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).

And I agree - it is a predictable form of leave. But not that protectable that the employee is already very pregnant when they start. That is fairly unusual.

Generally in my experience its the mat leave problem...finding someone who will accept a short term contract and be able to pretty much hit the ground running. How many people on here complain about colleagues on mat leave and they are having to pick up their workload? If the management won't cough up for cover, that's one thing but if cover is hard to find and the team is small, or in this case miniscule swhat can the business owner do?

In the case I quoted, the position was a fairly senior one in a small department spread over several small bases. The employee would have been the only therapist, running and developing the service and managing the HCA's. Expecting to come in and work for a matter of weeks (with the usual H and S restrictions on a heavily pregnant woman) and then take almost a year off and expect her job to be held for her....maybe not return and maybe come back pregnant and do the same again. It may be within the law but how is it a good way to run a publicly funded service? To put it into perspective, around 2/3 of the team were either Mums or expecting to be and were one and all happy to work with us so that we could comply with the law without wrecking the service and they could grow their families and keep their jobs.

Working mums - not women who were already six months pregnant.
How do you think working mums become working mums

I can’t quite believe there’s no one who would take the role as a temp. Temp fixed-term work is pretty attractive to some people. I’ve actively looked for those terms in the past and have worked with quite a lot of people who were employed on those terms.

@cuddlymunchkin

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

Oh FFS!

@Freecuthbert

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

oh yes that's easy, lets pop out and shake the money tree so that the job can pay more.

@IntermittentParps

Working mums - not women who were already six months pregnant. How do you think working mums become working mums

I can’t quite believe there’s no one who would take the role as a temp. Temp fixed-term work is pretty attractive to some people. I’ve actively looked for those terms in the past and have worked with quite a lot of people who were employed on those terms.

it depends on the skills, experience and qualifications that are needed.

It’s shit for small businesses. I couldn’t do that to them. But sadly it’s the law and women who “know my rights” can do it.

@godmum56 it’s exactly that. I’m not worried about you under in terms of the actual finances.
I am worried about having a nervous breakdown trying to do it all though.

It is exactly that - one of a three person team has gone on maternity leave. We cannot get cover and if we did, we are talking months to get them fully up to speed. At which point, she will return, and takes months to get fully up to speed again.

I’ve pondered biting the bullet and just trying to recruit another FT, perm position, but that is just so risky - and then we are all at risk (and if I’m totally honest - me probably the least - I could walk into a job very easily tomorrow - my staff - probably slightly less so as chose this role thanks to the flex. I don’t need it - I already do way more than what I would if I went back into corporate).

OP why do you think she took the role given the maternity pay situation? She must see herself with you long term?

Also if you offer full home working for a temporary role you may be surprised at the interest

Temp work just doesn’t really exist in this industry. It’s freelancers or employed mainly.
The “great resignation” isn’t helping and the big players can pay a hell of a lot more - though would be a different culture,

This isn’t our sector - but think Local accountant vs KPMG

@Pleasebeafleabite

OP why do you think she took the role given the maternity pay situation? She must see herself with you long term?

Also if you offer full home working for a temporary role you may be surprised at the interest

Honestly - I think she was having a shit time where she was. I think the flexibility suited her and the less pressured role (her previous was client facing - this would not be so much). There may be more to it - I’ll never really know.

She seems a lovely girl. Honestly had she “proved herself” - no - there wasn’t time and there were a few mistakes - but that’s someone new for you. They’re learning,

I don't care about rights or the law. What this employee has done is incredibly selfish. I imagine she'd feel the same if the tables were turned and she was the employer.

I'm not often one to put rights aside and support an employer, but we need successful businesses, both large & small, for us to have the chance to earn a living. We have to balance our rights with our responsibilities to our employers.

I do feel for you, OP. All the best for keeping your business going.

The problem here is that the law applies to tiny businesses with limited resources in exactly the same way as it applies to NatWest & Tesco. That’s neither fair nor reasonable, but it’s what happens when you get government ministers, MPs & civil servants who have never worked in the private sector.

I know we shouldn’t criticise the pregnant woman who is acting within he legal entitlements, but my sympathies are with the small business owner in this sit

@Westerman so according to you, sod rights as we need successful businesses for us to earn a living? But I suppose going by what you're saying, pregnant women aren't part of that equation and don't deserve to make a living?

@PlanetNormal

The problem here is that the law applies to tiny businesses with limited resources in exactly the same way as it applies to NatWest & Tesco. That’s neither fair nor reasonable, but it’s what happens when you get government ministers, MPs & civil servants who have never worked in the private sector.

I know we shouldn’t criticise the pregnant woman who is acting within he legal entitlements, but my sympathies are with the small business owner in this sit

As I said, I’d probably prefer to see better support than a change in the law. But it does seem that this is very much an area where the law is applied unilaterally. Whereas say “reasonable adjustments” are based on business size. (As in what is reasonable). No idea how this could actually work for parental leave though.

@PlanetNormal

If small companies were exempt from employment laws, then all the talent would go to big companies because at least their rights would be protected there... not sure how you can think discrimination can be made acceptable in small companies, and how this would even be practicable. It's not like OP had to set up a business, it's something people choose to do. And by doing so, they have to understand the law, how it affects their business, and have contingency plans in place. OP should have been prepared for potential maternity/parental leave, sick leave (including long term sick leave, what if an employee got cancer?), but just assumed it probably wouldn't wouldn't within the first year or so. Which was short sighted of her. But yes let's all pile on the sympathy for small business owners who think they are or should be above the law!

@Thehogfatherstolemycurry I had an employer do this to me. They ended up paying me lots of money in compensation for discrimination.

[quote Freecuthbert]@Westerman so according to you, sod rights as we need successful businesses for us to earn a living? But I suppose going by what you're saying, pregnant women aren't part of that equation and don't deserve to make a living? [/quote]
There won’t be any living to make if the small business goes bust.
Me in my big corporate job ; plenty of people doing unnecessary work anyway, nobody’s losing their job if I go on mat leave people can cover. Whether management compensâtes them is another question but they can absolutely do so.
Me in a small business where all of us are at full capacity ; one person leaving unplanned CAN result in the business going bust.

If you said ‘nobody should start a business or hire employees until they can ensure that it 100% succeeds against all odds’ then nobody would. And you get monopoly employers/companies who can do whatever they want.

Of course sickness, a pandemic etc is a different matter and if there business fails because of that nothing to be done. But expecting your pregnancy to be viewed the same in a large or small business? That’s very naive. And more importantly impacts yourself as much as anyone else. Because well why wouldn’t you want to ensure that you will indeed have a job to go back to?

@Freecuthbert can you honestly not see the difference between a business making millions in profit and one that is tiny, in terms of impact.

In many cases the business owners will he taking home less than their well paid staff, not taking the pension that they are paying their staff, not getting maternity pay should they fall pregnant either.

By the way, I don’t know what the answer is - more support would probably be ideal really. We get money chucked at us to take on under 25’s but fuck all to support women.

Also @Freecuthbert don’t know what sort of industry you work in but what are you basing your opinion of ‘talent’ on?

I’m in an industry with a diversity of people and skill sets, plenty of ‘small business’. People who want stable lives with all their rights protected, HR etc dont join small companies.

They join small companies for more interesting work,the atmosphere, opportunity to share in profit if it expands and flexibility. However if you’re a business owner you will know that it’s very very hard at the start and for the ‘founders’ you work 12 hour days trying to get it off the ground.

It’s definitely a risk. Not comparable to an ordinary job. And most people who take it do so fully informed. These people could earn at least 60K with full benefits in a ‘Large’ company but that’s not what they want.

@TractorAndHeadphones

Of course mine or anyone's pregnancy should be viewed and treated the same in any company, large or small. Small businesses aren't above the law. I took my "small business" employer to tribunal and won 20k for pregnancy discrimination. When you set up a business, you have to factor these things into your costs, not treat pregnant women like shit/fire them/"fail" their probation or anything else. If you do that you're just asking for trouble and a costly employment tribunal.

[quote Fromageetvino]@Freecuthbert can you honestly not see the difference between a business making millions in profit and one that is tiny, in terms of impact.

In many cases the business owners will he taking home less than their well paid staff, not taking the pension that they are paying their staff, not getting maternity pay should they fall pregnant either.

By the way, I don’t know what the answer is - more support would probably be ideal really. We get money chucked at us to take on under 25’s but fuck all to support women.[/quote]
Also this the business owner themselves take a lot of risk!
Honestly OP you are very nice, I wouldn’t want to recruit anybody without the ‘founder’ mindset as a first employee.

But I guess it also depends on how you marketed the role. When I worked for a tiny startup as the 3rd employee it was made clear to me. The owner herself did not get 2 weeks annual leave etc why would I expect it for me? But we all saw what we were doing as our baby and respecte each other

@Fromageetvino

Clearly I know the difference, but the thing is it's a choice you and other small business owners make. The law still applies and business owners can't just discriminate against pregnant staff because it inconveniences them. I appreciate you have treated this employee fairly, but some of the attitudes in this thread from people are honestly disgusting.

This thread really surprises me.

I so see many threads on here with women who have been trying for months, sometimes years, to get pregnant. When they do it's hardly ever convenient.

And as for OP's situation, it's not a case of going under. It's simply a case of not growing. Furthermore, OP has also admitted that the labor market is really tight and Corona is not exactly helping either. So what is this pregnant employee having to bare the brunt of the blame for this situation?

When is pregnancy ever easy or conventient? Why are women expected to have children (with all the hand-wringing over low birth-rates) yet are not allowed the time and peace to actually have them? Why are our biological function so often seen as "obstacles" ?

[quote Freecuthbert]@TractorAndHeadphones

Of course mine or anyone's pregnancy should be viewed and treated the same in any company, large or small. Small businesses aren't above the law. I took my "small business" employer to tribunal and won 20k for pregnancy discrimination. When you set up a business, you have to factor these things into your costs, not treat pregnant women like shit/fire them/"fail" their probation or anything else. If you do that you're just asking for trouble and a costly employment tribunal.[/quote]
What sort of business was it? I’m really curious