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

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

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    DavyD_83
    Registered Users Posts: 1,991 ✭✭✭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 :)


  • Options
    #33
    judeboy101
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,246 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #34
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,311 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    Just say nothing. Why would you?


  • Options
    #35
    hognef
    Registered Users Posts: 828 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #36
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    tomwaits48
    Registered Users Posts: 861 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #38
    Creamy Goodness
    Registered Users Posts: 26,558 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #39
    OMM 0000
    Registered Users Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #40
    OMM 0000
    Registered Users Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #41
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    OMM 0000
    Registered Users Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭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,


  • Options
    #43
    OMM 0000
    Registered Users Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #44
    irelandrover
    Registered Users Posts: 3,696 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #45
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 521 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #46
    Shop40
    Registered Users Posts: 156 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #47
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 521 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #48
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    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.


  • Options
    #49
    Bandana boy
    Registered Users Posts: 4,325 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #50
    OMM 0000
    Registered Users Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #51
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Elessar
    Registered Users Posts: 5,239 ✭✭✭Elessar


    The only company I know of in Dublin that offer this perk is Facebook. Personally, I wouldn't say anything. Get the job first, then work on what to do next. Maybe have a word with your boss about it, see what the lay of the land is.

    But do everything to get the job first.


  • Options
    #53
    OMM 0000
    Registered Users Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭OMM 0000


    ....... wrote: »
    Ok I dont engage with dishonest posting.

    Leave it there.

    Prove I'm anti-woman.

    You're being disgraceful.


  • Options
    #54
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    OMM 0000 wrote: »
    Prove I'm anti-woman.

    You're being disgraceful.

    I already did.

    Are you just dying to get the last word in or something? Pathetic.


  • Options
    #55
    OMM 0000
    Registered Users Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭OMM 0000


    ....... wrote: »
    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.

    Show me where I was anti-woman.

    Give us a quote so we can all see.


  • Options
    #56
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,687 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    mod/b]

    OMM and ....... quit with the sniping or you will be carded and threadbanned


  • Options
    #57
    OMM 0000
    Registered Users Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭OMM 0000


    Stheno wrote: »
    mod/b]

    OMM and ....... quit with the sniping or you will be carded and threadbanned

    Isn't it fair though that if a person claims someone is anti-woman, they should have to back up that statement with proof?

    It's a pretty outrageous claim to make.

    I was happy to have a civil conversation with this person until they started making up things about me.


  • Options
    #58
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,687 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    OMM 0000 wrote: »
    Isn't it fair though that if a person claims someone is anti-woman, they should have to back up that statement with proof?

    It's a pretty outrageous claim to make.

    I was happy to have a civil conversation with this person until they started making up things about me.

    Please do not question mid actions on thread


  • Options
    #59
    Birdsong
    Registered Users Posts: 985 ✭✭✭Birdsong


    Bandana boy wrote:
    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 .

    +1 to this.

    Exactly the same with maternity leave, where I work great maternity cover but you have to be there 2 years to get it.


Advertisement