Women having babies to keep jobs - What's your opinion?

[laetitia85]

Apparantly a lot of women (especially those in the city, banking etc.) are getting pregnant or considering getting pregnant in order to keep their job. The law protects pregnant women - it's almost impossible for an employer to sack a pregnant employee so many women use this to keep their jobs, especially in these very difficult times.

What do you all think?

 

[Krystal]

I can't imagine 'a lot' of women do this. Perhaps 1 or 2. Or maybe even a few more who uses pregnancy as a reason to not get fired etc but I really don't believe 'a lot' of women actually go to the trouble of having a child to keep a job. Sounds like a load of tosh to me

 

[zebrastripes]

What she said.

 

[mummykay]

is this true?!

 

[laetitia85]

I read it in the London paper last night. the columnist "City Girl" was talking about it, and saying she was considering it as well.

I voted 'plain wrong' because of the motives and reasons behind it. A couple might decide to try for a baby because they genuinely want a baby. However having a baby TO KEEP a job or AVOID GETTING FIRED seems like a wrong motive to me No matter how threatened your job is.

 

[Geordie&Bairn]

Apparantly a lot of women (especially those in the city, banking etc.) are getting pregnant or considering getting pregnant in order to keep their job. The law protects pregnant women - it's almost impossible for an employer to sack a pregnant employee so many women use this to keep their jobs, especially in these very difficult times.

What do you all think?

I dnever get pregnant to keep a job for most Women you end up with less money going back to work after having a child
i guess those in the city are paid more so can afford child care and the law means they keep thier jobs but still
The law dosnt help me even if i wasnt moving i couldnt return to work as how much i get paid would only just cover child care i would have NOTHING left over.

 

[laetitia85]

For those who want to read, here's where I saw it
http://www.thelondonpaper.com/cs/Satell ... 7147498071

 

[beanie]

hmmm it seems a bit far fetchedc - they must have been considering having a child already as I can't see someone who doesn't want kids going to those lengths to keep a job.

 

[valentine]

it's almost impossible for an employer to sack a pregnant employee so many women use this to keep their jobs, especially in these very difficult times.

That's just not true. An employer can sack an employee - pregnant or on maternity leave or not, if the need for the job simply doesn't exist anymore, which is ideal for companies, particularly suffering companies, in these times. It's happened to a fair few women on here over the past year.

I don't really believe this happens. Most women are savvy enough to know that their priorities change after having a baby and their job becomes much less important to them. For me, I was never career orientated anyway, but now the biggest most important thing about my job is how close it is to home and what hours I can work round childcare, not job satisfaction or money (just as well reallly!).

Valentine Xxx

 

[laetitia85]

it's almost impossible for an employer to sack a pregnant employee so many women use this to keep their jobs, especially in these very difficult times.

That's just not true. An employer can sack an employee - pregnant or on maternity leave or not, if the need for the job simply doesn't exist anymore, which is ideal for companies, particularly suffering companies, in these times. It's happened to a fair few women on here over the past year.


Valentine Xxx

Sorry Valentine I was referring to the laws that protect women during pregnancy (like sudden unfair dismissal, etc) which are listed here
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Parents/Mon ... G_10026556

But obviously if the need for the job doesn't exist anymore that's different (althought it must be pretty hard for employers to justify this) but I see your point, anyone can get sacked at any point but I what i meant was that for pregnant women there were specials laws to preotect them against unfair dismissal.

 

[MagicMarkers]

I think cityy girl talks a load of old trollop ! What a load of shite !

 

[widowwadman]

Apparantly a lot of women (especially those in the city, banking etc.) are getting pregnant or considering getting pregnant in order to keep their job. The law protects pregnant women - it's almost impossible for an employer to sack a pregnant employee so many women use this to keep their jobs, especially in these very difficult times.

What do you all think?

But that's nonsense. Pregnancy protects you f-all against redundancy. You cannot be sacked for being pregnant, but that doesn't mean that they can't dismiss you despite being pregnant. It almost happened to me. I did only manage to convince me not to make redundant on assessment of my skills, the pregnancy didn't make any difference.

I wouldn't be surprised if women got themselves up the duff because they think they're safe then, but then they might be in for a nasty surprise.

 

[krissie23]

I think cityy girl talks a load of old trollop ! What a load of shite !

I agree, sounds ridiculous!

 

[NIE]

Can't believe anyone would do such thing... I voted it's wrong.

 

[Kittykins]

absolute bo**ocks!

Since most of our friends are 30s and 40s, and almost all of them work in the City (as does DH, as did I till a couple of years ago), I guess it's not surprising that we know 4 pg women who are currently on notice that they may be made redundant if a further wave is necessary.

If a department cuts its headcount by 25%, and it happens to have 4 pg women working there, then statistically one of them is likely to go. And if they didn't make a woman redundant just b/c she's pg, you'd bet your life that a bloke would sue them for sexual discrimination!

Having said that, it does depend on the reasons they cite. Another friend has just successfully settled out of court - there was a wave of redundancies at her company whilst she was on mat leave, and her boss phoned her to tell her she was one of them. She asked him why she had been selected and he told her it was b/c she wasn't there. So she thanked him, called her solicitor who phoned and asked the same question, recording the call, and got the same answer, but with the added explanation that the boss thought it better to make someone redundant who already had other things to do with her time, and who wasn't going to be there for the next three months anyway. Fair enough from his point of view(!), but that is illegal. If he'd said that he was cutting people from her team, and as a result, they didn't need anyone at her level, that would have been entirely legal.