Reply to: Pregnancy/Maternity Questions

[NotAllThere]

I think this topic is now satisfactorily mined. Thread closed.

[formant]

Within a contract, they may not have to give a reason (usually they do not) and so could side step this issue. However as you quite correctly point out, they could terminate the contract at any time.

Good luck with both the role and the birth.

Thank you - we'll see if they let me keep the role!

I just gave that as an example to show that not even a normal employer has liability in such circumstances and couldn't sack an employee just because they fear they might have been liable retrospectively. If an employer is not liable, then a client most definitely isn't either. So if they're going to terminate my contract (which they're free to do at any point) it won't be as a result of an actual breach on my part.

[BA to the Stars]

Sacking an employee because they've traveled prior to them advising the company of their pregnancy is automatic unfair dismissal in a generic employment situation.

Within a contract, they may not have to give a reason (usually they do not) and so could side step this issue. However as you quite correctly point out, they could terminate the contract at any time.

Good luck with both the role and the birth.

[formant]

Quite right. The client probably has a vicarious liability over and above the risks covered by your travel insurance because you are flying at their request.

That actually has zero legal grounding. Sure they can terminate my contract based on such false preconceptions, but goodness they can terminate my contract anytime they please anyway.

Once again: There is no legal requirement to inform your employer of a pregnancy prior to reaching 25 weeks. Risk assessments and health and safety liability relating to the pregnancy only kick in once they know. The client isn't my employer, so it's likely they'll have even less liability. I've never had to get my own travel insurance whilst travelling for an employer for example, so the fact that that's required now should tell you that the client is doing their bit to ensure they couldn't possibly be held liable for anything that happens during this trip - irrespective of any 'pre-existing conditions'. If they had any liability, I'm pretty sure they'd insist on an occupational health survey prior to sending me away, as many employers would do.

Sacking an employee because they've traveled prior to them advising the company of their pregnancy is automatic unfair dismissal in a generic employment situation.

[Taita]

No, the company will be scared witless as they sent you on behalf of the client which opens them up to attack. Slim has nothing to do with anything. If there is the remotest chance the company will want to cover themselves. The fact they booked your flights involves them. For example. I did a lot of long haul with my current client. I booked and paid for all flights and invoiced it back. Despite all this I had to book any flights over 6 hours long as business class or better. They expected anyone travelling on behalf of the company, regardless of employment status or booking methods to adhere to this for H&S reasons. The thinking... if someone were to die of Deep Vein Thrombosis the company would be investigated which is expensive and time consuming even if they were not liable... and how many people die of DVT?

Do not underestimate the lengths companies will go to to avoid being put at risk by things like this. Travelling whilst not advising them of your situation is likely to get you instantly terminated, specialist or not.

Quite right. The client probably has a vicarious liability over and above the risks covered by your travel insurance because you are flying at their request.

[formant]

Happy for the thread to die (although the OP is actually keeping it going herself when she got her answer ages ago) and happy to agree to disagree that in my opinion this is not an approach i'd advocate if in a position of choice.

Although I've written more than I had wanted here, you have an incredibly poor idea of what 'choice' I really have here. What I personally wouldn't advocate here or anywhere is traditionalist sexism, but quite frankly that's totally cool with most people here, so oh well, suit yourself.

Looking ripe for a mod-locking of this thread soon...

Yes, please. My original questions have long been answered, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who's been bored to bits with this discussion.

[fckvwls]

Yeah, ok, I get'cha now. I'm outta here!

QED

[captainham]

I agree the op has the answers she was looking for. My post was in response to her continued attempt in this thread to justify either to herself or the collective her planned approach. Happy for the thread to die (although the OP is actually keeping it going herself when she got her answer ages ago) and happy to agree to disagree that in my opinion this is not an approach i'd advocate if in a position of choice.

Yeah, ok, I get'cha now. I'm outta here!

[formant]

Continue to justify your planned actions by performing whatever research you like. At the end of the day you are choosing the option that suits you best when you are in a position of choice and effectively outsourcing your responsibilities.

Exactly, I'm choosing to do what's best for me, with full support from my other half. In the long run a happy, financially stable family life is going benefit the child more than a miserable attachment parent.

Whether someone with a misguided moral stick up their bum thinks that's wrong because I'm 'outsourcing my responsibilities', doesn't concern me in the least.

And 'outsourcing responsibilities'? Well I sure prefer to outsource a few hours of childcare per week to outsourcing the responsibility of providing for the family entirely to my other half. Also, once again, childrearing is no more the mother's responsibility than it is the father's. Welcome to the modern world.

[fullyautomatix]

Oooh. Me? Is it me? Please Miss? I haven't had a turn for ages.



Sorry. Couldn't resist.

Nah, it's me. She just hates me.

[fckvwls]

Not really sure what the point is of any further posts like this...OP has the info she came looking for, or as good as she'll get from here anyway, and regardless of what people's own opinions are on the topic, it's irrelevant to keep having a pop.

Looking ripe for a mod-locking of this thread soon...

I agree the op has the answers she was looking for. My post was in response to her continued attempt in this thread to justify either to herself or the collective her planned approach. Happy for the thread to die (although the OP is actually keeping it going herself when she got her answer ages ago) and happy to agree to disagree that in my opinion this is not an approach i'd advocate if in a position of choice.

[captainham]

Continue to justify your planned actions by performing whatever research you like. At the end of the day you are choosing the option that suits you best when you are in a position of choice and effectively outsourcing your responsibilities.

Not really sure what the point is of any further posts like this...OP has the info she came looking for, or as good as she'll get from here anyway, and regardless of what people's own opinions are on the topic, it's irrelevant to keep having a pop.

Looking ripe for a mod-locking of this thread soon...

[fckvwls]

Continue to justify your planned actions by performing whatever research you like. At the end of the day you are choosing the option that suits you best when you are in a position of choice and effectively outsourcing your responsibilities.

[formant]

Our preconceptions are shaped by what's most common in our environment - If you do a google on the topic of when to return to work you'll find very different views on US sites/discussions . Maternity leave there seldomly extends past 6 weeks, but often not even that's allowed without the risk of losing one's job. Taking only two weeks doesn't seem to be uncommon there at all, depending on the type of work (and I probably have the ideal type of work for that). Lurking over at Netmums (UK), plenty of UK mothers have also successfully returned to work after 2-4 weeks, often in physically much 'tougher' environments like retail, often no doubt pushed by financial necessity. It really isn't just a movie or tv scenario.

So yeah, I think the UK and European perception as to how much time is 'necessary' strongly correlates with what's allowed and the norm in standard employment. And for every 'my wife totally changed her mind and never went back to work' you'll easily find a mother saying just how bored she got with maternity leave and how for the next child she wants to return to work much earlier. Having spoken to a number of female friends and acquaintances who have had children, neither of them state that they would not have been physically or mentally able to do my type of job after 2 weeks - two of them (freelance WFH researchers/journalists) have done exactly that in fact and coped fine. So, seriously, unless I suffer from some seriously horrible complications, I have no reason to expect this to go completely belly up.

[formant]

Oooh. Me? Is it me? Please Miss? I haven't had a turn for ages.



Sorry. Couldn't resist.

Hint: It was a pretty direct response to the quote I posted.

Other than that....if the shoe fits...*shrug*