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).

@Fromageetvino She probably didn't even think those things though, you've just assumed she did.
She probably saw a job that appealed to her and applied for it, simple as that.
This woman doesn't know you or the ins and out of your finances and recruitment issues and wouldn't have given those things a second though. Neither is she obliged to.
It's not her responsibility and she has done nothing wrong!
You though, are determined to believe she purposely screwed you over. You've gone on a parenting forum with a high percentage of working mothers to moan about pregnant women having the temerity to apply for a job. You're angry that she didn't disclose her pregnancy at interview even though you admit it may have influenced your decision. You're clearly feeling smug about others agreeing with you and saying they too would discriminate.
If you really just wanted to vent about your disappointment then you'd have done so in private, to your family and friends, not gone on a public forum to encourage hundreds of people to slate your employee. Who has done nothing wrong.
So yes, people like you do make it worse for women in the workplace. It's not many times I've been genuinely appalled at a thread on MN but this is one of those times. You really ought to be ashamed of yourself!

@KeranaCosmonauts read my OP, I didn’t ask if employers would discriminate. I asked if women would apply to a job in a very small business when pregnant.

Wasn't there a huge post just last year about a woman who was pregnant when offered a job which she accepted, then told them she was pregnant and they took rescinded the offer. She took them to a tribunal and rightly won. Lots of people spoke up to support this woman so I'm surprised to see the support for the business owner on this.

Your employee has every right to have a baby. She also has a legal right not to disclose her pregnancy until 15 weeks before her due date.

As much as it's difficult for your work situation op, this is what happens when you employ someone. It is always a possibility. Fathers also take paternity leave.

I'm shocked at the things I've read about getting rid of her through probationary period loopholes and other illegal practices mentioned on this thread.

Yes she should have applied as it's her decision to apply for a job whenever she wants.

@Fromageetvino You were obviously hoping that people would say "no, I wouldn't do that" and agree with you about how terrible it is and how screwed over you've been. Which some people have done, so you got what you wanted.

@CaptSkippy The thing with small businesses is that any Average Joe with a bit of capital can set one up (whether they survive is another story), so there are lot of amateurs out there who don't act professionally or within the law. When I was at uni I had part time jobs at various local small businesses and was shocked at how some of them carried on. The owners and managers behaved in ways that they'd never have got away with in a large company with strict rules around conduct and an HR department. I had to laugh at the OP's description of "kindly shopkeeper". Many of them are anything but.
Large companies aren't perfect either but at least the market has weeded out the amateurs and there's a bit more employee protection.

@MabelsApron wgy exactly do you have the very oddball opinion that taxpayers money shouldn't be spent on maternity leave? Have the majority of taxpayers voted in favour of discriminating against women of childbearing age?

Blossom987 exactly.

Fromageetvino its somewhat odd that you think people who don't know you from Adam should put your finances before their own especially because you and ypur business don't pay maternity allowance for new employees - that's a a state benefit - having the job entitles the employee to a state benefit and a job held open. Yes, its an irritation and has an impact on a business to hold a job open and hire maternity cover, but it's not your business paying the woman her maternity allowance. She hasn't screwed you over or done anything to you.

The voting results are a bald statement of unconscious, systemic, socially sanctioned misogyny. The same people who think women should carry all the responsibility for pregnancy and childbirth and bringing up children, without acknowledging that long term everyone would be utterly and completely screwed if women stopped having children who grow up to be taxpayers.

@UntilYourNextHairBrainedScheme

Blossom987 exactly.

Fromageetvino its somewhat odd that you think people who don't know you from Adam should put your finances before their own especially because you and ypur business don't pay maternity allowance for new employees - that's a a state benefit - having the job entitles the employee to a state benefit and a job held open. Yes, its an irritation and has an impact on a business to hold a job open and hire maternity cover, but it's not your business paying the woman her maternity allowance. She hasn't screwed you over or done anything to you.

The voting results are a bald statement of unconscious, systemic, socially sanctioned misogyny. The same people who think women should carry all the responsibility for pregnancy and childbirth and bringing up children, without acknowledging that long term everyone would be utterly and completely screwed if women stopped having children who grow up to be taxpayers.

You’re right - we don’t pay MA. But here a a little taste of what we do…

Pension contributions
Training (twice)
HR
Payroll services

So while this isn’t the crux of the issue, it’s not nothing either.

Fromageetvino its not nothing; its what you signed up for. You fulfill your obligations and so do your employees. Nobody screws anybody over.

@UntilYourNextHairBrainedScheme

Fromageetvino its not nothing; its what you signed up for. You fulfill your obligations and so do your employees. Nobody screws anybody over.

Another poster twisting my words. sigh You suggested that as I don’t pay MA I’m not out of pocket. So I responded to that.

Do I think she “screwed me over” no. Do I think she chose her needs over mine and my colleagues. - yes.
Which - sure, why not.

Do feel a tad resentful - right now, yes, but I’ll get over it.
Have I/will I do anything illegal. No.

Fromageetvino would you put her needs before yours if not legally obligated to?

If not why would you expect her to.

Tbh you're less out of order than the significant minority of posters loudly advocating practicing sexual and age discrimination as though that makes them the cool girls.

@UntilYourNextHairBrainedScheme

Fromageetvino would you put her needs before yours if not legally obligated to?

If not why would you expect her to.

Tbh you're less out of order than the significant minority of posters loudly advocating practicing sexual and age discrimination as though that makes them the cool girls.

While I don’t expect you to have read all my posts I’ve specifically stated things along the lines that I expect her to request PT when she comes back. Which is a PITA bit will likely accommodate (probably meaning I’ll suffer for a short while).

Despite the demonising of me here - I’m a pretty decent employer. Genuinely flexible (not just as and when it suits), I offer a salary which is slightly above average for the business size, and protect my employees from a lot of stress. I did it furlough (though I could have) I offer a lot of training and development etc. I offer over minimum pension contributions and more than basic annual leave.

All the while I have no pension, take very little holiday (to be expected), and on many occasions will likely take less salary in a month than my staff.

So yeah / I do put their needs before mine. I could quite easily sack the lot off and go back to being “self employed”. I’d earn more,

Fromageetvino that's a little disingenuous. If you would be better off going back to being a one man band there must be a reason you don't. Forgive me if I don't believe that your motivation is philanthropic. You are presumably playing a long game and anticipating the business being a long term investment for you personally.

@UntilYourNextHairBrainedScheme

Fromageetvino that's a little disingenuous. If you would be better off going back to being a one man band there must be a reason you don't. Forgive me if I don't believe that your motivation is philanthropic. You are presumably playing a long game and anticipating the business being a long term investment for you personally.

Again bloody selective. Yes the last bit is of course more complex than that. But the first still stands

[quote UntilYourNextHairBrainedScheme]@MabelsApron wgy exactly do you have the very oddball opinion that taxpayers money shouldn't be spent on maternity leave? Have the majority of taxpayers voted in favour of discriminating against women of childbearing age?[/quote]
Thank you for the charming question - you’ve misunderstood me.

I don’t think that taxpayers shouldn’t pay for mat leave - it’s a valuable societal benefit and I’m happy to do so. My employer is public sector and so all expenditure is taxpayer funded. They pay generous mat leave, which comes out of taxpayer funds. Again, no issue with that.

They don’t, however, provide additional sums of money to allow bosses to hire staff to cover mat leaves, because that’s not considered a use of taxpayers’ money that the public would find acceptable. It’s seen as better to allocate the work out amongst the existing staff, which creates resentment and burnout.

If the general public is in fact very happy to accept public funds being spent on numerous mat leave recruitments then that’s good to know. as it’d make my life much easier! But that’s not the generally understood position.

I feel for you OP. It’s not easy in a small business when you have someone come in to do a job and then they’re off on maternity leave. I’d feel slightly deceived as although women who are pregnant aren’t required by law to disclose it just feels dishonest to let you plan for one thing and then suddenly you have to re-plan. In such a small business there’s no cover unless it’s coming from you or the other staff member. I think it’s fair enough to be upset and annoyed as it’s directly impacting on your life. You’re having to do extra hours, can’t take on extra contracts and you have the uncertainty of when she will return. Even though you’re following the law, it doesn’t mean you can’t be hacked off and fed up.

No, I wouldn’t do that. Not because of any moral obligation but because discrimination and bad feeling would be inevitable - as this thread shows.

I can’t decide if you’re being deliberately obtuse or actually not understanding. But ok, here I go:

Would you rather - your client had a little whinge about your on MN. Or promised an annual contract then rescinded two months later? Moot point; it is perfectly possible to advertise a job and make clear that the timescale is unknown. I personally have had more than one job where this was the scenario. I don’t know why you keep insisting that the only way to advertise your role is to ‘promise’ something and then ‘rescind’ it.

Would you like to reduce 20% of your for six months? My income as a freelancer is variable. And when I’ve had open-ended jobs, I’ve budgeted and planned assuming that the arrangement might come to an end at any point.
I cannot answer these questions any more accurately or clearly.

@MabelsApron I don't know what line your manager is spinning you but of course there are mat leave covers in the public sector! If your employer doesn't ever appoint them then a) that's a local (and highly unusual) policy and b) your employer is actually profiting every time someone goes on mat leave. But again, that definitely isn't normal in the public sector (and how could you possibly think it was? You thought, say, teachers have no mat cover?) - I'm sorry that you and your colleagues get screwed over when someone goes on mat leave but that's a decision someone in your organisation made, it's not a public sector rule and it's certainly not the fault of the person taking leave.

@IntermittentParps am there Baileys deep so am going to go all Paxan:
ANSWWR THE QUESTIONS

[quote HardbackWriter]@MabelsApron I don't know what line your manager is spinning you but of course there are mat leave covers in the public sector! If your employer doesn't ever appoint them then a) that's a local (and highly unusual) policy and b) your employer is actually profiting every time someone goes on mat leave. But again, that definitely isn't normal in the public sector (and how could you possibly think it was? You thought, say, teachers have no mat cover?) - I'm sorry that you and your colleagues get screwed over when someone goes on mat leave but that's a decision someone in your organisation made, it's not a public sector rule and it's certainly not the fault of the person taking leave.[/quote]
I can only speak for my job, which is what I did. Of course teachers get cover, as otherwise there’s nobody to teach the class. That’s not the case where I work, and to be fair, the 28 maternity leaves last year? I don’t know if all other public sector employers would be happy to cover that when half the time we’re scraping together funding for libraries and whatnot.

Anyway, thrilled to hear my employer is the weird one here. Hopefully mine will see sense eventually.

I’m totally with you OP, I did the same many years ago and recruited a mid 30 something in a team of 3 (including me) I paid £4200 for the privilege of doing so from a recruiter only for her to announce 4 months later she was 12 weeks pregnant. She also told someone else I know that she was waiting to get a full time job before getting pregnant and would be staying at home then for a few years. I understand women needing jobs when pregnant but if you are intending getting pregnant quickly then I think you are doing everyone a favour if you look for big companies where your leave isn’t totally critical or costs someone £4K and not return

@UntilYourNextHairBrainedScheme

Blossom987 exactly.

Fromageetvino its somewhat odd that you think people who don't know you from Adam should put your finances before their own especially because you and ypur business don't pay maternity allowance for new employees - that's a a state benefit - having the job entitles the employee to a state benefit and a job held open. Yes, its an irritation and has an impact on a business to hold a job open and hire maternity cover, but it's not your business paying the woman her maternity allowance. She hasn't screwed you over or done anything to you.

The voting results are a bald statement of unconscious, systemic, socially sanctioned misogyny. The same people who think women should carry all the responsibility for pregnancy and childbirth and bringing up children, without acknowledging that long term everyone would be utterly and completely screwed if women stopped having children who grow up to be taxpayers.

Just because the target of a criticism is a woman, that doesn't automatically make the criticism misogynistic. There is nothing misogynistic in wanting the employee you hire and pay, to actually turn up and do their job.

In the final analysis, the reason they don't turn up isn't really relevant to the employer. All that matters to them is that they need to sort out the hole left by that employee.

And just by the by, some of British maternity laws are absolutely crazy. What reason on the world can there be for an employee to accrue leave while off on maternity or long term sick leave? Holiday pay is so that employees should be able to take a holiday after working all year. Why the AF does the employer have to fund heir holiday after being off for the year?

She is entitled to a job and to be pregnant. Treat her well and she will come back to you and work hard because she feels like you are connected and have been part of her special journey. All you have lost is a future self-concept of growth and not anything material - it might not have worked out how you expected anyway. I turned down a job once because after I told them I was pregnant she said she was disappointed about the impact that it would have on the wider team - I found another job that matched my values. I have since become an employer and in my field, we are mostly females of childbearing age - guess what, I support them and they come back. You can't control life - you obviously felt she was the right person for the job, invest in her and it'll come good and if it doesn't, she wasn't right, not because she had a baby but because she wasn't a good fit in the first place.

YABU OP, obviously. She's entitled to get pregnant and be paid mat leave. If you couldn't afford to take her on given this possibility then you couldn't afford to take her on.

And just by the by, some of British maternity laws are absolutely crazy. What reason on the world can there be for an employee to accrue leave while off on maternity or long term sick leave? Holiday pay is so that employees should be able to take a holiday after working all year. Why the AF does the employer have to fund heir holiday after being off for the year?

Because pregnancy is a protected characteristic and not to do so would be discriminatory.