Hi All, This thread is about a query regarding maternity leave. One of my friends, who is an IT professional, received a good job offer from a large MNC company while she was 3 months pregnant. She is now in a state of confusion about whether to join that company or not. She can join as soon as possible as she is currently idle.
Maternity Leave and Job Offer Concerns
Would there be any issues from the company's side if she joins them without disclosing her pregnancy and later informs them that she will need to take leave after 5 months? Please advise.
Regards,
RK
From India, Kochi
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
Maternity Leave and Job Offer Concerns
Would there be any issues from the company's side if she joins them without disclosing her pregnancy and later informs them that she will need to take leave after 5 months? Please advise.
Regards,
RK
From India, Kochi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
In my opinion, tell your friend to be professional. Don't even think of hiding such a thing as it may create problems in the future. Suppose by hiding this information, she secures the job. What happens next? No doubt, she will be entitled to maternity leave, but her relationships with HR and management will be tarnished.
Inform them of the real situation and let them decide whether to recruit her or not. In this case, her professional attitude will strengthen her position. Hiding any information for personal gain, especially if it could pose problems for the company, is not a good practice.
Regards,
Arun J.
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(6)
Amend(0)
191Inform them of the real situation and let them decide whether to recruit her or not. In this case, her professional attitude will strengthen her position. Hiding any information for personal gain, especially if it could pose problems for the company, is not a good practice.
Regards,
Arun J.
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(6)+1 more
Amend(0)
Maternity Benefit Clause
"No woman shall be entitled to maternity benefit unless she has actually worked in an establishment of the employer from whom she claims maternity benefit for a period of not less than one hundred and sixty days in the twelve months immediately preceding the date of her expected delivery."
As per the law, the employee should have worked there for at least 160 days preceding the date of expected delivery.
Regards,
Snehalata
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(3)
Amend(0)
"No woman shall be entitled to maternity benefit unless she has actually worked in an establishment of the employer from whom she claims maternity benefit for a period of not less than one hundred and sixty days in the twelve months immediately preceding the date of her expected delivery."
As per the law, the employee should have worked there for at least 160 days preceding the date of expected delivery.
Regards,
Snehalata
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(3)Amend(0)
Importance of Professionalism in Job Acceptance
The Act provisions have been very well discussed above. I would like to emphasize again the importance of professionalism. Your friend must disclose her pregnancy. If not, this will be detected during the mandatory medical examination before the acceptance of the joining report. If she reveals the truth, it is possible that her offer may be postponed or put on hold until after her delivery. However, if she conceals the truth and it is discovered later on, it may lead to the management losing faith and confidence in her. You can imagine the potential consequences.
Best wishes to you and your friend.
Regards,
AK Jain
HR Personnel
NCL, CIL
From India, New+Delhi
Acknowledge(2)Amend(0)
The Act provisions have been very well discussed above. I would like to emphasize again the importance of professionalism. Your friend must disclose her pregnancy. If not, this will be detected during the mandatory medical examination before the acceptance of the joining report. If she reveals the truth, it is possible that her offer may be postponed or put on hold until after her delivery. However, if she conceals the truth and it is discovered later on, it may lead to the management losing faith and confidence in her. You can imagine the potential consequences.
Best wishes to you and your friend.
Regards,
AK Jain
HR Personnel
NCL, CIL
From India, New+Delhi
Acknowledge(2)Amend(0)
As rightly pointed out by Sh. Khola, the qualifying period is now 80 days. Please understand that if a female employee has already worked for 150 days or 103 days and is granted Maternity Leave, the Management is not showing any mercy or charity. They are complying with the laws, which they are bound to do.
As HR professionals, one should know all the legal compliances and abide by them. If the person who is required to guide the management on these aspects is not aware of them, one can imagine the havoc created.
REFERENCE:
THE MATERNITY BENEFIT ACT, 1961
ACT NO. 53 OF 1961
[12th December, 1961.]
Sec. 5 (2): No woman shall be entitled to maternity benefit unless she has actually worked in an establishment of the employer from whom she claims maternity benefit for a period of not less than 80 days in the twelve months immediately preceding the date of her expected delivery.
All are requested to go through the relevant Acts before giving any opinion on such matters. A wrong opinion/response can seriously jeopardize the situation for the person concerned.
I am attaching the MB Act 1961 herewith.
Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(8)
Amend(0)
As HR professionals, one should know all the legal compliances and abide by them. If the person who is required to guide the management on these aspects is not aware of them, one can imagine the havoc created.
REFERENCE:
THE MATERNITY BENEFIT ACT, 1961
ACT NO. 53 OF 1961
[12th December, 1961.]
Sec. 5 (2): No woman shall be entitled to maternity benefit unless she has actually worked in an establishment of the employer from whom she claims maternity benefit for a period of not less than 80 days in the twelve months immediately preceding the date of her expected delivery.
All are requested to go through the relevant Acts before giving any opinion on such matters. A wrong opinion/response can seriously jeopardize the situation for the person concerned.
I am attaching the MB Act 1961 herewith.
Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(8)+3 more
Amend(0)
I beg to differ from the opinions expressed by others. Please see my post above on the Maternity Benefits Act.
The law does not deny employment to women who are three months pregnant. You can tell your friend to join the company - the big MNC. Big MNCs, big national companies, and PSUs do not discriminate on this, as they declare themselves to be "Equal Opportunity Employers."
It is only the small companies, who are penny-pinching by nature and do not have any qualms about stealing the employees' benefits, even if it has been ordained by law, who will have issues with such things. Maternity leave with benefits is the right of a female employee, as long as she fulfills the qualifying criteria.
To bar a woman from employment under such circumstances would amount to sexual discrimination as well as scant regard and respect for women-friendly laws. As HR professionals, it is our moral duty to be just and fair rather than be puppets of convenience or law-breakers at the hands of a scrupulous management. Sorry to say this, but there is enough evidence in the form of posts in this forum.
Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(3)
Amend(0)
The law does not deny employment to women who are three months pregnant. You can tell your friend to join the company - the big MNC. Big MNCs, big national companies, and PSUs do not discriminate on this, as they declare themselves to be "Equal Opportunity Employers."
It is only the small companies, who are penny-pinching by nature and do not have any qualms about stealing the employees' benefits, even if it has been ordained by law, who will have issues with such things. Maternity leave with benefits is the right of a female employee, as long as she fulfills the qualifying criteria.
To bar a woman from employment under such circumstances would amount to sexual discrimination as well as scant regard and respect for women-friendly laws. As HR professionals, it is our moral duty to be just and fair rather than be puppets of convenience or law-breakers at the hands of a scrupulous management. Sorry to say this, but there is enough evidence in the form of posts in this forum.
Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(3)Amend(0)
Eligibility for Benefits
She is eligible for benefits if she has worked for 80 days during the 12 months prior to confinement. However, do not conceal the facts from the employer. Even today, there are employers (even MNCs are not saints in such matters) who are reluctant to appoint pregnant women. At most, they ask the women to join after delivery. Concealing the facts may be harmful later.
Regards,
Varghese Mathew
[Phone Number Removed For Privacy Reasons]
From India, Thiruvananthapuram
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
She is eligible for benefits if she has worked for 80 days during the 12 months prior to confinement. However, do not conceal the facts from the employer. Even today, there are employers (even MNCs are not saints in such matters) who are reluctant to appoint pregnant women. At most, they ask the women to join after delivery. Concealing the facts may be harmful later.
Regards,
Varghese Mathew
[Phone Number Removed For Privacy Reasons]
From India, Thiruvananthapuram
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Considerations for Joining a New Job During Pregnancy
Pregnancy is a state that cannot be physically hidden. If your friend informs later, it may be construed that she did so because it would be physically visible at that time. Keeping aside the fact of benefits, when an organization employs someone, it is for a particular requirement. So if, as an employee, your friend is aware that she needs to go on leave in another 5 months, she should confide as that leave is not for a day or two; it's for a long duration.
The organization would actually invest in her orientation and do manpower planning, taking her into consideration. It will be better to inform the organization before joining. That way, if she belongs to a 'critical skill' area, the MNC may agree to her working in the office for 5 months and then from home post-delivery.
In case she hides and joins, she will be under tremendous mental stress of getting caught and the dilemma of the most appropriate time to reveal the truth, etc., which will not be good for the health of the mother and child.
Hope good sense prevails and all the best to your friend.
Regards,
Dr. Parveen Ahmed Alam
From India, Calcutta
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Pregnancy is a state that cannot be physically hidden. If your friend informs later, it may be construed that she did so because it would be physically visible at that time. Keeping aside the fact of benefits, when an organization employs someone, it is for a particular requirement. So if, as an employee, your friend is aware that she needs to go on leave in another 5 months, she should confide as that leave is not for a day or two; it's for a long duration.
The organization would actually invest in her orientation and do manpower planning, taking her into consideration. It will be better to inform the organization before joining. That way, if she belongs to a 'critical skill' area, the MNC may agree to her working in the office for 5 months and then from home post-delivery.
In case she hides and joins, she will be under tremendous mental stress of getting caught and the dilemma of the most appropriate time to reveal the truth, etc., which will not be good for the health of the mother and child.
Hope good sense prevails and all the best to your friend.
Regards,
Dr. Parveen Ahmed Alam
From India, Calcutta
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Changing Perspectives on Maternity and Employment
I have a slightly different opinion on these matters, especially after the fact that now the Courts have declared that "live-in" relationships are not illegal, and secondly, children born out of wedlock have the same rights as children born to a married couple.
It seems even the slow-moving system of justice has moved with the times!
Legislative Advances
The Legislature had been ahead of time in the enactment of the Maternity Benefit Act in the year 1961 itself; they have not questioned the marital status of the beneficiary, except the fact that she has to be a woman!
However, it is sad to find that companies are still languishing in their old mindset!
"Even today, there are employers (even MNCs are not saints in such matters) who are reluctant to appoint pregnant women."
Why is it so?
The Role of HR Professionals
I think it is because the HR professionals, who to a large extent are responsible for the Company's culture, have themselves maintained the status quo and failed to change with the times.
Surprising in the sense that Change Management and OD (Organizational Development) fall under the realms of HRM.
With more and more women joining the HR profession and many even rising to the top, I hope the time comes soon when a few months pregnant women do not have to DECLARE in Bold Letters that they are PREGNANT!
(I think the opposite of Concealing is Declaring.)
Pregnancy: Not a Stigma
Why should pregnancy be treated as a stigma or a handicap?
If an organization is not able to handle, take care, or manage the Maternity Leave of its women employees and their absence during this period, then it has no moral right to be called a "company" or continue to be registered as such and enjoy the PRIVILEGES, STATUS, and REPUTATION of being a Company. Let it be simply called a "Lalaji Ki Dukaan," a friendly neighborhood shop!
The question for us is whether we should continue like this, as "lakeer ka fakir," walking the much-beaten track, or do whatever little bit we can do?
These days, Public Opinion matters a lot. Let us at least make up our mind that such companies are neither modern nor contemporary, nor an Equal Opportunity Employer, nor even a "good" company.
Warm regards.
"She is eligible for benefit if she has worked for 80 days during the 12 months prior to confinement, but do not conceal the facts from the employer. Even today, there are employers (even MNCs are not saints in such matters) who are reluctant to appoint pregnant women. At the most, they ask the women to join after delivery.
Concealing the facts may be harmful later.
Regards.
[Phone Number Removed For Privacy Reasons]"
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(3)
Amend(0)
I have a slightly different opinion on these matters, especially after the fact that now the Courts have declared that "live-in" relationships are not illegal, and secondly, children born out of wedlock have the same rights as children born to a married couple.
It seems even the slow-moving system of justice has moved with the times!
Legislative Advances
The Legislature had been ahead of time in the enactment of the Maternity Benefit Act in the year 1961 itself; they have not questioned the marital status of the beneficiary, except the fact that she has to be a woman!
However, it is sad to find that companies are still languishing in their old mindset!
"Even today, there are employers (even MNCs are not saints in such matters) who are reluctant to appoint pregnant women."
Why is it so?
The Role of HR Professionals
I think it is because the HR professionals, who to a large extent are responsible for the Company's culture, have themselves maintained the status quo and failed to change with the times.
Surprising in the sense that Change Management and OD (Organizational Development) fall under the realms of HRM.
With more and more women joining the HR profession and many even rising to the top, I hope the time comes soon when a few months pregnant women do not have to DECLARE in Bold Letters that they are PREGNANT!
(I think the opposite of Concealing is Declaring.)
Pregnancy: Not a Stigma
Why should pregnancy be treated as a stigma or a handicap?
If an organization is not able to handle, take care, or manage the Maternity Leave of its women employees and their absence during this period, then it has no moral right to be called a "company" or continue to be registered as such and enjoy the PRIVILEGES, STATUS, and REPUTATION of being a Company. Let it be simply called a "Lalaji Ki Dukaan," a friendly neighborhood shop!
The question for us is whether we should continue like this, as "lakeer ka fakir," walking the much-beaten track, or do whatever little bit we can do?
These days, Public Opinion matters a lot. Let us at least make up our mind that such companies are neither modern nor contemporary, nor an Equal Opportunity Employer, nor even a "good" company.
Warm regards.
"She is eligible for benefit if she has worked for 80 days during the 12 months prior to confinement, but do not conceal the facts from the employer. Even today, there are employers (even MNCs are not saints in such matters) who are reluctant to appoint pregnant women. At the most, they ask the women to join after delivery.
Concealing the facts may be harmful later.
Regards.
[Phone Number Removed For Privacy Reasons]"
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(3)Amend(0)
Dear Nair,
With appreciation for the suggestions of Mr. Raj Kumar, I would like to comment on your question and suggestion that it is not fair to join the organization by hiding the matter because the physical condition and activities during pregnancy cannot be hidden. During this stage, the physical and mental health of the mother should be healthy and stress-free. She should not be in any tension. If she is joining while hiding the matter, it may affect her mentally as a consequence of not disclosing the fact.
Though there are provisions by which your friend is eligible to avail the benefit, I do not think she will be able to avail the benefit, as it is a very important time and your friend may have to discontinue before the completion of the required days. I am pleased to suggest to your friend that she not worry about whether she can avail the leave benefit or not. Instead, she should seek advice from a physician on whether it is good for both her and the baby if she is joining a new organization now.
Thanks.
From India
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
With appreciation for the suggestions of Mr. Raj Kumar, I would like to comment on your question and suggestion that it is not fair to join the organization by hiding the matter because the physical condition and activities during pregnancy cannot be hidden. During this stage, the physical and mental health of the mother should be healthy and stress-free. She should not be in any tension. If she is joining while hiding the matter, it may affect her mentally as a consequence of not disclosing the fact.
Though there are provisions by which your friend is eligible to avail the benefit, I do not think she will be able to avail the benefit, as it is a very important time and your friend may have to discontinue before the completion of the required days. I am pleased to suggest to your friend that she not worry about whether she can avail the leave benefit or not. Instead, she should seek advice from a physician on whether it is good for both her and the baby if she is joining a new organization now.
Thanks.
From India
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The Company's Perspective on Employment and Maternity
A company and a business exist for making a profit and, for that purpose, will take actions that are in its best interest and most efficient. It does not exist to give undue benefits to women or any other class of employees.
A company, therefore, is at liberty to decide whether to employ a particular person. If that person happens to be a lady who is pregnant prior to joining the company, she will be a liability to the company, not only in terms of paid leave for 6 weeks but also in terms of disruption of the work schedule.
For regular employees who have been with the company for some time, if they get pregnant, it's in the company's interest (not only a legal liability) to provide maternity benefits. That ensures that the time taken in training and the learning curve is not lost. Additionally, it allows the company to attract and retain talent (most of the time, at least).
Evaluating New Hires and Pregnancy
What benefit will it be to hire someone who is going to be distracted and inefficient due to pregnancy from day one and who will need to be on leave for 2 months after 4-5 months, mostly at the time when the person had just managed to fit into the company's way of working?
Knowing the fact of pregnancy, the company can take a conscious call on whether it makes sense to recruit that person. It will weigh the pros and cons and decide on it. It may even find it worthwhile to recruit and schedule its work taking the required leave into account. If it is not known, that disruption to the work schedule would be significant.
The same rule would apply to a person (male) who has some serious sickness or is scheduled for surgery after a certain period of time. They are required to tell the new employer of it so they can take it into account.
Challenges in Balancing Employee Benefits and Business Needs
It's easy to sit and sermonize about employee benefits. It's a completely different matter to run an enterprise in a competitive environment where cost, efficiency, and the availability of trained manpower are critical.
"I have a slightly different opinion on these matters; especially after the fact that now the Courts have declared that "live-in" relationships are not illegal; and secondly, children born out of wedlock have the same rights as children born to a married couple.
It seems even the slow-moving system of justice has moved with the times!
The Legislature had been ahead of its time in the enactment of the Maternity Benefit Act in the year 1961 itself; they have not questioned the marital status of the beneficiary; except the fact that she has to be a woman!
However, it is sad to find that companies are still languishing in their old mindset!
"Even today there are employers (even MNCs are not saints in such matters) who are reluctant to appoint pregnant women..."
Why is it so?
I think it is because the HR professionals, who to a large extent are responsible for the company's culture, have themselves maintained the status quo and failed to change with the times.
Surprisingly, in the sense that Change Management and OD (Organizational Development) fall under the realms of HRM.
With more and more women joining the HR profession and many even rising to the top, I hope the time comes soon when a few months pregnant women do not have to DECLARE in Bold Letters that they are PREGNANT!
(I think the opposite of Concealing is Declaring.)
Rethinking Pregnancy in the Workplace
Why should pregnancy be treated as a stigma or a handicap?
If an organization is not able to handle, take care of, or manage the Maternity Leave of its women employees and their absence during this period, then it has no moral right to be called a "company" or continue to be registered as such and enjoy the PRIVILEGES, STATUS, and REPUTATION of being a Company. Let it be simply called a "Lalaji Ki Dukaan," a friendly neighborhood shop!
The question for us is, whether we should continue like this, as "lakeer ka fakir," walking the much-beaten track; or do whatever little bit we can do?
These days Public Opinion matters a lot. Let us at least make up our mind that such companies are neither modern nor contemporary, nor an Equal Opportunity Employer, nor even a "good" company.
Warm regards.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
A company and a business exist for making a profit and, for that purpose, will take actions that are in its best interest and most efficient. It does not exist to give undue benefits to women or any other class of employees.
A company, therefore, is at liberty to decide whether to employ a particular person. If that person happens to be a lady who is pregnant prior to joining the company, she will be a liability to the company, not only in terms of paid leave for 6 weeks but also in terms of disruption of the work schedule.
For regular employees who have been with the company for some time, if they get pregnant, it's in the company's interest (not only a legal liability) to provide maternity benefits. That ensures that the time taken in training and the learning curve is not lost. Additionally, it allows the company to attract and retain talent (most of the time, at least).
Evaluating New Hires and Pregnancy
What benefit will it be to hire someone who is going to be distracted and inefficient due to pregnancy from day one and who will need to be on leave for 2 months after 4-5 months, mostly at the time when the person had just managed to fit into the company's way of working?
Knowing the fact of pregnancy, the company can take a conscious call on whether it makes sense to recruit that person. It will weigh the pros and cons and decide on it. It may even find it worthwhile to recruit and schedule its work taking the required leave into account. If it is not known, that disruption to the work schedule would be significant.
The same rule would apply to a person (male) who has some serious sickness or is scheduled for surgery after a certain period of time. They are required to tell the new employer of it so they can take it into account.
Challenges in Balancing Employee Benefits and Business Needs
It's easy to sit and sermonize about employee benefits. It's a completely different matter to run an enterprise in a competitive environment where cost, efficiency, and the availability of trained manpower are critical.
"I have a slightly different opinion on these matters; especially after the fact that now the Courts have declared that "live-in" relationships are not illegal; and secondly, children born out of wedlock have the same rights as children born to a married couple.
It seems even the slow-moving system of justice has moved with the times!
The Legislature had been ahead of its time in the enactment of the Maternity Benefit Act in the year 1961 itself; they have not questioned the marital status of the beneficiary; except the fact that she has to be a woman!
However, it is sad to find that companies are still languishing in their old mindset!
"Even today there are employers (even MNCs are not saints in such matters) who are reluctant to appoint pregnant women..."
Why is it so?
I think it is because the HR professionals, who to a large extent are responsible for the company's culture, have themselves maintained the status quo and failed to change with the times.
Surprisingly, in the sense that Change Management and OD (Organizational Development) fall under the realms of HRM.
With more and more women joining the HR profession and many even rising to the top, I hope the time comes soon when a few months pregnant women do not have to DECLARE in Bold Letters that they are PREGNANT!
(I think the opposite of Concealing is Declaring.)
Rethinking Pregnancy in the Workplace
Why should pregnancy be treated as a stigma or a handicap?
If an organization is not able to handle, take care of, or manage the Maternity Leave of its women employees and their absence during this period, then it has no moral right to be called a "company" or continue to be registered as such and enjoy the PRIVILEGES, STATUS, and REPUTATION of being a Company. Let it be simply called a "Lalaji Ki Dukaan," a friendly neighborhood shop!
The question for us is, whether we should continue like this, as "lakeer ka fakir," walking the much-beaten track; or do whatever little bit we can do?
These days Public Opinion matters a lot. Let us at least make up our mind that such companies are neither modern nor contemporary, nor an Equal Opportunity Employer, nor even a "good" company.
Warm regards.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
Transparency with Employers Regarding Maternity Leave
Being a professional, one should not hide such things and needs to let your employer know about it. Also, many companies allow maternity leave only to permanent employees or employees who have already completed at least one year with the company. So, to avoid further issues, be clear with your employer and do not hide.
From India, Lucknow
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Being a professional, one should not hide such things and needs to let your employer know about it. Also, many companies allow maternity leave only to permanent employees or employees who have already completed at least one year with the company. So, to avoid further issues, be clear with your employer and do not hide.
From India, Lucknow
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thanks for your opinion and the effort taken in providing justifications for, "It's a completely different matter to run an enterprise in a competitive environment where cost, efficiency, and the availability of trained manpower are critical." Perhaps you are referring to Small or Medium Enterprises, most of which are family-run. They can have such policies with no questions asked. However, I still stand by the views I held earlier. What I have in mind are good, big, almost legendary companies known for their fair policies.
Secondly, I believe that if a company is interested in not hiring pregnant employees, it should include such questions on the Application Forms and conduct Medical Examinations to determine this. I am definitely against any false declarations but in favor of not declaring if it's not asked. It is also a matter of an individual's privacy - how much or to what extent one should declare.
I hope you get the point - no suo-moto declaration unless specifically asked for. Let me illustrate with a sensitive example to emphasize the point.
Certain Indian companies may be hesitant to hire individuals from certain minorities or castes, for reasons known to them, which may be based on prejudice. It is acceptable if they inquire about this in their Job Application Form. However, expecting a candidate to declare their background without being asked during an interview may not be appropriate.
Similarly, a person may have various physical ailments, but should they declare every ailment unless specifically asked? The point I am emphasizing is: At the outset, a woman need not "declare" that she is pregnant. Let the company inquire if they have any concerns regarding this.
Regarding your statement: "A company and a business exist to make a profit and will take actions that are in their best interest and most efficient. It does not exist to give undue benefits to women or any other class of employees."
I believe there are companies that exist to make profits while providing the best (not undue) benefits to women or any other class of employees. For example, Yahoo! is a well-known company that recruited Marissa Mayer from Google as their CEO in July 2012 when she was more than 6 months pregnant.
Moreover, as CEO, Marissa Mayer doubled Yahoo's maternity leave, extending it to 16 weeks for women and eight weeks for men. So, are "making profits" and "employee benefits" contradictory? Only the owners of small, struggling Indian companies may think so.
I rest my case.
Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Secondly, I believe that if a company is interested in not hiring pregnant employees, it should include such questions on the Application Forms and conduct Medical Examinations to determine this. I am definitely against any false declarations but in favor of not declaring if it's not asked. It is also a matter of an individual's privacy - how much or to what extent one should declare.
I hope you get the point - no suo-moto declaration unless specifically asked for. Let me illustrate with a sensitive example to emphasize the point.
Certain Indian companies may be hesitant to hire individuals from certain minorities or castes, for reasons known to them, which may be based on prejudice. It is acceptable if they inquire about this in their Job Application Form. However, expecting a candidate to declare their background without being asked during an interview may not be appropriate.
Similarly, a person may have various physical ailments, but should they declare every ailment unless specifically asked? The point I am emphasizing is: At the outset, a woman need not "declare" that she is pregnant. Let the company inquire if they have any concerns regarding this.
Regarding your statement: "A company and a business exist to make a profit and will take actions that are in their best interest and most efficient. It does not exist to give undue benefits to women or any other class of employees."
I believe there are companies that exist to make profits while providing the best (not undue) benefits to women or any other class of employees. For example, Yahoo! is a well-known company that recruited Marissa Mayer from Google as their CEO in July 2012 when she was more than 6 months pregnant.
Moreover, as CEO, Marissa Mayer doubled Yahoo's maternity leave, extending it to 16 weeks for women and eight weeks for men. So, are "making profits" and "employee benefits" contradictory? Only the owners of small, struggling Indian companies may think so.
I rest my case.
Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
So you agree that in the case of Yahoo or for CEO hiring, it was fine!!
But, OTHERWISE PREGNANT WOMEN are hired for their benefit!!
Actually, this is the attitude that we have to change: by hiring a pregnant woman, we are giving her a benefit.
Moreover, forcing a woman to DECLARE beforehand, the moment she walks in, whether she is pregnant or not, is not only discriminatory but against basic human rights and dignity.
Sadly, India is far behind, whereas in developed countries there is legislation to this effect:
"In the USA, under the laws enforced by the EEOC, it is illegal to discriminate against someone (applicant or employee) because of that person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability, or genetic information. It is also illegal to retaliate against a person because he or she complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit."
Prohibited Practices
In Australia:
"The Pregnancy Guidelines follow the Commission's Report of the National Inquiry into Pregnancy and Work, Pregnant and Productive: It's a right, not a privilege, to work while pregnant, commissioned by the federal Attorney-General in August 1998."
Pregnancy Guidelines (2001) | Australian Human Rights Commission
In the UK: under The Equality Act 2010 Guidance for employers.
"You must not refuse to employ a woman because she is pregnant, on maternity leave, or because she has (or has had) an illness related to her pregnancy.
Equality law does not say that a woman applying for a job with you has to tell you that she is pregnant. This is because you must not base your decision about whether or not to employ her on whether she is pregnant but on whether she has the skills to do the job.
If a woman does not tell you that she is pregnant and you give her the job, you must not dismiss her when she tells you about her pregnancy. ..."
http://equalityhumanrights.com <link updated to site home>
EHRC - Your rights if you are pregnant or on maternity leave <link updated to site home> (Search On Cite | Search On Google)
New Zealand has Employers' guidelines for the prevention of pregnancy discrimination:
For nearly 15 years, the Human Rights Commission has been receiving complaints from workers claiming they have been treated unfairly because of their pregnancies. Over that time, thousands of inquiries and requests for information about how to best deal with or avoid problems of pregnancy discrimination at work have come to the Commission from workers, unions, employers, human resources specialists, and other groups.
Pregnancy discrimination is a form of sex discrimination. The Human Rights Act 1993 (HRA) provides that it may be unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee or a job applicant because she is pregnant or because it is assumed she may become pregnant. The Employment Relations Act 2000 (ERA) contains similar protections for pregnant workers. The Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 (PLEPA) prohibits dismissal because of pregnancy or parental leave.
http://www.hrc.co.nz/hrc_new/hrc/cms..._Pregnancy.pdf
It may be difficult to change old age-old attitudes, mindsets, and prejudices; as such, I urge all young HR professionals, even if they are not in a position to change the existing biases, to at least sensitize themselves to the developing trends in western and developed countries, as these changes are sure to follow elsewhere. Moreover, instead of being tied to the much-trodden path, they should be open to changes and new ideas and developments.
I implore them to go through the links given above. The Indian government, on its part, in conformity with a progressive and humane outlook, does not discriminate against pregnant women at the time of employment (pregnancies of 12 weeks or less).
For example:
In Indian Civil Services, women who are pregnant for 12 weeks or over are declared temporarily unfit, and another medical examination is done after 6 weeks of delivery.
Such provisions in Govt. and well-known PSUs are given below:
Indian Railways:
508. (a) Women candidates who are pregnant: A female candidate who, as a result of tests, is found to be pregnant need not be declared temporarily unfit unless the nature of the job requires strenuous physical exercise or elaborate training, or posts carrying hazardous nature of duty e.g., police organization, etc.
http://www.indianrailways.gov.in/rai...I/Chapter5.pdf
NTPC:
21.0 PREGNANCY:
If at the time of medical examination, a candidate is pregnant for 12 weeks or more, she shall be declared temporarily unfit until she has completed six weeks after confinement.
http://ntpc.co.in <link updated to site home>
Indian Oil Corporation:
d) Pregnancy of 24 weeks or more - declared temporarily unfit
http://www.iocl.com/PeopleCareers/Pr...h_mar_2011.pdf
BHEL:
19 Pregnancy
If at the time of medical examination, a candidate is pregnant for 12 weeks or more, she shall be declared temporarily unfit until she has completed 6 weeks after confinement. After confinement, the candidate shall be required to produce a medical certificate of fitness from a registered medical practitioner before being called for a final medical examination.
<link no longer exists - removed>
Power Grid Corporation of India
Cases of pregnancy of 24 weeks or more at the time of medical examination will be temporarily unfit until completion of six weeks after miscarriage or 3 months after confinement. At the end of the period, a fresh examination is required.
Welcome To PowerGrid
Hope it helps HR professionals to understand the implications and become more sensitive and adept in their chosen profession. One does not know to what heights one's career in HR can take him (or her); and they would be better prepared to become truly Global HRs.
Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(2)Amend(0)
But, OTHERWISE PREGNANT WOMEN are hired for their benefit!!
Actually, this is the attitude that we have to change: by hiring a pregnant woman, we are giving her a benefit.
Moreover, forcing a woman to DECLARE beforehand, the moment she walks in, whether she is pregnant or not, is not only discriminatory but against basic human rights and dignity.
Sadly, India is far behind, whereas in developed countries there is legislation to this effect:
"In the USA, under the laws enforced by the EEOC, it is illegal to discriminate against someone (applicant or employee) because of that person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability, or genetic information. It is also illegal to retaliate against a person because he or she complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit."
Prohibited Practices
In Australia:
"The Pregnancy Guidelines follow the Commission's Report of the National Inquiry into Pregnancy and Work, Pregnant and Productive: It's a right, not a privilege, to work while pregnant, commissioned by the federal Attorney-General in August 1998."
Pregnancy Guidelines (2001) | Australian Human Rights Commission
In the UK: under The Equality Act 2010 Guidance for employers.
"You must not refuse to employ a woman because she is pregnant, on maternity leave, or because she has (or has had) an illness related to her pregnancy.
Equality law does not say that a woman applying for a job with you has to tell you that she is pregnant. This is because you must not base your decision about whether or not to employ her on whether she is pregnant but on whether she has the skills to do the job.
If a woman does not tell you that she is pregnant and you give her the job, you must not dismiss her when she tells you about her pregnancy. ..."
http://equalityhumanrights.com <link updated to site home>
EHRC - Your rights if you are pregnant or on maternity leave <link updated to site home> (Search On Cite | Search On Google)
New Zealand has Employers' guidelines for the prevention of pregnancy discrimination:
For nearly 15 years, the Human Rights Commission has been receiving complaints from workers claiming they have been treated unfairly because of their pregnancies. Over that time, thousands of inquiries and requests for information about how to best deal with or avoid problems of pregnancy discrimination at work have come to the Commission from workers, unions, employers, human resources specialists, and other groups.
Pregnancy discrimination is a form of sex discrimination. The Human Rights Act 1993 (HRA) provides that it may be unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee or a job applicant because she is pregnant or because it is assumed she may become pregnant. The Employment Relations Act 2000 (ERA) contains similar protections for pregnant workers. The Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 (PLEPA) prohibits dismissal because of pregnancy or parental leave.
http://www.hrc.co.nz/hrc_new/hrc/cms..._Pregnancy.pdf
It may be difficult to change old age-old attitudes, mindsets, and prejudices; as such, I urge all young HR professionals, even if they are not in a position to change the existing biases, to at least sensitize themselves to the developing trends in western and developed countries, as these changes are sure to follow elsewhere. Moreover, instead of being tied to the much-trodden path, they should be open to changes and new ideas and developments.
I implore them to go through the links given above. The Indian government, on its part, in conformity with a progressive and humane outlook, does not discriminate against pregnant women at the time of employment (pregnancies of 12 weeks or less).
For example:
In Indian Civil Services, women who are pregnant for 12 weeks or over are declared temporarily unfit, and another medical examination is done after 6 weeks of delivery.
Such provisions in Govt. and well-known PSUs are given below:
Indian Railways:
508. (a) Women candidates who are pregnant: A female candidate who, as a result of tests, is found to be pregnant need not be declared temporarily unfit unless the nature of the job requires strenuous physical exercise or elaborate training, or posts carrying hazardous nature of duty e.g., police organization, etc.
http://www.indianrailways.gov.in/rai...I/Chapter5.pdf
NTPC:
21.0 PREGNANCY:
If at the time of medical examination, a candidate is pregnant for 12 weeks or more, she shall be declared temporarily unfit until she has completed six weeks after confinement.
http://ntpc.co.in <link updated to site home>
Indian Oil Corporation:
d) Pregnancy of 24 weeks or more - declared temporarily unfit
http://www.iocl.com/PeopleCareers/Pr...h_mar_2011.pdf
BHEL:
19 Pregnancy
If at the time of medical examination, a candidate is pregnant for 12 weeks or more, she shall be declared temporarily unfit until she has completed 6 weeks after confinement. After confinement, the candidate shall be required to produce a medical certificate of fitness from a registered medical practitioner before being called for a final medical examination.
<link no longer exists - removed>
Power Grid Corporation of India
Cases of pregnancy of 24 weeks or more at the time of medical examination will be temporarily unfit until completion of six weeks after miscarriage or 3 months after confinement. At the end of the period, a fresh examination is required.
Welcome To PowerGrid
Hope it helps HR professionals to understand the implications and become more sensitive and adept in their chosen profession. One does not know to what heights one's career in HR can take him (or her); and they would be better prepared to become truly Global HRs.
Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(2)Amend(0)
Raj, you have given lots of links. Thanks for the same, I will go through them.
Government and PSU Examples
First, many of them are for government and PSU, where neither efficiency nor costs matter. All of them have 2 years of fully paid child care leave. Tell me which private sector company has it? They won't because they have to worry about cost. So, I do not think the PSU examples are right. Further, in each case, they are to be declared temporarily unfit, meaning they are not to be recruited at that time.
Yahoo and Recruitment Practices
For the comment regarding Yahoo, I did not say in other cases women are taken for their benefit. I said in the case of Yahoo, they recruited a pregnant CEO because they desperately needed her. In other cases, American companies happily wait until the pregnancy is over. In every case, an employee is recruited for the company's benefit, and therefore they will recruit only where it makes sense given the expected disruption.
Understanding British and American Laws
Third, I do not know British law, so I would appreciate it if you can send me the equivalent of the Equal Opportunities Act to study. I know the American law. It does not require you to hire pregnant women. It, however, prevents you from discriminating against pregnant employees. In the USA, you are allowed to terminate anyone simply for having a medical problem that can disrupt work.
Employer Decision-Making
The point is, employers will hire what makes sense to them. Where it makes sense, like in the case of required skills or where the nature of work is such that it will not be disrupted or where training and retraining are not required (experienced candidate and discontinuity is okay), they will hire a pregnant person.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
Government and PSU Examples
First, many of them are for government and PSU, where neither efficiency nor costs matter. All of them have 2 years of fully paid child care leave. Tell me which private sector company has it? They won't because they have to worry about cost. So, I do not think the PSU examples are right. Further, in each case, they are to be declared temporarily unfit, meaning they are not to be recruited at that time.
Yahoo and Recruitment Practices
For the comment regarding Yahoo, I did not say in other cases women are taken for their benefit. I said in the case of Yahoo, they recruited a pregnant CEO because they desperately needed her. In other cases, American companies happily wait until the pregnancy is over. In every case, an employee is recruited for the company's benefit, and therefore they will recruit only where it makes sense given the expected disruption.
Understanding British and American Laws
Third, I do not know British law, so I would appreciate it if you can send me the equivalent of the Equal Opportunities Act to study. I know the American law. It does not require you to hire pregnant women. It, however, prevents you from discriminating against pregnant employees. In the USA, you are allowed to terminate anyone simply for having a medical problem that can disrupt work.
Employer Decision-Making
The point is, employers will hire what makes sense to them. Where it makes sense, like in the case of required skills or where the nature of work is such that it will not be disrupted or where training and retraining are not required (experienced candidate and discontinuity is okay), they will hire a pregnant person.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
Hi all, thank you for your contributions. I have read the discussions between Raj Kumar Hansdah and Saswata Bannerjee with interest. I feel that the discussion has digressed a bit away from the question raised by RK. The debate seems to be about the rights and wrongs of not employing a pregnant woman.
So, let me try to bring the discussions back on track. Please correct me if I am wrong in my interpretation of the question raised above. I think the question is, "Will there be any issues from the company's side if the information about the pregnancy (which the candidate knows about) is not disclosed at the time of the interview/job offer, and then the candidate claims maternity leave?"
At the outset, let me state that I am no HR expert, nor do I know the laws in India or elsewhere. To me, the question is one of trust. Please see the discussions on a similar topic at <link no longer exists - removed>.
Please also read the comments made by a female minister of the British Government about the burden on the National Health Service as a result of more girls studying medicine at Female doctors who work part-time after having children put NHS under strain - Telegraph.
So, you can imagine how private companies feel when they have to deal with the extra cost and disruption to service caused by employing female workers, especially when the candidate hides that information, trust is lost. I am sure there are enlightened companies that will employ pregnant workers if they are found suitable for the work.
I also know of people who are dishonest and bend/use the system. For example, I know of a person who took maternity leave and migrated with her husband to Australia for good but returned just after her leave expired and joined the work before the summer holidays in a university and then resigned from the job.
From United Kingdom
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
So, let me try to bring the discussions back on track. Please correct me if I am wrong in my interpretation of the question raised above. I think the question is, "Will there be any issues from the company's side if the information about the pregnancy (which the candidate knows about) is not disclosed at the time of the interview/job offer, and then the candidate claims maternity leave?"
At the outset, let me state that I am no HR expert, nor do I know the laws in India or elsewhere. To me, the question is one of trust. Please see the discussions on a similar topic at <link no longer exists - removed>.
Please also read the comments made by a female minister of the British Government about the burden on the National Health Service as a result of more girls studying medicine at Female doctors who work part-time after having children put NHS under strain - Telegraph.
So, you can imagine how private companies feel when they have to deal with the extra cost and disruption to service caused by employing female workers, especially when the candidate hides that information, trust is lost. I am sure there are enlightened companies that will employ pregnant workers if they are found suitable for the work.
I also know of people who are dishonest and bend/use the system. For example, I know of a person who took maternity leave and migrated with her husband to Australia for good but returned just after her leave expired and joined the work before the summer holidays in a university and then resigned from the job.
From United Kingdom
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
Let me add my experience and perspective on this subject.
As a female, I would say that it is a huge dilemma for the one who is going through it. Both are such wonderful news—getting an offer from a big organization and being pregnant—but ironically, letting go of either would leave a sad trail.
Anyhow, looking at it practically, the lady has got an offer based on her capability; hence, there is no doubt about her experience or knowledge. Since it is a big organization, I am sure they would ask her to go through the pre-employment medical checkup, and the result will be in their hands. So, there is no question of the candidate separately declaring her pregnancy. Thereafter, if the company is pursuing the candidate for joining, it clearly reflects the employer as a progressive and fair employer. If the employer withdraws the offer, then it is unfortunate; better not to join such an organization. The candidate is capable of finding another assignment whenever she wants.
Lastly, I will share my experience. I had a female boss who was pregnant while joining a Tata company. The company had no problem, but of course, the colleagues had their perspectives. When they were questioning, she simply answered that she herself was not aware of the pregnancy because she had a different pre-existing condition which had similar symptoms. All questions disappeared thereafter. She joined the company as an executive, worked with them for 10 years, and exited as a Deputy Manager - HR. She is now the Director - HR in another big organization.
Hope my experience and inputs are useful in some way.
Regards
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(2)Amend(0)
As a female, I would say that it is a huge dilemma for the one who is going through it. Both are such wonderful news—getting an offer from a big organization and being pregnant—but ironically, letting go of either would leave a sad trail.
Anyhow, looking at it practically, the lady has got an offer based on her capability; hence, there is no doubt about her experience or knowledge. Since it is a big organization, I am sure they would ask her to go through the pre-employment medical checkup, and the result will be in their hands. So, there is no question of the candidate separately declaring her pregnancy. Thereafter, if the company is pursuing the candidate for joining, it clearly reflects the employer as a progressive and fair employer. If the employer withdraws the offer, then it is unfortunate; better not to join such an organization. The candidate is capable of finding another assignment whenever she wants.
Lastly, I will share my experience. I had a female boss who was pregnant while joining a Tata company. The company had no problem, but of course, the colleagues had their perspectives. When they were questioning, she simply answered that she herself was not aware of the pregnancy because she had a different pre-existing condition which had similar symptoms. All questions disappeared thereafter. She joined the company as an executive, worked with them for 10 years, and exited as a Deputy Manager - HR. She is now the Director - HR in another big organization.
Hope my experience and inputs are useful in some way.
Regards
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(2)Amend(0)
The Importance of Supporting Pregnant Employees
All the reluctance to employ a pregnant woman stems from the belief that she should be given leave, and during that period, her services are not available. However, what is she doing during her absence? She is raising the next generation for the country. Bosses, whether male or female, who take a negative attitude toward employing pregnant women should remember that they were also born to a woman.
My former colleague's wife works in a Tata company. There was a boss in the company who would give only low ratings in the appraisal to his female subordinate who took maternity leave in the year of review. Many such employees suffered due to this. Somebody informed Ratan Tata about this, and he ordered a review of all such cases.
There is another company that started in Kerala (an apparel unit) and finally shifted to another state because they refused to give maternity benefits to female employees (the majority of the employees were women). After every maternity leave, they would reappoint them as new employees. When politicians, unions, and the labor department got involved, they shifted.
Regards,
Varghese Mathew
From India, Thiruvananthapuram
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
All the reluctance to employ a pregnant woman stems from the belief that she should be given leave, and during that period, her services are not available. However, what is she doing during her absence? She is raising the next generation for the country. Bosses, whether male or female, who take a negative attitude toward employing pregnant women should remember that they were also born to a woman.
My former colleague's wife works in a Tata company. There was a boss in the company who would give only low ratings in the appraisal to his female subordinate who took maternity leave in the year of review. Many such employees suffered due to this. Somebody informed Ratan Tata about this, and he ordered a review of all such cases.
There is another company that started in Kerala (an apparel unit) and finally shifted to another state because they refused to give maternity benefits to female employees (the majority of the employees were women). After every maternity leave, they would reappoint them as new employees. When politicians, unions, and the labor department got involved, they shifted.
Regards,
Varghese Mathew
From India, Thiruvananthapuram
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
Maternity Leave Policy - posting.doc