Mixing
Reasoning not to hire based on pregnancy or other medical condition
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
Legalities aside. I've always wondered why a business would employ someone who is pregnant just to give them maternity leave for three months when they wouldn't even have completed their probation.
What is the logic behind it?
If I have 5 roughly equal candidates and I know one will need to be covered (and paid) for 3 months shortly after arrival, I still have 4 other candidates. The difference with existing staff is I have a proven, trained and valuable employee by then.
If I'm advertising a position for a cook, cleaner, data entry, clerk, or almost ANY position in the 99% of the job range niche, I'll have plenty of people to choose from, I have more difficulty filtering them out than finding them. Logically to me (in the absence of convincing answers) pregnancy would be a filter. I want the food cooked every day, the office cleaned, the data entered, the filing done etc,. not a moon trajectory calculated.
So if I knew a lady is pregnant I'd cross her off the list. I cannot think of a single reason not to. If she started work and I found out that she hadn't disclosed she was pregnant beforehand she would be lucky to make it through her probation period. I'd get rid of her then if not sooner.
Different story if it's an existing staff member who gets pregnant of course. One of my ladies has had 4 kids and another on the way, I have no issue with paying maternity leave and my contribution when the office passes the hat will at least double everyone elses combined.
Importantly because I know when she is due, I have already organised for her tasks to be covered when the time comes. If I didn't know then not only would I be paying a new hire but I'd also have to pay someone else to cover. Two people receiving pay for one job with no guarantee that the first will be any good at the job or even that the proven mercenary person will even return after 3 months. Makes more sense to give the job full time to the second person from the outset unless I'm missing something.
SUMMARY:- All else being equal what logical reason would a business have to hire a pregnant lady instead of discriminate against her being hired based on her pregnancy. If she hid her pregnancy to land the job, what logical reason would they have for not seeing that as a sign of self-serving dishonesty.
hiring new-hires
edited 45 mins ago
Mister Positive
55.2k28179228
asked 2 hours ago
Kilisi
97.2k53221382
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
Legalities aside. I've always wondered why a business would employ someone who is pregnant just to give them maternity leave for three months when they wouldn't even have completed their probation.
What is the logic behind it?
If I have 5 roughly equal candidates and I know one will need to be covered (and paid) for 3 months shortly after arrival, I still have 4 other candidates. The difference with existing staff is I have a proven, trained and valuable employee by then.
If I'm advertising a position for a cook, cleaner, data entry, clerk, or almost ANY position in the 99% of the job range niche, I'll have plenty of people to choose from, I have more difficulty filtering them out than finding them. Logically to me (in the absence of convincing answers) pregnancy would be a filter. I want the food cooked every day, the office cleaned, the data entered, the filing done etc,. not a moon trajectory calculated.
So if I knew a lady is pregnant I'd cross her off the list. I cannot think of a single reason not to. If she started work and I found out that she hadn't disclosed she was pregnant beforehand she would be lucky to make it through her probation period. I'd get rid of her then if not sooner.
Different story if it's an existing staff member who gets pregnant of course. One of my ladies has had 4 kids and another on the way, I have no issue with paying maternity leave and my contribution when the office passes the hat will at least double everyone elses combined.
Importantly because I know when she is due, I have already organised for her tasks to be covered when the time comes. If I didn't know then not only would I be paying a new hire but I'd also have to pay someone else to cover. Two people receiving pay for one job with no guarantee that the first will be any good at the job or even that the proven mercenary person will even return after 3 months. Makes more sense to give the job full time to the second person from the outset unless I'm missing something.
SUMMARY:- All else being equal what logical reason would a business have to hire a pregnant lady instead of discriminate against her being hired based on her pregnancy. If she hid her pregnancy to land the job, what logical reason would they have for not seeing that as a sign of self-serving dishonesty.
hiring new-hires
edited 45 mins ago
Mister Positive
55.2k28179228
asked 2 hours ago
Kilisi
97.2k53221382
1
Unclear is not a legit reason to close. The OP has summarized clearly what his question(s) are.
– Mister Positive
1 hour ago
1
This sounds more like a politics question. The only workplace answer to "Why would I ever hire an [x]" should be "Because they are the best candidate for the job".
– Erik
1 hour ago
3
Would you also cross a man off your list if you suspected he'd have surgery in a few months? What about a man who might become a father, and need time to bond with and care for his new child? If your answer is no in either case, then this is just an excuse to discriminate against women.
– Kathy
1 hour ago
1
Then maybe the question needs to be broader?
– Kathy
1 hour ago
1
The close votes are because this question is either opinion-based or legal-based for countries where discrimination against pregnant persons and certain medical conditions is prohibited. You hire the best person for the job.
– jcmack
31 mins ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
Legalities aside. I've always wondered why a business would employ someone who is pregnant just to give them maternity leave for three months when they wouldn't even have completed their probation.
What is the logic behind it?
If I have 5 roughly equal candidates and I know one will need to be covered (and paid) for 3 months shortly after arrival, I still have 4 other candidates. The difference with existing staff is I have a proven, trained and valuable employee by then.
If I'm advertising a position for a cook, cleaner, data entry, clerk, or almost ANY position in the 99% of the job range niche, I'll have plenty of people to choose from, I have more difficulty filtering them out than finding them. Logically to me (in the absence of convincing answers) pregnancy would be a filter. I want the food cooked every day, the office cleaned, the data entered, the filing done etc,. not a moon trajectory calculated.
So if I knew a lady is pregnant I'd cross her off the list. I cannot think of a single reason not to. If she started work and I found out that she hadn't disclosed she was pregnant beforehand she would be lucky to make it through her probation period. I'd get rid of her then if not sooner.
Different story if it's an existing staff member who gets pregnant of course. One of my ladies has had 4 kids and another on the way, I have no issue with paying maternity leave and my contribution when the office passes the hat will at least double everyone elses combined.
Importantly because I know when she is due, I have already organised for her tasks to be covered when the time comes. If I didn't know then not only would I be paying a new hire but I'd also have to pay someone else to cover. Two people receiving pay for one job with no guarantee that the first will be any good at the job or even that the proven mercenary person will even return after 3 months. Makes more sense to give the job full time to the second person from the outset unless I'm missing something.
SUMMARY:- All else being equal what logical reason would a business have to hire a pregnant lady instead of discriminate against her being hired based on her pregnancy. If she hid her pregnancy to land the job, what logical reason would they have for not seeing that as a sign of self-serving dishonesty.
hiring new-hires
edited 45 mins ago
Mister Positive
55.2k28179228
asked 2 hours ago
Kilisi
97.2k53221382
Legalities aside. I've always wondered why a business would employ someone who is pregnant just to give them maternity leave for three months when they wouldn't even have completed their probation.
What is the logic behind it?
If I have 5 roughly equal candidates and I know one will need to be covered (and paid) for 3 months shortly after arrival, I still have 4 other candidates. The difference with existing staff is I have a proven, trained and valuable employee by then.
If I'm advertising a position for a cook, cleaner, data entry, clerk, or almost ANY position in the 99% of the job range niche, I'll have plenty of people to choose from, I have more difficulty filtering them out than finding them. Logically to me (in the absence of convincing answers) pregnancy would be a filter. I want the food cooked every day, the office cleaned, the data entered, the filing done etc,. not a moon trajectory calculated.
So if I knew a lady is pregnant I'd cross her off the list. I cannot think of a single reason not to. If she started work and I found out that she hadn't disclosed she was pregnant beforehand she would be lucky to make it through her probation period. I'd get rid of her then if not sooner.
Different story if it's an existing staff member who gets pregnant of course. One of my ladies has had 4 kids and another on the way, I have no issue with paying maternity leave and my contribution when the office passes the hat will at least double everyone elses combined.
Importantly because I know when she is due, I have already organised for her tasks to be covered when the time comes. If I didn't know then not only would I be paying a new hire but I'd also have to pay someone else to cover. Two people receiving pay for one job with no guarantee that the first will be any good at the job or even that the proven mercenary person will even return after 3 months. Makes more sense to give the job full time to the second person from the outset unless I'm missing something.
SUMMARY:- All else being equal what logical reason would a business have to hire a pregnant lady instead of discriminate against her being hired based on her pregnancy. If she hid her pregnancy to land the job, what logical reason would they have for not seeing that as a sign of self-serving dishonesty.
hiring new-hires
hiring new-hires
edited 45 mins ago
Mister Positive
55.2k28179228
asked 2 hours ago
Kilisi
97.2k53221382
edited 45 mins ago
Mister Positive
55.2k28179228
asked 2 hours ago
Kilisi
97.2k53221382
edited 45 mins ago
Mister Positive
55.2k28179228
edited 45 mins ago
Mister Positive
55.2k28179228
edited 45 mins ago
Mister Positive
55.2k28179228
55.2k28179228
asked 2 hours ago
Kilisi
97.2k53221382
asked 2 hours ago
Kilisi
97.2k53221382
asked 2 hours ago
Kilisi
97.2k53221382
97.2k53221382
1
Unclear is not a legit reason to close. The OP has summarized clearly what his question(s) are.
– Mister Positive
1 hour ago
1
This sounds more like a politics question. The only workplace answer to "Why would I ever hire an [x]" should be "Because they are the best candidate for the job".
– Erik
1 hour ago
3
Would you also cross a man off your list if you suspected he'd have surgery in a few months? What about a man who might become a father, and need time to bond with and care for his new child? If your answer is no in either case, then this is just an excuse to discriminate against women.
– Kathy
1 hour ago
1
Then maybe the question needs to be broader?
– Kathy
1 hour ago
1
The close votes are because this question is either opinion-based or legal-based for countries where discrimination against pregnant persons and certain medical conditions is prohibited. You hire the best person for the job.
– jcmack
31 mins ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
1
Unclear is not a legit reason to close. The OP has summarized clearly what his question(s) are.
– Mister Positive
1 hour ago
1
This sounds more like a politics question. The only workplace answer to "Why would I ever hire an [x]" should be "Because they are the best candidate for the job".
– Erik
1 hour ago
3
Would you also cross a man off your list if you suspected he'd have surgery in a few months? What about a man who might become a father, and need time to bond with and care for his new child? If your answer is no in either case, then this is just an excuse to discriminate against women.
– Kathy
1 hour ago
1
Then maybe the question needs to be broader?
– Kathy
1 hour ago
1
The close votes are because this question is either opinion-based or legal-based for countries where discrimination against pregnant persons and certain medical conditions is prohibited. You hire the best person for the job.
– jcmack
31 mins ago
1
1
Unclear is not a legit reason to close. The OP has summarized clearly what his question(s) are.
– Mister Positive
1 hour ago
Unclear is not a legit reason to close. The OP has summarized clearly what his question(s) are.
– Mister Positive
1 hour ago
1
1
This sounds more like a politics question. The only workplace answer to "Why would I ever hire an [x]" should be "Because they are the best candidate for the job".
– Erik
1 hour ago
This sounds more like a politics question. The only workplace answer to "Why would I ever hire an [x]" should be "Because they are the best candidate for the job".
– Erik
1 hour ago
3
3
Would you also cross a man off your list if you suspected he'd have surgery in a few months? What about a man who might become a father, and need time to bond with and care for his new child? If your answer is no in either case, then this is just an excuse to discriminate against women.
– Kathy
1 hour ago
Would you also cross a man off your list if you suspected he'd have surgery in a few months? What about a man who might become a father, and need time to bond with and care for his new child? If your answer is no in either case, then this is just an excuse to discriminate against women.
– Kathy
1 hour ago
1
1
Then maybe the question needs to be broader?
– Kathy
1 hour ago
Then maybe the question needs to be broader?
– Kathy
1 hour ago
1
1
The close votes are because this question is either opinion-based or legal-based for countries where discrimination against pregnant persons and certain medical conditions is prohibited. You hire the best person for the job.
– jcmack
31 mins ago
The close votes are because this question is either opinion-based or legal-based for countries where discrimination against pregnant persons and certain medical conditions is prohibited. You hire the best person for the job.
– jcmack
31 mins ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
7
down vote
All else being equal what logical reason would a business have to hire
a pregnant lady instead of discriminate against her being hired based
on her pregnancy.
You don't for sure in any new hire's case how they will turn out over a course of time. You go with your gut a bit when hiring -- logic doesn't always play as significant a role in some cases.
As a hiring manager you check references, and interview the candidate as best you can. If I were hiring, I would have to be convinced that this person was going to be an excellent hire before I paid for many weeks of salary before getting a significant return.
This is the case for someone who is pregnant (assuming I know or they feel like revealing) or even someone who already has a long vacation they paid for and cannot reschedule. Having said that, I have seen it happen multiple times.
If she hid her pregnancy to land the job, what logical reason would
they have for not seeing that as a sign of self-serving dishonesty
Based on what I know of US labor laws, the applicant does not have to reveal this and cannot be asked if they are pregnant. This pretty much applies to most medical conditions. Is it right or wrong, who am I to say, but from a legal angle the woman does not have to reveal. This part will vary a bit based on locale I would suspect.
Case in point: If as a hiring manager, I have an opening to do to work that needs to be done in the next few months, the new hires availability over those said months to do the job is a legitimate factor in the hiring decision.
At no point am I saying discriminate, but you are allowed as an employer to hire someone who meets the job requirements (be available to work when necessary).
answered 1 hour ago
Mister Positive
55.2k28179228
For the last bit, legality can be anything, and you can rationalise anything into anything, but it's the employers perception that counts. In this instance I would take it as a dishonest personality and take steps. Other may differ.
– Kilisi
1 hour ago
2
nice edit, wish I could upvote twice
– Kilisi
1 hour ago
1
Regarding the case in point, why would a hiring manager have an opening to for work that does not need to be done in the next few months? I don't quite see what you're getting at, as the described scenario usually applies to pretty much any job. If they don't need an employee in the next few months, why are they hiring anyone at all? Seems dangerously easy to conflate "likelihood of availability" with "likelihood of pregnancy", which I suppose is why most women wouldn't volunteer that information in an interview.
– Nuclear Wang
43 mins ago
@NuclearWang I am getting at the fact that a candidates availability to do the job in time constraint's (when the client needs the work done, not when the candidate is available to do the work) matters. And yes some a-holes will use this to bend the rules to discriminate. Hopefully these companies are caught in the act and prosecuted.
– Mister Positive
41 mins ago
I understand where you're coming from, but is that an acceptable movement of the goalposts? It would be illegal to pass over a qualified female candidate because she's pregnant, but is it legal to pass over a qualified female candidate because you suspect she'll take maternity leave? It's unclear to me how those can be separated.
– Nuclear Wang
30 mins ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
4
down vote
You would hire a pregnant woman if she is the best candidate for the job.
ETA: For a position requiring consistent attendance, ask "The job requires good attendance over x period, can you meet these requirements?" Not "Will you be able to come to work if you're pregnant?" If the answer is no, then they aren't the best candidate and you move on. Better on both ends - you avoid a lawsuit, and good candidates might reapply to other positions later on when their situation changes.
You would want to avoid discriminating against pregnant women during the hiring process because it is illegal (US: Pregnancy Discrimination Act - "employers may not discriminate against employees or job applicants on the basis of pregnancy or a pregnancy-related condition").
Women often do not disclose pregnancy during the hiring process to avoid discrimination, and because it often has no bearing on their ability to perform the job long term. It's not about being dishonest. It's about playing it safe when some hiring managers share your views.
More info on Pregnancy Discrimination Act: https://www.aauw.org/what-we-do/legal-resources/know-your-rights-at-work/pregnancy-discrimination-act/
answered 1 hour ago
taffy
1,75511117
1
a cleaner would have to be pretty special to be the best person for the job worth finding a temp replacement and paying her
– Kilisi
1 hour ago
4
If you have an opening to do work and the requirements that need to be done are over the next few months, the new hires availability over those said months to do the job is a legitimate factor in the hiring decision.
– Mister Positive
1 hour ago
@Kilisi I have edited with a suggestion for your situation. I usually interview for long-term salaried employees, so a couple months off is a drop in the bucket and may have skewed my answer.
– taffy
59 mins ago
makes sense... can still be long term though, plenty office cleaners and clerks have had the same job for decades, but much more relevant post edit
– Kilisi
53 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Legalities aside there are very few reasons not to discriminate negatively if you have other candidates that are otherwise equivalent. The following are examples.
There is an incentive to hire like a subsidy of some sort as some countries have for disabled people.
There is an employment quota to be met of a certain group which this lady is part of but not other candidates.
It's your baby.
answered 1 hour ago
Kilisi
97.2k53221382
2
Yeah, the quota to be met applies. I've heard of several companies (even some NGOs) that have a minimum % of employees that have to be of certain ethnic group or "minority"
– DarkCygnus
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
StackExchange.ready(function ()
$("#show-editor-button input, #show-editor-button button").click(function ()
var showEditor = function()
$("#show-editor-button").hide();
$("#post-form").removeClass("dno");
StackExchange.editor.finallyInit();
;
var useFancy = $(this).data('confirm-use-fancy');
if(useFancy == 'True')
var popupTitle = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-title');
var popupBody = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-body');
var popupAccept = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-accept-button');
$(this).loadPopup(
url: '/post/self-answer-popup',
loaded: function(popup)
var pTitle = $(popup).find('h2');
var pBody = $(popup).find('.popup-body');
var pSubmit = $(popup).find('.popup-submit');
pTitle.text(popupTitle);
pBody.html(popupBody);
pSubmit.val(popupAccept).click(showEditor);
)
else
var confirmText = $(this).data('confirm-text');
if (confirmText ? confirm(confirmText) : true)
showEditor();
);
);
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
7
down vote
All else being equal what logical reason would a business have to hire
a pregnant lady instead of discriminate against her being hired based
on her pregnancy.
You don't for sure in any new hire's case how they will turn out over a course of time. You go with your gut a bit when hiring -- logic doesn't always play as significant a role in some cases.
As a hiring manager you check references, and interview the candidate as best you can. If I were hiring, I would have to be convinced that this person was going to be an excellent hire before I paid for many weeks of salary before getting a significant return.
This is the case for someone who is pregnant (assuming I know or they feel like revealing) or even someone who already has a long vacation they paid for and cannot reschedule. Having said that, I have seen it happen multiple times.
If she hid her pregnancy to land the job, what logical reason would
they have for not seeing that as a sign of self-serving dishonesty
Based on what I know of US labor laws, the applicant does not have to reveal this and cannot be asked if they are pregnant. This pretty much applies to most medical conditions. Is it right or wrong, who am I to say, but from a legal angle the woman does not have to reveal. This part will vary a bit based on locale I would suspect.
Case in point: If as a hiring manager, I have an opening to do to work that needs to be done in the next few months, the new hires availability over those said months to do the job is a legitimate factor in the hiring decision.
At no point am I saying discriminate, but you are allowed as an employer to hire someone who meets the job requirements (be available to work when necessary).
answered 1 hour ago
Mister Positive
55.2k28179228
For the last bit, legality can be anything, and you can rationalise anything into anything, but it's the employers perception that counts. In this instance I would take it as a dishonest personality and take steps. Other may differ.
– Kilisi
1 hour ago
2
nice edit, wish I could upvote twice
– Kilisi
1 hour ago
1
Regarding the case in point, why would a hiring manager have an opening to for work that does not need to be done in the next few months? I don't quite see what you're getting at, as the described scenario usually applies to pretty much any job. If they don't need an employee in the next few months, why are they hiring anyone at all? Seems dangerously easy to conflate "likelihood of availability" with "likelihood of pregnancy", which I suppose is why most women wouldn't volunteer that information in an interview.
– Nuclear Wang
43 mins ago
@NuclearWang I am getting at the fact that a candidates availability to do the job in time constraint's (when the client needs the work done, not when the candidate is available to do the work) matters. And yes some a-holes will use this to bend the rules to discriminate. Hopefully these companies are caught in the act and prosecuted.
– Mister Positive
41 mins ago
I understand where you're coming from, but is that an acceptable movement of the goalposts? It would be illegal to pass over a qualified female candidate because she's pregnant, but is it legal to pass over a qualified female candidate because you suspect she'll take maternity leave? It's unclear to me how those can be separated.
– Nuclear Wang
30 mins ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
7
down vote
All else being equal what logical reason would a business have to hire
a pregnant lady instead of discriminate against her being hired based
on her pregnancy.
You don't for sure in any new hire's case how they will turn out over a course of time. You go with your gut a bit when hiring -- logic doesn't always play as significant a role in some cases.
As a hiring manager you check references, and interview the candidate as best you can. If I were hiring, I would have to be convinced that this person was going to be an excellent hire before I paid for many weeks of salary before getting a significant return.
This is the case for someone who is pregnant (assuming I know or they feel like revealing) or even someone who already has a long vacation they paid for and cannot reschedule. Having said that, I have seen it happen multiple times.
If she hid her pregnancy to land the job, what logical reason would
they have for not seeing that as a sign of self-serving dishonesty
Based on what I know of US labor laws, the applicant does not have to reveal this and cannot be asked if they are pregnant. This pretty much applies to most medical conditions. Is it right or wrong, who am I to say, but from a legal angle the woman does not have to reveal. This part will vary a bit based on locale I would suspect.
Case in point: If as a hiring manager, I have an opening to do to work that needs to be done in the next few months, the new hires availability over those said months to do the job is a legitimate factor in the hiring decision.
At no point am I saying discriminate, but you are allowed as an employer to hire someone who meets the job requirements (be available to work when necessary).
answered 1 hour ago
Mister Positive
55.2k28179228
For the last bit, legality can be anything, and you can rationalise anything into anything, but it's the employers perception that counts. In this instance I would take it as a dishonest personality and take steps. Other may differ.
– Kilisi
1 hour ago
2
nice edit, wish I could upvote twice
– Kilisi
1 hour ago
1
Regarding the case in point, why would a hiring manager have an opening to for work that does not need to be done in the next few months? I don't quite see what you're getting at, as the described scenario usually applies to pretty much any job. If they don't need an employee in the next few months, why are they hiring anyone at all? Seems dangerously easy to conflate "likelihood of availability" with "likelihood of pregnancy", which I suppose is why most women wouldn't volunteer that information in an interview.
– Nuclear Wang
43 mins ago
@NuclearWang I am getting at the fact that a candidates availability to do the job in time constraint's (when the client needs the work done, not when the candidate is available to do the work) matters. And yes some a-holes will use this to bend the rules to discriminate. Hopefully these companies are caught in the act and prosecuted.
– Mister Positive
41 mins ago
I understand where you're coming from, but is that an acceptable movement of the goalposts? It would be illegal to pass over a qualified female candidate because she's pregnant, but is it legal to pass over a qualified female candidate because you suspect she'll take maternity leave? It's unclear to me how those can be separated.
– Nuclear Wang
30 mins ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
7
down vote
up vote
7
down vote
All else being equal what logical reason would a business have to hire
a pregnant lady instead of discriminate against her being hired based
on her pregnancy.
You don't for sure in any new hire's case how they will turn out over a course of time. You go with your gut a bit when hiring -- logic doesn't always play as significant a role in some cases.
As a hiring manager you check references, and interview the candidate as best you can. If I were hiring, I would have to be convinced that this person was going to be an excellent hire before I paid for many weeks of salary before getting a significant return.
This is the case for someone who is pregnant (assuming I know or they feel like revealing) or even someone who already has a long vacation they paid for and cannot reschedule. Having said that, I have seen it happen multiple times.
If she hid her pregnancy to land the job, what logical reason would
they have for not seeing that as a sign of self-serving dishonesty
Based on what I know of US labor laws, the applicant does not have to reveal this and cannot be asked if they are pregnant. This pretty much applies to most medical conditions. Is it right or wrong, who am I to say, but from a legal angle the woman does not have to reveal. This part will vary a bit based on locale I would suspect.
Case in point: If as a hiring manager, I have an opening to do to work that needs to be done in the next few months, the new hires availability over those said months to do the job is a legitimate factor in the hiring decision.
At no point am I saying discriminate, but you are allowed as an employer to hire someone who meets the job requirements (be available to work when necessary).
answered 1 hour ago
Mister Positive
55.2k28179228
All else being equal what logical reason would a business have to hire
a pregnant lady instead of discriminate against her being hired based
on her pregnancy.
You don't for sure in any new hire's case how they will turn out over a course of time. You go with your gut a bit when hiring -- logic doesn't always play as significant a role in some cases.
As a hiring manager you check references, and interview the candidate as best you can. If I were hiring, I would have to be convinced that this person was going to be an excellent hire before I paid for many weeks of salary before getting a significant return.
This is the case for someone who is pregnant (assuming I know or they feel like revealing) or even someone who already has a long vacation they paid for and cannot reschedule. Having said that, I have seen it happen multiple times.
If she hid her pregnancy to land the job, what logical reason would
they have for not seeing that as a sign of self-serving dishonesty
Based on what I know of US labor laws, the applicant does not have to reveal this and cannot be asked if they are pregnant. This pretty much applies to most medical conditions. Is it right or wrong, who am I to say, but from a legal angle the woman does not have to reveal. This part will vary a bit based on locale I would suspect.
Case in point: If as a hiring manager, I have an opening to do to work that needs to be done in the next few months, the new hires availability over those said months to do the job is a legitimate factor in the hiring decision.
At no point am I saying discriminate, but you are allowed as an employer to hire someone who meets the job requirements (be available to work when necessary).
answered 1 hour ago
Mister Positive
55.2k28179228
edited 1 hour ago
answered 1 hour ago
Mister Positive
55.2k28179228
answered 1 hour ago
Mister Positive
55.2k28179228
answered 1 hour ago
Mister Positive
55.2k28179228
55.2k28179228
For the last bit, legality can be anything, and you can rationalise anything into anything, but it's the employers perception that counts. In this instance I would take it as a dishonest personality and take steps. Other may differ.
– Kilisi
1 hour ago
2
nice edit, wish I could upvote twice
– Kilisi
1 hour ago
1
Regarding the case in point, why would a hiring manager have an opening to for work that does not need to be done in the next few months? I don't quite see what you're getting at, as the described scenario usually applies to pretty much any job. If they don't need an employee in the next few months, why are they hiring anyone at all? Seems dangerously easy to conflate "likelihood of availability" with "likelihood of pregnancy", which I suppose is why most women wouldn't volunteer that information in an interview.
– Nuclear Wang
43 mins ago
@NuclearWang I am getting at the fact that a candidates availability to do the job in time constraint's (when the client needs the work done, not when the candidate is available to do the work) matters. And yes some a-holes will use this to bend the rules to discriminate. Hopefully these companies are caught in the act and prosecuted.
– Mister Positive
41 mins ago
I understand where you're coming from, but is that an acceptable movement of the goalposts? It would be illegal to pass over a qualified female candidate because she's pregnant, but is it legal to pass over a qualified female candidate because you suspect she'll take maternity leave? It's unclear to me how those can be separated.
– Nuclear Wang
30 mins ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
For the last bit, legality can be anything, and you can rationalise anything into anything, but it's the employers perception that counts. In this instance I would take it as a dishonest personality and take steps. Other may differ.
– Kilisi
1 hour ago
2
nice edit, wish I could upvote twice
– Kilisi
1 hour ago
1
Regarding the case in point, why would a hiring manager have an opening to for work that does not need to be done in the next few months? I don't quite see what you're getting at, as the described scenario usually applies to pretty much any job. If they don't need an employee in the next few months, why are they hiring anyone at all? Seems dangerously easy to conflate "likelihood of availability" with "likelihood of pregnancy", which I suppose is why most women wouldn't volunteer that information in an interview.
– Nuclear Wang
43 mins ago
@NuclearWang I am getting at the fact that a candidates availability to do the job in time constraint's (when the client needs the work done, not when the candidate is available to do the work) matters. And yes some a-holes will use this to bend the rules to discriminate. Hopefully these companies are caught in the act and prosecuted.
– Mister Positive
41 mins ago
I understand where you're coming from, but is that an acceptable movement of the goalposts? It would be illegal to pass over a qualified female candidate because she's pregnant, but is it legal to pass over a qualified female candidate because you suspect she'll take maternity leave? It's unclear to me how those can be separated.
– Nuclear Wang
30 mins ago
For the last bit, legality can be anything, and you can rationalise anything into anything, but it's the employers perception that counts. In this instance I would take it as a dishonest personality and take steps. Other may differ.
– Kilisi
1 hour ago
For the last bit, legality can be anything, and you can rationalise anything into anything, but it's the employers perception that counts. In this instance I would take it as a dishonest personality and take steps. Other may differ.
– Kilisi
1 hour ago
2
2
nice edit, wish I could upvote twice
– Kilisi
1 hour ago
nice edit, wish I could upvote twice
– Kilisi
1 hour ago
1
1
Regarding the case in point, why would a hiring manager have an opening to for work that does not need to be done in the next few months? I don't quite see what you're getting at, as the described scenario usually applies to pretty much any job. If they don't need an employee in the next few months, why are they hiring anyone at all? Seems dangerously easy to conflate "likelihood of availability" with "likelihood of pregnancy", which I suppose is why most women wouldn't volunteer that information in an interview.
– Nuclear Wang
43 mins ago
Regarding the case in point, why would a hiring manager have an opening to for work that does not need to be done in the next few months? I don't quite see what you're getting at, as the described scenario usually applies to pretty much any job. If they don't need an employee in the next few months, why are they hiring anyone at all? Seems dangerously easy to conflate "likelihood of availability" with "likelihood of pregnancy", which I suppose is why most women wouldn't volunteer that information in an interview.
– Nuclear Wang
43 mins ago
@NuclearWang I am getting at the fact that a candidates availability to do the job in time constraint's (when the client needs the work done, not when the candidate is available to do the work) matters. And yes some a-holes will use this to bend the rules to discriminate. Hopefully these companies are caught in the act and prosecuted.
– Mister Positive
41 mins ago
@NuclearWang I am getting at the fact that a candidates availability to do the job in time constraint's (when the client needs the work done, not when the candidate is available to do the work) matters. And yes some a-holes will use this to bend the rules to discriminate. Hopefully these companies are caught in the act and prosecuted.
– Mister Positive
41 mins ago
I understand where you're coming from, but is that an acceptable movement of the goalposts? It would be illegal to pass over a qualified female candidate because she's pregnant, but is it legal to pass over a qualified female candidate because you suspect she'll take maternity leave? It's unclear to me how those can be separated.
– Nuclear Wang
30 mins ago
I understand where you're coming from, but is that an acceptable movement of the goalposts? It would be illegal to pass over a qualified female candidate because she's pregnant, but is it legal to pass over a qualified female candidate because you suspect she'll take maternity leave? It's unclear to me how those can be separated.
– Nuclear Wang
30 mins ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
4
down vote
You would hire a pregnant woman if she is the best candidate for the job.
ETA: For a position requiring consistent attendance, ask "The job requires good attendance over x period, can you meet these requirements?" Not "Will you be able to come to work if you're pregnant?" If the answer is no, then they aren't the best candidate and you move on. Better on both ends - you avoid a lawsuit, and good candidates might reapply to other positions later on when their situation changes.
You would want to avoid discriminating against pregnant women during the hiring process because it is illegal (US: Pregnancy Discrimination Act - "employers may not discriminate against employees or job applicants on the basis of pregnancy or a pregnancy-related condition").
Women often do not disclose pregnancy during the hiring process to avoid discrimination, and because it often has no bearing on their ability to perform the job long term. It's not about being dishonest. It's about playing it safe when some hiring managers share your views.
More info on Pregnancy Discrimination Act: https://www.aauw.org/what-we-do/legal-resources/know-your-rights-at-work/pregnancy-discrimination-act/
answered 1 hour ago
taffy
1,75511117
1
a cleaner would have to be pretty special to be the best person for the job worth finding a temp replacement and paying her
– Kilisi
1 hour ago
4
If you have an opening to do work and the requirements that need to be done are over the next few months, the new hires availability over those said months to do the job is a legitimate factor in the hiring decision.
– Mister Positive
1 hour ago
@Kilisi I have edited with a suggestion for your situation. I usually interview for long-term salaried employees, so a couple months off is a drop in the bucket and may have skewed my answer.
– taffy
59 mins ago
makes sense... can still be long term though, plenty office cleaners and clerks have had the same job for decades, but much more relevant post edit
– Kilisi
53 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
You would hire a pregnant woman if she is the best candidate for the job.
ETA: For a position requiring consistent attendance, ask "The job requires good attendance over x period, can you meet these requirements?" Not "Will you be able to come to work if you're pregnant?" If the answer is no, then they aren't the best candidate and you move on. Better on both ends - you avoid a lawsuit, and good candidates might reapply to other positions later on when their situation changes.
You would want to avoid discriminating against pregnant women during the hiring process because it is illegal (US: Pregnancy Discrimination Act - "employers may not discriminate against employees or job applicants on the basis of pregnancy or a pregnancy-related condition").
Women often do not disclose pregnancy during the hiring process to avoid discrimination, and because it often has no bearing on their ability to perform the job long term. It's not about being dishonest. It's about playing it safe when some hiring managers share your views.
More info on Pregnancy Discrimination Act: https://www.aauw.org/what-we-do/legal-resources/know-your-rights-at-work/pregnancy-discrimination-act/
answered 1 hour ago
taffy
1,75511117
1
a cleaner would have to be pretty special to be the best person for the job worth finding a temp replacement and paying her
– Kilisi
1 hour ago
4
If you have an opening to do work and the requirements that need to be done are over the next few months, the new hires availability over those said months to do the job is a legitimate factor in the hiring decision.
– Mister Positive
1 hour ago
@Kilisi I have edited with a suggestion for your situation. I usually interview for long-term salaried employees, so a couple months off is a drop in the bucket and may have skewed my answer.
– taffy
59 mins ago
makes sense... can still be long term though, plenty office cleaners and clerks have had the same job for decades, but much more relevant post edit
– Kilisi
53 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
You would hire a pregnant woman if she is the best candidate for the job.
ETA: For a position requiring consistent attendance, ask "The job requires good attendance over x period, can you meet these requirements?" Not "Will you be able to come to work if you're pregnant?" If the answer is no, then they aren't the best candidate and you move on. Better on both ends - you avoid a lawsuit, and good candidates might reapply to other positions later on when their situation changes.
You would want to avoid discriminating against pregnant women during the hiring process because it is illegal (US: Pregnancy Discrimination Act - "employers may not discriminate against employees or job applicants on the basis of pregnancy or a pregnancy-related condition").
Women often do not disclose pregnancy during the hiring process to avoid discrimination, and because it often has no bearing on their ability to perform the job long term. It's not about being dishonest. It's about playing it safe when some hiring managers share your views.
More info on Pregnancy Discrimination Act: https://www.aauw.org/what-we-do/legal-resources/know-your-rights-at-work/pregnancy-discrimination-act/
answered 1 hour ago
taffy
1,75511117
You would hire a pregnant woman if she is the best candidate for the job.
ETA: For a position requiring consistent attendance, ask "The job requires good attendance over x period, can you meet these requirements?" Not "Will you be able to come to work if you're pregnant?" If the answer is no, then they aren't the best candidate and you move on. Better on both ends - you avoid a lawsuit, and good candidates might reapply to other positions later on when their situation changes.
You would want to avoid discriminating against pregnant women during the hiring process because it is illegal (US: Pregnancy Discrimination Act - "employers may not discriminate against employees or job applicants on the basis of pregnancy or a pregnancy-related condition").
Women often do not disclose pregnancy during the hiring process to avoid discrimination, and because it often has no bearing on their ability to perform the job long term. It's not about being dishonest. It's about playing it safe when some hiring managers share your views.
More info on Pregnancy Discrimination Act: https://www.aauw.org/what-we-do/legal-resources/know-your-rights-at-work/pregnancy-discrimination-act/
answered 1 hour ago
taffy
1,75511117
edited 1 hour ago
answered 1 hour ago
taffy
1,75511117
answered 1 hour ago
taffy
1,75511117
answered 1 hour ago
taffy
1,75511117
1,75511117
1
a cleaner would have to be pretty special to be the best person for the job worth finding a temp replacement and paying her
– Kilisi
1 hour ago
4
If you have an opening to do work and the requirements that need to be done are over the next few months, the new hires availability over those said months to do the job is a legitimate factor in the hiring decision.
– Mister Positive
1 hour ago
@Kilisi I have edited with a suggestion for your situation. I usually interview for long-term salaried employees, so a couple months off is a drop in the bucket and may have skewed my answer.
– taffy
59 mins ago
makes sense... can still be long term though, plenty office cleaners and clerks have had the same job for decades, but much more relevant post edit
– Kilisi
53 mins ago
add a comment |Â
1
a cleaner would have to be pretty special to be the best person for the job worth finding a temp replacement and paying her
– Kilisi
1 hour ago
4
If you have an opening to do work and the requirements that need to be done are over the next few months, the new hires availability over those said months to do the job is a legitimate factor in the hiring decision.
– Mister Positive
1 hour ago
@Kilisi I have edited with a suggestion for your situation. I usually interview for long-term salaried employees, so a couple months off is a drop in the bucket and may have skewed my answer.
– taffy
59 mins ago
makes sense... can still be long term though, plenty office cleaners and clerks have had the same job for decades, but much more relevant post edit
– Kilisi
53 mins ago
1
1
a cleaner would have to be pretty special to be the best person for the job worth finding a temp replacement and paying her
– Kilisi
1 hour ago
a cleaner would have to be pretty special to be the best person for the job worth finding a temp replacement and paying her
– Kilisi
1 hour ago
4
4
If you have an opening to do work and the requirements that need to be done are over the next few months, the new hires availability over those said months to do the job is a legitimate factor in the hiring decision.
– Mister Positive
1 hour ago
If you have an opening to do work and the requirements that need to be done are over the next few months, the new hires availability over those said months to do the job is a legitimate factor in the hiring decision.
– Mister Positive
1 hour ago
@Kilisi I have edited with a suggestion for your situation. I usually interview for long-term salaried employees, so a couple months off is a drop in the bucket and may have skewed my answer.
– taffy
59 mins ago
@Kilisi I have edited with a suggestion for your situation. I usually interview for long-term salaried employees, so a couple months off is a drop in the bucket and may have skewed my answer.
– taffy
59 mins ago
makes sense... can still be long term though, plenty office cleaners and clerks have had the same job for decades, but much more relevant post edit
– Kilisi
53 mins ago
makes sense... can still be long term though, plenty office cleaners and clerks have had the same job for decades, but much more relevant post edit
– Kilisi
53 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Legalities aside there are very few reasons not to discriminate negatively if you have other candidates that are otherwise equivalent. The following are examples.
There is an incentive to hire like a subsidy of some sort as some countries have for disabled people.
There is an employment quota to be met of a certain group which this lady is part of but not other candidates.
It's your baby.
answered 1 hour ago
Kilisi
97.2k53221382
2
Yeah, the quota to be met applies. I've heard of several companies (even some NGOs) that have a minimum % of employees that have to be of certain ethnic group or "minority"
– DarkCygnus
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Legalities aside there are very few reasons not to discriminate negatively if you have other candidates that are otherwise equivalent. The following are examples.
There is an incentive to hire like a subsidy of some sort as some countries have for disabled people.
There is an employment quota to be met of a certain group which this lady is part of but not other candidates.
It's your baby.
answered 1 hour ago
Kilisi
97.2k53221382
2
Yeah, the quota to be met applies. I've heard of several companies (even some NGOs) that have a minimum % of employees that have to be of certain ethnic group or "minority"
– DarkCygnus
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Legalities aside there are very few reasons not to discriminate negatively if you have other candidates that are otherwise equivalent. The following are examples.
There is an incentive to hire like a subsidy of some sort as some countries have for disabled people.
There is an employment quota to be met of a certain group which this lady is part of but not other candidates.
It's your baby.
answered 1 hour ago
Kilisi
97.2k53221382
Legalities aside there are very few reasons not to discriminate negatively if you have other candidates that are otherwise equivalent. The following are examples.
There is an incentive to hire like a subsidy of some sort as some countries have for disabled people.
There is an employment quota to be met of a certain group which this lady is part of but not other candidates.
It's your baby.
answered 1 hour ago
Kilisi
97.2k53221382
answered 1 hour ago
Kilisi
97.2k53221382
answered 1 hour ago
Kilisi
97.2k53221382
answered 1 hour ago
Kilisi
97.2k53221382
97.2k53221382
2
Yeah, the quota to be met applies. I've heard of several companies (even some NGOs) that have a minimum % of employees that have to be of certain ethnic group or "minority"
– DarkCygnus
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
2
Yeah, the quota to be met applies. I've heard of several companies (even some NGOs) that have a minimum % of employees that have to be of certain ethnic group or "minority"
– DarkCygnus
1 hour ago
2
2
Yeah, the quota to be met applies. I've heard of several companies (even some NGOs) that have a minimum % of employees that have to be of certain ethnic group or "minority"
– DarkCygnus
1 hour ago
Yeah, the quota to be met applies. I've heard of several companies (even some NGOs) that have a minimum % of employees that have to be of certain ethnic group or "minority"
– DarkCygnus
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworkplace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f119216%2freasoning-not-to-hire-based-on-pregnancy-or-other-medical-condition%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
1
Unclear is not a legit reason to close. The OP has summarized clearly what his question(s) are.
– Mister Positive
1 hour ago
1
This sounds more like a politics question. The only workplace answer to "Why would I ever hire an [x]" should be "Because they are the best candidate for the job".
– Erik
1 hour ago
3
Would you also cross a man off your list if you suspected he'd have surgery in a few months? What about a man who might become a father, and need time to bond with and care for his new child? If your answer is no in either case, then this is just an excuse to discriminate against women.
– Kathy
1 hour ago
1
Then maybe the question needs to be broader?
– Kathy
1 hour ago
1
The close votes are because this question is either opinion-based or legal-based for countries where discrimination against pregnant persons and certain medical conditions is prohibited. You hire the best person for the job.
– jcmack
31 mins ago