Discrimination at interviews

Discrimination at interviews

Didn't find your answer?

 I have been self employed for a number of years and like all who own a business working long hours. I have had 2 children in that time and clients have often been put first. 2 years ago I sold my business. I am now in a position where I can look for a job I enjoy rather than go out to get the best pay.

I recently went for an interview. The job was 20 mins from the house and the hours were 9-5. I was happy to work longer hours to meet deadlines. At the interview I was asked by one of the panel whether I would have a problem with the hours because of my children. i pointed out I had child care in place and it had not been a problem in the past. The person concerned pointed out that his wife had stayed at home and brought up the kids. there was an obvious inference there that I should be doing the same. I have always worked and enjoy it 

I am sure there will be other reasons why I would not get the job BUT these questions have stuck with me and given me some concerns. I would not ask such questions at interviews and I am upset that I have been asked them.

I will be speaking to th HR dept of the company concerned to flag my thoughts with them. I wondered if anyone has any experience in this sort of issue. 

Replies (95)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By User deleted
21st Apr 2010 11:36

You're right to be concerned

I've no expertise in HR, but this seems to be out of order. It's easy to say it looking back, but I reckon that if you didn't think you were going to get the job anyway, you should have challenged this dinosaur to his face.

You may well have had a lucky escape from going to work for this organisation if this typifies their culture. But by all means bring this to the attention of their HR department. I'm sure we'd all be interested to hear what they say!

BTW I'm male and not particularly PC, but I recognise this as wrong. Excuse me I must get back to the dusting now.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cathygrimmer
21st Apr 2010 11:36

No change!

Some years ago, I questioned the wisdom of taking away more than 50% of the work of an employee who was on maternity leave (a committed senior manager who had been with the firm for 15 years before starting a family) without consulting her. The very senior staff partner in the large firm of accountants for whom I worked said 'If she's on maternity leave, as far as I'm concerned she doesn't exist.'.

It would have been nice to think that things had changed!

Cathy

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
21st Apr 2010 11:37

Rude but not illegal

First we need to distinguish between questions a potential employer cannot ask and base decisions upon, and questions which he is perfectly entited to ask whether you personally find them upsetting or not.

Had he asked you about your sexual orientation and based a decision upon that, then there would be a case for unlawful discrimination.  However, asking whether, given your particular circumstances, there is a danger of your ability to do the job being impared because children are ill or whatever, is a legitimate question.  Obviously if you had been able to respond by saying that your husband would care for them, or your mother, or whatever, that should put his mind at rest and be the end of the matter.  If you had said that if the kids are ill, on holiday, or whatever, you would need time off, then of course equally he would be entitled to consider that when deciding whether to offer you the position.

Personally I would always enquire about child care arrangements as it can be a problem.  We accept that people may have to take time off in emergencies, but have to consider the possition if children need care for perhaps several weeks. I also believe it is legitimate for a prospective employer to take into account the fact that an applicant is, perhaps, newly married and therefore likely to be starting a family.  

In a larger firm this is not a problem, but in a small firm it certainly can be.  It can also be very expensive in terms of hving to keep the position open whilst paying over the odds for agency staff. 

There are many things to consider when interviewing a prospective employee. My own rule has always been smple -

Can they actually do the jobDo I think they will fit in with the other staffCan we afford them

I do agree that the innuendo in his comment about his wife being at home to look after his kids, was unnecessary and perhaps a little rude. Given that attitude - would you want to work for him?  

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By ann1987
21st Apr 2010 11:44

Specific question re child care to cover illness. I can accept t

 If the question had been simply asking had I got cover for illness I would of had chance to set his mind at rest. Unfortunately, he question was not a specific one. 

Thanks (0)
Teignmouth
By Paul Scholes
21st Apr 2010 12:24

It smells

Sex discrimination covers not only the obvious stuff but any bias, or even questions, relating to marital status, pregnancy, maternity, civil partnership status etc etc and so, from what you say, you are right to question the "agenda" at the meeting and the reasons for you not getting the post.

Have a look at http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?r.s=sc&r.l1=1073858787&r.lc=en&r.l3=1074003268&r.l2=1073877851&type=RESOURCES&itemId=1073792193 and related links

Thanks (0)
Me!
By nigelburge
21st Apr 2010 12:34

Just ask yourself this

Do you really want a job with this firm?

Perhaps this is a blessing in disguise and you have found out in advance what your new employer would be like to work for.

By all means raise it with their HR dept if only so that the person who asked this question in such a crass way gets a kicking (some hope!) - but if I were you, I should steer well clear.

Just my two penn'orth.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
21st Apr 2010 12:35

now allowed to ask

I dont think you are supposed to ask about this in interview.

HOWEVER - when employing a mother of young children its a very important issue for anything other than a junior role. Are they going to cut and run when the clock ticks round? Are they going to finish the job in hand? Can they be called on for the odd evening/weekened? 

The same can of course apply to men, but its normally women who take on the biggest role with children so its a prefectly valid consideration for a business who's aim is to be in business and not a charity.

An employer must also consider the others in the office. If you have 2 people without children and 2 with, its not too rough on the 2 without children who will end up staying late (a cash bonus tends to help, of course if they are both men the women with cry foul but thats life), but if you have only one person who gets dumped on all the time they will tend to get very resentful and leave PDQ.

I should point out we employ three women all have children of different ages.  The only man is an offsite subcontractor. In each case the negatives about childcare was more was outweighed by ability when compared to other candidates. We did chose for example with a recent hire an older female with teenage children over a young mum.  Both candidates were of similiar ability, the older women presented a lower business risk of leaving or disrupting the team by taking days out or having to keep her job open if she had another child. Of course none of that is documented as it would no doubt be discriminatory.

So in short its all real business risks, so dont get upset about it, its a fact of life. If you are good, you will still get the job, but if there is somone of similiar ability with no kids then they will be a lower risk.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By WhichTyler
21st Apr 2010 13:08

Not just children

Would you consider asking any applicant if they have elderly relatives that might need caring for at short notice? Or any other dependents (husband or wife with chronic conditions)? If not then just asking women about childcare is hugely discriminatory and prejudicial. Let alone basing your decision upon that.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
21st Apr 2010 13:10

Ask yourself this

If you were male, would they ask the same question?

I doubt it - after all, why should they?

I think you have grounds, but you may wish to seek advice before you go to their HR department.

FTR, I am male with 4 staff, all female and with children at school - none of which makes any difference to their ability to do the work they are paid to do.  In fact, for the past year or so, it is me who has had to be flexible with child care.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
21st Apr 2010 13:16

Another point of view?

I was asked by one of the panel whether I would have a problem with the hours because of my children. i pointed out I had child care in place and it had not been a problem in the past.

As a women with children myself, I actually, being honest, think thats a fair, and, reasonable question. Its not sexist just a simple question - a similar question could be asked of someone caring for an elderly relative etc.

You say ''The person concerned pointed out that his wife had stayed at home and brought up the kids.'' - the problem is we dont know how that was said/meant. It could actually have been a compliment that you are doing the opposite.

Its a shame to all jump on the bandwagon assuming questions and comments are sexist.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
21st Apr 2010 13:49

Not PC and I don't care ......

I have to agree with the last poster in one respect - there are too many people constantly crying "***ism" of some sort or other to try to gain preferential treatment for themselves.  I'm not implying that this is the case with the OP.

It is reaching the stage where instead of employers simply looking for the best person for the job, they are now seeking the one least likely to be suing them in 12 months time. I know one company who were sued (unsuccesfully but it still cost them a lot of time) by an employee who alleged that he had been passed over for promotion because of his colour.  The fact he was thick as two short planks and lucky to be employed at all didnt cross his mind. 

Putting on my none PC hat - it does seem that thanks to the PC brigade we have laws to protect women, gays, etnic minorities, religious minorities, uncle tom cobly and all.  The ONLY group with no rights seems to be white hetrosexulal British males. 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
21st Apr 2010 14:44

As a woman with now school age children

I think it is reasonable to ask a potential employee about childcare.  After all, let's be blunt - most of the time it falls to me not my husband if one of the children is ill.

I currently work from home for myself so I am very flexible but have previously worked for one of the Big 4 which was a nightmare with a small child and as the finance manager of a local company.  When I went for the finance manager interview the very non-PC chief exec in his sixties asked about my childcare arrangements in a rational manner, then went on to say that they'd be flexible but wouldn't be very impressed if I "pulled out of a quarterly finance committee meeting if little Johnny was sick". 

I was initially put off but ended up accepting the job anyway due to many reasons.  I worked there for 6 years and the boss proved to be nothing less than excellent on the odd occasion I was off with ill children, and also in fact when I unexpectedly fell pregnant within 6 months of starting the job (before anyone thinks I was reckless, I had been told it was unlikely i'd be able to have any more children).  He even let me use his lockable office at lunchtimes to express milk! 

I couldn't have asked for a boss to be more child friendly despite the initial stance.  I did however fulfil my part of the bargain working extra hours when necessary and being on the end of the phone/email on days off.  Never once did my work actually suffer due to ill children as I made sure I did it in the evenings or weekends to catch up and meet deadlines.  Flexibility has to work two ways.

The above said, I do think your response of having childcare in place and not previously having issues should have been the end of the matter. The whole working/stay at home mum debate is not for interviews as clearly the interviewee wants or needs to work!   With that attitude of the potential boss I can see why you wouldn't be keen to work there.

Good Luck in your future interviews

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
21st Apr 2010 15:48

Perhaps join the army, then sue them for £1million because they

 

Yes, I'm being sarcastic, but cases such as that one recently in the papers do affect employers attitudes and make them think twice about employing mothers.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
21st Apr 2010 16:18

As the last anon, there is also another side to the armed forces

I also know a lady who was in the RAF, ended up being a single mother with twin babies.  They offered her a more settled admin role which she turned down, she was then posted to Basra for 4 months when they were less than a year old.  She went without complaint as she had signed up to it as part of her job, and she had declined their reasonable offer of a more settled role. Her mother looked after the children while she was away.

I wouldn't have done it but then I would have accepted the more settled role or changed jobs if I could.

Stories such as the one in the news only make it harder for those of us who are willing to give a great contribution and not take the mick.  As my old boss used to say, he liked the idea of part timers as you pay 50% salary and get 70% of the work out of them.  Most of us accept that for the flexibility when required.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
21st Apr 2010 16:33

I did say I was being sarcastic.

 

The point being that just a few playing the system spoil it for the genuine applicants.  But, can you blame employers for being cautious, we all read these reports in the papers, and of course it make you think twice.

Incidently, we work totally flexibly and parents (both mums & dads) take whatever time off they need so long as their work is done.  Its not unusual when the local school has its sports day to see half the office disappear for the afternoon. Then again, its not unusual to see me disappear when there is motorcycle racing at nearby circuits :). 

The one time I am GUARANTEED to disappear is if a new mum brings her offspring in to show it off.  I simply can't do the cooing, isnt it beautiful bit.  They all look like skinned rabbits to me.  And I certainly never hold them. Babies are like double barrel shotguns with the safety off - likely to go off at either end without warning.  

Thanks (0)
avatar
By WhichTyler
21st Apr 2010 16:36

Simply not true...

' The ONLY group with no rights seems to be white hetrosexulal British males. '

this may seem to be the case, but it's not. As i'm sure you know, a heterosexual man who is discriminated against (on grounds of sexual preference) would be entitled to the same protection as a gay man who is discriminated against.

Same goes for colour, religion and so on. A jewish person who is turned down by a Catholic family firm is entitled to the same protection as a catholic person turned down by a jewish firm.

And they get it, for instance in the recent case when a firm tried to advertise for 'Polish speakers only' and was told by the Equality & Human Rights Commission and the Government Equality Office that this was illegal.

So what's your problem?

PS You don't have to believe everything you read in the papers, you know...

Thanks (0)
Teignmouth
By Paul Scholes
21st Apr 2010 17:19

Thin end of the wedge

Providing equal opportunity, ie a level playing filed where people are employed, paid, trained & promoted only because of their skills and abilities is a human right, and whilst there are employers around who will still favour a man over a woman or one colour over another, the person who feels discriminated against must have the right to question and seek an objective review of what happened.

It's a shame all the other stuff, ie knee-jerk accusation & counter accusation, goes on around this and the process is so daunting but, despite the sexual D Act now being 35 years old, we have had centuries of bad employment and these practices need to be bred out.

So, yes there may be a valid reason to ask about childcare and they may have asked the same question of everyone who walked through the door but something clearly didn't feel right and so, as I say, you have every right to investigate the reasons why you were not sucessful.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
21st Apr 2010 17:27

Comment

I think his questions were perhaps a little blunt but perfectly fair. Soon we won’t be able to say good morning to each other without wondering what “inference” might be taken. If I were interviewing I would ask the same question and make the same comment, although I would ensure in a way that would give you no cause to make a complaint

I wouldn't go to the HR people if I were you - I'd sue them. Bound to be worth 50K or so for the emotional trauma you have suffered (get a quack to write a letter on it). As was already said, just a pity for me as a white male heterosexual, I’m not likely to get the same opportunity myself. Emotional distress not being so convincing to employment tribunals as from weeping females.

You should see some of the employee discrimination, unfair dismissal etc claims that my employment law solicitor colleagues deal with (and the patently garbage claims that are compromised by employers too scared to go before tribunals). The brass neck of some people (almost always females) is amazing.

Please note I am making no allegations here, this is not a contract, please seek professional advice, any similarity to real persons is purely coincidental etc etc

Beam me up Scotty!

roger rabbit

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
21st Apr 2010 23:26

Isnt theory wonderful?

this may seem to be the case, but it's not. As i'm sure you know, a heterosexual man who is discriminated against (on grounds of sexual preference) would be entitled to the same protection as a gay man who is discriminated against.

Posted by WhichTyler on Wed, 21/04/2010 - 16:36

 

In theory you are correct - but in practice you are dead wrong.

Let me give you an example.  There is a "Black Police Association" whose membership is restricted to members of ethnic groups originatiing from Africa & Asia (see their website).   However, the BNP's restriction to "whites only" membership was recently ruled illegal by the courts.  There was an attempt to form a "White Police Officers Association" and the race relations board soon put a stop to that.    Now, is that a "level playing field"?  Isn't having specific organisations for any group, whether the minority or the majority, discrimination?  Shouldnt they ALL either be allowed, or, ALL be banned?

The government has repeatedly promoted "possitive discrimination". Now, by positively discriminating in favour of one group - you are, by definition, negatively discriminating against anyone who is not a member of that group. Isnt that therefore discrimination?

Whatever you may like to believe, the fact is that there is discrimination of many kinds in many walks of life, and no amount of legislation can change that.

In the OPs case the employer could have seen that she has children, and discriminated against her by not giving her the job, without even mentioning the children at the interview.  He might discriminate against her because he doesnt like blondes, or doesnt like her accent, or a 101 other "reasons".  How do we know? 

Truth be told there is not a single person here who can honestly say that they do not discriminate against some group or other. Perhaps because of their race, but equally perhaps because of the football team they support, their political views, their accent (apologies to anyone from Birmingham, but I hate that accent - sorry, I simply do, and I would therefore be very unlikely to employ a Brummie as my PA - call it discrimination if you like), can anyone honestly say that they dont have some prejudice or other?  No - not if you're honest with yourself.

 

The only difference is that some discrimination is ilegal, other discrimination isnt, although no doubt after my revalation Brummies will now be declared an "ethnic mnority" and give preferential treatment and lots of government grants to "celebrate their culture". Soon we will see "Brummie Pride" marches, and schools will be ordered to change the sylabus to include lessons on the Brummie heritage.  (Yes, I'm being sarcastic - but you hopefuly get my point).

 

 

 

 

Thanks (0)
Teignmouth
By Paul Scholes
22nd Apr 2010 09:57

Just commonsense

No doubt I'm starting to bore people but there are some commonsense and simple reasons why all this stuff is necessary. 

For anyone interested in expanding thier knowledge there a wealth of stuff out there, ACAS for example has some good plainly written leaflets & text, a good example is "Delivering equality & diversity".

Positive discrimination, in it's purest sense is illegal, ie if you recruit or promote people on the basis of say their colour or gender.  This is different to reviewing your workforce and seeing that one group is under-represented compared to say local population and assessing that this is due to historical discrimination against say women or ethnic minorities.  In such cases it is only right to encourage job applications or promotion from or give special training to those unrepresented sectors, ie to correct past wrongs. 

Some might still see it as positive discrimination but the difference is in the assessment of why the situation exists.  There may for example be other obvious reasons why women only make up 10% of your workforce, if these reasons are non discriminatory then it would be illegal to take action to favour them in future recruitment or promotion.

On the question of associations for minorities, again this is just commonsence and if you go back far enough it's at the heart of trade unionism and even political parties, yes even the Tories.  If you have a workforce of 100 and 97 are in one group A and 3 in another group B, there is a risk (some might say a certainty) that the next recruit is more likely than not to come from group A from the community than group B. 

In order to promote & support the rights of Group B to be treated fairly, ie given equal opportunities to a work colleague in group A, it makes sense to me that they might want to form an association or join one from outside, let's face it grop A are hardly likely to need an association but obviously if they feel unfairly treated they are perfectly entitled to form or join one.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
22nd Apr 2010 10:06

Paul

In order to promote & support the rights of Group B to be treated fairly, ie given equal opportunities to a work colleague in group A, it makes sense to me that they might want to form an association or join one from outside, let's face it grop A are hardly likely to need an association but obviously if they feel unfairly treated they are perfectly entitled to form or join one.

 

Posted by Paul Scholes on Thu, 22/04/2010 - 09:57

 

Which is where your arguement falls down. If "group A" do feel that they too need an association to promote their rights they are almost always denied.

I have already quoted an example where the Black Police Officers Association is legal, but, a proposed White Police Officers Association was ruled to be unlawful.  Therefore "group A" - ie the majority - are denied separate representation, whist "group B" are allowed it. Discrimination.  

Thanks (0)
Teignmouth
By Paul Scholes
22nd Apr 2010 11:13

Never said it was easy

Why was the WPOA ruled illegal?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By zarathustra
22nd Apr 2010 11:57

A slightly different take on this

I think they are legitimate questions., because most employers these days want to be flexible. However they also want to know what they are letting themselves in for.

If the questions are not fair game at, I think its only fair that if that person wants impromptu time off then the answer is no.

The whole point of equality is that one employee doesnt get any preferential treatment, and that includes women with sick children.

However in a sane world employers/ employees need to sit down at the start and have a dialogue about how bets to work (flexibly) together. Thats why the whole subject needs to be discussed.

Oh, and the interviewer was bang out of order bringing up his stay at home missus.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Darren Loring
22nd Apr 2010 13:11

Why move from Self Employed to Employed?

Why would you want to move from Self Employed to Employed? - even if you sold your business a couple of years ago surely you could start up again on your own?

I have only recently moved the other way and set up my own company so I can have more flexibility in my working hours to enable me to look after my daughter (4 yrs old) - and so far no regrets at all - I find it much less stressfull and am spending more time with her - I look forward to being able to take her to school and collect her afterwards without having to rely on child-minders, or after-school clubs.

ftr I am male, divorced, with a joint care agreement.

Back to your question, as many others have stated, I feel the initial question from your prospective employer was not out of order, however they should be happy to accept your answer regarding child-care, and the comment afterwards about the guys wife not working was quite unnecessary and certainly indicates some discrimination on his part.  You state there was a panel at the interview, not just one man, therefore it is quite possible the other panel members are not so discriminatory, I would have thought you were best to wait until you hear if you have got the job - if not then contact their HR department and ask why you did not get it, and inform them of your concerns about that panel member's comments.

Darren

DFL Accountants Ltd

www.dflaccountantsltd.co.uk

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
22nd Apr 2010 13:20

zarathrusta

"I think its only fair that if that person wants impromptu time off then the answer is no.

The whole point of equality is that one employee doesnt get any preferential treatment, and that includes women with sick children."

But of course parents, and let's be clear it is parents rather than mothers, do have the legal right to have 'impromptu' unpaid time off which is known as "time off to deal with emergencies involving dependents".

So why aren't people worrying about employing parents as a whole rather than just mothers? I should imagine it is even harder for a man who needs to take the odd day off to look after a sick child, the reaction would probably be why can't your wife do it?

CD - I agree totally, I think very few people could say they really wouldn't discrimate at all.  I can't say I would hire a Brummie PA either, nothing personal but the accent would do my head in too.  Somehow that's more acceptable to say outloud than you wouldn't hire an Indian person with a strong accent, then you'd run the risk of be classed as racist when in fact it's all the same discrimination - the accent not the colour of their skin.  What a minefield...

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
22nd Apr 2010 13:24

Out of order - maybe but....

Oh, and the interviewer was bang out of order bringing up his stay at home missus.

Posted by zarathustra on Thu, 22/04/2010 - 11:57

 

Actually I dont think his comment was out of order, the setting for his comment was. Whilst it was inappropriate to voice them in an interview situation, I actually agree with his sentiments in that I believe that a mother's place is at home looking after her children (assuming father is the bread winner), and I believe that pre-school children benefit immensly from being looked after by their mother as opposed to a creche or a childminder. 

Yes I know that's not a "politically correct" view and I will be labled a dinosaur, I also realise that Harriet Harman is probably adding my name to her hit list right now.

And before someone asks, we have had staff leave to have children, some have returned to work a few months later, which is their decision, but, we have also had a couple who have taken, in one case 5 years, and in another case 9 years (additional children arriving during the initial 5 years), and who have then returned to us. We don't actually keep their jobs open for them for that time, obvously, but, as soon as they want to come back to work we do our best to accomodate them as soon as possible.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
22nd Apr 2010 13:39

Comment

"Oh, and the interviewer was bang out of order bringing up his stay at home missus."

I disagree - why is it bang out of order? It is a statement of fact about the employment and personal facts of his own situation - so what? It invites the interviewee in this case to put the facts about her own employment and personal situation and aspirations and why she makes she choices she does - ie as she says she is committed to work, does not want to stay at home, maybe her partner is able to do so. Seems to me that putting such points would make her appear to be a great candidate - an opportunity for her to shine.

Instead, of course, the inference the OP draws (a subjective judgment) is that this factual comment about someone else’s situation is discrimination and therefore merits a complaint. And therefore, everything is being levelled down to the lowest common denominator where we all have to be clones of each other and when we’re not we get allegations of discrimination, threats of complaints and ultimately descend into the gutter world of monetary compensation.

We should all attend interviews covered by cardboard boxes, speaking through voice disguisers and not disclose our sex, colour, age, height etc.

Ridiculous - Lord help us

roger rabbit

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
22nd Apr 2010 14:38

I disagree CD & roger rabbit

Whilst I think it is acceptable to ask about childcare, the OP referred to the comment about the interviewer's wife staying at home as said with an 'obvious inference' that she should be doing the same, therefore sounding as if it was said in a negative and judgemental manner.  She was the only one there so we have to take her word for it.

"It invites the interviewee in this case to put the facts about her own employment and personal situation and aspirations and why she makes she choices she does"

I don't think the interviewee should have to explain their choice to work, whether it be for lifestyle reasons, career advancement, financial necessity or whatever.  Surely the fact that they are applying for a job means they have decided to work.  The question about childcare covers the fact that they are organised and practically in a position to do that job.

CD - You are entitled to your opinion, and I partially agree but for me the best choice was to work 3 days per week when the children were pre-school for various reasons.  So when I applied for a 3 day pw job, I took it for granted that the choice to work 3 days pw had been made and the reasons for that choice were really no business of anybody other than my husband and me.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
22nd Apr 2010 15:19

I disagree

 don't think the interviewee should have to explain their choice to work, whether it be for lifestyle reasons, career advancement, financial necessity or whatever.  Surely the fact that they are applying for a job means they have decided to work. 

Posted by Anonymous on Thu, 22/04/2010 - 14:38

 

Actually the interviewer has every right to ask pretty much anything he/she wants.

When I interview someone I am absolutely entitled to ask why they want to work for me, and to explore anything that I want to ask about.  And I emphasise "anything" that "I" want to ask about, not what some numpty in government like Harriet Harman says I can ask about. 

The bottom line is very simple. It's MY practice, I pay the wages, I pay the costs, it comes out of MY pocket, and NO ONE, not politicians, employment tribunals, or anyone else has the right to tell me who I choose to employ or not employ, or, dictate to me how I reach those decisions.   

The reason why an applicant chooses to work, is very relevent. Their reasons can affect their attitude and their suitability.

Certainly for me their technical ability and their ability to learn is important, but, whether they will fit in with other staff, and indeed whether they will fit into the ethos of our business, is equally important.  We run a very relaxed office where staff are allowed probably much more freedom than is the norm (as I write this the sun is shining and I can see a couple of the staff working on laptops in the gardens - which is normal for us). However, not everyone is suited for such an environment, and we are careful only to employ people who will fit in with us.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
22nd Apr 2010 16:39

Comment

“I don't think the interviewee should have to explain their choice to work, whether it be for lifestyle reasons, career advancement, financial necessity or whatever.”

 

Please tell me you’re kidding! The interviewee can decline to answer if they wish, but I think it is a fair question to put. If you exercised that right to keep quiet with me I would terminate the interview with you there and then.

So you don’t think it is a legitimate question for an interviewer to ask for the motivation of the potential employee to be understood and tested? What do you think we are - robots?

 

 roger rabbit

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
22nd Apr 2010 17:16

Perhaps I phrased it badly

I don't think somebody should have to explain their choice to be a working parent or a stay at home parent.

Yes, relevant to ask why they want to work for your company, and that they have the practical arrangements in place to be able to do so without unneccessary interruption but not why they choose to work per se.

So, I don't mind being asked about childcare arrangements but don't question the family choice for me to work.  That is none of your business.  You wouldn't ask a man why he chooses to work rather than sit on the dole, so why ask me why i choose to work and not stay at home as a housewife/mother?

Surely your business is that I have the technical ability you require and the personal skills to fit in with your employees and clients, and the relevant practical arrangements in place to enable me to do so?

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
22nd Apr 2010 18:07

Why not?

I don't think somebody should have to explain their choice to be a working parent or a stay at home parent.

Yes, relevant to ask why they want to work for your company, and that they have the practical arrangements in place to be able to do so without unneccessary interruption but not why they choose to work per se.

 

 Posted by Anonymous on Thu, 22/04/2010 - 17:16

 

Why not?

It is the employer doing you a favour by offering you a job, you are not doing him a favour by applying. The last time we actually advertised a vacancy for a qualified or a QBE within a week we had nearly a hundred applicants to choose from, probably because we do offer well above average salary packages with lots of extras like a non contributory pension, and annual bonus.

Once staff join us we do everything we can to keep them for life, and a lot of our staff have been with us for 20-30 years. Obviously I am not going to offer a position to anyone I am not 99.9% certain will fit in and become a long term member of our staff.

Why you choose to be a working parent is very relevent, it's part of your motivation.  The reasons you give for choosing to work rather than stay at home could give a valuable insight into your attitudes, and whether or not you would fit in with the rest of the team. As far as I am concerned I am not hiring an employee, I'm interviewing a potential member of our "family", and that means understanding what makes you tick.

The day we cease to be an individual and happy ship, and turn into a soulless set up like some of the large practices, I will lock the doors and close down.

 

Thanks (0)
Teignmouth
By Paul Scholes
22nd Apr 2010 20:02

We all have our prejudices

Absolutely right, even at 55 I still have to deal with prejudices built into me during childhood partly by a spiteful  grandmother with whom I was forced to spend several summers.  She lived in Rhoose and so until I discovered the wonders of the Black Mountains & Snowdonia and had a brilliant New Year in Barmouth, I had imagined that all people from Wales were small minded bigots.

Other prejudices learned during those years are less conscious but are still there and I have no doubt that we all have our fair share of these, but because they are sub-conscious they are more difficult to deal with and so, by making discrimination illegal and giving it heavy publicity, it is hoped that people who are given positiuons of power to hire or fire or even decide on which tender to accept, will be prompted to take extra care in dealing fairly and without prejudice.

As I have probably made clear by now, for me all of this is stating the "bleedin obvious" and, as I actually believe that people should be treated fairly I see nothing wrong with this.  It's the way it has to be at the moment to unlearn things we have all grown up with.  Eventually, like many other areas in which the pendulum is forced back, it will become a way of life and the law will become unnecessary, eg smoking, seat belts, slavery....

From reading the comments of many others on here I am left wondering whether many still feel that it is OK to discriminate or maybe they value their right to act in a certain way, a right only there because they are in a bigger tribe, over the rights of another human?  Whatever, I'm sure I've wasted enough breath and so bye.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
22nd Apr 2010 21:51

I'm bowing out

CD - I understand what you're saying but I still feel that I shouldn't have to explain why I choose to work rather than stay at home.  You wouldn't ask a man why he works per se and I don't think I should have to explain myself either.  We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Back to the OP, I bet you didn't expect this can if worms when you posted!  Good Luck in whatever you decide to do and let us know how you get on.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
22nd Apr 2010 22:26

Brainless drones

"Political correctness" is rules laid down by one set of people which everyone is forced to follow. 

BUT, prejudice, national pride, loyalty to our family, our country, our football team, is part of being human.  It's the differences between us that make us what we are. 

By trying to ban this, and outlaw that, and "re-educate", the ultimate end result will be a world full of drones.  Obedient little worker bees all blindly obeying the queen bee. 

Is that really what you want for humanity?   

Thanks (0)
avatar
By lawmaniz
28th Apr 2010 12:38

Sex Discrimination at interviews.

I've just written a book called 'Maternity Rights' (as one does, of course).

What happened to this lady at her interview was an example of direct sex discrimination contrary to s.1(2) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. A case example is that of Herbert Smith Solicitors and another v Langton, Employment Appeal Tribunal Case No.0242/05 in which the female employee asked her employer what her future work role would be and received the answer: '... that really depends on what your long-term plans are. Are you planning to have more children?'

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
28th Apr 2010 14:04

The state of the law

Which simply demonstates the dire state of the law nowdays.

Quite obviously someones future prospects depend upon their other future plans - no business can operate efficiently, or indeed fairly to its other employees, without taking everything into account.

We handled a case where a married woman in a small company (10 employees) demanded her "right" to flexi hours to get her children to school etc.. 

She then insisted upon starting at 10am

There had to be cover in her department from 8am to 6pm and there were only 2 employees in that department.

This meant that her co-worker was stuck with arriving early to cover for her.

When told to either sort out a rota, or leave, she decided to sue for contructive dismissal.

Quite rightly she LOST her case as it was properly ruled that her demands placed an unreasonable and unfair burden on other employees.  We subsequently instructed bailiffs to collect the costs she was ordered to pay.

It really is reaching the point where it is too risky & potentially expensive for employers to employ women - but of course if they dont, the PC brigade start shouting sex discrimination. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks (0)
Teignmouth
By Paul Scholes
28th Apr 2010 14:11

Too risky to employ women?

Only if you are someone who has a problem with women. 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By WhichTyler
28th Apr 2010 14:17

Bad example

that case seems to have been particularly handled (before your intervention, natch)

The employee (male or female) has a right to request, not demand, flexible working. The employer also has a right to turn it down (for instance if they are to reorganise work among existing staff), subject to an appeal by the employee to the employer.

Then yes the employee can raise a grievance and finally resort to a tribunal, where they will not succeed if the employer has managed the process (and their staff) properly.

Using this kind of case to support an argument that 'it is too risky to employ women' really smacks of prejudice, given that employers have rights too ,and increasingly men will be asking for flexible working too.

Thanks (0)
Teignmouth
By Paul Scholes
28th Apr 2010 15:13

Having &/or using prejudice

As has been discussed earlier most people will have some prejudice hardwired into them, but it's then whether they use them or, recognising the harm & pain it can cause others, use their adult intellect and decency to overcome them.  The latter being a sign of a caring society.

As you have pointed out though, some will cherish, promote & use them as often as they can and so yes, they are at risk.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
28th Apr 2010 16:21

Discrimination
Too risky to employ women?

Only if you are someone who has a problem with women. 

 

Posted by Paul Scholes on Wed, 28/04/2010 - 14:11

 

I don't have a problem with women - other than the usual male problem of understanding their inbuilt desire to own half the shoes produced in the world, their ability to visit 27 dress shops only to decide they really want the first one they tried on, their ability to tell you what turning to take - 10 minutes after you passed it, and their ability to always want your attention at precisely the moment your team is about to score a vital goal. 

What I DO have a problem with, are the women who seem to think that they can take months off to have children, spend the next 10 years insisting that their children come first and you must put up with their constant days off, and then moan because they have not progressed as far as their male collegues who have not missed a day in 10 years.

I have a problem with women who use having a family as an excuse to play the system and behave as if having children was somehow "not their fault". 

I certainly see no reason whatsoever why mothers should have any preferential treatment or advantge over any one else. By givng them "rights" which are not given to other employees, you are in fact discriminating against those who do not have children for whatever reason.

So, it seems to me, you should either give EVERYONE the right to flexble working, or, no one.  Anything else is discrimination. 

 

 

 

Thanks (0)
Teignmouth
By Paul Scholes
28th Apr 2010 16:51

Look in the mirror

On the assumption that some of this stuff is from personal experience, I'd say you reap what you sow, in nearly 30 years of employieng women & men, I've not experienced any of this, ie any changes in arrangements for any circumstances (from children to sabaticals) has been discussed & worked out as adults rather than bully & bullied.

As is so often the case CD you pontificate from experience that is remiscent of a 70s sit-com.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
28th Apr 2010 18:21

Thank you for that fairly offensive view.

As is so often the case CD you pontificate from experience that is remiscent of a 70s sit-com.

Posted by Paul Scholes on Wed, 28/04/2010 - 16:51

 

 

Not only is your innuendo that I "bully" staff insulting, it is also inaccurate and unprofessional.

Actually, as you would know had you read my posts on other topics, we operate flexible hours for EVERYONE.  What we do NOT do under any circumstances is give anyone preferential treatment over anyone else.

Now I keep my staff for life. Many have been with us for 20-30 years, and we even have two second generation employees, born while their parent(s) worked for us, they have now themselves trained and work for us.  One is qualified, the other is still studying. Can you say the same about your staff?  Do you attract such loyalty?

It is not a case of a "70's" attitude - it's a case of not allowing one section to tke advantage of another section, just because one interest group has a more vociferous pressure group than another. 

Professionally however, I have seen many examples of women "playing the system" to try to extract ridculous sums from employers by claiming to have been denied their "rights" in some way. We have seen it in the past with spurious claims of "racism", and now spurious claims of "parental rights" seem to be becoming the latest excuse for get rich quick claims against employers. 

There is a growing backlash against the nanny state, and against the ridiculous demands of the politically correct brigade, and this is taking place not only in the board rooms of Britain, but in the courts too, where judges are growing increasingly tired of hearing dubious and often frankly fanciful claims of so called "discrimination" and the more reputable members of the legal profession are no longer willing to take anything but the most blatant cases (of which there are few). 

Now I have no problem running my business, and no complaints at all from staff, because they are ALL treated as equals. That includes paying qualifieds and QBE's exactly the same salary and bonus -  I suppose you would think that wrong too?  

 

 

 

 

Thanks (0)
Teignmouth
By Paul Scholes
28th Apr 2010 19:24

I take it back

As I said, I assumed all the moaning and buying shoes stuff was from your own experience, you have now fully justified your approach to your own employment practices and, whilst I only have your word on it, that's good enough for me.  Furthermore, I'm prepared to accept your stance that whilst you are prejudice against women in your comments, it's a different case in your firm, consequently I'll just put down most of what you say as heresay or what you read in the papers.

On the QBE thing, we've been over this a few times now but given your omnipresence on this site, you'll have forgotten our past agreement, again, I understand.

Thanks (0)
Teignmouth
By Paul Scholes
28th Apr 2010 19:27

PS

Before I leave, sorry if you did, but did you ever answer my query from 22nd about why the WPOA was deemed illegal?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Richard Willis
28th Apr 2010 22:15

Although I have never subscribed to the concept

this makes the case for using a script when interviewing.  EVERYONE gets the same questions so any attempt at playing the sex discrimination card would fail.

Thanks (0)
Teignmouth
By Paul Scholes
29th Apr 2010 08:18

Yes but...

I'm sure you'll have covered this one but, just in case, try & avoid questions like "so my dear, any possibility you'll get pregnant in the next year or two?"

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
29th Apr 2010 08:34

Interview script

IMHO the case for using a script, agreed with colleagues, is unanswerable. It's a good defence against dscrimination but more importantly you get to focus your questions exactly on the qualities you want to see in the person who gets the job. If everyone gets the same questions they get the same chance to demonstrate their suitability (or reveal their lack of it!) and you get the chance to compare like with like when you review their answers later Because of course you have taken or careful note of them. If you reckon that the issues discussed here are important for the job, then why not frame a nice open question like this - 'What are your expectations of an employer in terms of work-life balance?'. The answers ought to give you what you need to know.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
29th Apr 2010 08:43

A pregnant pause in the interview
 

I'm sure you'll have covered this one but, just in case, try & avoid questions like "so my dear, any possibility you'll get pregnant in the next year or two?"

 

Posted by Paul Scholes on Thu, 29/04/2010 - 08:18

 

You might not ask it, but unless you're a complete idiot, it's certainly one of the numerous factors that will be a part of your decision making process.

The ONLY difference the pc brigade's "anti discrimination" laws make is that now if you turn someone down ypu make sure you put down a different reason - and in the REAL world, instead of the pink fluffy world of the PC brigade, that is what happens.

Applicants are still turned down for numerous reasons. There are racist employers out there, homophobic employers, etc.  The ONLY difference anti discrimination laws make is that they have to record a different reason.   

Of course, according to Mr Brown, being open and honest makes you a "bigot" - which says all we need to know about those who for years have promoted political correctness - and I have absolutely no doubt that Clegg is the same.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Bosctax
29th Apr 2010 09:03

Discrimination used to be a good word. When did it become a bad word? Who hijacked it?

Thanks (0)

Pages