| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Media Issues > Topic: i'm pregnant. should i apply for a job? |
Topic: i'm pregnant. should i apply for a job?
| Author | Message |
| thelittleguy | Posted – 8/1/2007 1:44:36 PM | show profile just wanted to hear everyone's thoughts on this... yes, i know it's illegal to discriminate against pregnant women--but i seriously doubt any media company (or any company, for that matter) would hire a woman with a visible bump, especially since the job market is so competitive. however, i've seen a spate of appealing listings for jobs i'd love to have... should i apply? or would this be a waste of time for everyone involved? |
| Mag Girl | Posted – 8/1/2007 2:02:38 PM | show profile Go ahead and apply! You won't be eligible for FMLA, and it will vary by company if you'll be eligible for any paid maternity leave. But there's really no harm in going for it. If they are that short-sighted that they won't consider a potentially wonderful employee because she might be gone a few weeks in 5 months, then personally I don't think I would want to work for such a company. I've been in two jobs now where visibly pregnant folks were hired, and it was not a big deal at all. What do you have to lose? |
| WinonaWriter | Posted – 8/1/2007 2:09:05 PM | show profile One of the magazines I freelance for just hired an editor, and she was about 2 months away from her due date when they hired her. I agree with Mag Girl. Go for it! But if you get the job, be careful about changing your health insurance...make sure the new insurance will cover your prenatal care and childbirth, etc.! Sometimes there are waiting periods, but if you're switching from one group plan to another, that may or may not apply. (I don't know!) |
| wineaux | Posted – 8/1/2007 2:43:38 PM | show profile I was about 2 months along when I was hired as an editor for a children's mag. At the time, I interviewed with about half a dozen different publications and was offered a couple of positions. I turned the rest down b/c I worried that leaving them 6 months later would leave them in the lurch. They all had tight deadlines and really needed someone there all the time. With the job I did take, I disclosed to the publisher that I was pregnant, and she was really wonderful about it. It was a well-planned by-monthly and we were able to work around my maternity leave. Hindsight tells me that I really had no reason to tell anyone, but I wanted to be fair since the job entailed so much and it might have taken them time to find a proper replacement and the magazine would have suffered. I think you should go for it, and disclose what you are comfortable with, on a case by case basis. It worked for me! This is a great business to be in once you do have the baby. I freelanced from home after both pregnancies, and am freelancing now from home so I can spend the summer with my kids while they still like me around. |
| MedScribe | Posted – 8/1/2007 2:57:36 PM | show profile While it's illegal, I think you're right -- a pregnant jobseeker is probably not the most attractive candidate for many full-time positions. I think that's expecially true if you've never had a child and are not in a position to predict how you will feel. (It is very common and very understandable for new moms to request flex time, part time or telecommute.) If you do want this job and you reach interview stage -- and assuming you are visibly pregnant -- personally, I would not ignore the elephant in the room. Tell them that you love the job, how you can benefit the company and how on a personal level, it is going to work out great for you as a working parent. |
| Lotus665 | Posted – 8/1/2007 3:09:14 PM | show profile I am very heartened by the encouragement here. A while back (over a year, I think) there was a thread called something like "interviewing with bun in oven" and the OP was roasted over the coals. I can add to the list of people hired while pregnant: Brita Billi, the managing editor of E: The Environmental Magazine. She wound up writing a cover story on being a "green" parent and raising a toxics-free child not long after her daughter was born... The only reason not to apply for a job is if you intend to quit totally right after the baby is born; that wouldn't really be fair to the company. Anyway, good luck to you! |
| catlondon | Posted – 8/1/2007 3:27:43 PM | show profile I also think you should apply, but if you are entertaining any strong doubts about not returning after the baby is born, then don't make others go through the effort of interviewing/hiring. I don't have kids, but I like to come in late, so for a while I job-covered (not job shared; she covered my duties in the morning and I covered her duties in the evenings along with our respective tasks) with a woman with a baby. I didn't have to show up to early morning meetings and she didn't have to worry about being late to pick up her kid from daycare. The company was cool with it and was win-win. |
| CleverMoniker | Posted – 8/1/2007 9:19:56 PM | show profile I was a TV news reporter for 15 years. When I was pregnant with my first, I was applying for PR jobs like crazy in those last months. I realized I wouldn't be able to or want to travel 200+ days a year, work double shifts, every holiday, etc. I was offered four full time jobs with benefits in my last six weeks of pregnancy. I went to each interview in the same Pea in a Pod suit. While a lot of jackets and tops looked fine on air, this one suit was the only one that performed head to toe. Not one person was put off that I was CLEARLY pregnant. Nobody asked when I was due, since that is all illegal. What they did do was go out of their way to be flexible and understanding about a start date. While I ended up finishing my tv contract and then becoming a stay at home mom, I found it refreshing so many awesome opportunities were available to me in my clearly advanced pregnancy state! Good luck to you, and DON'T sell yourself short! The rule with all job hunting is, let them reject you! |
| ManhattanMatt | Posted – 8/1/2007 10:00:38 PM | show profile I don't think pregnancy discrimination should be illegal. I know that's very un-PC of me, but something as life-changing as a pregnancy can and does often negatively impact an employee's performance. I think it's great that so many employers are flexible in this regard, but that should be their CHOICE, not an obligation under law. |
| MedScribe | Posted – 8/1/2007 11:33:33 PM | show profile But they're not mandated to be flexible are they, Man.Matt? I think many employers choose not to be flexible, which leads to many new moms quitting to stay home (if of course they can afford to do so). |
| seeattleme | Posted – 8/2/2007 12:56:58 AM | show profile if there were no law protecting pregnant women, very few would hired and/or keep pregnant women onthe job. Sorry, but I've heard the complaints and the grousing (from labor lawyers, friends, inlaws) and it wouldn't happen. That said, if you need the job, go for it,. You deserve to make a living and so does your family. No, of course one cannot predict the "life changing effect" it will have on you--just as one cannot predict the occurence of an illness in your family, a death, a fire, a situation where you need to care for an aged parent or a divorce. Soprry, but that's life! People who'd rather not...well, have to deal. The law is there for a reason. One thing I must say, you gotta go back to work, Even if it's just until they get a replacement. You gotta go back after you take minimal time off you need--and stay back until they find someone to take your place, should you decide to stay at home. If you can't see yourself doing this, don't take the job. I'm actually better at my job since I had a kid--better at focus and dealines cause I want and need to be OUT by a certain time. Before I had kids I did a lot of fucking around after hours and schmoozing, over reporting and over editing drafts. Once I had kids I worked faster and better. I had less mistakes less corrections, less need for cuts and edits. My mommy brain was a brain my employers very much appreciated--with a big fat rise and a promotion four months after I returned from maternity leave (3 months). |
| seeattleme | Posted – 8/2/2007 2:31:13 AM | show profile Yes and the family leave act only allows for moms to stay home UNPAID and come back to their jobs in w/in, I think, twelve weeks (or anyone else who needs to take care of a child or sick family member, for that matter). Does not apply to all businesses and does not apply to businesses that emply fewer than 50 at all. Paid maternity leave is something companies choose to do, they are not required to do it by law. |
| seeattleme | Posted – 8/2/2007 2:34:57 AM | show profile also do NOT tell your employer you are pregnant until well after the 12th week. After the twentieth if you have an amniocentisis. You could miscarry and then , unprotected by pregnancy discrimination laws, your employers--assuming you are planning a pregnancy, could fire you (they'll find a reason) or not hire you after the probationary period (usually, what, ninety days?) And if you have a job now keep your COBRA active or stay on your husband's health insurance and make the switch after you've had the baby or before you've had a pregnancy test. |
| reporterwriter | Posted – 8/2/2007 9:32:52 AM | show profile Now that we've veered off-course -- Matt, don't you agree it would be equally as wise, then, to ask men on interviews whether they're expecting? I know from experience how pitiful it is to work with expectant fathers who spend the entire day mooning over baby names, what color to paint the nursery, how cute baby's going to look in a little baseball suit, etc. Men, too, are affected by sleepless nights and the added responsibilities of caring for a baby or toddler. We've all seen new fathers dragging their raggedy selves into work. Their absenteeism rises, and their productivity sinks. Then, when their significant other's maternity leave is up, they ask for months of paternity leave under the Family Leave Act. Like it or not, we're decades past the era when men were uninvolved with birth and child care. Any employer who would consider rejecting a woman job candidate who's pregnant or a mother really should think twice before hiring a man who's about to become or who is a father. |
| thelittleguy | Posted – 8/2/2007 10:12:34 AM | show profile let's steer this back on course... thanks, everyone, for your responses. i, too, am surprised and gladdened by the encouragement--especially because i remain so skeptical! perhaps i've been a bit beat down by the system, but i already feel the odds are stacked against you when you're applying to a publicly-posted job... add to that a visibly pregnant belly and i just see my application (and all the hard work that went into it) tossed into the trash. but it's nice to hear of other women out there who have landed jobs with a bun in the oven. i guess part of what concerns me is that i've been freelance for a while--i think an employer might wonder why i "suddenly" want a staff job now that i'm about to be a mother. and while i appreciate the advice on maternity leave, health insurance, etc... i've got all that covered... what i'm really wondering is whether employers would consider a pregnant candidate. any hiring managers out there? |
| nycwriter1 | Posted – 8/2/2007 10:13:41 AM | show profile | email poster I did and got a job I was about 10 weeks pregnant when I interviewed for a job I really wanted. I applied before I knew I was pregnant, but found out I was a finalist after I knew. I don't think it was obvious, except for, perhaps, my not feeling well while I was interviewing. I asked the female (and some male) editors I met with MANY questions about family friendliness, etc. I got the job and at the end of the salary, etc. negotiations, I told the managing editor that there was one more thing I wanted to mention, that might change things. I just came out and said that between applying and being offered the job, I discovered I was pregnant. I was then silent. The ME immediately said, "What would that change? We're looking at this as a long term relationship so what happens over the next nine months is just a small part of that." This was a guy who wasn't known to give much thought to families or the like. We chatted briefly about how much time I might take (eg, up to two weeks upaid after the doctor released me), what the company covered, etc. I assured the ME I would stay in touch during my leave. I felt like that would just be a good thing to do. When I arrived on the job, 18 weeks pregnant, I busted my a** until the day I delivered. I worked as much as needed and in high gear (I'm sort of like that most of the time, anyway). I was editing copy until 7pm one night and went into labor four hours later. When I was on leave, I checked in at least once a week and I limited my leave to about 10 weeks. I didn't feel forced to do any of this, but I do know that the outward signs of my dedication made a difference. I've interviewed obviously pregnant women and not asked anything about it; however, in the two encounters I've had, the women always say they're pregnant and kind of do what I did--confirm their commitment and focus on the long-term hopes they'd have for the job. I think you should apply. It's not a waste of time. |
| Cyrus | Posted – 8/2/2007 10:33:46 AM | show profile I'm not going to wade into the other issues posed by MM; I only wanted to point out that depending on where you are, you may have better protections and rights afforded to you by state law. Both NY and NJ have better state protections than are afforded by the FMLA. ------ Cyrus Afzali Astoria Communications www.astoriacomm.com |
| reporterwriter | Posted – 8/2/2007 11:03:51 AM | show profile I hired my staff when I was an editor and screened applications for other editors, though I was never a hiring manager and never worked at a place with a hiring manager. I did hire a pregnant woman for her outstanding professional background, insight and great attitude. It worked out fine. Rather than speculating, why not just get out there? |
