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).

I found out I was pregnant, i turned down a massive job offer. Twice. It's just not fair for the employer. You just don't know how a pregnancy is going to go. I've been off sick as well quite a bit. I'm quite happy I'm not in senior roles as it would just cause upset xxx

If, as some argue would be right, small businesses weren't subject to the same employment law as larger ones then absolutely no valuable employee with sought after skills and common sense would even consider applying to or working for a small business. Only people who couldn't get a decent job would take one with inferior employee protection.

I also know someone who took on a job... Barely worked a few weeks as went off on mat leave, took whole mat leave but when returned she was pregnant again and literally worked a couple of weeks and off a year again... This cycle could continue forever.

I personally don’t believe they should be subject to the same employment laws

Really? Fuck me this thread is depressing.

YANBU OP.
Think of it this way :
You have had to reject a contract as a small business. The livelihoods of several people - including the one off pregnant is at stake. If you fold she will be unemployed with a baby. So ‘pregnant women need money’ doesn’t make sense.

While the law is the ‘law’ nascent business by their nature are unstable. Most new business fail. So yes women are ‘entitled’ to take maternity leave but if you think of the bigger picture the business failing means they might not have any job to come back to! Which is worse?

I would never disclose pregnancy to any large employer etc but I would to a small business. I would also however not take a job with a new small business when pregnant unless I was desperate. In which case I’d disclose it. But I wouldn’t rely too much on it because the business could collapse anyway.

Not sure what that’s supposed to mean? This isn’t really a financial issue. It’s a resource one. We can currently afford one FT employee for this specific role. We cannot source a FT employee for maternity cover easily. Throw in uncertainty over the timing and it’s nigh on impossible.

If your company is not doing well enough to employ someone and meet its legal requirements to that person, it isn't doing well enough to employ them at all.

Your solution (and a shocking number of pps) is to increase societal pressure on women to be more disadvantaged by pregnancy, but I think the solution is for employers to recognise that contingency planning is not optional and this may mean they can expand less quickly than they like.

It's a tricky one. If I was in her situation, it would depend how much I needed the job, as I know how difficult it is for small businesses. I think some posters don't have the experience of running or working for a small business and are basing their answers on how bigger companies operate. Hopefully the fact she's taken the job means she is looking at it as a long term job.

It's one of those you can do it but that doesn't mean you should do it situations, and I don't blame you for feeling frustrated about the situation.

No I wouldn't and I wouldn't take a job either.

@UntilYourNextHairBrainedScheme

If, as some argue would be right, small businesses weren't subject to the same employment law as larger ones then absolutely no valuable employee with sought after skills and common sense would even consider applying to or working for a small business. Only people who couldn't get a decent job would take one with inferior employee protection.

Small business in general are already riskier to work for. However they offer advantages that large ones don’t. Again it depends on the type of business. Family owned corner store? 2 person consultancy? Tech startup?

One thing I will say though after my past experience is that there needs to be trust in a small business especially a new one. A faceless corporation - your experience is only as good as your LM and whatever HR bot you encounter but a small business it’s on the owners. In such a situation the ‘law’ isn’t a big deal as much as personal knowledge of the owners. Because well if the business folds … you won’t end up with much anyway would you? That’s why you have to go above and beyond.

Not sure what that’s supposed to mean? This isn’t really a financial issue. It’s a resource one. We can currently afford one FT employee for this specific role. We cannot source a FT employee for maternity cover easily. Throw in uncertainty over the timing and it’s nigh on impossible.

So how long would you have liked her to have been working for you before being ok with her having a baby?

@Stompythedinosaur you do realise there is no cost involved in meeting our legal requirements?

I’ve not at any stage suggested that women should be disadvantaged by pregnancy. I’ve said I’m disappointed. The chances are, had I known, she may still have got the job, but I certainly my would have been able to plan better.

@Stompythedinosaur

Not sure what that’s supposed to mean? This isn’t really a financial issue. It’s a resource one. We can currently afford one FT employee for this specific role. We cannot source a FT employee for maternity cover easily. Throw in uncertainty over the timing and it’s nigh on impossible.

If your company is not doing well enough to employ someone and meet its legal requirements to that person, it isn't doing well enough to employ them at all.

Your solution (and a shocking number of pps) is to increase societal pressure on women to be more disadvantaged by pregnancy, but I think the solution is for employers to recognise that contingency planning is not optional and this may mean they can expand less quickly than they like.

Or just go busy. Then nobody will have a job at all! Can’t reject people for jobs if jobs don’t exist ;)

*bust

And this is why I would never employ a woman of child bearing age.

@Blossom987

Not sure what that’s supposed to mean? This isn’t really a financial issue. It’s a resource one. We can currently afford one FT employee for this specific role. We cannot source a FT employee for maternity cover easily. Throw in uncertainty over the timing and it’s nigh on impossible.

So how long would you have liked her to have been working for you before being ok with her having a baby?

Absolutely honestly. In an ideal world? At least 9 -12 months. The truth is - having an employee for less than four months is more of a millstone than an asset.

I’m being brutally honest here. When she comes back she will be treated fairly, as she is now etc.

She won’t, in any way; know how I feel about this. I’m using a safe space to vent really.

@Thehogfatherstolemycurry

Tbh I'd have got rid of her in August when you found out she was pregnant, in her probationary period I'd have just said it isn't working out.

You're an absolute cunt then.

Absolutely honestly. In an ideal world? At least 9 -12 months. The truth is - having an employee for less than four months is more of a millstone than an asset.

Would you still have the same issue with finding maternity cover though and the business growth grinding to a halt for a bit? I’m struggling to understand what difference 5-8 months makes (as she’s already done 4 of them).

The cynic in me wonders if you were advertising a 'family friendly' role were you expecting to pay 'family friendly' rates? There is some disconnect where an equivalent freelancer would get x4 the rate.

In my experience women get discriminated against whether they are pregnant or not. They should be absolutely afforded the rights available to all employees and one of them is not being discriminated against because they are pregnant.

I totally see what a predicament this puts you in but in the long term is this employee is right for the business then they will be right in 6-12 months time.

@Blossom987

Absolutely honestly. In an ideal world? At least 9 -12 months. The truth is - having an employee for less than four months is more of a millstone than an asset.

Would you still have the same issue with finding maternity cover though and the business growth grinding to a halt for a bit? I’m struggling to understand what difference 5-8 months makes (as she’s already done 4 of them).

So (and this is specific to us).

1. We wouldn’t be basically training her twice.
2. We would have grown to the point of a second ft employee (see turning down the contract for example). This would have eased the pressure,
3. Our business plan is based on an annual forecast with some contingency, but I didn’t exactly put in one for her going on mat leave within 4 months.

The clue is in the title. Small business. It's still a business. Therefore you have to run it as one. If you don't have the acumen to run a business which works when employees take a very predictable form of leave, then you're not doing a very good job. I hate the sanctimonious attitude towards small businesses, as if they should be exempt.

Hire a maternity cover for a 75% FTE and stop whining. There are plenty of people who can do whatever job you're advertising, there's no way you've managed to create some magical role that only one person in the UK can do.

@cuddlymunchkin

And this is why I would never employ a woman of child bearing age.

Then you are running a shoddy business and should be ashamed of yourself. I hope you hire someone who takes nine months of shared parental leave.

@DownToTheSleighAgain

The cynic in me wonders if you were advertising a 'family friendly' role were you expecting to pay 'family friendly' rates? There is some disconnect where an equivalent freelancer would get x4 the rate.

In my experience women get discriminated against whether they are pregnant or not. They should be absolutely afforded the rights available to all employees and one of them is not being discriminated against because they are pregnant.

I totally see what a predicament this puts you in but in the long term is this employee is right for the business then they will be right in 6-12 months time.

No - we paid market rate. £30k for a second jobber type role. The market has moved in very quickly since then. For the same role I’d be looking now nearer £37k. Which actually would be fine - if I could fill it. But I can’t fill it on a maternity leave which could be six weeks to one year. No one wants it. It’s not really what I want either. Training on this role is a good three months really.

@cuddlymunchkin

And this is why I would never employ a woman of child bearing age.

If you run a business, I hope it goes bust.

@LittleGwyneth

The clue is in the title. Small business. It's still a business. Therefore you have to run it as one. If you don't have the acumen to run a business which works when employees take a very predictable form of leave, then you're not doing a very good job. I hate the sanctimonious attitude towards small businesses, as if they should be exempt.

Hire a maternity cover for a 75% FTE and stop whining. There are plenty of people who can do whatever job you're advertising, there's no way you've managed to create some magical role that only one person in the UK can do.

Hahahaha not sure if you saw my previous post. There are around 20 jobs per candidate at the moment. No one (good) wants a mat leave cover if uncertain length. If I were just replacing the role - fine, I’d find someone. But no one wants uncertainty - why would they. I wouldn’t either.

OP, you need to make the position more attractive then somehow, like pay higher than the market rate