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.

Oh and when equal pay came in many employers were able to prove as fact that they would go bust, the country would be on its knees, people starving on the street because paying women the same as men would make that happen.

It didn't. Businesses adapt to the economic climate they are in.

Scone I can actually see your point about accrued leave over long maternity leave.

Have you considered writing to your MP?

I remember being really surprised about gaining holiday leave when on maternity leave, but I guess it's just about being considered an employee for that period. Oddly although I've worked in some very female dominated industries I've not yet managed someone on maternity leave. I have however had a few people on long term sick, which can be very difficult to manage.

Traininthedistance, to add to what you say, holiday accrues whilst employees are on long term sickness absence too.

When I worked in HR (2 different companies) we found sickness much more difficult and expensive to deal with, especially long-term sickness. With maternity leave you have fair warning, know the dates in advance, and can in a lot of case have the pregnant employee train their replacement - I know this isn't the case across the board, but I trained up my replacement when I was pregnant.

With sickness, we would find someone could go off sick with little ore than a morning's notice - in many cases long term sick, with a 3 month doctor notes citing depression, for example.

Please don't start campaigning/writing to your MP against holiday accrual on maternity leave. These equality employment laws were hard won.

The main issue, not just with this but all well meaning legislation and most red tape, is the huge difference between small and larger businesses ability to cope. What a BT can take in it's stride can kill a 4 person business.

Scone I can actually see your point about accrued leave over long maternity leave. Have you considered writing to your MP?

This right here is laughable. What on earth do you think an MP would do? I can categorically tell you that any MP who was to campaign for women to get less rights would be flushing his own career right down the toilet.

What is so difficult to understand about why women on maternity leave continue to accrue annual leave? Regardless of whether or not someone is on sick leave, maternity leave, parental leave or even on annual leave they are still under contract with their employer. The terms and conditions do not change.

What exactly is it you propose to happen? A break in employees contracts when they are off? Would this include people who are off with long-term illness? Would it include those 2 weeks holiday in the summer?

It will never happen.

Maybe that leave only accrues when not on maternity leave or sick leave? Or that like maternity pay the cost of the leave accrued during maternity leave should be reimbursed by the government.

I don't know, I do however suspect it was this discrimination caused in part by such laws that made it very difficult to find employment and as such I will not discriminate in 'm the same way should my business reach the stage where I can consider employing people.

That is entirely unrealistic. What you are suggesting is a break in the contractual terms and conditions. That would be illegal and hugely discriminatory.

Going on your theory what about the accruing A/L while on A/L and B/H? Why would that be ok? That is approx 7 weeks throughout a year equating to 3.75 days A/L. Why is it ok to accrue annual leave in this time?

For those of you who say you aren't sexist because you employ women. That doesn't stand if you feel entitled to and think it should be aloud to discriminate against them in the workplace, have a read of the below because I think some of you need a refresher course:-

A woman must not be dismissed or subjected to less favourable treatment for a reason related to her maternity leave. A woman on maternity leave has "protected status". She does not need to compare the treatment she receives with the treatment of others in order to establish sex discrimination. This right applies regardless of the employee’s length of service.

An employee must not be dismissed because of her pregnancy or the fact that she has given birth. She must also not be dismissed because she has taken or seeks to take maternity leave, or because she has or intends to avail herself of any of the benefits of OML. If dismissed for such a reason, an employee may have an unfair dismissal claim. This applies irrespective of the employee’s length of service.

An employee must not suffer a detriment or be dismissed for not agreeing to work “keeping in touch” days or for working or considering such work.

An employee must not be subjected to a detriment because of her pregnancy or the fact that she has given birth. She must also not suffer a detriment because she has taken or seeks to take maternity leave, or because she has or intends to avail herself of any of the benefits of maternity leave. This right applies regardless of the employee’s length of service.

An employee’s long-term position at work must not be affected by her absence on maternity leave. For example, she must not be treated any less favourably in terms of promotion prospects, pay reviews, appraisals, dismissal and consultation in relation to redundancy.

Very interesting thread & quite pertinent to my own position at the moment. I started a job 6 months ago on a two year contract. At the time I wanted a third DC but my partner didn't & I thought it wasn't going to happen. Now we both want to start ttc. I feel really guilty! But I don't want to wait. It's a big employer (3000+), going through lots of cuts, I'm not sure if there will be a job for me at the end of my contract. Is it reprehensible of me to ttc?

I think there's a big difference between becoming ill or injured, and CHOOSING to become pregnant, whilst being the key worker on a hard-won short term contract.

I fully support anyone's right to do that, at any time, and agree that they should be supported financially and personally. But - again - let's not pretend that it will not sometimes have negative consequences for others.

Sorry Jane, my comment was not aimed at you! It was relating to Zeezeek and following comments upthread. In your case, a big employer should be able to absorb the effects, surely?

Shit, when MNers are turning on their own we really are in trouble.

I thought it was widely accepted that everything written in the Guardian was gospel, thus making MNer armchair experts on world affairs.

(feeling smug that this has happened)

JanePurdy

No it isn't the advice given by Jeremy is outdated as are alot of the opinions on this thread.

You have every right to TTC, for some it can take up to and over 2 years to conceive anyway so it may not even affect your current contract. If you do conceive prior to this you retain your right to maternity leave and pay (in line with whatever your contract states). You could be selected for redundancy whilst on maternity leave but only if the proper criteria is followed. Is your position currently at risk?

Since you are already 6 months in it is likely that your maternity could roll over the current contract end date. I can link you to two websites if you like? One will explain the process of redundancy for someone who is on maternity leave and the other is the regulations that are set out for employees who's fixed term contracts expire (these regulations are only applicable to someone who has been in a role for 2 or more years)

I think it's very bad advice to suggest saying at an interview that you're hoping to start a family or ttc.
No-one knows what the future holds and whether or not you will get pregnant even if trying to.
I've found it's still better not to talk too much about your family commitments (or family to be) in an interview. For one thing I think employers want to see you focus on the job you are applying for, and what you can offer.

BTW as a creative producer for websites maybe she should look and see if there are any jobs going at MNHQ ?

I think there's a big difference between becoming ill or injured, and CHOOSING to become pregnant

No, there isn't. Not in employment law, and not morally. To claim there is amounts to sexual discrimination.

Shit, when MNers are turning on their own we really are in trouble.

Quite.

Yes Sabrina - I'm quite surprised that MNHQ have this in DOTD as ....

TTC - tell your employer?

First because it almost (to me) suggests you should (though they probably mean to be more neutral), and secondly in this scenario they aren't even yet your employers, they are only prospective employers ... You are in an interview FFS, and have almost no rights, the people you are talking to hold all the cards!

What is "childbearing age" anyway? A woman of 16 or above could become pregnant, as could a woman of 65 via egg donation. So that's most women in the workplace.

I remember reading somewhere child bearing age is generally regarded as 23-39 (basically the broadest age range of when most people have families)

You are correct though. The term is outdated really. Especially with all the technology now making it a lot easier for older families who may have struggled to conceive naturally in years gone past to conceive.

Wow, scary thread.
Personally I would have looked pretty stupid informing my prospective employer that I would be TTC as it took me eight years, three employers (not involved in TTC!) and five mc to have dc1. How much info should I have given I wonder, a running commentary on every failed attempt?

I agree with PleaseJustleaveyourbrotheralone and Meep and others who are pointing you the blatant sexist overtones in what Windy is saying.

Windy it may be simple economics to you and as such easy to excuse away but no matter how efficiently you wrap it and present it to the rest of us it isn't simply economics, it is simply discriminatory and simply sexist. If you really can't see that you probably need to buy yourself a dictionary and brush up on your word definitions.

the problem here (1) is men not taking an equal share of parental leave. and (2) the state pushing costs onto small businesses.

as a nation we agree that parental leave is a good thing and we make it law. therefore we need to fully fund it. otherwise women will be discriminated against.

And all of this is why I don't employ anyone at all. I ask everyone who wants to work for us part-time to register self-employed, that way I don't have to use the evil zero-hours contract, which I find absolutely morally wrong, doing tax and NI is very fast and simple, and all the part-timers are free to decline any work I send their way if they don't want/can't work that day. Since all of them are either retired or freelancers in their own work-from-home businesses, it all works beautifully - both legally and from the point of view of everyone being happy.