Job WWYD

[Deleted]

Mar 21, 2013 19:16:41 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

I'm confused. What is the honorable thing to do? Withdrawing? Telling them before the offer? After the offer?

I don't think any option is dishonorable actually. I mean knock on wood but you never know what will happen. Also, she's in her first trimester so there will be plenty of time to work all this out before baby is born. But I'd want to know all I could about the position, about the culture, the expectations. We often interview for jobs but do not interview jobs. 

I mean I guess I'd feel weird not mentioning while they were considering which employee to choose but probably not this early in the pregnancy.

[caden]

Mar 21, 2013 19:16:41 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

I'm confused. What is the honorable thing to do? Withdrawing? Telling them before the offer? After the offer?

It doesn't matter to me if she says something before or after the offer. I just think it's the right thing to tell them before the offer is accepted and she starts working there. I agree with IIOY that this isn't pg-specific. If someone knew they were taking a 6w vacation somewhere, or knew they were having knee-replacement surgery, or a hundred other reasons for absence, I think they should let the company know that too. I'm sure she wants to know how flexible this company is. I wouldn't want to work for a company that allowed me that much responsibility, but zero flexibility. Especially while pg, but really just in general.

[gpw]

Mar 21, 2013 19:20:38 GMT -5 ringstrue said:

If you did get a 2nd interview, I think you could losely ask about "what happens when people get sick or need extended leave". I mean surely they have dealt with someone needing to be out for more than a few days at some point. Then you can feel them out. They should also have some policies written down for sick, vacation, holidays, etc.

Honestly? There is not a single anti-discrimination expert in the world who would tell you to tell them you are pg during the hiring process. And proving discrimination is really really really hard when it's during the hiring process. I'm sort of baffled by some of the advice given here.

baffled about being honest about needing time off pretty soon after being hired at a company that is small and would really feel the impact?  

[IIOY]

Mar 21, 2013 19:20:38 GMT -5 ringstrue said:

Honestly? There is not a single anti-discrimination expert in the world who would tell you to tell them you are pg during the hiring process. And proving discrimination is really really really hard when it's during the hiring process. I'm sort of baffled by some of the advice given here.

LOL. I'm going to play my employment discrimination lawyer card here and say that you are wrong. First, she's not protected by federal law but she would be under PA law (RHB, this job is in PA, yes?). An employer must have only four employees to be covered by state anti-discrimination law. If she wants to be strategic, she could tell them during the hiring process, which is practically daring the employer to not hire her. A company down to its final two candidates? Not such a difficult hill to climb as a plaintiff.

Second, and much more significantly and above board, the employment relationship goes well beyond the hiring process. If you are a very small company and you made clear to a candidate just how much responsibility she would be shouldering, how would you feel knowing that she failed to tell you she'd need at least six weeks off for whatever reason? Small companies thrive on good relationships. Not being forthcoming about a known need for a large block of time off is a terrible way to start that relationship.

[ringstrue]

Mar 21, 2013 19:23:28 GMT -5 gpw said:

Mar 21, 2013 19:20:38 GMT -5 ringstrue said:

If you did get a 2nd interview, I think you could losely ask about "what happens when people get sick or need extended leave". I mean surely they have dealt with someone needing to be out for more than a few days at some point. Then you can feel them out. They should also have some policies written down for sick, vacation, holidays, etc.

Honestly? There is not a single anti-discrimination expert in the world who would tell you to tell them you are pg during the hiring process. And proving discrimination is really really really hard when it's during the hiring process. I'm sort of baffled by some of the advice given here.

baffled about being honest about needing time off pretty soon after being hired at a company that is small and would really feel the impact?  

Yes ofcourse ::eye roll::

Once you get the offer, then you can have an honest conversation with the hiring person about your circumstances. BUT you wait to see what they want to give you first, then you say what you give them in return. That's just basic job negotiation. It doesn't mean waiting until your first day of work to tell them - it means waiting until you know what they want to offer you. If she tell them now, they could offer her less money, less vacation, less - whatever - than everyone else, and she'd never know any different because she told them her situation before they offered anything.

At that point, if they were really so hard up that they needed her there full time for the next year plus they could tell her all that and she could bow out. Or, they could say something else.

It would be highly unusual for a company to not have someone else to make on offer to if she refused  - or at least a basic game plan of where to search next.

[Michelle]

Dude - this is a company that *will have* 10 people once all the positions are filled. Sounds like a start up. Which means they probably don't have policies yet for people taking leave, prior precedent for maternity leave - they probably haven't even thought about that kind of thing. So being vague about it may just cause confusion.

As far as being baffled by the advice - her gut instinct said to withdraw from the interview. The initial responders were saying, "give the company a chance - maybe it could be worked out." There is no discrimination if she backs out of the process. If she doesn't get a feel in the interview that they would be supportive, her gut feel would have been right. By not asking she could find herself working for assholes who would probably replace her when she is on leave and she'd be pissed with herself for investing any time and energy in them in the first place, especially when there are other job opportunities that might carry her further.

[redheadbaker]

Mar 21, 2013 19:32:26 GMT -5 IIOY said:

Mar 21, 2013 19:20:38 GMT -5 ringstrue said:

Honestly? There is not a single anti-discrimination expert in the world who would tell you to tell them you are pg during the hiring process. And proving discrimination is really really really hard when it's during the hiring process. I'm sort of baffled by some of the advice given here.

LOL. I'm going to play my employment discrimination lawyer card here and say that you are wrong. First, she's not protected by federal law but she would be under PA law (RHB, this job is in PA, yes?). 

Yes, job is in PA. 

[redheadbaker]

Mar 21, 2013 19:36:04 GMT -5 Michelle said:

Dude - this is a company that *will have* 10 people once all the positions are filled. Sounds like a start up. Which means they probably don't have policies yet for people taking leave, prior precedent for maternity leave - they probably haven't even thought about that kind of thing. So being vague about it may just cause confusion.

Actually, not a start-up. They've been around for nearly 100 years. The current owner is getting older, and taking more of a backseat role. The new editor is looking to grow and expand. 

[ringstrue]

Mar 21, 2013 19:32:26 GMT -5 IIOY said:

Mar 21, 2013 19:20:38 GMT -5 ringstrue said:

Honestly? There is not a single anti-discrimination expert in the world who would tell you to tell them you are pg during the hiring process. And proving discrimination is really really really hard when it's during the hiring process. I'm sort of baffled by some of the advice given here.

LOL. I'm going to play my employment discrimination lawyer card here and say that you are wrong. First, she's not protected by federal law but she would be under PA law (RHB, this job is in PA, yes?). An employer must have only four employees to be covered by state anti-discrimination law. If she wants to be strategic, she could tell them during the hiring process, which is practically daring the employer to not hire her. A company down to its final two candidates? Not such a difficult hill to climb as a plaintiff.

Second, and much more significantly and above board, the employment relationship goes well beyond the hiring process. If you are a very small company and you made clear to a candidate just how much responsibility she would be shouldering, how would you feel knowing that she failed to tell you she'd need at least six weeks off for whatever reason? Small companies thrive on good relationships. Not being forthcoming about a known need for a large block of time off is a terrible way to start that relationship.

So if someone is pg and says so in an interviewed they have to get hired or the company risks getting sued? The company can't just say the other person had more experience/ better fit, etc.?

I agree with you that that is how small businesses should act but I know of a lot of small businesses (And big ones) that are way below that bar - especially with how they treat their designers and marketing people.

[ringstrue]

I mean basically we are saying to dare someone to risk her suing them. How is that the honorable thing?

[IIOY]

Mar 21, 2013 19:41:41 GMT -5 ringstrue said:

I mean basically we are saying to dare someone to risk her suing them. How is that the honorable thing?

No, we are not. My post actually had a lengthy second paragraph. The first describes one cynical - but one strategically wise as known to any "anti-discrimination expert" (TIC) - approach. The far more significant is the second point.

Can the company say the other candidate was more qualified? Of course it can. We haven't entered some bizarro world where announcing a pregnancy during the hiring process actually *mandates* that she be hired.

[msmerymac]

@redheadedbaker you said the other offer is a long term contract position. So they wouldn't be offering benefits or FMLA either, right?

[sillygoosegirl]

Mar 21, 2013 18:57:13 GMT -5 heyjude said:

Honestly, this whole thread is making me feel ill. Her question doesn't deserve kudos. It deserves a big "WTF is going on in this country that a pregnant woman hesitates going to a second round interview for a freaking job because she is pregnant?!"

Do you think Dick Cheney felt any ill will in taking on the VP spot knowing of his heart condition? Does any old male geezer?

Yeah, fine, I went there.

I'm split between 100% agreeing with the above, and thinking that since she won't have FMLA protection at such a small company, she might want to take a different job if they wouldn't hold her position open for her after she has the baby.

I'd wait until I had the offer in hand, and then tell them about the pregnancy and ask if they'll be able to do without you and hold your job for you for 6 weeks after the baby is born. If they are even halfway decent people, they will at least be honest with you, and probably also try to make it work (though with a company that small, I can see how it might not be realistic).

They have absolutely no right to take the status of your uterus into account when they make a decision about you. I think their reaction to the news will tell you a lot about whether or not you *want* to work for them.

[redheadbaker]

Mar 21, 2013 19:52:51 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

@redheadedbaker you said the other offer is a long term contract position. So they wouldn't be offering benefits or FMLA either, right?

No FMLA, but I would have access to a health plan (albeit an expensive one, since the the agency does not contribute to the premiums) after a waiting period of (I think?) 60 days. 

The other drawbacks are the much longer commute, and the pay is slightly less than the bottom of the range given for the permanent job, especially since I wouldn't have paid time off. 

[aurora]

Mar 21, 2013 19:53:20 GMT -5 sillygoosegirl said:

Mar 21, 2013 18:57:13 GMT -5 heyjude said:

Honestly, this whole thread is making me feel ill. Her question doesn't deserve kudos. It deserves a big "WTF is going on in this country that a pregnant woman hesitates going to a second round interview for a freaking job because she is pregnant?!"

Do you think Dick Cheney felt any ill will in taking on the VP spot knowing of his heart condition? Does any old male geezer?

Yeah, fine, I went there.

I'm split between 100% agreeing with the above, and thinking that since she won't have FMLA protection at such a small company, she might want to take a different job if they wouldn't hold her position open for her after she has the baby.

I'd wait until I had the offer in hand, and then tell them about the pregnancy and ask if they'll be able to do without you and hold your job for you for 6 weeks after the baby is born. If they are even halfway decent people, they will at least be honest with you, and probably also try to make it work (though with a company that small, I can see how it might not be realistic).

They have absolutely no right to take the status of your uterus into account when they make a decision about you. I think their reaction to the news will tell you a lot about whether or not you *want* to work for them.

I wholeheartedly agree, esp. with the bolded.

Also, I had a 3-week vacation planned that I knew would interfere with the startup for the job I have currently.  I did not and still do not -8 years later - feel even the tiniest bit of guilt about not disclosing that until I had the offer in hand (it was part of my negotiations). 

[ringstrue]

Just curious do you have any sort of private STD package now?

[redheadbaker]

Mar 21, 2013 20:08:06 GMT -5 ringstrue said:

Just curious do you have any sort of private STD package now?

No, I don't. Wasn't a planned pregnancy. Just setting aside as much as I can to pay necessities during my leave. 

[pescalita]

Just chiming in to ditto habs and IIOY. Having a conversation about it is probably the best idea, and I'd probably wait until after the offer in hand so as not to taint the conversation with discrimination threats.

[IIOY]

Mar 21, 2013 20:06:21 GMT -5 aurora said:

Mar 21, 2013 19:53:20 GMT -5 sillygoosegirl said:

I'm split between 100% agreeing with the above, and thinking that since she won't have FMLA protection at such a small company, she might want to take a different job if they wouldn't hold her position open for her after she has the baby.

I'd wait until I had the offer in hand, and then tell them about the pregnancy and ask if they'll be able to do without you and hold your job for you for 6 weeks after the baby is born. If they are even halfway decent people, they will at least be honest with you, and probably also try to make it work (though with a company that small, I can see how it might not be realistic).

They have absolutely no right to take the status of your uterus into account when they make a decision about you. I think their reaction to the news will tell you a lot about whether or not you *want* to work for them.

I wholeheartedly agree, esp. with the bolded.

Also, I had a 3-week vacation planned that I knew would interfere with the startup for the job I have currently.  I did not and still do not -8 years later - feel even the tiniest bit of guilt about not disclosing that until I had the offer in hand (it was part of my negotiations). 

A three-week vacation is much different than a pregnancy, with all of its absences, and maternity leave.

Look, ordinarily, I might advise to wait until she has an offer in hand. However, the interviewer has stressed that this job is all her in a very small company. Moreover, RHB said her gut is telling her to withdraw completely, which tells me her comfort zone is slightly different, and that needs to be respected. Every situation is different. Now if RHB wants to tell me she's all good waiting until she has an offer, then more power to her.

[aurora]

Mar 21, 2013 20:19:00 GMT -5 IIOY said:

Mar 21, 2013 20:06:21 GMT -5 aurora said:

I wholeheartedly agree, esp. with the bolded.

Also, I had a 3-week vacation planned that I knew would interfere with the startup for the job I have currently.  I did not and still do not -8 years later - feel even the tiniest bit of guilt about not disclosing that until I had the offer in hand (it was part of my negotiations). 

A three-week vacation is much different than a pregnancy, with all of its absences, and maternity leave.

Look, ordinarily, I might advise to wait until she has an offer in hand. However, the interviewer has stressed that this job is all her in a very small company. Moreover, RHB said her gut is telling her to withdraw completely, which tells me her comfort zone is slightly different, and that needs to be respected. Every situation is different. Now if RHB wants to tell me she's all good waiting until she has an offer, then more power to her.

Eh, maybe it is different, but it did mean that I didn't start teaching until a full semester after they had intended me to so it's not like it was nothing to the department.

RHB - obviously you should do what feels right to you for your own happiness, but I still maintain they have no right at all to know the status of your uterus. 

[gpw]

Mar 21, 2013 20:23:26 GMT -5 aurora said:

Mar 21, 2013 20:19:00 GMT -5 IIOY said:

A three-week vacation is much different than a pregnancy, with all of its absences, and maternity leave.

Look, ordinarily, I might advise to wait until she has an offer in hand. However, the interviewer has stressed that this job is all her in a very small company. Moreover, RHB said her gut is telling her to withdraw completely, which tells me her comfort zone is slightly different, and that needs to be respected. Every situation is different. Now if RHB wants to tell me she's all good waiting until she has an offer, then more power to her.

Eh, maybe it is different, but it did mean that I didn't start teaching until a full semester after they had intended me to so it's not like it was nothing to the department.

RHB - obviously you should do what feels right to you for your own happiness, but I still maintain they have no right at all to know the status of your uterus. 

I don't think anyone here has said they have a right to know.  I don't even see it as a PG issue.  It's an issue of needing an extended amount of time out of an office that a. is small and b. where you have been told that you are all there is in a particular department.  

[ringstrue]

I mean if its a high stress job and a ton of work in general and/or its just not something/place you are interested in then its fine to just bow out- no harm, no foul. I don't think I could be that much of a one man band in my job, fwiw. But that's a different issue than what sort of leave options they have. It seems a 100 year old business would have policies intact which, if so, would raise it above a contract job.

[IIOY]

Mar 21, 2013 20:23:26 GMT -5 aurora said:

but I still maintain they have no right at all to know the status of your uterus. 

To be clear, I agree that this isn't about some imaginary right on the part of the company.

[caden]

Mar 21, 2013 20:29:01 GMT -5 ringstrue said:

I mean if its a high stress job and a ton of work in general and/or its just not something/place you are interested in then its fine to just bow out- no harm, no foul. I don't think I could be that much of a one man band in my job, fwiw. But that's a different issue than what sort of leave options they have. It seems a 100 year old business would have policies intact which, if so, would raise it above a contract job.

It could definitely be a drawback depending on the job, but in the job I used to have it was better for circumstances like the OP's b/c my big long absence out of the office didn't really affect anyone else. My bosses were very flexible and as long as I got my work done and was easy to communicate with, they didn't much care how I did it. It's a minus that you can't give your work to someone else there, but when you know when assignments are due and how long it takes you to do them, you just plan to have them done early. There's no "crap, my assistant was supposed to do that and now she's sick, but I have an NST so I can't do it" etc etc.

ETA: a 1-person job with no flexibility would be fuckingawful though.