When to tell potential employer about pregnancy?

[MickeySP]

Why is a taxpayer funded agency any different than a "for profit/" Both have the added expense of covering the job while the employee is out.

As for the theory on CEOs, check out the top pensions paid to California retirees if you want to see theft.

Gees I'm moving to CA if they get bigger pensions than CEOs!!!

Why are they different? You have never bee a govt employee I take it? We actually have to read, & take a test & sign a code of ethics. I am not seeing to many ethical HR people on this subject.

 

[Teresa Pitman]

I do actually think this is an advantage of the Canadian system where mothers get a full year of maternity leave (besides what I believe are benefits for the parents and baby). I think it is easier to hire someone for a full year than for four or five weeks. If it is a teacher, there is just one change and the students finish out the year with the replacement full-time teacher. In other jobs, you hire someone for a year and so the co-workers of the person on maternity leave are not overburdened, and the person hired for the year benefits because they now have a year's experience that can help them get other work.

 

[ronandannette]

I can tell you what I did, because of discriminatory HR people like have posted here - I told them the week after I started

WOW, btw what company do you work for?

You are leaving them open to HUGE legal issues should they ever have anyone you reject find that posting.

Thanks for your concern, but we're really not worried. And as for you getting hired while pregnant - that's fair ball; which is why I and many other posters advised the OP not to disclose her condition during the interview. She has no obligation to do so.

As opposed to the veracity of the HR people that have posted here, who have clearly stated they have no compulsion to lie about not hiring a pregnant person?

No need to lie. (FWIW, we do not generally explain ourselves to any unsuccessful candidate.)
In 9** years I have never recruited and hired for a position that had less than 2 or 3 equally well qualified candidates. Their attributes may be different but it's often only through weighing in the shortcomings of candidates that the process of elimination can be done. Are you prepared to say that all things being equal, an employer should be obligated to hire the pregnant candidate - because that's the standard you'd have to hold to, in most cases.

**Full disclosure: I have never knowingly interviewed a pregnant candidate and the nature of the role makes it somewhat unlikely.

 

[mnrose]

You know, teachers get pregnant and deliver babies all the time....and it could be several YEARS after they've been hired. Disruption is inevitable. Would people feel differently if OP taught a year, got pregnant and delivered a baby precisely one year from this one? Same disruption.

My DD's high school had two teachers this year who went on leave. One, within DAYS of school starting who had an adoption come through at the last possible minute...she was out nearly the ENTIRE trimester (she taught a total of 2 weeks out of 12), and her language arts teacher went out just at the end of the first trimester and missed nearly two months of school. Was it disruptive. Heck yea. But, it happens and I'm not going to say that women of childbearing age can't teach. That offends me, and frankly, I find it shocking that so many are prepared to tolerate this.

 

[MickeySP]

Thanks for your concern, but we're really not worried. And as for you getting hired while pregnant - that's fair ball; which is why I and many other posters advised the OP not to disclose her condition during the interview. She has no obligation to do so.

No need to lie. (FWIW, we do not generally explain ourselves to any unsuccessful candidate.)
In 9** years I have never recruited and hired for a position that had less than 2 or 3 equally well qualified candidates. There attributes may be different but it's often only through weighing in the shortcomings of candidates that the process of elimination can be done. Are you prepared to say that all things being equal, an employer should be obligated to hire the pregnant candidate - because that's the standard you'd have to hold to, in most cases.

**Full disclosure: I have never knowingly interviewed a pregnant candidate and the nature of the role makes it somewhat unlikely.

Are they obligated no, but from your perspective the are allowed to blatantly discriminate. But they cannot deicide not to hire based solely on pregnancy which many & you are sying it is fine to do. Better a high standard than no standards.

You may not have but you seem to have no qualms about what you would do if you did.

 

[MickeySP]

I do actually think this is an advantage of the Canadian system where mothers get a full year of maternity leave (besides what I believe are benefits for the parents and baby). I think it is easier to hire someone for a full year than for four or five weeks. If it is a teacher, there is just one change and the students finish out the year with the replacement full-time teacher. In other jobs, you hire someone for a year and so the co-workers of the person on maternity leave are not overburdened, and the person hired for the year benefits because they now have a year's experience that can help them get other work.

WOW JUST WOW!!! I will now go back to my less than important than a teacher life WOW!!!!

 

[Teresa Pitman]

WOW JUST WOW!!! I will now go back to my less than important than a teacher life WOW!!!!

I don't actually understand what you mean by your comment?

 

[Minniesgal]

WOW JUST WOW!!! I will now go back to my less than important than a teacher life WOW!!!!

I think you missed the point. I think the point was if a teacher is on maternity leave for a year it is easier to find 1 teacher to cover that full year position but if a teacher is out for 4-6 weeks you could end up with a succession of people covering for a couple of days at a time as 6 weeks is less attractive to a substitute teacher than a 1 year contract.

 

[MickeySP]

I honestly think I understood EXACTLY what she meant.

"In other jobs, you hire someone for a year and so the co-workers of the person on maternity leave are not overburdened, and the person hired for the year benefits because they now have a year's experience that can help them get other work."

How do you think that statement reads - as I & many others here are in "other jobs" we are just not the same as teachers. We are far more replaceable and OH BOY we get to get some experience that might help us get other work!!!

 

[ronandannette]

Are they obligated no, but from your perspective the are allowed to blatantly discriminate. But they cannot deicide not to hire based solely on pregnancy which many & you are sying it is fine to do. Better a high standard than no standards.

You may not have but you seem to have no qualms about what you would do if you did.

I get that you're being purposely obtuse to the entire content of my posts because you're trying to argue a point of principle. Fine. Meanwhile back here in the real world, I would have no trouble whatsoever finding one or more reasons to select another (non-pregnant) candidate solely based on merit because as I have stated a few times now, I've never conducted an interview process where there were not 2 or more equally-well qualified candidates to chose from.

 

[MickeySP]

I get that you're being purposely obtuse to the entire content of my posts because you're trying to argue a point of principle. Fine. Meanwhile back here in the real world, I would have no trouble whatsoever finding one or more reasons to select another (non-pregnant) candidate solely based on merit because as I have stated a few times now, I've never conducted an interview process where there were not 2 or more equally-well qualified candidates to chose from.

And I say mores the pity that you can do that. Until people stand up for each other we willnever end any of the problems of this society.

But I will say the more troubles society has the more job security I have - Thank You.

 

[Minniesgal]

I honestly think I understood EXACTLY what she meant.

"In other jobs, you hire someone for a year and so the co-workers of the person on maternity leave are not overburdened, and the person hired for the year benefits because they now have a year's experience that can help them get other work."

How do you think that statement reads - as I & many others here are in "other jobs" we are just not the same as teachers. We are far more replaceable and OH BOY we get to get some experience that might help us get other work!!!

Nope I still do not see anything derogatory in the inital statement towards teachers.

 

[MickeySP]

Nope i do not see anything derogatory in the inital statement towards teachers.

You are right it was not derogatory toward teachers, it reflects the attitude that the rest of us just cannot understand how unimportant we are compared to teachers.

Signed my totally replaceable self.

 

[Minniesgal]

There is a big difference between a one day call off and a 6 week leave. Instead of looking at it from a taxpayer funded operation, let's look at it from a "for profit" view. Most employers have a set work force, a specific head count and any additional hirings have to be approved by senior leadership. Say your newly hired project manager, been on the job 2 months, suddenly tells you she is pregnant and due in 8 weeks. You have to prepare to cover that employee either by everyone else in that department taking on extra work or hiring a temp to fill the position. Either way, the burden is then on the co-workers and employer, not the newly hired employee.

Now let's be realistic. How many of your co-workers have started on the job, and then revealed that they are well into a pregnancy? As an employer, I would feel that the new employee lied or was less than honest when in the hiring process. How is hiding the fact that someone is pregnant fair to the employer? If there are rules to protect employees from discrimination, there should also be rules to protect employers.

I fundamentally disagree with you here. An employer isn't allowed to know if someone is or is not pregnant during the hiring process so considering they have lied by not giving the employer information the employer shouldn't have is as discriminatory as not hiring someone as they are pregnant.

During employment selection you also don't have the right to know if someone is male/female/black/white/gay/old/disabled.....Withholding information that is not part of the selection process is not lying it is good common sense.

If employers never discriminated people would be able to be fully open. We are far from being there.

 

[ronandannette]

And I say mores the pity that you can do that. Until people stand up for each other we willnever end any of the problems of this society.

But I will say the more troubles society has the more job security I have - Thank You.

Your idealism is admirable; heck I used to be an ideologue myself. But privately owned businesses are not social services agencies nor is the defence of the (perceived) downtrodden and disadvantaged part of the mission statement of any company I've ever worked for.

 

[Teresa Pitman]

I honestly think I understood EXACTLY what she meant.

"In other jobs, you hire someone for a year and so the co-workers of the person on maternity leave are not overburdened, and the person hired for the year benefits because they now have a year's experience that can help them get other work."

How do you think that statement reads - as I & many others here are in "other jobs" we are just not the same as teachers. We are far more replaceable and OH BOY we get to get some experience that might help us get other work!!!

I was not at all intending that to be derogatory towards people who were not teachers! I am still not clear why you interpreted it that way. I am going to try to clarify.

An earlier poster had commented on how disruptive it was for students if a teacher took four or five weeks off for a maternity leave in the middle of the year, because they might have several changes of teacher in that time. I was trying to explain that I thought it was less disruptive for students when the teacher has a full year of maternity leave, because then they would typically hire another teacher to cover that entire time. So instead of the students having Teacher A, followed by a few weeks of substitue teachers, and then back to Teacher A, they would start with Teacher A and then finish the year with Teacher B. That seemed less disruptive to me.

Then, I was thinking about non-teaching jobs. One comment I have seen is that when someone is out on maternity leave for four or five or six weeks, the other people working with that new mother end up scrambling and being overworked to keep up with the work while she is gone. When you have a one-year maternity leave, as you do in Canada, companies will usually hire someone else to fill in for the full year. So that means the co-workers are not overworked, which I see as a good thing. And it is often beneficial to the person who was hired for the year because that experience may help them in getting another job. I am not meaning to say that these people are "easily replaceable" as I know it is sometimes challenging to find a suitable person to work for that year, but I think it is easier to find a qualified person who can work for a year than a qualified person who will take a job for four to six weeks.

So that's what I was trying to say, and it was in no way meant to be derogatory towards anyone. I hope this is clearer....

 

[MickeySP]

Your idealism is admirable; heck I used to be an ideologue myself. But privately owned businesses are not social services agencies nor is the defence of the (perceived) downtrodden and disadvantaged part of the mission statement of any company I've ever worked for.

I am not an idealogue I just think that adhereing to the law is something you just do. The OP is not in a privately owned business. Not being responsible for the downtrodden, percieved or otherwise, is a bit different than breaking the law.

I am very happy here on my law abiding side of the fence with my nice clear conscious.

 

[MickeySP]

Your idealism is admirable; heck I used to be an ideologue myself. But privately owned businesses are not social services agencies nor is the defence of the (perceived) downtrodden and disadvantaged part of the mission statement of any company I've ever worked for.

I am not an idealogue I just think that adhereing to the law is something you just do. The OP is not in a privately owned business. Not being responsible for the downtrodden, percieved or otherwise, is a bit different than breaking the law.

You can dress it anyway you want but purposely doing what you propose is breaking the law, not bending, not protecting the companies bottom line, it is pure & simple breaking a law. I suppose if I get to a crime scene & the person says I was just protecting my companies assets - Oh my bad then go right ahead.


I am very happy here on my law abiding side of the fence with my nice clear conscious.

 

[ronandannette]

I am not an idealogue I just think that adhereing to the law is something you just do. The OP is not in a privately owned business. Not being responsible for the downtrodden, percieved or otherwise, is a bit different than breaking the law.

I am very happy here on my law abiding side of the fence with my nice clear conscious.

I am not an idealogue I just think that adhereing to the law is something you just do. The OP is not in a privately owned business. Not being responsible for the downtrodden, percieved or otherwise, is a bit different than breaking the law.

You can dress it anyway you want but purposely doing what you propose is breaking the law, not bending, not protecting the companies bottom line, it is pure & simple breaking a law. I suppose if I get to a crime scene & the person says I was just protecting my companies assets - Oh my bad then go right ahead.


I am very happy here on my law abiding side of the fence with my nice clear conscious.

Clearly you feel very strongly about this...so much so you felt the need to repeat yourself! Sincerely, this has been a stimulating conversation - thank you. And now after having taken this thing so far down the rabbit hole, I'll leave it with re-stating my original point: OP - don't mention your pregnancy at the interview.

 

[JanaDee]

I honestly think I understood EXACTLY what she meant.

"In other jobs, you hire someone for a year and so the co-workers of the person on maternity leave are not overburdened, and the person hired for the year benefits because they now have a year's experience that can help them get other work."

How do you think that statement reads - as I & many others here are in "other jobs" we are just not the same as teachers. We are far more replaceable and OH BOY we get to get some experience that might help us get other work!!!

You seem to be taking this awfully personally. No one said any such thing.