Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
2456

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    GarIT
    Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #33
    Paulownia
    Registered Users Posts: 590 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #34
    qo2cj1dsne8y4k
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,646 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #35
    stimpson
    Registered Users Posts: 7,815 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #36
    smcgiff
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,943 ✭✭✭smcgiff


    GarIT wrote: »
    And on top of that a disabled person doesn't choose to get disabled.

    And all pregnancies are planned?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    stimpson
    Registered Users Posts: 7,815 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #38
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #39
    GarIT
    Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #40
    GarIT
    Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #41
    Paulownia
    Registered Users Posts: 590 ✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,500 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #43
    GarIT
    Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭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"


  • Options
    #44
    smcgiff
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,943 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #45
    GarIT
    Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #46
    stimpson
    Registered Users Posts: 7,815 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #47
    smcgiff
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,943 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #48
    salmocab
    Registered Users Posts: 11,284 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #49
    smcgiff
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,943 ✭✭✭smcgiff


    GarIT wrote: »
    Care to say why or do you just like blanket statements?

    No need. It speaks for itself.


  • Options
    #50
    Dr Turk Turkelton
    Registered Users Posts: 2,897 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #51
    Paulownia
    Registered Users Posts: 590 ✭✭✭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!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    GarIT
    Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    stimpson wrote: »
    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.

    I never said the disabled person would be less efficient, YOU created the hypothetical situation of not hiring a disabled person and YOU suggested that the disabled person was less efficient, don't try to turn this back on me.
    stimpson wrote: »
    Would you support an employer refusing to hire a disabled person if it meant it would cost them more?

    Some workplaces aren't suitable for some staff. I can understand a company not wanting to shell out several thousands to accommodate an employee that they are not obliged to take on.


  • Options
    #53
    GarIT
    Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    smcgiff wrote: »
    Because she is pregnant?

    No that's the type of things that will be said if they want rid of her.


  • Options
    #54
    GarIT
    Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


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

    Probably, I tend to do that.


  • Options
    #55
    ec18
    Registered Users Posts: 2,702 ✭✭✭ec18


    don't standard probationary periods mention that the employee may be dismissed without reason and at any point. Whatever the legality and how you would be covered under legislation my main thought/concern would be that it would leave a bad taste in the managers mouth, that you knew the situation that you would be working 4 months and then on the maternity leave for 8. Also most companies will pause your probation period if there are an extended absences due to illness/injury etc


  • Options
    #56
    GarIT
    Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    Paulownia wrote: »
    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!

    Completely agreed, I didn't say anything bad about disabled worked, all I said was that if an applicant for a position is disabled the employer should be allowed consider that when making the decision to employ that person, in the same way they should be allowed consider the potential of having to fund maternity leave for an applicant if they arrive already pregnant.


  • Options
    #57
    stimpson
    Registered Users Posts: 7,815 ✭✭✭stimpson


    GarIT wrote: »
    I never said the disabled person would be less efficient, YOU created the hypothetical situation of not hiring a disabled person and YOU suggested that the disabled person was less efficient, don't try to turn this back on me.



    Some workplaces aren't suitable for some staff. I can understand a company not wanting to shell out several thousands to accommodate an employee that they are not obliged to take on.
    stimpson wrote: »
    Would you support an employer refusing to hire a disabled person if it meant it would cost them more?
    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.

    Cost them more/less efficient. You're splitting hairs.

    Fortunately the law doesn't subscribe to your whacky opinions.


  • Options
    #58
    smcgiff
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,943 ✭✭✭smcgiff


    GarIT wrote: »
    No that's the type of things that will be said if they want rid of her.

    She's bulletproof. No employer is going to risk 2 years salary as an award for wrongful dismissal.


  • Options
    #59
    stimpson
    Registered Users Posts: 7,815 ✭✭✭stimpson


    GarIT wrote: »
    Completely agreed, I didn't say anything bad about disabled worked, all I said was that if an applicant for a position is disabled the employer should be allowed consider that when making the decision to employ that person, in the same way they should be allowed consider the potential of having to fund maternity leave for an applicant if they arrive already pregnant.

    Employers are not obliged to fund maternity leave.


  • Options
    #60
    smcgiff
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,943 ✭✭✭smcgiff


    GarIT wrote: »
    the potential of having to fund maternity leave for an applicant if they arrive already pregnant.

    There is no obligation for a company to pay a person on maternity leave.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    salmocab
    Registered Users Posts: 11,284 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    stimpson wrote: »
    Employers are not obliged to fund maternity leave.

    No but they do have to pay holiday pay for the 6 months to the person on leave and to their replacement, also depending on the job the replacement might need some additional training which also costs money


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement