# New Job - Pregnancy?



## AileenF (4 Oct 2006)

I am due to switch jobs and will begin my new job next month in a small private IT company.  However, I want to start having a family Just wondering how this would effect my job if i became pregnant?  I dont want to put my life on hold for my career as thats what I have been doing for the past 4 years.

Let me know your thoughts?


----------



## lff12 (4 Oct 2006)

*Re: New Job - Pregnancy??*

It wouldn't affect your job per se, but if you are on probation then you may not be entitled to the normal maternity benefits available to employees who are permanent.  Having said that I would assume it would take you at least a few months to get pregnant in the first place, adding 9 months to that is a year so you'd have time to get used to the idea.

On the other hand just wait until you're made permanent . . .


----------



## ney001 (4 Oct 2006)

AileenF said:


> I am due to switch jobs and will begin my new job next month in a small private IT company.  However, I want to start having a family Just wondering how this would effect my job if i became pregnant?  I dont want to put my life on hold for my career as thats what I have been doing for the past 4 years.
> 
> Let me know your thoughts?



just wondering - did you not think of your need to start a family prior to getting new job - surely it would have been better to stay at old company for a few more months then leave.


----------



## Lauren (4 Oct 2006)

ney001 why should she have thought about it before moving jobs? The two are not related unless Aileen has concerns about entitlements. 

Aileen I wouldn't worry about getting pregnant after starting your new job. You are entitled to have a job AND get pregnant AND be protected by anti discrimmination laws.


----------



## Joe1234 (4 Oct 2006)

*Re: New Job - Pregnancy??*



lff12 said:


> It wouldn't affect your job per se, but if you are on probation then you may not be entitled to the normal maternity benefits available to employees who are permanent.



I thought normal maternity benefits were based on previous prsi records.  If the OP paid prsi in her previous job, then what might she not be entitled to?


----------



## ClubMan (4 Oct 2006)

If you mean Maternity Benefit payable by _Social Welfare _then yes they are linked to _PRSI _payments. Not sure if _lff12 _was referring to other maternity related benefits provided as part of the employer's contract of employment though?


----------



## Carrigbabe (4 Oct 2006)

I'm in the same situation, I just started new job on monday & i'm dying to start trying, but going to hold off until my probabtion period is up, which is only 6 months. I know they say you cant be discriminated against if you do get pregnant, but its better to have peace of mind and know that you will havea permanent job to go back too after the maternity leave. our probabtion period will fly by. (if your on one that is)


----------



## ney001 (5 Oct 2006)

Lauren said:


> ney001 why should she have thought about it before moving jobs? The two are not related unless Aileen has concerns about entitlements.
> 
> Aileen I wouldn't worry about getting pregnant after starting your new job. You are entitled to have a job AND get pregnant AND be protected by anti discrimmination laws.



I guess I am just thinking from the point of view of the company who hired her - seems a bit unfair that a company would spend money advertising a post/interviewing candidates or paying agency fees only to have to do it again months later.


----------



## Lauren (5 Oct 2006)

ney001 - thats life! And without pregnant women there would be none...


----------



## AileenF (5 Oct 2006)

It cost the company nothing to hire me.  They headhunted me so they didn't have any agency fees or anything else.


----------



## ney001 (5 Oct 2006)

Lauren said:


> ney001 - thats life! And without pregnant women there would be none...



yeah yeah yeah I know all that - I'd just try to be fair to everybody that's all - I come from a family who have small businesses and I work in a small company now and I know the expense that goes into recruitment and the effort of finding people - I've had to do it myself - therefore it would annoy me a bit if somebody promised sun moon and stars at interview only to get pregnant a month later - I know that's not 'pc' and it's a womans right ................. I would just try not to do it that way!


----------



## westsider (5 Oct 2006)

Hi - I find ney0001's comments interesting and I agree whole heartedly with Lauren..
Being a fairly successful career-focussed employee since finishing university 13 years ago and only recently being fortunate enough to start a family (bun still in this oven!) I have found that sometimes as an employee you just have to focus on your own life and not the new client take-on implenentation plan that management have presented to you or the fact that your company is understaffed and that senior management are quite happy to allow that status quo continue as they know people will "cope" (don't we always!!).  (and ney0001 I am not implying that your circumstances/family businesses are in anyway like this).
Personally we had been trying for a family for a long time before hitting the jackpot, and during that time I changed jobs, - my point is that you can't put your life on hold indefinitely for it to happen - it can take years for so many people. Usually there never is a "right time" for these things to happen.

AileenF - re your entitlements - if you have paid sufficient "stamps" you will be entitled to the statutory benefit no matter what. Some employers (such as mine) have a clause in their contracts that stipulate a minimum service period (and successful probation completion) before you are entitled to the company-specific maternity benefits of the rest of staff. Read your contract carefully.


----------



## Bamhan (5 Oct 2006)

ney001 said:


> yeah yeah yeah I know all that - I'd just try to be fair to everybody that's all - I come from a family who have small businesses and I work in a small company now and I know the expense that goes into recruitment and the effort of finding people - I've had to do it myself - therefore it would annoy me a bit if somebody promised sun moon and stars at interview only to get pregnant a month later - I know that's not 'pc' and it's a womans right ................. I would just try not to do it that way!



Many women will be in the workforce for 40 years and surely taking the few short months off to whihc you are entitled as maternity leave would not impact that mush on any company.

Should the OP become pregnant immediately she will still be able to remain working for 8.5 months before taking maternity leave.

If she intends to return to work then I am sure the company will not fold while she is on maternity leave.


----------



## ney001 (5 Oct 2006)

everybody is entitled to have children that's fine and yes you are entitled to have them whenever you want. All I am saying is that personally speaking I would try to be fair to my employer i.e I would not apply for the job knowing that I would be trying to get pregnant almost straight away even though it's allowed and there's nothing wrong with it! - i'd stay were I was until I had more of an idea of when I'd be having a family.  Again from the point of view of a small company we don't have middle management and upper management - it's a very small group of people and if you go to the trouble of hiring someone new - you take into account their personality as well as their ability and you try to fit the new person into the existing group - now if that person then goes off within 6-8 months of hiring them and you have to go looking for a temp etc it does cause difficulty! you have to re-interview and pay for advertising.  Just my opinion nothing against mothers to be or working women having children etc.


----------



## boots1 (5 Oct 2006)

Hi Dont agree Ney001, if a man was changing jobs, he wouldn't have to think of about the difficulty he may cause a new company....... so why should a woman have to think of the "difficulty" she would cause a new company!

Also, are u suggestion that she should stay put, have a baby where she is, take the maternity benefits and then leave?


----------



## westsider (5 Oct 2006)

Exactly boots

You are either "unfair" to the present employer or the new one.

And irrespective of the scenario a temp will still need to be recruited no matter how long you are with the company - 6 months or 6 years!


----------



## annR (5 Oct 2006)

<<I would not apply for the job knowing that I would be trying to get pregnant almost straight away even though it's allowed and there's nothing wrong with it!<<

I don't think I would either and I do see where you're coming from.
I can see how it causes mayhem in some companies but the solution is not for women to plan pregnancies at their employers convenience, that's what it boils down to.  
It's not possible anyway as women don't know how long it will take them to get pregnant.  Supposing it takes years - should they stay put job wise that whole time?
There must be another way for employers to somehow cope.


----------



## ney001 (5 Oct 2006)

boots1 said:


> Hi Dont agree Ney001, if a man was changing jobs, he wouldn't have to think of about the difficulty he may cause a new company....... so why should a woman have to think of the "difficulty" she would cause a new company!
> 
> Also, are u suggestion that she should stay put, have a baby where she is, take the maternity benefits and then leave?



No a man wouldn't have to worry about this but then again he can't have babies and as a previous poster said thats life............ you can't use the man/woman thing forever!

Yes I do think stay put for the time being inform your employer that after maternity leave you will be finishing up with the company that way when they are recruiting for someone to cover your maternity leave they can look for someone with long term prospects who will remain on!.


----------



## ney001 (5 Oct 2006)

westsider said:


> Exactly boots
> 
> You are either "unfair" to the present employer or the new one.
> 
> And irrespective of the scenario a temp will still need to be recruited no matter how long you are with the company - 6 months or 6 years!



Yeah but it's a lot better to recruit after 6 years then having to pay out twice in the same year


----------



## Lauren (5 Oct 2006)

There is nothing 'unfair' about having a baby...As I said earlier its life..and as someone pointed out if the OP got pregnant now she would still be working for the guts of a year! The company could recruit someone NOW who could simply leave after a few months! It happens all the time..


----------



## fatmanknows (5 Oct 2006)

Lauren said:


> ney001 why should she have thought about it before moving jobs? The two are not related unless Aileen has concerns about entitlements.
> 
> Aileen I wouldn't worry about getting pregnant after starting your new job. You are entitled to have a job AND get pregnant AND be protected by anti discrimmination laws.


 
Just wondering if you hold the same strong views if you were working for a very small company as well as say a big plc ?


----------



## Kiddo (5 Oct 2006)

....


----------



## Lauren (5 Oct 2006)

fatmanknows - 

YES absolutely...having a baby is a fundamental decision in life, far removed from the mundane day to day decisions one makes about work, career etc. And for the record I DON'T have children nor do I plan to have any in the near future...however I respect the right of any woman/couple in ANY career circumstance to "go forward and multiply" without needing to consider an entity such as a company or person outside of her /their personal life...


----------



## fatmanknows (6 Oct 2006)

Lauren said:


> fatmanknows -
> 
> YES absolutely...having a baby is a fundamental decision in life, far removed from the mundane day to day decisions one makes about work, career etc. And for the record I DON'T have children nor do I plan to have any in the near future...however I respect the right of any woman/couple in ANY career circumstance to "go forward and multiply" without needing to consider an entity such as a company or person outside of her /their personal life...


 
As a very small employer, you'd scare the pants off me !


----------



## Diziet (6 Oct 2006)

fatmanknows said:


> As a very small employer, you'd scare the pants off me !


 

I guess that's why there are employment laws in place.


----------



## westsider (6 Oct 2006)

No employer has the right to expect that any of his employees should take into consideration his business plans, (no matter what the size of the comapny may be), when making serious decisions effecting their personal lives - especially something as serious and life-changing as this.


----------



## ney001 (6 Oct 2006)

Not about rights or entitlements etc etc rather just being a little more considerate to potential employers that's all!  

Just wondering in the case of someone who applies for a new job and is either pregnant or planning to get pregnant asap (and not all women take ages to get pregnant) do you inform new employer at interview that you are either pregnant or planning a family? (and I know you don't have to - I am just wondering *would *you).  For example employer asks if you have any long term goals or plans etc or can you see yourself working here for a few years - will you be able to travel over the course of the next two years etc etc Do you tell him then that you will be starting a family as soon as possible and probably will taking maternity leave at the end of the year, How does this work? and again I know you don't have to inform employer I am just interested to know how many people would give employer the 'heads up'


----------



## Ceepee (6 Oct 2006)

ney001 said:


> Not about rights or entitlements etc etc rather just being a little more considerate to potential employers that's all!
> 
> Just wondering in the case of someone who applies for a new job and is either pregnant or planning to get pregnant asap (and not all women take ages to get pregnant) do you inform new employer at interview that you are either pregnant or planning a family? (and I know you don't have to - I am just wondering *would *you). For example employer asks if you have any long term goals or plans etc or can you see yourself working here for a few years - will you be able to travel over the course of the next two years etc etc Do you tell him then that you will be starting a family as soon as possible and probably will taking maternity leave at the end of the year, How does this work? and again I know you don't have to inform employer I am just interested to know how many people would give employer the 'heads up'


 
No, I don't think I would tell a potential employer about a potential situation that might arise at some indeterminate time in the future.  What would be refreshing would be if potential employers outlined at interview stage what their policies are in relation to their employees' maternity, paternity, parental and adoption leave, so that a potential employee has some insight into the company's stance on leave, and on what additional benefits or leave, if any, might be afforded to him/her.  If I got the impression at interview that an employee seeking leave for family reasons at any time in the future would be viewed as hassle-y or inconsiderate, I would walk away and bring my talents elsewhere.

I think that many companies take a short-sighted view of maternity leave, seeing it as hugely disruptive for the 22-26 weeks that the woman is on leave, and tend not to consider the long-term value of the employer-employee relationship which may have already lasted years and may continue well into the future.


----------



## ney001 (6 Oct 2006)

Ceepee said:


> No, I don't think I would tell a potential employer about a potential situation that might arise at some indeterminate time in the future.  What would be refreshing would be if potential employers outlined at interview stage what their policies are in relation to their employees' maternity, paternity, parental and adoption leave, so that a potential employee has some insight into the company's stance on leave, and on what additional benefits or leave, if any, might be afforded to him/her.  If I got the impression at interview that an employee seeking leave for family reasons at any time in the future would be viewed as hassle-y or inconsiderate, I would walk away and bring my talents elsewhere.
> 
> I think that many companies take a short-sighted view of maternity leave, seeing it as hugely disruptive for the 22-26 weeks that the woman is on leave, and tend not to consider the long-term value of the employer-employee relationship which may have already lasted years and may continue well into the future.




So if at interview employer fully informed you about maternity policy etc  would you then say well actually i am planning to start my family asap or actually i'm pregnant at the moment?


----------



## Ceepee (6 Oct 2006)

ney001 said:


> So if at interview employer fully informed you about maternity policy etc would you then say well actually i am planning to start my family asap or actually i'm pregnant at the moment?


 
Well, it would depend on whether either of those comments were actually applicable to me!  But in general, I don't think it's anybody's business when a couple plans or hopes to start a family, so the answer to your first question is 'no'.  If I were more than 14 weeks pregnant, I would say so; if less than that, I wouldn't.  That is just me.  

But really the point of my previous post is that, if employers outline what their policies are at interview stage, then everyone is clear on how leave for family reasons is going to be handled _if _the situation arises sometime in the future.  This helps avoid speculation on each side and IMO is more likely to lead to a fruitful (no pun intended) working relationship for both parties.


----------



## fatmanknows (6 Oct 2006)

westsider said:


> No employer has the right to expect that any of his employees should take into consideration his business plans, (no matter what the size of the comapny may be), when making serious decisions effecting their personal lives - especially something as serious and life-changing as this.


 
Equally, no employee has the right to expect the employer to have more interest in the employees family plans than they do in their own business.....no doubt you'll agree.


----------



## ney001 (6 Oct 2006)

Ceepee said:


> Well, it would depend on whether either of those comments were actually applicable to me!  But in general, I don't think it's anybody's business when a couple plans or hopes to start a family, so the answer to your first question is 'no'.  If I were more than 14 weeks pregnant, I would say so; if less than that, I wouldn't.  That is just me.
> 
> But really the point of my previous post is that, if employers outline what their policies are at interview stage, then everyone is clear on how leave for family reasons is going to be handled _if _the situation arises sometime in the future.  This helps avoid speculation on each side and IMO is more likely to lead to a fruitful (no pun intended) working relationship for both parties.



Personally I would think it very poor form indeed if I interviewed someone and discussed all benefits etc and policies of the company particularly re maternity and that person was pregnant but did not say so at interview - If a company is open and forthcoming re entitlements then I do think that the person being interviewed should be open and honest - now that would be refreshing!


----------



## fobs (6 Oct 2006)

> Personally I would think it very poor form indeed if I interviewed someone and discussed all benefits etc and policies of the company particularly re maternity and that person was pregnant but did not say so at interview - If a company is open and forthcoming re entitlements then I do think that the person being interviewed should be open and honest - now that would be refreshing!


 

Because you would probably not give that person the job in a million years considering your views so far so the person would be commiting career suicide by telling you their family plans in advance. You are NOT required to divulge this information at interview stage and would be surprised if people would especially given the views expressed by the potential employer here!


----------



## ney001 (6 Oct 2006)

fobs said:


> Because you would probably not give that person the job in a million years considering your views so far so the person would be commiting career suicide by telling you their family plans in advance. You are NOT required to divulge this information at interview stage and would be surprised if people would especially given the views expressed by the potential employer here!



As stated I do know that you are NOT required to divulge this information but surely it's not all about what you are required to do or what you are entitled do - sometimes just a bit of courtesy comes into it.  I would take a dimmer view of somebody who was pregnant at interview but didn't say anything then somebody who told me at interview that yes they want to work here long term and are pregnant at the moment! - honesty is the best policy IMO and at least all cards are on the table.  And no I never said it would be career suicide (bit dramatic me thinks) and I do realise that people have to have families etc what I am saying is that if you attend an interview you should inform you prospective employer that you are pregnant and/or possibly starting a family this year - particularly in the case of smaller companies who should be made aware that they will probably have to recruit twice in the same year for the same job!


----------



## Winnie (6 Oct 2006)

I have to say that it is not a black & white situation...............I have seen for myself that some jobs just arent suited to having a temp for x months while someone on maternity & the place goes to the dogs while other jobs are easily interchangible.  
At the same time it is everyones right to have children if they are able to..........
Personally I would put myself in the position of being in a job that suits me having children prior to having them.  For instance my current job would not be possible to do with children - travel/overtime etc involved.  Therefore I cannot expect the job to change for me.  I will move to somewhere more suitable when I decide to have kids.
I guess mayb I am more realistic & realise that my career will have to take a step back to have kids - even if it is for only a few years.  Some women expect to have it all & that is not possible (unless your partner decides to pick up the slack - although they can't do that for maternity leave!)

Every situation is different.


----------



## fatmanknows (6 Oct 2006)

Winnie said:


> I have to say that it is not a black & white situation...............I have seen for myself that some jobs just arent suited to having a temp for x months while someone on maternity & the place goes to the dogs while other jobs are easily interchangible.
> At the same time it is everyones right to have children if they are able to..........
> Personally I would put myself in the position of being in a job that suits me having children prior to having them. For instance my current job would not be possible to do with children - travel/overtime etc involved. Therefore I cannot expect the job to change for me. I will move to somewhere more suitable when I decide to have kids.
> I guess mayb I am more realistic & realise that my career will have to take a step back to have kids - even if it is for only a few years. Some women expect to have it all & that is not possible (unless your partner decides to pick up the slack - although they can't do that for maternity leave!)
> ...


 
Here Here !

Well Put.


----------



## ney001 (6 Oct 2006)

Winnie said:


> I have to say that it is not a black & white situation...............I have seen for myself that some jobs just arent suited to having a temp for x months while someone on maternity & the place goes to the dogs while other jobs are easily interchangible.
> At the same time it is everyones right to have children if they are able to..........
> Personally I would put myself in the position of being in a job that suits me having children prior to having them.  For instance my current job would not be possible to do with children - travel/overtime etc involved.  Therefore I cannot expect the job to change for me.  I will move to somewhere more suitable when I decide to have kids.
> I guess mayb I am more realistic & realise that my career will have to take a step back to have kids - even if it is for only a few years.  Some women expect to have it all & that is not possible (unless your partner decides to pick up the slack - although they can't do that for maternity leave!)
> ...




Good point well made!.  I think better communication between employer and employee would help everyone.


----------



## Vanilla (10 Oct 2006)

> I guess mayb I am more realistic & realise that my career will have to take a step back to have kids - even if it is for only a few years. Some women expect to have it all & that is not possible


 
Am I the only one who thinks this is a sad indictment of the way things are for women in practice? Don't get me wrong- I think Winnie is being realistic and what she says is the truth- but it is sad.


----------



## MOB (10 Oct 2006)

It is wrong in my view to see this as an issue which only affects women. 

There is a quiet and unceasing war of the sexes being waged on this issue.  

If as a society we were serious about promoting a more equal work\life balance for parents of both genders, we would not have extended the period of paid maternity leave as happened in the past year or so.  If we were serious about promoting a more balanced sharing of parenting responsibilities we would instead have spent this money giving paid leave to fathers - and perhaps even adding extra incentives -for fathers only -to try to redress the years of imbalance in this area.  But we didn't; and nobody seems to have protested at the inherent unfairness of this.


----------



## Vanilla (12 Oct 2006)

I know this is getting into letting off steam territory, sorry in advance. MOB- I think you are absolutely right. A couple should have the right in all circumstances to opt for either the mother or father to take the paid maternity leave or even share. I also think that men who wish to take parental leave are discrimated against at work to such an extent that for many it would be career suicide to do so. Of course that doesnt detract from the above argument- it's merely another dimension to it.


----------



## Lauren (13 Oct 2006)

Quote:
I guess mayb I am more realistic & realise that my career will have to take a step back to have kids - even if it is for only a few years. Some women expect to have it all & that is not possible 

Am I the only one who thinks this is a sad indictment of the way things are for women in practice? Don't get me wrong- I think Winnie is being realistic and what she says is the truth- but it is sad.





Vanilla yes a very sad indictment indeed......makes you wonder..


----------



## homeowner (16 Oct 2006)

lauren said:
			
		

> Am I the only one who thinks this is a sad indictment of the way things are for women in practice?[/lauren]
> 
> I totally agree.  I see many of my friends who got good degrees in college and have loads of experience being forced to choose between having another baby or staying in their careers.  They are being taken out of the job market just as they are reaching the peak of their careers because they simply cannot spend the same quality or quantity of time they used to at work.
> 
> One of my friends recently went back to work after having her second child.  She was promoted to Mgr before she left and the company were happy for her to resume her role when she returned.  But she wasnt able to stay late in the evenings like she used to, she wasnt able to concentrate 100% on work with a sick kid at the creche, she wasnt able to volunteer to come in on the weekend because she was surviving on about 5 hours sleep a night and had no time for herself or her husband - and he was almost in the same boat.  So she had a chat with her boss and he admitted that she wasnt fulfilling the role of mgr properly, even though she was there for her allotted 40 hours a week - it was the extra stuff that was expected of her that she couldnt do. She wasnt doing a good job in work or at home so she left.


----------

