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.

[quote Freecuthbert]@Abigail12345654321

Firstly, of course she wasn't pregnant when she was offered or started the job, otherwise she wouldn't be entitled to SMP.

Secondly, the statutory entitlement to annual leave is 5.6 weeks. For 2 years of annual leave while on mat leave I make that to be 11.2 weeks. That's not much in the grand scheme of things. Or do you suggest women on maternity leave shouldn't be entitled to this? And then where do we draw the line with what benefits they lose?

The reason she can't return is because the company won't allow her part time/flexi working, which she now requires to fit around her new circumstances. It's not like she's trying to take the piss. Plenty of women have back to back maternity leave, women should be allowed to plan children when they want to have them. And other women fall pregnant even at the most inconvenient time for themselves and still decide to keep the baby. Either way the woman is trying to do what's best for herself and the baby. If women did what's best for the company they would never have babies![/quote]
Yes she wasn’t pregnant so not like this thread.

But she worked for 34 weeks then took 104 weeks mat leave. Within those 138 weeks, she accumulated 5.6 + 5.6 (mat leave) + 3.7 (in the 34 weeks worked) weeks annual leave. So just under 15 weeks paid annual leave for 34 weeks of actual physical work.

So the employer has paid 49 weeks of salary and received 34 weeks of work.

Your argument that it has no negative financial impact is therefore flawed. The woman concerned has in effect been paid almost 50% more per hour for the hours actually worked, over a period of 2 years and 8 months, than her colleagues.

Most of the posts do not recognise this from the business’s point of view.

Keep the person an employee and additional maternity and cover costs = likely that the business and all of the jobs including that of the employee in question are lost.

Lose the person as not an employee = business saved and an opportunity created for someone new.

I know what I’d do.

@RoomOfRequirement you’re response is ridiculous. OP already stated she wasn’t going to do anything- she was quite clearly venting. Your over the top claims of misogyny are the only appealing and disgusting thing here. It’s childish and unnecessary.

Oh and no I don’t think anyone on any type of paid leave should accumulate additional paid annual leave while off. It should be pro rated as it is for part time staff and payable only related to hours physically worked. But that’s a whole other thread!

@Abigail12345654321

So you are even begrudging this woman her annual leave she had before maternity leave. And you are saying she is earning 50% more per hour that she worked than all the other staff... as if she is the only employee who takes leave. I'm sure her colleagues have been on sick leave, maternity leave, parental leave, compassionate leave etc. Maybe some are even routinely late, who knows. All of them accruing a statutory 5.6 weeks of annual leave a year. Are all of them a financial burden, or just the pregnant ones?

@RoomOfRequirement

Joy. Another of these disgusting threads for people to come and spew their misogyny in.

She's 12 weeks. Your business is not ready if it cannot support this. What if she were only 8 now? Or got pregnant next week? Were you going to have a ban on women having lives outside of your company for the first year?

I don’t think you’ve read the post properly. I’m not seeing anything negative towards the woman just concern about how to best handle the situation including support towards her return to the job. If the business doesn’t launch well It will affect all concerned including the pregnant employee. No mention of trying to get her out of the promised job.

Pregnancy is a protected characteristic. You would be acting illegally discounting her because she is pregnan

@Abigail12345654321

If someone is off sick a day, how much annual leave should we dock them? What about off for a week? 4 weeks? 6 months? Unwell or disabled people who routinely take time off not allowed a holiday then?

[quote Freecuthbert]@Abigail12345654321

So you are even begrudging this woman her annual leave she had before maternity leave. And you are saying she is earning 50% more per hour that she worked than all the other staff... as if she is the only employee who takes leave. I'm sure her colleagues have been on sick leave, maternity leave, parental leave, compassionate leave etc. Maybe some are even routinely late, who knows. All of them accruing a statutory 5.6 weeks of annual leave a year. Are all of them a financial burden, or just the pregnant ones?[/quote]
The vast majority of staff take no paid leave beyond annual leave and a couple of days a year in sickness. That is normal.

And I’m highlighting the reality. She has been paid 49 weeks salary for 34 weeks work. It doesn’t matter what was before or during maternity leave. Everyone else is paid 52 weeks salary for 46.4 weeks work. She has been paid a lot more than that.

And it’s you who argued that it had no financial impact on the employer. But it does. As can be seen from the above.

And yes of course the chronically ill also cost more for employers. That is inevitable.

But in all cases I’ve never understood the accumulation of annual leave while on paid leave. Makes no sense at all. Can you explain why you need annual leave when you aren’t working? Annual leave exists to give you a break from working - if you aren’t working, why do you need a paid break?!

[quote Freecuthbert]@Abigail12345654321

If someone is off sick a day, how much annual leave should we dock them? What about off for a week? 4 weeks? 6 months? Unwell or disabled people who routinely take time off not allowed a holiday then?[/quote]
It should be pro rata and calculated the same as part time staff. If you work 46.4 weeks, you get 5.6 weeks paid leave. If you work 23.2 weeks, you get 2.8 weeks paid leave.

So you can be off half the year and still have enough holiday for a couple of weeks in Lanzarote. So what’s the issue? Why would you need 5.6 weeks off in the 6 months you actually work?

[quote Freecuthbert]@Abigail12345654321

If someone is off sick a day, how much annual leave should we dock them? What about off for a week? 4 weeks? 6 months? Unwell or disabled people who routinely take time off not allowed a holiday then?[/quote]
Unwell and disabled people don’t ‘routinely’ take time off. They take sick leave when needed and if it becomes ‘routine’ then they would either reduce their working hours so they can cope or leave the job. Sick leave is never ‘routine’. It’s a safety net for unexpected periods of illness that prevent you doing a job you are normally capable of doing. If you can’t routinely do the job due to periods of absence, there is a capability issue.

@mummyh2016

Can you delay the training until she returns from ML? I can't see how she can do half a 12 month course, go on ML for up to a year and then complete the remaining 6 months to a good enough standard.

Don't you? Why not? Did you know women study degrees, masters and PhD's and still have children midway through? You'd be surprise (apparently) at what a woman can do.

[quote UnshakenNeedsStirring]@RoomOfRequirement Deliberately causing a small business to go under because you want to get maternity is awful awful. OP does not deserve this!!! Stop defending and sugar coating selfish behaviour that could cause OP's business to go under. Ridiculous[/quote]
What a ridiculous bloody take! If one employee getting no maternity pay ruins a business, then the business is fucked anyway!!

@LethargicActress

What, pursue careers and children? Are women supposed to just pause all career development for a couple of years?

Not at all, but the ideal would be to be properly settled in a job before making them accommodate your maternity.

What about women who have repeat miscarriages and no idea whether their five-week pregnancy will make it to term?

This is difficult, but again it’s probably better in that situation to be in a settled job. If that’s not possible, then at least avoid taking a job in a very new very small business. There are plenty of big companies that can accommodate maternity with ease.

If a small business isn’t viable if it employs pregnant women, it isn’t viable.

That’s just not true, especially in the first years of starting a business.

How long should they be settled into a new job for? What would be acceptable for you? Do you care how old the woman is and what waiting for her to be 'settled' means for her fertility or should she stay in a job she doesn't like so she can get pregnant and not offend her new employers?

@kirinm

The vast majority of business startups fail. Overwhelmingly. So actually you are wrong. Cashflow is a massive issue for any startup and they can’t afford anyone who isn’t pulling their weight and then some. That’s the nature of startups.

[quote UnshakenNeedsStirring]@RoomOfRequirement so OP is supposed to lose out on thousands of whatever her currency is because someone wants her maternity paid and deliberately withheld information before stitching OP up? Double standards!! Want equality but only when it suits you right?[/quote]
Jesus. Are you a woman? I'm shocked by attitudes like yours.

@kirinm
This thread is specifically about a startup company. Frankly I think they should be exempt from many discrimination laws for the first 36 months. Unfortunately too many companies would abuse that by shutting down and reopening repeatedly.

Pregnant women still have bills to pay. Starting a business is a risk - expect hurdles. YABU to be annoyed.

[quote Bangolads]@RoomOfRequirement you’re response is ridiculous. OP already stated she wasn’t going to do anything- she was quite clearly venting. Your over the top claims of misogyny are the only appealing and disgusting thing here. It’s childish and unnecessary.[/quote]
But she was absolutely right? The thread is FULL of misogyny just like PP said it would turn into.

@Abigail12345654321

It's a fact that most women are pregnant at some point at least once or twice, and I would presume most of those take maternity leave. The thing is it's only women who get pregnant and this leads to time off work for appointments, potentially pregnancy related sickness, and in a vast number of cases maternity leave, and shared parental leave isn't often an option. So if a man and woman decide to have a baby (or if a woman gets impregnated by a man in any case) you are proposing to penalise the woman by stripping her of her statutory right to annual leave. It's not like she's swanning off on holiday for a year, she's giving birth to a baby, recovering from that birth and raising it. It's bloody hard work.

I didn't say unwell and disabled people take sick leave routinely. You misread what I typed, I clearly meant anyone unwell who takes time off for however long and at any point for whatever reason which may or may not include disabled people AS WELL AS people with a disability who are off routinely, i.e. routine medical appointments related to their disability. That doesn't mean they're off every bloody day of the week, and it doesn't mean they're not capable of working. But yes let's punish them for something they have no control over, and in your view these people shouldn't even be in work. Charming.

Thank god we have laws about discrimination because people like you would unfairly punish the most vulnerable in society.

I see no hatred of women here. Is debate not possible without name calling?

@PersonaNonGarter

Don’t put her on the training course - ask her to move to an administrative role. You’d be within your rights to say you’d like training to be completed in a oner not interrupted by mat leave.

That way if she doesn’t come back you haven’t paid for training.

This worked in a similar situation at my employer. She was seconded to a different position and after returning from mat leave (and then furlough because training got suspended during the first lockdown) she did the course.

OP you're willing to pay for someone to train whilst being on probation for at least 6 months? What if they turn out to be rubbish? What's your plan then?

[quote Freecuthbert]@Abigail12345654321

It's a fact that most women are pregnant at some point at least once or twice, and I would presume most of those take maternity leave. The thing is it's only women who get pregnant and this leads to time off work for appointments, potentially pregnancy related sickness, and in a vast number of cases maternity leave, and shared parental leave isn't often an option. So if a man and woman decide to have a baby (or if a woman gets impregnated by a man in any case) you are proposing to penalise the woman by stripping her of her statutory right to annual leave. It's not like she's swanning off on holiday for a year, she's giving birth to a baby, recovering from that birth and raising it. It's bloody hard work.

I didn't say unwell and disabled people take sick leave routinely. You misread what I typed, I clearly meant anyone unwell who takes time off for however long and at any point for whatever reason which may or may not include disabled people AS WELL AS people with a disability who are off routinely, i.e. routine medical appointments related to their disability. That doesn't mean they're off every bloody day of the week, and it doesn't mean they're not capable of working. But yes let's punish them for something they have no control over, and in your view these people shouldn't even be in work. Charming.

Thank god we have laws about discrimination because people like you would unfairly punish the most vulnerable in society.[/quote]
I’m not punishing anyone.

If I work for six months, I get 2.8 weeks paid leave within that six months. I take a holiday and the odd day here and there.

If I have six months maternity leave, why can’t I also take a holiday during that time?Why would I need 5.6 weeks annual leave in the six months after I return? I do think it should be embedded not tacked onto the allowance when you return as it means returning mothers are barely at work for ages when they return. It’s never made sense to me. Likewise if off sick. Once you are well enough of course you can take a holiday. But why have accumulated leave from when you weren’t working? You are entitled to more leave when you return anyway - but if off sick for six months and then you come back and take 5.6 weeks leave in the next six months then you are off so much it impacts settling back in. Don’t think it’s good for anyone.

@Abigail12345654321

So if you have been or ever would be pregnant, have you/will you turn down your annual leave? Same if you ever get long term sick god forbid? Even if you have to be off for covid or for self isolation, I presume you'll be a martyr and work out how much annual leave you accrued and refuse to take it? I mean it does no-one any good according to you, right 🤷

Fwiw, I'm currently on annual leave after maternity leave, in lieu of sick leave as I have been so unwell, having surgeries etc. If I didn't take my annual leave and instead went straight onto sick leave, I wouldn't be entitled to SSP or anything. My income would be 0. The financial strain is so much more to me as an individual than to my employer, for them it is like a drop in the ocean. If a company can't afford these things, they aren't viable.