Taking a job in a tiny business when pregnant

[Fromageetvino]

Ok so I know IABU but venting a little.
I took on my first FT employee in July this year (already have 1 x part timer). Three weeks in she disclosed that she is pregnant and is now off on Mat leave.

It’s an industry where recruiting is super difficult at the moment so getting a mat leave cover is likely to be practically impossible.

I know it’s her right etc, and of course have treated her fairly and she will be returning whenever she chooses to return.

But if I’m honest - it’s absolutely screwed our plans for any growth this year (on top of covid troubles).

While I know it’s “right” would you take on a job in a small business when pregnant?

Am prepared to get flamed here (hence the NC).

@IntermittentParps stop self selecting what I said.
Someone suggested that I advertise the job as temp to perm with a strong emphasis that it may go permanent. It was said “that’s better than sitting whining” or similar.

My point was that enticing someone out of a role with empty promises in an action - one that could impact someone’s life. Me moaning on MN and feeling how I do is simply a feeling. It will have zero impact on anyone’s life.

And ok, so three months lost is a small investment, tell you what - pass me over three months of 20% of your salary. Then in a years time I’ll take another three months of your salary. Then tell me what a small investment it was.

If it was a tiny business I probably wouldn't as would feel too guilty

I'd actually doubt how competent she was. Who leaves a job when 6 months pregnant unless she was shit at her job and about to get the boot anyway? And who chooses to put themselves in such uncertainty, making themselves an obvious target for discrimination unless she gives zero shits about her job?

Could be a number of reasons. Maybe old job wasn’t family friendly or flexible with hours, or this job better matched her skills.

Or she could have re-located (eg partner taking a new job or moving in together).

Or she didn’t want a gap on her CV. Or needed to be employed for getting a mortgage or rental contract.

Maybe such niche roles don’t come up very often so she had to take it while she could?

For those pondering on the whys. While I obviously don’t know. I get the feeling that her previous employer was very high stress, and very unlikely to make any provisions upon return (am fully expecting to be asked to switch to PT hours upon return - again if this was definite it can be managed - but it’s the uncertainty that’s the killer).

[quote Fromageetvino]@IntermittentParps stop self selecting what I said.
Someone suggested that I advertise the job as temp to perm with a strong emphasis that it may go permanent. It was said “that’s better than sitting whining” or similar.

My point was that enticing someone out of a role with empty promises in an action - one that could impact someone’s life. Me moaning on MN and feeling how I do is simply a feeling. It will have zero impact on anyone’s life.

And ok, so three months lost is a small investment, tell you what - pass me over three months of 20% of your salary. Then in a years time I’ll take another three months of your salary. Then tell me what a small investment it was.[/quote]
No, I’m not self-selecting. You said you wouldn’t want to advertise a job like that for moral reasons. I find it funny/weird that you’re less bothered about upsetting potential hypothetical new staff members than feeling aggrieved about an existing one.
Investments: well, I’m freelance, so I don’t have a salary; I have variable amounts of income due to ebbs and flows of work, and a variable cash flow due to clients sometimes paying me late/mucking up the amounts they pay. I plan for this as much as I can and have always known it’d happen sometimes. As a business owner, you should similarly know that you may lose staff for a number of reasons, maternity being one pretty predictable one, and plan for it. Especially if you want to build your business.

@IntermittentParps so you think it’s morally ok to say that a job is highly likely to be permanent when it’s not? Potentially taking someone out of a protected role and leaving them unexpectedly without an income?

These won’t be freelancers - I already use freelancers. This would be someone highly likely to be employed elsewhere. You honestly think that’s an ok thing to do?

without the maternity card being played

Wow!

@Fromageetvino

Also Blossom, I’m not sure why you’re surprised. There are plenty of ways in which very small employers are disadvantaged (smaller even then me). Tax liability is a major one. Access to funding throughout the pandemic was a HUGE one.

I don’t tend to complain about this - it is what it is, but please don’t think that there isn’t an imbalance. So when you say “fuck small businesses” and trot off to Starbucks rather than your local coffee shop, that’s what you’re supporting.

Because I thought all businesses claimed back SSP as they do SMP. That’s all. I was also surprised they can claim SMP and not SSP. Although I expect if businesses were also made to pay SMP then it would make discrimination against women even worse than it already is. At least businesses having to pay SSP applies to all employees, yet funnily enough you don’t see nearly as many threads about small business owners having to actually pay SSP out of their own money to someone as you do them complaining about pregnant women and maternity leave.

However your issues with small businesses being disadvantaged by government policies is not an excuse for them to take it out on pregnant women, unlawfully discriminate against them, moan about them, when they have done nothing wrong.

Complain about the lack of government support by all means, I’ve no doubt it’s justified, but not the woman who is pregnant who needs a job just as much as anyone else and has a right to protect herself from discrimination.

And yeah, I would still rather support a large business who do not discriminate against women, no matter how tough small businesses find it to stay afloat. No excuse I’m afraid.

Anyway, you’re basically going to try and pick apart anything that I say, so I’ll bow out.

@WouldIBeATwat yes it is but don’t you only qualify for paid mat leave if you’ve been there for a certain amount of time before going off?

Yes. But you also accrue annual leave (5.6 weeks min) whilst on mat leave. You’d also continue to get any other benefits staff get (car/private health/employers pension conts).

@Blossom987 I was replying to your point about small businesses “whinging”. Trust me those boards made up 98% men, those who don’t pay their fair share of taxes, put workers on zero hour contracts damage women far more than Colin the cafe owner who feels a bit iffy about employing a pregnant woman.

Neither is right but one disadvantages more women and in wider ways.

[quote Fromageetvino]@IntermittentParps so you think it’s morally ok to say that a job is highly likely to be permanent when it’s not? Potentially taking someone out of a protected role and leaving them unexpectedly without an income?

These won’t be freelancers - I already use freelancers. This would be someone highly likely to be employed elsewhere. You honestly think that’s an ok thing to do?[/quote]
I think you’re deliberately misconstruing. I didn’t say ‘highly likely’. And I do think it’s perfectly fine to say ‘maternity cover with a possibility of going permanent’.

I discussed freelancers in direct response to your question about taking a percentage of my ‘salary’. Again, perhaps you were being wilfully obtuse about that.

@Fromageetvino

For those pondering on the whys. While I obviously don’t know. I get the feeling that her previous employer was very high stress, and very unlikely to make any provisions upon return (am fully expecting to be asked to switch to PT hours upon return - again if this was definite it can be managed - but it’s the uncertainty that’s the killer).

I started a role when I was 5 months pregnant. The interview happened when I was around 8 weeks pregnant so I half expected the pregnancy not to last. Then there were pre employment checks which took a few months. I had to leave my previous role because this came to an end - it was fixed term. In my industry fixed term contracts are the norm and it is often hard to plan a pregnancy around such (often) unstable work, when contracts may be 12, 18 or 24 months long for instance.

@IntermittentParps you were not the poster who advised it. But go on - answer the question. Which person would you rather be - the one who is sitting on mat leave with a job to come back to - or the one who was tempted away with empty promises?

But it's not unusual to say with mat cover x months with possibility of engineering or going permanent. It doesn't make you a bad employer to think of yourself too, if you'd had advertised at least when she first told you then perhaps you would have found someone, definitely a higher chance of doing so rather than doing nothing.

And not everyone who applies for jobs are being tempted away, quite a lot of my friends have done mat cover in jobs that are a step up from where they were as its a great way to get experience and often less competition for them. For others it just suits them better, you're assuming all are looking for a permanent job when that's not the case.

As a very small business making the change from essentially self employed plus freelancers to employer is a massive step. It comes with big potential advantages in the long term but in the short term it usually means a massive hit to profitability. Businesses that get over this hump are the ones that really start to grow.

Your employee could have a range of issues that prevented them working, mental health, physical health, sudden caring responsibilities etc etc. it is all part and parcel of being an employer.

You think your employee was deceitful for not telling you but it is highly likely that you would not have employed her if you'd known. If you had been in her position and really wanted a new job for the long term (knowing you wouldn't be entitled to any maternity benefits in the short term) then do you really know that you wouldn't have done the same?

You are not being unreasonable to be annoyed but you have to expect this as part and parcel of making the step up. If your business can't handle it then it really isn't ready.

[quote Fromageetvino]@IntermittentParps you were not the poster who advised it. But go on - answer the question. Which person would you rather be - the one who is sitting on mat leave with a job to come back to - or the one who was tempted away with empty promises?[/quote]
the one who was tempted away with empty promises
This is very emotive language. And you’re not making sense/engaging with what people have actually said.
I think you’re the only person who’s saying that you’d offer a job with a ‘strong possibility’ of turning permanent. Everyone else is making the much more likely and sensible suggestion that it would be advertised as something along the lines of ’ML cover with possibility of turning permanent’.
When I was last in the market for a salaried job I took a role advertised as exactly this. It suited me for various reasons. So I can truthfully say (ignoring/not engaging with the emotive terms you use) that in this scenario I’d rather be the person taking the temp job.

How about you answer the question others have asked, of why you are not prepared, after being in business for seven years, for possible staff absences including the fairly predictable one of maternity?

@Tabbacus I have advertised the role - no one wants it. I wouldn’t want it!

However this thread has given me food for thought around just going with a second permanent role. I’ve stepped away from doing this as I’m risk adverse (for myself and my staff). But perhaps I shouldn’t be.

@DownToTheSleighAgain

As a very small business making the change from essentially self employed plus freelancers to employer is a massive step. It comes with big potential advantages in the long term but in the short term it usually means a massive hit to profitability. Businesses that get over this hump are the ones that really start to grow.

Your employee could have a range of issues that prevented them working, mental health, physical health, sudden caring responsibilities etc etc. it is all part and parcel of being an employer.

You think your employee was deceitful for not telling you but it is highly likely that you would not have employed her if you'd known. If you had been in her position and really wanted a new job for the long term (knowing you wouldn't be entitled to any maternity benefits in the short term) then do you really know that you wouldn't have done the same?

You are not being unreasonable to be annoyed but you have to expect this as part and parcel of making the step up. If your business can't handle it then it really isn't ready.

I agree with you. And the plans for the hits in profitability and productivity were already there. I just didn’t factor in basically a wasted period so quickly. By this I mean - the initial 3 and a bit months and the uncertainty now. She literally may come back in Jan/feb for all I know.

It’s a bit crap for my other person too - as obviously this comes on her a little too (though I do my best to manage this and it doesn’t mean she’s working over hours or anything, but is effectually pulled out of her job and into others).

You can’t really expect to grow if you’re risk-averse.

[quote Fromageetvino]@Blossom987 I was replying to your point about small businesses “whinging”. Trust me those boards made up 98% men, those who don’t pay their fair share of taxes, put workers on zero hour contracts damage women far more than Colin the cafe owner who feels a bit iffy about employing a pregnant woman.

Neither is right but one disadvantages more women and in wider ways.[/quote]
Those are lawful loopholes that affect all of us rather than direct discrimination towards an individual woman. It’s an issue for government.

Just because there are bigger societal issues that need change, doesn’t excuse business owners from unlawfully discriminating against other individuals. If you can see how disadvantaged women are in the workplace then why contribute to making it worse for women than it already is.

@Blossom987 how exactly am I contributing to making it worse? Ive not discriminated. I don’t intend to in future. I create roles that are suited to working mothers. I employ them.

I am allowed to feel a little sad that a specific hire had impacted negatively on me personally (and it is me personally).

@IntermittentParps

You can’t really expect to grow if you’re risk-averse.

😂😂😂😂 You will literally take whatever I say and repurpose it to stick the boot in.

Of course companies can grow when risk adverse. Not everyone has to be “hustle culture” we took out a million quid loan on a wing and a prayer.

In fact they tend to be the ones who then make huge layoffs. I’m trying to do what is best for three (or potentially four) people. Me, my two existing staff, and a potential new one.

[quote Fromageetvino]@Blossom987 how exactly am I contributing to making it worse? Ive not discriminated. I don’t intend to in future. I create roles that are suited to working mothers. I employ them.

I am allowed to feel a little sad that a specific hire had impacted negatively on me personally (and it is me personally).[/quote]
You don’t think starting this thread contributes to making things worse for women than it already is? You are clearly on the side of business owners who are prepared to discriminate against women and said yourself you like to think you wouldn’t have if you had known but may have done so.

You think pregnant women are wrong to take on a new job with a small employer. Whilst you haven’t directly discriminated against your employee, it’s quite clear what your views are on the situation. So yeah you are contributing.

I’ve agreed before it’s ok to be sad and frustrated your plans are on hold. But I do wonder if you would have made a thread about it if it was for any other reason than a pregnant woman.