New recruit pregnant before job starting

[FlimFlamJimJams]

I've started a new business, it'll open to the public around April time.
It's a very small, community focused business with only 4 staff members initially.
I recruited all the staff within the last few weeks and are finalising contracts. Everyone has formal job offers, no one yet has a job contract.

The roles require training on the job resulting in a nationally recognised qualification, probably achieved within 12 months or so. The business is paying for this.

I have had meetings with everyone individually this week to go through bits and bobs, start dates etc - and at the end of a meeting with one lady yesterday, she tells me that she's 12 weeks pregnant and anticipates starting her Maternity leave around mid-July. She said she found out at 5 weeks - so she'd have known she was pregnant at interview.

I'm now stuck in a difficult position - the business is already going to struggle financially for the first few years (it's not quite a non-profit, but it's close) and I'm now facing having to extend someone's training at least 6 months past everyone else's as well as find temporary cover, which is expensive. She may well choose not to return after her maternity. I turned down other applicants who applied after her job offer was made.

I guess there isn't a AIBU, because I'm not going to do anything, but I feel really deceived and a bit stressed about the whole thing.
I know everyone is entitled to get pregnant etc. But I wasn't anticipating someone going on ML before they'd even qualified, or finished their probation.

On the up side, now men are taking paid paternity leave and shared parental leave and dependents leave for childcare emergencies and so on more routinely, the impact of having children will become less discriminatory toward women.

Parenthood isn’t a protected characteristic. We seem to have begun conflating sex based discrimination with inconveniences inherent with having small children. The former is the employers issue. The latter is, and should be, the parents issue. Personally I would prefer large workplaces provided crèches, before and after school clubs and ideally actual schools that parents can pay for their children to attend so wraparound care can be embedded properly within the work environment. At least then the rest of the workforce wouldn’t have to carry those with children aged 0-11.

And then big stable companies can have family friendly policies and attract parents. But little startups can reasonably try and avoid parents when they are at their least productive. Which is entirely reasonable.

@ShirleyPhallus

No it isn’t. Once pregnant she has a right not to abort. But she creates no sperm and so without the consent of a man she has no unilateral ‘right’ to a child. Just as no man does. It’s a team effort.

@ShirleyPhallus

LittleRoundRobin unfortunately many women get made redundant while pregnant.

I don't buy this. ^ As has been said on here already, many women will take an employer to court for getting rid of her whilst she is pregnant. No way will any employer dismiss a pregnant woman from her job. Only if she has a 0 hours contract, would they be able to dismiss her from the job.

And if this does happen, and she is applying for a permanent job whilst pregnant (and not telling the prospective employer) then it's clear she is trying to use the company to pay her maternity leave. Which, as I said, is sneaky, and extremely unfair on the employer, AND does other women no favours whatsoever...

Also, it's not a RIGHT to have a baby, it's a privilege, one that some people use to their advantage if some posts on here are to be believed.

Like the poster who said she started a new job at 12 weeks pregnant, and then told the boss a few weeks later, and he was super supportive Really? I can't imagine any boss being super supportive of a woman starting a valuable role in their business, and then bogging off on maternity leave for a year a few months later.

Then you get the posters who actually DO tell the prospective employer that they are pregnant, and say 'oh I am SO amazing that the person interviewing me took me on on the spot. I started the following week, then went on maternity leave for a year, then came back, and I am the most valuable employee there. Nobody is as good at the job as me.'

If THAT ^ is even remotely true, why on earth did the employer just not take you on AFTER you'd had your baby? If you are soooo amazing, surely they'd have taken you on then? I mean they lost you for a year anyway, just 4 months or so after you started.

I do find it very hard to believe any employer - even in a big company - would be OK with a pregnant woman starting a job there, and then going on maternity leave for a YEAR just 4 or 5 months later.

I have even seen posts on here from women who keep doing it. (So they claim,) They start a new job, leave after 5 months to go onto maternity leave, then come back for a year, then get pregnant and go off on maternity leave again for another year, and then they do it a third time!

As I said, sometimes there are cases of 'just because you CAN do something, that doesn't mean you SHOULD.' And starting a new job when you are pregnant, and NOT telling your new employer is one of those cases.

I can't believe anyone in real life thinks this is OK. To just start a new job whilst pregnant, NOT tell your employer, and then 4 or 5 months later have a full year off on maternity. It baffles me that some people are saying that this is right 'because feminism.'

No wonder women find it so hard to be taken seriously in the workplace, and employers favour men, and women who have already had children who are grown, and/or women who not childbearing age. These entitled women do feminism (and women) no favours at all.

@Abigail12345654321 I agree with everything you have said...

@LittleRoundRobin I'm assuming it's me you're calling a liar. Not all bosses are arseholes. I'm currently sat with my 4 month old baby and going back to work in May. I've already told them I'll be going back full time.

I never claimed to be the best person there. I just happened to gel with the business really well and am really lucky to be in the fortunate position.

As it happens, the reason I was made redundant from my previous job was because I had just returned from maternity leave and I should have taken them to a tribunal but as I've already said - I'd experienced a miscarriage (the week before my official redundancy), was still suffering with PPD, and was starting a new job (very fortunately). I didn't use the time nor the mental energy or even the insight into that process that i do now.

@littleroundrobin Do you have children?

I started a new job and very soon afterwards, discovered I was pregnant. I had been told I couldn't have children. I was over the moon. My new boss (male) was so thrilled for me too. He supported me through my pregnancy at work and I went back to work after my year off really excited to get stuck back on. I'm a hard worker. I was hard working for the 9 months I worked for him before I gave birth and I am hard working now I'm back in work. I'm glad I have a boss who understands that life isn't just about work. I hope to be a life long loyal employee there, where he may had ten men come and go, needing training, instead.

*she is applying for a permanent job whilst pregnant (and not telling the prospective employer) then it's clear she is trying to use the company to pay her maternity leave. Which, as I said, is sneaky, and extremely unfair on the employer8

You don't get SMP in the UK if you are already pregnant when you start a new job. You do get maternity allowance, which is a pittance.

Sorry for bold fail there.

post menopausal women clean up in the job market. Any employer who’s been caught like this tends to be wary of recruiting women of childbearing age, women with adult children are very attractive

not really, employers don't like women going through the menopause either. And older women often have caring responsibilities for elderly relatives. Women can't win however old they are. But you do have to play fair when applying for a job that you can't do because you are pregnant. Most jobs would just require a cover. But this is different due to the training requirement.

@JuergenSchwarzwald

post menopausal women clean up in the job market. Any employer who’s been caught like this tends to be wary of recruiting women of childbearing age, women with adult children are very attractive

not really, employers don't like women going through the menopause either. And older women often have caring responsibilities for elderly relatives. Women can't win however old they are. But you do have to play fair when applying for a job that you can't do because you are pregnant. Most jobs would just require a cover. But this is different due to the training requirement.

Yes really. I know this is the case from first hand experience. Recruiters told me on more than one occasion that my age (from around mid 40s onwards) was a factor as I wouldn’t get pregnant.

[quote LittleRoundRobin]@ShirleyPhallus

LittleRoundRobin unfortunately many women get made redundant while pregnant.

I don't buy this. ^ As has been said on here already, many women will take an employer to court for getting rid of her whilst she is pregnant. No way will any employer dismiss a pregnant woman from her job. Only if she has a 0 hours contract, would they be able to dismiss her from the job.

And if this does happen, and she is applying for a permanent job whilst pregnant (and not telling the prospective employer) then it's clear she is trying to use the company to pay her maternity leave. Which, as I said, is sneaky, and extremely unfair on the employer, AND does other women no favours whatsoever...

Also, it's not a RIGHT to have a baby, it's a privilege, one that some people use to their advantage if some posts on here are to be believed.

Like the poster who said she started a new job at 12 weeks pregnant, and then told the boss a few weeks later, and he was super supportive Really? I can't imagine any boss being super supportive of a woman starting a valuable role in their business, and then bogging off on maternity leave for a year a few months later.

Then you get the posters who actually DO tell the prospective employer that they are pregnant, and say 'oh I am SO amazing that the person interviewing me took me on on the spot. I started the following week, then went on maternity leave for a year, then came back, and I am the most valuable employee there. Nobody is as good at the job as me.'

If THAT ^ is even remotely true, why on earth did the employer just not take you on AFTER you'd had your baby? If you are soooo amazing, surely they'd have taken you on then? I mean they lost you for a year anyway, just 4 months or so after you started.

I do find it very hard to believe any employer - even in a big company - would be OK with a pregnant woman starting a job there, and then going on maternity leave for a YEAR just 4 or 5 months later.

I have even seen posts on here from women who keep doing it. (So they claim,) They start a new job, leave after 5 months to go onto maternity leave, then come back for a year, then get pregnant and go off on maternity leave again for another year, and then they do it a third time!

As I said, sometimes there are cases of 'just because you CAN do something, that doesn't mean you SHOULD.' And starting a new job when you are pregnant, and NOT telling your new employer is one of those cases.

I can't believe anyone in real life thinks this is OK. To just start a new job whilst pregnant, NOT tell your employer, and then 4 or 5 months later have a full year off on maternity. It baffles me that some people are saying that this is right 'because feminism.'

No wonder women find it so hard to be taken seriously in the workplace, and employers favour men, and women who have already had children who are grown, and/or women who not childbearing age. These entitled women do feminism (and women) no favours at all.

@Abigail12345654321 I agree with everything you have said...[/quote]
All this is true. Spoken from an employer and manager's point of view.

Nobody is that wonderful if they are not around to do the job. 'Super supportive' is just 'management'. Why piss off an employee unnecessarily. They do even more damage by not telling the employer when they will come back from maternity and then resigning at the 15th month.

It’s a woman’s right to have a child. Don’t tell me otherwise.

Nobody has a right to have a child. I should know - I’m infertile. Maternity rights are there to protect women from being unable to access the employment market. They’re a shield. Unfortunately many women are using them as a sword, arguing that they have a right to have a child and a right to burden anyone they so choose with the consequences.

I work with some extraordinarily entitled people, who talk about their rights like this all the time. With rights come responsibilities, though, and I’ve yet to identify anyone who believes in this right and can name a single responsibility that goes alongside it.

Oh look another thread about pregnant women devastating a small business and acting deceitfully and maliciously.

@Freecuthbert

Oh look another thread about pregnant women devastating a small business and acting deceitfully and maliciously.

Yes that’s right. And lots of women with senior management experience explaining why that behaviour is doing womankind a disservice.

I agree with @MabelsApron

Maternity protection was created to ensure a women could come back to work after having a baby. Jobs don’t exist in order to provide maternity payments to women who have never worked. Likewise I would be hacked off at an 18 year old man wanting 6 months paternity leave immediately upon arrival in a job.

By all means have as many children as you like, when you like. Just act like a reasonable person when doing so, rather than an entitled twat! That goes equally for men and women.

I’m also intrigued by the way that on these threads, posters always say that if treating pregnant employees well leads to retaining people who are more loyal and hard-working. It’s so at odds with where I work, where parents with kids younger than teenagers won’t do a single thing that isn’t convenient for them. They won’t do extra hours, they won’t attend meetings during the school run, they won’t work Christmas, they want priority leave in the summer, and they won’t do any emergency cover rotas. Possibly I’m just incredibly unlucky and have managed to get in with some awful people but I do chuckle a bit when “parents are the most hardworking” inevitably gets trotted out.

I think it's selfish to accept a position like this knowing you're pregnant. Someone down thread mentioned that women cannot put their lives on hold in case of pregnancy loss. If the rate of pregnancy loss was 50-80% I could understand that but it isn't.

Indeed. There are rare cases I’ve experienced of women who have become very valued later and who appreciated the support through the tough years - including children and caring for terminally ill partners or parents - but with the vast majority (men and women) that isn’t the case. I’m very mindful of being fair to the other staff.

If you’ve been unlucky @MabelsApron, so have I. It gets very stale having to carry people who think parenthood confers special status and an entitlement to special treatment.

There's a lot of misunderstanding on this thread about how maternity pay works. Women who start a job already pregnant aren't entitled to SMP. The employer pays nothing in terms of maternity pay. The woman has to claim Maternity Allowance from the government.

If a woman gets pregnant X number of weeks after joining, the employer has to pay SMP - which they then claim back from the government.

Enhanced maternity packages where you get stuff like full pay/half pay for X number of weeks are almost universally for employers with 1 year + service. With the exception of a PP's very unusual setup, pretty much no business offers enhanced mat pay from day 1 regardless of whether you join pregnant or not.

So women who join a company pregnant are not looking to diddle the company out of money because they can't. There's no mechanism to do so. In fact, if you leave a job and take a new one, you are more likely to lose out in terms of mat pay than gain anything.

But in the specific case on this thread, the applicant is joining a startup on an incentivised salary. So several months of high pay without any of the stress others will bear in terms of building the business, then off to have baby, with a guaranteed higher-than-normal salary to return to when it suits. The higher salaries in startups are to compensate for the risk of the business failing and the fact that staff need to be flexible and dynamic. It does nobody any favours having women take the proverbial in this situation. I would say the same if someone with a chronic illness took the role knowing they were likely to need substantial time off. Driving startups to fail isn’t in anyone’s interests.

I'm sure many of us are wondering where you're based and what the company is and that fully paid 12 months training for an 18 year old sounds very unusual. As you are planning on still making the offer why don't you discuss the situation with her in so much as you can within the legislation of the country you are in. Explain your predicament and ask about her long-term ambitions and plans. She might just want to get paid for a few months and then plan on being a SAHM. She may not have thought about the implications for you. On the other hand she may be very determined to train with you and pursue a career and this may reassure you.

They may not be looking to fiddle a company out of money deliberately but they do cost a company money in training and wasted time. The employer needs a return on their investment asap - not a year down the line.
If you aren't in a position to do the job you were hired for, then you shouldn't take the job. In this case the employee can't complete the training in time and won't be generating any value for the employer but the employer can't replace her

@Aderyn21

They may not be looking to fiddle a company out of money deliberately but they do cost a company money in training and wasted time. The employer needs a return on their investment asap - not a year down the line. If you aren't in a position to do the job you were hired for, then you shouldn't take the job. In this case the employee can't complete the training in time and won't be generating any value for the employer but the employer can't replace her

But this employer actually can replace her. She doesn't want to.

@Aderyn21

They may not be looking to fiddle a company out of money deliberately but they do cost a company money in training and wasted time. The employer needs a return on their investment asap - not a year down the line. If you aren't in a position to do the job you were hired for, then you shouldn't take the job. In this case the employee can't complete the training in time and won't be generating any value for the employer but the employer can't replace her

Genuine question. If you think someone who is pregnant should not take the job, what should they do instead?

I got made redundant when I was 8 weeks pregnant. What do you think I should have done in between that time and when my baby came? I’m highly qualified in professional services, do you think I should have just sat around for the next 7 months waiting for the baby to arrive so as not to put out any company?

I'm talking about the comments that have been made about women in general being pregnant and starting for jobs, not the specifics of this case. But higher salary aside, presumably the woman will then have X number of months of low or even no pay, as it's unlikely a country that doesn't have robust maternity discrimination laws will also provide excellent benefits for new mothers. And at 18 I am dubious as to how high this supposed wonderful salary could be in the first place. It seems a bit of an odd set-up in general.

But at the end of the day, our ultimate responsibilities are to ourselves and our families because it's our lives, and work is not the sum of our existence. Businesses can and will get rid of employees as it suits their business needs, that's just the way it goes. If you have a chance to better your own life and that of your children and reach your potential then you should take it because that opportunity might not come around for you again Maternity leave is a drop in the ocean if you work for a company that values people and makes them want to stay. Good companies tend to retain staff for a long time.