To have got pregnant one month after starting new job?

[DimpleHands]

I started a new job in January and got pregnant one month later. I am now 12 weeks and DREADING telling my boss.

I know it's not ideal but in my defence I had to leave my old job because of discrimination (they admitted to this and paid up). Also I am 36 and didn't want to take the chance of waiting in case we had problems conceiving. Further, DS1 is 2.5 and didn't want there to be a big age gap between them.

I work in a big City law firm where the partners earn well into the seven figures so no one is really going to be affected - it's not like I work in a tiny company where my absence would have a real impact.

SO, how would you feel if you were my boss? When I tell him, should I be incredibly apologetic or do you think what I have done is fine? Just read a thread where the OP said she wouldn't get pregnant out of respect for a new employer for at least a year and am now feeling really bad!

I don't see what difference it makes to them

You are not alone op, it happens to lots of women.
I found out I was pregnant a few weeks after starting a job as a nanny 16 1/2 yrs ago. We had been trying for a baby for two years at this point (9mths of fertility treatment).
It was difficult for the family but they were very understanding. I would tell your boss as soon as possible - although you are under no obligation to do this.
I think it is a given when you recruit women of child bearing age that they may become pregnant - this is life :)

rainbowdashpony You don't see what difference it makes to them? Really?

Idefix I don't know at what point a pg woman must tell her employers - but they can do the bare minimum the law requires and that unwillingly, or they can be good about it and make her feel welcome, especially when she gets back. And the sooner she tells them the more they are likely to act well. Why would the OP not tell them at once?

My last baby I found out I was pregnant straight after starting according to official date. I wasn't even there a week. I still worked hard, if not harder than a lot of other staff doing any hours required. I did actually leave and start a new position 2 weeks post birth as was on Maternity Allowance not Maternity Pay. If I had stayed at that job having a baby would make no difference to my abilities

The only issue is not being entitled to maternity pay? Sorry if this has been addressed - I've not read the whole thread.

Lalqila and rainbow It's just nonsense to pretend that maternity leave has no impact on businesses. Of course it does. That isn't to say that the impact is not justified by the greater good of having more women in the workplace, but that does not negate the fact that it is tremendously disruptive for the other, non-pregnant members of the team.
In an ideal world, maternity cover would be a given. In law firms, it isn't IME. The main reason for that is there are not hordes of experienced lawyers waiting for a dead-end six-months-to-a-year mat cover opportunity. It is also a fact that most law firms budget 12 months in advance and cannot allow for additional staffing on the off chance.
By all means women should take their leave but naively pretending there are no consequences to doing so is just nuts.

It makes no difference to OP's abilities, rainbow, obviously, but it makes a difference to the firm that she is going to be taking mat leave. They might not want her to start a big case which she definitely will not be able to finish. They might not want her to take a case which will involve flying after the point at which the airlines won't allow it.

We had been trying unsuccessfully to conceive for a long time, and I hated my job. I decided to stop putting my life on hold for a baby that might or might not come, so got myself a new job (leaving the job with good maternity package).

Fell pregnant in the first month of being there. I felt really bad as, although it was planned, it was still unexpected (had been having fertility investigations). Anyone who asked was told it was a surprise (implying unplanned).

I could only claim maternity allowance and had to go back at 6 months or leave (old rules).

To be fair I stayed there for 5 years in total. I did take a second stint of mat leave there too though!

I did this too, found out 8 weeks into the job that I was 4 weeks gone. I really like the place and didn't want them to think that I had done it on purpose so I sort of apologised for the timing, said I hadn't planned it etc and they were fine. I'm getting on really well in it since and I'm glad I was upfront with them from the start

In my work we would smile brightly and say congratulations whilst all secretly groaning and resenting you. The amount of hassle to get recruitment paperwork done, the multi-leg interview process and then work more until the maternity cover is up to speed so they are fully productive (assuming we even have the budget to get maternity cover) to then lose the person in 6 months time to have you come back ( and wait until you are fully productive). This means lots of extra work for your team.

It is a fact of life but you cannot expect strangers (as these are brand new colleagues) to be thrilled about the extra work that it will create.

How exactly have they been discriminating against you as the higher earner in work Jassy?

Wrong thread

This has happened recently where I work. There were a few private groans and plenty of public congratulations because it's the right thing to do. The colleague has proved to be a really positive and productive person and she has just gone on mat leave with loads of genuine warm wishes.

And we haven't had mat leave cover for ages. Less than 10 years ago, 2 people were brought in to cover for me. Those days are financially long gone

OldFarticus I didn't say I believed that mat leave has no impact on businesses. What I'm a bit sceptical of is the perception that any woman getting pregnant shortly after starting a new job is a timewaster, or has done so just to screw her employers over, or is selfishly putting her own needs before those of her employer. I don't doubt that it can have a knock-on effect of anything from minor inconvenience to huge upheaval amongst a lot of businesses, and can potentially negatively impact on the eg any woman's colleagues, but I resent the general implication (not specifically from you) that that's entirely the selfish pregnant woman's fault, when more often it's bad management, cost-cutting or Inflexibility to blame. I'd like to know, seriously, what people consider to be the appropriate amount of time one can be in a job for before it's acceptable to get pregnant, and why.

Some of these replies remind of the saying that working in a shop would be great without the customers. Wouldn't work be great without employees f*ing things up? Women have babies end of story. It is so sad that employers/collegues feel inconvenienced when women leave to have babies. So selfish and money-obsessed (seriously budgets have been given as a reason to be peed off!!). Good luck OP. I'm afraid that I effectively got sacked for starting job 3 months pregnant (hired 6 months in advance), so can't offer consulation. I still fail to see what difference it would have made if I had of worked 2 years before getting pregnant.

I'm a father and an uncle and you've got a look in your eye, like the cat that's licked the cream - that's how I knew

Sorry, but that gave me the creeps a bit. I don't know that pregnant women look like "the cat that licked the cream" - in my first few months, I looked more like a cat that was about to chuck up a furball.

I doubt whether some of these ridiculous comments such as "time waster" would be addressed to men announcing their partner is pregnant (and therefore possibly using parental leave).

Given the fact that we will have probably over forty years of a working career, up to a year out with a child isn't a huge event.

I will say though, when my Dc were born, maternity leave was much shorter. As I said, I returned after six weeks, the maximum I had was eight, so the impact of my absence was minimal. I recruited and trained my cover, interestingly they are still with the company today, albeit in a much more senior role!

Good employees recognise the value of staff retention and act accordingly.

Oh yes, Andrewofgg, that could have backfired spectacularly!

YY, WhatsGoingOnEh, I shuddered at that.

in answer to your questions I'd be secretly furious if I was your employer, I'd tell them as soon as possible and as a former employer, albeit in a SME, no I don't think what you've done is fine.

HOWEVER, there are laws around your treatment, and these things happen, they will just have to suck it up and deal with it. Congratulations .

YesIDid It could but I knew it wouldn't. What'sGoingOn and Janine I'm sorry it made you shudder! But that is what I have observed when women are pg (and glad to be) especially for the first time.

In the 50s and 60s Mum was asked at job interviews "you're irish, you're married, can you assure us you won't be pregnant? " Does anyone really want us to go back to that?

It does make some employers think twice re employing women likely to have children when people do this, not to mention those that take multiple leave and then don't return.

Whilst legal, I doubt many employers are happy after spending time recruiting to find out the person plans to take a year off in a few months after all the training and settling in and they need to start again.