Dear Saswat
Thanks for your opinion, and the pain taken in giving justifications for "
It's a complete different matter to run an enterprise in a competitive environment where cost, efficiency and availability of trained manpower is critical."
Perhaps you are talking about Small or Medium Enterprises, most of which are family-run.
They can have such policies- and no questions asked.
However, I still stand by the views I held earlier. What I have in mind, are good, big, almost legendary companies which are known for their fair policies.
Secondly, I think if a company is interested in NOT TAKING PREGNANT EMPLOYEES, it should have such questions on the Application Forms and must have Medical Examinations to determine this.
I am, definitely against any FALSE DECLARATIONS.
But I am in favour of NOT DECLARING it its not asked !!! It is also a matter of individual's own privacy - how much (or to what extent) should one declare.
I hope you GET THE POINT - No suo-moto Declaration unless specifically asked for.
If you are still not getting it, let me ILLUSTRATE with an example which may be a bit sensitive and not very appropriate, so I request readers discretion.
Certain Indian companies, for example, may be reluctant to hire people belonging to certain Minorities or Castes, for reasons best known to them, which can be based on prejudice.
It is fine, if they have a query to this effect in their Job Application Form.
Bur would it be APPROPRIATE, if they EXPECT that such a candidate when he enters for Interview to DECLARE - HI, I am so and so, and I belong to this community ??
So why does one expect or FORCE a woman to declare on her own, unless she wishes to do so.
A person may be afflicted with hundreds of physical ailments; but should he go around DECLARING that he has got this or that ailment at various stages of his life; unless specifically asked.
The point I am emphasizing is :
AT THE OUTSET, A LADY NEED NOT "DECLARE" that she is pregnant.
Let the Company ask about it if they have any issues on this.
As for your statement :
"A company and a business exists for making profit and for that purpose, will take action that is in its best interest and which is most efficient. It does not exist to give undue benefit to women or any other class of employees."
I think :
There are companies who exist for making profits and giving BEST (not undue) BENEFITS to women or any other class of employees.
I think, people have heard about Yahoo! - it is a well known company !!!.
In July 2012, it recruited Marissa Meyers from Google, as their CEO, who was MORE THAN 6 MONTHS PREGNANT !!!
How Relevant Is Marissa Mayer's Maternity Leave? Not Very - Businessweek
Why Is Marissa Mayer Criticized for Work-Life Balance Issues When Male CEOs Are Not - The Daily Beast
Marissa Mayer Maternity Leave
Moreover, as CEO Marissa Mayer has doubled Yahoo maternity leave - Marissa Mayer has extended Yahoo's maternity leave to 16 weeks for women, eight weeks for men !!!
Marissa Mayer Doubles Yahoo's Paid Maternity Leave, Gives Dads Eight Weeks Off | Business Insider India
CEO Marissa Mayer doubles Yahoo maternity leave | GlobalPost
Marissa Mayer extends Yahoo's maternity leave - CNNMoney - Apr. 30, 2013
Yahoo's Marissa Mayer Expands Parental Leave : The Two-Way : NPR
Marissa Mayer is no enigma
So "MAKING PROFITS" and "EMPLOYEE BENEFITS" - are they contrary ?? !!!
(Only the owners of small sick Indian companies can think so).
I rest my case.
Warm regards.