US: "If she has that baby in April and takes off six weeks, she's worthless..."

Well I'd be fine with that Chary except the government makes it a legal requirement. 

I agree it's a nightmare to sort out who should be responsible for paying for it and it's difficult especially for small employers. I'm curious as to how countries like those in Scandinavia, where maternity/paternity rights are even more generous, address these issues?

Devil's advocate hat on: Why should my tax money be used this way? I don't have children, don't want children and don't really want to pay for other people's personal choice to further populate an overpopulated world.

But you do pay for it.  If companies have to fund maternity leave, you can bet that they'll find ways to pass those costs on to consumers.  And (remember I also don't have children) childless people shouldn't begrudge paying for children (their education, etc) the same way that people who don't use public services shouldn't begrudge paying for them.  In order for societies to function, people have to accept that some of their tax money will go to things they don't directly benefit from.  However, everyone benefits from belonging to a functioning society that provides services to its members.   

Well I'd be fine with that Chary except the government makes it a legal requirement. 

The government mandates a lot of things that private companies have to pay for: minimum wage, for instance. Should the government pay salaries as well?

I don't disagree with the statement made by the public official. I think he should have just kept it to himself though.  I planned my pregnancy around when it made most sense to start and end maternity leave given the constraints of my job.  In my old job there is a benefit to being around at certain times and a major detriment to being away at others.  I realise I was lucky that I was able to do that and didn't encounter any problems getting pregnant.  But it was something I wanted to take into consideration in case I went back to the role and wanted my career to advance.  In the end I didn't go back, but I think the timing made it easier for my colleagues left behind to some degree.  Having children is a choice and it needs to be considered for career advancement.  It is just one of many factors that need to be considered.  I guarantee that in this day and age dads are being held to the same standards as mom's.  If a man always has to take leave to pick up his kids early, because his wife's job is more demanding/paid more etc, then I would bet he's not being put up for a promotion against the guy who's in the office from 7-7 each day.    

I empathise with small businesses who are put under pressure to pay statutory maternity pay, although after tax breaks and such I would wonder what the actual cost to the business really is if they only offer the minimum.  As to companies who offer much more and have generous policies in effect, i.e. like the example stated above where the woman only had to be back 6 months and could go back out for a year, well that is a decision the company has made and have obviously weighed up the pros and cons.  The pros being the ability to retain better employees by offering a better benefits package.  

I know I'll probably get shot for this but I can see what he's saying to a certain extent.  I think it was probably misconstrued a bit...and he should have worded it MUCH better...but I see what he's saying.

If you owned your own business and wanted to hire a personal assistant who would help you out with a specific event...then you spend 2 months training the person for the event...only to have them leave before the event even takes place...would you be happy?  I know it's a different situation but the concept is the same.

He was most likely looking at the aspect of her not being able to perform the job she was hired for (which is partially true)...as opposed to why she was actually going to be gone.  He probably would have said something similar if she was ill and required surgery.  "If she has that surgery in April and takes off six weeks, she's worthless..."

Even if he said she's useless because of a surgery though, that's still medical descrimination.  Yeah, it's crap timing but employers should look at the person and their qualities and qualifications not if they are pregnant or need some medical treatment that isn't life threatening just time consuming.  I think that's probably what the board of education did, and good on them.  Plus, she has a stake in the education because she's got a child potentially entering the school system although that shouldn't be taken into consideration any more than when her mat leave starts.

How can it be discrimination if she was hired?  Everyone is entitled to an opinion although he (obviously) shouldn't have voiced his in public like that.

The comments could have been if he'd said it about a medical condition other than pregnancy and it would have been descriminatory if they hadn't hired is what I meant.  Sorry, should have been clear, but I was cooking.  I think it's time I put this down. 

The other issue in this particular case is that it was a brand new employee, right?  I see a giant difference between an existing employee and someone being hired for a specific role that she will be unable to fulfill right off the bat.  Of course, it's all moot because she WAS hired.  But still.

The wording was horrific and completely inappropriate and I have a gazillion issues with the way expectant and existing mothers are treated in the US (I don't know much about the UK system, so don't want to comment).  I worked for a Catholic hospital that was so "family values" that wouldn't allow their insurance policies to cover birth control but also offered no maternity leave whatsoever and you couldn't bank more than 6 weeks of combined sick/vacation time to use as your own cobbled-together leave.  Abhorrent!

But at the same time, I would have a hard time hiring me right now to do a job whose crunch time was April.  Because I'm due in April.  Yes, that's discrimination, but what point is there hiring me to do a job that I will be knowingly unable to do right off the bat?    

 I planned my pregnancy around when it made most sense to start and end maternity leave given the constraints of my job.  In my old job there is a benefit to being around at certain times and a major detriment to being away at others.  I realise I was lucky that I was able to do that and didn't encounter any problems getting pregnant.  But it was something I wanted to take into consideration in case I went back to the role and wanted my career to advance.   

But no one can actually predict when they will get pregnant, no matter how much they take the timing into consideration.  It could happen in the first month of trying or after 12!  It's just sheer luck if it happens to fall within the dates you're aiming for.

Regarding the situation in question, I assume they hired this woman knowing she was pregnant and knowing the timeline they were facing.  I really don't see how her employers have a right to complain--it is their policy that even allows her to take 6 weeks after working there only a short time. 

Even if he said she's useless because of a surgery though, that's still medical descrimination.  Yeah, it's crap timing but employers should look at the person and their qualities and qualifications not if they are pregnant or need some medical treatment that isn't life threatening just time consuming. 

The problem is that in some jobs, and apparently the one this woman was hired for, the timing is part of the ability to perform the job.  Accountants, for example, know that they're working non-stop from Jan-April.  If you're hiring someone for that job specifically because you need someone around at that time, and then find out they're not going to be there, it does make them, well... a bit useless, at that time, for that purpose. 

Thing is, everyone in the comments on the original article seems to think that she knew all about this.  But jobs with school districts can have rather lengthy application and interview processes.  If she only found out she was pregnant after the process started, and/or if she wasn't aware of the April/May time-frame around the position, then what else should she have done?  People have to work.

But no one can actually predict when they will get pregnant, no matter how much they take the timing into consideration.  It could happen in the first month of trying or after 12!  It's just sheer luck if it happens to fall within the dates you're aiming for.

My mum found out she was pregnant with my brother the day she was offered a new job!

I can't remember if she still actually took the job or not (I think she did, but I was only 6 at the time, so I can't really remember)... but I would imagine that the timing couldn't really have been predicted at all, since she'd been trying to get pregnant for 5 years and had been unsuccessful up until then.

I don't know all the details, but my guess would be that she had just about given up on it... and since she'd taken 6 years off work to take care of me and my other brother, and now we were in primary school and it didn't seem like she was going to get pregnant again, she probably decided just to go back to work instead.

The problem is that in some jobs, and apparently the one this woman was hired for, the timing is part of the ability to perform the job.  Accountants, for example, know that they're working non-stop from Jan-April.  If you're hiring someone for that job specifically because you need someone around at that time, and then find out they're not going to be there, it does make them, well... a bit useless, at that time, for that purpose. 

But if you were in the UK and taking the full 52 weeks you were entitled to, you would miss the busy period at some point no matter when you timed your pregnancy.   

Maybe this woman in the US was above and beyond the highest qualified for the position and the hiring committee recognized that they would be lucky to have her, regardless of whether she would miss the busy period for the current year (after all, there is always next year, and the year after, and the year after that...).   

There will ALWAYS be busy periods each year at any job--I don't think it's right for anyone to expect a woman to have pregnancy planning down to an exact science just for the sake of not inconveniencing her employers.

I just learned from a friend that the University of Nottingham has recently announced they will offer fathers an additional 26 weeks of paternity leave which can be taken beginning 20 weeks after the baby is born--presumably, so the mother and father can equally share in the responsibility.  I wish more employers would start offering something along these lines--if fathers were able to take a larger amount of time off after the birth of a baby, women could potentially return to work sooner if they wish and perhaps the stigma surrounding pregnancy wouldn't be so severe.

My mum found out she was pregnant with my brother the day she was offered a new job!

I can't remember if she still actually took the job or not (I think she did, but I was only 6 at the time, so I can't really remember)... but I would imagine that the timing couldn't really have been predicted at all, since she'd been trying to get pregnant for 5 years and had been unsuccessful up until then.

In my case, I was told by my GP that I would most likely not conceive on my own and that I should start trying right away as it could take years for pregnancy to happen, even with her willingness to forego the two-year wait period the NHS has and refer me right away to specialists.

I ended up conceiving within two weeks of that appointment, so my GP was entirely wrong, though given that my cycles were only every 3 or 4 months and had no pattern whatsoever, it very well could have just as easily taken a year or two.  It ended up not being the best timing as far as work goes, but had I put off trying for a year to guarantee I wasn't pregnant at this one specific time, there would have been yet another period that wasn't ideal the next year...it's just not possible for some women to accommodate their employers in the way that some people are suggesting.  If every woman started to do this, it would become impossible for most to start a family at all.