Would you ever disclose that you are pregnant in a cover letter for a job application?

[Jas12]

A good job opportunity has come up and I really should apply. Problem is, I am nearly 5 mos pregnant. It''s obviously not great timing, but since it is a government position (canadian government is really amazing about benefits, equal opportunities & not discriminating against potential employees for various reasons) i feel like i can''t pass up the slim chance.
On the other hand, it seems crazy to apply and possibly get hired, only to work for a month or so and then go on mat leave for a year !

Although i could cover the pregnancy with a suit jacket and a scarf or something if i really wanted to at this point, that doesn''t seem right to me. And i know government jobs take their sweet time with the hiring process so it may even be a month or more before i get a call for an interview. I won''t be able to hide the belly then. I was thinking of disclosing this as tactfully as possible in my CV, but everything i''ve read says not to.
But i dunno. what do you think?

 

[meresal]

Never...

Would you disclose that you are on medication for something? Don't offer information freely, that they aren't allowed to ask you about.

ETA: You shouldn't "hide" it on purpose... however, you shouldn't wear a sign letting people know either. If they notice, they notice. You do not need to be the one to tell them though.

 

[April20]

I would not. They''ll figure it out soon enough when they interview you- assuming it takes a few weeks to get one. Don''t give them any reason to pass you over before they''ve even met you.

 

[radiantquest]

Nope, I wouldn''t.

 

[janinegirly]

In a cover letter, absolutely not. Whether or not you re pregnant has no impact on your qualifications as a job candidate.

In a interview, I would make mention of it informally. Not for any real reason other than it makes sense in light of the fact that it will be physically apparent you are pregnant and it will help the conversation flow better rather have it be the elephant in the room so to speak. And it does have a direct impact on the question of "when will you be able to start?".

Still it should have no affect their hiring decision. I have a few friends who took on new jobs while at the same stage of pg as you..meaning they worked 3 mo's and then went on maternity leave. Of course once they returned expectations were pretty high since they hadn't yet produced but already exhausted benefits etc.l

 

[jewelz617]

I don''t think I would. They can''t discriminate, but it might really inconvenience them if they need someone full time for an extended amount of time... if you''re going to be going on maternity leave right after you start then you will have to be confident that the job will be waiting for you when you return.

 

[cara]

Ditto the others, NOT the cover letter. Its too easy for them to let that affect their interview decision. If you get an interview, then disclose. Well, only because you have to. Ideally you would wait until a job offer is made.

 

[Bella_mezzo]

Nope, and I would try to dress it down in an interview. The time to talk about that is after you have a written offer IMO. The only exception for me, would be if it was a small business where I knew it would be a huge problem for them and in that case I probably wouldn''t apply

 

[noelwr]

I would not mention it in the letter, but I would not hide it in the interview.

 

[janinegirly]

Date: 1/14/2010 11:33:12 AM
Author: noelwr
I would not mention it in the letter, but I would not hide it in the interview.

I know I already said this, but I def would not hide in an interview. I don''t think it''s something that should be hidden like it''s a hindrance!

I know I''m biased but to me working moms are proven multi-taskers and usually highly motivated, so geesh, I would look at it postively from that perspective. The negative aspect, however, is, oh can this person be on board 100% or will they take 3 months off and then need training after, etc. These are all legit aspects to consider when hiring someone.

 

[Jas12]

Thanks for the input everyone, i don''t think i could or would hide it in the interview , but i''ll cross that bridge if i come to it, have to run to an appnt. but will read thru the posts later.

 

[steph72276]

No! Not on the CV....like others have said, it would be too easy for them to pass you up for an interview if it''s written on there. And I know things are a LOT different with maternity leave in Canada, but I don''t think I could feel good about taking a job, working for a month, and then taking a whole year off. I would just look for something different while you are off on mat. leave, but that''s me.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Date: 1/14/2010 12:35:51 PM
Author: steph72276
No! Not on the CV....like others have said, it would be too easy for them to pass you up for an interview if it''s written on there. And I know things are a LOT different with maternity leave in Canada, but I don''t think I could feel good about taking a job, working for a month, and then taking a whole year off. I would just look for something different while you are off on mat. leave, but that''s me.

Steph''s comment, "I don''t think I could feel good about taking a job, working for a month, and then taking a whole year off," is about how I''d feel too. Is it ethical to apply for a job knowing you''d be leaving about a month and then taking a year off? Is it fair to the other applicants who would be available to work at the job during that year?

Just a thought.

Anyway, back to the question. . .no reason to mentioned your pregnancy on your cover letter.

 

[swingirl]

You might get the job but don''t expect to be well liked by your manager and co-workers when they realize the obvious and have to scramble to cover for you for a year or hire someone else--who, after a year on the job, will be a more valuable employee than yourself.

Of course you aren''t obligated to disclose any medical condition or personal information about your future plans.

 

[Mara]

No. They may not ever say it but you would probably get passed over...based on your pregnancy not your skill set.

I would apply, see if you get chosen to interview, make it through 2-3 rounds and then gauge the situation. They are not allowed to ask... but if you did decide to take the job if it was offered I would definitely disclose that up front.

Some companies based on your skill set would be willing to wait for you to return. I'd just be sure to have full disclosure by the time you 'took the job'... but not in the app phase.

 

[luckystar112]

I just can''t imagine that ever working in America. Does Canada pay for the whole year too, or are they just supposed to hold the job for you?

 

[Mara]

Americans get shafted re: maternity big time compared to other countries.

I have coworkers in the UK and Germany who take 1-2 years off and yes they get paid either the whole time or a fair amt of the time and also they get job protection. Also in AU they get at least 6 months or a year I think.

I heard in Germany that it is not uncommon for women to take the 2 years they get off and then come back newly pregnant just to leave again like 7 months later for another 2 years.

One of my coworkers in the UK is out with her 2nd child and plans to be gone for a year. She still checks email and corresponds with us from time to time but I can''t imagine being out of work for a whole year then coming back. Everything would be so crazy different!

 

[ChinaCat]

Jas-

Ditto the others- I would not put it in a cover letter. But I wouldn''t hide it in the interview and I would probably mention it- and mention it in a way that was positive. In the US it''s illegal for a potential employer to ask if you are pregnant or planning on having babies, but it might be awkward if it''s obvious.

FWIW, I interviewed for a job when I was around 6 or 7 months pregnant. They knew ahead of time, thankfully, but it didn''t matter and I got the job. I know it''s different for you since your mat leave is one year, but honestly women have babies and take mat leave and they tend to expect it out of women our age.

Good luck!

 

[Pandora II]

No I wouldn't mention it. You are not obliged to tell them.

I have several friends who have got jobs when they were 6/7 months pregnant. They both took the full 12 months maternity leave and the companies had no problem with it.

Mara - you are right about the time off we all get. My SIL has one of the best packages I have ever seen - a full 12 months on full pay

. You also accrue your normal holidays and other benefits so she actually gets more like 14 months. She and my brother want 2 kids so I think the plan is for her get KTFU pretty fast after finishing her first maternity leave.

Companies here know the score regarding maternity leave and good benefits in that department are a way of attracting and keeping good employees.

 

[Pandora II]

Date: 1/14/2010 1:33:07 PM
Author: MC

Date: 1/14/2010 12:35:51 PM
Author: steph72276
No! Not on the CV....like others have said, it would be too easy for them to pass you up for an interview if it''s written on there. And I know things are a LOT different with maternity leave in Canada, but I don''t think I could feel good about taking a job, working for a month, and then taking a whole year off. I would just look for something different while you are off on mat. leave, but that''s me.

Steph''s comment, ''I don''t think I could feel good about taking a job, working for a month, and then taking a whole year off,'' is about how I''d feel too. Is it ethical to apply for a job knowing you''d be leaving about a month and then taking a year off? Is it fair to the other applicants who would be available to work at the job during that year?

Just a thought.

Anyway, back to the question. . .no reason to mentioned your pregnancy on your cover letter.

Why would it not be ethical?

If you are qualified for a position and a company wants you to work for them enough to hire you then why should it be ''unethical'' to take off a year that you have paid your taxes towards and that you and your child both need developmentally?

If the other applicants were as good then they would have been given the job - if they''re runner-up then there is always the possibility of being the ''maternity cover''.

The only unethical thing I have really seen is the USA''s maternity policies which are rather stuck in the Dark Ages!

 

[luckystar112]

But how does a company stay in business paying 2 people for 1 job? Are they reimbursed by the government or something?

 

[steph72276]

I never said it was unethical...I just don't see how that would be FAIR to go to work for someone for 1 month, then take a year's paid vacation. I would see it totally differently if the person had been there for a while, but they would have to train 1 person, only to send them home for a year, interview and hire a replacement, train them, get to know them, then let them go and get the new person to come back in and get into the groove of things after having been gone for a whole year. But yes, if they would want her that badly, then that would be up to them to go through that whole process. The situation Mara described seems unfair as well. What if, for example a woman has 4 children back to back and takes 2 years off each time. So the company has to shell out double pay for 8 years? Is there a policy that limits number of children you can take maternity pay for? I'm not judging at all, I'm just truly wondering how this is profitable at all for companies?

 

[luckystar112]

Date: 1/14/2010 6:02:57 PM
Author: steph72276
I never said it was unethical...I just don''t see how that would be FAIR to go to work for someone for 1 month, then take a year''s paid vacation. I would see it totally differently if the person had been there for a while, but they would have to train 1 person, only to send them home for a year, interview and hire a replacement, train them, get to know them, then let them go and get the new person to come back in and get into the groove of things after having been gone for a whole year. But yes, if they would want her that badly, then that would be up to them to go through that whole process. The situation Mara described seems unfair as well. What if, for example a woman has 4 children back to back and takes 2 years off each time. So the company has to shell out double pay for 8 years? Is there a policy that limits number of children you can take maternity pay for? I''m not judging at all, I''m just truly wondering how this is profitable at all for companies?

And what happens if at the end of the year you decide not to come back--do you have to pay back the money? Or what if something happens that would make returning to work impossible (disability, death)? Would you have to pay the money back then?

 

[steph72276]

Oh and Pandora, I don't think anyone said anything rude here, just truly wondering how different systems work. In fact, in another thread a few days ago, I said I think we would have less stay at home moms in the US if we had a better system for maternity leave. There is no need to bash the US though, I think that was uncalled for

 

[cdt1101]

Steph - I don't think Pandora was bashing the US, I think she was stating the obvious...compared to other countries we (the US) ARE WAY behind regarding maternity leave.

I was pulled of work early because of some complications w/ my pregnancy so combined w/ the 6 months I requested in advance, I ended up being out for 8 months. Honestly, when I came back I felt revived and ready to work! I was very grateful to my company for allowing me the time to spend w/ my son and personally I think it HELPED my job performance. And for me at least, it felt as though I never left. I was able to resume my job responsibilities w/ no problem.

 

[Pandora II]

Date: 1/14/2010 6:11:38 PM
Author: luckystar112

Date: 1/14/2010 6:02:57 PM
Author: steph72276
I never said it was unethical...I just don''t see how that would be FAIR to go to work for someone for 1 month, then take a year''s paid vacation. I would see it totally differently if the person had been there for a while, but they would have to train 1 person, only to send them home for a year, interview and hire a replacement, train them, get to know them, then let them go and get the new person to come back in and get into the groove of things after having been gone for a whole year. But yes, if they would want her that badly, then that would be up to them to go through that whole process. The situation Mara described seems unfair as well. What if, for example a woman has 4 children back to back and takes 2 years off each time. So the company has to shell out double pay for 8 years? Is there a policy that limits number of children you can take maternity pay for? I''m not judging at all, I''m just truly wondering how this is profitable at all for companies?

And what happens if at the end of the year you decide not to come back--do you have to pay back the money? Or what if something happens that would make returning to work impossible (disability, death)? Would you have to pay the money back then?

First, yes you could have 4 children back to back. There are no limits on how many children you can have. Your position is entirely protected as soon as you are pregnant - you can only be laid off under certain circumstances affecting the whole business and even then you would be entitled to the first appropriate vacancy above all other staff members.

It is very normal to see positions advertised as maternity cover and it''s a great way for younger people to get great job experience - and often the chance of a fulltime job.

For most places you get 90% of your salary for the first 6 weeks, the Statutory Maternity Pay for the next 33 weeks. You have the option of taking an additional 13 weeks unpaid. The government pays this money so it costs the company nothing except your extra benefits such as holidays (at least 28 days), pension contributions and any other non-salary benefits (healthcare/car etc).

However if your company wants to attract and retain female staff, then they will pay extra. Mine paid 3 months full salary, 3 months half and then 3 months Statutory plus all my usual benefits.

If at the end of the year you decide not to go back then that is your perogative - you don''t have to pay back anything. You also have the right to request part-time or flexi-hours on your return to work. This is why doing maternity cover CAN be a good way into a fulltime position,

I''m afraid I disagree Steph, I think there is a very real need to ''bash'' the USA here. I read the posts on the Preggo threads with horror and sadness at mothers and babies being separated at such very young ages. I can''t see that that is good for anyone. Just because a country screws up over one issue doesn''t mean it''s bad on others.

I am the first to criticise some of the crappy stuff we have in the UK - 12 month wait for an MRI scan

etc. We have decent maternity rights here because women have refused to put up with what there was in the past just as they did in other European countries and Canada, so systems can be changed.

 

[steph72276]

Pandora, thank you for the further explanation. And Jas, very sorry about the threadjack. I was truly interested in how other systems work and how companies and government can stay afloat with these policies, but I realize that didn''t have anything to do with your original topic. Best of luck to you in whatever you decide to do!

 

[Mara]

from a BUSINESS perspective, I do wonder how companies can really 'afford' to continually subsidize their employees rights to have children if they have an amazing package like some of the European countries.

from a PERSONAL perspective, I wish that the US had better policies like the rest of the world when it came to protecting Moms because heck yeah I'd like to stay home for a year and get paid!

I do think it's a little crazy though when I heard that story how in Germany (and obviously this is not all of Germany, or all Moms just an anecdote) that sometimes people will go out the 2 years, get paid, then come back pregnant and leave again in like 7 months for 2 years.

Here in CA we have great benefits compared to the rest of the US. Other states have their Moms go back after 6-8 weeks! That is just crazy. We get 14 weeks, but it's partial pay. And that is a small 'partial' depending on how much you make, the maximums are pretty low. AND you have to work for a company for 6 months or a year to get addtl corp benefits. Two of my coworkers who are preggo have been here like 6 and 9 months SO they will only be able to take 6 weeks at partial pay and then have to return or get no pay or use their PTO. I am so sad they have to come back at 6 weeks. Oh and we don't accrue PTO while gone either.

Actually Jas thinking of what I typed ... in Canada do you have to be there for a period of time like most companies require in the US? Because if so then you might not even qualify for benefits?

 

[neatfreak]

I think there''s a difference between them WANTING to hire you suspecting or knowing that you are pregnant vs. actively lying/hiding it from them.

If Jas applies to the job and gets an interview-they will clearly know she is pregnant. If they choose to hire her after that-it isn''t unethical because they made the choice.

That being said Jas I agree to cross that bridge when you get to it! Don''t put it in the cover letter.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Date: 1/14/2010 5:50:40 PM
Author: Pandora II

Why would it not be ethical?
The only unethical thing I have really seen is the USA''s maternity policies which are rather stuck in the Dark Ages!

Pandora - I agree that US maternity does suck.

I do have a thought on ethics and began typing it out and then changed my mind and deleted. Realizing all I may end up doing is offending someone, it''ll be better just to drop it. I don''t want to debate.