When to tell potential employer about pregnancy?

[morgan98]

A 4 week maternity leave is ridiculously short. Most women are not ready to go back to full time work after 4 weeks. If the OP doesn't have to, why would she put herself and her family through that, both physically and emotionally? If she has a c-section, she can't even drive for 2 weeks post-partum. Wanting to spend time with your newborn isn't something that is "over the top".

I think she has explained that it is not a four week maternity leave. It is a 4-5 week leave (needing a sub), with the additional three weeks of holiday vacation built in. While not ideal, this is her choice and she must feel that she has the help and support necessary to accommodate her return to work.

Any teacher can be out at any time for a wide variety of reasons. Men can be out for unexpected reasons too. I just think that telling her to not apply at all is not right either. Like I said before, I work for a professional services firm and luckily we and others in the industry are more flexible with things like pregnancy. We are looking for strong candidates.

I understand teaching school can be different as there is an element of consistency. Again, it may cause a problem, it may not.

 

[morgan98]

It may be common sense but it is highly illegal to ask if someone is pregnant so if she doesn't volunteer you won't know. Now that is common sense to someone who needs a job to feed that child when born.

Right, just like you cannot ask if someone has cancer or any other medical condition that may impact their attendance. Just because pregnancy shows, does not mean it is fair game for discrimination.

ETA: I really cannot believe I am arguing for the side I am arguing for. I just find it surprising that so many are willing to say they would not hire a pregnant person just because they are pregnant. She may be the best teacher of all the applicants, but I guess it would be better to hire a mediocre teacher who may cause other issues in the classroom.

 

[anniemae]

Personally, I would tell them at the interview. I would not feel "right" not telling them, but that is just me. It would seem deceptive and manipulative to hold it back. I would honestly feel really awkward telling them after I had the job knowing it would cause a great burden on many people i.e. the staff who would have to find a sub, the kids, the parents etc. Not to mention if there are complications or if bed rest is ordered and you have to leave earlier, then everyone is left to scramble for you. I don't think it would set off the employee/employer relationship in a good direction. If you are totally honest and they still hire you, then you have a clean conscience.

I still think you should apply, but just be honest. JMO.

 

[bcla]

I understand that there are lots of justifications for illegal hiring/retention practices, and that hiding the real reason can turn into an art form.

It used to be that women basically weren't hired regardless of their qualifications because of the belief that they would likely get pregnant in the future and miss time at work. The laws exist as they do because it's not a societal interest to keep women from working simply because they are pregnant or may become pregnant. The employer is not legally entitled to know that information before making a hiring decision, and isn't allowed to make it a retention issue.

I certainly get it in regards to wanting to have every available person working, but in a competitive world all the other employers are facing the same rules.

 

[MickeySP]

Personally, I would tell them at the interview. I would not feel "right" not telling them, but that is just me. It would seem deceptive and manipulative to hold it back. I would honestly feel really awkward telling them after I had the job knowing it would cause a great burden on many people i.e. the staff who would have to find a sub, the kids, the parents etc. Not to mention if there are complications or if bed rest is ordered and you have to leave earlier, then everyone is left to scramble for you. I don't think it would set off the employee/employer relationship in a good direction. If you are totally honest and they still hire you, then you have a clean conscience.

I still think you should apply, but just be honest. JMO.

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?

 

[eliza61]

This is a great post! I don't have children and will not be having children so I don't have a horse in this race. However, I find that all the moms on this thread who are basically telling the OP to hang it up for a year to be a little over the top. I understand she said she could afford to, but why should she have to? If she has excellent credentials and is a high performer and intends to come back, having to be out for 4-5 weeks is not the end of the world. Anyone could have an accident or an unexpected medical procedure at any time and be out that long.

I am also a boss, in a large organization. We hire people who are qualified and have the professional credentials and licensures we need to run a business. We have hired people off of campus, find out they are pregnant within the first 8 months and they miss busy season. They come back and life goes on. Is it ideal, probably not, but it is life. Heck our campus recruiter is going to be out in the fall when we recruit heavily off of campus. Guess what? It will all work out.

I look at someone as having to take a leave as one component of their potential performance as an employee. To all the people who say they would not consider hiring a pregnant person and would always hire another candidate, I feel that is just wrong.

Oh no, I don't think we are saying that at all. I simply think that people feel that taking off from works is soooo easy with no financial ramifications at all to the employer. Like I said, my business runs on deadlines and market conditions. Missing 5 weeks of work may not be the end of the world but it could be the difference in getting a 500 million dollar contract, making your PO, getting a product to market and a host of other things. People sometimes drugs cost 1.00 to make but companies sell them for 10 bucks, that's not all greed. there is a lot of cost in hiring/replacing employees. My company can spend up to 10K per person in time and money between interviewing, back ground checks etc etc.

Now we never ask a candidate anything that is illegal but we do ask them if they can make the committment to see a project to the end.
now you are right taking a leave is only one component but if you've got 50 candidates applying for a job what makes the one taking the leave soooo much better? usually nothing.

nowadays "it will all work out" is not a viable business plan.

I do know of some companies that are switching to 6 months probation periods. So even if you don't inform them of a issue at hiring, you still have 6 months that you have to perform before becoming permanent.

I guess I just wanted to say what I originally stated, many HR personal are simply trying to figure out the best candidate to hire in a very unforgiven atmosphere, as bcla said it can be extremely competitive, it is very costly. remember we have very little information to go on.

I've been on both sides of the coin.

 

[gwynne]

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?

The timing of the pregnancy makes this tricky. It's during prime teaching time. I think we sort of end up with several issues...

One is it's a job, she has a right to it. Legally, that's true.

Another is that the "widget or product" in this particular business is the student. Do their needs matter? Maybe, maybe not.

And finally, I believe there are usually lots of qualified folks. Do you give the job to someone ready to go, or someone who's got their list of weeks they will need off already prepared?
Realistically.....?

 

[anniemae]

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?

For ME personally I would have to tell. If the HR people are dishonest, that's on them. If I applied honestly and truthfully, and didn't get the job, I could hold my head high and say that I tried. If I was dishonest, again for ME, I would feel awful. Like I got the job on false pretenses. I would feel very awkward telling my boss after the fact. I would also feel like I deceived my boss and that it would not make a very good impression on him or her and I just could not work in that environment. But again that is just me.

 

[jrmasm]

I think she has explained that it is not a four week maternity leave. It is a 4-5 week leave (needing a sub), with the additional three weeks of holiday vacation built in. While not ideal, this is her choice and she must feel that she has the help and support necessary to accommodate her return to work.

Any teacher can be out at any time for a wide variety of reasons. Men can be out for unexpected reasons too. I just think that telling her to not apply at all is not right either. Like I said before, I work for a professional services firm and luckily we and others in the industry are more flexible with things like pregnancy. We are looking for strong candidates.

I understand teaching school can be different as there is an element of consistency. Again, it may cause a problem, it may not.

I think interviewing for a job when you know you'll need an extended leave (for any reason) shortly after you start and concealing that fact is a crappy thing to do.

Her need for leave is not unexpected.

 

[morgan98]

Oh no, I don't think we are saying that at all. I simply think that people feel that taking off from works is soooo easy with no financial ramifications at all to the employer. Like I said, my business runs on deadlines and market conditions. Missing 5 weeks of work may not be the end of the world but it could be the difference in getting a 500 million dollar contract, making your PO, getting a product to market and a host of other things. People sometimes drugs cost 1.00 to make but companies sell them for 10 bucks, that's not all greed. there is a lot of cost in hiring/replacing employees. My company can spend up to 10K per person in time and money between interviewing, back ground checks etc etc.

Now we never ask a candidate anything that is illegal but we do ask them if they can make the committment to see a project to the end.
now you are right taking a leave is only one component but if you've got 50 candidates applying for a job what makes the one taking the leave soooo much better? usually nothing.

nowadays "it will all work out" is not a viable business plan.

I do know of some companies that are switching to 6 months probation periods. So even if you don't inform them of a issue at hiring, you still have 6 months that you have to perform before becoming permanent.

I guess I just wanted to say what I originally stated, many HR personal are simply trying to figure out the best candidate to hire in a very unforgiven atmosphere, as bcla said it can be extremely competitive, it is very costly. remember we have very little information to go on.

I've been on both sides of the coin.

I completely get the economic component and the timing issue. I also know the expense of hiring people. Operations and maintaining margins is my job.

However, I have been around long enough to know that not just pregnancy can cause issues and sometimes the biggest employee problems come from out of nowhere and were not disclosed or detected in the hiring process. I guess I was just shocked to hear so many people basically say they would not hire a pregnant person.

Also, let me be clear. I am not telling her to definitely not disclose her pregnancy. She needs to do what she is comfortable with. I just think she should apply and see what happens. She may not even be selected.

 

[MickeySP]

The timing of the pregnancy makes this tricky. It's during prime teaching time. I think we sort of end up with several issues...

One is it's a job, she has a right to it. Legally, that's true.

Another is that the "widget or product" in this particular business is the student. Do their needs matter? Maybe, maybe not.

And finally, I believe there are usually lots of qualified folks. Do you give the job to someone ready to go, or someone who's got their list of weeks they will need off already prepared?
Realistically.....?

I tend to follow the law in my job, & I rely on others to do this also . So if I was in HR and she was the more qualified I would hire - pregnant or not but that's just me.

 

[gwynne]

I tend to follow the law in my job, & I rely on others to do this also . So if I was in HR and she was the more qualified I would hire - pregnant or not but that's just me.

School teachers aren't unique. They are appreciated, and they have a hard job, but there are usually plenty of well qualified applicants for job openings in the field.

There is also the grade level team issue. A brand new hire is just getting oriented, and then is off..pretty from mid-Nov basically until return from Winter holidays. Who do you think will be regularly assisting the sub/s as they try to keep the kids at grade level? All the other teachers on that team. Their collective workload just increased, due to a known issue hiring decision. Things do become more more complicated when the product is children, and there is some expectation that kids will be learning during all the teacher changes.

 

[MickeySP]

School teachers aren't unique. They are appreciated, and they have a hard job, but there are usually plenty of well qualified applicants for job openings in the field.

There is also the grade level team issue. A brand new hire is just getting oriented, and then is off..pretty from mid-Nov basically until return from Winter holidays. Who do you think will be regularly assisting the sub/s as they try to keep the kids at grade level? All the other teachers on that team. Their collective workload just increased, due to a known issue hiring decision. Things do become more more complicated when the product is children, and there is some expectation that kids will be learning during all the teacher changes.

So for a very short time a few people might be inconvenienced, that is a reason to deny someone (if she is the most qualified) a job?
And again I have a really hard time seeing how violating the law & discriminating against someone is ok.

I don't think that having to rely on the team for 4-8 weeks is gonna ruin a childs academic career

 

[tvguy]

It may be common sense but it is highly illegal to ask if someone is pregnant so if she doesn't volunteer you won't know. Now that is common sense to someone who needs a job to feed that child when born.

I agree 100% it is illegal to ask. I do not know the setup in Canada, but I suspect, assuming the person was already employed elsewhere, that the government benefits would be the same in the old job as the new, so not getting that job would have no impact on their ability to feed that child after it was born.

 

[MickeySP]

I believe the OP is from NH and ging to FL, the one of HR persons who believes that discrimination is aceptable is from Canada.

I speaking about myself, at the time I was unemployed, newly divorced & pregnant.

 

[ilovefh]

OP here. This has turned into a really interesting thread to read. I enjoy reading everyone's opinion!

I do see both sides. I see where a teacher taking leave should not be any different than a business person taking leave. The problem is that education is such a personal thing for people because most people are directly involved because they have kids. They don't care if business people take time off because it doesn't affect them but they do care if a teacher takes time off because it may potentially affect them. Teachers are held to a different standard. Good, bad or indifferent, that is how it is.

 

[tvguy]

OP here. This has turned into a really interesting thread to read. I enjoy reading everyone's opinion!

I do see both sides. I see where a teacher taking leave should not be any different than a business person taking leave. The problem is that education is such a personal thing for people because most people are directly involved because they have kids. They don't care if business people take time off because it doesn't affect them but they do care if a teacher takes time off because it may potentially affect them. Teachers are held to a different standard. Good, bad or indifferent, that is how it is.

True. The teaching "year" is compressed into about 36 weeks, with school out of session in most areas about 14 weeks with Thanksgiving, Christmas, President's Day and Easter weeks off plus summer break. Most other professions probably have their workload spread over 47 to 50 weeks with only 2 to 5 weeks time off. Missing 6 weeks is a much bigger chunk.

 

[anniemae]

So for a very short time a few people might be inconvenienced, that is a reason to deny someone (if she is the most qualified) a job?
And again I have a really hard time seeing how violating the law & discriminating against someone is ok.

I don't think that having to rely on the team for 4-8 weeks is gonna ruin a childs academic career

If she is the most qualified for the job then she should get the job. Deception is not the way to get a job. I think the employers would not be happy she withheld this info. It may hurt her future with the school and she would immediately break the trust between her and her boss. Employers don't like to feel duped and it would be very clear that she duped them to get the job. I think she should absolutely apply, but just be honest about her situation.

 

[tvguy]

I believe the OP is from NH and ging to FL, the one of HR persons who believes that discrimination is aceptable is from Canada.

I speaking about myself, at the time I was unemployed, newly divorced & pregnant.

Interesting article on the situation in California. Very confusing as to what all the laws that apply require.
http://centerforhealthreporting.org...ve-benefits-sometimes-unknown-working-parents

 

[Disneybuckeye]

OP, I agree this has been a very interesting thread and lots of different opinions. I hire people all the time, and while we cannot ask certain questions, it is amazing how much people are willing to share. I hired a woman who was visably pregnant, but she previously worked for us so I knew she would do a good job. We got through her leave an she did come back.

Sometimes hiring can be a crap shoot and choosing between mulitiple candidates can be really hard. While I woud not shy away from them if I knew, but it might be a deciding factor in the final outcome of who to choose. Of couse the party line is very politically correct and would never mention the pregnancy had anything to do with the decision.