When to tell potential employer about pregnancy?

[DisneyFan32WI]

As a parent, I would be upset with the disruption of changing teachers and teaching styles for that period of time. Especially early on in the school year. I would find a job (not a career) that could hold you over until you are ready to fully commit to the classroom.

And as I stated earlier, I would be upset to hire you and then basically feel like you lied to me or were deceitful during our interview when the truth finally comes out after you start. And here's the hypocrite in me coming out.....If I knew you were pregnant during your interview, I wouldn't hire you. I want someone in the classroom who will be giving 100% for the entire school year. This, however, would be a much different situation if you were interviewing for a place like Starbucks, Boston Store, etc.

 

[tvguy]

All the HR references just hit me between the eyes. Never worked anywhere where HR did the hiring. HR has no clue what job skill each department needs. The resumes all go to the Department heads who do all the hiring. Department heads extend job offers on the condition that the applicant passes a drug test and meet citizenship or work permit laws. That's the first time HR gets involved. HR's big involvement is about 4 hours of training on time sheets, company policies and benefits after you start work. So if it would be up to each department head how they wanted to deal with hiring someone who is pregnant.

 

[morgan98]

All the HR references just hit me between the eyes. Never worked anywhere where HR did the hiring. HR has no clue what job skill each department needs. The resumes all go to the Department heads who do all the hiring. Department heads extend job offers on the condition that the applicant passes a drug test and meet citizenship or work permit laws. That's the first time HR gets involved. HR's big involvement is about 4 hours of training on time sheets, company policies and benefits after you start work. So if it would be up to each department head how they wanted to deal with hiring someone who is pregnant.

Don't get me wrong, the departments hire for the skill set. HR is involved for compliance with company policies and laws and to make sure positions were posted for the correct period of time, etc.

 

[ilovefh]

My mistake. What exactly do you mean by a "different standard?"

We've disagreed on many threads that were about education, so no surprise here! Teaching is a very personal subject for people. People have way more opinions on teachers than they do other professions. All the talk about the "taxpayer's money" paying for subs etc. You don't hear that about any other publicly funded job, just teaching.

 

[ilovefh]

As a parent, I would be upset with the disruption of changing teachers and teaching styles for that period of time. Especially early on in the school year. I would find a job (not a career) that could hold you over until you are ready to fully commit to the classroom.

I really an enjoying this thread! This is just a devil's advocate question but...what about this scenario?

I was hired in June for the fall of the 2010-2011 school year. We had no plans to have any kids. The first week of school I found out I was pregnant and if all went well I would miss the last six weeks of school. Should I have resigned at that point to avoid disruption?

 

[gwynne]

I really an enjoying this thread! This is just a devil's advocate question but...what about this scenario?

I was hired in June for the fall of the 2010-2011 school year. We had no plans to have any kids. The first week of school I found out I was pregnant and if all went well I would miss the last six weeks of school. Should I have resigned at that point to avoid disruption?

I wouldn't have had any problem with that schedule at all. Testing would be over, and you would have had a long stretch of continuity.
And beyond all the discussion, I truly do wish you the best in your move. We've moved a lot, it's a busy stressful time. I hope things work out well for you.

 

[Rhombus]

I know that the purpose of a probationary period is to basically be able to terminate without a lot of cause or paperwork, but to say "that's what the 90 day probationary period is for" basically says if within 90 days of hire we find out you are pregnant, your are fired is just plain wrong. So if you hired a man, and within the first 90 days he needed leave for his cancer treatment, I assume your company would let him go too, correct? (If he knew he was sick, but did not disclose it in an interview).

Believe me, I am in upper management of a good sized organization and we pay attention to labor laws and we do no behave like this. Some of these behaviors really are blatant discrimination.

...

Most likely, yes, the man would be let go, after 90 days, if he needed extended leave for treatment.

If a woman is hired and then becomes pregnant within 90 days, no, she wouldn't be fired, but it probably would be wise to wait until 120 or more days in to inform the company. In the case of the OP, yes, if after being hired she discloses she'll need to go out on leave very soon, she probably would be let go at the end of the probationary period.

Blatant discrimination? Perhaps so. It's done within the letter of the law if not the spirit of it.

 

[ilovefh]

I wouldn't have had any problem with that schedule at all. Testing would be over, and you would have had a long stretch of continuity.
And beyond all the discussion, I truly do wish you the best in your move. We've moved a lot, it's a busy stressful time. I hope things work out well for you.

Thanks! We're so excited to get back there! Most of all DH is excited not to shovel snow this winter! There will be a lot of hurt feelings here on the part of my family, but you can't please everyone!

 

[MickeySP]

I think one of the problems is that you guys may get the impression that a pregnant women walks in and we automatically discount her. I wish it was that cut and dry, those situations I could stop and fight.

So let me give you an example. last November we went out to colleges for some hiring we needed to do for April. I had 200 candidates that schedule on campus meet and greets, out of that 200 we invited 100 for onsite interviews. now we only had 8 positions. Here's the thing, all of them were pretty much equally qualified so now it comes down to distinguishing yourself from the pack. So I send 8 candidates out to this one project leaders, they are equally qualified but one says I would love the job but I'll need to be gone for 5 weeks shortly. now it's not about not liking pregnant mom's, its about he needs a worker and he needs then immediately and he's got 15 choices.

Remember we have no idea of what type of employees they will be, all we've got are resumes and maybe 4 hours to make a decision. I've only been in recruiting for about 18 months and maybe it's a sad sign if the times but Ive yet to run across any uber outstanding candidate that we couldn't put up aginst 6 more people

Please believe me most H R folks are not callously sitting behind a desk discounting folks without a lot of back and forth

1) Yeah you kinda are doing that, if she says she is pregnant. You can put lipstick on a pig - it is still a pig.

2) But this is not related to pregnancy, you are passing because he won't fit. He is not a protected class, there is a big difference. You can say we can't do that and he has no recourse, do that to a pregnant woman and she proves it - write that check. Is it worth the gamble? 8 weeks out or $300,000 check?

Exactly, which is why she should be honest so they can work with her to plan out her absence. Now as others have said being honest has it's drawbacks. There will ALWAYS be discrimination in the workplace. No way to stop it. Say someone is not hired because they are over 50, the HR rep will not say, "gee mr. smith we really like you and you are qualified, but you are too old. sorry." No, they will just go with another candidate. No way to stop it. But I personally don't think it's okay to deceive a potential employer just because they may discriminate against me. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Yes there is - don't do it!! Sooner or later you will get blowback. Just because it happens doesn't make it right - heck slavery was legal once too. No way to stop it back then - OH wait someone did.

It is not decieving an employer - THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ASK BY LAW!! A prospective employee is not required to divulge it is the difference between one person comitting a crime(it is a crime so HR you are now criminals caught or not) and adhering to your rights.

 

[MickeySP]

You know if I was able to discriminate in my job as HR does it would be call profiling. Same action deifferent name.

I am also glad that when I got my job the man who approved me wasn't able to use this logic on my being a woman. Heck I may have gotten pregnant!!

 

[undertheradar]

We've disagreed on many threads that were about education, so no surprise here! Teaching is a very personal subject for people. People have way more opinions on teachers than they do other professions. All the talk about the "taxpayer's money" paying for subs etc. You don't hear that about any other publicly funded job, just teaching.

Honestly? You should look at threads on civil servants, emergency service workers, firefighters, police officers, just to name a few. Instead of "taxpayer's money for subs," insert taxpayer funded pensions. Just trying to put it like it is, there is no different expectation for teachers, at least not in my house.

 

[ilovefh]

Honestly? You should look at threads on civil servants, emergency service workers, firefighters, police officers, just to name a few. Instead of "taxpayer's money for subs," insert taxpayer funded pensions. Just trying to put it like it is, there is no different expectation for teachers, at least not in my house.

You're right, I take part of that back. Police are getting absolutely walloped right now.

 

[undertheradar]

Again I am sorry the laws were put in place because of the reasons of dsicrimination, that you do not need to inform. It is because of the past behavior and that people would readily accept that it is ok to discriminate is horrid.

The 2nd bold - again this is not unique to teachers - really isn't. If someone calls out in my job & noone volunteers to stay guess what I have to. I get no choice so my day went from 8 hrs to 16 with a phone call. Now the taxpayers have to pay my overtime & the time for whoever called out, so what. If you do not like the rules of a profession change it. I chose mine & do not protest when I get stuck, when I work holidays or midnights because someone didn't make their shiftwith a may say can be as little as 60minutes notice - that was my choice. The school has to do this for many teachers for many reasons, so by this logic we should allow no teacher time off since a sub will have to be hired?

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.

 

[mr.bungle]

I wouldn't tell them at all. It's not their business and it's rude to ask if a woman is preggers.

 

[MickeySP]

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.

1) it is not always 1 or 2 or even 3 days. This summer it is 3 evening shifts, 4 midnights each week. I am now on the downside of a 16 as we speak. This will continue until at least Sept or Oct due to retirements.
She is a teacher so comparing a govt agency to a "for profit" co is kinda mute.

2) again you don't seem to get, it is the LAW!!!!! Unfortunately employers get to do most of the discrimination, I have yet to here a CEO being abused by the janitor. There are laws, why do think most CEO's & COs are not in jail fopr some of the stuff they pull. Personally I think if a CO does the wrong thing they should put the responsible manager in jail.

I wouldn't tell them at all. It's not their business and it's rude to ask if a woman is preggers.

And against the law.

 

[undertheradar]

1) it is not always 1 or 2 or even 3 days. This summer it is 3 evening shifts, 4 midnights each week. I am now on the downside of a 16 as we speak. This will continue until at least Sept or Oct due to retirements.
She is a teacher so comparing a govt agency to a "for profit" co is kinda mute.

2) again you don't seem to get, it is the LAW!!!!! Unfortunately employers get to do most of the discrimination, I have yet to here a CEO being abused by the janitor. There are laws, why do think most CEO's & COs are not in jail fopr some of the stuff they pull. Personally I think if a CO does the wrong thing they should put the responsible manager in jail.



And against the law.

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.

 

[eliza61]

I wouldn't tell them at all. It's not their business and it's rude to ask if a woman is preggers.

And not a soul in any company asked or even said they would ever ask such a question. Op asked should she tell at the interview. that's other posters imagination running amok

 

[eliza61]

1) Yeah you kinda are doing that, if she says she is pregnant. You can put lipstick on a pig - it is still a pig.

2) But this is not related to pregnancy, you are passing because he won't fit. He is not a protected class, there is a big difference. You can say we can't do that and he has no recourse, do that to a pregnant woman and she proves it - write that check. Is it worth the gamble? 8 weeks out or $300,000 check?



Yes there is - don't do it!! Sooner or later you will get blowback. Just because it happens doesn't make it right - heck slavery was legal once too. No way to stop it back then - OH wait someone did.

It is not decieving an employer - THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ASK BY LAW!! A prospective employee is not required to divulge it is the difference between one person comitting a crime(it is a crime so HR you are now criminals caught or not) and adhering to your rights.

Lol good luck with that.

 

[Teresa Pitman]

I am honestly kind of horrified to see how many people openly admit that they would discriminate against a pregnant woman, despite the law. This certainly would encourage people to lie or at least not mention their pregnancies.

 

[Jaya]

Speaking from experience, it's bad when kids have to have temps for a long period. When my daughter was in fourth grade, her teacher had to leave and they had temps (sometimes a temp would only last one day) for over four months. At first, it wasn't certain whether the teacher was coming back or not, so the position wasn't being filled with another full-time teacher. Her learning definitely suffered because of that and she was very unhappy. I was furious with the school for not bringing in a full-time teacher. Complaints to the school and the school board were to no avail. Several other parents and I were contemplating getting a lawyer when the school decided to finally hire a full-time teacher for the position.

I beg you, for the sake of the students, don't take a teaching job when you know you are going to be gone for a significant period during the school year. We all know that "things" happen and can't be planned for but a case like this can be anticipated. Do some substitute teaching (they're begging for substitute teachers in my area) and then look for a permanent teaching job when you have your children settled and can give 100% to your job.