Starting new nanny job pregnant!

[Seb101]

Hi all,
After some advice.... I have struggled with infertility for years. I recently did another round of ivf. My current nanny job is finishing next month, and I've been job hunting for a while. I went to an interview and have been offered a job. When I went for the interview I was in the middle of my ivf cycle. I was asked at the interview if I intended to have any more children (I already have a 5 year old) I had to lie and say 'no.' I have now accepted job and am due to start in two months time. Two weeks after accepting job I found out my ivf has been successful!!!! I absolutely over the moon happy.
BUT now I am due to start a job pregnant! By start date I'll be 12 weeks!
I can't afford not to work! I went for job believing ivf would fail, as it always has before!
Part of me thinks I should be honest, tell them, and let the
find someone else. But I NEED this job. I feel terrible because the family have cancelled there previous childcare and will be stuck if I let them down. But if I start I will only be able to work about 5 months max, then I'll have to leave. The family made it clear they wanted a long term nanny, and I reassured them I wanted this too.
Any advice? I'm torn between doing what's right for me; start job and leave whenever I need to, and putting family first by telling them and them most probably withdrawing job offer. No contract has bee signed yet.
Help! .......

Another thing to bear in mind is that if ( as she is entitled to do) OP decided not to tell her employer until she is 25 weeks and the employer figures it out before then the employer can very easily get rid of her and OP can't claim discrimination as the employer " didn't know"

What if the employer asks. "If you got drunk and forgot the condoms, would you use the MAP? Get an abortion?"

I can't forget that the employers asked her an illegal question because it says much about their attitude to employment law.

It really and truly doesn't matter that they are a family with needs who will be left finding a replacement.

Yes it does, they matter every bit as much as the OP. Because the OP could tell the truth and give them time to find a more suitable nanny.

I can't forget that the employers asked her an illegal question because it says much about their attitude to employment law.

Maybe, but it also says a lot about their need to find reliable care for their children. The OP isn't going to be that.

Are there any childcare users out there who, if they got a vote, would prefer that their key worker/CM/nanny stayed for the entire time of their child's use of the service?

Wow this has been an eye opener for me. I have absolute sympathy for the OP but have been taken aback by the attitude of a lot of the posters here towards the employing family. One poster says "Who gives a toss about them wanting a long term employee ? Shit happens, people get pregnant and all employers have to put up with that." Nice. I work for a ginormous US bank and would have more consideration for them and my fellow colleagues than that.

I'm on mat leave with my 2nd now and had been considering changing from nursery to a nanny, but this has made me reconsider. In my mind a nanny is a valued employee but also should ideally be a long term member of the family, with all the give-and-take on both sides that entails. At the end of the day, there are small children involved and they will form emotional attachments to their carer, there is no consideration for them in any of these arguments.

For the record, of course the family should not have asked the question and the OP was put on the spot. I have been through IVF myself and would not have told anyone at that point either. I think you should be straight with them now though.

well, I suppose I would consider it similar to a family looking for a nanny and neglecting to tell the nanny between being hiring and start date that the mum was pregnant. Not obligatory to tell but the right thing to do.

I've had nannies ask me if I was planning to have more kids and have always answered honestly. obviously there is a different legal relationship on that side but morally and ethically, not really.

I agree that they shouldn't have asked the question at all. They were stupid and wrong and have to a degree made a bad situation worse (as the OP now feels more nervous about the situation).

Would be interested to know if the OP would have told them had they not asked the direct question at interview (pretty hypothetical but interesting nonetheless).

Also on the sexuality point, my nanny is gay and while at interview I had my suspicions (it's pretty obvious!), I didn't say anything. They however did subtly mention it passing - I suppose on the basis that who wants to work for someone vilely prejudiced...

I'm utterly torn here. I can see both sides.

The employer shouldn't have asked whether the OP was planning children. They asked an illegal question and got an inaccurate response.

The OP is pregnant now, though. Whether that was planned or unplanned is irrelevant to the employer. Whether they should be told is a different matter, though.

I wouldn't tell my employer right now. I'd start training my junior and they'd probably work it out, and I'd eventually present it to my employer with a return date and the knowledge that I've already prepared my replacement for while I'm gone. There would be very little direct impact on anyone, really.

OP's situation is different, because they can't train a replacement. There's also the chance that the pregnancy will impact on the OP's job - lifting the toddler, for example, or deal with MS.

Then there is the chance that if the OP reveals her pregnancy, she may lose the job, especially as there are two months before the OP starts.

But if OP doesn't reveal the pregnancy, than that impacts on the jobs of the parents, who will have to take more time off to sort her replacement.

It feels like there must be a situation that is fair to the OP and also fair to the family and their children, but I can't see it.

I don't think anyone said, "Who gives a toss"

Oh and I am pg and told my boss the day after my 12 week scan to give her plenty of time to find a replacement for me. Common courtesy in my mind.

In my mind a nanny is a valued employee but also should ideally be a long term member of the family, with all the give-and-take on both sides that entails. At the end of the day, there are small children involved and they will form emotional attachments to their carer, there is no consideration for them in any of these arguments.

I am utterly shocked by the attitudes on this thread. I cannot believe that people are arguing that they have a right to demand long term dedication from an employee. Yes, small children form attachments. And if your nanny leaves, they will be sad but you will help them to deal with it. Just as you would if your nanny died, or your child's best friend emigrated, or the dog died, whatever. You are employing a nanny, not buying her soul. She is going to work to the best of her ability and if she gets ill, or is unhappy, or, heaven forbid, gets pregnant, you should be dealing with her in the most human way possible.

What is really sad is that some of you advising this pregnant employee to leave her work because her pregnancy doesn't suit her employers, are parents of girls. So when you are bringing up your children, you will be advising them that they should not expect to be able to have babies of their own unless it happens to be convenient with their employers to do so, and bugger all of the employment legislation that has been hard fought for to protect the rights of families. Sheesh.

(And I don't consider it a lie, in interview, to refuse to be complicit in breaking the law.)

Best of luck OP

What is really sad is that some of you advising this pregnant employee to leave her work because her pregnancy doesn't suit her employers, are parents of girls. So when you are bringing up your children, you will be advising them that they should not expect to be able to have babies of their own unless it happens to be convenient with their employers to do so, and bugger all of the employment legislation that has been hard fought for to protect the rights of families. Sheesh.

They are also presumably mostly (all?) women of childbearing age, many of whom either have children or want to do so, and may also either want to or need to work at the same time.

And when seeking such employment they would expect to be treated fairly and legally and not discriminated against with regard to their actual or perceived parenting situation either now or in the short or long term. So it is shocking that they are saying that the OP is the one that is in the wrong here.

Free, if your employer had sacked you the week after your announcement, what would you have done?

There is a disturbing trend emerging .. if women are deliberately starting employment pregnant... taking advantage of a law designed to protect us from discrimination... knowing full well they will only be employable max a few months then it won't be long before employers will not trust any female of childbearing age.

The financial implications for small or single employers is huge ... never mind just the wages etc but advertising etc. Imagine the fury on here had op done this to a person with disabilities wanting to employ a pa for personal support.

Sigh.

The law is there precisely because of biological inequality.

And now men can take as much or more APL as their partners can take ML, will employers stop employing men at all because they can father at any age?

if women are deliberately starting employment pregnant... taking advantage of a law designed to protect us from discrimination... knowing full well they will only be employable max a few months then it won't be long before employers will not trust any female of childbearing age.

Knickers, don't you realise that that is exactly what has been happening for years?? Employers have traditionally avoided employing women, assuming that they will bear children, assuming that they will choose to take maternity leave, assuming that their partners will chose to continue to work and further their careers. These are all assumptions which the legislation is designed to challenge and to protect women from. I am aware that maternity rights have huge implication for small employers, and that those who employ nannies do have to take this into consideration. However, the law has designated that women need to be protected from such attitudes and if you are the best employee for a job, and if you are offered that job and happen to be pregnant, you are not to be discriminated against. If you choose not to go back to work you have to pay back maternity benefits, so that the employer is reimbursed. But the hassle of re-interviewing, and retraining a replacement (I know, I've done it) is a pain which is worth bearing if it means that capable and experienced women are allowed to remain in the workforce and to contribute their skills to the economy.

If you don't agree, then you need to be campaigning for a change in the law, not blaming the OP for being legally employed and offering her time and skills for due renumeration.

Sorry, that was to Tazzle, not Knickers!

It may be annoying that the parents will have to find someone else in a shorter time than anticipated, but that's life and I'm sure they'll survive with another nanny who agrees to never get pregnant, just for their sake eyeroll

Notquite - you are misrepsrenting what I have said. Obviously the bulk of families employing nannies would hope that they stick around for the long term. I would expect that lots of nannies would hope the same. That is not the same as 'buying their soul' - don't be so dramatic. If I had a nanny that I valued then of course I would be over the moon if they found themselves in the OP's situation and would support them in the hopes that we could sort out a mutually beneficial arrangement once they had finished mat leave (eg mind the kids together or what have you). But i would like to feel that this respect would go both ways and that the nanny would be upfront with us.

Also if you had bothered to read the post you would notice that I said I would not have told the family in the interview stage either, but that I feel she should now be upfront.

There is a lot of hyperbole about employees rights here which I don't think anyone is disputing. What some of us are gently suggesting is that we all back eachother up here - at the other side of this argument is another working mum/dad trying to do the best by their kids. Do unto others and all that.

OP- thrilled for you regardless, really hope it all works out for everyone involved.

Aplogies Cuppa, yes, I have looked again at your post and apologise for only responding to that part, and for singling you out as opposed to responding to others on the first three pages of the thread in which the majority of posters were suggesting that the OP was being unreasonable.

My response was also coloured by the fact that the employers asked the illegal question, implying that that would be a factor in their consideration of the successful candidate. You are right, it would be better for the OP to be upfront and explain now that she is pregnant - although I am not sure, in the light of that question, whether it would be prudent to do so if she really needs the work. In an ideal world, the employers would, of course, be reasonable and, though disappointed, would work with her to make sure that the situation could still be moved forward to everyone's benefit. Maybe they could really be enlightened employers - or maybe they could come onto MN and talk things through before making their decision!!

Notquite- I was thinking the same, I wonder what the response would be like if someone posted 'my new nanny has just told me she's pregnant - what should I do?' I am half tempted to do it just to see what happens...