2007-05-16 08:03:02 · 24 answers · asked by aDeviKreates 2 in Business & Finance ➔ Careers & Employment ➔ Other - Careers & Employment
...if she was an IT person (programmer/developer) that could work from home during leave...
2007-05-16 08:31:56 · update #1
No bc from the 6mth time to birth she will not have even accrued enough leave-time to take maternaty leave, the probation period for many companies is 3 months.
Who is to say she will return to work after birth? It costs a lot to replace employees.
I would however, hire her as a temp until she has to give birth. But unless the position is a bookkeeping, accounting, task oriented job, or something similar - I would not hire her as a temp either...
2007-05-16 08:11:31 · answer #1 · answered by Diezel 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
i'd hire you as a babysitter being pregnant yet u would only would desire to ensure that there become some way that we would have the skill to arise with 1 yet another if and while u went into exertions. i understand the way it feels being pregnant and babysitting i babysitting slightly boy for 3 years previously i've got been given pregnant and that i nevertheless persevered to observe him up until i become 7 months pregnant and the only reason i ended become because of the fact he has positioned me into untimely exertions 3 months early and the hours that i labored become from 3 am to 4 or 5 pm in the process the summer season and by using the college 365 days it become from 3 am to 7;30 am yet i babysit for 7 months so as long as you will take it trouble-free and only be careful what you do you would be o.k..
2016-12-29 07:04:20 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's discriminating but I would not hire her. When I was pregnant, I just kept getting worse further into the pregnancy. At almost 6 months I truly got so bad, if I had a job, I would have had to leave it. It was terrible. You never know what can happen to this woman from this point on in her pregnancy. She might be fine, she might not, it's a gamble. You don't know when she will request to take maternity leave, before or after baby. All that training, just to find a replacement. I would just go for someone else better. She's just too far in the pregnancy for consideration. Unless your a high-turnover company then go right ahead, it won't really matter anyways. Good luck!
2007-05-16 08:30:43 · answer #3 · answered by **Irene** 2 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Chickey_Soup is right - it's discrimination not to hire a pregnant woman. If you're the woman in question, make sure to address how you plan on dealing with your new arrival - daycare plans, commitment to your job, etc. Pregnant or not, a well-qualified person should always be considered.
Edit: Last time I checked, pregnancy was not a disease you "get better" from...
2007-05-16 08:23:05 · answer #4 · answered by a gal and her dog 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes but be aware that many places won't (it's illegal) but it is extremely hard to prove discrimination based on that.
FYI all those sayign no...that falls into the discrimination based on family status. And thanks to the FMLA if you have more than 50 employees you have to give her up to 6 weeks off if she asks for it under that act (without pay of course if she doesn't have leave) : )
You also have no guarantee that a male or non-pregnant woman won't leave in two weeks!
2007-05-16 08:06:24 · answer #5 · answered by chickey_soup 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Its a tough questions..I would want someone to say yes, to me...but at the same time...most company hesitate in hiring pregnant females only because then they have to pay maternity leave then...and besides they only a few months left in the pregnancy....its sad to say but most company's don't..its too much of a hassle.
2007-05-16 08:15:46 · answer #6 · answered by prettylady 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It depends what the job is. Is it something that she will be able to continue doing if she's breastfeeding and are you willing to hold the position open while she's on maternity leave? How qualified for the position is she? If you're willing to cut her a little slack, she may prove to be a loyal employee in the future.
2007-05-16 08:07:13 · answer #7 · answered by Rebecca M 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, I wouldn't because I'm against women working when they have a new born in the house. They should be caring for their baby, not leaving them with a nanny or at a day care while they work. I would have a feeling that they would quit in about three months, after they give birth, so I wouldn't want to take the chance of hiring and then soon after, having them quit. Also, if they did do that, I would feel used because I think that the only reason they wanted the job was to get a few extra bucks before they gave birth....that way, this money could help take care of their new born.
2007-05-16 08:08:01 · answer #8 · answered by Daniella 1 · 0⤊ 5⤋
I would seriously consider it if she seemed to be the most qualified. It's permissable to ask someone about their short and long-term career goals and if they will be available for work several months down the road. If she has child care plans and wants to continue working after she has the baby, I would probably give it a shot.
2007-05-16 08:07:55 · answer #9 · answered by OzarkMtnLady 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I know this is politically incorrect. But if you are a good business man, you will not. Your replacement cost will be large. But a good business man will recognize the exceptions and put the pencil to it. You may find exceptional competence and a desire to work soon after birth.
Any law you pass will have unintended consequences and make the situation worse in the long run for those you may want to help.
2007-05-16 08:20:08 · answer #10 · answered by Richard F 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋