14 wks pregnant and going for a job interview

[aichi]

I'm 14 wks pregnant and I've been looking for a job for awhile.
I didnt know I was pregnant when I applied for the job - back in June. (They took ages to shortlist for the interview!)

Its the job that I'd like to do and its part time which would suit me. They're looking for a few different posts, permanent and temporary positions. Ideally I would like a permanent post so I can come back to the post after I have the baby.

Am I being unreasonable to go for a job interview at this stage of my pregnancy? I started to show my bump (well for me it looks big already...my second baby) and worried how to cover my bump at the interview...
I also feel sad to feel that I have to hide my bump when I should be happy with my pregnancy..

Add message | Report | Message poster wannaBe Mon 16-Sep-13 11:13:21
It's not discrimination to not employ someone because they're not the most suitable candidate for a job, and wanting to take a year off in a matter of weeks makes someone a not suitable candidate.

Sorry wannabe, this is discrimination. I think a lot more training in this area needs to be done by employers, given some of the opinions expressed on this thread!

Definitely don't tell them at first interview. You may not like them, the job may not be what you hoped. You may not be the perfect candidate, pregnant or not. Why quire your pitch needlessly?

An interview is like a first date - it's a chance for you to project your best self, maximise your brilliance and find out if you like them at all. Once they love you and know they want you, you can stop (metaphorically) shaving your legs and let them know you're pregnant.

you see I don't think it is. If a woman works for a company and announces she is pregnant and is then dismissed because of it then it is discrimination because you can't just get rid of a possibly long-standing employee purely because they are pregnant.

But that is different to someone who does not yet work for the company.

If you were interviewing someone for a job and they said "oh, I thought I should inform you that I will be moving house in four months time, so I will be working for you until then and then I will be leaving," would you employ them? If someone said "oh, I am going to be going back-packing around Australia for a year in four months time but I would really like to work for you until then," would you employ them? I suspect not. "I am pregnant and will be leaving in four months time for at least a year," is no different. The company are at a point where they are investing in a new recruit, this involves advertising, interviewing, training. Why should any company be expected to make the financial investment in someone who isn't planning to stay in the short term purely because they are pregnant? No employee is that valuable.

And reality is that the op isn't looking for a job now she is looking for one in eighteen months time.

Clearly there are employers who are prepared to take on someone who is already pregnant. but IMO they are not wrong for not wanting to. Equally it is IMO dishonest to withhold the information and you would not earn yourself much respect from colleagues.

"you see I don't think it is"

What you think is irrelevant. It is discrimination and against the law.

I bet half the people on this thread who think that pregnant women between jobs should effectively opt themselves out the labour market are also against unemployment benefit.

Wannabe being pg is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act. Moving house isn't. By all means say you don't agree withe the EA, but don't claim to know what is and isn't discrimination under it! Try the EHRC website if you'd like to learn something about it

Headsdown, it is not asking pregnant women to opt out of the employment market. It is making frank disclosure of her circumstances before accepting so the employer can make an informed decision.

OP could improve her chances by going for a short term contract or shorten her maternity leave. She can also go for a permanent role, just make her pregnancy known before accepting.

Agree with wannabe.

blueshoes Responsible employers don't want to know. It puts you in an uncomfortable position. If a candidate tells me after interview, fine but I don't want to be even subconsciously influenced when interviewing. Because I take that responsibility seriously enough to make myself familiar with the law.

Have you ever been in a position where you were recruiting for a professional role? I doubt it.

it's not about employers being "responsible" usually it's about them being so shit scared of being sued that they'll hire a pregnant woman regardless of her suitability because not doing so could land them in court.

As I said there is a vast difference between discrimination on the basis that someone is already working there and then falls pregnant, and someone who is expecting to walk into a job and then leave again in a matter of weeks and expecting that job to be kept open for a year, and having that right purely on the basis that she is pregnant. Why should being pregnant earn someone a greater entitlement than someone who isn't?

And nobody is saying pregnant women should take themselves off the job market, but they should IMO disclose pregnancy in order that an employer can make a decision. And yes, I think if you are pregnant then it is reasonable to expect that it will be harder to get a job because of the fact you will be leaving imminently. It's different to being in existing employment because you already have a proven track record etc and maternity rights.

And no I don't think the same applies to men even if maternity leave can now be split because I think it's unlikely that many fathers will actually take up this opportunity.

wannabe What are you basing this total nonsense on? It is actually pretty straightforward to get rid of unsuitable (I.e. incapable) people during probation, as long as you educate yourself on the legal requirements and don't believe nonsense of the sort you are spouting in this thread. This is total Daily Mail style fantasy - it bears absolutely no relationship to the real world.

How many times have you personally fired someone? Hired someone? I bet it's zero. Wannabe indeed.

Someone who was moving house or off to Australia would be under no obligation to disclose it either.

But that is different to someone who does not yet work for the company.

Except legally it isn't. It's discrimination regardless. You are wrong to say otherwise. You may disagree with the law, but luckily your opinion is not law.

A hypothetical question

A management job opens up and applications are taken.

Its down to two women.

Its made clear that the job is to manage a high impact unit that will be responsible for a multimillion pound contract that is time sensitive, it must run between two dates and be finished on time.

The manager of the team will be expected to be available (at times) 24/7, and during the 12 month contract the team will be available on shifts around the clock.

The difference between the 2 women are that one is pregnant (obvs) but she has slightly more experience and will take a 6mth ML.

Who is the best person for the job?

BBJ

If she has stated she is taking a 6 month maternity leave, she has stated more than she is legally required to do.

The elegant solution would be to give the job to the one who is better qualified, ask the other to be her maternity cover and hire maternity cover for the second candidate's role.

Moderately

That would only work if it was an internal post. (but I like your thinking)

What if you are employing from outside the company?

Could you reasonably expect the second applicant to take on a 6mth maternity leave in stead of looking for a permanent position?

I kind of assumed it was internal as I don't know why else they'd know she was going to take 6 months ML.

If it was external, of course candidate 2 night say no to a ML cover post - but it would be ok to ask her to consider it.

I should have made it implicit in the post.

What slightlysoupstained said - both times. What kind of foolish employer wants that kind of disclosure at interview? And of COURSE you can fire/not hire pregnant women if they are not competent. Clearly most people on this thread haven't worked in large organisations where you are hiring and firing all the time.

As an aside, you can often find some fantastic candidates on mat leave contracts - often slightly less experienced but excellent. I've offered jobs to mat leave covers when their contracts are up on multiple occasions - often there is another role/we shuffle the team a bit to keep good people on.

OP - don't listen to all the naysayers, of course you should apply. Tell them when you've signed the contract and not before. (just hope you don't get called in for another interview!)

Wannabe not in law there isn't. Discrimination is discrimination no matter how prettily you word it.

Soupstained, whenever my team needs someone, I do the interviewing with others. They will be professionals working for a large firm. Stop with your wild assumptions that I have zero hiring experience.

Once we hire someone, it will be difficult to get rid of them (but we have done so) and a waste of time and money for all involved. But that is not the point - no one hires thinking they will want to get rid of the person. They just want to hire the best person and availability is a major factor.

All things being equal, we will want the candidate that is available in the near future for doing the job and for training them. But if the candidate does not disclose, well that reflects on them as a person though there is very little an employer can do about it. Not the best start to a working relationship with the employer and their colleagues. As an employee, why anyone would want to put themselves in this position is beyond me. But of course, it is well within their wimmin's rights to take advantage of the laws to the fullest extent and damn what disruption they cause to others.

You are not obligated to say anything and they cannot discriminate against you either at the time of hiring or later for not revealing that you were pregnant at the time of the interview. Go for it.

If I'm planning to take a job like BBJ describes and then quit three months in once ive earned a huge salary as I'm planning a RTW trip, you can't tell because it's in my head.

If I'm a bloke and my wife is pregnant and I'm planning to take the job and then to take maximum paternity leave - you can't tell because it's in my head.

If I'm an employer and I need to staff up for said project just in case even though I know there's a good chance it might get canned and all involved laid off - you can't tell because it's in my head.

It's only the visibly pregnant who don't have that luxury, and that only applies to one sex. Hence protected characteristic.