(Closed) Would you start a new job if you were 8 months pregnant?

posted 4 years ago in Pregnancy
  • poll: Would you take a new job knowing you'd be going on maternity leave soon?
    yes : (33 votes)
    19 %
    no : (101 votes)
    58 %
    depends : (41 votes)
    23 %
  • Post # 2
    3037 posts
    Sugar bee
    • Wedding: May 2015 - Walnut Hill Bed & Breakfast

    I’d be upset. Like you said, it isn’t fair to her, the company, or your coworkers.  Maybe she just needs the money really badly and even just a month’s salary will be really helpful to her?

    I would never do that, personally. I think it’d be really difficult on myself, if no one else. Starting a new job, being trained for a month, leaving for at least a month, and then coming back to a new job with a new baby too? No way. My bet is that you won’t see her back after the maternity leave.

    • This reply was modified 3 years, 12 months ago by  amberback.
    Post # 3
    3349 posts
    Sugar bee

    SunnierDaysAhead:  You cannot discriminate against a person for being pregnant just like you can’t for any other health condition. I would interview being very pregnant if circumstances required it (i.e. I was recently laid off, it was a dream position for me, etc.). How about you guys show a little compassion? If she is able to perform her job just fine after maternity leave then there is no just cause to terminate or even be pissy that she took a job that pregnant. This post irritates me.

    Also, if you had known she was pregnant and ranked her 4th, because you thought it was not cool to interview pregnant, you’d be doing something illegal.

    Post # 4
    2474 posts
    Buzzing bee
    • Wedding: August 2013

    SunnierDaysAhead:  well as someone who’s 22w pregnant I would say I would not start a new job at that point. I mean….I live in canada so theleave is 1 year but we also have the rule about being with the company for 12 months before being allowed mat leave (in terms of job security)….we can still take paid leave because its not the company that pays its the govt for how many hours worked in the previous year. Most companies also have a 3 months probation period where they can let you do without any reason other then “its just not working out”….so to me? it would be pointless to do so especially if your needing to take time off and cant do the job properly. If I was only a few month pregnant and would be there for more then the probation then maybe… but not a month out of taking leave.

    I will say its naive of her to be “upset” she wont get paid leave after only being there a month? lol… I mean COME ON lady thats pretty standard. She does have a right to employment but I do see the annoyance for your co-workers if she cant do her job/be trained properly. She will have to be fully re-trained again once she comes back as she’ll only have a few weeks on the job before she leaves… plus shes going to be distracted and tired having a newborn…..so ya I can see how people are complaining.

    If she said in the interview she has no problem doing the 40-50% travel portion of the job I would bring that up to your boss as she basically lied. I dont know if this is air travel but she wont be able to fly after a certain point in pregnancy (and if she has doctors notes for everything already…..) When she comes back to work after the leave is a newborn going to prevent her from doing this? because it sounds like she would be gone for decent periods of time. Im not sure how it works in the states but here…. if you dont qualify for actual mat leave because of not enough time employed they dont have to hold your job for you when your ready to return to work…..

    as a pregnant women, I understand people have to work and kudos to her for trying…but it just sounds like the job environment you have is not condusive to someone in her position at least right now…. and it is irresponsible on her part because shes now causing undue stress on the other employees.   :s   crappy situation

    to the pp above me?…. this isnt about discrimination… its about her not being able to perform her job properly and do the travel time she needs to do for this specific position after she more or less lied and said there was no issue in why she wouldnt be able to…. for most pg women 28 weeks is a cut off… and shes basically there! She may be able to perform the job perfectly aftyer the baby is born but from the sounds of it all shes doing right now is creating more work for the current employees, and when shes gone for 3 months they will also have to cover her share of the work (which is starting only a month away….). I’d be pretty pissed too if my job took me away from my family 40-50% of the time and then someone comes in for a month…leaves, and then her responsibilities fell into my lap and increased that and there was nothing I could do!

    Post # 5
    622 posts
    Busy bee
    • Wedding: September 2010

    just personally, i wouldn’t do that. i feel like it would cause bad feelings for the company. they obviously have a job opening because they need help and to only come in for a month before leaving for three obviously doesn’t help them. i would feel terrible about that. on top of that, it’s stressful to start a new job – which i just wouldn’t want to do at 8 months pregs.

    Post # 6
    46646 posts
    Honey Beekeeper
    • Wedding: November 1999

    SunnierDaysAhead:  I think a little empathy is in order here. Have you considered that she needs a job? Who knows how many jobs she has applied for and been discriminated against (law or no law) in her first 7 months of pregnancy, or even before that?

    Yes, her co-workers may have to cover for her while she is on Mat leave, but as she lives in the US, that period of time is pathetically short. You said she wouldn’t be sent on out of town travel for her first 2-3 months anyhow.

    Women have fought  too hard and too long to be treated the same as men when it comes to hiring. Her pregnancy and her Mat leave should not be held against her.

    Post # 7
    605 posts
    Busy bee

    I can’t stand this. I like to think that I’m pretty ‘yay women’ in most situations but this just really bothers me. I know that legally prospective employers aren’t allowed to take pregnancy into account and yadda yadda yadda but in situations like this, I wish they could. I find it so selfish that someone would accept a job then turn around and take 3 months off almost immediately after. The added breaks and time off just adds fuel to the fire. That position could have been filled by someone who will give it 100% from the get go but instead, you guys have to tack on extra work to your load and keep her seat warm until she decides to come back. Fuck. That. If I were her hiring manager, I would use the fact that she clearly lied about her ability to perform her job responsibilities to get rid of her. I can’t imagine a brand new mother is going to be willing to hop on a plane within weeks of giving birth.

    Post # 8
    2474 posts
    Buzzing bee
    • Wedding: August 2013

    julies1949:  I totally agree with everything you’ve said… but I do feel badly for the other employees as they are being put in an awkward position (especially since their roles will have to increase significantly in a matter of weeks) As an example what if one of the other employees that needs to cover her role is a mother or father who now has to be away (working more) from their child twice as often or only has childcare x amount of days/hours…..etc… and now this is going to screw up their lives/routine? Thats not exactly fair either. Something like this can have a bad effect on the people she works with, and that shouldnt be overlooked either.

    Definatly should never be held against her (or any women)….as long as when her leave is over she can complete all the tasks she was hired for!

    Post # 9
    213 posts
    Helper bee

    Me personally – I wouldn’t as I do plan to take off for about a year when I have a baby.  It wouldn’t make sense for me to work for a month or two and then leave.  

    However, if I fully intended to continue my job after a 12 week maternity leave, I would absolutely interview for and accept positions at that time.  While in a way, you’re right, this does hinder her ability to do this job at this moment in time, in just 6 months this will all be a memory and she may be excelling in the job.  In the long term I’d say it doesn’t matter.


    Post # 10
    11657 posts
    Sugar Beekeeper
    • Wedding: May 2014

    SunnierDaysAhead:  In this instance – definately not.  I have to assume she was hoping for benefits, it seems odd that she would even accept the position.  She must need the money and now that she’s hired it would be almost impossible to let her go as frustrating as that is for all of you.

    Post # 11
    192 posts
    Blushing bee

    As an employed pregnant woman I’m in shock that she had the guts to even apply. In fact, I’m pretty much appalled by her behavoir over all. She’s obviously not a team player and only considers herself when making decisions. I don’t think she’s setting up to have a good future relationship with her co-workers either.

    Post # 12
    2945 posts
    Sugar bee
    • Wedding: May 2014

    My SIL took a job at 7 months pregnant because that is when she ended up graduating from her nursing program.  At the same time, she was upfront about it.  She actually had to be because part of the interview was a test of how much weight she could carry.  She was intially worried because FMLA doesn’t cover you until you have been at your job for 12 months. 

    I probably wouldn’t leave my job and start a new job at 8 months pregnant, because of the FMLA rules.  If I had been let go and I was looking, I would consider starting a job with a short training period at that point.  Starting a job with a three month training period just seems silly.  You would need to completely relearn the first month of it when you got back. 

    Post # 13
    100 posts
    Blushing bee
    • Wedding: December 2013

    I wouldn’t do it, but I also know that FMLA wouldn’t actually apply in this case (unless your state has overriding rules.) FMLA requires 12 months employment with an employer and that the employee has to have worked at least 1250 hours in the past 12 months.  Technically they could say she does not qualify for FMLA and fire her when she can’t work. 

    Post # 14
    645 posts
    Busy bee
    • Wedding: May 2010

    I thought you had to be with a company for 12 months before you were eligable for FMLA? Reason I say that is I was offered a job when I was 6 months pregnant, I was always very small so the person did not know I was pregnant. I declined the offer for several reasons but one of them was I knew I woulnd’t be eligable for FMLA.

    That said had the circumstances been better I would have accepted however I wouldn’t hide that I was pregnant either and I would be very upfront with any needs I had to ensure that I would be accomodated.

    Post # 15
    992 posts
    Busy bee


    SunnierDaysAhead:  For what it’s worth, when I was in school for my MBA, I took several courses that focused on the legalities surrounding hiring practices. Often, we’d have to read & discuss case studies which brought up situations just like this and I can tell you that from an HR/management perspective, the law matters a million times more than anyone’s thoughts on the ethics surrounding a situation.

    Sometimes hiring decisions are made based solely on the fact that a company wants to avoid any possible discrimination lawsuit. Sometimes the person who should get the job doesn’t. Sometimes we’ll end up with coworkers that we don’t see eye-to-eye with. The thing is, there’s nothing you can do about it. You can’t get her fired (because that 100% would be illegal given that her pregnancy is the predominating factor in the decision), so whatever happens will happen. Your only choice at this point is to accept that and make the best of the situation, or continue feeling like the victim and end up alienating a coworker and potentially adding extra friction to what could become a long-term work relatioship.

    I know that sounds harsh and I get that the situation really is unfair to you and your coworkers, but this woman is surely doing what she believes is best for herself and her family. She can’t be oblivious to the fact that by accepting the job and immediately taking mat leave she isn’t exactly endearing herself to her new employer, but the fact is, she has every legal right to do so.

    As to your poll question, my answer is honestly yes. If necessary, I would do whatever it took to take care of myself and my child, even if that meant taking a job at 7 months pregnant and living with the fact that my coworkers resented me.

    The topic ‘Would you start a new job if you were 8 months pregnant?’ is closed to new replies.

    Find Amazing Vendors