Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Work

Chat with other users about all things related to working life on our Work forum.

Original poster

offered position and now informed me of pregnancy?

91 replies

harrogatemum · 19/07/2006 16:00

Hi - I am looking for some advice.

I have interviewed a lady twice for a position at the company I work for and just this morning offered her a position through a recruitment agency.

The recruitment agency rang me back to say that she would like to accept, but that she feels she should mention that she might be pregnant, although at this stage she isnt sure.

I know that I cannot discriminate against her and wouldnt want to as I have obviously already offered her the position. But does anyone else think this is a bit odd? Especially as she is currenty unsure about it?

I think its very honest of her to mention it also but it puts me in a bit of a funny position! Any thoughts/advice?

OP posts:
chai18 · 21/07/2006 12:42

I'm now back and have read all your comments.

I do have kids and don't have a penis.

I may have given bad legal advice (thought I'm not entirely convinced that you could be easily taken to tribunal) but stand by my view that it is unfair to require an employer to take on a member of staff who is already pregnant.

I personally would not impose that on anyone. I would temp until ready to go back after my baby was born. What would you do? Is it a nice way to behave or do you feel that cos the law allows it you'd dump it on someone else? What makes that behaviour better than my suggestion, however cruel?

Original poster
harrogatemum · 21/07/2006 13:40

Actually I have just been reading up about maternity rights to make sure they are the same as last time for myself and it seems that she wont be entitled to SMP even as she will not have been with us long enough but may be able to claim Maternity Alliance payments from teh government instead? Anyone know about this?

OP posts:
eenywifemum · 21/07/2006 13:50

that is true harrogatemum. She will NOT get SMP for you or the additional 6 months leave but will get MAT. All. from the government.

nellie245 · 21/07/2006 13:55

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

harpsichordcarrier · 21/07/2006 14:00

chai, believe me you could be easily taken to tribunal if you offered a job to someone and then "let them go at the end of the month.
the tribunal would assume that you have dismissed them because they were pregnant.
which, in fact, you have.
which, to be clear, is illegal, discriminatory and vile.
and there are no compensation limits for such claims so the woman could claim for (I would say) her pay till she went on mat leave, her entire mat leave and a good long while of lost earnings for when she came back.
plus a few thousand for lost earnings.
let's say, £50k, for the average earner?

chai18 · 21/07/2006 14:08

OK. I stand corrected.

BUT what would you or anyone else who thought that my suggestion was so outrageous do?

harpsichordcarrier · 21/07/2006 14:09

I don't really understand what you mean by "dump it onto someone else?"
dump what, exactly?

chai18 · 21/07/2006 14:16

"the law"

If the law says that a new employer is required to employ me, I'm going to take the job regardless of whether I feel it fair.

Wordsmith · 21/07/2006 14:21

Chai - it just shows we still have a long way to go.

harrogatemum - she'll be able to claim maternity allowance which is about £104 per week for 6 months, directly from the govt.

My DH is a recruitment consultant and a few years back (before we had kids) told me he hated placing women returners, as they were termed, as employers thought their mind wouldn't be on the job!! Think his opinion has changed now.

As far as harrogatemum's new staff member goes, if she's good enough to be offered the job before hm knew she was pg, then what's changed? She's still the same person, her abilities haven't changed. Yes it's a pig having to organise maternity cover but that's one of of the pigs of being an employer. Like someone (MI I think) said - if you employ women of childbearing age, you have to assume they may want to have children. Treating it as a big shock and somehow disloyal is a puzzle to me...

fattiemumma · 21/07/2006 14:21

you not secretly Alan Sugar are you??

hotmama · 21/07/2006 14:22

Bloody Hell, Chai18 - I hope you aren't in the position of being responsible for employing/managing people - because you aren't coming across as very employee friendly.

I'm glad that at least some of us are managers/responsible for employing people - that do have the right focus.

hotmama · 21/07/2006 14:25

That £104 is taxed-so you get about £70ish - whopee- not!

I would rather employ 'returners'. It depends on how flexible you are as an employer- those that I employ are fab and also know the true meaning of the term multi-tasking!

chai18 · 21/07/2006 14:39

Still there's no one willing to say they'd do it.

My arguement is not so much (certainly at this point in the debate) about the employer but the employee.

MrsBigD · 21/07/2006 14:46

Haven't had time to read the whole thread but thought I'd put in my 2p worth

I was in that woman's position when I just had finished retraining to go into IT, had an interview and got the job offer 3 weeks later (NHS do I need say more?). Anyhow in those 3 weeks I found out I was expecting (not planned). I called potential new employer and actually gave them the option to retrackt but they didn't. My boss to be thought it was still worth taking me on. Also legally I think they are not allowed to withdraw an offer only because you're pregnant, unless it's a H&S risk.

Also I was not entitled to maternity pay through the company but received SMP, which barely paid for the nappies

I'd say give her the benefit of the doubt, she might be a hard worker and at least you already know she's honest

nellie245 · 21/07/2006 14:46

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

motherinferior · 21/07/2006 14:50

I get the contrary impression: that pretty well everyone this thread - some of whom face this situation in real life - would take her on.

And as the prospective employee, not everyone is in a field where they can temp. In my own case I was freelance and a job came up which would have suited me a lot - when I didn't get it, it wasn't the end of the world for me but I certainly would have grabbed it if they'd offered. Hell, I would have been the best candidate so why not?

Finally: everyone recruiting to a job knows they may have made a horrible mistake and that the interviewee will turn out to be a disaster. Goes with the territory. But I hardly think someone who says upfront that they're up the duff is automatically in that category.

mousiemousie · 21/07/2006 14:51

Pregnant women have a right not to be discriminated against - how else can they support a child without working?

It is a disfunctional society when employers are allowed to discriminate for this reason. However, I have sympathy with small companies and perhaps the government should offer these companies more support.

liquidclocks · 21/07/2006 15:42

I was rung at my old job before I had DS (I'd JUST miscarried a week before the call) by an employer I'd previously been interviewed by but not got the job. At the time I was doing a weekly commute of 3-4 hrs and only seeing DH at weekends, late friday to sunday morning. I was asked to apply for a position they had coming up which would have been a half hour commute from home. I applied and got shortlisted - there were only 2 applicants. A few days before the interview I found out I was pregnant again and being honest (naive in retrospect) I told the panel I was expecting again.

I wasn't offered the job, the other applicant was a new graduate where I'd had a year's experience, and also I'd been especially asked to apply.

In hindsight I'd still have done the same thing BUT I'd have asked for the written reports from the interview and asked why I'd not been offered it. If they had offered me the job I'd still be working for them 3yrs on wheras I know the girl they did take on left after 6 months anyway. I know I didn't have tribunal case but it does make me angry because I really do believe I'd have got that job and done it well if I'd not been pregnant.

Discrimination against women in the workplace at all makes me so

harrogatemum - I wish there were more employers out there like you. I was also thinking, perhaps this lady knows she is pregnant but has miscarried before? It is a strange thing to say you might be pregnant but that's the language I used to myself when having DS because I didn't want to build up my hopes.

Uwila · 21/07/2006 15:45

It means she is pregnant and plans to fudge the date so she'll get paid mat benefits.

You must hire her. To not hire her would be blatant sexual discrimination.

NotAnOtter · 21/07/2006 15:47

i am not pregnant harrogatemum and live nearby so 'bin' her and employ me!

fuzzywuzzy · 21/07/2006 16:40

harrogatemum have a look here , just answer the questions and it will show you how much maternity pay [if any] she'll be entitled to.

Uwila · 21/07/2006 16:41

Ok, I've cought up with the thread now...

Chai, your views are shockingly Victorian.

And, as for how nice this girl is for being honest, well I actually think she's stupid. But it depends on what the job is. Does a nice subservient person suit the role? Then yes it's a good thing. I certainly wouldn't tell any employer I was pregnant until 1- I was legally required to 2- I needed to confes the situation for the health of me or my baby or 3- I thought he/she might have noticed already. Being pregnant is rarely a good career move, so until one of the three above listed reasons occurs it is none of their business.

Wordsmith · 21/07/2006 17:31

I think you'll find the £104 isn't taxed, Hotmama - it's a state benefit, not an employmnet perk.

motherinferior · 21/07/2006 18:18

Uwila, I've said that I'd admit to my pregnancy and I can assure you (as can Fauve, for whom I used to work) that I am anything but subservient. Mouthy pain in the arse, yes: subservient, no

poisson · 21/07/2006 18:19

god you are all mad
id not employ her
w hast the point

Swipe left for the next trending thread