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).

LethargicActress if small business wasn't subject to the same employment law as large and medium sized businesses that would apply to holiday, unfair dismissal, notice periods and everything else. Nobody good at their job would settle for a job without standard employment law provided protections if they had other options.

YANBU. When I was TTC I went for a interview with a small business. He asked me right at the end of the interview whether I was planning to start a family any time soon for the reason that it would be a nightmare for his business if I did. I was quite taken aback at his question and I found myself lying through my teeth because I really wanted the job. When I was offered the job though I turned it down because I knew if I did fall pregnant, having to tell him would have been awful after lying in the interview. I bet men never have that problem.

It might have been said already but if a business (not specifically yours OP, which it sounds as though it will survive) cannot survive a situation that is part of normal working life, ie an employee needing mat leave, than it's not a viable business. This is in the same way that a business isn't viable if it can't turn a profit for any other reason such as low sales.

The employee requiring the mat leave they are entitled to is irrelevant. Whilst the OPs frustrations are understandable, suggesting that women should put the convenience of a business before their own need to earn a living is not on.

Tianatiers actually that highlights that in fact it would be in the interests of equality to give men equal rights to paid and protected paternity leave - to stop the dickheads who proudly declare that they discriminate on the basis of sex (a protected characteristic) and age against women of childbearing age in hiring. I've always thought there should be an element of parental leave ring fenced for physical recovery from pregnancy and birth, but apparently a sizable minority of posters on this thread are too regressive for that reasonable adjustment to prevent sexual discrimination, so give everyone equal rights to up to a year's paid leave. That and some incentive for men to take at least 50% might be the only way to disincentivise those misogynistic attitudes.

On the other hand maybe its useful self selection for potential employees with shortage skill sets. Its good to be able to dodge the metaphorical bullet of signing on the dotted line with a bad employer.

Just a small warning - I know you’ve NC’d, but the details of your business are outing if your employee sees this, and she could very well claim sex discrimination on her return if she thinks you’re treating her differently (no suggestion that you are, but just in case!).

We have spent the last two years putting huge restrictions on the entire country because the NHS cannot operate with one third of their staff being absent.
Very small businesses are very vulnerable to people taking long tern sick or maternity leave. thirty years ago I went back to work four and a half months after having twins, because otherwise I may not have had a job to go back to. Agree with PP, very small companies require the first half dozen employees to have a pioneer attitude.

Thanks Pink, I know she’s not on here, and I absolutely won’t be treating her any differently. At all. That’s absolutely not my style full stop.

** She was not upfront, now the OP Has no employee and is expected to take her back and pay her holidays.
It's a very selfish approach and I simply couldn't do that to a small business.**

^This. I wouldn’t have taken the job

@PinkWednesdays

Just a small warning - I know you’ve NC’d, but the details of your business are outing if your employee sees this, and she could very well claim sex discrimination on her return if she thinks you’re treating her differently (no suggestion that you are, but just in case!).

I hope one of her friends sees it, are small businesses lobbying the government for better support or just slagging off women? It sounds like you wouldn't have easily been able to get someone else OP, your first choice chose something else and you say there's 20 jobs to 1 candidate; maybe your business isn't as appealing as you think?

@Postdatedpandemic like the term pioneer attitude. I never expect someone to be as dedicated as I am (why should they) but that sort of sums it up.

@Fanmango I’ve never said it’s super appealing. I do my best. I’l do try my best though.
I’ve not slagged off any women. And as I’ve said - I won’t be treating her any differently when she returns.

I find this thread really depressing.
I think you need to replace her. Problem solved for you. She took the job, someone else will want the job. Sounds like you have very little faith in people in general and seem to think you’ll never find anyone who ‘cares as much as you.’ I disagree wholeheartedly with that. I’d advise you to be very genuine at interview and encourage candidates to do the same. You might find someone who is even better than your original hire. In commercial logic if the role is a ‘growth’ role you could find someone who can generate that growth and be very valuable to you. Better than an admin role where no revenue is directly generated.

I don’t think you can assume you won’t find anyone, ever, until you’ve advertised for a decent amount of time and interviewed 3-5 candidates at least.

You’re right that more support is needed for maternity leave. But you aren’t paying her wages during this time? (Im not in Uk so don’t know but where I am it’s the state that pays) and therefore you’ve not lost this money- you can spend it on replacing her.

You could post the role on Mumsnet, you never know, you might find someone here! Xo

Oh and for the FT role? I had hundreds of applications and four final candidates to choose from. It is appealing as permanent, just not as maternity cover.

Hundreds of applications in an industry that currently has a glut of vacancies and lack of candidates, and can't find someone who might want to do it temporarily? That makes sense

Its crap op. My department on its knees and we finally got agreement for another post. 1 month in the are pregnant, dont want vaccine therefore can't be in work - we dont get cover. Yes companys fault but its created some huge bad feelings

@sjxoxo I don’t mean no one will care. But of course I don’t expect someone else to put the same effort into growing my business as I would. I don’t expect them to be still working at midnight, or losing sleep over a tender bid is all.

Replacement is not easy, the temp thing is a huge barrier. And realistically by the time they are up to speed, she may choose to return. There’s jot a benefit really. That’s where I’m stuck.

@Fanmango
Don’t really think it’s that hard to understand.
Two roles available to you

1. Role - permanent
2. Role - could be six weeks, could be 1 year

Which do you choose? When uncertainty has ruled our lives for the past two years.

If you wanted to take on a new permanent person in March isn't the obvious solution to advertise for a new permanent employee not a mat leave cover? And if she comes back you're up to two, if she doesn't then you recruit again then?

@Hankunamatata it’s just feels a bit shit doesn’t it?

Actually another reason a friend doesnt hire ft staff. They split roles into pt as not completely screwed if one goes sick etc.

[quote Fromageetvino]@Hankunamatata it’s just feels a bit shit doesn’t it?[/quote]
It does and I know it's not the womans fault and we should be supporting each other but when you are buried under work it's hard to be charitable

@HardbackWriter it was based on a forecast that included growth which was dependent on having additional help in the first place.

As I mentioned we had to turn down a large contract - this has impacted massively.

Could I do it? Maybe - but I’m a tad risk adverse and don’t want to be in a position where (ironically) id take on too many and then need to lay off staff. It’s unlikely - but that is the risk.

Had similar once when working for a small charity - and the person had applied for and accepted a one year grant funded project role.

WHy not advertise as permanent when recruiting?
mat leave starter may not come back
new person might help grow business so that you can use both IF mat leave starter does want to come back FT
Mat leave cover person may move on within the year

Presumably if not a large business, you're not tied into mat leave pay over and above SMP?

If it's work from home and flexible, I'll take the job during her mat leave! In all seriousness, no, I couldn't do it, although different people have different moral standards.

[quote Fromageetvino]@Fanmango
Don’t really think it’s that hard to understand.
Two roles available to you

1. Role - permanent
2. Role - could be six weeks, could be 1 year

Which do you choose? When uncertainty has ruled our lives for the past two years.[/quote]
If you had a dozen or so candidates then yes sure, if you had 100 plus then it shows there is a market for that particular role- out of those 100 it's likely someone needs something as soon as possible and isn't just fishing whilst in a job they already enjoy but want a change or something more suited to them. But keep on dripping about a woman daring to be pregnant when she got the job instead of finding someone as a temp.