To think that this 'advice' column in today's Guardian is bang out of order?

[Aliama]

I'm fuming at this and wondering if I'm overreacting?

www.theguardian.com/money/2014/feb/01/dear-jeremy-work-issues-solved

Excuse me? Did I misread that? In what fucking world is it 'reprehensible' for a woman to fail to tell a prospective employer that she's planning on getting pregnant at an interview? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it fucking illegal for a company to allow something like that to sway their decision anyway, even if said woman is already pregnant?

Ugh.

Even though the govt covers nearly all the maternity pay, they don't pay to advertise for temporary cover or the loss in productivity for training etc. That's hard for any small business to bear.

Of course I'm all for equality but trying to suggest there are no financial or business implications to employing women of childbearing age is factually incorrect. We women have a lot to overcome and probably won't ever be equal

Crossed post with tallforadwarf

Unfortunately im not surprised. I know its from a different section but i found this gem in the Guardian last year.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a1756191-Another-example-that-shows-we-have-a-long-way-to-go

The article itself.

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/may/12/boyfriend-says-my-vagina-is-repulsive

Dear Jeremy has form. I think the Grauniad keep him in a preserving jar and fish him out once a week to write some 1950s style bollocks. I don't think he'd recognise modern employment law or a modern workplace if it bit him on the arse.

Pan, seriously - I have turned down a place because I planned to TTC. I went for a bigger company, easier cover etc. I didn't get pg. Not until about 5 years later, by which time I'd decided fuck it, let's go for the job I want. Similar sort of company to the first place, and you know what, they were delighted. I and another woman there made enough of a difference before going off on leave that yes, it was absolutely worth it for them.

Pregnancy is just not something you can plan your life tidily around.

My partner OTOH totally surprised his lot by taking a job, then wanting to go part-time and not really giving a stuff about being main breadwinner etc. Deceitful, innit? Maybe he should've worn a pinny to interview or summat to give them fair warning.

Hasn't the law changed now so either parent can take the leave? Should men be telling their prospective employers that they plan to have unprotected sex? Just in case?!

I agree that maternity leave is a problem for small employers in particular (and a smaller problem for big employers). One year is a very long time, and in practice it will probably be a long time before men take their half of the entitlement. And not long ago there were virtually no maternity rights. It clearly does put employers off, especially as they will assume that most women will have 2 babies in quick succession. Personally, I think that 4 months would be plenty. I had almost no maternity leave at all so I'm not being hypocritical about it.
If this country leaves the EU, I predict that maternity leave will be cut drastically.

Slightly - then it seems it depends on the company then, I only have my own experiences to go by. But I do believe that going on maternity leave at the earliest opportunity after starting to work for a new company can be crippling to them, however, people who have fertility issues should certainly be excused for it (not that anyone would ever actually know). The point I was trying to make was that it would have been easier for the woman to stay where she was in this case, a new company requires all of the ground work and reputation building to be done again, an exhausting task! And I couldn't imagine having that pressure along with a baby. It's been hugely important for me to have friends at work, my return to work didn't go so smoothly and if I was working for a new company I'm not sure I would have coped.

Staying put in a job you're bored by isn't necessarily reputation-enhancing either. Depending on job, getting stuck in a dead-end role for five or more years could make it hard to move.

The woman in the article wasn't even pregnant, just thinking about it.

Lean In makes essentially this point: that if you tread water in a role you're bored with, because you might possibly maybe perhaps start thinking about TTC soon, then you're quite likely to be bloody bored for quite a while. And the thought of coming back to a boring unfulfilling job after mat leave isn't that appealing.

If I'd waited to TTC, I would by now be out of my mind with boredom, and be earning about 15K less than I do now, and it would be bloody hard for me to move. Whereas now, because I did move anyway, I am in a position where I can move around with relative ease and am employable, have flexibility, etc.

And, again - a man taking a job can now go off on leave too. Let's not forget that.

Also, have you never ever worked in a place where some man took a role & then moved on after a few months to a better offer?

Popping a bun in the oven is not like ordering a new handbag from this season's collection. No one has any idea until they actively start trying to conceive their first, whether it'll happen instantly, or never at all.

As for sensible topics to talk about at interview - how about a candidates ability to do the job in question? (I started a full time new role with a six week old, time spent on maternity leave varies). There's a correct time and place to discuss most things. Job interviews and potential fertility discussions should only go together if your application is to be a surrogate.

I have days when I wonder if Common Sense took a trip with Neil Armstrong and decided to stay on the Moon, due to the utter stupidity of modern humans.

I'm just trying to imagine the reaction when you start waffling on about baby making plans. I'm a feminist through and through but I would be the woman is a weirdo steer clear! !!!!

Yanbu op. We continue to fight (against the views of some women also it seems, sigh).

I've name changed for obvious reasons.

I'm writing this knowing that I'll get shouted at but I hope some of you will at least appreciate that I'm being honest.

I own a small business in the city of London. There are 6 of us in the company, all permanent staff on good salaries (touching six figures on average) and everyone is male.

For the first 6 months or so of someone's career with us they're still learning and contributing little to the bottom line.

If I had female staff and one was to become pregnant I'd have to do the following:

Start reducing their hours, especially as the due date approaches I can't expect them to work the same silly hours as the rest of us.

Secondly I'd have to look for a replacement to cover maternity leave. I have to keep the job open for the person to return to in a year's time so I can't recruit a new permanent employee, I'd have to get a contractor and they cost a lot more than perms. Assuming I can find someone good who will work on a contract of course.

The person coming in will take a long time to get up to speed during which time we're all working even longer to cover (yes, that's no different to if one of the guys left but training up a perm is an investment, training a contractor isn't)

Then I'd need to cover maternity pay, which in our industry averages 9 months on 75% then statutory. The money I could get back from the government wouldn't come close to covering this.

Finally, should the new mother return I've got to retrain her (nothing stands still for long) and if not I've either got to convince the cover to take a pay cut and go perm or start again looking for a replacement. If she comes back there's the added risk that I've got to create a part time job (our clients don't want a part time relationship with us, how am I supposed to deal with it?) or at least there's a chance she won't be able to be as flexible on working hours as the rest of us are - we stay at work until the job is done, leaving on time everyday is not an option

This is a huge expense, upheaval and drain on resources for a small company so why take the risk with the business (remember we support 6 families) when a much safer option is hiring another man?

I'm fully aware of the legal situation but it never comes to that. Recruitment agents / headhunters know not to send female CVs to small companies (and they're very open about this, unofficially of course) unless the kids have flown the roost and there's no chance of more.

This isn't about sexism, in the past when I was working in larger companies it was obvious that having women in the office made a huge difference to the company, this is just about economics.

I'm not saying this is right or fair or legal, please don't reply saying "people like you should have died out in the dark ages" or "women wouldn't want to work for a sexist wanker like you" as that's missing the point.

This is what happens all the time though and I haven't seen a solution anywhere

Why do you need to give the 'industry average'? Just give statutory, personally I think that maternity pay packages are potentially damaging. Why should an employer pay me when I'm not there? .

Shocking though overall and people should be challenging. Or perhaps these dinosaur businesses will end up going bust in the end due to missing out on some of the best people? I hope so.

brettgirl dinosaur companies? Really?

As for offering competitive benefits, I have to do that to get the best staff. And if the benefits show 10% non-contrib pension, healthcare, health assurance, life cover, childcare vouchers, cycletowork, subsidised gym, 1 month paternity leave, ~50% bonuses etc but only offered statutory maternity I'd be obviously discriminating against women and would be dragged to a tribunal by a disgruntled unsuccessful applicant quicker than you can say AIBU

Presumably the reason that all 6 of you can work these hours is because you either don't have children or have partners who do all the childcare, school drop-offs etc. When was the last time any of you had to leave early to take a child to the orthodontist/rugby training/your turn to pick up from after-school club?

Jean yes, that's right. Half of them don't have kids and the other half have wives/nannies etc looking after the kids.

I don't get what your point is though.

U r assuming that fathers do not take active role in working week childcare. What happens when one of your male employees takes his option of sharing his partner's year off? 6months absence. The sooner more dads start doing this the better for us all.

I didn't think you would.

U r also very much assuming the female employee won't have her mind on the job post child. In a career she has worked for years to succeed in, in a 40year working life.

Helpful response, thanks Jean

Good to see the general consensus is that I'm not being U. As for the comments about it costing companies more to employ women of childbearing age, it costs them more to employ and accommodate disabled people too, who will inevitably be discriminated against as well. It happens. maybe some companies HAVE to do it, but that doesn't make it acceptable.

That it happens and even seems to be considered reasonable by some, just makes the original advice that much worse.

I'm an employer of about 40 people.

It's inconvenient when anyone goes on maternity leave let alone when they've just joined the company!

BUT I congratulate any staff who tell me they're pg, I remind myself this is their life and their happy news and their future, I start thinking immediately how to manage their dept or role without the company incurring any extra cost. I remind myself I'm a feminist and that women have the legal right not to tell anyone of their baby making plans and have a right to maternity leave.

BUT PART 2 I am acutely aware of a potential employee's personal situation when I interview. If they are newly married and about 30 I would think very carefully about employing them...

Ailiama allowances are made in the disability legislation for small companies.

When you say it's not acceptable to maintain the status quo (and most people would agree), what's the alternative?

For as long as the costs and risks of employing women of childbearing age especially in small companies are significantly more than those of an equally qualified man nothing will change

Windymuller - the balance between the potential cost of employing men and women has just changed with the introduction of extended paternity leave. What you now need to be discreetly probing at interviews is whether the candidate earns more or less than their partner, because that is likely to determine who takes the leave.

And have you actually taken legal advice about whether you need to offer more than SMP? Surely the fact that you are a small business would sufficient justification not to offer the same as much bigger companies.

Completely illegal for an employer to base their decision on that although if employers are made aware of the situation most of them will.

With regards to the person who said you would get paid for a year, that's not true. The employer can put a clause in their contract saying maternity pay will only be available to employees who have worked a certain amount of complete years. Even if the employer doesn't do this you have to have completed at least 26 weeks by the end of the qualifying week (i.e. by the end of the 15th week before the week the baby is due).

If a company are going to go bankrupt on one woman going on maternity leave let's face it, their business was going down the pan anyway.