Ethics of job offer and pregnancy disclosure? - Page 2

[KCMommy]

Originally Posted by fireHC11

Wow, sorry, that's the reason that moms are made to choose between their career and their family. There is a reason non-discrimination laws are in place: we're trying very very hard to level the playing field between men and women. One third of women leave the work force to have a family [1]. One third! And it's attitudes like yours, KCMommy, that make it difficult for many of us career moms to succeed --- because employers assume that we'll fail at being awesome at our jobs. We'll just get knocked up and stop working.

I realized after reading a few more posts that most of the responders on this thread are in the States. In Canada, giving birth means a minimum 12 month maternity leave.

I absolutely don't assume that women "will fail at being awesome at our jobs." Women absolutely dominate my industry and I have an excellent staff of 100% women right now. Lets suppose that the pregnant employee doesn't miss any time and is a perfect employee (as might well be the case!). EVEN STILL, we know that she is going to leave in less than 9 months, for at least a year. Am I discriminating to consider the attachment needs of our child clientele, and the bottom line of the business, in any way? If anyone, man or woman, pregnant or not, told me they would be quitting in 7 months, I would be less likely to hire them than another applicant of comparable credentials.

If business is to survive, there has to be some eye to profitability. For what it is worth, I actually take home less money than my lead teacher, at the end of the day. My daycare would not stay afloat if I did not make some decisions based on consistency, quality, and profitability.

OP, I hope everything went well for you. And you are equally within your rights to disclose or not!

- K

[geekgolightly]

KCMommy, I hear you and I understand that people who run a business must think of the costs of training, and calculable risks of call-in's, low productivity etc, but with pregnancy, IMHO, it is unethical to take this into consideration because of how it affects women in the workplace.

Like with paying out for a national health insurance plan or knowing your taxes are going to a public school when you never want to send your kids to a school. It's for the public good. It has to be part of the equation in what we do.

But I'm one of those horrible liberals you read about. You might be an Objectivist, or a Libertarian, and then it would be as if my whole argument is built on sand.

[geekgolightly]

As for Canada, as 12 months is so hugely long, I am less inclined to be so black and white, but in the US most definitely.

Doesn't the gov't subsidize you somehow though?

[GuildJenn]

Originally Posted by geekgolightly

As for Canada, as 12 months is so hugely long, I am less inclined to be so black and white, but in the US most definitely.

Doesn't the gov't subsidize you somehow though?

In Canada unless the employer tops up the mat leave (some do; most don't) there is no direct cost to the employer (other than the employment insurance premiums that they pay for all employees and some paperwork).

All the cheques to the person on mat leave come from the gov't, funded from the massive employment insurance federal fund.

The costs are more soft costs - training, transition time lost, a bit of overhead keeping that person's records up to date, etc.

But at my previous job, and this one, we pretty much always shaved money off the budget during a maternity leave because the person we would get in on a one-year contract (assuming the woman took the full leave and didn't split it with her husband) was usually a) slightly junior, seeking experience and b) on contract so no benefits, etc. (and usually at step 1 on the salary grid.)

Maternity leave contracts can actually be a great opportunity to test out new staff, cross-train staff for other positions, give people experience towards future promotions, etc.

I personally LIKE that they are often one year because then the training seems reasonable, you can get a good, committed person for that year, and if it's someone you're thinking of bringing on board, you really get a sense of how they really truly operate in that role. I think 12 weeks would be harder to manage in terms of either bringing in a new person, or just falling into a bad habit of spreading the work among others.

[Ola_]

Originally Posted by KCMommy

Am I discriminating to consider the attachment needs of our child clientele, and the bottom line of the business, in any way?

Well, according to the Canadian Human Rights Commission "discrimination related to pregnancy or child-birth is considered to be discrimination on the ground of sex".

http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/discrimination/sex-en.asp

[sanguine_speed]

[KCMommy]

I should just leave this thread alone, because I know the audience here is of a difference philosophical mind-set.

A couple things, though. It is true that costs of mat leave are mostly "soft costs", but in my industry, high turnover and cost of training, etc are a big deal. A sign of a poor quality daycare is one that is constantly changing staff, and uprooting the children from their important caregiver attachments.

The actual monetary cost of Employment Insurance to me, as an employer, is about $100 each month per employee, for a total expense of about $4800/year for my entire payroll. This is not a big deal to me, and is something we pay for every person regardless of whether or not they ever take leave. Employees also have some EI premiums deducted off their cheques, though not as much as we pay on their behalf.

But no, the government does not help us at all with the costs of losing a worker for the standard 12 months.

It is very easy for someone on the outside to look in and suggest that a small business should take a bullet for the greater societal good. By the way, I have had two pregnant women on staff, one of whom I hired knowing she was pregnant and the other who became pregnant while in my employ, in less than two years of operation. So although I am arguing this case here on a philosophical level, I don't think anyone can say I haven't done my part.

Here is another question: If I hire someone with a master's degree in early Childhood Education and 20 years experience preferentially over someone with no education and no experience... am I discriminating against the person with no credentials, who may be young or has not had the same life opportunities as the former candidate, due to social status, etc?

[GuildJenn]

Originally Posted by KCMommy

I should just leave this thread alone, because I know the audience here is of a difference philosophical mind-set.

A couple things, though. It is true that costs of mat leave are mostly "soft costs", but in my industry, high turnover and cost of training, etc are a big deal. A sign of a poor quality daycare is one that is constantly changing staff, and uprooting the children from their important caregiver attachments.
...

But no, the government does not help us at all with the costs of losing a worker for the standard 12 months.

It is very easy for someone on the outside to look in and suggest that a small business should take a bullet for the greater societal good. By the way, I have had two pregnant women on staff, one of whom I hired knowing she was pregnant and the other who became pregnant while in my employ, in less than two years of operation. So although I am arguing this case here on a philosophical level, I don't think anyone can say I haven't done my part.

Here is another question: If I hire someone with a master's degree in early Childhood Education and 20 years experience preferentially over someone with no education and no experience... am I discriminating against the person with no credentials, who may be young or has not had the same life opportunities as the former candidate, due to social status, etc?

I agree that in a daycare there are some extra issues - but I also think that given the age most of your staff is likely to be and that it's a largely female-staffed profession you're probably going to get a high rate of maternity leave. The same thing goes for school boards, although of course the way kids change classes every year is going to help them out a bit there.

I personally would not report mat leave as a staff turnover. I would put it like this: "In the last year we've had one staff member leave, and we have one staff member on maternity leave." This is how my daycare does it, and it's nice to know - I actually like that there is a combination of mothers and non-mothers working there.

Presumably, people come back so they're not really lost.

I am sympathetic, really. I went through a time when I had 4/6 staff go on mat leave within 2 years - it was sort of the same (receptionist - young women) and it was a pain. But that is part of the cost of doing business. We looked at how we could improve training and it actually forced us into developing better manuals, etc.

There is a big difference between a difference in qualifications and a difference in reproductive status.

[JollyGG]

I have been in on the hiring process many times in my career. The overall impression I get from people in human resources is that they would prefer not to know until the contract is signed. After you start/end your probationary period they want to know as soon as possible so they can plan accordingly.

The reason they don't want to know is because it does put the employer in a difficult position. It is illegal to discriminate. But if you've been an employer of any significant group of women you have likely been burned a time or two with some not being as productive while pregnant, changing their minds about returning from maternity leave without much notice, etc. It is a valid concern that does enter someone's head when they consider hiring a pregnant woman.

Not knowing that an interviewing woman is pregnant allows them to be more objective and reasonable in their hiring decision. There isn't the question of weather they didn't hire someone because they are pregnant. Or whether they did hire someone because they didn't want to give the impression of discrimination.

The hiring decision is then about the person and their qualifications, not about their reproductive status. In a world where professional appearance is important, law suits are not uncommon, and ethics are sometimes a fuzzy gray area pregnancy complicates it all. Most HR staff that I know would rather avoid the whole issue by not knowing until after you have started that you are pregnant.

[EdnaMarie]

Oh, that is my worst nightmare, OP!!!

Good luck! I think if I was in the first trimester I would not disclose it because of, shall we say, reasons having to do with probability. You certainly have the legal right.

However, I agree that you should tell your employer immediately if you intend to take maternity leave etc.

Frankly, right now, you do not know, really, whether you'll be pregnant for nine months and have a baby. It's likely but it's nearly 50/50. I do not consider that I know myself to be having a baby until week twelve is closed.

However, I would probably not apply for a new job if I were more than two months pregnant. That is not your situation, though.