If you interviewed a women for a position in your company and everything was great except that she is very well pregnant. Would you not give her the job that she is capiable of just because she is pregnant?
2006-07-17 06:07:41 · 26 answers · asked by Anonymous in Business & Finance ➔ Careers & Employment
depends how far along she is, if close to giving birth i would put if on file, if she is six months or so away i would hire
2006-07-17 06:09:11 · answer #1 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
If after the interview everything was great as you stated, then yes I would give her the job she is capable of doing. She will not be pregnant for ever and she will probably want to work right up to when she has to take time off. Once she has the baby she will be back to work. So to answer your question NO I would give her the job. I personally would not worry about all the insurance and who is going to pay what and when. What happened to companies wanting to help out the people that work for them?
2006-07-17 13:15:26 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If I work for a big company (over 500 people) where somebody is constantly pregnant, I probably don't mind. If I work for a smaller company (5-100), I wouldn't hire her. Because my insurance premium will go skyrocket and I would have to pay temporary service to fill the position while you are gone plus disability. And I know in fact people get distracted when they have a baby waiting at home. If I work for a company in between (101-499), it'll depends on if I have somebody else who can do the job and how much I like you, etc.
2006-07-17 13:15:34 · answer #3 · answered by spot 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are leaving in a few monthes and are not eligible for benefits in most states. Usually you have to work for the company for a certain amount of time. Most places it is six monthes or a year. before being eligible for maternity leave and health insurance. Since you are not eligible for benefits, but will need the time off, you become a liabilty. Especially, if you are uninsured and get hurt at work, than insurance doesn;t cover you all the time and the company fits the bill. not to mention that 30% of moms choose not to come back after taking maternity leave. I hope you understand, but in morst cases, I would not hire you
Sorry
2006-07-17 13:15:09 · answer #4 · answered by billyandgaby 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I had a woman work for me who got pregnant - from an employers perspective, this was sheer torture. I accomodated her every need because she was a vauable employee who I thought would be with me in the future. I put up with sickness, absenteeism, her going down to a 10 hour week from 35-40, tons of drama - then after she gave birth and got back on her feet, she left my company for another job. So, to answer your question - nope!
2006-07-17 13:13:06 · answer #5 · answered by BobTheBizGuru 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As an employer, sincerely, I wouldn't hire a pregnant women, because the pregnancy don't let her to pass through the daily stress that we all have with our jobs. The firm has to do money, not social protection. As a regular person, sure, I may say: "Why not to hire that women?". But as long as the firm is not mine, neither the firm's moneys aren't mine. So, lets be honest...
Sure, if she is soo great, I'll suggest her to call us after the baby born.
Don't shoot! I'm just a regular employee as you are :-)
2006-07-17 13:19:32 · answer #6 · answered by s_sorin 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Will not hire her because soon she will be taking 60 days maternity leave. That position has to be filled by someone else. In between she wil have to make her routine checks and she will be away from work at least half a day each time.
2006-07-17 13:14:09 · answer #7 · answered by FM 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not hiring someone just because they are pregnant is discrimination, it is illegal and will get you law suit. If all factors point to her being the right candidate, her maternal status doesn't matter. Would you not hire a man if his wife were very pregnant. He could just as well be gone for 12 weeks on FMLA.
2006-07-17 13:12:17 · answer #8 · answered by therego2 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends on a couple issues.
1. Does she plan to take an extended maternity leave? I don't want to hire someone and then not have them for 3-5 months.
2. Is she going to complete her training and then leave for having the baby a week later? I certainly don't want to train her, then train someone else to do the job while she is gone.
2006-07-17 13:10:06 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I know its wrong and crul but, BUT it cost an employer to hire people..I myself Yes I would hire her, depending what she was willing to do after the baby came..If she was willing to come back to work.. If I thought she was worth the gamble, and depending just how much I needed her.. Ofcause it also depends on how meny others wanted the job.... BUT the answeer is YES.. and I've done it a number of times..At one time I had 53 LADYS working for me, and most needed the work and did very very well... LOL ROB
2006-07-17 13:18:00 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends on the employer. Large companies cannot discriminate against her because of pregnancy. But a small company, who cannot afford to lose her to maternity leave for however long it is, is within it's rights to not hire her.
2006-07-17 13:19:33 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋