When to tell potential employer about pregnancy?

[tvguy]

I worked for a new mom, and she said becoming a mom really opened her eyes as a manager. And she added, covering a maternity leave was still the biggest challenge she faced as a manager by a long shot. This statement, after 3 women announced they were pregnant, 2 of them in the same department.....a department of just 4 people. Modern corporate staffing levels make covering 1 sick day or a week of vacation a challenge. Covering 3 people for 3 months each without working everyone 7 days a week can be impossible, unless you get lucky and can find a temp.
This article offers some advice for job hunters who are expecting.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/dailymu...al-rules-of-job-hunting-while-youre-pregnant/

 

[ronandannette]

That would be illegal in the United States under various civil rights laws.

Also illegal in Canada under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Absolutely - which is why I (and likely any other employer) will find any one of countless other reasons to give the job to another candidate.

 

[bcla]

I worked for a new mom, and she said becoming a mom really opened her eyes as a manager. And she added, covering a maternity leave was still the biggest challenge she faced as a manager by a long shot. This statement, after 3 women announced they were pregnant, 2 of them in the same department.....a department of just 4 people. Modern corporate staffing levels make covering 1 sick day or a week of vacation a challenge. Covering 3 people for 3 months each without working everyone 7 days a week can be impossible, unless you get lucky and can find a temp.
This article offers some advice for job hunters who are expecting.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/dailymu...al-rules-of-job-hunting-while-youre-pregnant/

I recently responded to a jury summons and sat in the courtroom as the judge was taking hardship excuses. One was actually prepaid, nonrefundable vacation expenses. Another was financial hardship - typically when the employer didn't pay or would only pay 5 days during jury duty. However, quite a few claimed that they would suffer at work due to bad job reviews, poor job assignments, or other assorted issues. The judge was not amused. I believe that if any employer were stupid enough to put that in writing or an email, they could have been looking at criminal contempt. The law is supposed to protect the process, as other civil rights laws protect basic rights of people.

I certainly understand what it means when specific employees specialize, and it may be difficult for one employee to cover for another without some lead time. In this case I'd say to the OP don't tell them. They wouldn't be allowed to ask anyways if the jobseeker is pregnant or would like to become pregnant. Don't give them an excuse, and you're protected by the law. If they retaliate when they find out, you can sue the pants off of them. I'm not normally one to advocate for lawsuits, but this is something that's clearly illegal.

 

[Yougotit]

Is there a probationary period where you can be terminated at any time within the first three months simply for not being the right fit? Where I am there is. And I could absolutely see that right being exercised (with caution, but exercised) if you didn't bother sharing your plans until an offer was made. I would suggest being honest. Why not attend the interview, share your good news, share what you are willing to do to make it work for them and for your family and suggest the alternative of being a temp/ substitute and applying for a FT position once the baby has been born and you are truly available to take on the position FT? Not sure if that is possible but in my world as a hiring manager that would buy you credibility, telling me that you were pregnant after accepting an offer is in my opinion deceitful.

 

[bcla]

Is there a probationary period where you can be terminated at any time within the first three months simply for not being the right fit? Where I am there is. And I could absolutely see that right being exercised (with caution, but exercised) if you didn't bother sharing your plans until an offer was made. I would suggest being honest. Why not attend the interview, share your good news, share what you are willing to do to make it work for them and for your family and suggest the alternative of being a temp/ substitute and applying for a FT position once the baby has been born and you are truly available to take on the position FT? Not sure if that is possible but in my world as a hiring manager that would buy you credibility, telling me that you were pregnant after accepting an offer is in my opinion deceitful.

It's well known that employers will do whatever they can to justify doing illegal things if they can pin it on something else. Legal protections exist for legitimate reasons. Maybe I'm being cynical, but the justifications I hear in this thread for illegal hiring and employement practices make me cringe.

I'm pretty sure that once information volunteered, the potential employer will make excuses for justifying the choice in terms other than the pregnancy.

 

[PollyannaMom]

Honestly, I don't think I'd apply this year at all. But that's just me. I, personally, would be overwhelmed with a move and a baby and a new job all at once, and it would just be too much for me. You said you'd be OK with just DH working. Unless that would actually be more stressful for you, I think I would enjoy the extra time with the baby and apply later.

But if you really want to work, I like the honesty approach. Around here, they are not allowed to even ask if you have children, let alone if you are pregnant. But if they feel "tricked" so early in your employment, I don't think it will start the relationship off well. Emphasize your skills, be upfront about the pregnancy, and how lucky you are with your due date that you'll only need a sub for three weeks if things go well. Emphasize that you went back to work comfortably after your first child. If they like your qualifications much better than those of the other applicants, they'll be willing to work with you though the transition to get the better teacher in the end.

 

[eliza61]

It's well known that employers will do whatever they can to justify doing illegal things if they can pin it on something else. Legal protections exist for legitimate reasons. Maybe I'm being cynical, but the justifications I hear in this thread for illegal hiring and employement practices make me cringe.

I'm pretty sure that once information volunteered, the potential employer will make excuses for justifying the choice in terms other than the pregnancy.

*sighs** I understand your frustration bcla but you also must understand the employees position.

I work for a huge corporation that actually gets many kudo's for being family friendly but are some real consideration (I won't say facts because I'm sure someone here will say that doesn't apply to them) when hiring.

An employee being out cost money. plain and simple. not even talking about salary, benefits etc. If I have a position open for a scientist on a project and she says she'll be out 2 months, that can be catastrophic.

If it's a hot project with million dollar sales riding on it, that could be the difference in getting the project completed or not.

In today's environment most departments are already working lean, so if we are hiring we pretty much want you to come in and hit the job running. You (general) coming in and then leaving in a few months cost us money because just as you are probably getting to know the job. It also means I've got to pull someone from some where else to cover your work load.

Now as recruiting personnel, I've got a responsibility to get the best person with the best skill set. One of those skills includes attendance. If I've got two candidates with fairly equal schools, experience and talents and I know one is going to be gone for up to two months, who's the better candidate?

I have had mom's go out with the attention of only being gone 1 or 2 months and then find out they want to be a stay at home mom, which leaves us in a bind

Now teaching is a bit more flexible, if I was op I would simply sit out a year or many 1/2 a year.

Truly most folks aren't trying to be discriminatory or do illegal stuff, they are trying to get the best candidate for their positions with minimal cost.

Op, I like a previous posters idea.

Go in being honest, also open up the suggestion that you are flexible to other ideas. substitute teaching, part time positions.
Omitting pertinent information that could hurt them may leave a bad taste in your supervisors mouth. Are teacher's contracts renewable?

 

[Art 1]

It's well known that employers will do whatever they can to justify doing illegal things if they can pin it on something else. Legal protections exist for legitimate reasons. Maybe I'm being cynical, but the justifications I hear in this thread for illegal hiring and employement practices make me cringe.

I'm pretty sure that once information volunteered, the potential employer will make excuses for justifying the choice in terms other than the pregnancy.

Can't blame them, there will be other folks applying that will be better prospects, like those not pregnant. If you owned a company, would you want to hire a pregnant person who soon would be missing a good bit of work, and right after you spent your own money training them. I have owned a business for many many years now, one that is very costly to run. When it becomes your money it changes the way you think about things.

 

[gwynne]

Can't blame them, there will be other folks applying that will be better prospects, like those not pregnant. If you owned a company, would you want to hire a pregnant person who soon would be missing a good bit of work, and right after you spent your own money training them. I have owned a business for many many years now, one that is very costly to run. When it becomes your money it changes the way you think about things.

It's not just that the expectant mom will be gone for many weeks, she also may opt to not come back at all. Laws exist to protect the employee, not the employer in this situation. No answers, just looking at it from both sides.

 

[ronandannette]

It's well known that employers will do whatever they can to justify doing illegal things if they can pin it on something else. Legal protections exist for legitimate reasons. Maybe I'm being cynical, but the justifications I hear in this thread for illegal hiring and employement practices make me cringe.

I'm pretty sure that once information volunteered, the potential employer will make excuses for justifying the choice in terms other than the pregnancy.

You are exactly right which is why it would be no kindness for any of us to give the OP a rose-coloured, idealistic answer. Are pregnant women employable? Sure, possibly, especially if they bring some extremely unique and valuable skill set or credentials to the table that outweigh their potential liabilities. But the truth is that's rarely the case - most of us in fact are expendable and could be matched or bested by a competing candidate on any given day. And it's simply imprudent for an employer to NOT factor in potential lost time for medical reasons and the maternity leave.

I know it's much different in the States but here Parental Leave is a 12 month period during which the employee is paid by Employment Insurance and it is uncommon that anyone takes less than their full entitlement. (Not to mention that many end up not returning at the end of the leave, a decision they do not have to disclose until the day they are due to report back for duty.) By law, the position must be available for them to return to but presuming companies actually NEED all the staff they hire, a temporary hire must be made to cover that job, which results in this scenario:
Pregnant employee, let's say 4 months along, is hired. Job has a training period/learning curve that takes 2 months to result in full productivity. Employee contributes fully for 2 1/2 months and then begins maternity leave. Temp employee is recruited but in order to avoid paying 2 people for 1 job there is no over-lap and the temp employee's training period takes the next 2 months. You then get 6 months of relatively stable productivity followed by the return of the first employee who, given her relatively short tenure originally and the length of the leave, practically needs to be completely retrained.

No employer anywhere would be anxious to subject their business to this kind of disruption and that's just from an operations stand point - not even taking costs into account. FWIW, Parental Leave in Canada can be split between a mother and father and I would also reject any male candidate who expressed an intention to take it.

 

[ilovefh]

OP here.

A few answers to some questions....

No they don't have a 90 day probationary period. I do plan on going back after the baby, if I didn't I wouldn't apply. Salary wise it would be cheaper because I won't have any time saved up so for most of the time they would just be paying out sub pay.

I'm okay with working or not working next year. So if I get it great, if not that is fine too.

I definitely see both sides here. Some articles I read said you don't want to work for someone who would not hire you just because you're pregnant. On one hand a kind of agree with that statement. On the other hand, their school is graded based on their test scores. Having their math teacher out for 5 weeks definitely doesn't help their scores! So I get it!

If this was NH we were talking about I wouldn't even apply. Here in NH there are a lot of applications for each position. However, someone in an article I read pointed out that their principal hired pregnant women before because it was an investment in a good teacher who would be there for years. Something like that would apply to NH. (Plus here the push for test scores is not so prevalent.)

In our area in FL there are almost always open positions, even in the middle of the school year. But the hiring a pregnant woman because a teacher would be there for years doesn't really apply. The county is so big and teachers transfer schools all the time! One teacher at this particular school that I am interviewing at was at my school in 2011. In 2012 he went to a different school and in 2014 he moved to this school. Heck I started at my old school in 2011 and in 2012 I was the second most senior person in my department! Only 2/5 of us returned! Having such huge counties makes it so easy to transfer and still maintain everything because it is still the same employer.

I think I'll interview and tell them at the end of the interview.

Thanks everyone!

ETA: Contractually I could take a year unpaid and when I come back they would have to place me in an available job that I am certified for. It could be at the same school or even a different one. I don't plan to do this because then applying to only work for 3 months would be silly, but that is what the contracts states.

 

[Mickeyluver37]

I work for a multi billion dollar staffing company. If we have a 6 month contract for a project with a company, and the most quailified applicant is 7 months pregnant, we still would, and by law are REQUIRED to send that 7 month pregnant employee, knowing they can't even complete the project and another contractor will need to be sent over in 2 months. It is definitely illegal to discriminate, and a lot of comments here would get an employer in trouble if they were actually stated to the applicant. With that said, since it's irrelevant to your application/interview process, I would not mention it at all until after I had a written job offer. Maybe not even until the 1st day.

As a parent, I'll admit it's been hard when my kids schedules have been interupted by long term subs due to maternity leaves. But that's life.

 

[NewRVLady]

what grade is this?

If , as a parent, I brought my child to school the first day to meet a newly hired teacher and saw she was near giving birth-I would not be happy
My mind would be thinking-Lots of missed school days, substitute who may not bond with kids or teach them correctly (frankly I never liked substitutes-esp for long periods of time),

 

[mom2rtk]

what grade is this?

If , as a parent, I brought my child to school the first day to meet a newly hired teacher and saw she was near giving birth-I would not be happy
My mind would be thinking-Lots of missed school days, substitute who may not bond with kids or teach them correctly (frankly I never liked substitutes-esp for long periods of time),

I found the years my kids had long term subs (for maternity leave) to be far less productive (and we had a fair number of them through the years). Some of them were really not good situations resulting in a lot of lost time in the classroom. If I had it to do over again and I saw on the first day of school that the teacher was due soon, I'd request a different class.

 

[aaarcher86]

OP here.

A few answers to some questions....

No they don't have a 90 day probationary period. I do plan on going back after the baby, if I didn't I wouldn't apply. Salary wise it would be cheaper because I won't have any time saved up so for most of the time they would just be paying out sub pay.

I'm okay with working or not working next year. So if I get it great, if not that is fine too.

I definitely see both sides here. Some articles I read said you don't want to work for someone who would not hire you just because you're pregnant. On one hand a kind of agree with that statement. On the other hand, their school is graded based on their test scores. Having their math teacher out for 5 weeks definitely doesn't help their scores! So I get it!

If this was NH we were talking about I wouldn't even apply. Here in NH there are a lot of applications for each position. However, someone in an article I read pointed out that their principal hired pregnant women before because it was an investment in a good teacher who would be there for years. Something like that would apply to NH. (Plus here the push for test scores is not so prevalent.)

In our area in FL there are almost always open positions, even in the middle of the school year. But the hiring a pregnant woman because a teacher would be there for years doesn't really apply. The county is so big and teachers transfer schools all the time! One teacher at this particular school that I am interviewing at was at my school in 2011. In 2012 he went to a different school and in 2014 he moved to this school. Heck I started at my old school in 2011 and in 2012 I was the second most senior person in my department! Only 2/5 of us returned! Having such huge counties makes it so easy to transfer and still maintain everything because it is still the same employer.

I think I'll interview and tell them at the end of the interview.

Thanks everyone!

ETA: Contractually I could take a year unpaid and when I come back they would have to place me in an available job that I am certified for. It could be at the same school or even a different one. I don't plan to do this because then applying to only work for 3 months would be silly, but that is what the contracts states.

If you don't get the job you could always just sub for the year.

Subs basically have a full time job in our district!

 

[ronandannette]

I work for a multi billion dollar staffing company. If we have a 6 month contract for a project with a company, and the most quailified applicant is 7 months pregnant, we still would, and by law are REQUIRED to send that 7 month pregnant employee, knowing they can't even complete the project and another contractor will need to be sent over in 2 months. It is definitely illegal to discriminate, and a lot of comments here would get an employer in trouble if they were actually stated to the applicant. With that said, since it's irrelevant to your application/interview process, I would not mention it at all until after I had a written job offer. Maybe not even until the 1st day.

As a parent, I'll admit it's been hard when my kids schedules have been interupted by long term subs due to maternity leaves. But that's life.

Again, you are correct on the face of it but what constitutes "the most qualified" is subjective in almost every case. I'd also probably (well, maybe) hire an absolute rock-star candidate regardless of pregnancy and pending maternity leave but honestly, in 9 years I've never interviewed one. Most often there are 2 or 3 equally strong contenders for every job and they are then "eliminated" based on any number of factors until one emerges.

 

[Art 1]

I work for a multi billion dollar staffing company. If we have a 6 month contract for a project with a company, and the most quailified applicant is 7 months pregnant, we still would, and by law are REQUIRED to send that 7 month pregnant employee, knowing they can't even complete the project and another contractor will need to be sent over in 2 months. It is definitely illegal to discriminate, and a lot of comments here would get an employer in trouble if they were actually stated to the applicant. With that said, since it's irrelevant to your application/interview process, I would not mention it at all until after I had a written job offer. Maybe not even until the 1st day.

As a parent, I'll admit it's been hard when my kids schedules have been interupted by long term subs due to maternity leaves. But that's life.

I can't see a 7 month pregnant applicant being most qualified if they would be unable to be there to complete the project. I know what you mean though.

 

[TheIncredibles!]

You tell them when you are hired, not before.

I have to say though since you have mentioned that you can live with DH's salary - why don't you just take this next year and enjoy your kids and look next Spring? That way you don't have to worry about the timing on when to disclose and you will have several months to recover and enjoy your newborn

 

[JanaDee]

Spare the kids, the parents, staff and admin the hassles and headaches. Apply next year.

Focus on getting your family settled and make your new baby your priority. If teacher jobs are as transient in FL as you say, finding a position next year should be no problem.

 

[mom2rtk]

Spare the kids, the parents, staff and admin the hassles and headaches. Apply next year.

Focus on getting your family settled and make your new baby your priority. If teacher jobs are as transient in FL as you say, finding a position next year should be no problem.

I totally agree with this.

OP, this is the last time you'll get to focus on your first as an "only". Why not lay the best foundation possible before he/she has to start sharing everyone's attention? You can't get this time back.