Pregnancy is a state which cannot be physically hidden. If your friend informs later it may be construed that she did so as it would be physically visible at that time. Keeping aside the fact of benefits, when an organization employs one, its for a particular requirement. So if as an employee your friend is aware that she needs to go on leave in another 5 months time she should confide as that leave is again not for a day or two, its for a long duration. As the organisation would actually invest in her orientation and do manpower planning taking her into consideration, it will be better to inform the organisation before joining. That way, if she belongs to a 'critical skill' area, the MNC may agree to her working in 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
8In 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
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 time in that 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 mind-set !!!
"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 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 few months pregnant women do not have to DECLARE in Bold Letters that they are PREGNANT !!!
(I think the opposite of Concealing is Declaring.)
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 or contemporary, nor an Equal Opportunity Employer nor even a "good" company.
Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
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 time in that 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 mind-set !!!
"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 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 few months pregnant women do not have to DECLARE in Bold Letters that they are PREGNANT !!!
(I think the opposite of Concealing is Declaring.)
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 or contemporary, nor an Equal Opportunity Employer nor even a "good" company.
Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
Dear Nair,
With appreciating the suggestions of Mr.Raj Kumar, I would like to come on your question and Suggestion that, It is not fair to join the Organisation by hiding the matter because, the physical condition and activities during carring can not be hided.
During this stage, the physical and mental health of the Mother should be healthy and stress free. She should not be In any tenson. If she is joining hiding the matter, it may affect her mental as a Penic of disclosing the fact.
Though there are provisons, by which your friend is Eligible to avail the benifit, I am not thinking that she will be able to avail the benifit, as It Is a very Important time and you friend may have to discontinue before compleetion of the require days.
I am pleased to Suggest your friend that, do not bother whether you can avail the Leave benifit or not, If take advise of a physician that, Is It good for both, if you ae joining a new Organisation now.
Thanks.
From India
With appreciating the suggestions of Mr.Raj Kumar, I would like to come on your question and Suggestion that, It is not fair to join the Organisation by hiding the matter because, the physical condition and activities during carring can not be hided.
During this stage, the physical and mental health of the Mother should be healthy and stress free. She should not be In any tenson. If she is joining hiding the matter, it may affect her mental as a Penic of disclosing the fact.
Though there are provisons, by which your friend is Eligible to avail the benifit, I am not thinking that she will be able to avail the benifit, as It Is a very Important time and you friend may have to discontinue before compleetion of the require days.
I am pleased to Suggest your friend that, do not bother whether you can avail the Leave benifit or not, If take advise of a physician that, Is It good for both, if you ae joining a new Organisation now.
Thanks.
From India
In my opinion as far as employment law is concerned judiciary has been more ahead of times than the executive & legislature.In 1957 SC stated that an organization not capable of giving Minimum wages has no right to exist.This decision has not so far been over ruled .But Govt has not enforced MW fully in all employment.
In 1996 SC ordered to make law on safety of women in workplace .Govt made it only in 2013.There are amendments in labour laws made in 1982/1984 but not yet implemented.
Varghese Mathew
From India, Thiruvananthapuram
In 1996 SC ordered to make law on safety of women in workplace .Govt made it only in 2013.There are amendments in labour laws made in 1982/1984 but not yet implemented.
Varghese Mathew
From India, Thiruvananthapuram
Dear Varghese Mathew
Thanks for the information.
Besides what you have mentioned; some years back there was also a ruling that a company that is unable to pay salary to its employees in time; has no right to exist.
In the wake of liberalization; all the bad practices of west have been adopted by the companies; while ignoring all the good practices and fairness.
Companies are shy of implementing anything that results in any outflow of funds in the short-term.
The Govt. does not suo-moto take any action on violations, nor enforces the statutory compliances. There are no watch-dog bodies that can keep a check on any violation in respect to employees and employment conditions. Things have gone to such depths, that the owners and directors are found to be involved in ruthlessly exploiting the female employees, as reflected in the well-known private airlines case.
With the decline of trade unions, there is no resistance if the company keeps on violating the basic principles of natural justice.
There is also a lack of professionalism among HR professionals who think HR means singing paens of praise for the management. Moreover, anyone without any relevant qualification or experience is made HR of a company.
I do hope some legislation is enacted for HR profession in near future, with a central body of accreditation, as in the case of other professions like for finance, Law, medicine etc.
Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
Thanks for the information.
Besides what you have mentioned; some years back there was also a ruling that a company that is unable to pay salary to its employees in time; has no right to exist.
In the wake of liberalization; all the bad practices of west have been adopted by the companies; while ignoring all the good practices and fairness.
Companies are shy of implementing anything that results in any outflow of funds in the short-term.
The Govt. does not suo-moto take any action on violations, nor enforces the statutory compliances. There are no watch-dog bodies that can keep a check on any violation in respect to employees and employment conditions. Things have gone to such depths, that the owners and directors are found to be involved in ruthlessly exploiting the female employees, as reflected in the well-known private airlines case.
With the decline of trade unions, there is no resistance if the company keeps on violating the basic principles of natural justice.
There is also a lack of professionalism among HR professionals who think HR means singing paens of praise for the management. Moreover, anyone without any relevant qualification or experience is made HR of a company.
I do hope some legislation is enacted for HR profession in near future, with a central body of accreditation, as in the case of other professions like for finance, Law, medicine etc.
Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
Raj,
A company and a business exists for making profit and for that purpose, will take action that is in its best interest and which is most efficient. It does not exist to give undue benefit to women or any other class of employees.
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 interest (not only a legal liability) to provide maternity benefit. That ensures that the time taken in training and learning curve is not lost. In addition it allows the company to attract and retain talent (most of the time, at least)
What benefit will it be it 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 pro and con and decide on it. It may even find it worthwhile to recruit and schedule it's 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 a surgery after a certain period of time. They are required to tell the new employer of it so they can take it into account.
It's easy to sit and sermonise about employee benefits.
It's a complete different matter to run an enterprise in a competitive environment where cost, efficiency and availability of trained manpower is critical.
From India, Mumbai
A company and a business exists for making profit and for that purpose, will take action that is in its best interest and which is most efficient. It does not exist to give undue benefit to women or any other class of employees.
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 interest (not only a legal liability) to provide maternity benefit. That ensures that the time taken in training and learning curve is not lost. In addition it allows the company to attract and retain talent (most of the time, at least)
What benefit will it be it 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 pro and con and decide on it. It may even find it worthwhile to recruit and schedule it's 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 a surgery after a certain period of time. They are required to tell the new employer of it so they can take it into account.
It's easy to sit and sermonise about employee benefits.
It's a complete different matter to run an enterprise in a competitive environment where cost, efficiency and availability of trained manpower is critical.
From India, Mumbai
Being a professional one should not hide such things and need to let your employer know about it. Also, many companies allow maternity leaves to only permanent employees or the employees who are already completed at least one year with the company. So, avoid further issues be clear with your employer and do not hide.
From India, Lucknow
From India, Lucknow
Dear Saswat
Thanks for your opinion, and the pain taken in giving justifications for "It's a complete different matter to run an enterprise in a competitive environment where cost, efficiency and availability of trained manpower is critical."
Perhaps you are talking about Small or Medium Enterprises, most of which are family-run.
They can have such policies- and no questions asked.
However, I still stand by the views I held earlier. What I have in mind, are good, big, almost legendary companies which are known for their fair policies.
Secondly, I think if a company is interested in NOT TAKING PREGNANT EMPLOYEES, it should have such questions on the Application Forms and must have Medical Examinations to determine this.
I am, definitely against any FALSE DECLARATIONS.
But I am in favour of NOT DECLARING it its not asked !!! It is also a matter of individual's own privacy - how much (or to what extent) should one declare.
I hope you GET THE POINT - No suo-moto Declaration unless specifically asked for.
If you are still not getting it, let me ILLUSTRATE with an example which may be a bit sensitive and not very appropriate, so I request readers discretion.
Certain Indian companies, for example, may be reluctant to hire people belonging to certain Minorities or Castes, for reasons best known to them, which can be based on prejudice.
It is fine, if they have a query to this effect in their Job Application Form.
Bur would it be APPROPRIATE, if they EXPECT that such a candidate when he enters for Interview to DECLARE - HI, I am so and so, and I belong to this community ??
So why does one expect or FORCE a woman to declare on her own, unless she wishes to do so.
A person may be afflicted with hundreds of physical ailments; but should he go around DECLARING that he has got this or that ailment at various stages of his life; unless specifically asked.
The point I am emphasizing is :
AT THE OUTSET, A LADY NEED NOT "DECLARE" that she is pregnant.
Let the Company ask about it if they have any issues on this.
As for your statement :
"A company and a business exists for making profit and for that purpose, will take action that is in its best interest and which is most efficient. It does not exist to give undue benefit to women or any other class of employees."
I think :
There are companies who exist for making profits and giving BEST (not undue) BENEFITS to women or any other class of employees.
I think, people have heard about Yahoo! - it is a well known company !!!.
In July 2012, it recruited Marissa Meyers from Google, as their CEO, who was MORE THAN 6 MONTHS PREGNANT !!!
How Relevant Is Marissa Mayer's Maternity Leave? Not Very - Businessweek
Why Is Marissa Mayer Criticized for Work-Life Balance Issues When Male CEOs Are Not - The Daily Beast
Marissa Mayer Maternity Leave
Moreover, as CEO Marissa Mayer has doubled Yahoo maternity leave - Marissa Mayer has extended Yahoo's maternity leave to 16 weeks for women, eight weeks for men !!!
Marissa Mayer Doubles Yahoo's Paid Maternity Leave, Gives Dads Eight Weeks Off | Business Insider India
CEO Marissa Mayer doubles Yahoo maternity leave | GlobalPost
Marissa Mayer extends Yahoo's maternity leave - CNNMoney - Apr. 30, 2013
Yahoo's Marissa Mayer Expands Parental Leave : The Two-Way : NPR
Marissa Mayer is no enigma
So "MAKING PROFITS" and "EMPLOYEE BENEFITS" - are they contrary ?? !!!
(Only the owners of small sick Indian companies can think so).
I rest my case.
Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
Thanks for your opinion, and the pain taken in giving justifications for "It's a complete different matter to run an enterprise in a competitive environment where cost, efficiency and availability of trained manpower is critical."
Perhaps you are talking about Small or Medium Enterprises, most of which are family-run.
They can have such policies- and no questions asked.
However, I still stand by the views I held earlier. What I have in mind, are good, big, almost legendary companies which are known for their fair policies.
Secondly, I think if a company is interested in NOT TAKING PREGNANT EMPLOYEES, it should have such questions on the Application Forms and must have Medical Examinations to determine this.
I am, definitely against any FALSE DECLARATIONS.
But I am in favour of NOT DECLARING it its not asked !!! It is also a matter of individual's own privacy - how much (or to what extent) should one declare.
I hope you GET THE POINT - No suo-moto Declaration unless specifically asked for.
If you are still not getting it, let me ILLUSTRATE with an example which may be a bit sensitive and not very appropriate, so I request readers discretion.
Certain Indian companies, for example, may be reluctant to hire people belonging to certain Minorities or Castes, for reasons best known to them, which can be based on prejudice.
It is fine, if they have a query to this effect in their Job Application Form.
Bur would it be APPROPRIATE, if they EXPECT that such a candidate when he enters for Interview to DECLARE - HI, I am so and so, and I belong to this community ??
So why does one expect or FORCE a woman to declare on her own, unless she wishes to do so.
A person may be afflicted with hundreds of physical ailments; but should he go around DECLARING that he has got this or that ailment at various stages of his life; unless specifically asked.
The point I am emphasizing is :
AT THE OUTSET, A LADY NEED NOT "DECLARE" that she is pregnant.
Let the Company ask about it if they have any issues on this.
As for your statement :
"A company and a business exists for making profit and for that purpose, will take action that is in its best interest and which is most efficient. It does not exist to give undue benefit to women or any other class of employees."
I think :
There are companies who exist for making profits and giving BEST (not undue) BENEFITS to women or any other class of employees.
I think, people have heard about Yahoo! - it is a well known company !!!.
In July 2012, it recruited Marissa Meyers from Google, as their CEO, who was MORE THAN 6 MONTHS PREGNANT !!!
How Relevant Is Marissa Mayer's Maternity Leave? Not Very - Businessweek
Why Is Marissa Mayer Criticized for Work-Life Balance Issues When Male CEOs Are Not - The Daily Beast
Marissa Mayer Maternity Leave
Moreover, as CEO Marissa Mayer has doubled Yahoo maternity leave - Marissa Mayer has extended Yahoo's maternity leave to 16 weeks for women, eight weeks for men !!!
Marissa Mayer Doubles Yahoo's Paid Maternity Leave, Gives Dads Eight Weeks Off | Business Insider India
CEO Marissa Mayer doubles Yahoo maternity leave | GlobalPost
Marissa Mayer extends Yahoo's maternity leave - CNNMoney - Apr. 30, 2013
Yahoo's Marissa Mayer Expands Parental Leave : The Two-Way : NPR
Marissa Mayer is no enigma
So "MAKING PROFITS" and "EMPLOYEE BENEFITS" - are they contrary ?? !!!
(Only the owners of small sick Indian companies can think so).
I rest my case.
Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
You are aware that Marissa Meyers spent 3 million of the company (shareholders) money to renovate her office so that she can put a room for the baby next to her main cabin. She also can afford to spend money on nurse, baby sitter, etc. Others cant.
Incidentally, Marissa Meyers has been criticised heavily for this in the US press. So i dont think the example is correct. Yahoo was about to sink and hiring Marissa Meyers was a desperate move to save the company. They would not do it again (incidentally, Marissa Meyers has cut lot of benefits after she joined, except her own). Again, in line with my post, you will notice that Marissa Meyers did not hide the fact that she was pregnant. In fact, she offered to join after delivery. But Yahoo board was of the opinion that Yahoo may not last that long and damage will be too deep to correct. In this case, they company decided to hire and scheduled its work around the expected leave. Again, that is in line with my point.
Yahoo did not hire a pregnant CEO for her benefit but solely because they were desperate and needed it for their own profit, existence, efficiency. All the points i have earlier stated.
From India, Mumbai
Incidentally, Marissa Meyers has been criticised heavily for this in the US press. So i dont think the example is correct. Yahoo was about to sink and hiring Marissa Meyers was a desperate move to save the company. They would not do it again (incidentally, Marissa Meyers has cut lot of benefits after she joined, except her own). Again, in line with my post, you will notice that Marissa Meyers did not hide the fact that she was pregnant. In fact, she offered to join after delivery. But Yahoo board was of the opinion that Yahoo may not last that long and damage will be too deep to correct. In this case, they company decided to hire and scheduled its work around the expected leave. Again, that is in line with my point.
Yahoo did not hire a pregnant CEO for her benefit but solely because they were desperate and needed it for their own profit, existence, efficiency. All the points i have earlier stated.
From India, Mumbai
Incidentally, RK Nair, my appologies for hijacking your thread and taking it on an tangent.
My reply is not in direct reply to your post but it is an important aspect that affects us as HR and Management personnel.
Though, i doubt if we will come to an agreement given the different ways we all think :-)
I hope you have got your answer from the posts already put on the thread.
Your friend needs to decide which of the replies makes more sense to her.
My personal opinion would be to inform the company of the pregnancy.
From India, Mumbai
My reply is not in direct reply to your post but it is an important aspect that affects us as HR and Management personnel.
Though, i doubt if we will come to an agreement given the different ways we all think :-)
I hope you have got your answer from the posts already put on the thread.
Your friend needs to decide which of the replies makes more sense to her.
My personal opinion would be to inform the company of the pregnancy.
From India, Mumbai
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
How do the Iraqis hide from the U.doc
Hide it again.jpg