Workplaces asking women about babymplans

[DizBelle]

IMO, if the public has a right to know if a candidate plans to have a baby then an employer has a right to know if an employee plans to have a baby. At issue isn't "sleepless nights or worrying about the baby", it's the taking extended time off. Yes, some businesses can get by with a temp, but others can't.

Let's say you're hiring a nanny to take care of your child. Unknown by you, during the interview process they're 4 months pregnant. You hire them and later find out they're pregnant and they won't be able to do the work for two months. So now you need some kind of child care for those two months. What are you going to do?

deleted

 

[MamaBelle4]

And you would have to pay the original nanny you hired and pay the temp nanny too (if the law requires it).

In the US, you wouldn't. FMLA only takes affect if you have 50+employees.

 

[DizBelle]

When I had my mastectomy, I took 6 weeks medical leave.

Then I had several surgeries for reconstruction. I tried, hard, to schedule them around school vacations, so that I missed a day here and a day here.

I was incredibly lucky with radiation-- my school let me leave a few minutes early each day to make my appointment, the last of the day.

When I had my daughter, I was back in less than 6 weeks. No additional time off needed.

So why isn't cancer screening a part of the questioning?

Last year, my husband missed school for over2 months-- his diabetes landed him in ICU for 11 days, and it was touch and go.

Why isn't diabetes part of the questioning?

A number of friends lost their homes in Sandy. They all missed different combinations of school time as they sorted out their personal issues.

Why isn't proximity of your home to water part of the questioning?

deleted

 

[MamaBelle4]

I would think that unplanned absence due to medical emergency or natural disaster would be quite different than a planned pregnancy.

Yes. A medical emergency or natural disaster comes about unexpectedly and people will have to scramble to cover.

A planned pregnancy will allow people time to make arrangements.

 

[DizBelle]

I agree with this.

There are systems in place for temporary acting figures, like when President Woodrow Wilson had a series of strokes (bonus points for everyone who knows who acted in his behalf, though it was definitely unbeknownst to the public).

The nation has survived worse, I'm sure, than 6-8 weeks of maternity leave. The US has endured entire 4 year terms riddled with corruption, deception and incompetency. 8 weeks surely pales in comparison to that!

deleted

 

[MamaBelle4]

Except that extended leave for maternity in New Zealand is 52 weeks (1 year). That's a long time.

But is it likely a woman would take that much time given the significance of her position? I doubt it. And if she does, she does. I think it is much more likely her husband would be the primary care giver.

 

[NHdisneylover]

I think it does. If you have multiple qualified candidates an employer, or voting public should be allowed to go with the one that is best for the job, and that is most likely the one who does not need extended leave of absence. Of course companies and countries can continue to run, but that still doesn't mean an employer, or voters shouldn't factor that in to their decision.

In the case of the OP, when reading the posts by her, I wrongly assumed that standard maternity leave was one year. If that was true, in that case I do think it is fair to ask a public official if they plan on using it during their term. Since actual maternity leave is not that long, then I do agree, there is no need to ask.

Really--so the thought that someone MIGHT become pregnant later on, and if so need an extended leave of absence should be taken into consideration? How about my brother in law; he races mountain bikes and has had more htan his fair share of injuries. Should the fact taht his off work time hobbies put him at more risk of MAYBE being out long term with an injury weigh against him? There are all kidnsof maybes and might happens in life----and as poitned out previously, might be pregnant at some point, even if you think you know when you'd like to be, isn't anyhting that super contorallable.
Not hiring the right person for the job beucase they might be out ofr a few weeks at some point, or even WILL be, seems both discrimitory and a bad way to do bussiness.

 

[Gracie09]

And you would have to pay the original nanny you hired and pay the temp nanny too (if the law requires it).

It depends on the state law. We are paying our nanny disability and then paid family leave (nj) through state programs. We don't pay the full amount but a small portion of it. We also pay our temp nanny. We are happy to do so because our original nanny is fabulous and we don't want to lose her.

 

[Hikergirl]

Really--so the thought that someone MIGHT become pregnant later on, and if so need an extended leave of absence should be taken into consideration? How about my brother in law; he races mountain bikes and has had more htan his fair share of injuries. Should the fact taht his off work time hobbies put him at more risk of MAYBE being out long term with an injury weigh against him? There are all kidnsof maybes and might happens in life----and as poitned out previously, might be pregnant at some point, even if you think you know when you'd like to be, isn't anyhting that super contorallable.
Not hiring the right person for the job beucase they might be out ofr a few weeks at some point, or even WILL be, seems both discrimitory and a bad way to do bussiness.

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.

 

[Gracie09]

Except that extended leave for maternity in New Zealand is 52 weeks (1 year). That's a long time.

It doesn't have to be only the woman that takes the leave. Maybe the plan is for her husband to be primary caregiver. Either way that is up to the couple and they should not have to explain their plans.
I remember when the British PM (the previous one not the current) had a child soon after paternity leave became law in the UK, there were questions about whether he should take his leave.

And the excuse that leave is a long time is an excuse that has been used for years as a way of stopping paid family leave. It has not proven to be an issue in countries that have it. In fact if I had access to a year of leave (paid or unpaid) I would not have left the workforce for several years because my daughter's health issues would have been under control enough for me to go back to work when she was a year. Instead, I left the workforce, the govt lost my income to tax both when I made it and when we spent it, and we lost the income and other benefits (retirement savings etc) that I was receiving.

 

[wilkeliza]

I have problems with the pregnancy question because it ends up leading to okayed sexism. My companies policy is the same for men and women in regards to paternity and maternity leave. Everyone can get their 12 weeks by FMLA or but we also have a policy that means you have to declare yourself as primary care giver or non-primary care giver. So a father could declare he is the primary care giver and get 6 weeks paid or leave it as is and get 2 weeks paid. There is some legal paper work for both parties mom or dad who wish to take it and everyone to be eligible has to have work for 12 month and over a thousand hours. Women of course can get unpaid leave and file for short term disability (odd that pregnancy is considered a short term disability) and then get the 6 weeks in addition to short term disability but it still falls under the total 12 weeks of FMLA that all employees are eligible for. So if we were asking ladies we better be asking men as well since both can take up to 6 weeks fully paid and 12 weeks unpaid.

 

[cabanafrau]

It is fairly standard here, only a portion of it is paid but your job must be held for a year with no impact on promotions etc

It's not here in the U.S., so it really makes little sense to correlate it to someone being elected POTUS.

 

[Poohforyou]

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

Actually, my US company gives father's 12 weeks paternity leave that can be used any time in the 1st year after birth or adoption.

The same company also gave me 12 weeks paid and 12 weeks unpaid leave after adopting. I could have easily and honestly answered that I didn't intend to have children since I didn't have my daughter.

 

[Magpie]

When my mother was a university student, she took and passed the American foreign service exam with flying colours. Did really, really well. So she was called in for an interview, where they sat her down and explained that - being a woman - in order for her to join the foreign service she would have to commit to remaining single. No husband, no children allowed.

At the time (late 1960's) men in the foreign service could marry, but not women.

My mother was young, and though she had no specific plans to get married or pregnant at that moment, she couldn't imagine completely giving up on the possibility of love and family. So, she turned down the job offer and gave up on any idea of a career in the foreign service.

I think, when you put conditions on what job a woman can do based on her predicted fertility, you limit her opportunities. And you are also limiting the pool of candidates you can choose from. My mother was the obvious loser here, but I do believe that the US Foreign Service also lost out. She's a very clever, highly analytical, dedicated and hard working woman. She would have been ideal for the job.

If we're truly committed to having more women in politics, or any other job, we cannot make their fertility an issue.

I don't think a woman's fertility should be any of our business, and no... we should not be asking about it when we're considering someone for a position, not even if it's an elected one.

 

[gotomu212]

I think your employer should know about any planned extended leave you are expecting to take. I think a general question from an employer about your plans to do that is fair.
Your time off doesn't always just effect you. My friend is going through this at work right now. She has a co-worker who is pregnant, so obviously they all know that she will be taking her maternity leave so they were able to plan around her being gone for that time.
An unexpected problem as put her on bed rest and my friend and her other co-workers are scrambling to cover that woman's work. My friend is going through her own medical issue and has had to put off her own appointments that were scheduled during her time off in order to be at work so the pregnant co-workers responsibilities could be covered. This was unplanned, so not much can be done, however if you know you will be taking extended time off, there is nothing wrong with an employer wanting to know that beforehand for the sake of themselves and other co-workers.

I understand why you might think this, but discrimination for any medical condition in employment practices is illegal in the US. If an employer asked if you would need time off for pregnancy, chemo, surgery they would be in violation of the law.

 

[soccerdad72]

It shouldn't be anyone's business as to her plans for motherhood.

However, voters have a funny way of determining what is and isn't important to them.

 

[sam_gordon]

Let's change this up a little bit. Imagine you're a hiring manager today. You're interviewing for a position. During the interview (or even after the job is offered), the candidate says "BTW, I need January and February off for a planned vacation." Another equally qualified candidate says they're ready to work, no similar restriction. Is it improper to let that factor in to your decision?

I don't think asking about future pregnancy plans is appropriate. Knowing about immediate (within the first 6 months) needs however...

 

[wilkeliza]

Let's change this up a little bit. Imagine you're a hiring manager today. You're interviewing for a position. During the interview (or even after the job is offered), the candidate says "BTW, I need January and February off for a planned vacation." Another equally qualified candidate says they're ready to work, no similar restriction. Is it improper to let that factor in to your decision?

I don't think asking about future pregnancy plans is appropriate. Knowing about immediate (within the first 6 months) needs however...

A vacation is very different than a pregnancy or medical issue. 2 months vacation would be absurd in any situation.

 

[Hikergirl]

I understand why you might think this, but discrimination for any medical condition in employment practices is illegal in the US. If an employer asked if you would need time off for pregnancy, chemo, surgery they would be in violation of the law.

I know

 

[sam_gordon]

A vacation is very different than a pregnancy or medical issue. 2 months vacation would be absurd in any situation.

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.