Workplaces asking women about babymplans

[Gracie09]

Planned extended leaves of absence are not the same as unplanned couple of weeks off due to "what ifs".

I said this in a previous post related to our discussion:
I agree, and an employer has 9 months to prepare for that time off when an employee does become pregnant.
My comment wasn't specifically about maternity leave though, it was an answer to the pp who listed things like surgery, chemo, hurt back etc. If you know you are going to have surgery and chemo and will require an extended leave your employer should be informed and it shouldn't be wrong for them to ask IMO.
If you are being interviewed I still think a prospective employer has the right to know and ask.

What a slippery slope that is...

My husband has a genetic condition. The current best treatment is a small medical procedure he needs every 3-4 months. He takes about 3 hours off in the afternoon to have it. Should he have to disclose that? Keep in mind, asking to go for this treatment already cost him one job because they did not want him to leave even for the few hours, even with a doctors note. (yes its illegal. Yes we consulted an attorney but DH was hired by a competitor less than 2 weeks later and the cost of the lawsuit was much higher than the payout would have been so we dropped it). When this treatment stops working - it will, they all do-- there is no other treatment that is as effective or even close. He will cull together some other medications and treatments, but will likely end up unable to work and on disability. His doctor has already told him he has no problem signing the forms when he gets there. Should he have to disclose that to a potential employer?

My family has a history of colon-rectal cancer. Two grandparents died from it. A third had it. So I am at higher risk of developing it. Should I have to disclose that to employers.

A person's medical history is private and should not be asked about by an employer. Even if the time off needed for treatment is not an issue, many employers are cost conscious about medical insurance and if an employee could potentially raise rates due to their illnesses that is in many minds justification not to offer them a job. How is that ok? Because someone has a medical condition they did not ask for or even contribute to, they should not be employed?

 

[Gracie09]

Is it that different to the company though? Either way, within 6 months of starting, the new employee needs 2 months off. Again, I'm not talking about potential future pregnancies. I'm talking about a known one at the time of the job interview/offer.

yes it is. One is a vacation - fun, optional etc. One is pregnancy. A medical condition that results in a human life. The 2 months a woman (really 6-8 weeks but I digress) needs off after is to heal from the delivery. If someone discovers they have cancer while interviewing for a job should they have to disclose it? Or if on the first day of work they throw out their back and need surgery a few months down the line.

Honestly, thinking that pregnancy is an inconvenience to the employer is one of the many reasons women make 77 cents to the dollar that a man makes. Pregnancy happens to almost 50% of the population. People just need to get over it. You want to see what happens to a country that has a low birth rate - there are economic ramifications as the population gets older, and there are fewer young people to support them and the economy.

 

[Hikergirl]

What a slippery slope that is...

My husband has a genetic condition. The current best treatment is a small medical procedure he needs every 3-4 months. He takes about 3 hours off in the afternoon to have it. Should he have to disclose that? Keep in mind, asking to go for this treatment already cost him one job because they did not want him to leave even for the few hours, even with a doctors note. (yes its illegal. Yes we consulted an attorney but DH was hired by a competitor less than 2 weeks later and the cost of the lawsuit was much higher than the payout would have been so we dropped it). When this treatment stops working - it will, they all do-- there is no other treatment that is as effective or even close. He will cull together some other medications and treatments, but will likely end up unable to work and on disability. His doctor has already told him he has no problem signing the forms when he gets there. Should he have to disclose that to a potential employer?

My family has a history of colon-rectal cancer. Two grandparents died from it. A third had it. So I am at higher risk of developing it. Should I have to disclose that to employers.

A person's medical history is private and should not be asked about by an employer. Even if the time off needed for treatment is not an issue, many employers are cost conscious about medical insurance and if an employee could potentially raise rates due to their illnesses that is in many minds justification not to offer them a job. How is that ok? Because someone has a medical condition they did not ask for or even contribute to, they should not be employed?

The problem with these discussions is that people get way to emotional about them.
Nobody said one should have to disclose all their medical history, or their family history. Nobody said people shouldn't be hired just because they are at a higher risk of cancer, or even that they have cancer.
We are talking about disclosing the fact that you would need to take an extended period of time off because it is planned, as in you know for a fact, no what ifs, no I may somedays....

A person's medical history is private, however if your medical issues require you take extended periods of time off the fact of the matter is that your job is effected by that. Other employees are effected by that. The employer and the business is effected by that.
If you and another applicant apply for the job, and in every way you are equal but you know that in 2 months you are going to need 2 months off, then yes it is my opinion that the prospective employer should know that before deciding who to hire. You don't need to give details unless you want, but I do think an employer should be able to use that to determine who the right candidate for the job is.

 

[Gracie09]

The problem with these discussions is that people get way to emotional about them.
Nobody said one should have to disclose all their medical history, or their family history. Nobody said people shouldn't be hired just because they are at a higher risk of cancer, or even that they have cancer.
We are talking about disclosing the fact that you would need to take an extended period of time off because it is planned, as in you know for a fact, no what ifs, no I may somedays....

A person's medical history is private, however if your medical issues require you take extended periods of time off the fact of the matter is that your job is effected by that. Other employees are effected by that. The employer and the business is effected by that.
If you and another applicant apply for the job, and in every way you are equal but you know that in 2 months you are going to need 2 months off, then yes it is my opinion that the prospective employer should know that before deciding who to hire. You don't need to give details unless you want, but I do think an employer should be able to use that to determine who the right candidate for the job is.

According to my husbands former employer his medical condition was caused him to be out of the office for an extended period of time and he was terminated.
Pregnancy is a medical condition. Cancer is a medical condition.
My job is effected by choices co-workers make every day.

You're advocating the pregnancies should be disclosed. It is just a step from saying other medical conditions should be disclosed (hence the slippery slope).

Thank goodness there are laws in place to protect people from being discriminated against based on medical conditions.

 

[Hikergirl]

According to my husbands former employer his medical condition was caused him to be out of the office for an extended period of time and he was terminated.
Pregnancy is a medical condition. Cancer is a medical condition.
My job is effected by choices co-workers make every day.

Thank goodness there are laws in place to protect people from being discriminated against based on medical conditions.

And did you go after his employer legally?

 

[wilkeliza]

Is it that different to the company though? Either way, within 6 months of starting, the new employee needs 2 months off. Again, I'm not talking about potential future pregnancies. I'm talking about a known one at the time of the job interview/offer.

To me yes a vacation is very different than a medical deal or pregnancy. Also as I pointed out in my early post you have to have been with my company for a year before you can get parental leave or FMLA so it wouldn't matter any ways for 2 months. Wouldn't matter if you knew or not you wouldn't get paid for those 2 months or be guaranteed your job if you got sick or pregnant and needed 2 months off with in the first 6 months of employment. Not even sure if short term disability would kick in and if it did well that's form insurance money we pay into not from the company.

 

[Shanti]

In the US it is usual for Presidentail Canidates to make a health check public is it not? The purpose of this would be to prove they are healthy enough to fulfill their term. Would you be happy if you elected a President/Prime Minister and they took off 1 year for maternity leave?

No health check is required. Why do you assume the PM would go on a year's leave when her baby is born? For that position, I would assume she would fulfill her term without such a long break.

When Sarah Palin ran for VP in 2008, she had a baby with Down's Syndrome. But that was a non-issue to her candidacy. The understanding here is that a politician will fulfill his or her term, regardless of what's going on in his or her personal life.

 

[sam_gordon]

thinking that pregnancy is an inconvenience to the employer

So you think having an employee out for 2 months (6 weeks, whatever) is NOT an inconvenience?

The problem with these discussions is that people get way to emotional about them.

Definitely!

According to my husbands former employer his medical condition was caused him to be out of the office for an extended period of time and he was terminated.

So how long is reasonable for a company to keep a job for someone who can't come in to work? Two months? 6? A year? Indefinitely?

Pregnancy is a medical condition. Cancer is a medical condition.
My job is effected by choices co-workers make every day.

No one is denying any of that.

You're advocating the pregnancies should be disclosed. It is just a step from saying other medical conditions should be disclosed (hence the slippery slope).

Actually we're not.

Also as I pointed out in my early post you have to have been with my company for a year before you can get parental leave or FMLA so it wouldn't matter any ways for 2 months. Wouldn't matter if you knew or not you wouldn't get paid for those 2 months or be guaranteed your job if you got sick or pregnant and needed 2 months off with in the first 6 months of employment.

I'm not even thinking about pay. Simply an employee who has to be out for an extended amount of time.

 

[wilkeliza]

I'm not even thinking about pay. Simply an employee who has to be out for an extended amount of time.

At that point I don't believe their job is required to still be there so it would be like planning for someone who decides the job isn't for them and decides to quite after 6 months. As an employer you can't plan for everything. Being out of work for an extended amount of time is not always covered as a non-fire offense so it is possible for whatever reason if you miss 6 to 8 weeks you could be let go. It would be considered a hardship to allow that and if not eligible for FMLA not required. So an employer can do what they want once it becomes an issue but if you miss 2 months after pregnancy and not covered by FMLA or disability than yeah you may not have a job to come back to. Why do you think so many woman in US have babies and the legit go back to work 2 or 3 days later?

 

[godders]

In the UK it's against the law for a potential employer to ask you anything to do with pregnancy or family planning under the 2010 Equality Act because it is evidence of sexual discrimination.

In the UK you are also entitled to 52 weeks maternity leave from day 1 of your employment (26 weeks at full pay). Men are legally entitled to 1 or 2 weeks (but I believe it is moving to 6 weeks) but my company offers 4 weeks and 52 weeks for adoption whether the employee is male or female.

I've had a few friends be asked the question and I've encouraged them to report it. It's discrimination and no one's business!

 

[Gracie09]

And did you go after his employer legally?

As I said previously, we did, but because he had a job with a competitor within 2 weeks (he actually had multiple job offers) the finances of suing the former employer did not make sense. (We would have paid more in legal fees than we could have recovered).

 

[Gracie09]

So you think having an employee out for 2 months (6 weeks, whatever) is NOT an inconvenience?

Definitely!

So how long is reasonable for a company to keep a job for someone who can't come in to work? Two months? 6? A year? Indefinitely?

No one is denying any of that.

Actually we're not.


I'm not even thinking about pay. Simply an employee who has to be out for an extended amount of time.

Of course someone being out is an inconvenience. As a supervisor, I have had to deal with it. But it doesn't mean they shouldn't be hired.

My husband's medical condition caused him to miss 3 hours every 3-4 months. That was too much for his former employer. At the time he was working 70+ hours a week. The day he was fired he worked 24 straight hours, but hey 3 hours a quarter is a problem

Hikergirl is saying that pregnancies should be disclosed. It is to she that I responded.

 

[Felicis]

Their reproductive choices are no ones business. Maybe their plan is for her husband to be the primary care giver. Maybe she is infertile and can't have kids. Maybe she hates kids and never wants to be around them. Its none of anyone's business except her and her partner.
But of course, no matter what she chooses to do, someone will says it was the wrong choice and she is a bad person because of XY&Z.

You would think so wouldn't you. However New Zealand is great at thinking it is their business, and judging women accordingly. Our last female prime minister was harassed throughout her terms because she was childless by c

 

[Hikergirl]

Of course someone being out is an inconvenience. As a supervisor, I have had to deal with it. But it doesn't mean they shouldn't be hired.

My husband's medical condition caused him to miss 3 hours every 3-4 months. That was too much for his former employer. At the time he was working 70+ hours a week. The day he was fired he worked 24 straight hours, but hey 3 hours a quarter is a problem

Hikergirl is saying that pregnancies should be disclosed. It is to she that I responded.

To the first bolded, that really depends on many factors, and yes knowing someone is going to need to be out of work for extended periods of time should be allowed to factor in to the decision.
Where do you draw the line, would you hire someone who told you that they need summer's off because they don't have a babysitter?
To me its the same thing, they may be a fantastic employee, but if you know they aren't going to be doing their job months out of the first year, and another applicant is, then why aren't they the better choice?



To the second, well yes and no, but I don't believe I said those exact words.
I think planned extended time off should be disclosed, and I would also add it should be within a reasonable time frame. A pregnant employee should give their employer enough notice so they can plan for your absence.

 

[Hikergirl]

As I said previously, we did, but because he had a job with a competitor within 2 weeks (he actually had multiple job offers) the finances of suing the former employer did not make sense. (We would have paid more in legal fees than we could have recovered).

I can understand that especially if it would be putting stress on your dh.
It is good he found another job. I don't agree with firing an employee just because of a cancer diagnosis, there are millions of people with cancer who are perfectly able to do their jobs while being treated. My mother worked up until about 6 weeks before her death.

 

[Magpie]

To the first bolded, that really depends on many factors, and yes knowing someone is going to need to be out of work for extended periods of time should be allowed to factor in to the decision.
Where do you draw the line, would you hire someone who told you that they need summer's off because they don't have a babysitter?
To me its the same thing, they may be a fantastic employee, but if you know they aren't going to be doing their job months out of the first year, and another applicant is, then why aren't they the better choice?

To the second, well yes and no, but I don't believe I said those exact words.
I think planned extended time off should be disclosed, and I would also add it should be within a reasonable time frame. A pregnant employee should give their employer enough notice so they can plan for your absence.

The question in the OP regarded "planning to get pregnant".

IMO, there's a huge difference between "someday I'd like to have a baby" and "I'm presently six months pregnant".

But even acknowledging that difference, should a prospective employer be allowed to ask about either? I still say, No.

Yes, personally, I actually do think the strictly ethical thing to do in this latter case is to be forthright and say, "Oh, by the way, you may want to know that I'm pregnant." However, there's a huge difference between "personally ethical" and "should be required". And really, how would you enforce truthfulness in any case? Have every prospective female applicant pee on a stick? What if she didn't know she was pregnant? What if she miscarries a week later? What if her commitment to your job is such that she's fully prepared to take less time off than you'd take if you had the flu? What if she needs the job so badly, she'll say anything you want to hear?

As I said above, asking about "plans" to get pregnant is an entirely different matter from "currently pregnant". Not everyone plans to get pregnant. Few pregnancies arrive on schedule. Some take years, others mere months. If you hire a woman who says she has no intention of getting pregnant and she ends up knocked up within the year... what are you going to do? Nothing, obviously. You can't possibly know if she lied, or if she changed her mind, or if her birth control failed, or if it was a medical miracle, or if she was raped. And really, it's none of her employer's business.

It is HUGELY unethical to always take the male candidate over the female one, on the supposition that any woman of child bearing age might get pregnant. But this is exactly what used to happen in many countries, and which still happens in some countries today, and this is precisely why there are often rules against asking about a female candidate's fertility. Any time fertility is on the hiring table, women will find themselves discriminated against.

Employers naturally have an interest in reducing risk. But, if we want to live in a society that believes in human rights and equal opportunity for the sexes, there are some risks they will just have to accept. Employers should no more ask a woman about her baby making plans, than they should demand to have all prospective employees turn over a DNA sample so that they can check it for likely health problems down the road.

 

[sam_gordon]

As I said above, asking about "plans" to get pregnant is an entirely different matter from "currently pregnant".

I just want to point out, I don't think asking about plans to get pregnant should be a part of the hiring (or any time) process. Plans change. Even if someone says "I want to wait 5 years" or "I'll never have kids", something might change the following week that changes the "plan".

However, I think asking about needing extended time off in the first year should be allowed. Maybe that's how it needs to be phrased... "Do you know of any reason you'll need an extended time off in the next year?" The candidate can answer yes or no.

 

[Hikergirl]

I don't disagree Magpie, but in the case of elected officials I as a voter would like to know if the person I'm voting for is planning to be "out of the office" for a year during their term. I believe I read that they have elections every 3 years, being out for 1/3 of that time seems excessive.
However, since 52 weeks is not the standard maternity leave for NZ I think its a moot point.


FTR, and using a pregnancy as an example, when I say "planned" I mean known, as in you are pregnant and you know you need time off, not that you plan to get pregnant and may need time off.

I don't feel its wrong for prospective employers to know if you need a large portion of time off because I do think that they have the right to decide based on many factors who is best suited for the available job.
It doesn't mean I think they need to know anything and everything that is or could be happening medically, and I don't believe that they should based their decision solely on a person having a medical condition.
I also understand letting that happen would be a slippery slope and that people do need to be protected.

 

[DisneyOma]

It's highly unlikely that a woman of child-bearing age will ever be elected POTUS. The Constitution says you have to be at least 35; the youngest ever elected was JFK, who was 43. Most women are past their child-bearing years by that time. Hillary Clinton was comfortably in her 60's when she ran.

I imagine that the first female POTUS will be at least 60 when she's elected. Her possible maternity won't be an issue.

Sad if this is true - women in politics have to fight the good old boy network to start out with. I'd rather have an intelligent, active, pregnant 40 year old woman as president than an old fart with tons of health issues, Alzheimer's, dementia, etc. Not that someone in his or her 70's always has these issues, and of course it can strike younger people as well, but I'm tired of the old white man parade...

Because fatherhood doesn't result in 6-12 weeks off from work.

It can. (especially if there are complications) It should. The father should be home just as long to be part of the family. I almost said to help the mother, but it should be an equal responsibility.

So you think having an employee out for 2 months (6 weeks, whatever) is NOT an inconvenience?

Definitely!

So how long is reasonable for a company to keep a job for someone who can't come in to work? Two months? 6? A year? Indefinitely?

No one is denying any of that.

Actually we're not.


I'm not even thinking about pay. Simply an employee who has to be out for an extended amount of time.

How long is a business obligated to pay? Are they obligated to pay anything? If there's no financial burden to pay, then hire a freakin' temp. Make sure the temp knows what's going on. Let the employee heal without the stress of thinking he or she is an inconvenience. It's called being human. And even if it costs the company to pay into some plan, it's still the right thing to do, IMO. Heaven forbid a human life gets in the way of a profit.

 

[Magpie]

I don't disagree Magpie, but in the case of elected officials I as a voter would like to know if the person I'm voting for is planning to be "out of the office" for a year during their term. I believe I read that they have elections every 3 years, being out for 1/3 of that time seems excessive.
However, since 52 weeks is not the standard maternity leave for NZ I think its a moot point.

I can't imagine any way for a voter to ask, or a politician to answer, even if I did agree it was any of their business (which I don't).

"She said she wasn't planning to get pregnant in the next three years!" Then what if she gets pregnant? Does she have to now prove she wasn't lying? Can the political opposition use this against her? "So-and-so is a LIAR!"

"She says she's hoping to get pregnant!" Great, now we've got everyone staring at her belly for the next three years. Every unflattering choice of pantsuit sparks pregnancy rumours.

I don't want every female politician under 50 to be under a microscope, with regards to their fertility. I don't think this helps anyone.

I don't feel its wrong for prospective employers to know if you need a large portion of time off because I do think that they have the right to decide based on many factors who is best suited for the available job.
It doesn't mean I think they need to know anything and everything that is or could be happening medically, and I don't believe that they should based their decision solely on a person having a medical condition.
I also understand letting that happen would be a slippery slope and that people do need to be protected.

Exactly. It's understandable for prospective employers to want to know, but the simple fact is that they can't be allowed to ask.

I just want to point out, I don't think asking about plans to get pregnant should be a part of the hiring (or any time) process. Plans change. Even if someone says "I want to wait 5 years" or "I'll never have kids", something might change the following week that changes the "plan".

However, I think asking about needing extended time off in the first year should be allowed. Maybe that's how it needs to be phrased... "Do you know of any reason you'll need an extended time off in the next year?" The candidate can answer yes or no.

Do we know for sure that employers can't ask, vaguely, if you're going to need time off beyond the normal vacation allowance?

If they can, they just have to be sure to ask this of ALL prospective employees, male, female, of child bearing age, or not.