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

GarIT

stimpson wrote: »

If you have a problem with my posts I suggest you report them.

You can't let an employee go because they will be unable to do their job while pregnant.



- See more at: http://www.hsa.ie/eng/Workplace_Health/Sensitive_Risk_Groups/Pregnant_at_Work_FAQ_Responses/Pregnant_at_Work_FAQ_Responses.html#sthash.uQqqwv3M.dpuf

Can't implies that it can't be done, it has, so can't isn't the right word, maybe use shouldn't, or can't blatantly.

So how does that work for female bricklayers?

stimpson

GarIT wrote: »

Can't implies that it can't be done, it has, so can't isn't the right word, maybe use shouldn't, or can't blatantly.

So how does that work for female bricklayers?

The correct word is illegal.

Female bricklayers would have exactly the same rights. Why wouldn't they?

GarIT

stimpson wrote: »

The correct word is illegal.

Female bricklayers would have exactly the same rights. Why wouldn't they?

So a female bricklayer can refuse to lay bricks because it would be bad for her health but still get paid?

beyondbelief67

GarIT wrote: »

I have heard it happen where a woman hides being pregnant in an interview and then arrives clearly pregnant and is then told "your job as a receptionist includes receiving deliveries [of heavy computing equipment] and carrying them to whoever they are addressed to". Once the person mentions not being able to lift heavy boxes, they "aren't performing the job they were hired for", goodbye.

Sorry but that is against health and safety rules. No one is allowed to carry anything heavy and equipment has to be provided for the movement of anything heavy.
For any employees.

Tzardine

beyondbelief67 wrote: »

Sorry but that is against health and safety rules. No one is allowed to carry anything heavy and equipment has to be provided for the movement of anything heavy.
For any employees.

I think he might have meant that if a person is asked and expected to to carry something that is not heavy but they refuse to do because they are pregnant.

A box of files for example.

stimpson

GarIT wrote: »

So a female bricklayer can refuse to lay bricks because it would be bad for her health but still get paid?

It's up to the employer to ensure the workplace is safe. As I quoted a few minutes ago

Once an employer becomes aware that an employee is pregnant, they must assess the specific risks from the employment to that employee and take action to ensure that she is not exposed to anything, which would damage either her health or that of her developing child.

GarIT

beyondbelief67 wrote: »

Sorry but that is against health and safety rules. No one is allowed to carry anything heavy and equipment has to be provided for the movement of anything heavy.
For any employees.

Heavy relative to the person/condition.

GarIT

stimpson wrote: »

It's up to the employer to ensure the workplace is safe. As I quoted a few minutes ago

But seeing as you know so much about employment law how does this work for someone whose job is heavy manual work?

If somebody isn't capable of doing a job they shouldn't be paid for it.

Nody

//MOD

Thread locked for clean up; will return shortly.

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.

//MOD

Mrs OBumble

GarIT wrote: »

But seeing as you know so much about employment law how does this work for someone whose job is heavy manual work?

If somebody isn't capable of doing a job they shouldn't be paid for it.

If the job cannot be adapted to make it safe, then the employee can be put on unpaid leave until they are able for it. This is not the same as sacking them.


op you haven't told us if this is a professional job with specialist skills where you would be hard to replace and expected to stay for years. If it is, then I'd suggest telling ASAP, to manage your long term chances.

But if not, then I'd suggest not telling for as long as you can, and making yourself as indispensable as you can in that time. I hope your pregnancy is an easy one, because if it's even slightly difficult work will be very hard.

IMhO, you should have told them during the offer / negotiations stage, not at the interview. That would have allowed then to plan.

apieceofcake

To the OP: where are you getting your figure of 8.5 months off from?

LegacyUser

OP here... wow can't believe how many replies there were to this!

I don't want to give any detail that will make me identifiable should anyone else involved happen across the thread. The reason for 8.5 months rather than 6 is to allow me to get the weaning process for the baby completed or as near to it as possible, only starts at 6 months so realistically I won't be able to go back to work after 6 months.

I spoke to someone I know who works in recruitment today and explained the situation - her advice was to tell them as soon as I start, she's seen it a lot and doesn't think it'll be an insurmountable problem, especially as it's a reasonably large company so that's what I'm going to do - tell them on day one then work as hard as I can up until I go on maternity leave.

Thanks to those who contributed

WoolyJumper

Like others have said a business must do what's best for the business and she must do what is best for her and her family, and she was well within the law.Had she told the truth, its unlikely she would have gotten the job. So even if they try and let her go now she is still better off than not having the job at all. A business will have little interest in morally doing the right thing so i dont see others think she has some kind of moral obligation to it.

salmocab

Have just realized that you are planning on taking extra time off beyond maternity leave. They hardly have to give you that surely?

Penny Tration

salmocab wrote: »

Have just realized that you are planning on taking extra time off beyond maternity leave. They hardly have to give you that surely?

I'm pretty sure mothers are entitled to extra, unpaid leave after maternity, but i stand to be corrected.

deedless

I'm pretty sure the extra time at the end isn't a problem. She should be entitled to 16 weeks after the statutory 26, so 42 in total, and 40 after the birth. That is typically unpaid. I would check the contract though, as it is likely the 26 would be topped up until a certain amount of months have been completed. however, given many/most employers don't top up, this may not be a factor. Also, if you weren'the working until you got this job, you may have issues qualifying for prsi mat benefits.

Frankly I don't think you'll have that much of an issue. Try and minimise any sick leave (if you're debating whether or not to go in, go in). If possible, try and schedule your appointments early in the morning or late in the afternoon, but you are legally entitled to them, so don't worry if you can't. Keep the head down, work hard and in a few years this will be forgotten. Hiring managers may remember for a year or two, but if it's a big company it'll be forgotten.

Bandana boy

Op
I would say it within the first week ,there is Health and Safety of you and your child around the office to consider and that should be paramount consideration.

I imagine your employer would be a little miffed and there is a chance they will try and end things in first couple of weeks and go after the next best candidate that interviewed, but a stronger likelyhood they will just get on with it.

You probably have Legislation on your side if they were to try end things.

I would expect that Maternity would not be paid ,I know in my company we only start paying maternity after two year service and that would be industry standard.

skallywag

OP, in my book what you have done is wrong, and as a hiring manager myself I would be very pissed off with someone who did the same.

On the other hand if you came forward at the first available opportunity, owned up, and outlined your arguments as to why you felt forced into doing this, then I think you may still possibly rescue the situation, and prevent any bridges being burned for the future. Hence my advice would be for you to bring this topic to the surface at the first available opportunity.

Glinda

This is an astonishing thread, especially the large numbers of posters who seem to be either unaware of the legal protections around maternity or hell-bent on circumventing them in their own workplaces.

OP, you are legally protected. You should tell your employer straight away if there are any health and safety issues that they need to take into account as a result of your being pregnant. Otherwise you don't have to say a word until you give formal notice of your intention to take maternity leave.

All of us have significant life events that affect our working lives. Women are particularly impacted by being the ones who carry and bear children and who are in the main responsible for looking after them when they are newborn. In order to reflect this added burden, society has decided to afford them very strong legal protection from adverse treatment as a result of maternity.

Of course employers would prefer not to have to deal with the messy, human element of their employees' lives but until we're all replaced with robots they'll just have to deal with the fact that their employees are human and complicated and will from time to time have babies, bereavements, illnesses and other things going on that make them less productive. Taken over a lifetime, I'd prefer to have the employee who is the right person for the job rather than writing off the vast human talent of women of child-bearing age for the sake of the cost of a temp for a few months every now and again.

Gah :mad:

skallywag

Glinda wrote: »

All of us have significant life events that affect our working lives. Women are particularly impacted by being the ones who carry and bear children and who are in the main responsible for looking after them when they are newborn. In order to reflect this added burden, society has decided to afford them very strong legal protection from adverse treatment as a result of maternity

I agree fully with you.

I still think though that not mentioning the fact that the OP was pregnant during the initial interview is something which could swing against her, and she should set her employer straight ASAP.

Paulownia

I'm with you on this Skallywag, I discussed it with my four female colleagues and they all have had maternity leave here, one four times and we are all agreed it shows a mega lack of consideration for her new employer and new colleagues and she will not have a warm welcome when they find out

sillysmiles

I'm really surprised at the number of people who think that the OP should have disclosed she was pregnant in the interview.
If this is a great opportunity in a new company for the OP, then she deserves the same shot at getting the job. This thread has already shown that discrimination against hiring someone pregnant is rife.
If the OP had declared in the interview she was pregnant and didn't get the job, there is no way to prove discrimination but effectively the OP would be unemployed for nearly 12 months (4 remaining of pregnancy and 8 post pregnancy). I'm surprised/shocked to see how many people think that the OP should have risked that scenario.


OP, good luck in the new role. Let us know (if possible) how it goes. Personally I would tell them within the first week, but not on the first day. I would also document everything - just in case.

skallywag

sillysmiles wrote: »

I'm really surprised at the number of people who think that the OP should have disclosed she was pregnant in the interview.

If I had interviewed the OP and she had mentioned it then I would actually have seen it as plus, i.e. the fact that she was open and up front about this. If on the other had she failed to mention this and I found out afterwards I would consider it devious. I would certainly not go out of my way to make life awkward etc once employment has started, but that first impression would remain with me.

sillysmiles

That's interesting. But I have to say, if I was in the OP's position I wouldn't have disclosed, because I would have no way of knowing if the the person interviewing would be like you, or wouldn't hire because of the pregnancy.

skallywag

sillysmiles wrote: »

But I have to say, if I was in the OP's position I wouldn't have disclosed, because I would have no way of knowing if the the person interviewing would be like you, or wouldn't hire because of the pregnancy.

I see your point. But the way I would see it is that if you are not upfront about this, and you are successful in your application and subsequently get the job, then you are going to be found out with full certainty as soon as you start working (or very soon after) and it's going to leave a very bad taste in any employers mouth. Fair enough I can fully understand & appreciate that there are laws to protect expectant mothers (and rightly so), but knowingly deceiving your employer from the off, even if you are legally in the right, is not setting a promising tone for successful medium to long term prospects at that company.

Paulownia

Dying to know how the news is received by the colleagues at work! hopefully OP will share with us their reactions.

lettuce97

I think it's absolute insanity to even consider disclosing. What on earth could be the outcome of that other than possibly not getting the job because of it? If the OP got the job on objective merits, she was the best person for the job and deserved to get it. Pregnancy has no place in an interview.
What if she had mentioned it, and the employer felt pressured into hiring her for fear of being accused of discrimination?

sillysmiles

I agree, but there is a problem in society in general where an expectant mother has to worry about this kind of thing. Ultimately a lot of people can't afford to not be employed so in the toss up between an employer who is a bit miffed but legally can't do anything to you compared to unemployment - it's not hard to see where a person would side.
At least once you are in the job you can prove you are good at it, you can prove nothing from the unemployment line.

Bandana boy

lettuce97 wrote: »

I think it's absolute insanity to even consider disclosing. What on earth could be the outcome of that other than possibly not getting the job because of it? If the OP got the job on objective merits, she was the best person for the job and deserved to get it. Pregnancy has no place in an interview.
What if she had mentioned it, and the employer felt pressured into hiring her for fear of being accused of discrimination?

The outcome is that if the company has a problem with hiring you because you are pregnant they do not hire you .This by many is considered preferable to being hired into a company that will resent you for having "tricked" them.

It all comes down to whether or not getting hired ,or carer progression after getting hired is the main goal.

skallywag

sillysmiles wrote: »

At least once you are in the job you can prove you are good at it, you can prove nothing from the unemployment line.

This point does indeed have merit to be honest, i.e. there is always the possibility to prove oneself once in the door.