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.

Not if the 'women' on this thread are anything anything to go by!

Think I said earlier that MN only cares about feminism when it can be used to argue for mothers. Key example - unless you agree with the pregnant woman in this case, you’re not a woman.

@MabelsApron

Not if the 'women' on this thread are anything anything to go by!

Think I said earlier that MN only cares about feminism when it can be used to argue for mothers. Key example - unless you agree with the pregnant woman in this case, you’re not a woman.

Totally agree. Absolutely disgusting of BethTCC to put ‘women’ in italics in this context.

Can you see why that is so offensive BethTCC?

IMO, whether the OP (i.e. the employer) in this case is a woman or a man is, and should be, irrelevant. It is not feminist to defend the OP just because she is a female employer starting a new business.

What is evident from this thread (and others) is that maternity protection should not be a burden on employers, but having children should not affect women disproportionately. IMO, there is a case for fathers to contribute significantly to child care, or directly pay for it if they decide not to provide it themselves. And there is a case for the state to provide better protection for mothers and employers.

BTW, having children is not a selfish act. It is an act that benefits the societies we live in. Older people must be supported and have to be replaced. Most developed societies, certainly in Europe, have dwindling populations, only really replaced by immigrants. Having lots of children, yes, it will be selfish.
The overpopulation problem is mainly felt in developing nations and nations that have achieved better economic statuses and health outcomes, but still have similar fertility rates than when they had high childhood mortality rates.
In Europe, most women do tend to have less than two children on average, which is below replacement level (it should be at about 2, representing a couple).
ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Fertility_statistics
And the total fertility rate in different countries:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate
It could become a problem for the UK, and even worse with Brexit.
www.smf.co.uk/baby-shortage-could-spell-economic-stagnation-for-uk/
The word's population is still growing, but it is expected to level off in the next few decades:
www.worldometers.info/world-population/
Being at a growth of just over 1% now:
ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth

You can see here the rate of natural increase in the population for different countries:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_natural_increase

But, regardless of this woman disclosing or not her pregnancy (and I do think it is fair that she doesn't), it is also clear that the OP is walking a tight rope in terms of starting her business, as it seems to depend too heavily on a significant number of her workforce being able to complete training in what seems like a tight schedule. As I and others have pointed out, even start ups should conduct risk assessments and allow for employers having time off or leaving for any reason. Even the OP could be forced to take time off at some point. Have you prepared for it?

Note: not that the OP should be or deserves to be attacked; and thus shouldn't be defended either, because she isn't (or wasn't) planning on withdrawing the offer, but was annoyed and worried. She is clearly trying to do her best for her business and for another woman, but is struggling. We all tend to be selfish in our own ways. In this case, the two women have different interests that happen to conflict.
It's shit that both are put in difficult positions.

I personally would ask the candidate how she intends to complete the training. I usually find returning mums super hardworking. However a recent experience of a manipulative report has destabilised our whole company. A very well loved employee was made redundant to accommodate her demands. No flexibility on her part just threats because some of her role had been reallocated during her maternity leave. Her tenure before announcing her pregnancy? Four months! Lets hope the posters applicant is genuinely helpful to her new business.

*Totally agree. Absolutely disgusting of BethTCC to put ‘women’ in italics in this context.

Can you see why that is so offensive BethTCC?*

Not at all. I have no idea who anyone on this thread actually is and no intentions of having everyone prove their sex or credentials.

The fact remains many people on this thread are advocating for discrimination of women and it makes no sense to me why other women would do so when we have enough of it from men.

@BethTTC

*Totally agree. Absolutely disgusting of BethTCC to put ‘women’ in italics in this context.

Can you see why that is so offensive BethTCC?*

Not at all. I have no idea who anyone on this thread actually is and no intentions of having everyone prove their sex or credentials.

The fact remains many people on this thread are advocating for discrimination of women and it makes no sense to me why other women would do so when we have enough of it from men.

✊🏼✊🏼✊🏼✊🏼✊🏼✊🏼

@BethTTC

*Totally agree. Absolutely disgusting of BethTCC to put ‘women’ in italics in this context.

Can you see why that is so offensive BethTCC?*

Not at all. I have no idea who anyone on this thread actually is and no intentions of having everyone prove their sex or credentials.

The fact remains many people on this thread are advocating for discrimination of women and it makes no sense to me why other women would do so when we have enough of it from men.

Well my name probably gives you a clue as to my sex. So putting ‘women’ in italics does suggest you think those with a different view to yours are not women. Or not ‘real women’ perhaps?

You still haven’t made any case for your position. Do you have one?

*Well my name probably gives you a clue as to my sex. So putting ‘women’ in italics does suggest you think those with a different view to yours are not women. Or not ‘real women’ perhaps?

You still haven’t made any case for your position. Do you have one?*

All your username shows is that you can type some letters into a forum. I have no idea who you or anyone else actually is. Is this really new internet information?

And what 'position'? That discrimination against women is wrong? It is.

@MeredithGreyishblue

You've got a lot to say for yourself?

Really? Is this where we are? Being chastised like little girls in 1950?

So depressing

The misogynistic tone of this whole thread is depressing.

25% of women don’t return to work after maternity leave.

The overwhelming majority who return do so part time.

Many of those who do return, full time or part time, generally take a huge amount of time off in the first year back due to accumulated annual leave.

Therefore, unless doing a job like nursing or working in a call centre, where you hand over to the next shift each day, the period after returning will likely impact the workplace.

Where women have worked for a time before pregnancy and benefited the company, there is no debate. The issue here is people arriving, contributing little (due to limited time) and then going on maternity leave and most likely never returning full time.

It’s absolutely true that many employers and managers make life difficult for women during their pregnancies and beyond. That is absolutely wrong. But do you really believe that the current system is working well?

@Abigail12345654321

"I have said they should use some common sense in choosing where to apply because small startups cannot sustain much additional financial burden in the early years"

Why should it be a prospective employees responsibility to determine whether their presence within the company will render it unviable? Also at what point does it stop being a 'small' business?

"I would like small companies to be exempt from many anti discrimination requirements for a limited time - although it’s difficult to know how to implemented that without companies manipulating the system to their advantage and thus discriminating for longer than should be permitted."

So in effect yes you would be ok then with pregnant women being discriminated against in the workforce. Where would you draw the line? Such exemption would be a welcome green light for unscrupulous employers, as you fortunately acknowledge. Do you think that these start up businesses should be obliged to divulge that they're free to discriminate? I certainly know that I would not want to use any business that wanted a special exemption from equality legislation.

[quote BlueBellsArePretty]@Abigail12345654321

"I have said they should use some common sense in choosing where to apply because small startups cannot sustain much additional financial burden in the early years"

Why should it be a prospective employees responsibility to determine whether their presence within the company will render it unviable? Also at what point does it stop being a 'small' business?

"I would like small companies to be exempt from many anti discrimination requirements for a limited time - although it’s difficult to know how to implemented that without companies manipulating the system to their advantage and thus discriminating for longer than should be permitted."

So in effect yes you would be ok then with pregnant women being discriminated against in the workforce. Where would you draw the line? Such exemption would be a welcome green light for unscrupulous employers, as you fortunately acknowledge. Do you think that these start up businesses should be obliged to divulge that they're free to discriminate? I certainly know that I would not want to use any business that wanted a special exemption from equality legislation.[/quote]
I take your point. And I agree it’s impossible without legislation for it to work because individual women and individual companies won’t behave well otherwise.

Absolutely agree and I did say that implementing exemptions to equality laws would be difficult as it would allow some companies to exploit it - but at the moment the discrimination is still happening and everyone just pretends it isn’t. Which isn’t right and isn’t helpful.

We know no manager is ‘super thrilled’ then any staff have children, including fathers. Their productivity does down. But they must pretend they are. If their company offered much better support for parents, it wouldn’t be a burden to managers and colleagues. And then maybe people would be thrilled!

But it’s impossible to force companies to offer really good parental support because it isn’t viable for small companies. So sooner or later we need to look at how to set a threshold where some companies are exempt. In reality they already discriminate - what, after all, is a ‘young dynamic company’? It means no old people, no ill people, no pregnant women and most likely few parents. Of course they already discriminate - if they didn’t they wouldn’t survive the early years. So why do we keep pretending they don’t? Why not be open about it and legislate properly so once turnover hits a certain level or employee number goes above a certain level, the rules applied to big corporations allied? I accept it would be hard to do and would be open to abuse - but it would mean larger firms could be forced to provide much better parental support so the resentment of parents of young children (who are carried by their colleagues very often) would be lessened. Surely that should be the aim?

Sorry, applied not allied

@Abigail12345654321

Mumsnet seems to favour pregnant women even if they are liars, manipulative and not very good at their job. I hear you. My employer lost a senior talented well liked menber of staff because a returning mother wanted her job (she applied at six months pregnant, was rejected and has now alleged discrimination.). Total nonsense as the successful candidate was multi lingual, had a further degree and extensive contacts. We had to make her redundant as the new mother alleged she didn't get the job as she was pregnant. Sometimes people are just nasty. I miss my colleague and feel for her. She did nothing wrong. Tbh i think my colleague could claim age discrimination and I bet you nobody cares!

That’s terrible @Oldmumsie - I do think sometimes HR departments are excessively cautious and focused on avoiding any claims of discrimination rather than robustly defending themselves when wrongly accused. But this is exactly what I mean when I say thinks will become more hostile toward women if people carry on as they currently do - as it is Covid is massively widening the pay gap between the sexes and things will get much worse for women in the coming years. And because the economy will be in a bad way, jobs will be scarce and people will be discriminated against even more. Which is why I think there need to be robust changes - to protect women in the longer term.

Exemptions to equality laws are permitted if it is a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim. I’m curious as to why women wouldn’t support that if it means small companies can succeed and thus contribute to economic growth. That, surely, would benefit women - and most importantly, their children.

@Abigail12345654321
The senior lady had brought extensive new business to the company. However the new mum was parinoid, jealous and dishonest. She had set out to sue the company (she recorded every conversation and sent them to the owner). Her aim? a payoff. I am angry but can do nothing as the company are scared of being sued. This company is classed as a SME and owned by a woman. So people just be honest, you are pregnant, how may i help you. Because you if you are decent, people will help you.

[quote Oldmumsie]@Abigail12345654321

Mumsnet seems to favour pregnant women even if they are liars, manipulative and not very good at their job. I hear you. My employer lost a senior talented well liked menber of staff because a returning mother wanted her job (she applied at six months pregnant, was rejected and has now alleged discrimination.). Total nonsense as the successful candidate was multi lingual, had a further degree and extensive contacts. We had to make her redundant as the new mother alleged she didn't get the job as she was pregnant. Sometimes people are just nasty. I miss my colleague and feel for her. She did nothing wrong. Tbh i think my colleague could claim age discrimination and I bet you nobody cares![/quote]
This didn't happen. No HR team would agree to fire a high performing member of staff, recruited and appointed into a role to avoid a discrimination claim 🤔 A redundancy means there is no role so the company has to dismiss you. It doesn't mean we gave the job to the wrong person so now we're going to fire you so we can give it to someone else! I mean what would you even write in the termination letter, I don't think you I'm understand how these things work! Stop listening to gossip!

[quote Oldmumsie]@Abigail12345654321
The senior lady had brought extensive new business to the company. However the new mum was parinoid, jealous and dishonest. She had set out to sue the company (she recorded every conversation and sent them to the owner). Her aim? a payoff. I am angry but can do nothing as the company are scared of being sued. This company is classed as a SME and owned by a woman. So people just be honest, you are pregnant, how may i help you. Because you if you are decent, people will help you.[/quote]
Trouble is it’s often the weakest workers who head for SMEs because they can’t successfully compete for roles in established companies - it’s a minefield. But the more SMEs have experiences like yours, the less likely they will be to employ any women aged 18-45. Even though in most cases they likely couldn’t successfully prosecute, SMEs can’t afford to defend themselves. An exemption to equality laws seems to me the most sensible way forward.

@Luckyducky75
Well if the company employed two women and there was a promotion advertised, both applied, 6 months pregnant women didn’t get it, goes on mat leave, returns and claims she didn’t get the promotion because she was pregnant, why is that implausible?

And it’s not polite to accuse someone of lying when you can’t possibly know that’s the case.

@Luckyducky75
This happened. We don't have a HR department just an egotistical MD. The returning mother's solicitor was the biggest firm in London. I am a director but not on the board. I have been shocked by their actions.

[quote Oldmumsie]@Luckyducky75
This happened. We don't have a HR department just an egotistical MD. The returning mother's solicitor was the biggest firm in London. I am a director but not on the board. I have been shocked by their actions.[/quote]
Fight fire with fire. Hope the rightful role holder pursues an unfair dismissal claim. Hard for the company - but they must learn to stand firm in the face of unfounded threats or face the consequences.

I suspect the reason why women on here wouldn’t support exemptions that would assist small businesses owned by women, is that they don’t care about womens rights, they care about mothers rights.

The same way that threads on here often defend parents getting priority for summer and Xmas leave, parents getting to work fewer hours than other employees due to doing school runs/having to pick up kids etc, and parents getting the benefit of flexi working even where that impacts upon their colleagues. Anyone complaining about this is brushed off with “management problem”, as if those behaving badly enough to require management intervention is completely divorced from a wider issue of entitlement.

I’ve not once seen a champion of womens rights on a thread like this get agitated about how women without children get treated in the workplace and wider society. Then suddenly it’s all “that’s not parents’ faults, it’s bad management”.

My workplace came up with an outrageous policy during the pandemic that meant parents were doing 50% hours on full pay and those without kids - women - were picking up considerable amounts of extra hours for no extra. A large portion of MN has told me that this was fair enough as parents suffered during the pandemic. That’s a clear cut case of discrimination (brought on by an employer that’s terrified of being sued) but MN was all for it. Whenever I see anyone on here arguing womens rights, I just laugh.

[quote Abigail12345654321]@Luckyducky75
Well if the company employed two women and there was a promotion advertised, both applied, 6 months pregnant women didn’t get it, goes on mat leave, returns and claims she didn’t get the promotion because she was pregnant, why is that implausible?[/quote]
It's implausible because you're just focusing on the pregnant women and not the woman who was supposedly made redundant to give someone else her job. Would you accept it if your boss said to you tomorrow they were letting you go so they could give your job to someone else to avoid them raising a tribunal claim. You'd just accept that and walk away!