Job Offer withdrawn after informing employer that I am pregnant.

[Char1997]

Hi all,

I originally posted this on as a pregnancy thread. As the situation has evolved I have been advised to post on here. I was offered a job yesterday afternoon and although I know I was under no obligation to inform them, I told the employer that I was expecting in December. Since then I have had the job offer withdrawn as they felt that I “misled them” and wasn’t honest. Is anyone able to give me some advice if I were to take this further.

I think that you have made all these problems up in your own head. It sounds like you have never hired some one on a maternity contract?

No, I haven't.

Why would I make it up I worked for ten years in engineering firms, witnessed more than a few women have maternity leaves, and had 2 myself, and not once were they covered with a temporary worker.

Outwith IT / software, I've only ever worked directly with one contractor, and they were desperate to have him permanent but he was adamant he wanted the winter off to go to his holiday home.

Why is it so hard to understand that some jobs can't just hire joe bloggs off the street all of our systems were custom built for the company (in both places I worked at). It took me 3ish months just to get through all the procedural and process documents. And that's before you have the chance to learn the multiple products, all with complex sets of requirements. Yes, I still contributed during that time, but both times it was about a year-ish until I found my feet and actually ramped up to 100%.

Having a long line of highly qualified and experienced temporary workers desperate to apply is probably a luxury afforded to bigger cities. You release we're not all in London? Where are all these radar engineers desperate for a 6 month contract in Yeovil? Blackburn?

BUT that's not even what we're talking about. We're talking about small enterprises that don't want to hire a temporary worker for a full time role.

You maintain it's so easy to hire maternity cover, and apparently everyone is doing it, so if I was op I'd have applied to cover someone else's maternity. Problem solved.

@blockyy I think you might look back at this attitude and be ashamed of yourself.

But I will leave it there with you.

Best of luck OP.

No, that is part of your business. Just like paying your rent, doing your taxes, all of the back office stuff which isn't on the front line bringing money in. If you can't cope with staff turnover - which, yes, has an impact in both time and money - you need to reexamine your business model.

Okay... so if that's the case why does literally every employer ask to see your work history including dates?

No small business is going to take someone on if they suspect they're not going to last 3 months based on their actions / previous history.

Nothing is guaranteed, but you take calculated decisions based on the facts you have in front of you.

If it was as simple as you're making it out to be, then nobody would ever take into account a CV that said the person never lasted more than 3 - 6 months in the one job. We'd all be hiring them anyway, wouldn't we? And fuck the consequences, fuck the turnover, because taking unnecessary risks is according to you, part of having a sound business model .

Just when you think the idiots on this thread couldn't get any worse, along comes another twat.

Good luck for October OP

I think I've named changed 8 times since this thread started but I'm with you OP and I'll be with you in October.

I can’t believe people are still discussing this, as if it’s up for debate and not something that’s enshrined in law.

Can’t believe you have to wait til October but well done OP for taking things this far. Really hope you win.

Annamaria if I sound soiled you sound simple. Yes if I’m away from my desk doing multiple interviews I’m not doing other important work. I honestly don’t believe you worked in HR. It is time consuming.

If you ever get the opportunity to own your own business instead of just working for someone you might look back on this and understand.

I’ll leave that with you.

@Summersunandoranges how was it time consuming when it was part of my job.
It was a needed facet of my job.

And how is it time consuming when you run a business- you are doing something that is essential for your business. You prioritise!

Doing interviews is part of your job.

Good luck, OP

October will be here soon enough.

I’m amazed she still hasn’t took advice

Bloody hell what a thread! Sorry OP but you should have gone for temp work if you could only manage that. Bit snide imo

Companies that don't bring in maternity cover are making a choice. They get the maternity pay back from the government so they are not financially disadvantaged. They just choose to get others to work harder to cover the gap and profiteer.

The law is in place to protect women in this situation for the good of society as a whole. And it's in place because of attitudes like we've heard on this thread.

Yes someone going on maternity leave, sick leave etc soon after starting is inconvenient but we as society deem protecting mothers and children as more important than than your inconvenience.

Bloody hell what a thread! Sorry OP but you should have gone for temp work if you could only manage that. Bit snide imo

Because that's all women are good for isn't it? Heaven forbid they want some stability and a job to come back to.

Because that's all women are good for isn't it? Heaven forbid they want some stability and a job to come back to

It’s a bit like place marking a job though isn’t it? What about a women who already has kids and has zero money coming in who desperately needs it to feed them but who can go in every day 🤷🏽‍♀️

Every one needs jobs these days!

Crazy attitudes by some. Maternity it a tiny part of women’s working life. I truly hope those of you being so open about your discriminatory actions are found out and prosecuted.

OP good luck with everything

"It’s a bit like place marking a job though isn’t it?"

Quite - that's the whole point of the law. To ensure women have a job to go back to after maternity. It's a law, it's not up for debate.

Cannot believe some of the attitudes on this thread.

MN is very anti business.

So by extension the law is very anti business too?

The law protects people from discrimination, that's all there is to it. Businesses don't have to pay SMP (they claim that from the government) and they don't have to pay sick pay either if their contracts are SSP only - also claimed back from the government.

Well done @Char1997!
Ignore the ignorant types. I ran a small, family business for years. You hire people who get pregnant it’s part of being an employer. Often you don’t have to pay SMP if they are quite far gone (they claim maternity allowance directly). Even if you do have to pay SMP Small businesses can claim more than the cost of SMP back from the government to offset the extra costs of hiring a temp. It’s really not as bad as people make out (who I suspect don’t actually run a small business or they would know!). Regardless, none of it justifies how this lady behaved. I agree with a previous poster, that your potential employer and the other “you’ve done something terrible” posters have internalised a lot of misogyny.
I hope you win in October! Keep us posted.

And...For the record I’ve had someone announce their pregnancy after getting the job when it was really problematic and costly (for reasons I won’t get in to). All of that entered my head when she told me, but I replied “congratulations! How can we support you”... because I’m not a horrible human being!

@Summersunandoranges no-one is asking you to be over the moon, but some key pointers....
1 if she was the right person for the role, long term investment in her is long term investment in your business too.
2 Conditions for women in business is getting better. Gender pay gap equaling out and many companies having to ensure the right % of women are employed to achieve the pay gap balance. No-one will stop recruiting women.
3 people - not just women- want to work for family supportive businesses. And research shows retention is higher as is individual staff performance.
4 recruitment is a vital part of your job. Stop dismissing it as a pain in the arse. Without good people your business will fail.
5 the increase in female leaders and those reaching the most senior roles has significantly increased in the last decade and will continue to do so. Those women, including you, need to be advocates for other women, and it's proven businesses with females on the board are higher performing in total.
6 It's not our fault that it's our bodies that bare children. Why should our livelihoods be cut and compromised because of this unchangeable fact.

As a female business leader, you are far behind the times in modernisation for women in the workplace that has occurred. There are a good number of conferences you would benefit from, and in turn, so would your business.

As for berating a woman who correctly challenges and organisation for discriminating against her - well that says more about you as a person than anything else. If you don't change your mindset, you continue to throw water on the equality flame and keep women down. You are part of the patriarchy. Your staff and your business will suffer too.

Right person. Right job. Regardless of gender, or family plans.

Good luck for October, OP

@blockyy
If it was as simple as you're making it out to be, then nobody would ever take into account a CV that said the person never lasted more than 3 - 6 months in the one job. We'd all be hiring them anyway, wouldn't we?

Not really. Your allowed to make a judgement on whether someone is a poor performer that results in high turnover of positions. Or they could have had a run of bad luck.

You interview them and ask. You make a judgement call. If your a good interviewer will easily get to the bottom of and decide for yourself whether they may be a good fit.

But you don't make a judgement call on whether they might have children in the future or be pregnant at the time.

Risk is too often seen as the risk of doing something, rather than the risk of not doing something.

"I won't employ her - she's pregnant"

"If I don't employ her, I might not find anyone else as good"

Maternity cover really is not a big a deal.

It's not our fault that it's our bodies that bare children. Why should our livelihoods be cut and compromised because of this unchangeable fact.

This is key and I absolutely agree with this. As much as I've been called vile and disgusting etc, I do maintain I'm a feminist and I believe in equal rights for all.

I had reasonable adjustments made for me in both of my pregnancies. I had full pay topped up by my employer in both cases. I have witnessed first hand being overlooked for promotion because "blockyy is concentrating on her family" direct quote I overhead! The man who got the promotion had a family too, btw, and like I've said previously I worked full time and had cover in place should my kids become ill at childcare. I wasn't a part-timer or running off early every time the kids had a temperature.

I understand both obvious and indirect discrimination. I understand that it's not the woman's fault she has to carry the baby.

Which is why I've said elsewhere that if an interviewee was imminently due a baby, but explained she planned to only take 6 - 12 weeks off then I'd give her exactly the same consideration as any other candidate.

And if a man who was imminently due a baby explained he intended to take 9-12 months off, I wouldn't personally want to hire him.

For me it's not about the pregnancy, which I wholeheartedly agree is a protected characteristic. It's about coping with the resultant year long parental leave that comes after having said pregnancy - and this would apply to both sexes. If they were already an employee then great - that is that parent's right regardless of sex. But if they're not an employee then I can understand why a small business wouldn't want to go there.