pregnancy test

[HollywoodHitman]

X Royal,

Requiring the test as a sole condition of hiring would be a violation of human rights yes. I am not disputing that fact at all. However, if there existed the possibility that a candidate is pregnant, and they were for instance to be training in nuclear medicine, it would probably preclude them from the training, and employment temporarily. Therefore it's feasible that a condition of enrollment for a specific trade may be that they are required to have a test of some kind. Whether a drug test, an aids test or a pregnancy test, a condition of employment is a condition of employment. If someone is sexually active, there is always a possibility that there might be an unknown pregnancy.

Companies have the right to test for drugs or other physical conditions as a part of their application processes, what makes the CF any different? I would say that pregnancy is a physical condition, albeit a temporary one.

I'm not in any way whatsoever saying that if it is not a specific condition of trade employment that they should submit themselves to it, rather I'm suggesting that someone might actually be doing something right........

 

[beach_bum]

Okay. So....
   I had to go to a civie doc and get this test done to start with. So, it wasn't really the military's budget it was effecting.
   Neither I nor the doc had 'reason to suspect I was pregnant'.
  Like I said, If it was for safety concerns about going on course (which I totally understand), no problems -- but I could have gotten pregnant and had the kid after the test and before course started.
  As far as I can tell, it was random but I did not really ask the doc why I had to get it done because I sorta assumed it was manditory for females.
  So, no other females on these boards have every had to have a pregnancy test? Then it is just plain odd that I did.  

Well, the PA at the recruiting centre must have had some reason to suspect you were pregnant or he/she would not have sent you for the test.  If this really concerns you, phone them and ask. 

 

[combat_medic]

HollywoodHitman: If you suspect you're pregnant and don't report it, you can be charged. If you don't suspect you're pregnant, then the test is discriminatory and has no medical basis. Also, you could just as easily get pregnant the day following the test, or be pregnant already but too early along for the test to detect. It's all pretty subjective, and makes mandatory testing pretty irrelevant (even though we've already established that mandatory testing doesn't exist in the CF).

However, the idea of "women could get pregnant and would therefore be unable to do their jobs" was the basis for sexist hiring practices in the past and, for the longest time, women could also have been fired for having a kid (before the existance of Mat leave - which is also available to men, by the way). It is a violation of charter rights to deny someone a job because they're pregnant, or their spouse/significant other is pregnant. Men can take parental leave which would take them away from their training, but no one asks in the interview if they're expecting a child, because that would be discrimination on the basis of family status.

 

[X Royal]

combat_medic: It appears we agree.

HollywoodHitman: If you read the "quote" I posted you seemed to condone not hiring women if they are   pregnant. The Canadian Human Rights Code disagrees ( can't even ask). I agree that it may postpone training or employment temporally but how this applies must be decided only after a firm offer of employment. Not many years back women of childbearing age were not even considered for many jobs because she may get pregnant in the future. And also as earlier stated with parental leave this also can apply to men now.

Best Wishes

Ps: Companies subject to the Canadian or Provincial Human Rights Codes (everyone) are very limited on who they can drug test or test for physical conditions and only after a firm offer of employment and where a negitve result would be extremely important.

 

[HollywoodHitman]

Right, here it is. First of all, I am one of the least gender discriminatory soldiers I know. 2 of my closest friends are women, both who have had children of whom I am exraordinarily fond. Both of whom have jobs traditionally occupied by men and they do just fine. My original post was intended to suggest that the request for this young woman to have a pregnancy test may only have been out of concern for safety or health or whatever. How the he** should I know, I wasn't there. I for one have grown a little tired of people blowing things out of proportion, and my suggesting that there were GOOD reasons rather than discriminatory or sexist ones, was simply to offer a couple of different possibilities.

As for maternity and paternity leave, I am fully aware of them both and I support the ideas. It's about time really. I'd hire someone who was pregnant, but if they were about to do something that would endanger their health or the health of their unborn child, and there was the possibility that they were pregnant would it not be prudent to suggest a test to ensure they weren't? There is also the 'due diligence' and 'duty of care' aspect to employers informing potential employees of certain risks involved......Could this have been an example of that? I submit again that ANYONE who is sexually active runs the risk of being pregnant, or being a father.

My problem is the suggestion that this test was ordered as a result of sexist behavior on the part of the recruiter. Gimme a break. I'd be surprised in fact if the recruiter mentioned ANYTHING about pregnancy, rather the civvy doctor probably suggested it for some reason.

As well, if someone is going to suggest that I am condoning something like discrimination based on pregnancy or family status, they might at least read the part in the piece which was quoted, as saying "I'm not saying that's right by any means". How I could condone something which I openly do not condone?...... confuses me.

 

[X Royal]

But if a pregnancy test, or a drug test is a condition of hiring and you want the job, it's already in law ( I cannot reference it specifically) that it is acceptable.

You want the job, take the test. You don't want the job, don't take the test. I think you'll find no prejudice, just conditions of employment........

HollywoodHitman: If I misread your intentions I apologize but I hope you can see that even your own words can give that impression. As for the statement that testing as a condition of employment is acceptable and law is false.
Some employers can skirt around the law by indirectly suggesting something to a prospective employee who will be afraid to not comply with. Sometimes good intensions do not allways mean legal.If a female was asked to get her own doctor instead of the military to do the test then maybe they knew it was wrong.

Best Wishes

Ps: By saying " I'm not saying that's right by any means"   does not also automatically imply you think it's wrong. This is an open ended statement that with no firm commitment to either side of the question.

 

[elizabeth]

My problem is the suggestion that this test was ordered as a result of sexist behavior on the part of the recruiter. Gimme a break. I'd be surprised in fact if the recruiter mentioned ANYTHING about pregnancy, rather the civvy doctor probably suggested it for some reason.

My civvie doc did not suggest the test! I was told by the military doctor to go and get it done. My civvie doctor was acutally a complete moron and I had to go back twice in order to be sure it was done properly.
I, personally, do not feel discriminated against or anything like that. I was merely wondering if this was common practice. I knew that I wasn't  (with no chace of becoming) pregnant. The doc probably had some other reason for it that I am not aware of.
I think it is a good thing that I know that these aren't manditory so that if I have to get one again I can ask why. Anyways, thanks all for clearing up some issues for me!