Print This
Email ThisAs much as I hate jumping on the it’s-a misogynist-world-after-all band wagon, a recent study shows that women face serious job discrimination in their child bearing years.
The BBC reported on an new UK study’s findings:
And 76% of managers admitted that they would not hire a new recruit if they knew they were going to fall pregnant within six months of starting the job…
About 52% of those surveyed said that they considered the chances of a candidate getting pregnant taking into account age and whether they have just got married…
Other findings included only 5% employing someone knowing they were pregnant with 86% saying they would feel “cheated” if someone announced their pregnancy weeks after joining a firm.
The UK offers paid maternity leave, so pregnancy is arguably, more supported by their society than ours. And look at their study results. In fact, most nations mandate it per a 2004 Harvard Study
To put it another way, out of 168 nations in a Harvard University study last year, 163 had some form of paid maternity leave, leaving the United States in the company of Lesotho, Papua New Guinea and Swaziland.
In the US, California was the first state to legislate paid maternity leave, followed by Washington state. New Jersey if finalizing its own bill. However, most American women can only rely on the Family Medical Leave Act. In an interview with USA Today, Debra Ness of the National Partnership of Women and Families commented that
“The top 20 most economically competitive countries in the world have all figured out how to do it,” says Ness. “But not the United States.”
She points out that an estimated 40 percent of the work force is not even eligible for FMLA protection, because there have to be more than 50 employees in a workplace and an employee has to have been there for at least a year
A final note: In the United States women reported 5587 cases in 2007, which is a 14% INCREASE in instances of discrimination in 2006 and a 40% INCREASE compared to 1997. These are just the REPORTED cases of discrimination.
Given the above findings, is being upfront in a job interview about planning to get pregnant or being pregnant really the only option as Christine Hassler suggests in her Huffington Post column?
For more timely, relevant, and engaging articles, subscribe to Brazen Careerist.
Note: in the UK it is legal to ask if a job applicant is planning on getting pregnant in the next year. (or at least it was a few years ago when I was over there hiring)
And please keep some perspective, it is part of the interview process to be discriminating about whom we hire. Is it discrimination if you don’t hire someone who can’t read? Of course not. Most jobs require some level of reading skill.
Missing two months or so of work due to pregnancy is an issue that affects women. Not men. It is a biological fact, not a “discriminatory factor”.
After seeing your post I went to Christine Haffler’s column, which was horrendous. Pregnancy is something that our nation has to come to grips with. The FMLA is inadequate as you point out here. What if Haffler’s letter writer needs to have a job? It is nice to talk about how she should put her career on the back burner for a while, but how will she and the baby eat, then? Anyway, if she was interviewing while six months pregnant it seems like a stretch to imagine that her new employer didn’t know. I prefer what Penelope Trunk wrote in her blog about when to tell a potential employer that you are pregnant. Let’s be realistic.
By the way, Stephen, if you were a woman it might seem to you like a discriminatory factor. Because then you would be dealing with a reality of finding it difficult to find a job. Women get pregnant, and that provides society with the new generation. We have to try harder to make accommodations for that. If corporations cannot, under current structures, that is not a good thing.
Stephen,
According to the BBC “Legally, a direct question to a potential employee cannot be asked,” so I guess times have changed.
Women are then being discriminated against on the basis of that biological factor.
My dad was out of work for 2 months after triple bypass surgery, as were his friends (the majority of the guys in his department have had heart attacks+) and the beat went on while they were away, without a second though.
Pregnancy is also a medical condition, but it’s treated differently.
Liz, thanks for pointing out Penelope had written on this topic. Here is the link for others who come along:
blog.penelopetrunk.com/2005/05/30/how-to-job-hunt-when-youre-pregnant/
Stephen, I have to agree with Liz. I *know* that I passed over for job opportunities recently…and have been told as much by friends in the hiring companies. Granted, if they are discriminating in this fashion, I probably don’t want to work there anyway, but it does make me angry, and I have contemplated adding a brief statement to my career objectives: “Non-procreating Graphic & Web Design professional seeking a position in a progressive company.”
Truly sad.
I agree that women should not be asked or discriminated against in the interview process over pregnancy. That is totally wrong.
But I’m not sure the government needs to step in and mandate paid leave for pregnant women. Getting pregnant is a choice everyone needs to make, rape victims aside. A women (or a couple) should not have children until they are financially stable enough to. That is, they have either saved up enough money, the spouse has a good job, or the mother to be has an employer with good benefits.
But I want to reiterate that an employer should not discriminate because a women “may” get pregnant in the future.
Relax. The market will regulate itself and force these women to stop getting pregnant in the first place.