employer doesn't know that.

amdublin

Simpson - obv she can't be discriminated against. But in practice very hard to shake off that memory in work " ah yes that's your wun who never told us and then headed off after being trained up".

Morally (sorry!) It doesn't make the op look very honest or upfront or trustworthy.

amdublin

stimpson wrote: »

Sure, but the employer doesn't know that.

True. She can always lie (:cool:) "I've just found out/I've didn't know"

I personally think it was unfair of op to go for this position.

Paulownia

stimpson wrote: »

Legally the employer cannot discriminate due to pregnancy. They are not even allowed to ask if you are pregnant or planning to get pregnant in an interview. And let's not bring morality into it. It's just business after all.

In fairness the OP may not have known at the interview stage so the employer has no right to be upset.

My missus was waiting 3 months to hear about a job and discovered she was pregnant in the meantime. She ended up turning down the job, but she had no moral or legal obligation to do so.

She was interviewed three weeks ago and she knew well and decided not to mention it. Don't get your point about morality having nothing to do with it. Are you suggesting there is no need for morality in business. If so I take it that you mean for the employee, not otherwise.
As an employer with a small business I would personally feel I had been taken advantage of if somebody did this to me and several of my staff are mums and have had maternity leave and we have all worked in with it happily. My colleagues are entitled to consideration from me but it works both ways.
Have discussed it here this morning with one of my colleagues who wonders how this person would feel if she were an employer and someone did it to her. And she has four children, two since she came to us.

stimpson

Yeah, well its just business. I've been screwed over by employers many times. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

Paulownia

I've been screwed by employees too but I haven't allowed the experiences to sour me or to change my attitudes towards my colleagues.
You get out of life what you put into it in my experience and that philosophy works equally well in the workplace

smcgiff

amdublin wrote: »

True. She can always lie (:cool:) "I've just found out/I've didn't know"

I personally think it was unfair of op to go for this position.

Unfair on who? The employer thinks she's the best person for the job. Of course the employer is aware she could get pregnant and still hired her. It's likely to be inconvenient, but so is any employee's absence due to pregnancy/ilness.

The OP has potentially years of service to give to the company.

As to the OP's question... it's best to tell them as soon as possible for health and safety reasons.

Congrats on the new job and impending motherhood. Good luck.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Really bad form. Wonder what the probation period is for the OP

Kathnora

I was in a work situation a few years back where that happened. The job on offer was only for 6 months and the employee could only work for 3 as she was going on maternity leave. The boss was female and the one thing that annoyed her much more than the inconvenience of the maternity leave was the fact that the employee didn't tell her she was pregnant. Relations were "cool" but polite after that. Now, if the woman had revealed her pregnancy would she have got the job?? Well................

smcgiff

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Really bad form. Wonder what the probation period is for the OP

The same for anyone else.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

smcgiff wrote: »

The same for anyone else.

I've been in jobs that had been 6 months or 9 months. No need to be so smart

stimpson

Paulownia wrote: »

I've been screwed by employees too but I haven't allowed the experiences to sour me or to change my attitudes towards my colleagues.
You get out of life what you put into it in my experience and that philosophy works equally well in the workplace

Are you saying that you are completely honest in all your business dealings? You have never lied for the good of your business?

Paulownia

Kathnora wrote: »

I was in a work situation a few years back where that happened. The job on offer was only for 6 months and the employee could only work for 3 as she was going on maternity leave. The boss was female and the one thing that annoyed her much more than the inconvenience of the maternity leave was the fact that the employee didn't tell her she was pregnant. Relations were "cool" but polite after that. Now, if the woman had revealed her pregnancy would she have got the job?? Well................

If you apply for a temporary job for six months knowing you only intend to work for three of them and don't tell your potential employer don't expect anything more than cool when the employer discovers the deception.

Tails142

What is the maternity policy, do you just claim the social welfare allowance or will the employer be paying you at full paywhile on maternity?

hfallada

stimpson wrote: »

Yeah, well its just business. I've been screwed over by employers many times. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

But there is a difference between legality and whats morally right. Yes legally you are entitled to your job if you get pregnant. But is it morally right to your employer to have to basically find someone new for exact same job in 4 months?When you knew you were pregnant from the start.

OP I would have told the employer that you are pregnant and reapply in 18 months thing. I can easily see the employer distrusting you and they have a reason to. I can imagine you will not be considered for promotion in the future because of basically misleading them now.

smcgiff

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I've been in jobs that had been 6 months or 9 months. No need to be so smart

Not being smart, it's 12 months if it needs to be enforced.

stimpson

Do people think it's morally right for an employer to refuse to hire someone because they're pregnant?

salmocab

Presumably the employer will need to replace the OP for the maternity leave, probably be easier to find a replacement early on and just get rid of the OP during probation period.

Saipanne

smcgiff wrote: »

The same for anyone else.

They can vary.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

stimpson wrote: »

Do people think it's morally right for an employer to refuse to hire someone because they're pregnant?

Yes, to be honest. If its a temporary job, I don't think hiring someone for 4 months and having to find another person again straight after is fair. If I was hiring a person, I'd hire someone who I thought was going to see out their contract. Not someone who was going to bail in a few months

GarIT

stimpson wrote: »

Do people think it's morally right for an employer to refuse to hire someone because they're pregnant?

Yes if the person is going to cost the company considerably more than other staff doing the same job.

smcgiff

Saipanne wrote: »

They can vary.

If your contract says 3, 6, 9 months, whatever it's really only an internal review. You can be let go within a year without any consequences for the employer.

With the exception of discrimination reasons.

Tar.Aldarion

Yeah mine was 6

stimpson

GarIT wrote: »

Yes if the person is going to cost the company considerably more than other staff doing the same job.

Would you support an employer refusing to hire a disabled person if it meant it would cost them more?

GarIT

stimpson wrote: »

Would you support an employer refusing to hire a disabled person if it meant it would cost them more?

Yes. And on top of that a disabled person doesn't choose to get disabled. Companies shouldn't be forced to loose money to accommodate people.

Paulownia

stimpson wrote: »

Do people think it's morally right for an employer to refuse to hire someone because they're pregnant?

If you need someone to do a job you hire the best and most suitable candidate. If a candidate states at interview that she will only be available for work for four months and will then be taking maternity leave for eight it is obviously a consideration in the suitability of the person.
If the candidate is the best choice and the business can cope with her absence she will get the job. She has been honest and that means a lot at interview .
If she takes a job not realising she is pregnant no reasonable employer would take exception.
Anyway I'm not going to change your mind by anything I say so this is the last post from me on the subject, we are all entitled to fairness , even employers and work colleagues

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

stimpson wrote: »

Would you support an employer refusing to hire a disabled person if it meant it would cost them more?

The disabled person would hopefully not need replacing, more advertising/interviews, after 4 months.

stimpson

Ok, so I did a bit of research. The OP is covered under unfair dismissal legislation despite not having worked for 12 months. From citizensadvice.ie:

If you have less than 12 months' continuous service you may bring a claim for unfair dismissal if you are dismissed for:

Pregnancy, giving birth or breastfeeding or any matters connected with pregnancy or birth

smcgiff

GarIT wrote: »

And on top of that a disabled person doesn't choose to get disabled.

And all pregnancies are planned?

stimpson

GarIT wrote: »

Yes. And on top of that a disabled person doesn't choose to get disabled. Companies shouldn't be forced to loose money to accommodate people.

Wow. Words fail me.

MagicMarker

stimpson wrote: »

Would you support an employer refusing to hire a disabled person if it meant it would cost them more?

How did the goalposts get over there? Oooh, let me try...

Would you hire a paraplegic as a bicycle courier?

GarIT

smcgiff wrote: »

And all pregnancies are planned?

Except in cases of rape yes. If you do the deed you take a risk that you might get pregnant.

GarIT

stimpson wrote: »

Wow. Words fail me.

You think businesses should be forced to higher candidates that will produce less work for the same money or the same work for more money? A business needs to do what is right for itself, it's not a charity.

Paulownia

stimpson wrote: »

Ok, so I did a bit of research. The OP is covered under unfair dismissal legislation despite not having worked for 12 months. From citizensadvice.ie:

I wondered when that would be raised. Nobody is querying the legislation, that is quite clear and I pointed that out in the beginning

runawaybishop

stimpson wrote: »

Ok, so I did a bit of research. The OP is covered under unfair dismissal legislation despite not having worked for 12 months. From citizensadvice.ie:

Op is covered if the business is stupid and says thats why they let her go. Even if they dont terminate her shortly after they find out she can expect to be managed out.

OP, come clean ASAP and work very hard.

GarIT

runawaybishop wrote: »

Op is covered if the business is stupid and says thats why they let her go. Even if they dont terminate her shortly after they find out she can expect to be managed out.

I was going to post "she wasn't performing to the same standard as other employees"

smcgiff

GarIT wrote: »

Except in cases of rape yes. If you do the deed you take a risk that you might get pregnant.

That is simply moronic.

GarIT

smcgiff wrote: »

That is simply moronic.

Care to say why or do you just like blanket statements?

You still can't compare getting pregnant with being disabled, at a minimum there is at least some personal responsibility for getting pregnant.

stimpson

GarIT wrote: »

You think businesses should be forced to higher candidates that will produce less work for the same money or the same work for more money. A business needs to do what is right for itself, its not a charity.

What makes you think that disabled people would be less efficient? I worked for someone that refused to interview someone for a software engineering gig because they would have to make that office wheelchair accessible.

smcgiff

GarIT wrote: »

I was going to post "she wasn't performing to the same standard as other employees"

Because she is pregnant?

Trust me, the OP will have the safest job in the company. But ALL of this is irrelevant.

The OP asked a simple question and only a few posts have answered her.

salmocab

GarIT wrote: »

Care to say why or do you just like blanket statements?

You still can't compare getting pregnant with being disabled, at a minimum there is at least some personal responsibility for getting pregnant.

I think you probably have a fair point although I think you may have made it in a very clumsy way.

smcgiff

GarIT wrote: »

Care to say why or do you just like blanket statements?

No need. It speaks for itself.

Dr Turk Turkelton

runawaybishop wrote: »

Op is covered if the business is stupid and says thats why they let her go. Even if they dont terminate her shortly after they find out she can expect to be managed out.

OP, come clean ASAP and work very hard.

Yeah the lady in question wouldn't want to be coming in late any morning during her probation.

Paulownia

GarIT wrote: »

Care to say why or do you just like blanket statements?

You still can't compare getting pregnant with being disabled, at a minimum there is at least some personal responsibility for getting pregnant.

I discovered many years ago that people with disability make wonderful employees, they work hard. They appreciate opportunities and enjoy their work. Obviously they are hired to do jobs they are capable of doing, someone in a wheelchair cannot be expected to stack shelves in a supermarket but believe me they will try!