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).

It can be a problem in larger places, too, especially public sector where it wouldn’t be acceptable for taxpayers money to be spent on covering maternity leave. I work in a niche area where there are about 80 women (to 25 men). Each year there are usually 10 or so women on mat leave but this year there were 28. Over 1/3 of the team. On top of covid it’s been horrendous trying to cover it all, and whilst obviously it’s a management issue too, we don’t all work in places where there’s loads of money for cover and/or the work isn’t actually that important so can be left undone for a year.

I get how important maternity rights are but it doesn’t do anyone any favours to try and force everyone else to pretend that they have no practical impact whatsoever.

@Blossom987 there is a reason that over 70% of people agree with me.
In this very specific case someone chose - completely knowingly themselves over someone else.

That’s the plain fact of it.

Understandable? Maybe?

But could you do it? Think if I dunno, the kindly man in your corner shop. Or the nice lady who does your beauty treatments.

Could you think “fuck them - I know they’ll suffer financially but as long as I’m alright Jack”.

Do you have the right to. Yes -and do you should. As the law has to apply equally and fairly, but should you?

OP as you said what is right by law is not necessarily morally right.
Also a lot of the posters attacking you have ignored a very important point:
The financial stability of the business also affects the person on mat leave!

If the business struggles there’ll be little for them to come back to. And if folds, nothing.

It’s all very good in saying ‘business should do X Y Z’ but where’s the magic money or contract tree that will make this happen?

@WouldIBeATwat

It is literally against the law, which you are very clearly trying to advocate people to go against, no matter how you try to word it, as if unlawful sounds much better! Luckily employment tribunals see through such bullshit, and rightly put businesses in their place when they act as you advise.

Keeping employers out of tribunals is literally my job. On the rare occasion that it has happened, we’ve not lost a case (15 years in).

I am not advocating anyone breach employment law at all. Merely stating that it isn’t hard to defend recruitment decisions provided the employer hasn’t made a really stupid mistake in writing.

And even better provIde all the necessary evidence. Performance reviews , actions and objectives not achieved etc etc.

[quote Fromageetvino]@Blossom987 there is a reason that over 70% of people agree with me.
In this very specific case someone chose - completely knowingly themselves over someone else.

That’s the plain fact of it.

Understandable? Maybe?

But could you do it? Think if I dunno, the kindly man in your corner shop. Or the nice lady who does your beauty treatments.

Could you think “fuck them - I know they’ll suffer financially but as long as I’m alright Jack”.

Do you have the right to. Yes -and do you should. As the law has to apply equally and fairly, but should you?[/quote]
Maybe the reason 70% agree with you is the reason why discrimination for pregnancy and maternity reasons in the workplace is still so rife. Look at the stats on pregnant then screwed.

Personally, if I was pregnant I wouldn’t change jobs unless I absolutely had to for a number of reasons. And if I absolutely had to then yes, I would put myself first above any business including a small business owner. Employer responsibilities and costs shouldn’t come as a surprise to a business. It’s their responsibility to manage that not mine. Businesses have no issue saying ‘fuck them - I know they’ll suffer financially but as long as I’m alright’ when it comes to laying off staff. We all have to look out for ourselves financially don’t we? As long as it’s lawful then it’s just business.

If someone had a chronic illness that sometimes needed extended time off work for sickness would you feel the same if they hadn’t disclosed it at interview and found themselves sick quite soon after starting?

Also OP I don’t understand why you would agree to her going PT If it doesn’t suit the business - IF she asks. If you hired a full timer you hired a full timer?

Even in my corporate job with lots of part timers you have to prove that it can work… you don’t expect to be given PT.

@TractorAndHeadphones

OP as you said what is right by law is not necessarily morally right. Also a lot of the posters attacking you have ignored a very important point: The financial stability of the business also affects the person on mat leave! If the business struggles there’ll be little for them to come back to. And if folds, nothing.

It’s all very good in saying ‘business should do X Y Z’ but where’s the magic money or contract tree that will make this happen?

I agree it’s a risk to take and probably true for anyone joining a small business. However OP hasn’t suggested her business is at risk of folding. And if a business folds from just one person needing maternity leave then was it really viable? It also wouldn’t survive someone needing long term sick in that case either.

@Blossom987 a chronic illness is a totally different thing and without being outing is something that is already part of my business.

But you’ve laid it out - yes push comes to shove - you would look after yourself and the detriment of another individual.

Funnily enough - I actually haven’t. And don’t. But hey I’m an “evil business”.

@Blossom987 if everyone took the ‘if it’s lawful it’s just business’ line then they could just fire women who had gone on mat leave couldn’t they? As long as they made sure they had all the necessary steps. As a pp have mentioned there’s room for a case when employers don’t cover their arses

This attitude of ‘the law is the law’ helps nobody. I believe that individual PEOPLE have goodwill and there should be consideration. I of course protect myself but ‘businesses’ aren’t a homogenous entity, they are made up of people.

For example my current boss will fight to get me stuff no matter what the rules say. Would I go above and beyond? Yes - for him, not the business.
In the same company my previous boss was a jobsworth and I would absolutely not do anymore than I was paid to sometimes even less.

So I really didn’t care about the company but I cared about the people.
To automatically assume that people are going to screw you over and therefore you should get in first will just end up with everyone being miserable

[quote Fromageetvino]@Blossom987 a chronic illness is a totally different thing and without being outing is something that is already part of my business.

But you’ve laid it out - yes push comes to shove - you would look after yourself and the detriment of another individual.

Funnily enough - I actually haven’t. And don’t. But hey I’m an “evil business”.[/quote]
In business yes! Businesses do this ALL the time, why wouldn’t an employee? What good would it do me to be out of work to protect somebody else’s income? I don’t get any money to survive by being a martyr.

I know you haven’t actually been unlawful. But I think it’s only because she didn’t disclose it. You do think she should have put your business before her own employment needs. Why does she owe you that? The only thing either of you owe is covered by employment law. You’re just annoyed it works in her favour as she has a protected characteristic, and it’s not in favour of you.

@TractorAndHeadphones

Also OP I don’t understand why you would agree to her going PT If it doesn’t suit the business - IF she asks. If you hired a full timer you hired a full timer?

Even in my corporate job with lots of part timers you have to prove that it can work… you don’t expect to be given PT.

It’s a bridge I will cross if/when it comes but can probably be accommodated. I’m not going to refuse it just because of how I feel personally

Despite what a few PPs think - I do want people who work for me to have a good work/life balance and enjoy working here. So if requests are made and can reasonably fit - I’ll always try to accept them but with an eye to how this would work at scale as well (as it can be easy to say yes to things when there are three of you, which may cause problems when there are say 12).

@Blossom987 you really can’t see beyond a huge corporation can you?
You’ve said - you’d fuck over the kindly shop keeper and the little beautician. Because they’re “business” and they’re therefore evil.
Very telling tbh.

@Blossom987 so it would be great for business to fold and person on mat leave to lose their job anyway right?

A lot of small business aren’t ‘viable’ in the sense of a large one. Whether you think it’s fair or not it’s a simple logic problem.

The business can only afford things if it has work, which generates revenue. Without employees the business cannot generate revenue.

One person going off on mat leave in a 2 person business is in percentage terms HALF the business. Would a major company with 10,000 employees survive having 5,000 temps?

It’s illogical to say that ‘business is business is business full stop and they should all be the same’.

Ultimately if you say that they shouldn’t hire if mat leave causes a problem then nobody will have a job. And nobody will start a business.

[quote TractorAndHeadphones]@Blossom987 so it would be great for business to fold and person on mat leave to lose their job anyway right?

A lot of small business aren’t ‘viable’ in the sense of a large one. Whether you think it’s fair or not it’s a simple logic problem.

The business can only afford things if it has work, which generates revenue. Without employees the business cannot generate revenue.

One person going off on mat leave in a 2 person business is in percentage terms HALF the business. Would a major company with 10,000 employees survive having 5,000 temps?

It’s illogical to say that ‘business is business is business full stop and they should all be the same’.

Ultimately if you say that they shouldn’t hire if mat leave causes a problem then nobody will have a job. And nobody will start a business.[/quote]
^this^

Doesn’t matter that I’m not at risk of folding - she couldn’t possibly know that. And common sense would tell you it’s a possibility.

[quote TractorAndHeadphones]@Blossom987 if everyone took the ‘if it’s lawful it’s just business’ line then they could just fire women who had gone on mat leave couldn’t they? As long as they made sure they had all the necessary steps. As a pp have mentioned there’s room for a case when employers don’t cover their arses

This attitude of ‘the law is the law’ helps nobody. I believe that individual PEOPLE have goodwill and there should be consideration. I of course protect myself but ‘businesses’ aren’t a homogenous entity, they are made up of people.

For example my current boss will fight to get me stuff no matter what the rules say. Would I go above and beyond? Yes - for him, not the business.
In the same company my previous boss was a jobsworth and I would absolutely not do anymore than I was paid to sometimes even less.

So I really didn’t care about the company but I cared about the people.
To automatically assume that people are going to screw you over and therefore you should get in first will just end up with everyone being miserable[/quote]
Given the amount of posters on this thread who would quite happily avoid employing all child bearing age women, automatically assuming a woman is going to ‘screw them over’, is it any wonder pregnant women also assume they may need to protect themselves? I’m not suggesting people spend their entire careers doing nothing to help others incase they get screwed over. Just that if they are at risk of discrimination then they should absolutely protect themselves.

Sometimes business owners or employees have to make decisions that prioritise their own needs even if it does have an impact, financially or otherwise, on someone else. what I mean by ‘it’s just business’ is that it’s not personal, and that it’s also lawful. What many posters are suggesting is small businesses should also be unlawful at the same time as putting the business first, by discriminating against someone with a protected characteristic.

[quote Fromageetvino]@Blossom987 you really can’t see beyond a huge corporation can you?
You’ve said - you’d fuck over the kindly shop keeper and the little beautician. Because they’re “business” and they’re therefore evil.
Very telling tbh.[/quote]
Eh? You are making it sound like I would set out purposely to target a small business owner instead of a large organisation to fuck over. If I was pregnant in need of a job and applied for various roles and the one that suited me best or was the only job offer at the time or whatever happened to be a small business owner, then yeah I’d accept the job. Why wouldn’t I? I would need a job just as much as you would need a business. And I would expect business owners to be able to survive someone going on maternity leave or any other usual costs that go with employing people. Because it could happen not long after starting even if I wasn’t pregnant at the time.

Not sure why you keep repeating the word evil. i’ve not seen a single poster use that word.

@Blossom987 I’m not saying that at all.
But if you interviewed for let’s say the beautician. Would it not occur to you during the process to think. “Ah she’s talking about these plans etc and actually I’m not telling her that I’m actually going to be off in three months time. I feel a bit bad here. Yes she’s said I’m opening the second salon - but I know that won’t be happening anytime soon as I won’t be there to do it as she expects. Also that part timer who I met who seems lovely and said she was so happy to have me starting as she was nervous about doing eyelashes as it’s not her thing. Ha she’s got another think coming”.

Would you not feel the teeniest twinge no? I would.

Anyway it’s been good to chat but I really have to put this thread to bed now. I am procrastinating all my Xmas Eve jobs and this thread is too distracting! It’s a topic I’m clearly passionate about even if you don’t agree with me.

Merry Christmas!

@Blossom987

Anyway it’s been good to chat but I really have to put this thread to bed now. I am procrastinating all my Xmas Eve jobs and this thread is too distracting! It’s a topic I’m clearly passionate about even if you don’t agree with me.

Merry Christmas!

You too x

there is a reason that over 70% of people agree with me.
In this very specific case someone chose - completely knowingly themselves over someone else.
I think so many people agree with you because, depressingly, misogyny is still rampant.
And what do you think of the point made earlier that just because someone is pregnant doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll need their ML? God forbid, obviously, your employee doesn’t carry her baby to term; but it is always possible, and it’s one reason why she and other women may apply for a job while pregnant/not disclose pregnancy in the recruitment process.

I’ll answer your question Parps when you stop ignoring mine. Have answered all of yours and you’ve swerved every single one of mine.

I answered about whether I’d rather be on ML or taking a temp job. On how I’d like it if you took a percentage of my salary ( which as I say doesn’t apply to me as I’m freelance).
And on the morality of advertising a job as temp to possibly permanent (although I cannot properly answer, as I’ve pointed out, because you seem to think you would/could only advertise it as highly likely to go permanent, even though I’ve said that jobs are very usually advertised as temp with a possibility of permanent.)

@KeranaCosmonauts

This thread is utterly depressing. And quite astonishing really, in this day and age. So, at what stage after taking a job is a woman allowed to get pregnant? 6 months, a year, 2 years? There will probably never be a convenient time from the employer's point of view. How will things be any different if she announced she was pregnant a year after being hired, for example? You'd still have to find a temporary replacement or do without her for a bit. If you're going to hire employees then you have to accept they might get pregnant, or sick, or need to take time off for some other reason. If you can't deal with that then you should probably use freelancers or do the work yourself. If you struggle to recruit then you need to offer higher pay. If none of these things are an option then you need to accept you don't have a viable business, or that you can only have a very small business and can't expand any more. As for the question, would I take a job in a small business while pregnant...judging by this thread, I wouldn't take a job with a small business at all.

That last sentence really hit the nail on the head. This whole thread has made me feel wary of considering a small business as a potential employer. I feel like with larger employers in general there is just more room to actually be human.

@IntermittentParps

I answered about whether I’d rather be on ML or taking a temp job. On how I’d like it if you took a percentage of my salary ( which as I say doesn’t apply to me as I’m freelance). And on the morality of advertising a job as temp to possibly permanent (although I cannot properly answer, as I’ve pointed out, because you seem to think you would/could only advertise it as highly likely to go permanent, even though I’ve said that jobs are very usually advertised as temp with a possibility of permanent.)

Yes, rather like a politician you answered a different question to the ones asked. So let’s try again (don’t worry have been a freelancer so will make them freelance friendly, as it seems the ability to translate the word salary to income may be a little tricky).

Would you rather - your client had a little whinge about your on MN. Or promised an annual contract then rescinded two months later?

Would you like to reduce 20% of your for six months?

And if sound prickly? I am.

I feel like with larger employers in general there is just more room to actually be human.

While actually if I ever went back into the workplace I’d never choose a small business, I actually feel the opposite.

Large companies you’re more of a number - restructures etc don’t take into account humans, and HR don’t give a fuck.

That’s not to say either is right or wrong - just more my perception.