Wwyd? Pregnant employee. Don’t want to be sued but, ah!

[HavanaOhna]

I’m manager for a small company, there are about 8 employees so very small. We had a lovely young woman started in the new year who found out she was pregnant shortly after. Absolutely fine.

we’ve been very supportive as her pregnancy has been complicated, loads of additional scans, scares, admissions. We’ve always told her to take the time she needs for these, paid and to take extra time after them as they can be taxing. Sometimes she takes the whole day for one scan and that’s ok.

The issue is she’s now 7 months, seems incredibly poorly but won’t go on sick due to finances (has exhausted sick pay, this would be unpaid now). She’s WFH, at her request and our blessing, and is doing I’d say the bare minimum. Just scraping by work wise. Every time I see her on teams she looks gaunt, and exhausted, and has admitted that she’s tearful, not sleeping, and has had further pregnancy issues. These are all supported by documentation.

Then a few days ago she came into the office. First time in months. She could barely sit at her desk, she wasn’t doing much all day, up and down to the loo, extended lunch break. I really feel for her. We had a wellbeing meeting and she’s insisting she’s fine. I organised an occupational health session and she reiterated to them she’s fine, but you can see she’s on her knees.

I don’t really know what to do. She’s vital at work and although things are being done she’s working at I’d say 50% capacity. If this is mentioned, she promises she will sort it out so ends up working into the evening (which again we don’t want). A colleague became so frustrated the other day she pointedly asked her why she doesn’t go on maternity early and this wasn’t met well. Others are having to pick up the slack heavily, and some colleagues have started to avoid her completely work wise.

HR (no in house, outsourced) said not much we can do as she cannot be forced to take maternity leave early and if she says she’s not sick she’s not sick but I don’t know how we can do another 8 weeks going forward. I feel team morale is low, she is obviously unwell.

So the employee has no responsibility at all?

Presumably you think the employee should be given full paid time off until she goes on mat leave, because she had financial issues?

What about the staff who have to cover?

Hmmmm, you can say all this, but I'm not going to change my opinions, especially not about this particular woman.

I mean, starting a new job when you're already pregnant/or falling pregnant immediately??? Really?! If you think that's an OK thing to do, then I can't help you. I do not believe ANYone would be OK with it, if a new employee did this.

.

Pay for her because she’s having a difficult pregnancy and she’s got financial issues?

That is exactly why people don’t want to employ women who can potentially be in this situation. Everyone suffers

One in seven pregnant women in the UK lose their jobs when pregnant or on mat leave due to discrimination. Yes the employer can lose a lot of money doing this (up to millions at an Employment Tribunal, which could bankrupt a small business) but you are absolutely wrong that women are protected more than men in their careers. In fact the pay gap doesn't exist until women become mothers and companies discriminate against them.

I will say it again: men have children exactly the same as women, women should not be the only sex penalised for having children. We need BETTER employment protections for these women, not worse. It's disgusting OP's company is not offering this woman enough paid sick leave.

Errrrr it's mumsnet .... the clue is in the name.

If we can't advocate for mother's rights on here - where can we?

THese women are giving birth to new humans who will hopefully contribute to society in the future - may be something brilliant - may be their tax is paying your future pension!

It’s tricky as she’s joined pregnant or got pregnant immediately!
it’s unfair on a small business as you are now in a difficult situation.
The impact on the team is unfair too.
Her financial situation is not your problem.
She should go on mat leave as she is not able to perform the work.

Perhaps in whatever industry you are in but not in any I have.

Most women have different priorities once they have kids (as you would expect) and that has a knock on effect on the whole company and its other employees.

It can’t be helped but for it to be repaid tenfold seems unlikely.

Exactly this. No matter what da roolz say, people are still entitled to the opinion that it's wrong that a woman starts a new job, whilst already pregnant, or gets pregnant almost immediately, and then has half of the next 7-8 months off 'sick,' the a full year maternity leave, and gets to do this because she's pregnant, and it's a 'protected characteristic.'

Then 6 months after the 12 months maternity leave is over, she can do it again. And again. And again...... et al... And the company, no matter how small, has to suck it up, and weather it, and have the other employees pick up the slack.

.

Have to agree with this.

You aren't very anarchic @Anarchy99 😂

you seem like quite a straight conservative to me - interested in the bottom line, preservation of the status quo and not looking for ways to help women have children.

@HavanaOhna 's example being a small way one business could help one woman move forward more comfortably.

That makes no sense - unless men get pregnant, then you can’t compare them. Women are the ones who need the time off/adjustments because they are the ones physically pregnant and giving birth.

How many more protections should there be? Because the needs of the employer and the employee need to be balanced. What employers are going to risk being out of pocket with limitless protections?

Add in menstrual and menopause policies and it makes it harder than ever to be taken as seriously as a man.

It is not imperative. Employment law needs to be followed. If she's run out of sick pay she shouldn't be paid. People like her make it even harder for pregnant women in the workplace imho.

I’m happy for my taxes to support this. I see places like America and the type of support and rights they have with work and mat leave etc and it’s awful. Our birth rate is also declining.

Ok - well i have managed hundreds of women over 20 years across UK and US in tech, innovation, film, TV and I would say 90% plus of working mothers are more invested, productive and organised on returning to work.

But even if they weren't, that is besides the point, they are still growing a new person inside them, which is beneficial to society in the long term - and need helping to do that.

Some companies may not be able to afford to support, but it is the right thing to do. Otherwise we are saying only rich trad wives should procreate.

No, just practical. It’s no skin off my nose as I’m not a business owner. It’s the employer who is interested in the bottom line and as a result may think twice about taking on a young woman because of the risk that it will cost them more.

"Unless men get pregnant, then you can’t compare them. Women are the ones who need the time off/adjustments because they are the ones physically pregnant and giving birth."

At least we agree on that! Absolutely women are the ones with the health burden of having children. Men have zero health burden but still get the children with no impact to their bodies or careers. Women's careers are hugely impacted by kids, unlike mens. Women should have MORE protections in pregnancy/mat leave otherwise we end up in an even more unequal society.

If you want all industries to continue to be led by men then go ahead and don't give women better protections - but tbh look at how much pregnant women and mothers are discriminated against at work - we desperately need more protections.

That wasn't the point of the post - it was responding to a poster saying a business, even a micro one like the OPs, isn't viable if it can't withstand, and continue to pay for, multiple instances of long term sickness/maternity etc etc. The Public Sector provision was quoted up thread but comparing the two is ridiculous and to say a business isn't worthy of employing people if it can't afford to continually pay them when they are not there is just fascicle

And they may miss out on hiring a fantastic dynamic intelligent young woman who may or may not get pregnant. Their misfortune.

Outside of a utopian civilisation, do you not see that that could have a negative impact on women’s employment?

It’s a tough balance but nobody wants women to be seen as a liability that will cost the employer more.

It is naive to believe that having so many extra protections won’t affect recruitment choices, even if some people feel it’s the right thing to do morally.

Or someone who is unreliable because of the unavoidable family commitments. It’s the roll of a dice. Everyone should be judged individually, of course they should.

In a perfect world of course life would be easier for those who need it.

But we are far from a perfect world unfortunately. I don’t think there’s any answer that suits everyone.

I work in HR, it is a tricky situation and all that matters is the law, rather than the 'right or wrong' of the situation.

I would go back to your HR advisors and challenge their advicr and ask for their help in crafting a noted informal 'I have noticed that' meeting. Bring examples.

But, I would address it in some form.

If work is posing a risk to her health and safety which cannot be controlled either by adjustments or providing suitable alternative work, then you should place her on maternity suspension on full pay. This is an employer’s obligation - not a mere option. It sounds like this would be the best option all round. But you first need to be satisfied that there is a material risk and that it cannot be controlled by adjustments / alternative work.

But it is not really fair if you pay some people extra sick leave over their entitlement and not others.

@HavanaOhna You said Occupational Health had a meeting with her and SHE said she was fine. What did THEY say? I can't see where you mention this in your posts, apologies if you have.

Did they give you any advice going forward?

Your job is to ensure the team as a whole is performing well.

It is a small company so you can be more flexible and less worried about setting precedents vs a larger company.

Can you not just present to your boss a few options:

1. You manage maternity cover hiring and they start early

2. Get a remote temp (South Africa/India) to either support her or handle the maternity cover

3. Get an intern, or graduate on a temp contact, or part timer (there are plenty available)