So you agree that in 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 that by hiring a pregnant women, 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 right and dignity.
Sadly, India is far behind, whereas in developed countries there are Legislation to this effect :
"In USA, Under the laws enforced by 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 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 a 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 enquiries 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 attitude, mind-set 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 sensitise 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. 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 of 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 PSU's 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 temporary unfit unless the nature of the job requires strenuous physical
exercise or elaborate training, or posts carrying hazardous nature of duty eg., police organisation 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 of 12 weeks or more, she
shall be declared temporarily unfit until she has completed six week 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 of 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 fresh examination reqd.
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
1426But, OTHERWISE PREGNANT WOMEN are hired for their benefit !!
Actually this is the attitude, that we have to change that by hiring a pregnant women, 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 right and dignity.
Sadly, India is far behind, whereas in developed countries there are Legislation to this effect :
"In USA, Under the laws enforced by 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 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 a 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 enquiries 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 attitude, mind-set 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 sensitise 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. 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 of 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 PSU's 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 temporary unfit unless the nature of the job requires strenuous physical
exercise or elaborate training, or posts carrying hazardous nature of duty eg., police organisation 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 of 12 weeks or more, she
shall be declared temporarily unfit until she has completed six week 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 of 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 fresh examination reqd.
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
Raj, you have given lots of links.
Thanks fir the same, I will go through them.
First, many of them are for government and psu, where neither efficiency nor costs matter. All of them have 2 years 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 temperorily unfit. Meaning they are not to be recruited at that time.
For the comment regarding yahoo, I did not say in other cases women are taken for their benefit. I said in case if yahoo, they recruited a pregnant CEO because they desperately needed her. In other cases American companies happily wait till 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.
Third, I do not know British law, so will appreciate 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.
The point is, employers will hire what makes sense to them. Where it makes sense, like in case of required skills or where the nature do work is such that it will not be disrupted or where training and retraining is not required (experienced candidate and discontinuity is ok), they will hire a pregnant person.
From India, Mumbai
Thanks fir the same, I will go through them.
First, many of them are for government and psu, where neither efficiency nor costs matter. All of them have 2 years 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 temperorily unfit. Meaning they are not to be recruited at that time.
For the comment regarding yahoo, I did not say in other cases women are taken for their benefit. I said in case if yahoo, they recruited a pregnant CEO because they desperately needed her. In other cases American companies happily wait till 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.
Third, I do not know British law, so will appreciate 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.
The point is, employers will hire what makes sense to them. Where it makes sense, like in case of required skills or where the nature do work is such that it will not be disrupted or where training and retraining is not required (experienced candidate and discontinuity is ok), they will hire a pregnant person.
From India, Mumbai
Dear Friends,
It is one of the hot discussion I ever seen. I would like to appreciate bot sides on their logic and debate.
Every Employer take action that is in their best Interest. And practically this is a big task for the HR. Because an HR neither neglet the interest of the Employer nor the justified issue of the Employee.
From India
It is one of the hot discussion I ever seen. I would like to appreciate bot sides on their logic and debate.
Every Employer take action that is in their best Interest. And practically this is a big task for the HR. Because an HR neither neglet the interest of the Employer nor the justified issue of the Employee.
From India
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 right and wrongs of not employing a pregnant women.
So, let me try and 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 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 for 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 put up with extra cost and disruption to service caused by employing female workers. Especially, when the candidates hides that information, the 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 that are dishonest and bend/use the system. For example, I know of a person that 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
So, let me try and 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 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 for 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 put up with extra cost and disruption to service caused by employing female workers. Especially, when the candidates hides that information, the 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 that are dishonest and bend/use the system. For example, I know of a person that 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
Hi :
Let me add my experience and prespective on this subject.
As a female, I would say that it is huge huge dilemna for the one who is going through it. Well both are such wonderful news - getting offer from a big organisation and being pregnant but ironically letting go any one 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/knowledge. Now since it is a big organisation 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 with the candidate clearly reflects the Employer as a progressive fair employer. If the employer withdraws the offer then it is too bad better not to join such a organisation. The candidate is capable to fine another assignment whenever she wants.
Lastly I will share my experience, I had a female boss who was pregnant while joining. This was a Tata company alright. The company had no problem but offcourse the colleagues have their own prespective. When they were questioning she simply answered that she herself was not aware about the pregnancy bcoz she had a different pre-existing condition which had similar symptoms :) All questions disappeared thereafter. Welll she joined the company as a exective and working with them for 10 years and exited as a Dy.Manager - HR and now is the Director - HR in another big organisation.
Hope my experience and inputs are useful in some way.
From India, Pune
Let me add my experience and prespective on this subject.
As a female, I would say that it is huge huge dilemna for the one who is going through it. Well both are such wonderful news - getting offer from a big organisation and being pregnant but ironically letting go any one 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/knowledge. Now since it is a big organisation 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 with the candidate clearly reflects the Employer as a progressive fair employer. If the employer withdraws the offer then it is too bad better not to join such a organisation. The candidate is capable to fine another assignment whenever she wants.
Lastly I will share my experience, I had a female boss who was pregnant while joining. This was a Tata company alright. The company had no problem but offcourse the colleagues have their own prespective. When they were questioning she simply answered that she herself was not aware about the pregnancy bcoz she had a different pre-existing condition which had similar symptoms :) All questions disappeared thereafter. Welll she joined the company as a exective and working with them for 10 years and exited as a Dy.Manager - HR and now is the Director - HR in another big organisation.
Hope my experience and inputs are useful in some way.
From India, Pune
All the reluctance to employ a pregnant women is that she should be given leave and during that period her services are not available.Contrary ,what is she doing during her absence?She is raising the next generation for the country.The bosses, whether male or female, who takes a negative attitude on employing pregnant women should remember that they were also borne to a women.
My former colleague's wife is working in a Tata Co.There was a boss in the Co who will give only low rating in appraisal. to his lady subordinate who took maternity leave in the year of review.Many such employees suffered due to this.Somebody informed Ratan Tata about this He ordered review of all such cases.
There is another Co started in Kerala (Apparel unit) finally shifted to another state.Because they refused to give maternity benefits to lady employees ( majority of the employees were ladies).After every maternity leave they will reappoint them as new employee.When politicians ,unions and labour department involved they shifted.
Varghese Mathew
From India, Thiruvananthapuram
My former colleague's wife is working in a Tata Co.There was a boss in the Co who will give only low rating in appraisal. to his lady subordinate who took maternity leave in the year of review.Many such employees suffered due to this.Somebody informed Ratan Tata about this He ordered review of all such cases.
There is another Co started in Kerala (Apparel unit) finally shifted to another state.Because they refused to give maternity benefits to lady employees ( majority of the employees were ladies).After every maternity leave they will reappoint them as new employee.When politicians ,unions and labour department involved they shifted.
Varghese Mathew
From India, Thiruvananthapuram
Dear Seniors,
I have one query which need to be resolved as soon as possible. Please help me in getting out of this. One of our employee is on contract and she went for Maternity leave for 3 months. We are not covered under ESI coverage and also less than 10 employees, but still management has given 5000 Rs as MEdical Benefit and since she is absent for all these 3 months she dont get any king of pay other than 5000.
My question is Is her Monthly payment is subjected to Professional Tax & PF Deduction or not?
From India, Nadiad
I have one query which need to be resolved as soon as possible. Please help me in getting out of this. One of our employee is on contract and she went for Maternity leave for 3 months. We are not covered under ESI coverage and also less than 10 employees, but still management has given 5000 Rs as MEdical Benefit and since she is absent for all these 3 months she dont get any king of pay other than 5000.
My question is Is her Monthly payment is subjected to Professional Tax & PF Deduction or not?
From India, Nadiad
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