To try for a baby when I've got a new job?

[namechange5628]

Name changed for this.

I started a new (part-time) job 2 weeks ago. I really wanted to TTC early next year but I'm worried that they could dismiss me. Would I qualify for Mat leave?

Has anyone been in this situation before? Is it worth holding out an extra few months before trying?

@blueshoes then they better not hire any women younger than 55 just to be certain.

Or any men full stop, since there's always the possibility they'll take off all but 5 weeks of the available parental leave and they stay fertile until past retirement age.

With that said OP, unless my age meant it was now or never, I'd hold fire for a bit first. Get used to the job, bed down, play the long game. I think getting yourself well established and showing them how good you are is likely to be more beneficial to you in the long run than a gap that might only be a few months more than your ideal one. Some of the attitudes on here are gross, but they do exist, and you might be impacted by them.

Also how old are you, and do they offer any enhanced pay after a certain period of service? Did it take you a long time to conceive your first child? I'm just wondering if there are any other reasons why you feel it ought to be now.

How depressing to read a post from somebody rejoicing that she works in the public sector and hence was better able to take the piss at everybody else’s expense. You know, the people who pay tax.

One of the reasons that the public sector is inefficient is that their primary focus is not offending each other, when it should be delivery. That’s why the duffer quotient is higher than in the private sector: people are terrified of addressing poor performance or calling direct reports out on questionable decisions like becoming pregnant two minutes after starting a new job, with no thought to the impact on the business or on colleagues. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that public sector organisations welcome this sort of behaviour.

Great post from Knightly

Nettle what a load of utter nonsense, having a baby is not taking the piss ffs. My own experience of working in the public sector (teaching) is that it is a less understanding and more hostile environment that the private sector. I wouldn't go back for anything.

Having a baby is not taking the piss, no. Starting a new job and not disclosing that you are pregnant, or trying for a baby as soon as you start a new job, is.

No it isn't. Women have to work to support themselves, jobs for most people are a necessity not a luxury that can be timed around being pregnant. Women get made redundant when they are pregnant, not all pregnancies are even planned. Presumably you'd be trilling about taxpayers money if the OP was on benefits and planning a pregnancy, but because she has a job that is also wrong

No way do you need to tell them you are ttc! It can take months for a start and then a pregnancy is 9 months long

So you think that anybody holding the same view as me and a number of other posters must be thoroughly evil and hence must dislike anybody on benefits?

Oh dear. Have you had much practice in constructing sensible arguments?

I note that you have attempted to hijack the thread to moan about teaching, too. Do try to stay on topic.

The topic here, by the way, is not a woman going from no job to an economically necessary job. No, she has recently changed jobs and now wants to please herself at the expense of her employer and colleagues. If she waits for a year, they will be more reconciled to her going off on maternity leave. That’s not an equality matter. As others have sensibly noted, a man new in post announcing his intent to go on leave for a year would be thought of similarly.

We started ttc 6 months into a role I was promoted into as we figured financially we would be in a better position after a year or so on my new salary and I would have 12-18months in the role. It ended up taking 2.5yrs to conceive, but second time around I fell pg immediately, so I'm glad I allowed a settling in period.

To clear up some misinformation on the first page, you are entitled to maternity leave from the moment you start work and are pregnant - there is no requirement for you to have worked there for 26 weeks before the 15th week before the expected week of childbirth. That requirement only applies to statutory maternity pay. As others have said, contractual maternity leave (if there is any) depends on the policy where you work.

Op some confusing info on this page. You will be entitled to maternity leave (up to 52 weeks) but not necessarily statutory maternity pay (maybe maternity allowance if you have built up enough employment over a specific period). Have a look at nhs guidance which is prob one of the better employers but might give you a bench mark

@Nettletheelf

If you actually read my first post you will see that I found out I was pregnant after I was offered the job but had not started yet. I called my manager and told him as soon as I found out BEFORE I started the job.

Please read posts through before jumping in with your two cents.

Oh and to add to this... the government pays statutory maternity pay to everybody, not just those in the public sector, so the cost to the "tax payer" was the same whether I stayed in my old job (private) or moved to the new job.

Not telling you when to start TTC but have you checked the maternity policy of the company? I have been in my role for two years and qualify for better maternity than I would have done

I read your post properly, thanks.

Can you understand that (1) you are not the only person working in the public sector, (2) that the argument was not based on your personal circumstances (you’re an example, not a representative of all pregnant women in public sector roles), (3) that the public sector’s ‘more welcoming’ attitude to women who deliberately become pregnant very quickly after joining doesn’t mean that every employer should be expected to accommodate the wishes of every woman working for them at their own expense - even the public sector don’t like it but are scared to say so! - and (4) the cost to the taxpayer of people in public sector roles going off on maternity leave soon after being recruited is not SMP but the cost of arranging often expensive temporary cover and the learning curve for the person covering?

OP do what is right for you.
I would say if you are in your 20s then you've probs got some time so as this job is especially important to you wait until summer if it eases your mind.

If you're over 30 don't delay as there's no guarantee you'd be going off in Oct anyway.

It's also not "taking the piss" to have a baby, it's quite literally the cycle of life. And as no contraception is perfect anyone who is having sex can get pregnant at any time.

Once again, having a baby is not taking the piss. Deliberately trying to get pregnant just after starting a new role, knowing that it will inconvenience your employer and colleagues, because it’s “right for you”, is.

Nettle, yes yes I understand all your points. Would love to reply with a structured argument such as yours but must go take the kids out. I'm not working today as I'm busy taking the piss on maternity leave again .

Merry Christmas x

Happy flouncing!

Oh dear. Have you had much practice in constructing sensible arguments?

I note that you have attempted to hijack the thread to moan about teaching, too. Do try to stay on topic.

Hahahaha the irony . It's pretty bloody simple, a woman getting pregnant is not taking the piss, whenever it happens.

Over 10 years ago now, I fell pregnant 3 months into my new job, and hid it well after until I passed 6 months probation. Gave birth 1 year the actual start in this job. 12 years and 1 more DC later, everything worked out well and I have no regrets even though it was not planned and I did feel bad about hiding my pregnancy.

Now I've got a new job offer and considering taking it up. I am not ruling out having my 3rd DC but in this case I would wait at least passing the probation before TTC. I am 40 so can't wait too long.

You've got to do what's right for you and your family. You don't know how soon you will fall pregnant. The decent thing to do would be to wait to pass the probation. But women fall pregnant all the time. Yes it is inconvenience to the employer, but they deal with it all the time too. Also depends on the size of your employer. Smaller firms probably more vulnerable.

That’s not an equality matter. As others have sensibly noted, a man new in post announcing his intent to go on leave for a year would be thought of similarly.

Yes it is an equality issue because men can't have babies and that is why they don't need to go on maternity leave.

I believe men are now entitled to shared parental leave of up to 50 weeks a year. If a man announced shortly after joining a company that he was going to take a substantial shared parental leave, he would be given short shrift too.

It is not an equality issue.

Yes it is. Men DO NOT GIVE BIRTH . That is the basic difference between men and women that is the cause of workplace discrimination. The entitlement of men to shared parental leave is a start but the point is women do not have a choice about taking maternity leave if they have a baby men do. Although women don't have to take a year that is a choice. I can't believe that people who I assume are generally intelligent need this spelling out to them. It will only stop being an equality issue when medical science can equip men to have babies.

“Starting a new job and not disclosing that you are pregnant, or trying for a baby as soon as you start a new job, is.”

Why would you tell your workplace you are trying for a baby?!

Honestly, a job is just that. It’s not a feeling, sentinent being with thoughts and feelings!

If he'd only started a job he wouldn't be entitled to shared leave. Plus the mother has to cut short her maternity leave in order to share it with him if he did qualify