Because the employer isn’t a person it’s an entity. If an employer has troubles do they take less profits and keep people on? No, they let people go. And if you can’t pay the rent, tough.
Employers have the duty to ask the right questions. In the OP case, this could be solved as LilOldLady said, the interviewer should be asking, “Do you think you will have any conflicts in the next six months to year that will prevent you from doing your job?”
If the interviewer isn’t asking the right questions that’s their problem.
If the interviewer gives you $10/hr do you say, “No that’s too much, I was only expecting $9.00, give me less.”
Too many times people cannot separate business from personal things.
I’ll give you an example. We hired a girl in my dept straight out of college. Great girl, she learned her job in two days and was working without help on the third. She was getting paid, $14/hr. Two months later she went to her boss (and my boss) and said, “I had interviewed at another place before this job and they just called me back and offered me $16/hr.” She said she’d rather stay but she couldn’t afford not to take the money and she would stay if our company would match the offer. The boss was so indignant, that anyone would ever think of quitting she said, “If mere money can motivate you, I don’t want you here at all.” So the girl quit.
It took us seven months to replace her. I being salary had to work unpaid overtime to do her job, and when we found someone to replace her we wound up paying them $18/hr.
I was so miffed at this, I went looking and quit shortly after for another job.
And this was caused why? Because one boss got her feelings hurt. Because she was making six figures and couldn’t understand thay $2/hr more is a big deal.
If you are running a business and hurt feelings can make you lose two excellent employees and cost you in the long run, what’s the point?
Finally, if I got the job started and broke my leg, do you think the boss would hold the job open? No.
Yup - my mom got preggers with me 5 months into the job. She’s still there 24 years later and is now office manager. Of course, that was in the days of 3 month mat leave in Canada.
Wrong, employers are people too. New companies don’t just spring whole from the earth, they all start out as a couple of folks beginning something new. Do you believe they’re some sort of robots or something? As I already stated, not all companies are IBM or the like.
That’s a BS copout. Do you really believe a prospective employee who is TRULY determined to have their way, no matter what, is going to answer the question honestly? That said, our OP might, but merely rephrasing the question isn’t “solved as easily as”.
Which sounds exactly like what prospective employees, who think it’s perfectly okay to lie, are doing.
Uh huh, so how is that different than the woman who has to leave after 6 months on the job, and now the company, which has invested all of that time and money into her, are left in the lurch trying to fill her vacated position?
bolding mine.
You’re a) missing my point, and b) making this about hurt feelings. Your feelings about how your manager fired that girl caused you to react in a non-business manner, and yet you’re complaining that companies that do their best to protect their interests (in part by having the information they need to make decisions) are making it somehow feelings related? How is it any less destructive for a company to lose an employee through her deceit and taking off on maternity leave, and having employees leave under the circumstances yours did? Either way, it’s a hardship to the company. Only in your case, the manager brought it on herself, whereas a woman up and leaving after 6 months of OJT and training is the one causing the issue, and dishonestly at that.
My point was, it’s quite possible that a company would not be well enough equipped to handle a big financial hardship like that without it affecting OTHER employees, their ability to do business, and so on. Some companies are able to absorb that kind of disruption, some can’t. Particularly if that company is, as other dopers mention, under 50 employees. Realistically that would mean that the company may very well get rid of her. Not necessarily because of the pregnancy and ensuing maternity leave, but more because “if she’d lie about this, what else isn’t she being honest about”? Again, regardless of whether it may legal to do so, doesn’t make it ethically right to do so.
And what about all of the fellow employees whose lives you’re now screwing over with your decision to not share important information? The people who have to try to take on Ms. Me-Only’s job duties in addition to their own? (collective you of course, not YOU you).
You’re right, a company that has hired you on, and you break your leg and can no longer perform the job? They may not keep you on. That’s not “mean ole nasty heartless” company, sometimes it’s just life happening, it’s no one’s fault. Why do think it’s personal, or that the “rights” of a prospective employee are more worthy than the rights of a prospective employer?
Doing the** right thing** sometimes isn’t the most personally beneficial.
If you get hired and don’t tell them, you’re not pulling the wool over anyone’s eyes. While you might get what you want, when promotions and raises come a long I doubt they’re going to be willing to give it to the person who forgot to mention she was pregnant when applying. However, when jobs/hours need to be cut, I’m sure they’ll remember how you got over and your name.
TL;DR: you will be on the shit list if you don’t tell.
I love how people are saying she’s not trying to screw anyone over, but it’s best not to tell. Since when is honesty not the best policy? If you have to hid something/lie about it, maybe yiu’re not in the right. Just food for thought…
I stand by not telling but I do want to ask something …
What do you mean when you say maternity leave?
Do you mean “maternity leave” in the sense that you’ll be gone a few weeks, you come back and you haven’t been replaced, or you’ll be gone a few weeks, get paid the same the entire time and come back?
And the moment she tells you, she becomes a member of a protected class. It’s not a matter of “we’ll see if we can work something out” because reasonable accommodation is a legal requirement.
Actually, the legal requirement is that I make available the same accommodations offered to non-pregnant new employees who suffer from other temporary medical conditions requiring extended leave. See the Department of Labor website. 3 months of unpaid leave for a new employee clearly falls outside of “reasonable accommodation”. My cite is the law itself, which specifically excludes that situation from the unpaid leave requirement.
I am only legally required to offer extended (3 months) unpaid leave to an employee who has been working for me for more than 12 months. If you are on the job for less than 12 months, I am perfectly within my rights to deny you medical leave and fire you for non-attendance, as long as the same policy is applied consistently to other employees.
If you think you owe me only the minimum courtesy required by law, then I will show you exactly the same. The law prohibits discrimination on the basis of pregnancy.
I would have the same opinion of anyone else who applied for a job knowing that in 6 months they would require 3 months of unpaid leave. If they didn’t tell me up front I would be totally unsympathetic when the time came. If they were to tell me up front, I would make whatever reasonable accommodations I could.
The way I was hoping to work it was that I would take off for 4 weeks or so and then my SO could take a few weeks after that. If that doesn’t work, then I’ll have to figure out something else so I can be home longer.
And in reality, my organization is not large enough to be required to offer unpaid leave to anyone under the Family and Medical Leave Act. It’s conceivable that it will be within the next few years, however, which is why I’m somewhat interested in this thread.
I will have to ask my lawyers, but I think a reasonable policy is something like the following:
“Employees who have been with the Company less than 12 months, including applicants for employment, must inform the Company as soon as is practical after they become aware that they will require an extended period of unpaid leave for any reason. Every reasonable effort will be made to grant leave to Employees who make such notifications to the Company.”
I have a job interview (within the company I’ve worked for for 4 years) and am trying to get pregnant. Do I disclose that? I assume that any department is going to be annoyed that they have to pay leave and fill the position temporarily.
That is ridiculous and self-contradictory. Employees do NOT include job applicants. In addition, you cannot hold a job applicant liable to obey work rules when they can’t have any reasonable way of even knowing the rules exist.
If your interviewers don’t ask the right questions, you are SOL.
Threads like this are why I always laugh when so many Dopers think that libertarianism (and the like) can be boiled down to “fuck you, I’ve got mine.” These threads show the exact opposite is true–their philosophy is “fuck you, give me yours.”