Interview - Should I tell them I'm going to be a new dad

andybookie

I have an interview with a top tech company who offer 6 months paid parental leave for fathers (as well as mothers).

They are very progressive in this way and advocate equal employment which is fantastic. There is no eligibility restrictions for tenure or probation.

I want to join them regardless of this benefit, however in a couple of months I am going to be a new dad.

My guess is that I won't get this job, because they are not going to give it to someone who is immediately eligible for 6 months off paid.

However I don't want to keep it secret as that wouldn't be fair on them.

I'd like to be honest but I fear my honesty would cost me the job offer.

el Fenomeno

It's very unlikely you'd get 6 months off if you were only in the door a couple of months.

Most of these perks are for full-time employees who have passed their probation.

.......

Eh - you dont get 6 months paternity leave paid by your employer in Ireland.

You get 2 weeks in the 6 months following the birth and you can claim paternity benefit to cover that as opposed to your employer paying you.

Edited to add - as a general rule you should never disclose ANYTHING in an interview that could be viewed as one of the 9 grounds for discrimination (in this case family status) to protect you and to protect the potential employer.

Loveinapril

....... wrote: »

Eh - you dont get 6 months paternity leave paid by your employer in Ireland.

The company offer it.


To echo the other poster, there is usually a stipulation that you need to be in an organisation X amount of time before you are entitled to such benefits.

amdublin

Ummm. What is this company???

I very much doubt this is what they offer.
And if they do offer it I'd imagine there are some proviso that you have to be there a certain length of time etc

.......

Loveinapril wrote: »

The company offer it.

Unlikely they would offer it in the probation period.

andybookie

....... wrote: »

Unlikely they would offer it in the probation period.

I have it stated , it is regardless of tenure. There are no eligibility criteria.

.......

andybookie wrote: »

I have it stated , it is regardless of tenure. There are no eligibility criteria.

Wow - Ive never ever heard of that - pretty amazing.

Anyway - never disclose something that could be used to discriminate against you in an interview.

GDK_11

Tough one to say but really it has no affect on your ability to do the job so they don’t need to know. As others have said these are highly unlikely to be available whilst on probation so shouldn’t be an issue.

For those saying this isn’t available, whilst it’s not normal, A friend of mine has 16 weeks paid from his company.

Slightly off subject but fair play to these companies that who offer extended leave, 2 weeks is totally inadequate.

OMM 0000

If you were a woman who is pregnant, I would feel you have a moral duty to let them know you are pregnant.

I understand you do not legally have to do this.

I would be a hypocrite if I didn't extend this logic to you.

HOWEVER the fact that you said it's a top tech company let's me know they're absolutely loaded and you going off on paternity leave isn't going to kill them, so if you wanted to keep it quiet, I wouldn't think anything negative towards you.

My feeling is they will still hire you anyway. These companies cannot get good staff.

andybookie

GDK_11 wrote: »

Tough one to say but really it has no affect on your ability to do the job so they don’t need to know. As others have said these are highly unlikely to be available whilst on probation so shouldn’t be an issue.

For those saying this isn’t available, whilst it’s not normal, A friend of mine has 16 weeks paid from his company.

Slightly off subject but fair play to these companies that who offer extended leave, 2 weeks is totally inadequate.

Actually it is 16 I think.

OMM 0000

Just to add a bit to the "this can't be possible" folk here, I work for a tech company and we have unlimited holidays and unlimited working from home days.

I once didn't come into the office for three months.

I didn't come in this January at all.

Tech companies can be super nice places to work at.

.......

OMM 0000 wrote: »

If you were a woman who is pregnant, I would feel you have a moral duty to let them know you are pregnant.

Nobody has a moral duty towards a company they work for or hope to work for.

The relationship is that of worker and employer. You do your job, they pay you.

Otherwise you are just talking about ways a company can discriminate due to family status. There are very good reasons why we have laws to prevent this from happening.

andybookie

It doesn't sit right to me - not to tell them.
Although conversely, an extending time with a new born is absolutely golden time

Misguided1

Does the parental leave policy state when the leave will be granted? i.e. immediately after the birth of the child or is it at the companies discretion?

I'd look into a little further as it seems surprising that a company would give someone with a few weeks service - 6 months unpaid leave without any qualifying criteria? Is there a claw back on salary if you leave with a certain period following your return from parental leave?

Sounds like a great policy and a very progressive company. The cynic in me says too good to be true. But to answer your question - you've no duty to inform them and they can't discriminate against you if you do.

.......

andybookie wrote: »

It doesn't sit right to me - not to tell them.
Although conversely, an extending time with a new born is absolutely golden time

Why did you apply for the job with them?

16 weeks off is NOTHING in the scheme of things.

OMM 0000

....... wrote: »

Nobody has a moral duty towards a company they work for or hope to work for.

The relationship is that of worker and employer. You do your job, they pay you.

Otherwise you are just talking about ways a company can discriminate due to family status. There are very good reasons why we have laws to prevent this from happening.

That's a bit of a cut throat attitude.

Taking maternity leave after starting in a role can really screw over a mom and pop company.

I do not hurt people in my life, and that includes hurting company owners, strangers, or those who have hurt me.

I understand though that a massive tech company changes things a bit.

I am also not advocating for changing the law to require people to state they are pregnant.

I'm just looking at it from my own moral perspective.

andybookie

....... wrote: »

Why did you apply for the job with them?

16 weeks off is NOTHING in the scheme of things.

I said in my original post
"I want to join them regardless of this benefit"
The timing is just coincidental

Duffryman

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I work for a tech company and we have unlimited holidays and unlimited working from home days.

Whatever about the working from home (I used to be able to do that a lot myself in a previous role), please tell us more about the unlimited holidays.....

OMM 0000

andybookie wrote: »

I said in my original post
"I want to join them regardless of this benefit"
The timing is just coincidental

I wonder could you say something like this:

"I would really love to work here. I need to tell you that my wife is pregnant, and I don't want to jeopardise being offered this job by having to take paternity leave in 6 months time. I would be willing to forego such a long paternity leave period as I feel it's too soon and wouldn't be fair on the company."

My wording is clumsy but you get the idea.

They'll think you're a nice dude and probably offer you the job and paternity leave anyway.

kirving

My view on it would be not to tell them, but in turn don't take the mick when it comes to time off.
Actually, post above has it right.

They may have great policies, but in turn you're expected not to abuse them, and to give every day your best.

It won't do you any good in the long run to be known as the guy who too 6 months off after being there for 2 months.

OMM 0000

Duffryman wrote: »

Whatever about the working from home (I used to be able to do that a lot myself in a previous role), please tell us more about the unlimited holidays.....

Literally as long as the work gets done, you can stay on holiday as long as you want.

As an example, I recently traveled around Russia (and some other places) for about two months. I would check e-mails, and do some conference calls, but that's about it.

I guess it was 30 minutes of work per day, so I suppose that's technically not a holiday, but I could still do all the normal holiday stuff.

andybookie

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I wonder could you say something like this:

"I would really love to work here. I need to tell you that my wife is pregnant, and I don't want to jeopardise being offered this job by having to take paternity leave in 6 months time. I would be willing to forego such a long paternity leave period as I feel it's too soon and wouldn't be fair on the company."

My wording is clumsy but you get the idea.

They'll think you're a nice dude and probably offer you the job and paternity leave anyway.

In an ideal world, that would be what I would say.
My thoughts are if a line manager has the option of this person now or this person in potentially 6 months - there is only one option they are going to take.

andybookie

Kevin Irving wrote: »

My view on it would be not to tell them, but in turn don't take the mick when it comes to time off.
Actually, post above has it right.

They may have great policies, but in turn you're expected not to abuse them, and to give every day your best.

It won't do you any good in the long run to be known as the guy who too 6 months off after being there for 2 months.

This is probably what I would do.
Take 6 weeks off or something.
Still, there is definitely a split decision on this thread.

OMM 0000

You could not tell them.

Then in 6 months when they say why didn't you tell us, you can reply saying you weren't sure if you were the dad, so you wanted to wait for the DNA test results when the kid was born before saying anything.

Kidding.

Gonad

Get the job and take a few weeks paid off ....

upinsmoke

Any company I worked for the benefits usually kick in right away except the pension. I'd be straight up with them and say you plan to use annual leave around this time if possible.

Plumbthedepths

You really want to join this company but not sure if being honest and up front is a good idea? If I worked in HR for this company you wouldn't get past your probation tbh no matter how good you are .

nc6000

I'm sure you could mention during the interview that you're expecting a new arrival soon and that this along with the new job would be a big change etc.

If the conversation continues on this topic I'm sure you could point out you would likely look for some time off but maybe not as much as a long standing employee as you won't have been long with the company if you do get the job.

is_that_so

andybookie wrote: »

It doesn't sit right to me - not to tell them.
Although conversely, an extending time with a new born is absolutely golden time

Start as you mean to go on would be my advice and let them know, through asking the question. Perhaps you could soften it by being understanding about a new male employee not necessarily qualifying. Leave it in their court. If they want you they'll deal with it.
In any company you would get some time off, which you could probably extend anyway. Congrats on the baby news BTW!

It's within your first 12 months of working for them, so if they're unhappy, surely they could just sack you anyway without reason?

DavyD_83

Maybe wait until you are (hopefully) offered the job, rather than disclosing on interview. Apart from anything else if you tell them in interview and don't be the job you'll wonder of that was the reason, and of it is nobody will ever admit to that.
Is the company are as progressive and generous as you have said (and I know some companies are), then I doubt 16 weeks of really matters to them of you're the right person for the job. They know that these sort of things help but staff loyalty as much as anything, and happy. Engaged staff are more productive when there is a mutual hatred/lack of respect between management and staff.

So yet, I reckon take the interview and see how it goes. Maybe don't get to far ahead of yourself

judeboy101

andybookie wrote: »

It doesn't sit right to me - not to tell them.
Although conversely, an extending time with a new born is absolutely golden time

I'd rather be in work than changing sh**y nappies.

ted1

Just say nothing. Why would you?

hognef

andybookie wrote: »

It doesn't sit right to me - not to tell them.
Although conversely, an extending time with a new born is absolutely golden time

Why not take the job and then, if you still feel the same when the baby arrives, offer to reduce the length of the leave?

On then other hand, if this policy genuinely applies even to new starters, then it's because that's what the company has decided. It's not like they haven't thought about the possibility that some people might become parents soon after joining, so why should you feel strange about it?

.......

OMM 0000 wrote: »

That's a bit of a cut throat attitude.

Maybe Ive been around a bit longer than you and this have a more cynical attitude, but you are just a number in any company you work for.

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Taking maternity leave after starting in a role can really screw over a mom and pop company.

Irrelevant, this isnt maternity leave, nor is it a mom and pop company. I am glad we have laws that protect the status of women and families in Ireland.

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I do not hurt people in my life, and that includes hurting company owners, strangers, or those who have hurt me.

16 weeks leave in a tech company is offered as part of the job. They are not offering it if it "hurts" them. This isnt government protected leave, this is a benefit that the company themselves offer.

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I understand though that a massive tech company changes things a bit.

Great!

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I am also not advocating for changing the law to require people to state they are pregnant.

Even better!!

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I'm just looking at it from my own moral perspective.

Cool - and I am just looking at it from mine. The bigger picture is that the company offer it, 16 weeks off is nothing, and they will end up with a very loyal employee as a result.

These benefits are a numbers game. The company has had the stats analysed and see how much they can afford to make this offer to all employees. Not everyone has children or takes the time off. Accepting the job with the benefit and then using the benefit is no worse than accepting a job that comes with a gym membership and availing of the gym membership. Some people will never avail of the gym membership - smaller beans, but the same idea.

I still maintain that you should never ever disclose something that falls under the 9 grounds of discrimination in an interview as it puts you AND the company in an awkward position. Telling them the situation here means that they are left open to being sued for discrimination if you dont get the job.

If someone told me that in an interview I would think that they were unprofessional, naive to employment law, and possibly a chancer trying to leverage me into offering them the job rather than risk being sued. Its just dangerous ground all round.

If you MUST tell because you feel morally obligated to - tell after you have had a job offer on paper. Not in the interview.

tomwaits48

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Just to add a bit to the "this can't be possible" folk here, I work for a tech company and we have unlimited holidays and unlimited working from home days.

I once didn't come into the office for three months.

I didn't come in this January at all.

Tech companies can be super nice places to work at.

what company?

Creamy Goodness

tomwaits48 wrote: »

what company?

It’s HubSpot or some company very similar. Unlimited holidays is generally never what they’re cracked up to be.

For every one person you hear that doesn’t come into the office for a month or two there’s 50 that are so drunk on kool aid that they’re afraid to take a day off.

OMM 0000

Creamy Goodness wrote: »

It’s HubSpot or some company very similar. Unlimited holidays is generally never what they’re cracked up to be.

For every one person you hear that doesn’t come into the office for a month or two there’s 50 that are so drunk on kool aid that they’re afraid to take a day off.

It's not HubSpot or a company like HubSpot.

I think those companies where people are too afraid to take a day off, are companies where the unlimited holidays thing isn't real.

My place has genuine unlimited holidays, no set working hours, no set place of work. Although we do have an office, and people who work a normal 9 - 5.

You just have to do a good job, and get the work done.

OMM 0000

....... wrote: »

I still maintain that you should never ever disclose something that falls under the 9 grounds of discrimination in an interview as it puts you AND the company in an awkward position. Telling them the situation here means that they are left open to being sued for discrimination if you dont get the job.

Being pregnant isn't one of the 9 grounds of discrimination though.

The anti-discrimination laws are based on things which won't affect your ability to do the job. Being gay or female is irrelevant to your job.

But being pregnant will affect your ability to do the job.

That's why I think it's a moral issue to tell a new employer.

As I said earlier, I think there's some grey area if they're a huge multinational, but a mom and pop company will be screwed over by someone hiding their pregnancy.

The reason I am talking about pregnancy is because in this instance the paternity leave is almost as good as the maternity leave.

.......

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Being pregnant isn't one of the 9 grounds of discrimination though.

The anti-discrimination laws are based on things which won't affect your ability to do the job. Being gay or female is irrelevant to your job.

But being pregnant will affect your ability to do the job.

That's why I think it's a moral issue to tell a new employer.

As I said earlier, I think there's some grey area if they're a huge multinational, but a mom and pop company will be screwed over by someone hiding their pregnancy.

The reason I am talking about pregnancy is because in this instance the paternity leave is almost as good as the maternity leave.

Oh dear.

Pregnancy falls under Family Status.

You cannot discriminate against someone because of their family statue ( ie, that they are pregnant or they have a pregnant wife).

Come on! This is basic stuff!

The paternity leave in this instance is tiny, 16 weeks. Maternity leave can go on for 26 + 16 weeks. Its not comparable at all. And pregnancy does not affect a womans ability to do the job, unless it involves heavy lifting - which could be affected by the mere fact she is a woman anyway. So lets not strawman on this.

OMM 0000

....... wrote: »

Oh dear.

Pregnancy falls under Family Status.

You cannot discriminate against someone because of their family statue ( ie, that they are pregnant or they have a pregnant wife).

Come on! This is basic stuff!

The paternity leave in this instance is tiny, 16 weeks. Maternity leave can go on for 26 + 16 weeks. Its not comparable at all. And pregnancy does not affect a womans ability to do the job, unless it involves heavy lifting - which could be affected by the mere fact she is a woman anyway. So lets not strawman on this.

You're right, but no need to be a dick about it.

Here's the law:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1998/act/21/enacted/en/html

Here's the line:

"that one has family status and the other does not or that one has a different family status from the other (the “family status ground”),"

Searching for the interpretation of "family status" gives the following:

“family status” means being pregnant or having responsibility—

(a) as a parent or as a person in loco parentis in relation to a person who has not attained the age of 18 years, or

(b) as a parent or the resident primary carer in relation to a person of or over that age with a disability which is of such a nature as to give rise to the need for care or support on a continuing, regular or frequent basis,

OMM 0000

....... wrote: »

The paternity leave in this instance is tiny, 16 weeks. Maternity leave can go on for 26 + 16 weeks. Its not comparable at all. And pregnancy does not affect a womans ability to do the job, unless it involves heavy lifting - which could be affected by the mere fact she is a woman anyway. So lets not strawman on this.

You're not being reasonable here.

Paternity leave is typically for a short period only.

This company are offering 6 months.

It is fair to compare it to maternity leave, in the sense that you're out of the office for a long time.

Obviously that doesn't mean they are the exact same as each other.

It is not reasonable to state a pregnancy does not affect a woman's ability to do the job. As you state yourself in your own post, it means she may be absent from work for 26 + 16 weeks.

Obviously during those 26 + 16 weeks her job is extremely affected.

irelandrover

I'd tell them in the interview.

If its a big multinational and it's a place you want to work you want to keep a good relationship.
Jobs will come up there again if you don't get it this time.

However starting and immediately taking 16 paid weeks off could result in a bad opinion of you.

yoke

The company obviously has a good “we take care of our employees” approach which is aiming to keep you there so long that the 6 months pays for itself in the end, in re-staffing and training costs.

Unless they are stupid, and make monumental ****-ups on a regular basis, I would assume this isn’t a ****-up and would instead take it as a (very good) reflection of the company’s attitude to its employees. No need to apologetically mention in the interview that you are going to become a dad, any more than you’d apologetically mention in an interview that you would be taking full advantage of their healthcare and/or gym benefits.

Shop40

OP if it were me, I wouldn’t mention your circumstances in the interview. If you are offered the position, then you should probably let them know as you are about to sign the contract. I think that’s fair.
(A friend of mine who was pregnant did this, and the company took it well.)

If there is no restriction on how long you’re with the company before you can take the parental leave, then I don’t see them having a problem with it. They could easily have a restriction if they are so inclined.
Sounds like a great company to work for! Good luck.

yoke

irelandrover wrote: »

[...]However starting and immediately taking 16 paid weeks off could result in a bad opinion of you.

I wouldn’t respect the opinion of anyone who forms a bad opinion of someone else based on that “someone else” taking something they are rightfully entitled to.

If the company has in their holiday policy that you get 6 months paternity leave, and someone in the company doesn’t like the fact that a new employee can take advantage of that to get hired and then skive off for 6 months, then perhaps they should take it up with the company and get it changed.

.......

OMM 0000 wrote: »

You're right, but no need to be a dick about it.

I did not intend to be a dick - perhaps I need to use more happy emojis?

OMM 0000 wrote: »

You're not being reasonable here.

Paternity leave is typically for a short period only.

This company are offering 6 months.

It is fair to compare it to maternity leave, in the sense that you're out of the office for a long time.

Obviously that doesn't mean they are the exact same as each other.

But it is the COMPANY who is offering this out of office. Its not protected by law. Thats really where they differ. 16 weeks is not that long out of the office in the scheme of a 20 or 30 year stretch with the company.

OMM 0000 wrote: »

It is not reasonable to state a pregnancy does not affect a woman's ability to do the job. As you state yourself in your own post, it means she may be absent from work for 26 + 16 weeks.

Obviously during those 26 + 16 weeks her job is extremely affected.

No, I think it is you who is being unreasonable. Maternity leave is protected by law specifically because of attitudes like this.

Being pregnant does not affect a womans ability to do her job. No more than having an illness does. It is a temporary condition. Being absent because you are on maternity leave is not and should not be considered as a woman with an inability to do her job. Honestly, I think this is a disgraceful attitude to have. This sounds like something from the 1950s. Its anti woman. Its anti family and its anti society - if you want a society where people are encouraged to have children - which you SHOULD.

This is just one step away from not wishing to hire women of a child bearing age "in case" they decide to have children. People are not drones who need to be chained to the desk. People take time out for a huge variety of reasons, pregnancy just being one of them. It doesnt mean "they cant do the job", it means they had to take time out for whatever reason. We had an extremely important staff member have 2 heart attacks within 2 years recently resulting in him being off for about 8 months each time. Should we not hire men of a certain age in case they have an inability to do their job due to heart attack? Honestly - think about this attitude - its awful, really awful, offensive to women and generally just very very outdated. Ive seen you post this kind of anti woman stuff before about women and pregnancies and jobs.

Thankfully the company the OP is applying to does not have this archaic way of thinking - which is damaging to both society and to the company.

Bandana boy

I would re read the small print , there is zero chance they are offering this paternity benefit to employees with less than a years service .

A previous company had a really good maternity benefit program , used it as a tool to attract candidates , but still had 30 months service requirement to qualify.

OMM 0000

....... wrote: »

16 weeks is not that long out of the office in the scheme of a 20 or 30 year stretch with the company.

This person hasn't even started their job yet, and in a few months they'll get 24 weeks off.

No one has an issue with him getting paternity leave.

The conversation is about someone taking 24 weeks paternity leaving shortly after joining a company.

No one is talking about someone with a 20 - 30 years stretch in a company taking paternity leave.

Please don't tell me you're doing that thing where you change the topic, change what people have said, just so you can "win" by defending points no one made or cares about.

....... wrote: »

Being pregnant does not affect a womans ability to do her job. No more than having an illness does. It is a temporary condition. Being absent because you are on maternity leave is not and should not be considered as a woman with an inability to do her job.

You're not being reasonable.

When people think about a small company hiring a pregnant woman, and how that can cause issues, literally every reasonable person knows that's because in a few months she'll be going off on maternity leave, and may not return.

During her maternity leave, obviously she can't do her job, so her job is affected.

No one thinks a pregnant woman can't do her job while she's in the office.

....... wrote: »

Honestly, I think this is a disgraceful attitude to have. This sounds like something from the 1950s. Its anti woman. Its anti family and its anti society - if you want a society where people are encouraged to have children - which you SHOULD.

This is just one step away from not wishing to hire women of a child bearing age "in case" they decide to have children.

What are you talking about?

No one is saying don't hire a woman who's pregnant.

Why are you making things up, pretending I believe pregnant women shouldn't be hired?

Do you need to "win" that badly that you need to make things up, so I have to defend some weird point I don't believe and never said?

....... wrote: »

Ive seen you post this kind of anti woman stuff before about women and pregnancies and jobs.

What are you talking about?

Now you need to pretend I'm anti-woman?

This is pathetic.

Anyone who has seen my posts here will know I never bring gender or sex into things, because I don't care about those things.

.......

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Anyone who has seen my posts here will know I never bring gender or sex into things, because I don't care about those things.

Ok I dont engage with dishonest posting. You were engaging in the same anti woman/anti family guff in another thread recently:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057947376

Leave it there. I literally couldnt be bothered with someone stuck in such archaic thinking.