Job hunting while pregnant

In My Humble Opinion
41

**Foxy **(and I) aren’t talking about legal and illegal. We understand that it’s illegal. We’re (both, I think, but please correct me if I’m wrong, Foxy) simply stating (briefly, and without support, as we’re in IMHO and not Great Debates) that we don’t agree with the law and find it wrong.

Legal/Illegal do not equal Right/Wrong

Obviously, both MouseMaven and her potential employers should work within the law as it exists now, and **Foxy **hasn’t disputed that. But that doesn’t mean we all can’t have opinions about whether or not that law is a fair, just and good thing for employers and job-seekers. Like Dangerosa’s excellent post, **Foxy **is simply telling what her perspective and reaction would be as an employer - she’d be bitter and pissed off. Being bitter and pissed off isn’t illegal, and it’s totally understandable, from her point of view.

Plain language, why it’s wrong, even if legal for a pregnant woman to not disclose her pregnancy? Because it puts an almost certain hardship on the part of the employer, causing them to invest time and money in training someone who knew they were only working there temporarily yet applied for a not-temporary position. In a work environment like Foxy’s, it damages interpersonal relationships and lowers overall employee morale (and productivity) when someone brought in as “family” has been deceitful and selfish and leaves soon after arriving. It is not the same thing as the general risk an employer takes with any new hire, because this risk is known and specific, and FAR higher than the risk that any random new hire will have an accident and be put on medical leave.

And yes, “selfish” is what I meant. Look at all the answers in here about why **MM **shouldn’t tell: because she needs to look out for herself, not her employer. That’s the very definition of selfish. While I have no problem with people looking out for themselves and their unborn child, as an employer I’d only want to hire people willing to look out for me, my business and my other employees as well. I’d do what’s legal and play the “don’t ask, don’t tell” game to protect myself and my company, but I’d FEEL bitter and I’d even complain about it on a message board, just like Foxy.

Ethically, any similar known situation which would likely result in your leaving a permanent position in less than a year should likewise be revealed - the aforementioned back surgery, moving out of town, etc. Only with this information in place can an employer make an informed decision. And yeah, that’s probably going to go against the applicant. So what? I’m not legally or ethically bound to give you a job any more than you’re legally or ethically bound to work for me. We are not guaranteed employment in this country.

Actually, I thought of another option, which is in fact seeking work through a temp agency. It won’t be in your field of specialty (which IIRC, you’re not degreed in anyway, so might be hard to find work in that field until you go back to school) but it can get you through this time without being ethically shady and legally correct.

42

No, in my book. This would place her probable tenure outside the 1 year time span I’ve somewhat arbitrarily set for temporary vs. permanent work. It’s prob’ly going to take her a few months to get pregnant, and then 10 for the gestation, so she’s good. She’s also, in most places, then entitled to maternity coverage and leave.

If he’s planning on taking more time off than his seniority would otherwise give him, then yes, he should. My ethical concerns aren’t with who’s carrying the baby, but the time off afterward.

Of course, this also means that if the pregnant woman intends to give birth and return to work after no more than her personal/vacation/sick days, then all my arguments don’t apply to her, as well. I’m arguing under the (not stated till now) assumption that she’s going to take more time than that off.

Same answer as above. If he’s only intending to use his acquired personal/vacation/sick days, then no. If he’s intending paternity or FMLA leave or simply leaving the job, then yes.

43

Am I incorrect in interpreting this as saying that MM is likely only looking for a 6 month position?

I’ll freely admit that today’s job market is extremely mercenary, with little expectation of or rewards for loyalty or honesty on either side. And to a large extent I don’t really have a problem with an employee taking advantage of anything (short of illegality or - generally - outright lying) they can to maximize their best interests. But let’s not beat around the bushes. If MM is presenting herself as an applicant for a permanent position, while she has little or no expectation that she will - in fact - work there for longer than 6-9 months, they are in large part screwing the employer over for their personal gain. I’m not saying they shouldn’t do it, just saying they should acknowledge the nature and impact of their behavior.

If the job involved is anything other than unskilled work, there is going to be at least some training period until the new employee becomes fully productive. An employee who knos they are leaving the job market in less than the year is imposing considerable costs upon the employer. Not only are they preventing the employer from hiring another candidate who might remain employed for more than 9 months, but they are causing the employer to have to bear the costs of hiring and training again in the near future.

I’m very hesitant to post anything more here, because I feel this touches upon an area in which I remain prejudiced. Tho I believe many if not most folks experience prejudiced thoughts of some sort, it is uncomfortable to try to set your own prejudices into words. But here goes.

It seems to me pretty straightforward that if an employer is desirous of hiring a dependable longterm employee, all other things being equal he is better off hiring the candidate who does not plan on being absent for several prolonged periods over the next few years. I understand that this perception imposes costs upon women of childbearing age and folks with health problems or disabilities. But at least in a harsh economic light, I see the rationale in considering such folks to be less desirous candidates. Of course, the societal desire to avoid discrimination against such folk is a good part of the impetus behind legislation such as FMLA, ADA, etc.

I understand that the FMLA, ADA and other anti-discrimination legislation are valid and binding laws. And I have no problems with anyone using any existing law to obtain anything they desire. But as an employee, I must admit that I am not overcome with joy each time a co-worker becomes pregnant - with the realization that I will have to pick up a part of their caseload while they are out. And in my first decade working here I was not thrilled to realize I had the same “seniority” as women hired at the same time, even if they had been out of the office for multiple maternity leaves of up to 6 months each.

Like I said - I acknowledge that my feelings are prejudicial, and I try not to show or act upon them. I’m just trying to be honest here in acknowledging that I still feel them. And, having worked here for 20 years with any number of incompetents, I no longer perceive any real “resentment” of women who have kids, the blind or disabled employees who produce far less but earn the same pay, or the stupid, careless, or incompetent folk who can’t manage their workloads or perform simple tasks. As long as my paycheck keeps getting deposited, I really don’t care how much work anyone else does.

I think I’ve undoubtedly already written too much …

44

You’re far from the first (or only) person to grapple with that resentment, Dinsdale, and it IS understandable. And it’s often discussed in woman-oriented periodicals.

The most practical solution I’ve seen is the idea of “personal leave” to be applied across the board. I think that people without children ought to be able to dip into a bank of hours to use as they wish, perhaps for sabbaticals or to care for other relatives.

The idea that parents are the only ones who need time away from work to take care of personal matters is pretty insulting. OTOH, denying parents that time is downright cruel and has high societal costs (sick kids in daycare, and/or women excluded from the marketplace).

45

If they’ve been out for multiple maternity leaves of 6 months each, then apparently you’ve had opportunities to learn the job more fully, and have lived through various on-the-job experiences during which they were absent. For these reasons your performance and knowledge may be superior to theirs, and therefore you would be more likely to be selected for a promotion or other on-the-job recognition – not because they’ve had pregnancies and you haven’t, but because you add more value to the organization.

If you aren’t able to demonstrate superior performance on the job thanks to your additional experience, then what difference does it make? After all, the fact that their seniority is equal to yours doesn’t take away from your own seniority. It would be different if you were being punished for the absences of others, but (other than having to work a little harder when someone else is out, which happens to all of us, parents or not) I can’t see how it should matter.

46

In my workplace, certain promotions, benefits, and office assignments are made based solely upon the date you first were hired. (The rules have changed - and have been applied inconsistently somewhat over the past 20 years.)

Take a sorta silly matter such as choosing offices. At the early part of my career, not everyone had private offices, and not all offices/cubes/work stations were equally desireable.

Several people were hired around the time I was, so “seniority” often reflected differences of only weeks or even days. There was one person who had been hired 1 week before me. So as long as she was with our office, she was allowed to move into an office before me, and when we moved she was able to choose a larger office before me.

During our first 3 years at work, we both had 2 kids. But she had taken 2 6-month maternity leaves. So 3 years in, I had 3 years of effective experience, and she had only 2. But when it came time for advancement we moved up at the exact same time, regardless of the fact that I had been in the office working a third more than her - as well as being more productive than her during the time she was in the office.

Yeah, it did kinda bug me. I admit that was my problem and no one else’s, and I no longer worry about such things. Please don’t assume that I am making too big a thing out of an isolated office assignment more than 15 years ago. I was merely trying to illustrate one of many similar instances at an early stage of my working life that influenced my thinking.

I realize that I am in a somewhat unusual working situation, where the top 2 people in our 60-person office, 4 of the top 5 managers, and 7 of the 9 highest paid individuals are women, and pay is strictly based on time-in-grade. So I acknowledge that I do not personally experience the “glass ceiling”, pay discrepancies, and other gender-based employment discrimination I often hear and read about.

It seems to me that another aspect to how folks perceive this situation differently reflects the different attitudes different people have towards their jobs - and their personal situations. Personally, I would be extremely reluctant to take an extended leave upon the birth of my children, or the illness or death of family members, as I would feel guilty about having my co-workers (at least the few competent ones) have to carry my workload in addition to their own. And I guess I might lack compassion or other emotions, but I don’t feel a strong personal desire to take extended leave for familial illnesses/deaths/births.

Bottomline, I guess I don’t really care about my co-workers or the joyful or sad events that occur in their lives. I certainly don’t wish them (or anyone else) ill, but at base all I wish from them is that they don’t make my job any harder or more unpleasant than it otherwise is. And from my purely egocentric stanbdpoint, I prefer co-workers who are dependably in their office doing their own work, than someone who is out of the office for whatever healthcare or family development.

47

I would like to chime in that I tried to be very honest in my job hunt - which was why I was unsuccessful. I was very unfront about my pregnancy and eventually just took temp jobs.

But in any case - I knew about my pregnancy very early too - I could’ve just as easily been one of those women that didn’t know until month 3 or 4, taken a regular job and then found out.

As for “right and wrong” I was laid off by my boss shortly after I told him I was preggers.

48

Conversely, many women feel pressured to take leaves for family responsibilities, whether it suits their work situation or not. It’s precisely because men are not expected to equally shoulder the burden and, in fact, are actively discouraged from doing so, even though they legally have the same rights.

49

Poor Dinsdale. You say that you don’t care how much work anyone else does, but I think you do. Are you sure you don’t care?

Poor ** Foxy40**. Selfish is always about the other person? Why would anyone want to work for a selfish employer? Do you think you should disclose to the potential employees that you are a selfish employer? (No offense intended)

50

I had applied for a job and had an interview at 6months pregnant, He actually told me to call him back after I had the baby… Years later I finally got hired and we started talking about how I was rehired because in there books it said I was actually hired I guess. He asked why I didn’t start back then and I said “you told me to call after I had the baby” He had no recollection of that of course.

51

How is she selfish for looking out for the best interest of her company and her other employees? The fact is that there are other, temporary, jobs out there for the OP and other pregnant women. There is no need to be deceitful and apply for a permanent position.

52

In the US, maternity coverage cannot be denied as pre-existing under a group health insurance plan. HIPAA doesn’t require an employer to offer maternity coverage, or indeed health coverage, but if they do, your claims from the pregnancy could not be denied as pre-existing.

Also, if you have any other pre-existing conditions, the pre-x waiting period will be waived if you have 12 months of qualifying coverage under your previous employer with less than a 63 day gap in coverage from the old plan to the new. They don’t count the new employers eligibility waiting period against you (like if the insurance isn’t effective under your new employer until you’ve been there 90 days or whatever).

Hope that helps a little.

53

FWIW, I didn’t think that dinsdale was saying that it didn’t matter how much work others did – quite the opposite in that:

In some workplaces (for instance, where the field is very specialized and employees require a long orientation to perform competently), peers really suffer when other permanent employees are absent. So this is not only a selfish issue from the employer’s point of view, but also one of protecting other employees – long absences, particularly frequent long absences, can create serious workload and morale issues in such a workplace. Occasionally this can even translate into peers feeling and acting resentful toward the absent employee, and comments about “working the system” to gain maximum benefits for minimal input.

It’s difficult to recruit and retain employees for specialized areas, and growing more difficult all the time, so I tend to lean toward actions that maximize the potential for retention if I can get my hands on an employee who seems to have good potential overall.

54

Bolding mine.

This is the real problem. We should have things set up for this. We should have extensive maternity and daycare programs. We don’t. If such things were the practice of the majority of employers or mandatory, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

55

I don’t think that daycare and maternity leave (or paternity leave) should be the responsibility of an employer.

It seems to me that these are more of a societal issue rather than an employment issue. To me, government (and therefore society as a whole) ought to be funding these “extensive” programs.

Employers can set up their own policies and programs to the extent that they will attract and retain superior employees, but voluntarily and only so that it enables the employer to remain more competitive and profitable. Not because they are required to do so.

Just my $.02