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)

Not to mention the fact that this is a niche role that apparently the country literally couldn't function without, but also some kind of managerial sales/recruitment role. Just a weird, weird thread.

It’s weird because it’s poorly written fiction.

One thing I’m very about is that you keep referring to pregnant people, OP.

It’s pregnant women, surely.

Well done OP. Absolutely take the job if it was offered to you, and don't feel guilty. There are so many people out there that are shit at their jobs, that will stab you in the back, that constantly abuse the system - and they never feel guilty because of any of that. So why should you feel guilty because of a perfectly normal thing such as being pregnant? Just concentrate on your pregnancy and stop overthinking

I find @MyPatronusIsACat views a bit astonishing.

My husband applied for a job when I was 7 months pregnant. He had already agreed with his employer's he'd be taking shared parental leave. When he got the new job, and it was offered to him, he made it a condition he needed to take two months parental leave on x dates. So I think the example of a partner with a pregnant wife/girlfriend is a good one actually: also, its much, MUCH harder for firms to find cover for shorter periods.

In my sector, my maternity leave will be long enough that it will attract a lot of people keen to get managerial experience, and employers are happy to give fixed term roles to people to help them gain experience without being on the hook for a permanent contract. So, its a win-win.

I'm currently applying for a role at 7 months pregnant: now they're hiring lots of different people at once, its a v big organisation, and a long drawn out recruitment process, but if I'm successful its the perfect time IMO. My organisation will have already recruited my mat leave cover. I can just not start the new role till Im finished. And they'll already have done lots of recruitment, so will have a panel of other people who can take the role.

The only time I've ever been annoyed to have hired a pregnant woman was for a fixed term maternity cover - 6 months - when we hired someone who it turned out was herself 5 months pregnant. It was a small charity, and it meant that we had to recruit the role twice and really really struggled with the second recruitment because it was such a short space of time. I did think that was a bit off, but equally I understand her reasoning and don't think she did anything 'wrong'.

I'm mystified though that in a job someone could be in for 5-10 years, one mat leave is an issue. It does make me think we need more mandated paternity leave.

@leakymcleakleak

I find *@MyPatronusIsACat* views a bit astonishing.

My husband applied for a job when I was 7 months pregnant. He had already agreed with his employer's he'd be taking shared parental leave. When he got the new job, and it was offered to him, he made it a condition he needed to take two months parental leave on x dates. So I think the example of a partner with a pregnant wife/girlfriend is a good one actually: also, its much, MUCH harder for firms to find cover for shorter periods.

In my sector, my maternity leave will be long enough that it will attract a lot of people keen to get managerial experience, and employers are happy to give fixed term roles to people to help them gain experience without being on the hook for a permanent contract. So, its a win-win.

I'm currently applying for a role at 7 months pregnant: now they're hiring lots of different people at once, its a v big organisation, and a long drawn out recruitment process, but if I'm successful its the perfect time IMO. My organisation will have already recruited my mat leave cover. I can just not start the new role till Im finished. And they'll already have done lots of recruitment, so will have a panel of other people who can take the role.

The only time I've ever been annoyed to have hired a pregnant woman was for a fixed term maternity cover - 6 months - when we hired someone who it turned out was herself 5 months pregnant. It was a small charity, and it meant that we had to recruit the role twice and really really struggled with the second recruitment because it was such a short space of time. I did think that was a bit off, but equally I understand her reasoning and don't think she did anything 'wrong'.

I'm mystified though that in a job someone could be in for 5-10 years, one mat leave is an issue. It does make me think we need more mandated paternity leave.

But again you're talking about big organisations. If the role's attractive people will be willing to do it for the experience and for specialist roles the pool of candidates is small anyway - so it still makes sense for the org to hire a pregnant woman and muddle along with a temp (or otherwise) for 9 months with the promise of a well-qualified person at the end. In any case big orgs generally have a pool of experience to draw on - so for example junior people may carry out the role under senior supervision. As a junior I did lots of this cover and agreed, it was a win-win as it helped me progress my career.

However what happens in a smaller org that really needs the person in their role and can't magic up the resources to plug the gap? Or if the role is generic and hiring any of the others wouldn't have made a difference except that the org wouldn't have to find a temp?

Again - it's not the maternity leave that's an issue. It's the short notice if the new hire is at the end of their pregnancy. If someone is 1-2 months pregnant I don't see the issue.

In your charity case what the woman did was taking the piss - she took on a contract that she knew she'd be unable to fulfil. Whether it was because she was pregnant, had a several month long dream vacation planned or whatever was irrelevant. From an employer POV I certainly wouldn't recommend her for any permanent positions. From an individual POV I can see why she did it if she really needed the money. I would do it in such a position but would accept that it might mean a black mark against me rather than expecting the employer to happily accept it.

@ReeseWitherfork

The company will jump through every legal hoop with a smile on their face.

The manager that gave you the job will think 'Note to self: avoid emplying younger women.'

Not saying it's fair, but that is what will happen.

Unless of course, the manager understands that babies are part of life, maternity leave happens, finds reasonable cover for 6 months, and then OP comes back and wows the shit out of them, achieves lots, and stays for significantly longer than the 6 months she was off for.

Every single woman of childbearing age is an asset to someone. We have a part to play and a contribution to make. The sooner the entirety of the western world accepts that the logistics of maternity cover are a fact of life (whether that person has been with a company two months of twenty years) the better. You might all be happy getting your husband's lasagne on the table at 5pm every night, or getting stuck as the office wench for your 20s and 30s, but I'm sure as hell not.

And if the manager doesn't understand that?

I interviewed for a job while pregnant. Told them after I'd accepted the offer. Was promoted within a year of returning from mat leave so I must be doing something right don't feel guilty OP, you were the best candidate.

@burritofan

Of course you weren’t being U! Would a man with a heavily pregnant partner not apply for jobs? We’ve just employed three new starters; two more than six months pregnant. Best people for the jobs, which are permanent positions – we’d rather have them in the role forever, but taking maternity leave soon, than choose second-best candidates.

Not even a comparison as the man wouldn't be needing several months off work

I started my current job when 20 weeks pregnant. They've been fantastic, getting maternity sorted. I don't feel bad, I shouldn't have to worry about taking time off for a baby, I'll be taking the same amount of time off if I'm there 5 months or 5 years 🤷🏻‍♀️

@AICM if a manager doesn't accept that then you can bet your bottom dollar they are a poor manager in other areas too. Bad managers recruit and don't value high performers. Those non high performers also sit on your team and often put more stress on the other team members.

@HalzTangz actually legally a man can take off as much if not more time off than a women. It happens frequently if you treat humans like actual adults who don't have to apologise for having kids. Legally speaking most doctors won't sign a women back to work before 6 weeks after giving birth, but the women has the right to share her leave with her partner.
I keep seeing more and more men do this, and the more they do it, the more acceptable it will become.

Like it or not the tide is turning and the world of business, adapt or die is quite literally built on the backs of staff.

As a woman and a feminist I think you stick to your guns.

As a manager I would find this a little frustrating but basically would understand. I might feel differently if this was a small family run business or whatever which would really struggle. But you've mentioned it's a big company - of course they can suck it up and you're best for the job.

For all those saying she shouldn't YOU'RE part of the reason women struggle to advance their careers.

I think it's fine to apply whilst pregnant however I do feel it should be brought up at interview stage. Larger companies can afford to pay someone to cover the role but smaller companies may not be able to.

If the company still chooses to hire you knowing the full facts then great, but I wouldn't blame a small company for turning someone down

My sister has her own company. It's pretty successful, but she's not a multi-million £ Business. When she advertises for a role it is because she needs someone to work for her then - not in 6, 12 months time. She's had her fingers burned employing women who are already pregnant and then want a year off and come back pregnant. It has cost her lots of money and caused a lot of hassle.

The result is that she no longer employs younger women, only those over 50 whether they have children or not. Her employees are talented, mature and dedicated and she's got staff who are reliable and mature.

@secretSpAD genuine question because I don't know the answer, but why does maternity leave cost your sister anything? I assumed statutory maternity leave was recouped by the government? I would guess recruitment and training costs are a problem too, but I'd assume any successful business factor these costs in.

Your sister does realise that if women aged 20-40 were barred from having a job then it would hurt her company more because our economy would take a nosedive? Not to mention that all these 50 year old women she's hiring wouldn't have had any experience so may not be so valuable. Think she might be a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

what's your solution to the very real problem of lost revenue/recruiting effort?

It's not a "problem" though is it. Women going on maternity leave isn't a problem. Would you call annual leave, bereavement leave or sick leave a problem? It's part and parcel of having employees. The added benefit of a new employee going off on mat leave versus an established employee is that you've just done a recruitment round and likely met other candidates who may very well be suitable and willing cover.

@HalzTangz

I think it's fine to apply whilst pregnant however I do feel it should be brought up at interview stage. Larger companies can afford to pay someone to cover the role but smaller companies may not be able to.

If the company still chooses to hire you knowing the full facts then great, but I wouldn't blame a small company for turning someone down

Very poor advice. Do not do this!! Women should NEVER disclose a pregnancy (if they can help it) until after a job offer has been made. Why give any organisation of any size the opportunity to discriminate against you? Not disclosing actually protects the organisation from being accused of discrimination if they don’t end up offering the job. Same goes for disability and other protected characteristics.

I’m really struggling to understand the ‘logic’ of pregnant women supposedly damaging the rights of other women.

If I’ve understood correctly the argument is pregnant women should be discriminated against so non-pregnant women are not discriminated against? I’m actually disgusted that there are women who think this is ok.

How about organisations just stop discriminating against all women in the first place so we don’t have to sacrifice a particular group of women to help other women. We should not just lie down and accept that it’s tough shit if you’re pregnant, you can’t have the job.

And before people come at me about the cost impacts of small family businesses and charities - sorry I have no sympathy. Organisations of any size that employ staff have to expect the unexpected costs that come with recruitment, statutory entitlement to leave and equality law . Whether it be short or long term sick leave, maternity, paternity, shared parental leave, unpaid parental leave, reasonable adjustments for someone with disabilities, someone starting a job but then quitting quickly. Realising someone on probabtion isn’t meeting expectations so have to let them go and recruit again. And so on. I get it’s frustrating and a pain to have to manage and cover the costs when these things happen. But even small businesses and charities have to expect this and it is all part and parcel of running any organisation.

So what is the defining characteristic that the ONLY one of the above examples is ever vilified as being unreasonable / morally wrong / dishonest etc. to do to a business. Being Pregnant. And I can not see a single shred of justification for it.

Update
Offered role
Disclosed pregnancy to person A (panel member from the interview)
Person A made out like the job role would be gone by the time I returned from mat leave . Though no clear discrimination, she made out like there's no point in me undertaking the role for such a short time.
So I declined the job offer
Person B calls. Person B is one of the CEOs of the company. He questions why I declined. I explain convo with person A. He clarifies that is not the case. He already has a plan for me to work up the chain as he was blown away by my interview. Wants me on his team for the next 10 years! He is happy to arrange cover for my leave. He pushes me into changing my mind though now must find a creative way to justify giving me a role I have formally rejected

How strange to experience both sides of the argument in real life in a short period of time.
How strange that the one that tried to hold me back was a woman with children, and the one that gave me a chance was a male! Why are we so mean to each other?

Also must be wary in future of working with person A who is clearly a snake imo!

Whilst I can understand the impact of mat leave on a small business, I think it's upto the government to offer good remuneration to those who support pregnant people so the business benefits from hiring such people

People don't get pregnant OP. Women do.

Congratulations on your new job. It sounds like an amazing opportunity for you.

*The added benefit of a new employee going off on mat leave versus an established employee is that you've just done a recruitment round and likely met other candidates who may very well be suitable and willing cover.^

Or it might not! Maybe this was just one of the jobs the other candidates were going for and they’ve now accepted something else. Alternatively, if it’s a job that demands such high ability and experience, the other candidates probably already have jobs which they are not going to leave for a 6 months temporary post. It would be lovely for the employer if they could just call the second choice and they’d be happy to take the role - meanwhile in the real world ... There really is no saying that the employer won’t have to go through the whole recruitment process again, this time offering the less attractive temporary contact. There is also the possibility that if the second choice (and it may have been very close between the two) does accept the temporary contact, they excel in the role but the employer has to let them go after 6 months.

Very poor advice. Do not do this!! Women should NEVER disclose a pregnancy (if they can help it) until after a job offer has been made. Why give any organisation of any size the opportunity to discriminate against you?

Additionally, while this is good for the pregnant candidate, this will ensure a time lag between the recruitment process and the employer knowing that they will have to recruit temporary cover.

^Also must be wary in future of working with person A who is clearly a snake imo!*

Sounds more like a company with very poor communication between those doing the recruitment.