5 ms·

Let me answer this with a counter-question. If you're pregnant and somehow hiding it really well, do you think it makes sense for you to job-hunting six weeks b

Let me answer this with a counter-question. If you're pregnant and somehow hiding it really well, do you think it makes sense for you to job-hunting six weeks before you're due to give birth?

newfoundglory 8y ago
FUCK yes. Kids cost money. Jobs are how you get money. And I say this as someone who hired a woman who then told us she would give birth in two months, and we were fine.
- hotdog97 8y ago
  Please excuse me if I'm being too flippant, but I'm trying to make a point here: Another way of making quick money is by robbing a bank. Just making the point here that your logic is lacking, not that pregnant women are bank robbbers.
  - shkkmo 8y ago
    What you seem to be saying is that instead of looking for a job, pregnant women should rob a bank? Honestly, I have no idea what point you are trying to make. The logic of: "Babies are expensive, therefor I cannot stay unemployed for 6 months before I find a job" seems completely sound and reasonable to me. Where is that logic lacking? What practical alternative would you propose?
    - hotdog97 8y ago
      I explicitly wrote that I did not mean that, thinking that someone would inevitably misunderstand.
      - newfoundglory 8y ago
        You may be trying to make a point, but you're not succeeding. A sarcastic guess: robbing banks makes money, and having a job makes money so having a job is logically equivalent to robbing banks and therefore being employed is bad.
- kuriho 8y ago
  Wow, that sounds like straight up fraud to me. Do companies in America get financial support from the government for employees on pregnancy leave?
  - AchieveLife 8y ago
    Do companies you work at not hire employees for the long term?
    - kuriho 8y ago
      They mainly hire people to replace others that quit/retired or to fill a new position created to support a team with a steadily growing workload. New hires are subject to a 3 month probation period during which both parties can end the contract at will. More than 80% of all positions are long term. I would hope that someone looking for a long term employment at a company would be honest and upfront with something like a planned 1-year vacation. My only gripe with the parent poster is that they are hiding(rightfully so) this so close before their planned leave and thus do not appear serious about a long term employment at that company.
      - lazyasciiart 8y ago
        1 year vacation? ROFL. In America 3 months of paid maternity leave is a good dead. Also, in America both parties can end a job at will at any time. Also also, referring to parental leave as "vacation" is pretty weird.
      - krschultz 8y ago
        I sure hope you are not involved with hiring at your company because your perspective on this is a great way to get sued into oblivion. It's actually in your best interest as the hiring company to not find out if the person is pregnant or expecting to have a child. Let's say that you decided not to hire someone for a set of reasons unrelated to pregnancy, but along the way you asked the candidate if they were planning to get pregnant. Good luck proving that you didn't make the hiring decision on the basis of knowing they would take leave. Which of course is illegal under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. This is why most companies make it a policy that you can not ask these kinds of questions so as not to taint the interview (even though technically it's not illegal to ask the questions, it's just illegal to use them as a basis for your decision). As a candidate you might actually be acting more in the interest of the company to not tell them you are going to be having a child so as not to put them in that position? I honestly haven't thought through it that much so I could be convinced of a different opinion. If you're planning to continue working after having a child, I think you should go about your career as if the pregnancy wasn't happening and just take the leave as appropriate. If that means you work 6 weeks before leave, so be it. You'll be back after leave to continue on. What would the company do if instead of getting pregnant you got hit by a bus one day? I had to take 2 months of medical leave on 2 weeks notice when I got deathly ill, that was way less notice than a pregnancy. The startup I was at had only 12 people and they handled it. I'm unconvinced by all these arguments that it's too much of a hardship for companies to deal with their employees having a life.
tptacek 8y ago
Literally the only reason to tell a prospective employer about your pregnancy status is to enable them to unlawfully discriminate against you based on that status.
- JungleGymSam 8y ago
  OK but why should a company hire someone if they are almost "immediately" going to be put on paid leave? edit: Yes, downvotes will change my mind. You're all doing a wonderful job and are definitely morally superior to me and I'm unworthy of your keystrokes.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - Retra 8y ago
    A company doesn't just exist for the benefit of its shareholders. It exists for the benefit of society and its employees. And quite crying about down-votes.
    - tathougies 8y ago
      Well... not really. In the sense that shareholders can sue a corporation they own if the management is not acting in their best interest while society cannot, a corporations main purpose is to provide profit to shareholders
      - wrs 8y ago
        Laws are precisely how society imposes its concerns on corporations. The concept of a corporation only exists in the first place because society decided such a thing was useful. The purpose of corporations is whatever society decides it is.
        tathougies 8y ago
        I agree with you. I was stating current reality, not making a moral statement
lhorie 8y ago
If you knew you had to take time off in two months to recover from a scheduled medical operation, would you rather spend the next two months earning a salary or surviving on your savings?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
I think it always makes sense to go looking for a job when you don't have one and you wish to be an independent adult and support yourself through employment. But, obviously, we're not talking the same kind of "makes sense" here, are we?
cimmanom 8y ago
If you're un-/under-employed and need the money, of course. If your old job doesn't provide halfway decent health benefits or paid parental leave, of course. If your old job sucks your soul and makes you want to slit your wrists, of course.
vitalysh 8y ago
My wife been searching for a job for quite some time (about a 2-3 years), during that time we've been trying to conceive a baby, but no luck, went through few eco sessions, still no dice. We decided to give up on idea of having a baby and just relax and live our lives. Then suddenly she gets a job offer she was dreaming about and one week later, guess what? She is pregnant. Now what would you tell your wife? Give up job you've been dreaming about?

Let me answer this with a counter-question. If you're pregnant and somehow hiding it really well, do you think it makes sense for you to job-hunting six weeks before you're due to give birth?

newfoundglory 8y ago

FUCK yes. Kids cost money. Jobs are how you get money. And I say this as someone who hired a woman who then told us she would give birth in two months, and we were fine.

hotdog97 8y ago
Please excuse me if I'm being too flippant, but I'm trying to make a point here: Another way of making quick money is by robbing a bank. Just making the point here that your logic is lacking, not that pregnant women are bank robbbers.
- shkkmo 8y ago
  What you seem to be saying is that instead of looking for a job, pregnant women should rob a bank? Honestly, I have no idea what point you are trying to make. The logic of: "Babies are expensive, therefor I cannot stay unemployed for 6 months before I find a job" seems completely sound and reasonable to me. Where is that logic lacking? What practical alternative would you propose?
  - hotdog97 8y ago
    I explicitly wrote that I did not mean that, thinking that someone would inevitably misunderstand.
    - newfoundglory 8y ago
      You may be trying to make a point, but you're not succeeding. A sarcastic guess: robbing banks makes money, and having a job makes money so having a job is logically equivalent to robbing banks and therefore being employed is bad.
kuriho 8y ago
Wow, that sounds like straight up fraud to me. Do companies in America get financial support from the government for employees on pregnancy leave?
- AchieveLife 8y ago
  Do companies you work at not hire employees for the long term?
  - kuriho 8y ago
    They mainly hire people to replace others that quit/retired or to fill a new position created to support a team with a steadily growing workload. New hires are subject to a 3 month probation period during which both parties can end the contract at will. More than 80% of all positions are long term. I would hope that someone looking for a long term employment at a company would be honest and upfront with something like a planned 1-year vacation. My only gripe with the parent poster is that they are hiding(rightfully so) this so close before their planned leave and thus do not appear serious about a long term employment at that company.
    - lazyasciiart 8y ago
      1 year vacation? ROFL. In America 3 months of paid maternity leave is a good dead. Also, in America both parties can end a job at will at any time. Also also, referring to parental leave as "vacation" is pretty weird.
    - krschultz 8y ago
      I sure hope you are not involved with hiring at your company because your perspective on this is a great way to get sued into oblivion. It's actually in your best interest as the hiring company to not find out if the person is pregnant or expecting to have a child. Let's say that you decided not to hire someone for a set of reasons unrelated to pregnancy, but along the way you asked the candidate if they were planning to get pregnant. Good luck proving that you didn't make the hiring decision on the basis of knowing they would take leave. Which of course is illegal under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. This is why most companies make it a policy that you can not ask these kinds of questions so as not to taint the interview (even though technically it's not illegal to ask the questions, it's just illegal to use them as a basis for your decision). As a candidate you might actually be acting more in the interest of the company to not tell them you are going to be having a child so as not to put them in that position? I honestly haven't thought through it that much so I could be convinced of a different opinion. If you're planning to continue working after having a child, I think you should go about your career as if the pregnancy wasn't happening and just take the leave as appropriate. If that means you work 6 weeks before leave, so be it. You'll be back after leave to continue on. What would the company do if instead of getting pregnant you got hit by a bus one day? I had to take 2 months of medical leave on 2 weeks notice when I got deathly ill, that was way less notice than a pregnancy. The startup I was at had only 12 people and they handled it. I'm unconvinced by all these arguments that it's too much of a hardship for companies to deal with their employees having a life.

tptacek 8y ago

Literally the only reason to tell a prospective employer about your pregnancy status is to enable them to unlawfully discriminate against you based on that status.

JungleGymSam 8y ago
OK but why should a company hire someone if they are almost "immediately" going to be put on paid leave? edit: Yes, downvotes will change my mind. You're all doing a wonderful job and are definitely morally superior to me and I'm unworthy of your keystrokes.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- Retra 8y ago
  A company doesn't just exist for the benefit of its shareholders. It exists for the benefit of society and its employees. And quite crying about down-votes.
  - tathougies 8y ago
    Well... not really. In the sense that shareholders can sue a corporation they own if the management is not acting in their best interest while society cannot, a corporations main purpose is to provide profit to shareholders
    - wrs 8y ago
      Laws are precisely how society imposes its concerns on corporations. The concept of a corporation only exists in the first place because society decided such a thing was useful. The purpose of corporations is whatever society decides it is.
      - tathougies 8y ago
        I agree with you. I was stating current reality, not making a moral statement

lhorie 8y ago

If you knew you had to take time off in two months to recover from a scheduled medical operation, would you rather spend the next two months earning a salary or surviving on your savings?

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago

I think it always makes sense to go looking for a job when you don't have one and you wish to be an independent adult and support yourself through employment. But, obviously, we're not talking the same kind of "makes sense" here, are we?

cimmanom 8y ago

If you're un-/under-employed and need the money, of course. If your old job doesn't provide halfway decent health benefits or paid parental leave, of course. If your old job sucks your soul and makes you want to slit your wrists, of course.

vitalysh 8y ago

My wife been searching for a job for quite some time (about a 2-3 years), during that time we've been trying to conceive a baby, but no luck, went through few eco sessions, still no dice. We decided to give up on idea of having a baby and just relax and live our lives. Then suddenly she gets a job offer she was dreaming about and one week later, guess what? She is pregnant. Now what would you tell your wife? Give up job you've been dreaming about?