We all hate discrimination, right? We all know that we can’t discriminate against people because of their race or ethnicity. We can’t discriminate against women. We can’t discriminate based on a person’s religion or age. And, in many locales, we can’t discriminate based on sexual orientation (hopefully, one day I can say all locales). Discrimination is Bad and we hate it!
Except when we don’t. Apparently, there is one group of candidates that still seems to be getting the shaft noticeably more than they should be. According to LifeInc on the Today Show, that group of candidates is expectant mothers.
Okay…what the heck, people. Say it with me…”We do not discriminate against expectant mothers.”
Here’s the thing. I know people discriminate. Sometimes intentionally, sometimes not. Of course, some hiring managers aren’t going to want to hire a person only to have them leave after a few months to bring life into the world and junk. They want someone immediately! Someone who will hit the ground running without looking back. However, there’s a small problem with choosing expediency in many cases. It’s called the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. And, hey…recruiters, I am pretty sure you know about this law. In case you’ve forgotten, here’s a refresher from the EEOC.
That’s right…I am calling out any HR person or recruiter who has ever passed on a candidate because she was pregnant. It’s not allowed…plain and simple. In the same way you can’t choose to decline a deaf person or a Catholic or a person with 80s hair, you can’t decide not to hire someone because she is expecting.
With that out of the way, let’s move off of why it’s illegal to discriminate and onto why it’s stupid.
Think about it. You spend time sourcing, screening, interviewing, negotiating, yadda yadda yadda. Recruiting takes time. It is not unnatural for a search to take three or more months. And, then you find the person. The person who you’ve been waiting for! This person is perfect! All the skills you need. The background that’s a perfect match. Oh, but wait…her belly is looking a little large and I don’t think it’s from too many chicken wings. Nope…won’t hire this person.
Really? Really. So they need to take a little break. Big whoop. Hire a temp for 3 months. It seems like a small price to pay for the best (wo)man for the job, doesn’t it. Not only are you finding the employee you’ve been looking for, but moms make good employees in general. GALTime.com gives you 5 reasons why.
Professionalism: Moms are setting an example. They are not going to impress people by showing up late or by coming unprepared.
Schedule Coordination: Nobody is a better time manager than a mom. I promise that coordinating snack, nap and karate is much easier than organizing meetings in Outlook.
Organizational Ability: Along the same lines, moms have to juggle bottle, binky, blanket, and booze (for her, not the kid). And, they have to do it one handed while covered in barf. Sounds pretty easy compared to making sure someone turned in their TPS reports.
Loyalty: This is a biggie. Moms (and dads) appreciate flexible work environments. Flexibility is appreciated and it will show in both performance and overall loyalty to you and your company.
People Management: Moms see the person, not just the employee. People make a company. People of diverse backgrounds and work styles. Moms have a knack for patience when dealing with any work style.
Maybe I’m generalizing…but, I get super annoyed when I read articles like the one above. Discrimination is illegal, stupid, and did I mention, illegal? It’s our jobs to make sure this doesn’t happen. So, let’s get on it.
I hate the claim that mothers are all (fill in the blank — organized, prepared, have good time management skills, are all good employees, etc.). It’s condescending to women and treats them as a group rather than individuals. Some moms are disorganized and have terrible time management skills. Some aren’t nurturing managers, despite having given birth. The horror! Motherhood really says nothing about what someone is like as an employee.
In an attempt to be egalitarian, this article goes right around the corner into sexist.
Alison, I’m actually okay with this post. Jason isn’t writing a PhD thesis on gender equality. His thesis is simple: don’t discriminate because it’s wrong. If you’re an HR pro, your job is to fight discrimination.
That doesn’t suck.
And if you look at some of the data collected and published by SHRM’s workflex initiatives, they support Jason’s generalizations about motherhood/women/families.
So it’s not really a sexist generalization. Jason just doesn’t cite sources. And I’m okay with that, too. This is a blog, not an academic article.
JP – Like the post. For all the reasons you mention, having some pregnant in front of you is actually MORE reason to hire them if they’re the best candidate. Here’s where it gets tricky:
1. Intent to continue working – can you ask that question? Most people would tell you no, which means that rather than having a real conversation about whether they will continue to work (most people would say, JP, ” I have to work, there’s no chance of me having that flexibility financially”), you go the other way because of the unknown.
Law of unintended consequences. The law actually prevents that real conversation, which many times is needed to get hiring managers over the hump for the best candidate available – who happens to have a natural childbirth class scheduled after your interview.
That’s the only question i want to ask. Dicey to do that now based on the fear.
KD
Alison –
Just saw your comment when I put mine up there. If I read JP’s post, I think he’s talking about the Mom-to-be who’s already the best candidate – he outlined that before he got general with it. Most of the time those candidates are going to be what JP described. They have to be in order to be the best.
It’s a stretch to come in and use the word sexist in the comments here. Chill out.
KD
Did you tell Alison to chill out? COME ON. That’s lame.
Alison…I have to chuckle and wonder if you are secretly my wife posting under a pseudonym. She proofreads all my posts and actually made a similar comment about generalization and potential “reverse discrimination.” I reworded a bit on her recommendation, but perhaps it wasn’t enough.
Rest assured, to KDs point, I am not saying all moms are better employees. Simply that there are many many more reasons to move forward with the best candidate despite the fact that they are pregnant. If you want to think that’s sexist, I don’t know if I’ll be able to change your mind. Bottom line: discrimination sucks.
KD…great points and I know it definitely gets sticky. My team hired a recruiter a few years back while she was pregnant. She worked for a couple months and then left for Mat leave (MS gives you 6 months, BTW). Came back and is one of the top recruiters on the team. But, we have also seen new moms who have decided not to come back when they hit the end of that leave. My gut/hope/optimism/whatever makes me think that if they are actively interviewing, they are already well on their way to making the decision that they will keep on working.
Kris, thanks, but disagreeing doesn’t instantly make someone a harpy who needs to chill out.
I’d have to agree with Alison — I do find this concept a bit sexist. Just because someone is a Mom does not make them automatically more organized, more loyal, more professional etc. Giving birth is not a magic wand which confers reliability or skill in itself. I know plenty of women who are not mothers who are fabulous at what they do, and don’t require children to be organized, loyal, patient or any other beneficial trait you may think of.
Although I do understand that you are discussing the issue of discriminating against a woman just because she may be visibly pregnant, and agree completely that discrimination needs to be eliminated, I think perhaps caution is required in making motherhood in and of itself into reason for conferring sainthood.
You state that hiring the best candidate is key, whether that candidate is visibly pregnant or not. I agree! However, the remainder of the article does suggest to me that discrimination against the non-pregnant/non-mother could arise if we believe that motherhood alone makes a great employee.
It’s quite a stretch to attribute positive attributes to professionals based on the fact that they happen to be mothers. (For example, don’t we all know moms out there that can’t be on time to save their lives?) All discrimination is wrong and I appreciate the thought behind the post. Unfortunately, attributing sexist stereotypes to women doesn’t help the cause.
Yea, I agree with Allison. Employers should ultimately treat expecting women the same as any other candidate– they shouldn’t generalize and assume that her motherhood would somehow make her a better employee. I think the argument in this article is completely backwards.
Alison – you’re absolutely right – disagreeing and providing a forum for that is key to this blog – and we’ve got a pretty good history of providing that, so I’ll let the record stand in that regard.
The reason I felt compelled to come in and tell you how I viewed it and also ask you to chill is the following – you’ve got a history recently of commenting 5, 6 and 7 times and basically refusing to let anyone else have the last word after you’ve said what you wanted to say. You made your point, others after you are chiming in and agreeing with at least part of what you said. That should be good enough. Can you resist the temptation to chime in again and go after me for explaining myself? We’ll see. You are always welcome here, but that’s my explanation and expectation.
Melanie and Tracy – thanks for noting you understood what JP was going after when he wrote this even as you talk about the other side. It’s an angle that JP noted his own wife (a mom and a professional recruiter, BTW) had – I’m interested to see how my wife feels as well.
The bottom line is a good candidate is a good candidate, and the discrimination JP outlines hurts those people with the right stuff to do the job. I’m guessing we all know a bad candidate without the right stuff when we see it, and having worked with JP, I know he can tell the difference better than most.
KD
I think you guys need to read Jason’s comment and post again -he isn’t saying all mom’s have those qualities, but why would you be hiring a candidate who was sloppy and disorganized? You wouldn’t, you’d hire some who could do the job well. I assumed he called those qualities out as a way to point out the good reasons to hire a mother, who is generally a multi-Tasker. And he never said only motherhood gets you there. This is the least sexist article I’ve encountered all week… And as a pregnant woman – THANK you for recognizing the value I can bring, even if we have to wait a bit longer for full results.
Wow. That’s way off-base. Call it refusing to let anyone else have the last word if you want, but that was one post that turned into a dialogue (Meredith’s recent one), not a “history.” I’ve commented on maybe five FOT posts in its whole history, and only one more than once (plus now this one). So it seems to me that what’s bothering you here is having a columnist called out for being, in both cases, kind of offensive.
Blog comment sections are for dialogue; that’s how I see it at my blog, at least. If you guys don’t want that, that’s totally cool and I’ll exit — but it’s not typical for blogs. Comment sections aren’t usually just cheering sections.
And while I’m not one to see sexism everywhere, there’s something a bit rich about a man telling a woman to “chill out” in an off-the-cuff way after she calmly points out a sexist statement. I do think there’s often an “old boys club” attitude at FOT, which could benefit you guys to consider.
In any case, you’ve made your stance clear and I’ll be glad to respect it by not commenting in the future.
Alison – I’m sorry you feel that way. You’re welcome to comment here anytime, and we’re having the dialog you mentioned right now. I’m a fan of your blog and have referred it to others many, many times.
As far as the old boys club comment, not sure what to do with that. I’ll have to let everyone else make their own call on that. I think the record is pretty strong related to letting everyone speak their mind at FOT, both in posts and comments. For the record, I grew up around working women, have a professional wife and a business partner who’s a woman. While I’m not perfect, I think I get a lot of the challenges based on those experiences.
I just think before stuff starts getting slung around too heavy, everyone should look at the context of what Jason was trying to say. Doesn’t feel like I should hang on the sidelines and leave that unsaid.
KD
Agree w Kelsey….having been discriminated against by a manager (who was a mother…) when I got pregnant on a job I’d been at for several years- I found myself looking for work at 5 months preg. A scary place to be, I interviewed for a job and knew I was the best candidate and I rocked the interview and I wanted the job. I addressed the elephant “Would I be coming back?” I not only got the job, I ended up on bed rest two months after starting…my boss stood behind me and was amazing when I came back. I think generalizations are going to happen…in this case JP is trying to cover the right side of intent and help others get out of their way in hiring the best talent they can.
JP –
When I was 25 and 5 months pregnant, I started interviewing for a new gig. When I was offered the job I mentioned, hey, I am preggers (it was hard to tell), and I’d need the 6 weeks off from March to May. The boss that hired me? One of the best I’ve ever had…she rocked and actually gave me the pathway to eventually work from home full time in my future sourcing career (which happened 3 years later when I had baby #2). It was a time in my life, and in all of ours that worked at that particular company, where we picked up the slack when people were out….life happens. Huge life lesson moment there. And you’re right, because of the fact that I was hired when pregnant and granted the leave anyone else would’ve received I was intensely loyal, in fact, I still am – all my co-workers from that company know they can call on me anytime and I’ll help them out….
On the flip side – at my last employer I had a co-worker hired pregnant, who then, during the 3 years I worked there, had three babies. Yeah – do that math. It was tough – because of the recession we had a lean team, one man – or in this case – one woman down, was really challenging. And frustrating, and debilitating to the morale of the team to consistently have to cover for the same person.
So I can see all sides – but get your point and it really pertains to my first experience – fat or pregnant – discrimination shouldn’t happen. I like hearing it from a man
as a DC gal who had worked in highly political environments, with lobbyists, i think i know old boys club well… and old boys club this is not. that’s a pretty strong statement that if you have ever met any of my colleagues here on FOT in person, i’m pretty sure you’d take it back…
maybe it’s because it’s saturday and i am having a great weekend… but this is a blog about HR and recruiting. that’s it. we should all chill out a bit.
my grammar sucks this afternoon!
cheers!
My replacement at my last job hid the fact that she was pregnant and intentionally took the jobso that she could have mat leave benefits. In Canada, pregnant women can get 12 months off at 60% which is usually supplemented by either 30 or 40% by the company making it reach 90% of the salary for the woman. Women can even extend it to 14 to 16 months if they want. Imagine the employer’s reaction when he realized that as soon as she finished her training and probation, that she was very pregnant and unable to travel for a job that required 50% travel! Now this same girl went on mat leave early at 7 months, then came back 12 months after just to tell them that she was 3 months pregnant again. There is nothing the employer could do that wouldn’t be illegal and she is still employed right now. When I talked to her when she was hired, she told me about her dream of having 3 kids. Now, these are the women that give a bad name to all other pregnant ones. This is an employer’s worst nightmare. I even heard the CEO whine later that he knows better not to hire women anymore because they are not serious! Please keep on supporting pregnant women but know that sometimes some of them are not serious but it’s not our fault! Everyone has different work ethics you know? Don’t extrapolate for all women. A lot of the female professionals are very hard workers because they feel that they have to compete with men…again, I will not try to generalize as everyone is different!
I have to say that calling JP sexist is a bit extreme. His main point of the whole argument is that discrimination sucks and that there is a responsibility for hiring managers to not discriminate based on anything, pregnancy included. The best candidate is the best candidate. Case closed.
To KD’s point of intent to continue working from the mother to be – that’s a gamble you take with any employee, but I would say it’s fair to say that there is a higher chance a mom to be will leave. Worth passing on the best candidate? I can’t answer that. If you asked Kelly’s boss – she would say it was worth the gamble.
To reference one of Alison’s posts: http://www.askamanager.org/2008/11/job-hunting-while-pregnant.html
She is telling this woman to basically hide the fact that she’s pregnant until an offer is made, as it may cause the hiring mangers/interviewers to go with another option. If more people, the interviewers in the example included, shared JP’s view, then this woman could rest assured that she was going to get the offer because she was simply the best candidate – pregnant or not.
What I find kind of interesting is that the five positive character traits JP cites as additional reasons why hiring mothers makes good business sense, (professionalism, schedule coordination, organizational skills, loyalty, and people management), are eerily similar to the frequently cited reasons for hiring returning military veterans, a goal that I think anyone would be hard pressed to argue against. Are there returning veterans that do not possess these qualities and would not make successful employees? Sure. But the existence of these exceptions doesn’t invalidate the idea that hiring returning veterans is probably a good thing for many companies and their communities. And it certainly does not mean that non-veteran candidates are not well equipped and prepared to perform well at any given job. It isn’t a zero-sum argument.
Maybe I am stretching JP’s argument a bit, but from where I sit it is hard to see how having a positive perception of this group of candidates (mothers or expectant mothers), could be interpreted as a slight or an insult to any other individual or group or candidate.
Steve you couldn’t be more on par with your comment.
Because it’s condescending, just like saying that all Asians are smart and get good grades. You don’t make blanket statements about a group of people, positive or negative. That is bigotry.
The post is spot on. My husband would shrivel up and die if he had to handle 1/4 of what I handle on a daily basis. Thank goodness he has me. Just ask him, he’ll tell you the same.
And non-mothers cannot relate. It’s just that simple. They have not had to relate to what it takes to be a working mother. It’s hard, yo! And it does take a lot of effort and coordination. Before I had THREE children – I had no idea how hard it was, or how it would actually IMPROVE my work ethic if I wanted to stay in the game.
Welcome to the FOT Blackballed Club, JP. I’ve made us badges and jackets. The logo is a fist pump with a red circle around it and line through it. I’ll send yours to you via UPS today so we can start rocking them.
I agree with Alison’s point. There’s a stunning lack of critical thinking being displayed here and a surprising amount of defensiveness and making it personal.
Hi all…I’ve been waiting a bit to chime back in because I didn’t want to be defensive.
Granted, maybe I could have worded things differently. Or, maybe I could have done as Laurie offered and linked to some SHRM referrences (here’s one, for the record http://www.shrm.org/about/foundation/research/Pages/SHRMFoundationResearchCasper.aspx). Or…maybe I could have done a better job citing GalTime.com who actually came up with the list I provided (althought the summaries/paraphrases are mine). Maybe I could have simply added the word “Many” to the sentence instead of generalizing. Regardless, I am still a little shocked that some people seem to have completely missed the point of the post.
I appreciate the people that have left feedback. Feedback taken. For those that want to call me sexist or bigoted, I am sorry you feel that way. Doesn’t change the fact that I think it’s bad HR to discriminate.
JP- excellent post, and very timely, as my Safety Manager and I were just discussing this very topic last week.
Unfortunately, pregnancy discrimination is all too common, as you say. Like many other protected classes, a woman who is visibly pregnant is easily recognizable as such, and therefore discrimination can happen without her ever having the slightest indication from the interviewer. It would be tempting to do as Alison suggests in her blog, and simply hide the fact that one is pregnant; however, this could potentially indicate a lack of honesty on the part of the interviewee. I would suggest instead addressing the issue head-on, as a previous commenter mentioned. A truly astute hiring manager would appreciate the candor and would probably respect the candidate more.
I have to say, I appreciate thought-provoking posts such as this one and Meredith’s recent discussion of the porn star candidate. The discussion is particularly helpful to us HR Novices who have yet to face such challenging recruitment situation and appreciate the input from the HR Pro varieties.
Wow. [REMAINDER OF COMMENTS REDACTED]
Pregnant candidates represent a tricky proposition for both sides – for the hiring manager who needs to fill a role and keep it filled and for the qualified and committed candidate who just happen to be pregnant. I agree with the previous comments regarding the desirability of pregnant candidates being forthright about their plans and applaud Amanda for addressing the “will she come back” issue head on.
I was discriminated against during both of my pregnancies (two different employers), and have been very supportive of working mothers throughout my career as a result. My kids are 21 and 24 years old, so there were no protections at the time. Trust is a two-way street, though, and the thoughtful employee would do well to anticipate her manager’s concerns and address them directly.
I really liked this post. Some pregnancy discrimination is based on truth: pregnant women need more time off before and after the baby, they are not physically capable of some tasks in late pregnancy, and they have to use the bathroom a lot. Deal with it and buy more toilet paper. The good stuff.
In a civilized society, we would give pregnant women time off at full pay because building a baby is as hard as climbing a mountain and nobody climbs mountains 24/7 while working at the office. The reality is pregnant women need to eat too. More.
So if she has figured out how to have a relationship, a child, a life, and still wants to work for you, you are very fortunate.
For the sake of argument, look at a new pregnant hire from a totally logical and reasonable standpoint (forget about the feel good laws for a minute). Two equally qualified candidates (one pregnant and one not). The pregnant employee will just be up to speed; when they leave for 3-6 months. Everyone else in the department needs to cover for them while they are gone, or you need to hire someone without training to cover; somehow. If this is a small business, we are talking a major disruption. Did we forget about the benefits for the pregnant mom, too. Then at the end of the 3-6 month period, the employee may or may not return to work. If they do come back, it’s not like they had a restful and re-energizing time off.
Meanwhile, the non-pregnant equally qualified candidate would be well trained and well on their way to a promotion (equal pay, what?).
Pregnancy is an elective disability. Businesses should not be forced to take care of people that make this lifestyle decision. It’s not politically correct, but think about it deep down in that logical part of your brain.