Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

About to start new job 4 months pregnant **MOD warning 1st post**

Options
1356

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    GarIT
    Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    stimpson wrote: »
    Cost them more/less efficient. You're splitting hairs.

    Fortunately the law doesn't subscribe to your whacky opinions.

    I'm splitting hairs? You created a hypothetical situation, I replied back to the same hypothetical situation and then you try to give out to me for suggesting it.:mad: You introduced disabled people into this discussion as an attempt to say pregnant people should be treated the same as disabled people, and you suggested that they are less efficient. I can't understand how you are trying to blame me for this one.

    It does actually, I've never heard of it being illegal to consider someone's disability when hiring them. My whacky opinions are the same thing every hiring manager will think.

    If you had two candidates applying for a job, one in a wheelchair, other than that the candidates are roughly the same and employing the person in the wheelchair would require you to put in an elevator and considerable redesign some of the building to fit the elevator in. Who would you hire? I don't think that it is wrong for an employer to consider all potential costs and benefits and if that makes me whacky so be it.


  • Options
    #63
    GarIT
    Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    stimpson wrote: »
    Employers are not obliged to fund maternity leave.
    smcgiff wrote: »
    There is no obligation for a company to pay a person on maternity leave.

    They will have to find a temporary replacement incurring significant costs among other things, there are plenty of costs involved.


  • Options
    #64
    e92335i
    Registered Users Posts: 99 ✭✭e92335i


    Op's working with a small team - they hired someone for a reason - they were needed.

    Allowing a 4-6month training in period before OP is up to speed they will be losing her just when she will be useful to them.

    If OP tells managent she is pregnant - I'd expect probation will be failed but the company will be smart about it.
    If OP does not tell employer at 4 months the baby bump will be noticeable sooner rather than later and again failing probation is the only outcome I can see from this.

    Its the small team here that should worry the OP.

    Regardless- if the OP comes clean and they keep her this will leave a bad taste with management and she'l be gone for more time than she's worked by the time maternity leave is up.

    I think the OP thought of short term gain here rather than the long term.


  • Options
    #65
    smcgiff
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,943 ✭✭✭smcgiff


    salmocab wrote: »
    No but they do have to pay holiday pay for the 6 months to the person on leave and to their replacement, also depending on the job the replacement might need some additional training which also costs money

    They do, holiday pay and public holidays, but in the grand scheme of things it's not massive. Likewise with training costs.


  • Options
    #66
    Boskowski
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,361 ✭✭✭Boskowski


    Pretty bad form and very short sighted. It will be obvious to the employer what you did here. So it's unlikely this is going to work out long time also you prevented someone else to have a proper go at thi job. There also is the Ireland is a small place thing.
    And before anyone says anything it's not the getting pregnant it's the knowing of and not telling. How the OP thinks anything good can come out of this is what I don't understand. I could possibly explain this with when desperate you don't always think straight.
    But how anyone else can defend this and think it may work out is absolutely beyond me


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    smcgiff
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,943 ✭✭✭smcgiff


    GarIT wrote: »
    They will have to find a temporary replacement incurring significant costs among other things, there are plenty of costs involved.

    You do realise women get pregnant? Some say it's the natural thing.

    * checks calender to see if it's the 21st century*


  • Options
    #68
    salmocab
    Registered Users Posts: 11,361 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    smcgiff wrote: »
    They do, holiday pay and public holidays, but in the grand scheme of things it's not massive. Likewise with training costs.

    Yeah but it is an additional cost that the employer hasn't factored in. In the OPs case the employer is likely to be pissed off and will probably take a dim view of them. Im certainly not commenting on the ins and outs of the laws but the reality is the employer has a right to be annoyed about this case.


  • Options
    #69
    GarIT
    Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    smcgiff wrote: »
    You do realise women get pregnant? Some say it's the natural thing.

    * checks calender to see if it's the 21st century*

    They do, but they don't need to lie about it to potential employers.

    On the costs front I believe that it is completely reasonable for an employer to take into consideration that an applicant is pregnant. If you need to hire somebody for 12 months work and they will only be able to work the first 4 it is perfectly acceptable to say, no thanks you're not fit for the job.


  • Options
    #70
    smcgiff
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,943 ✭✭✭smcgiff


    salmocab wrote: »
    the reality is the employer has a right to be annoyed about this case.

    Yes, they probably will. But the OP will have time to win them over.


  • Options
    #71
    smcgiff
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,943 ✭✭✭smcgiff


    GarIT wrote: »
    They do, but they don't need to lie about it to potential employers.

    In the same way you don't understand the term plan, you don't seem to understand the word lie either.

    Where did the OP lie?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    stimpson
    Registered Users Posts: 7,821 ✭✭✭stimpson


    GarIT wrote: »

    It does actually, I've never heard of it being illegal to consider someone's disability when hiring them. My whacky opinions are the same thing every hiring manager will think.

    I asked for your opinion on disabled candidates as I wanted to see how far you would go to discriminate.

    It is illegal to discriminate against a candidate based on a disability (or pregnancy). Would you like me to quote the act?


  • Options
    #73
    Teyla Emmagan
    Registered Users Posts: 5,641 ✭✭✭Teyla Emmagan


    This happens the whole time OP. Don't worry about it. They are a big company and will have factored these things happening in. They may not be delighted but they will be pragmatic. Just tell them when you get there.


  • Options
    #74
    GarIT
    Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    smcgiff wrote: »
    In the same way you don't understand the term plan, you don't seem to understand the word lie either.

    Where did the OP lie?

    By not mentioning it when it is clearly something significant and relevant.
    stimpson wrote: »
    I asked for your opinion on disabled candidates as I wanted to see how far you would go to discriminate.

    It is illegal to discriminate against a candidate based on a disability (or pregnancy). Would you like me to quote the act?

    That means you can't decided not to employ somebody at all just because they are disabled, you can still consider it when comparing applicants.


  • Options
    #75
    Boskowski
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,361 ✭✭✭Boskowski


    smcgiff wrote: »
    In the same way you don't understand the term plan, you don't seem to understand the word lie either.

    Where did the OP lie?

    Technically no lie but a very relevant fact was deliberately omitted. Call it what you want the OP deceived and knows it too hence the thread.


  • Options
    #76
    stimpson
    Registered Users Posts: 7,821 ✭✭✭stimpson


    GarIT wrote: »
    That means you can't decided not to employ somebody at all just because they are disabled, you can still consider it when comparing applicants.

    The law is very specific on definitions:


    Discrimination (general).

    3.—(1) For the purposes of this Act, discrimination shall be taken to occur where—

    (a) on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) (in this Act referred to as “the discriminatory grounds”) which exists at present or previously existed but no longer exists or may exist in the future, or which is imputed to the person concerned, a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated,


  • Options
    #77
    smcgiff
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,943 ✭✭✭smcgiff


    GarIT wrote: »
    By not mentioning it when it is clearly something significant and relevant.

    Still. Not. A. Lie.

    In a job interview only a fool would offer up information that would lessen their chances of getting a job, especially when there is no entitlement to do so.


  • Options
    #78
    qo2cj1dsne8y4k
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,646 ✭✭✭✭qo2cj1dsne8y4k


    It still looks really bad on the OP


  • Options
    #79
    smcgiff
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,943 ✭✭✭smcgiff


    Boskowski wrote: »
    Technically no lie but a very relevant fact was deliberately omitted. Call it what you want the OP deceived and knows it too hence the thread.

    I refer you to the answer I gave to your Right Honourable colleague.


  • Options
    #80
    smcgiff
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,943 ✭✭✭smcgiff


    LexieOnRale wrote: »
    It still looks really bad on the OP

    It does, no doubt, but should she deprived of the opportunity?

    I think her planning to take 8.5 months off is a bit much though and I do have sympathy for her employer.


  • Options
    #81
    e92335i
    Registered Users Posts: 99 ✭✭e92335i


    smcgiff wrote: »
    It does, no doubt, but should she deprived of the opportunity?

    I think her planning to take 8.5 months off is a bit much though and I do have sympathy for her employer.

    She should not be deprived the opportunity but she should have been open in the interview.
    She deliberately held back info as she knew it would affect her chances of getting the job.

    Its not like the pregnancy was going to go away.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    qo2cj1dsne8y4k
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,646 ✭✭✭✭qo2cj1dsne8y4k


    smcgiff wrote: »
    It does, no doubt, but should she deprived of the opportunity?

    I think her planning to take 8.5 months off is a bit much though and I do have sympathy for her employer.

    Yes, she took a job not caring that she would be messing her employers around, say nothing then drop a bombshell on the company that they'll have to go through the same entire process to fill the same position for 8 and a half months, then bring back someone who's only worked 4 months in the company.

    She's not going to endear herself to her employers, that's for sure.


  • Options
    #83
    Tzardine
    Registered Users Posts: 3,884 ✭✭✭Tzardine


    This is what I think will happen.

    Op will start the job. Will tell the employer she is pregnant.

    Employer will be very nice about it and pretend it's no bid deal. Will hire a temp to cover the maternity leave.

    Soon after op comes back to work the employer will be looking for any excuse to dismiss her.

    Have seen it done by a HR manager in a similar situation. The maternity leave temp was then hired back to the permanent job as they were trained and vetted.

    I would not have much sympathy for the op on this case to be honest. She knew she was giving the employer the shaft.


  • Options
    #84
    smcgiff
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,943 ✭✭✭smcgiff


    LexieOnRale wrote: »
    Yes, she took a job not caring that she would be messing her employers around, say nothing then drop a bombshell on the company that they'll have to go through the same entire process to fill the same position for 8 and a half months, then bring back someone who's only worked 4 months in the company.

    She's not going to endear herself to her employers, that's for sure.

    Endear herself to employers? No, they'll not be happy. But is she doing the best thing for herself and not doing anything technically wrong - yes.

    The OP is in the position she is in. What advice have you got for her now?


  • Options
    #85
    Boskowski
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,361 ✭✭✭Boskowski


    smcgiff wrote: »
    I refer you to the answer I gave to your Right Honourable colleague.

    I get it but there is a line isn't there? How far do you go, would you omit saying 'I really haven't much experience in that area'? After all that's likely to reduce your chances too. You can't really argue with the fact the employer may rightly feel deceived. And if the OP didn't have a nagging feeling this may be the case we wouldn't have this thread right? No matter what way you twist it it's hardly going to be a bright spot on her cv.

    What kind of job are we talking about anyway. Is it tesco till or is it professional stuff? 'Huge opportunity' would suggest the latter which means there is a considerable ramp up time as there usually is in such jobs. Meaning she may be just about starting to pull her weight by the time she's leaving.


  • Options
    #86
    smcgiff
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,943 ✭✭✭smcgiff


    e92335i wrote: »
    She should not be deprived the opportunitybut she should have been open in the interview.

    Says who? Not the law for sure, and there's a reason for that.


  • Options
    #87
    smcgiff
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,943 ✭✭✭smcgiff


    Boskowski wrote: »
    I get it but there is a line isn't there? How far do you go, would you omit saying 'I really haven't much experience in that area'? After all that's likely to reduce your chances too. You can't really argue with the fact the employer may rightly feel deceived. And if the OP didn't have a nagging feeling this may be the case we wouldn't have this thread right?

    It's very different. It is up to the interviewer to establish if the candidate can do the job.

    "You've seen the job description - is there any concerns you may have with your abilitities to perform any of the duties?"

    I think the employer will rightly feel they are going to be inconvenienced, but the law is there so that is not reason enough to not hire soneone.


  • Options
    #88
    e92335i
    Registered Users Posts: 99 ✭✭e92335i


    smcgiff wrote: »
    Says who? Not the law for sure, and there's a reason for that.

    Morally, not legally.

    Do you think what she done was morally acceptable?


  • Options
    #89
    qo2cj1dsne8y4k
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,646 ✭✭✭✭qo2cj1dsne8y4k


    smcgiff wrote: »

    Endear herself to employers? No, they'll not be happy. But is she doing the best thing for herself and not doing anything technically wrong - yes.

    The OP is in the position she is in. What advice have you got for her now?

    Be honest with her employer straight off the bat, and then hope they don't let her go during her probation period. I see nothing she can do now only tell them the truth.


  • Options
    #90
    stimpson
    Registered Users Posts: 7,821 ✭✭✭stimpson


    e92335i wrote: »
    Morally, not legally.

    Do you think what she done was morally acceptable?

    All morality is relative. Do you think it's moral to discriminate against a pregnant woman?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    smcgiff
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,943 ✭✭✭smcgiff


    e92335i wrote: »
    Morally, not legally.

    Do you think what she done was morally acceptable?

    It's likely very many people applied for this job. Maybe 1 or 2 hundred people. A handful were chosen for interview. The OP has educated herself and built up her skills to the point where she was the one chosen for this role.

    She has played by all the rules asked of her.

    She has an obligation to herself and her future family.

    She has a duty to be the best employee she can be.

    She is under no obligation to abide by any morals others would put on her.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement