Applying for a new job while pregnant

[Traveller3367]

7 months pregnant
Saw a job that I thought I would be good at
Applied without mentioning I was pregnant
Been offered the role and have informed employer I am pregnant and due to go on mat leave soon
They will see if they can get cover but I have offered to decline the position if they cannot.
My question is was I being unreasonable in applying in the first place?
(Ps I wasn't hiding my pregnancy. I didn't know when was best to mention it. Didn't want employer to think I was using it against them if they declined me. Also I valued the chance to network and get some interview practice. Was not expecting to get the role as a big jump for me career wise)

@SecretSpAD
So your sister discriminates because she suffered discrimination?
Isn't that like an abuser justifying their abuse because they suffered it too?
What your sister and you fail to realise is that those discriminatory attitudes can come back to bite you / her if you have daughters / DILs who are working and fall pregnant. Or worse don't get hired for being young women
Your sister needs to lose her entitled attitude because she suffered discrimination. Makes her behaviour even more despicable

[quote SecretSpAD]@Blossomtoes it would appear that some people on here cannot listen to other women's lived experiences and how this small group of women are impacting others because they are too selfish and too busy seeing discrimination where there is none, and ignoring actual discrimination of older women. [/quote]
I think that’s absolutely right. The ageism is sickening. The irony is that it’s the generation of women they don’t give a shit about who they have to thank for maternity rights existing in the first place. There were none when I was a new mother.

I was so pleased to see maternity rights introduced. Little did I think those of who fought for them would be thrown under the bus like this.

I just feel sad for the poor sods having to cover the work whilst they are trying to get a replacement.
It’s hard work when someone leaves and you have to go through all of the rigmarole of replacing them. Then the replacement announces they are pregnant and you now have to find a temp, not knowing how long for. Will the person on maternity leave then want to come back part-time?
No I’m not bitter at all trying to cover two peoples work

*The ageism is sickening. The irony is that it’s the generation of women they don’t give a shit about who they have to thank for maternity rights existing in the first place. There were none when I was a new mother.

I was so pleased to see maternity rights introduced. Little did I think those of who fought for them would be thrown under the bus like this.*

What are you on about. Discussing the rights of pregnant women in the workplace is not ageism. They are separate issues. Are you suggesting pregnant women are taking the roles of older women? Please elaborate if so because I’m totally missing any correlation here.

Why does my bold function never work!!

Discussing the rights of pregnant women in the workplace is not ageism. They are separate issues. Are you suggesting pregnant women are taking the roles of older women? Please elaborate if so because I’m totally missing any correlation here

You’re pissed off because Secretspad’s sister prefers employing post menopausal women, aren’t you? That’s the connection. 🙄

@Blossomtoes

Discussing the rights of pregnant women in the workplace is not ageism. They are separate issues. Are you suggesting pregnant women are taking the roles of older women? Please elaborate if so because I’m totally missing any correlation here

You’re pissed off because Secretspad’s sister prefers employing post menopausal women, aren’t you? That’s the connection. 🙄

Not in the slightest! I don’t want older women discriminated against. I don’t want pregnant women discriminated against. Secrets sister is purposely discriminating against pregnant/younger women. She doesn’t have to do that to support older women.

@islandbeach

Why does my bold function never work!!

Oh oh, I can answer this question. I started a thread on it once. You can't just put an at the beginning and end if the text. have to start each individual line with an and end each line with an , and no spaces between the word and .

Oh see what happens when you don't leave a gap. Lol. Let me say that again.

You can't just put an at the beginning and end of the text. You have to start each individual line with an and end each line with an and no spaces between the word and the .

That's better. 🙂

@islandbeach

I do have an issue with someone taking a new job while pregnant, it feels tone deaf to me. Under those circumstances I’d be really pissed off as a colleague who will either have to pick up the slack or facilitate two lots of induction. It doesn’t make much business sense to me either.

There’s all sorts of circumstances where this might happen. But you only seem to have an issue when it’s relating to pregnant women.

Just wondering what exactly it is you expect pregnant women to do?

The issue isn't the circumstance happening but whether it was under the employee's control.

Father going on shared parental leave - same view, should not apply.

Long term sickness - can't be pre-empted assuming they fell ill after getting the job. Not employee's fault. People won't be pissed.

Someone quitting/being sacked - Sacking rarely happens without advance warning. Quitting during probation allows company to resume search and hire a new, permanent candidate which permanently solves the issue. Different having to find and hire a sticking plaster knowing that you'll have to pick up the slack for at least several more months (period of temp becoming useful, then leaving just as they are, and then actual new hire returning and period for them to become useful).

Whether the reason is pregnancy, having booked the 9 month holiday of a lifetime, or a year-long MSC (yes, this has actually happened!) is irrelevant. If you know you're only going to be able to do your job in a year then you're expecting other people to cover for you unplanned and that's taking the piss.

To turn your question back on its head - I judge everybody the same if they fulfil the criteria above. What is your rationale for giving pregnant women special treatment?

*taking the piss if you know that finding cover isn't going to be easy etc as mentioned in earlier posts.

@Blossomtoes

Discussing the rights of pregnant women in the workplace is not ageism. They are separate issues. Are you suggesting pregnant women are taking the roles of older women? Please elaborate if so because I’m totally missing any correlation here

You’re pissed off because Secretspad’s sister prefers employing post menopausal women, aren’t you? That’s the connection. 🙄

It would appear to be the case yes. My sister has two daughters. They have been brought up not to take the piss in the workplace.

I'm afraid that the people who are actually damaging young women's positions in the workplace are that group of women who think that it is acceptable to seek new employment whilst knowingly pregnant and whilst knowing they will take off a whole year, and then will be having another years mat leave soon after.

Someone being in post for a while and getting pregnant - fab.
Someone starting a post and discovering they are pregnant just after joining - unfortunate timing but fab.
Someone starting a new job heavily pregnant and fucking off a few weeks Later not to be seen for a year - taking the piss.

It is this third group of women that are making all employers suspicious of employing younger women. And that is unfair on all the other women who do not take the piss.

But carry on shouting discrimination and lets hope that you never actually experience any.

[quote Traveller3367]@SecretSpAD
So your sister discriminates because she suffered discrimination?
Isn't that like an abuser justifying their abuse because they suffered it too?
What your sister and you fail to realise is that those discriminatory attitudes can come back to bite you / her if you have daughters / DILs who are working and fall pregnant. Or worse don't get hired for being young women
Your sister needs to lose her entitled attitude because she suffered discrimination. Makes her behaviour even more despicable[/quote]
You are so out of order attacking this poster and saying her sister is despicable - what give you the right to say that when you're the entitled one.

I think you just started this thread purely for your own ego. I think your update is weirdly timed.

That poster came on to say that your sisters business had been messed about by women of rearing age taking the piss and having back to back maternity leaves without actually doing the work that needs to be done.

I dont think its despicable for her to stop hiring women that may do that to her and risk her business.

Its not fair in the women who wouldn't have taken the mick but she deserves to have a viable business as much as those women deserve to have families.

The law is supposed to make things equal but they're are always people that play the system leaving others to both pick up the slack. These plenty of women with kids who continue to work but they're not taken serious because of piss takers in the same category - thats the knock on affect.

Agree with a previous poster about having the rationale for treating pregnant women differently to someone that wants tool take a year long break for other reasons.

i think its because praising motherhood seems to be the only acceptable version of feminism and claiming this behaviour is feminist is this is a way of inflating the ego and own importance. When really it doesn't support the way you claim.

@SecretSpAD

I'm afraid that the people who are actually damaging young women's positions in the workplace are that group of women who think that it is acceptable to seek new employment whilst knowingly pregnant and whilst knowing they will take off a whole year, and then will be having another years mat leave soon after.

Someone being in post for a while and getting pregnant - fab.
Someone starting a post and discovering they are pregnant just after joining - unfortunate timing but fab.
Someone starting a new job heavily pregnant and fucking off a few weeks Later not to be seen for a year - taking the piss.

It is this third group of women that are making all employers suspicious of employing younger women. And that is unfair on all the other women who do not take the piss.

But carry on shouting discrimination and lets hope that you never actually experience any.

This. Especially paras 2 and 3.

@neednotknow
Why utter tripe
The legislation is there to protect pregnant women whether they are in or seeking new employment. As pps have said, does a heavily pregnant woman not need to pay bills?
Pregnancy is a time of great vulnerability. Increased risk of domestic violence and clearly from this thread risk of being discriminated against and not given a job.
Pregnancies aren't always happy occasions. They'll be women who are carrying pregnancies resulting from rape. Discrimination a whole group of women who are already more at risk of abuse is despicable

*Whether the reason is pregnancy, having booked the 9 month holiday of a lifetime, or a year-long MSC (yes, this has actually happened!) is irrelevant. If you know you're only going to be able to do your job in a year then you're expecting other people to cover for you unplanned and that's taking the piss.

To turn your question back on its head - I judge everybody the same if they fulfil the criteria above. What is your rationale for giving pregnant women special treatment?*

If someone wants a 9 month holiday or go on a year long course, they would usually have to resign and the organisation is not obliged to keep the job open (appreciate some companies do offer sabbaticals but it’s not a legal obligation). Someone taking a long period out to study will also but them at an advantage to return to the workplace due to the extra qualification they have gained.

Women reproducing is not comparable, especially when they are the only sex that are able to do so. Forcing women out of the workforce or discriminating against them because they are pregnant puts them at a huge disadvantage for their entire careers because of this attitude of them taking 9 months off like it’s a holiday. And let’s not forget the appalling treatment of women returning to work after having children, even with their existing employers. You could argue that the employer is in a better position than someone having to take time off unexpectedly like sickness because at least they have some notice to plan, even if it’s only two months like in OP case.

There are other disadvantaged groups too of course, which is why there are laws in place to protect all of them. Thankfully. Although we’ve a long way to go for people to actually respect them.

[quote Traveller3367]@neednotknow
Why utter tripe
The legislation is there to protect pregnant women whether they are in or seeking new employment. As pps have said, does a heavily pregnant woman not need to pay bills?
Pregnancy is a time of great vulnerability. Increased risk of domestic violence and clearly from this thread risk of being discriminated against and not given a job.
Pregnancies aren't always happy occasions. They'll be women who are carrying pregnancies resulting from rape. Discrimination a whole group of women who are already more at risk of abuse is despicable[/quote]
All of that’s correct. Why can’t pregnant women stay in the jobs they already have? And why would they want to change jobs and mess their maternity benefit up? It makes no sense.

[quote Traveller3367]@neednotknow
Why utter tripe
The legislation is there to protect pregnant women whether they are in or seeking new employment. As pps have said, does a heavily pregnant woman not need to pay bills?
Pregnancy is a time of great vulnerability. Increased risk of domestic violence and clearly from this thread risk of being discriminated against and not given a job.
Pregnancies aren't always happy occasions. They'll be women who are carrying pregnancies resulting from rape. Discrimination a whole group of women who are already more at risk of abuse is despicable[/quote]
But it's not discrimination against a whole group of women if other people doing the same are viewed similarly. I've already given the real-life example of someone doing the same thing for an MSc. They were told to re-apply once they were available to work. Why is pregnancy different?

For someone already working ; taking leave for personal circumstances out of their control (illness, pregnancy) is a fundamental employee protection. The key here being that it's a life circumstance that happened within their employment.

For someone who isn't hired yet the conditions of hiring are not a life circumstance beyond their control. They are already known. If it's (morally, ethically, whatever) for a pregnant woman to go off on maternity leave immediately after being hired then it should also be acceptable for the MSc student above to expect her job to be waiting for her after she returns from the MSc. Pregnant woman couldn't help losing her job, but MSc student might also have not been able to help losing hers. Pregnant woman can't help being pregnant, MSc student can't help that she's got a scholarship that doesn't allow deferrals.

Now in some cases the firm might choose to keep MSc student on as well. In that case it's perfectly fine! But again it's a perk the firm offers to keep talented people. It shouldn't be expected.

The legislation is there to protect pregnant women whether they are in or seeking new employment.

because in the past, women who are pregnant have been substantially disadvantaged in the work and have been not been treated equally to a) women who aren't pregnant b) men who will never be pregnant.

does a heavily pregnant woman not need to pay bills?

Pregnant women all have differing financial situations. So that point is moot entirely. You yourself have said in this thread that you dont need the company mat pay. Indeed, in most circumstances you're not entitled to it unless you work for an employer for a minimum amount of time.

You're equating the right to have a job and support oneselves financially while pregnant with the right to get better prospects while pregnant.

While the first is an understandable right, the second is a privilege - pregnant or not.

Pregnancies aren't always happy occasions. They'll be women who are carrying pregnancies resulting from rape.

I think you should be very careful where you're going with this. PP did not suggest in anyway that her sister was denying victims of sexual assault work.

Also that example brings up a whole host of issues which I don't think are relevant to a discussion about whether you were reasonable to go for a highly specialised job when you were seven months pregnant even though you're only going to be working there for a few months.

If I give you the benefit of the doubt and say that your point was an employer will not always know the circumstances of your pregnancy. This isn't your circumstance though so I don't think you can align yourself with that to make it better.

Pregnancy is a time of great vulnerability. Increased risk of domestic violence and clearly from this thread risk of being discriminated against and not given a job.

Exactly why i think you were taking the piss by applying because despite being pregnant because you aren't vulnerable. Unless ive missed something or there's a massive dripfeed, you're not being domestically abused, you're not a rape victim and you already have a job you're happy at.

Professionally, I think its taking the piss applying for a job you will have a long break from after only working a few months. Man or woman, pregnant or no.

Its worse that you're pregnant because then other pregnant women are vulnerable will be seen as acting like this.

It's telling that when you were called back, person a, not the ceo but probably the person doing the work, told you the truth.

@TractorAndHeadphones and @neednotknow
So pregnant women in jobs should just be grateful for having a job?
Your points make no sense. Though that's no surprise given your views
So you'd happily discriminate against a pregnant woman, purely based on her pregnancy status. So in fact amongst those you discriminate against ARE the victims of abuse and sexual assault. Unless you are asking every pregnant candidate the circumstances of her pregnancy?
Secondly there are many reasons why a woman may change jobs during pregnancy.
@neednotknow re person A. Clearly her backward views are not universal in the company. And probably why she's not more senior despite being much more experienced and why I will be going in at a much higher pay than her

@islandbeach

*Whether the reason is pregnancy, having booked the 9 month holiday of a lifetime, or a year-long MSC (yes, this has actually happened!) is irrelevant. If you know you're only going to be able to do your job in a year then you're expecting other people to cover for you unplanned and that's taking the piss.

To turn your question back on its head - I judge everybody the same if they fulfil the criteria above. What is your rationale for giving pregnant women special treatment?*

If someone wants a 9 month holiday or go on a year long course, they would usually have to resign and the organisation is not obliged to keep the job open (appreciate some companies do offer sabbaticals but it’s not a legal obligation). Someone taking a long period out to study will also but them at an advantage to return to the workplace due to the extra qualification they have gained.

Women reproducing is not comparable, especially when they are the only sex that are able to do so. Forcing women out of the workforce or discriminating against them because they are pregnant puts them at a huge disadvantage for their entire careers because of this attitude of them taking 9 months off like it’s a holiday. And let’s not forget the appalling treatment of women returning to work after having children, even with their existing employers. You could argue that the employer is in a better position than someone having to take time off unexpectedly like sickness because at least they have some notice to plan, even if it’s only two months like in OP case.

There are other disadvantaged groups too of course, which is why there are laws in place to protect all of them. Thankfully. Although we’ve a long way to go for people to actually respect them.

But nobody's 'forcing them' out of the workforce. They're simply saying that they should apply once they are available much like everybody else in all the other situations. Nobody's saying that pregnancy is a holiday (I compared it to an MSc which is most certainly not a holiday). Merely that applying for a job when you know you won't be around to do it for a while is taking the piss. Whatever the reason for not being around is. You are expecting the job to be held for you - but while you've passed the interviews nobody even knows if you'll actually perform because you haven't actually done it for a length of time. It's hedging your bets, and IMO not a sign of good faith.

Now if people were already employed then there's no issue. Nobody can predict whether they will get pregnant, so it's all done in good faith. And as employees jobs etc must be protected, fair enough.

The treatment of women after they return to work is a separate matter altogether.

Thankfully these backwards views are being challenged at many levels and we have legislation to protect us

@TractorAndHeadphones
But it's not discrimination against a whole group of women if other people doing the same are viewed similarly. I've already given the real-life example of someone doing the same thing for an MSc

Did you just compare having a baby to doing an MSc? Im currently doing one and it's a piece of pee compared to childbirth and newborn care.
How ridiculous to compare a potentially life threatening experience to a degree or a holiday?