Natasha Kaplinsky's pregnancy: when did she know?

Channel 5 has announced that its new marquee news reader Natasha Kaplinsky is pregnant. Three months pregnant. Which means whether she knew it or not, she was pregnant when she started her million-pound-a-year job. It’s good news for her and her husband, and thought-provoking for everyone else.

Kaplinsky is good at her job - ratings for the news bulletin are up a reported 72% since she started. But you have to wonder whether Channel 5 knew they were handing over the suitcase full of money to top talent that would be slipping out the door several months hence.

She talked about parenthood to Andrew Billen in February:

Does she still hope to have children? "What do you mean still?" She is 35. I meant, I say, having signed this three-year deal with Five. "God yes, absolutely and of course that was part of what we discussed. I hope I will but you never know, do you?"

It happened to me: I started a new job and found out weeks later that I was pregnant. That was an uncomfortable conversation. A friend of mine hired a woman who announced soonafter that she was pregnant – he felt betrayed that she didn’t mention it at the interview although of course he couldn’t have asked. Another friend was looking for a job when she was a few weeks along and wondered if she should fess up in the interview. She didn’t.

It starts to seem like an inevitability: you hire a fecund woman and she eventually sprogs.

Maternity benefits have never been better. Unquestionably they require a lot from employers - this means everyone from the huge corporations to the individual who (legally) hires a nanny. (We don't know if Kaplinsky has maternity pay written into her contract - although according to her Billen interview, money's not a problem around her house.)

Employers can’t discriminate against women for being the child-bearers. But what do women owe their employers?

Should a woman reveal her pregnancy at an interview and risk not being considered a serious candidate? If you start a new job, do you have a duty to not try to get pregnant for a certain amount of time? After all, if I started a new job and then immediately asked for a year off for a personal project most people would think I was taking the mickey.

There’s not a question when it comes to the law. There's also still a lot of nasty directed at mothers in the workplace: 'You will be useless from now on' was what Louise Manning's employer told her. But do women have a moral duty not to work the system, or is it exploit-and-exploit-alike in the professional world?

Comments

[supermother]

Anyone who thinks about small businesses needs to consider their position however. In fact more people I think are employed in businesses with under 5 staff in the UK than any other type I think I read, except perhaps the NHS/Government. Imagine you have a nanny and she gets pregnant (happened to us twice). That's virtually the same impact as on the business owned by one woman which has 2 or 3 employees and one gets pregnant. Many many businesses close every year because of the impact of that. One answer is to do what I do and employ no one which doesn't exactly help other women but it's the simple answer. Another is take on no staff but contract out but it's a major problem for many. it's not even the cost so much as all the form filling. We even had a nanny tax inspection relating to the SMP - about 18 months or 2 years after she had been paid and left. Yes every single little bit of it was entirely in order but I had to spend all that time in the lofts, getting down papers, replying to letters.

Perhaps we could at least say if you have 5 staff or fewer then the employee claims all maternity payments from the Government not the employer for a start.

[zainabadi]

God! Remind me never to work for a small business -- sounds like they're full of discrimination against pregnant women.

[zainabadi]

God! Remind me never to work for a small business -- sounds like they're full of discrimination against pregnant women.

[Kieransmum]

Yes, I completely agree, SM. Self-esteem is crucial.

[supermother]

Depends on your field but some companies allow you a sabattical if you have worked a certain period - I know a lot of men and women who have taken them, done all kinds of things, taken the children on a boat all over for 4 months or whatever and those breaks make people better not worse at their jobs, although there's a risk that they make people realise they hate the job and leave too.

One problem is people not having confidence enough. One of my daughters is very confident. Her sister who isn't too bad who I was talking to yesterday about careers isn't quite as sure she's brilliant (which may be a a good thing!) although there's no difference between them in terms of A levels and degree. In other words the woman who thinks I know nothing as I've been at home for 3 years is going to do worse than the woman who was home for 3 years but did read up on her subject and thinks I am probably one of the best people in the UK at this.

I did a day's training for someone who had had a different career for a year or two, one to one. It was quite interesting.

[j]

Lazymummy you are right. I took 7 years out and in order to reassure the gormless I commissioned a private one-day refresher on professional education from the leading trainer in my field. All it did was remind me of much I always hated professional CPD update courses...:) but I have to say that it got me the job, it totally wiped out any criticism that I mjight be out of date. Only cost about £300 (it was a while ago).

[Lazy Mummy]

Brilliant idea, Delilah.

The alternative (which I suppose men do more) is to just say - the hell with it, I don't want to come back to this company, or I came back but left after a few months, so I'll pay back the bonus because in 12-18 months time when I'm really ready for a new job, I'll get one and it'll be better than this one anyway.

Which brings me to another point that p*****s me off: the fact that some people are stupid enough to believe that a professional woman in her 30s will lose her entire brain/skills/experience after 1-2 years out of the workforce. Rubbish. B*****ks. Nonsense, and the women who feel this way & are worried about either taking that 1-2 year break or coming back after it are just pandering to the nonsense. OK, so a decade is possibly different and in some fields (eg medicine, law) you probably need refresher classes/to keep up with your continuing education, but that's perfectly reasonable and in more general management fields, this probably isn't necessary.

[Sho]

Delilah, I love that idea too. I wonder why the men in power haven't thought of it yet?

[Gipsy]

I like that idea Delilah because it would mean you weren't so dependant on your employer. You would have greater control over plans for the future.

[Delilah]

Actually, SHO, I think the answer is not to make ABC Ltd do anything more but to remove the tie between maternity cover and any particular employer. Maternity benefits in excess of statutory maternity pay (SMP) always come with strings about length of employment, returning to work with limited job refusal, and so on. If you don't come back often the terms require you to repay some of the benefit, or lose out on a "bonus". I think ABC Ltd is often quite cynical about the way generous maternity benefits effectively turn female employees into indentured servants. Companies that have a lot of ambitious, job-hopping people who won't do the humdrum stuff do really quite well out of having maternity serfs, actively recruit them with generous maternity benefits and then keep them for years without promoting or paying them as well as the employees who are free to leave. The better quality the serf in terms of qualifications and experience and work ethic, the better the deal for the company (if not the serf).

I think to avoid this maternity cover should be portable in the same way that most people's pensions (ha!) are now portable. Perhaps the govt should allow people of either sex to set up tax-free savings or buy insurance (perhaps with government contributions to the premiums or payments) specifically to cover the costs of having babies, including maternity/paternity leaves, with the option of rolling it into your pension or an education fund if it doesn't get used for babies. Perhaps employers could also be able to contribute to these tax-free (like they do to pension) - but knowing that the fund/policy belongs at all times to the employee and if they leave, they take the entire fund with them. The parent or parent-to-be would have a lot more freedom then to negotiate pay and conditions and change jobs if the negotiations fail. The fact that a lot of the costs are pre-paid, and that most workers of either sex have them (whether they end up having babies or not), might help remove the stigma which working mothers have acquired.

[supermother]

23 years ago when I had my first baby you needed a length of service. I think it was 2 years. I cannot remember if you needed 2 years to get the 6 weeks at 90% pay. I suspect not even then. Nowadays it is not much different. You stil, just get 6 weeks at 90% pay regardless of service and then some minimum wage type pittance no one except those with rich husbands or loads of savings or who already exist on benefit levels can afford to live on. This is perhaps a good thing as it encourages women to return to work which is better for them in all kinds of ways although they might prefer a year at home on full pay. Sometimes people don't know what is best for them.

Some employers do offer better benefits but only if you come back. That is their discretionary choice which is a good way for it to be left and most women don't have those schemes so just get the 6 weeks at 90% pay.

[Sho]

Not only is it not great for the sisterhood, it is definitely not great for the company ABC Ltd. Which is why they should be a bit more aware of these issues and help women with or about to start a family, and pull their corporate finger out.

[Sho]

Not only is it not great for the sisterhood, it is definitely not great for the company ABC Ltd. Which is why they should be a bit more aware of these issues and help women with or about to start a family, and pull their corporate finger out.

[Delilah]

which brings me back to the old maternity rights problem - you're less likely to leave ABC Ltd after a failed pay negotiation if you are thinking seriously about having a baby and want to hang onto accumulated maternity rights. And you're unlikely to ask for matching benefits in your interview for XYZ Ltd in case they smell a rat, and the pay rise is unlikely to compensate for the lost maternity benefits. The existence of accumulated benefits makes it a no-brainer financially to stick with ABC Ltd but effectively work to rule for five years while you complete your family at their expense. Not a great thing for the sisterhood.

[supermother]

If women are looked on badly for asking for a rise when men aren't women can also get job offers elsewhere and say it's a rise or I accept this offer at your rival ABC Ltd. If more women did assertively ask for a rise even if they thought they wouldn't get it it might make employers more used to that as being typical female behaviour and thus benefit other women.

An MBA class last year found all the men got first jobs better paid than the women. On enquiry it was found not a single woman had asked for more pay than she was initially offered, thinking she was lucky to get the job. Every man had asked for more pay and thought the company was lucky to have them. Obviously Ms Natasha though in getting her £1m gross pa self employed earnings has done pretty well although I know women who earn more but I suspect she might have an agent to negotiate her pay.

(I've got a complete set of the chalet school books actually)

[Melissaria]

Oh no, I missed a Chalet School conversation! Have you seen how much those books go for on ebay these days? Seriously, if you have a complete collection, get them dusted off, they are a gold mine, particularly the ones that only came in short print runs. I adore them, even more so for the social horrors that were entirely acceptable back then - teachers smoking in classrooms, pupils mocking native African dancing, the imperialism, the sexism, and yes, the ever increasing nods towards feminism that being to creep in as the series progresses. Sadly I can't justify the cost of the final few books just now, so I'll never know if Mary-Lou Trelawney did manage to become an archaeologist, had to keep house for whoever it was, or married a doctor like the rest of them...

[Baggofbones]

Oh, I love all the old gender stereotypes in Enid B. What's wrong with Anne making the beds? I did always think she was incredibly soppy, but now that I have an adorable Anne-like, mini-Mummy daughter who makes beds for her cuddly animals, I shall revise my opinion!

I think the prevailing culture is so strong that a bit of sexism Enid Blyton-stylee isn't going to turn any girl into a doormat any more than it will turn boys into rather know-all, bossy Julian types. Nor will the boarding school stories turn anyone into a snob. They're just escapism - Harry Potter without wizards. And while we're at it, I've only read a couple of pages of Harry P, but it seemed to be anti-fat-children to me. Should this be PC-ified as well?

[j]

"Employers (of either gender) receiving a request from a man were more likely to consider that it indicated ambition and ability, and were more likely to grant it. A request from a woman was more likely to be treated as opportunistic and unrealistic, and was less likely to be granted - and the woman making it was more likely to be considered difficult and greedy."

Delilah that is so true and very interesting. It even applies to asking for resources for doing your job, such as space or staff, as well as for salary and benefits.

[Delilah]

I heard an interesting report on the radio today about a study which confirmed that women were less likely to ask for a raise, not because they were less assertive than men, but because their completely accurate assessment of the result of that request was that it was unlikely to be successful and would damage their existing position at work. Employers (of either gender) receiving a request from a man were more likely to consider that it indicated ambition and ability, and were more likely to grant it. A request from a woman was more likely to be treated as opportunistic and unrealistic, and was less likely to be granted - and the woman making it was more likely to be considered difficult and greedy.

I don't know how you overcome that, other than to keep plugging away at teaching men that women in the workplace do the same work as men and have the same priorities. Doesn't seem that we are actually doing that, though, in fact quite the reverse, we're creating a seperate caste of workers with completely different set of priorities and pay structures. That worries me.

[supermother]

But women can get better at all these things - delegating, being assertive and saying they are the best. I am doing my best at that for the sake of women - best in the UK at some things I do, I reckon. I might be completely wrong but always happy to say that I am. I wonder what makes me do that and some other women not? In many ways the claiming of the credit can be as important as the work to deserve the credit and needs to be worked on just as much. Perhaps all working women (unless they're nuns or something ) should go to bed thinking and what did I do in the way of self promotion at work today, how did I sell my own personal brand?

(My sister and I when about 11 - 13 used to read aloud to ecah other the Enid Blyton Famous five but reverseing the sexes and names so that the boys became the girls. Even then the sexism was very obvious to us. Would little girls of 12 do that today I wonder or would they be on bimbo web sites and trying out new pink lip stick? And if the latter why?

[Baggofbones]

Enid Blyton made PC? Oh no!!!
Fortunately I still have the originals for when my daughter is older...
(To think I wanted to change my name to Carlotta as a result of those books! What's more, my daughter was nearly Alicia in honour of Darrell Rivers' arch-rival, but I feared it was becoming too popular...)

[Lazy Mummy]

SM - in the examples of men leaving early for other commitments, I was specifically referring to non-work commitments, not socialising with colleagues/clients because that is the type of behaviour that is not censured for men but is for women (work socialising is on a different scale & we all need to do that). Simply as you've said yourself, the bloke leaving to pick up children is lauded whereas the woman doing so is condemned as uncommitted to her job.

Completely agree, though, that women generally have a harder time delegating than men do; it's something we're trained in from birth I think - we're the backstop & often have a hard time learning to move out of that role. In my mind, it's related to the self-promotion issue that we've talked about in the past: women having a harder time blowing their own trumpets/ taking credit for things whereas a man would be more likely exaggerate his role in something to make himself look good.

[supermother]

Women need to work clever as well as men do. And by the way playing golf or its equivalents, male or female, might get you more work than any amount of staying late in the office or rushing home to change nappies whilst your husband does social stuff that further his career.

Some women (and men) have problems doing less work and think if they do everything and don't delegate they will be promoted whereas in fact that can be the wrong strategy. Learning dump work on others but in a psychologically effective way is a pretty good skill to acquire and I suspect more women are bad at it than men are.

Amusing tonight at 7 whilst we complete something I think I am the only person not with their children and the other 4 men involved are all with their young children at this precise moment. I may be slightly exaggerating a little, but when men have wives with good careers who work full time then you do tend to find the men as likely as the women to be rushing home or collecting a child or whatever. Things are much better than they were.

[j]

"your duty at least now in these very few years after the 1970s legal equality reforms is to work and if anyone has to go flexible you have to sacrifice yourself and ensure it's your husband, not you.. There are lots of things we do in life that don't suit us. We are not here to please ourselves."

SM true of certain careers where structure and seniority are inflexible, less true of others where the smart solution is to rise to the top, incontestably and with a fine reputation and good income, and then make it clear that you worked flexibly when you wanted to, and still feel entitled to go home when you d8mn well please. Because you are sufficiently good at what you do that it is worth people's while to wait for you to be ready to do it.

After all: I go home on early, or I go off to a different client- from your POV its all the same, you cant see me when you want to. Men are unavailable all the time through selfindulgent time management and office power games- diva managers as I posted once before.

[supermother]

But until we get more equality David men are praised for doing things women do - like leaving work on time (although my ex husband was never allowed home early like female working mother colleagues even though he was the one who had to rush back each night to let the nanny go, not me and he wasn't allowed because he was male not that I imagine he pushed it very much but it was certainly sexist of them to assume a father wasn't the first port of call on children issues). Women are criticised for having characteristics praised in men like being assertive. They get called names like pushy when a man would be praised for it. So the fact a man might be admired (as a curiosity) doesn't mean women aren't castigated for leaving early and I know two widowers with small children who work full time and have praised helped on them all the time and allowances made at work in a way that I as a single full time mother of five have never had, simply because I'm female. Hopefully all that will change in time as long as women remember their responsibilities to other women.

And yes it might make them feel cross that what they do (going flexible, giving up work) has an impact on their daughters and other women but it does, no getting around that so unless you're trying to destroy capitalism and live in communes and think you can over tunr existing working structures (no chance of that) then your duty at least now in these very few years after the 1970s legal equality reforms is to work and if anyone has to go flexible you have to sacrifice yourself and ensure it's your husband, not you.. There are lots of things we do in life that don't suit us. We are not here to please ourselves.