Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Overlooked for promotion because I'm pregnant

169 replies

NotAWhaleOmeletteInSight · 23/08/2015 10:34

Very long time poster with a new username as I couldn't get my password reset to work.

I'm on holiday at the moment but back at work in a week. I've been with my organisation for 10 years and am very experienced in my field. I have an excellent track record and performance management history etc. A couple of years ago my manager was talking about my career progression and where I could be in a year or 2, if I wanted.

Immediately after this conversation I became pregnant and now have a 1 year old. I'm back at work part time.

A role came up recently that would have been a step up for me and which I could have job shared part time. It's the sort of thing that comes up very very rarely. I expressed an interest and presented a case about how I could do it with a colleague (who also expressed an interest) as a job share. We're both part time. Management seemed very positive. A week later I found out I was pregnant again and let my boss know. I said I intended to come back again and that I was still interested in the role.

I then found out a few weeks ago that a new starter has been given the role. This was just casually announced in the morning meeting for all staff. He'll be full time. He's got 3 years experience and a similar track record to me, only less of it obviously.

Am I being unreasonable to feel overlooked because of being pregnant? I've always intended to keep working and kept in touch on my previous maternity leave. I've worked really hard for years and until my first pregnancy I felt that my career was taken seriously.

Now it's like I've hit a glass ceiling. I like the new starter and think he'll be good in the role, but I don't like how it was handled. Should I ask for an explanation when I get back or just let it go? Feel free to tell me to get a grip!

OP posts:
LazyLohan · 23/08/2015 17:04

I think it could possibly have been the combination of the job share and mat leave. They may well have been keen for the job share to go ahead. But filling a job share during a mat leave is a nightmare, the double whammy of the job being both part time and temporary could make it a nightmare to fill.

They may also have felt that if they were going to have the chap fill your role anyway (for at least part of his time at least) by the time you returned the months of higher level experience would have meant that his experience then would exceed yours at the lower level and it would therefore have been unfair to bust him down to a lower level job when his experience at that level would then outstrip yours.

slightlyglitterpaned · 23/08/2015 17:28

OP has already pointed out that her jobshare colleague is going to cover her leave by increasing hours. So if they had appointed them, they would have ready made cover, no need to scramble for it.

JanetBlyton · 23/08/2015 17:30

Why go back part time though? It's never a good idea. Worst of all worlds.

OwlinaTree · 23/08/2015 17:35

Boss doesn't know she'll come back though. She might not. Who knows? Boss probably just wants an easy solution.

plantsitter · 23/08/2015 17:52

I can't believe the opinions on here! Feminism is dead, eh? A few points:

Whoever said getting pregnant shows you're not serious about your career - shame on you. You would never say that to a man if his partner/wife got pregnant.

Parents can share mat/paternity leave these days so she wouldn't automatically leave for a year.

The bottom line: doesn't matter if you think not giving someone a job because they're pregnant us reasonable or not. It's ILLEGAL.

RachelZoe · 23/08/2015 17:59

plantsitter

"Parents can share mat/paternity leave these days so she wouldn't automatically leave for a year."

We don't have a crystal ball to allow us to see what they're going to do.

Everyone can't have everything they want sadly, if a school or business etc needs one full time person, then that is what they need. As a self employed person with staff, it's a nightmare scheduling things like job shares and "I want to work this hour but not that hour, on this day but never that". Employers need to be flexible of course but job seekers and employees need to be realistic and understanding too.

OwlinaTree · 23/08/2015 18:04

plant yes of course it is. But how do we know that is the case here? Maybe this other chap was better for the role? How can the op prove she has been discriminanted against?

slightlyglitterpaned · 23/08/2015 18:06

"Understanding" stops at the point where the employer is breaking the fucking law.

As many of the prior suggestions on this thread would be, if employers were to actually implement them.

OwlinaTree · 23/08/2015 18:11

Has the boss broken the law?

I'm sorry tho OP, it is disappointing not to get the role you want.

Rainuntilseptember15 · 23/08/2015 18:23

Pregnancy discrimination happens all the time and there is quite frankly nothing you can do about it
That's the attitude that got us the vote, right there.
This thread is depressing reading.
OP, was there a selection procedure you followed? A closing date, an application (or even note of interest), did the school follow its own procedures?

RollerGirl7 · 23/08/2015 18:25

I would definitely think a man wasn't taking his career seriously if he was planning to take 9 months off work then look to come back part time.

I wouldn't judge him for it but I would think that his priority was not his job. Not that that is a bad thing, at least 1 parent in every family (usually the woman) starts to take her career less seriously.

Women have the power to make our partners compromise with things like childcare, mat leave etc. women should not imo (although I know they can legally) be able to put a lot less emphasis on their career but claim the same treatment as someone who prioritise work. E.g. Work part time, never put in the extra hours, loads of parental leave compared to the person who doesn't have all the above. They shouldn't be negatively affected, eg sacked when off on maternity leave but over and above that I don't think they can claim to need preferential treatment eg promotions, definitely being allowed things like job sharing

Women need to start acting more like men and not just accept that they will be the primary care giver and sacrifice their career, women have the power to do this for themselves, no-one needs to hand it to them on a plate.

Shutthatdoor · 23/08/2015 18:27

The bottom line: doesn't matter if you think not giving someone a job because they're pregnant us reasonable or not. It's ILLEGAL

no one knows whether that is the case or not. Not giving someone the job because you don't want it job shared or because they aren't the best candidate isn't illegal.

The bottom line is you don't automatically get the job because you are pregnant if you aren't the best person for the job.

RollerGirl7 · 23/08/2015 18:33

Exactly shutthedoor but it's easy for people to find a reason that means it's someone else's fault not their own.

The law should, imp, protect women who are/were pregnant, not give them an unfair advantage

OwlinaTree · 23/08/2015 18:34

Hummm I'm unsure now, I'm re thinking what I've said.

I guess I'm looking at it from the leaving soon/job share point of view rather than the pregnancy point of view. But the leaving soon reason is only due to the pregnancy so that would be discriminatory.

So the Op still doesn't know if she's been discriminated against as it doesn't sound like there's been any form of interview. So no evidence really.

Funinthesun15 · 23/08/2015 18:34

There are a lot of assumptions being made here.

Firstly we don't know if the OP applied for the job. She expressed an interest but it isn't the same thing.

If she did apply and was interviewed, we don't know how she did in that.

We don't know the calibre of the person the OP wanted to share with. Maybe they weren't up to the job so the job share was a non starter.

Maybe thone looking at applications etc didn't want to job share the position. The OP herself says there are job shares within the school but none at management HoD level.

Too many variables and unfilled gaps to say it's ILLEGAL etc.

Being pregnant doesn't give you a right to promotion if you aren't the right person for it.

LazyLohan · 23/08/2015 18:35

I hadn't seen that about the job sharer offering to cover. In that case I suspect that it's probably the quality of the jobsharer that is the problem. They may well have felt that with the OPs experience with her support the job sharer would have been suitable. They may have felt that she would not have the skills to do the role alone full time in 5 months. It's a tough one with job share applications, but both people have to come up to scratch. It sounds like maybe on this occasion they didn't and the OP missed out.

I also think that the jobsharers willingness to raise her hours may have rung alarm bells re her commitment to the jobshare and raised a suspicion she intended to jump ship to a full time role fairly quickly.

OwlinaTree · 23/08/2015 18:37

The job share bit could be relevant. Friend has to come off the management team because she wanted to go part time.

Rainuntilseptember15 · 23/08/2015 18:44

Rollergirl how is a promotion "preferential treatment"? You get it if you will do the job well surely, it's not some kind of bonus!
I'm really surprised to see many people saying promoted roles are barred from part time staff. Where I work parttime staff have ranged from unprompted to HOD to deputes.

Shutthatdoor · 23/08/2015 18:48

I'm really surprised to see many people saying promoted roles are barred from part time staff. Where I work parttime staff have ranged from unprompted to HOD to deputes.

In some schools they just don't work though. It has to be on a school by school or even dept by dept basis. What may work in one place may stand no chance of working elsewhere.

CalmYourselfTubbs · 23/08/2015 19:03

don't leave unless you are absolutely sure you want to.
might suit the management nicely, if you leave of your own accord.

RollerGirl7 · 23/08/2015 19:05

Exactly rain, I think the best person for the job should get it, the op seems to be arguing discrimination when I can see none.

When a job is available all candidates should be looked at equally, if both of them can't do overtime, both having time off sick (one with morning sickness, the other with another illness) both planning to take a year long break (one for childcare the other not) then it's not fair that the pregnant women is automatically in a better position than the other candidate.

I'm not saying that the standard conditions of her job and her employment status should t be protected but I don't think businesses should have to make progression etc easier for them whilst it is detrimental to the business.

In near enough all circumstances having a woman who works for you fall pregnant puts additional strain on the business, I think the current laws should be enforced so women don't end up losing jobs on may leave etc but I think some women use discrimination as a way to get everything they want even if it's not quite 'fair'

RollerGirl7 · 23/08/2015 19:07

I say this as someone who interviewed for a promotion 4 months pregnant ( I was never going to get it, if they had offered it me I would have laughed and asked if they were being silly, I just wanted interview practise and to let my boss know I was serious about progression) I did get a promotion on my return to work, I came back ft as it would be ridiculous to try to manage people part time. My employer did the right thing by the business and was fair by me too.

MultiShirker · 23/08/2015 19:15

I'm not sure it's about you being pregnant primarily. Just that, with a job-share, whenever I've had to appoint people on that basis (public sector), it's been ONE job. Both people have to be appointable separately, and they have to have a good case together as well: that is, they have to have agreed basic stuff about how they'll do it, although details are then sorted out by us, and put in contracts by us.

But I've also had people apply for a job (and we always say job-sharing is possible) and say they'd like to job-share, but don't present with a colleague (as you did), and seem to expect us to broker or find a job-share partner.

So it may not be about you being pregnant per se, but you not being available for the job share? As others have said, finding a ML job-share can be difficult, but that shouldn't be a thing, and in my sector, it wouldn't be, as long as each job-share partner were in agreement about hours and so on.

Of course, a solution is to look at two part-time jobs ...

Are you in a position of being able to ask why you weren't considered for the job?

blueshoes · 23/08/2015 19:22

The successful candidate is ft, OP admits can do the job, is cheaper and even offered to cover OP's maternity leave. This is a no-brainer, isn't it?

Any other decision would be perverse. OP hasn't got a great case behind her. She could ask for feedback, but pregnant or not is irrelevant. They are just going to tell her the best candidate got the job.

JanetBlyton · 23/08/2015 19:24

Short maternity leaves followed by full time work rock! It is the way to get out of dross domestic stuff at home and earn a small fortune too. What is not to like?

Last week someone I was working with on her email emailed to say they only work a few days. Well great for them but what are we supposed to do with the deal in the meantime? Does everything just sit on ice for half the week? You heart sinks when you hear about these part timers and the impact on many a business is appalling.