Starting new job at 4 months pregnant.

Clashmore

Applied for and interviewed for a new job. If I get the job, am down to the last 3 applicants. I would be 4 months pregnant when starting.
Would this be frowned on by new employer if I was to work for 4 months and then take approx 8-9 months maternity leave.

Clashmore

OMM 0000

Haha yes it would.

Obviously a huge multinational will be able to take the hit a lot better than a mom and pop shop.

SozBbz

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Haha yes it would.

Obviously a huge multinational will be able to take the hit a lot better than a mom and pop shop.

So whats she supposed to do?

Obviously I doubt any employer would be thrilled but shes under no obligation to disclose and they can't ask.

Is a pregnant woman just supposed to have no employment prospects?

Diziet

Go for it - a few months mat leave is insignificant in a career span. And the law is on your side. Maternity protections are there for a reason. Good luck in your interviews.

CheerLouth

Go for it. If they are a decent employer, they won't be too bothered. I interviewed for my last job at 8 months pregnant - my thoughts behind it were "I'll just go for the interview, no one in their right mind will hire me once they see me" (I was HUGE :P). Then to my surprise, they rang back and asked for a second round interview & I had to tell the recruiter that actually I couldn't commit to the interview as I was due my baby that week!

Long story short, they liked me enough to wait until I'd had my baby to do the second round interview & then offered me the job & waited for me to finish my maternity leave before starting. Not all employers see pregnant women as a red flashing light!

Good luck with both the job and pregnancy

Tina82

i started a job knowing i was a few weeks pregnant ... everything was going great after 2 months infomed my manager i was pregnant ... low and behold her attitiude soon changed towards me... within a month i was called into the office and told that it was her opinion that i wasnt interacting / making an effort to get to know staff ... i was shocked. i went on maternity leave and didnt go back ... got a new job. life is too short for that crap !

dragonfly!

Clashmore wrote: »

Applied for and interviewed for a new job. If I get the job, am down to the last 3 applicants. I would be 4 months pregnant when starting.
Would this be frowned on by new employer if I was to work for 4 months and then take approx 8-9 months maternity leave.

Clashmore

It depends on the industry really.
Will you be able to work up until 2 / 4 weeks before your due date?
Are you working at present?
It was me and currently working I would stay where I am - let the Annual Leave and service build up and then start applying when I am ready to come back.
If I wasnt working I would take what I can and hope for the best. Legally you will be protected either way but some managers / companies are more professional than others and how it will be received.

Best of luck with both!

theteal

Go for it. MrsTeal did exactly that (although a lot more pregnant) and got the job (promotion), then went on mat leave and subsequently got a different job just before mat leave was over. Good old NHS!

In the OP's case, I'm not sure I'd tell them. Can people be 4 months pregnant and not be aware of it????

Clashmore

Thanks for all the advice.
I am currently working, in a social care role and new job is the same. Depending on client group in new post, it may not be safe for me to stay working with them up until 8.5 months pregnant.
Current job is similar and may end up on health and safety leave there too. Current job also pays a maternity tops-up payment.
Would also still be on probation in new job when maternity leave begins.
Thinking I mite be better off staying put for financial reasons if nothing else.

Clashmore

reg114

Clashmore wrote: »

Applied for and interviewed for a new job. If I get the job, am down to the last 3 applicants. I would be 4 months pregnant when starting.
Would this be frowned on by new employer if I was to work for 4 months and then take approx 8-9 months maternity leave.

Clashmore

Not if you are open and honest and tell them in your interview that you are indeed pregnant. As others have said, a larger company might be able to absorb the hit as it were, more so than a small tight knit business. Ultimately the company are looking to fill a role and if you are going to be going on maternity leave within a couple of months of starting a new role this is far from ideal. Plus it will be obvious you hid the truth if offered the job, this itself might create bad blood and lack of trust which would be understandable.

Why not wait till you have had the baby until you apply for jobs? Alternatively apply for short term roles if you wish to maintain an income for as long as possible.

SozBbz

reg114 wrote: »

Not if you are open and honest and tell them in your interview that you are indeed pregnant. As others have said, a larger company might be able to absorb the hit as it were, more so than a small tight knit business. Ultimately the company are looking to fill a role and if you are going to be going on maternity leave within a couple of months of starting a new role this is far from ideal. Plus it will be obvious you hid the truth if offered the job, this itself might create bad blood and lack of trust which would be understandable.

Why not wait till you have had the baby until you apply for jobs? Alternatively apply for short term roles if you wish to maintain an income for as long as possible.

I love how casually some people suggest that she should just wait before considering a new job, and take "short term" roles - what is she supposed to do for money during the time she absolutely has to take off? We as a society need women to have babies and this should not be a discriminating factor. Why should an a woman have to take all that uncertainty on her shoulders?

If an employer is foolish enough to hold her pregnancy against her in this day and age, then this their problem, but the law is clear.

This is what casual sexism looks like!

SozBbz

Clashmore wrote: »

Thanks for all the advice.
I am currently working, in a social care role and new job is the same. Depending on client group in new post, it may not be safe for me to stay working with them up until 8.5 months pregnant.
Current job is similar and may end up on health and safety leave there too. Current job also pays a maternity tops-up payment.
Would also still be on probation in new job when maternity leave begins.
Thinking I mite be better off staying put for financial reasons if nothing else.

Clashmore

Assuming this is public sector so I can't see why they'd have an issue hiring a pregnant woman.
I'd stay wherever the maternity benefits are best, unless theres a really good long term reason for moving.
Some companies only give their discretionary maternity benefits to employees wtih a certain length of service. So just ensure you fully understand what the new role would give you in terms of benefits.

Pelvis

SozBbz wrote: »

I love how casually some people suggest that she should just wait before considering a new job, and take "short term" roles - what is she supposed to do for money during the time she absolutely has to take off? We as a society need women to have babies and this should not be a discriminating factor. Why should an a woman have to take all that uncertainty on her shoulders?

If an employer is foolish enough to hold her pregnancy against her in this day and age, then this their problem, but the law is clear.

This is what casual sexism looks like!

Forgive me if I'm incorrect, but an employer doesn't have to pay an employee when they're on maternity leave. So what she does for money doesn't make any difference if she has a job or not, unless she is fortunate enough to work for a company that will keep paying you, in my experience, most are not that fortunate.

skallywag

reg114 wrote: »

Not if you are open and honest and tell them in your interview that you are indeed pregnant.

I would advise the same, if you are up front about it then it can very possibly work out well, and with enough heads-up it can be worked around.

On the other hand, if you do not make this known up front, and only inform them as soon as you have the job, then it's definitely going to work against you. You may have the law on your side, but it's going to leave a very bad taste in the mouth.

SozBbz

Pelvis wrote: »

Forgive me if I'm incorrect, but an employer doesn't have to pay an employee when they're on maternity leave. So what she does for money doesn't make any difference if she has a job or not, unless she is fortunate enough to work for a company that will keep paying you, in my experience, most are not that fortunate.

Maternity benefit is a state payment but only available to women who are in employment at the time. Some employers will make payments on top of this, this is part of a benefits package, just like health insurance or dental or other wellness services. Obviously these vary from employer to employer. Many employers now offer paternity benefits in these packages also, mine offers 6 weeks which is pretty progressive.

Maternity Benefit is paid by the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection to women who have a certain number of paid PRSI contributions on their social insurance record and who are in insurable employment up to the first day of their maternity leave.

Otherwise it would be the dole if shes unemployed.

Which of course, our OP isnt, but before knowing that there were posters here telling her to wait until she had the baby.

Sir Ophiuchus

Pelvis wrote: »

Forgive me if I'm incorrect, but an employer doesn't have to pay an employee when they're on maternity leave.

Some employers, including many public service employers, do choose to pay their employees while on maternity leave (effectively topping up the state benefit).

SozBbz

skallywag wrote: »

I would advise the same, if you are up front about it then it can very possibly work out well, and with enough heads-up it can be worked around.

On the other hand, if you do not make this known up front, and only inform them as soon as you have the job, then it's definitely going to work against you. You may have the law on your side, but it's going to leave a very bad taste in the mouth.

Thats just your opinion though. And its perpetuating a narrative that makes women reluctant to just get on with their careers for fear of reprisal. Most employers know better than to take it out on an employee, even if its only fear of an employment tribunal keeping them from discriminating.

Pregnancy is just one of a number of personal details that employers are prohibbited from asking about at interview and employees are under no obligation to disclose.

Employers should just be concerned wtih getting the right person in the long term, as other posters have pointed out, a maternity period is nothing compared to the length of a career these days, so getting the right person overall is what they should be concerned about.

mauraf

Hi OP
I was in a similar position to you some years ago - between last interview and job offer, I found out I was pregnant.
I opted to tell my new employer before I accepted the offer , as I figured being open and honest would work better in the long term.
They couldn't have been nicer - their only concern when I told them, was that they didn't have a maternity policy in place. When the time came for me to go on leave, they paid my full maternity leave.
It was a company of circa 150 personnel at the time - so not huge, but not small either.

My advice - go with your conscience - and best of luck with your pregnancy.

M

tomwaits48

I think it would be poor form not to mention it upon the provision of an offer.

skallywag

SozBbz wrote: »

Employers should just be concerned wtih getting the right person in the long term, as other posters have pointed out, a maternity period is nothing compared to the length of a career these days, so getting the right person overall is what they should be concerned about.

I agree completely with you, and that's why it would not put me off at all if when interviewing a strong candidate she told me that she was pregnant (or told me subsequently before starting). We are usually looking to hire people who will hopefully stay for the long term, so mat leave is going to be a small drop in the ocean overall.

The more time I have beforehand to plan the better, and if it's possible to give me heads up beforehand I'm really going to appreciate it.

Clashmore

Clashmore wrote: »

Thanks for all the advice.
I am currently working, in a social care role and new job is the same. Depending on client group in new post, it may not be safe for me to stay working with them up until 8.5 months pregnant.
Current job is similar and may end up on health and safety leave there too. Current job also pays a maternity tops-up payment.
Would also still be on probation in new job when maternity leave begins.
Thinking I mite be better off staying put for financial reasons if nothing else.

Clashmore

Why did you apply for the new job knowing you were pregnant and valuing the maternity pay and permanency in your current job?.

Clashmore

I wasn’t aware when initially applied.
I have a massive commute and work long hours and new job is 10 minutes from home with set hours.

Clashmore

Gravelly

I’ve a friend who has a small business (5 employees, 2 of whom would be family) and he hired a young woman in a critical role about two years ago. Two weeks after she started she told him she was 7 months pregnant. He wasn’t able to afford to replace her while she was on maternity, so the other two people in the office had to do her job as well as their own. She took all the maternity leave she was entitled to, and then informed him she wasn’t coming back.

If the job is with a large company, and you inform them at the interview that you’re pregnant that’s fine. If it’s with a small company, and you don’t tell them before they hire you, it is very dishonest in my opinion.

marieholmfan

Gravelly wrote: »

I’ve a friend who has a small business (5 employees, 2 of whom would be family) and he hired a young woman in a critical role about two years ago. Two weeks after she started she told him she was 7 months pregnant. He wasn’t able to afford to replace her while she was on maternity, so the other two people in the office had to do her job as well as their own. She took all the maternity leave she was entitled to, and then informed him she wasn’t coming back.

why not?

Gravelly

marieholmfan wrote: »

why not?

Her duties included payroll and accounts, he had to pay a bookkeeper to do those while she was on leave.

.......

tomwaits48 wrote: »

I think it would be poor form not to mention it upon the provision of an offer.

Why?

She is not legally obliged to disclose it and thats all there is to it.

As for people who recommend telling at the interview - you should NEVER disclose something at an interview that falls into one of the 9 grounds of discrimination - to protect you AND the employer.

If you tell and then you dont get the job for other reasons you could decide to sue because you perceive were discriminated against for being pregnant.

CheerLouth

....... wrote: »

Why?

She is not legally obliged to disclose it and thats all there is to it.

As for people who recommend telling at the interview - you should NEVER disclose something at an interview that falls into one of the 9 grounds of discrimination - to protect you AND the employer.

If you tell and then you dont get the job for other reasons you could decide to sue because you perceive were discriminated against for being pregnant.

Legally, you don't have to inform your employer of pregnancy until you are 32 weeks pregnant.

When I went for the interview that I spoke of, I never pointed out the obvious & neither did they. I actually had a laugh with the HR girl after I started because I mentioned how conspicuous I felt & she said that they hadn't been sure - she had said to the receptionist after the interview "eh, was she pregnant?" :P The funny part was when the recruiter had to ring them back because he had been caught out on a lie - he had told them he'd met me in person & effectively did a pre-interview interview which he clearly hadn't!

Tomw86

Clashmore wrote: »

Thanks for all the advice.
I am currently working, in a social care role and new job is the same. Depending on client group in new post, it may not be safe for me to stay working with them up until 8.5 months pregnant.
Current job is similar and may end up on health and safety leave there too. Current job also pays a maternity tops-up payment.
Would also still be on probation in new job when maternity leave begins.
Thinking I mite be better off staying put for financial reasons if nothing else.

Clashmore

I would be concerned about the maternity leave payment part.

Your new employer is not under obligation to pay you the maternity benefit listed in the contract you sign with them until AFTER your probation, therefore it will just be the state entitlement you get.

You need to work out if this is financially viable for you, considering your current employer pays a maternity top up.

As advised though, I would be honest with them and discuss the terms of how it will work PRIOR to you accepting anything, even before you interview with them again.

They will have to take someone on to cover, and more than likely that will be on a contract basis, so they will have to pay above market rate. This will no doubt be in their thinking when it comes round to considering paying you any maternity leave and whether they'd like to admit it or not, when considering future pay increases/promotions.

.......

Gravelly wrote: »

Her duties included payroll and accounts, he had to pay a bookkeeper to do those while she was on leave.

Could he not just pay the book keeper what he would have paid the woman on maternity leave?

Tomw86

....... wrote: »

Why?

She is not legally obliged to disclose it and thats all there is to it.

As for people who recommend telling at the interview - you should NEVER disclose something at an interview that falls into one of the 9 grounds of discrimination - to protect you AND the employer.

If you tell and then you dont get the job for other reasons you could decide to sue because you perceive were discriminated against for being pregnant.

She is not legally obliged to, but she should so she knows where she stands.

Don't tell them in the interview, ring before or after and inform them.

Being on probation is a big deal, companies can let you go with 1 weeks notice and effectively not give real reasons. As you are on probation, if you sue, you will only get paid up to the end of the probationary period, if at all.

.......

Tomw86 wrote: »

She is not legally obliged to, but she should so she knows where she stands.

Don't tell them in the interview, ring before or after and inform them.

Being on probation is a big deal, companies can let you go with 1 weeks notice and effectively not give real reasons. As you are on probation, if you sue, you will only get paid up to the end of the probationary period, if at all.

I dont understand this.

Where she stands is no different to someone who isnt pregnant.

Gravelly

....... wrote: »

Could he not just pay the book keeper what he would have paid the woman on maternity leave?

He did. Which meant h wasn't able to hire anyone in the office to replace her.....

Tomw86

....... wrote: »

I dont understand this.

Where she stands is no different to someone who isnt pregnant.

It is different if she will be on probation, which has stated she will be.

None of the benefits of the employer will kick in until AFTER probation so she will most likely not be entitled to a top up on her maternity, which she is getting from her current employer, thus leaving her out of pocket.

Therefore, if she tells them it may be the case that they are willing to pay her the maternity benefit due to her honesty if they feel she is the right person for the job long term.
If she goes in there and doesn't tell them until she is legally obliged to, then they will have to scramble to organise cover that will cost them time and money - I doubt they would be open to paying her any additional benefit then when they don't have to.

deathtocaptcha

marieholmfan wrote: »

why not?

Small businesses can't just magically print money or get allocated money from the government. If they run out of money, people lose jobs and business ceases to exist. They can't run at a loss for years on end like larger companies can. They money simply isn't there.

Cakerbaker

I got full maternity pay while on probation so it’s incorrect to say that she definitely won’t get full maternity pay while on probation. It may be worth checking out what the employers maternity policy says on this.

Tomw86

deathtocaptcha wrote: »

Small businesses can't just magically print money or get allocated money from the government. If they run out of money, people lose jobs and business ceases to exist. They can't run at a loss for years on end like larger companies can. They money simply isn't there.

Plus hiring people on maternity/short term contracts can be a lot more expensive - something a lot of people fail to understand!

CalamariFritti

SozBbz wrote: »

I love how casually some people suggest that she should just wait before considering a new job, and take "short term" roles - what is she supposed to do for money during the time she absolutely has to take off? We as a society need women to have babies and this should not be a discriminating factor. Why should an a woman have to take all that uncertainty on her shoulders?

If an employer is foolish enough to hold her pregnancy against her in this day and age, then this their problem, but the law is clear.

This is what casual sexism looks like!

That’s a load of bull tbh. Try look at it from the other end for just a sec.

You’re a small business. You may have maybe up to 5 employees. There is no room for slack. Everyone has to pull their weight or your small struggling shop is just not going to make it.

Now someone you trusted to be a worthwhile employe in the hiring process pulls a stunt like yay I’m here for 6 weeks and now I go on maternity with all the pay and protection implications.

Not really fair either is it? And it’s hardly sexism to see it that way imo.

Tomw86

Cakerbaker wrote: »

I got full maternity pay while on probation so it’s incorrect to say that she definitely won’t get full maternity pay while on probation. It may be worth checking out what the employers maternity policy says on this.

Well then your employer was extremely generous, or had a policy where they were willing to do this.

I agree with you, it is worth checking out what it says, but in most cases benefits such as health, pensions, maternity, paternity, etc don't kick in until you pass probation.

Did you inform them beforehand you were pregnant?

.......

Gravelly wrote: »

He did. Which meant h wasn't able to hire anyone in the office to replace her.....

Did the book keeper not replace her?

And if not, why didnt he hire someone to replace her and not hire the book keeper?

I genuinely dont really understand the problem? Could he not have gotten someone from a temping agency to cover the maternity leave?

.......

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Now someone you trusted to be a worthwhile employe in the hiring process pulls a stunt like yay I’m here for 6 weeks and now I go on maternity with all the pay and protection implications.

What do you mean when you refer to pay and protection implications?

Tomw86

Sexism in relation to pregnancy/maternity leave very much still exists in the work place - I've seen it first hand when I've interviewed candidates and given my opinion to Hiring Managers. I myself am impartial, but I have seen managers who have, behind closed doors, chosen men over women for this reason. And these managers are male and female.

Look at it from any employers view - if you had 2 outstanding candidates: Both early 30s, married less than a year, both same credentials, asking for the same terms and conditions, same experience, you can't split them.

If one is female and one is male, I can guarantee you most will go for the male.

CalamariFritti

....... wrote: »

What do you mean when you refer to pay and protection implications?

Well what I mean is that I’m now hiring again only now I don’t even have a permanent position to offer. Because I have to take the person who is on maternity back don’t I?

.......

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Well what I mean is that I’m now hiring again only now I don’t even have a permanent position to offer. Because I have to take the person who is on maternity back don’t I?

So you hire a temp then?

How is that any different to a regular established staff member taking maternity leave?

Gravelly

....... wrote: »

Did the book keeper not replace her?

If you read my post:

Gravelly wrote: »

Her duties included payroll and accounts, he had to pay a bookkeeper to do those while she was on leave.

....... wrote: »

And if not, why didnt he hire someone to replace her and not hire the book keeper?

Ever worked in a small company? There usually isn't loads of money or time around, and hiring people, especially temporary people for a specific role, takes time and money. Time and money he'd already spent hiring a dishonest employee.

....... wrote: »

I genuinely dont really understand the problem? Could he not have gotten someone from a temping agency to cover the maternity leave?

Temping agency? Nope, you've never worked in a small company.

Tomw86

....... wrote: »

So you hire a temp then?

How is that any different to a regular established staff member taking maternity leave?

You have to pay them more.....

Tomw86

Tomw86 wrote: »

Sexism in relation to pregnancy/maternity leave very much still exists in the work place - I've seen it first hand when I've interviewed candidates and given my opinion to Hiring Managers. I myself am impartial, but I have seen managers who have, behind closed doors, chosen men over women for this reason. And these managers are male and female.

Look at it from any employers view - if you had 2 outstanding candidates: Both early 30s, married less than a year, both same credentials, asking for the same terms and conditions, same experience, you can't split them.

If one is female and one is male, I can guarantee you most will go for the male.

How would you know they were married?. I know someone who got promoted while on maternity leave. The OP would be best to get back to the employer and say they are not in a position to take up employment with them at the moment leaving the door open for the future because it sounds a far more suitable position when she has a small baby.

Tomw86

mariaalice wrote: »

How would you know they were married?. I know someone who got promoted while on maternity leave. The OP would be best to get back to the employer and say they are not in a position to take up employment with them at the moment leaving the door open for the future because it sounds a far more suitable position when she has a small baby.

You wouldn't know I suppose - maybe the ring or could come up in conversation.

I think the OP should certainly disclose the fact she is pregnant.

Would people feel different if someone was starting a new job knowing they needed a procedure in 4 months that would prevent them from returning to work for 6-9 months - is that dishonest?

.......

Tomw86 wrote: »

Would people feel different if someone was starting a new job knowing they needed a procedure in 4 months that would prevent them from returning to work for 6-9 months - is that dishonest?

No. Again, you would not be required to disclose this legally.

People have lives, it is unlikely that every staff member is going to be available for work every day, consistently, for 40 years.

People get sick, have babies, take leave for personal reasons, use their annual leave etc.

Such is life.

tomwaits48

....... wrote: »

Why?

She is not legally obliged to disclose it and thats all there is to it.

As for people who recommend telling at the interview - you should NEVER disclose something at an interview that falls into one of the 9 grounds of discrimination - to protect you AND the employer.

If you tell and then you dont get the job for other reasons you could decide to sue because you perceive were discriminated against for being pregnant.

That’s why I am saying wait until an offer is made and then disclose it, gives them a chance to plan accordingly. Not mentioning it hardly gets the working relationship off to a good start with her new manager. Honesty is best course of action.

CalamariFritti

....... wrote: »

So you hire a temp then?

How is that any different to a regular established staff member taking maternity leave?

I thought about this for a while before replying and you're probably right. I still think though that it would be fairer for both sides if a more or less imminent leave would be disclosed right from the start. You would disclose pretty much everything else like a medical leave or a long planned sabbatical so why play it differently with maternity. The only reason why one would not disclose it would be the extra protection maternity gives and rightly or wrongly as an employer I would feel kinda tricked.

By they way, does an employer have to pay a percentage of the salary during maternity or is it all state benefit?

marieholmfan

deathtocaptcha wrote: »

Small businesses can't just magically print money or get allocated money from the government. If they run out of money, people lose jobs and business ceases to exist. They can't run at a loss for years on end like larger companies can. They money simply isn't there.

What was the impact of the new hire on maternity leave on the anecdotal friend's bottom line?
Anyway sounds like he deserved to go under.