Pregnant while on mat leave- apparently I "have some nerve"

[thiskittenbarks]

Coming to end of my year of Mat leave and will be going back 3 days p/w. Have recently found out I am pregnant again. Wonderful news and couldn't be happier. Brought baby to see my parents this weekend and told them we are (fingers crossed) expecting no2. They are pleased but when discussing going back to work etc my mum dropped in that I "have some nerve" do go back from mat leave pregnant. Is it really that bad? Surely lots of people do it? I want to be prepared for telling work as I'm now not sure if I am telling them something terrible and shocking. My boss was actually pretty unpleasant to me while I was pregnant (just rude comments and questioning the regularity of antenatal appts etc) so I am fully prepared for that again - but I would like to know if I'm actually being crazy or unreasonable.
My mum was then questioning me about what work can do and whether they have to give me mat leave for this baby or if they can get out of it on account me be just being on mat leave. She's in her 70s and I know things were unfortunately different for her generation. But she's made me doubt whether I will even get mat leave, which I know is stupid.

[Underparmummy]

Are you planning to actually go back to this job properly after the second maternity leave?

As an employer I would be a little disappointed but if I felt a proper long term commitment was there then its ok. If theres insecurity on the employer side about the final result it is more frustrating.

[HeartburnCentral]

There's no point of anyone giving out now. You are pregnant so they'll have to get on with it. There will probably be a lot of pissed off people but you are legally entitled to your maternity leave so there's not much they can do other than grumble. It is strange that your employers haven't got someone in to cover your position while you're off and it can continue on indefinitely without someone taking up the role.

[ShotsFired]

@anyeWesticle It's entirely legal and morally above board. It's inconvenient for them but your family is far more important.

Why is having a child "more important" a business needs and requirements? They presumably didn't hire any woman for her fertility, they hired her to be an accountant or a teacher or a plumber. So their interest in her is for that role, not for her family objectives. They abide by the laws around pregnant employees, but that doesn't mean that a baby has any importance above business objectives/profit/success for the employer.

[Aderyn17]

Lollypop, you can challenge it all you like but the fact remains that employers have hired staff to do a job and if that staff member isn't at work for the best part of two years because of her personal life, the employer isn't getting what they paid for and will likely be pissed off. Legally they can do and say nothing but privately they can and will think what they want.

The degree of how pissed off they feel may vary according to how well the business can get by without them for that period of time/ease of recruiting a replacement etc.
You can say that is the employer's problem and not the staff member's but it becomes every woman's problem when it affects how that employer recruits in the future.

In an ideal world there would be no knock on effect for other staff members but in reality many will end up with additional work because sometimes that is unavoidable - the business depends on the skills of the employees, the relationships built with clients and these are not always quickly replaceable, esp in small companies with tight budgets.

[woodhill]

It does happen. I took redundancy during pregnancy and decided not to go back to work but by the time my ED was 11 months I was pregnant again unplanned (breast feeding contraception myth etc) but in the long run it's been great to have the 2dds so close.

[lollipop7]

@Aderyn17

Lollypop, you can challenge it all you like but the fact remains that employers have hired staff to do a job and if that staff member isn't at work for the best part of two years because of her personal life, the employer isn't getting what they paid for and will likely be pissed off. Legally they can do and say nothing but privately they can and will think what they want.

The degree of how pissed off they feel may vary according to how well the business can get by without them for that period of time/ease of recruiting a replacement etc.
You can say that is the employer's problem and not the staff member's but it becomes every woman's problem when it affects how that employer recruits in the future.

In an ideal world there would be no knock on effect for other staff members but in reality many will end up with additional work because sometimes that is unavoidable - the business depends on the skills of the employees, the relationships built with clients and these are not always quickly replaceable, esp in small companies with tight budgets.

None of what you have written changes the fact that my previous replies to you are the legally correct ones.

This isn't about anything other than that. If someone at work opined that this woman has a nerve for behaving this way they'd be in hot water and rightly so.

The reality is that actually this doesn't happen that often and when it does the FACT remains that employers have duties of care, women are thankfully protected by employment law and contracts and more often than not extra work is generally down to companies treating staff badly, paying lip service to succession / contingency planning and the like.

You just come across as someone who is passively aggressively scapegoating a woman and her reproductive choices, instead of acknowledging the very salient points about the wider context of the workplace that falls short so as to make this occurrence a problem it ought not to be.

[Aderyn17]

Lollypop, I and others have explained some of the difficulties businesses can face when a key staff member takes 2 extended leaves in close succession and why these problems are not always possible to resolve without impacting on other employees and the business as a whole. It's not realistic or fair to just blame the business for not making contingency plans. It's tough economically, small businesses are struggling and don't always have the fat in the budgets to easily handle this. Losing a staff member for nearly 2 years and keeping their job open, while trying to find a good replacement who will accept a temp contract isn't always possible. You can refuse to acknowledge it, but it doesn't make it less true.

I have not disagreed that legally an employer would not be able to say to a pg employee taking two extended leaves on the bounce that she 'has a nerve'. Still doesn't stop them thinking it! Or affecting how they hire staff.

In the end, I don't employ the OP so it makes no odds to me and I would not say anything at all to the OP, bar congratulations on her pg. But she did start this thread presumably to garner opinion. I gave mine. You don't have to like it, but I do suspect many employers share it.

[ZenHeadbutt]

Legally and morally it's fine but that's not to say I wouldn't find it irritating if I was a manager. I wouldn't say anything anything though. In fact I'd go out my way to make sure you knew I was happy for you.

....but secretly grrrrr 😡😡😡 😂

[Anatidae]

I think why people are objecting is this:

A manager can think privately Whatever they wish

When that becomes translated to a hostile environment, either directly or indirectly we have an issue.

If sally is off on maternity leave and I'm annoyed because I have to train a replacement then hey ho.
If I am making a hostile environment by showing I am annoyed it's a whole different matter.

I didn't dare take time off during my pregnancy even when I was really, really sick with HG because I knew that if I couldn't carry on with the pregnancy my employers would fire me, my only protection was being pregnant. If I'd lost the baby they would have fired me as soon as they could because they'd know I was trying to get pregnant.

that's a hostile environment and that's the problem. A managers private feelings are neither here nor there. When they affect employees health and wellbeing they become an issue.

[Aderyn17]

I do agree that creating a hostile wotking environment is completely wrong.

[Babbitywabbit]

The OP says it's her mother who has voiced the opinion that she has 'some nerve' in taking two close ML. Not the employer or her colleagues. I think we're all in agreement that provided her employer and colleagues dont say or show anything negative, then they're perfectly entitled to think whatever they like. And realistically that's not all likely to be fluffy and nice

I'd also add that whereas other colleagues shouldn't voice negative opinions to the OP, they absolutely DO have the right to complain to their line manager if the OPs absence is negatively impacting on their workload. Her right to ML doesn't trump her colleagues' rights to not be unreasonably burdened. And once again, this can prove problematic for an employer who is trying to run a business and needs skilled staff. It may not always be possible to draft in skilled and trained replacements for specific time periods so inevitably some things fall to existing colleagues.

I think the main thing to take from this thread is that legal rights are one thing, and of course can't be over ridden, but you can't expect that taking a legal right to year long, shortly spaced multiple ML isn't going to be a massive inconvenience to the employer

[dobbyclub]

Would people pissed off about this be equally pissed off if, as pp have said, an employee went off for the same amount of time for cancer treatment? What about if they were a heavy smoker?

It's clear that the 'being pissed off' or not seems to come mainly down to whether the employer believes it to be deliberate or directly caused by the employee (in those circumstances, at that time).
When it comes to pregnancy, it is arrogant beyond the extreme to assume you know the situation behind it unless the employee has explicitly told you. I think that's what's bugging me so much about this, the dishing out of of blame when many posters are clueless about the realities of 'choosing to get pregnant'.

And I still have yet to be convinced that taking two years close together is worse than two separate years with some agreed time period in between.

[ShotsFired]

@dobbyclub "And I still have yet to be convinced that taking two years close together is worse than two separate years with some agreed time period in between."

It probably isn't, IF it can be planned like that. But it isn't so it's effectively having to resource two separate ML because the likelihood of the same contractor staying available after they finish covering your first one is low. And instead of having 9months to prepare, it's just a couple as you have come back pregnant. And with stack loads of accrued leave to take too, cutting down your time back at work even more.

So it's a brand new cycle of search, recruit, train, and paying a premium for it without any of the usual advance notice OR having you in post to be working day to day full time and able to handover fully.

[dobbyclub]

I didn't give my employers 9 months to prepare with any mat leave; I'd be surprised if many ppl have the heads up as soon as they conceive. As I've already said the legal minimum is 15 weeks before due date.I imagine most ppl give 5.5 months or so, if they tell them at 3 months pg.

[Oldie2017]

My way caused no hassle. Worked until in labour, 2 weeks off back full time after 2 weeks. That way you canhave as many babies as you like close together (I have 5) and the employer is no affected; you career is not affected; your childre aren't (as they get used to childcare very early so have no huge wrench on a "return to work); you avoid sexism at home as you are both doing as much for the child and both working full time and you keep your career going. It is not everyone's chocie but the suggestion everyone does or has to take 12 months off to have a baby in some ways confuses women who think that is the only right away to do it. You have a choice as long as you are healthy as most of us are.

[ZenHeadbutt]

Would people pissed off about this be equally pissed off if, as pp have said, an employee went off for the same amount of time for cancer treatment? What about if they were a heavy smoker?

We had someone at work who was very overweight who had a lot of time off for illness that may or may not have been caused by weight and I overheard some off comments from other staff members. I pointed out one of them had had time off for a skiing accident. 🤷🏻‍♀️

[ZenHeadbutt]

Oldie2017
I thought you mostly worked for yourself from home. It's not the same as working full time out the home.

[ZenHeadbutt]

Sorry my face looked sarcastic. It was meant to look 'unsure' rather than sarcastic

[Anatidae]

Yes best to pop them into childcare as soon as the cord is cut, don't want them developing any pesky attachment to a parent do we? That way you can have thirty (poor planet) and have zero disruption to your career.

[Underparmummy]

anatidae - for some women/families a quick return to work is what everyone wants and needs. Im sure you didn't mean to come across as judgemental as you did...

[Oldie2017]

Now I work mostly from home (no childre live at home now). I commuted into the City for the first 10 years of being a parent and expressed breastmilk at work etc. We all do it the way that feels best at the time. What I don't want young women to think is that everyone has to take a year off because that's the thing everyone does and their friends do and they are lesser or wrong or bad parents if they return to work sooner. Going back much earlier is a perfectly valid and good option for plenty of people. I feel instead these days it is stigmatised.