HRD Canada forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Notify me of new replies via email
HRM CA | 31 Jan 2013, 12:00 AM Agree 0
The media storm and applause heaped upon Yahoo following its decision to hire a pregnant CEO last year ignited the discussion around pregnant candidates, discrimination and what to do when faced with the hiring decision.
  • Jay Fuller | 31 Jan 2013, 11:43 AM Agree 0
    This issue is not about gender discrimination (pregnancy) but the fact that most employers would not choose to hire someone in a full-time, permanent role knowing full well that in a few months that individual will likely take a year off and the employers hands are tied in replacing that individual because their job is legally protected. The employer is forced to hire a temporary replacement and invest all the time and money in training twice for the same position within the same year.
  • Logic Rules | 31 Jan 2013, 11:51 AM Agree 0
    She was hired as a CEO for petes sake! I somehow don't think she will be taking the year off!!
  • W Ettinger | 31 Jan 2013, 01:03 PM Agree 0
    Actually it is a gender discrimination issue because of thinking like Jay Fuller just described. Did you know that (at least in Canada) men are now entitled to parental leave, as well as people considering adoption as a family option, and not just the pregnant mother? Do you ask all men if they are planning on having children anytime soon and taking advantage of the parental leave provisions available to them? Perhaps you should not hire anyone within child bearing years (meaning any man over the age of puberty is out indefintitely)to make sure that they won't take any parental leave. Only women over the age of 45 who can prove that they've gone through menopause? Come on people, 21st century thinking would be a good start to figuring out how to balance work and family responsibilities at all levels of the organization!
  • MB | 31 Jan 2013, 01:18 PM Agree 0
    That's exactly the point that the article is trying to make Jay Fuller. It's that mind-set is not looking at long-term gain but rather short-term implications. That...and it is gender discrimination, men do not face this same issue but feel free to give it whatever spin you think people will buy.
  • Tom from Burnaby BC | 31 Jan 2013, 02:25 PM Agree 0
    People read to much into things and that is how you get yourself in trouble.

    If the male or female has skill knowledge and ability to do the job you hire them.

    If you look for excuses not to hire a good candidate then problems can arise.

    Don't forgett that males can go on parental/maternal duties leave also.

    My friend has been on leave 3 times. The work got done and with his guidance from time to time.

    Hey there are ways around everything in the workplace to get the job done,

    that is what we focus on.

  • GZ | 02 Feb 2013, 11:35 AM Agree 0
    Mr. Fuller, it is 2013 NOT 1963. As stated by many of the writers before me, perhaps her spouse will take parental leave or she has a nanny or mother who lives with her.
    Would you say the same thing if it were a male candidate, whose spouse was receiving cancer treatment. That you can hide until the person is hired. Unfortunately for female candidates, there is not much we can do to hide the fact that we are pregnant NOR should we have to.
    Candidates are responsible mature individuals who, particularly for that level of position, will make arrangements to minimize or eliminate impacts on their new role.

    I hope for your company's sake, you are not in a decision making position with respect to hirning and promotions. If you are, your company has overlooked or lost some excellent talent.
Post a reply