# Asking personal Questions at interviews??



## BONDGIRL (23 Sep 2010)

Just like to know your opinion on being asked Personal Q's at interviews for work?
I was asked yesterday, do I have a family...  Immediately I got very on the defensive and asked why he needed to ask such a Q and was the answer going to make his mind up about me, I am a woman. He was then a little shocked and said no , of coures not I am interested as I am a family man etc. this was a phone interview for a fairly good professional job.  Before I continued I said "well its very hard for a woman to get a good senior job these days without being judged on her home life". He was even more apologetic..  Anyway I told him my story (married kid etc)...
Now I cant help thinking if I dont get job its because of my situation..  This was a full time job and I really was interested in it, phone interview was 1 hour 30min. He said he wants to have face to face next week but no call yet...............
Do you think thats it because I have a child..
Really hard to get anywhere these days when people paint you witht he same brush....


----------



## pixiebean22 (23 Sep 2010)

I've never been asked personal questions in an interview.  I've been asked where do you live and how do you get to work, purely to determine if i would be using public transport etc.

Where I work there is a woman who takes sick days whenever her son is ill (completely understandable).  Her husband works in a similar position in a different company (I know someone who works with him) and he never takes days off to look after their son.  

I hope you have some luck with this job.


----------



## BONDGIRL (23 Sep 2010)

Well Pixie, my hubbie is brilliant and I am lucky I have family who minds my child, so I am in a new job 7 mths now and NEVER once rang in sick...  only took my 2 weeks off in the summer, I work hard too.  My hubbie takes time off with child is sick. He is in company a long time and established.  I do feel guilty when I aint midning hmi but I am setting up a future for us...  Maybe he was just "shooting the breeze" asking such a Q.  Last two jobs I had I didnt even wear my wedding rings in the interview I am gone that paranoid about eerything!!!


----------



## purpeller (23 Sep 2010)

It's a difficult grey area.  You don't want to come across as being too defensive but at the same time, it's not ok for them to be asking these questions.  I found myself answering similar questions at a face to face interview because it was in a very chatty way at the end of it.  Afterwards, I realised I shouldn't have.  I wonder is the way to approach it in future is side step the question?


----------



## Staples (23 Sep 2010)

There are many reasons why you may not be offered a job.  

However, the interviewer should not have sought to discuss your family circumstances.  By doing so, he has left himself exposed to possible charges of discrimination on grounds of gender.


----------



## BONDGIRL (23 Sep 2010)

Staples yes he does, but well he was  a nice man and maybe it did get chit chattie....  I did explain my husband supports everything etc.. so we will see..   
suppose a lot of women out there give a bad example, have seen it a lot... then have seen a company that wasnt a bit child friendly either, really need to find a common ground.  Wish I didnt have this worry along with all the other ones. But well if he doesnt hire me, his loss as I am dam good at what I do!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## pixiebean22 (23 Sep 2010)

BONDGIRL said:


> Well Pixie, my hubbie is brilliant and I am lucky I have family who minds my child, so I am in a new job 7 mths now and NEVER once rang in sick... only took my 2 weeks off in the summer, I work hard too. My hubbie takes time off with child is sick. He is in company a long time and established. I do feel guilty when I aint midning hmi but I am setting up a future for us... Maybe he was just "shooting the breeze" asking such a Q. Last two jobs I had I didnt even wear my wedding rings in the interview I am gone that paranoid about eerything!!!


 
Oh BONDGIRL I wasn't trying to imply that mums do more work than dads or anything like that (or imply anything about your particular situation) as I have no personal experience.

I personally wouldn't worry too much, this is the whole point of job references is it not?  If potential new employer wants to know the ins and outs of it he could actually check your job reference from your last job and ask questions about sick days or whatever?


----------



## ney001 (23 Sep 2010)

BONDGIRL said:


> Immediately I got very on the defensive and asked why he needed to ask such a Q and was the answer going to make his mind up about me, I am a woman.



You said it yourself you got very on the defensive - an over the top reaction I would think - no offense meant but perhaps you should consider that if you don't get the position it's because you did come across as being very defensive.  How defensive you were only you can know were you defensive/aggressive? , perhaps you should have answered the question and then went on to explain your circumstances and how committed to work you are etc.


----------



## VOR (23 Sep 2010)

BONDGIRL said:


> I was asked yesterday, do I have a family.....


 
I was asked the same thing in an interview a few months ago. I was also asked what my wife does. The interviewer then asked my age. I answered all the questions but was not happy to do so. Highly unprofessional and potentially dangerous for the company. The HR girl in the interview cringed. 

A few days later I got a call from the recruitment agent to say I was successful with that round of interviews and would I come back again. I said no way. I politely explained that I was not happy with how the director had conducted the interview and I didn't want to work for the company. I don't know if she ever gave that feedback to the company but she was shocked at the questions also.

I have interviewed plenty of people and would never, ever ask for a person's age, marital status or if they had children or not. It's an interview minefield!!


----------



## BONDGIRL (23 Sep 2010)

ney001 - Well NOt much to be honest, I am not that type of girl, I should rephrase, just a little shocked he asked as I was trained for yrs how to interview and told never to ask such Qs..............

Vor - well that is what two people in my current job said, they said they wouldnt go to such a company...


----------



## BONDGIRL (23 Sep 2010)

NEy001 - on NO WAY was I ever agressive!! Sure I was being interviewed, being at my best!!! have never been agressive in my life!


----------



## BONDGIRL (23 Sep 2010)

Ah yes Pixie I know where you are coming from.. I suppose the general idea of the thread was to get an idea of what is going on these days in interiews youknow as a lot of job seekers can be very vunerable


----------



## VOR (23 Sep 2010)

BONDGIRL said:


> I suppose the general idea of the thread was to get an idea of what is going on these days in interiews youknow as a lot of job seekers can be very vunerable


 

+1 After asking me what my wife did the director of the company also asked me what the MINIMUM I could live on each month was. Not, what I am on now.
I couldn't work for such a person.


----------



## Ceist Beag (23 Sep 2010)

VOR said:


> I have interviewed plenty of people and would never, ever ask for a person's age, marital status or if they had children or not. It's an interview minefield!!


Is a persons age and marital status not fairly standard information to include in a cv? So there would be no need to ask this I would have thought?


----------



## pixiebean22 (23 Sep 2010)

Jeeez VOR, what a question, I'd say you're glad you steered clear!

Yeah BG I know what you mean, it's handy to know what sort of tricks they're up to as potential employers can be a lot pickier now than in the past.

I had my age (not my marital status) on my cv but I found this to be off-putting.  I have 5 years experience in my current profession but am often overlooked because of my age, "you're so young, you may choose to go back to education" is something I hear (when doing interviews) quite often.


----------



## VOR (23 Sep 2010)

No it's not. It has absolutely nothing to do with your ability to do the job. It's not a dating agency application.


----------



## BONDGIRL (23 Sep 2010)

Ceist Beag said:


> Is a persons age and marital status not fairly standard information to include in a cv? So there would be no need to ask this I would have thought?


 
NO. You never include your AGE or MARITAL STATUS anymore.

They can usually work out your age if you have education history...

only thing you need is your name, not even your address.

Vor: I cant believe he asked that Q too.. OMG.  Outrageous


----------



## Ceist Beag (23 Sep 2010)

Yikes, I'm fairly out of date so! Agree with the others VOR, can't believe the questions you were asked either.


----------



## BONDGIRL (23 Sep 2010)

Ceist Beag said:


> Yikes, I'm fairly out of date so! Agree with the others VOR, can't believe the questions you were asked either.


 
Yes there was too much discrimination going around especially for the AGE category.


----------



## MrMan (23 Sep 2010)

I don't see the harm in finding out a bit about a candidate before you invest time and money in them. If people are that sensitive you might wonder how they will cope under the stress of work or how they will deal with clients who don't behave by the book.


----------



## BONDGIRL (23 Sep 2010)

Mr Man , I disagree. There were guidelines put in place many yrs ago on interviewing best practise and all because of discrimination


----------



## becky (23 Sep 2010)

It shouldn't have been asked. Years ago an interviewer for a post of electrician remarked to a female candidate that she was the only female for the job as a break the ice type comment on the way into the interview. When she didn't get the post, she took and won a case on discrimination on the grounds of gender.

On the other hand, I once had a female candiadate explain that she recently had a child, this was in the early stage of the interview. I had to congratulate her and tell her it wasn't relevant to the interview but she got all flustered. She did get the job btw.


----------



## DB74 (24 Sep 2010)

becky said:


> It shouldn't have been asked. Years ago an interviewer for a post of electrician remarked to a female candidate that she was the only female for the job as a break the ice type comment on the way into the interview. When she didn't get the post, she took and won a case on discrimination on the grounds of gender.


 
I'm sure her case did wonders for equality in the workplace!


----------



## MrMan (24 Sep 2010)

BONDGIRL said:


> Mr Man , I disagree. There were guidelines put in place many yrs ago on interviewing best practise and all because of discrimination



Guidelines to avoid getting strung up by over sensitive people who see a nice way of making money for nothing and never consider the possibility that they weren't the best person for the job and that maybe they could do with working on presenting themselves better at the next interview.


----------



## ney001 (24 Sep 2010)

mrman said:


> guidelines to avoid getting strung up by over sensitive people who see a nice way of making money for nothing and never consider the possibility that they weren't the best person for the job and that maybe they could do with working on presenting themselves better at the next interview.



+1


----------



## BONDGIRL (24 Sep 2010)

MrMan said:


> Guidelines to avoid getting strung up by over sensitive people who see a nice way of making money for nothing and never consider the possibility that they weren't the best person for the job and that maybe they could do with working on presenting themselves better at the next interview.[/QUOTE
> 
> Society has made me sensitive about this type of stuff... and I wouldn't bother to follow this up for money, I am an intelligent woman, but asking me do I have kids leads me to believe I am being judged athow I will work before I get the chance. There is no need to have such questions.


----------



## MrMan (25 Sep 2010)

BONDGIRL said:


> MrMan said:
> 
> 
> > Guidelines to avoid getting strung up by over sensitive people who see a nice way of making money for nothing and never consider the possibility that they weren't the best person for the job and that maybe they could do with working on presenting themselves better at the next interview.[/QUOTE
> ...


----------



## BONDGIRL (25 Sep 2010)

Well good news for me got another job and hoping this will be where I will shine, going to get stuck in and look.forward to great new career !


----------



## Complainer (26 Sep 2010)

MrMan said:


> I don't see the harm in finding out a bit about a candidate before you invest time and money in them.



So how is a person's marital status or family status relevant to their ability to do the job?



MrMan said:


> If people are that sensitive you might wonder how they will cope under the stress of work or how they will deal with clients who don't behave by the book.



It's nothing to do with sensitivity. It is to do with (as others posters have demonstrated) concern about getting involved with such an amatuerish and unprofessional approach to business.

Terrible to think that interviewers are still so amateurish in this day and age. It is very much in their own interests to avoid any questions, apart from the fact that they are completely unnecessary.

About 10 years ago, I was asked did I have kids towards the end of an interview in a large multi-national, in a kind of chatty. I told the interviewer that he really shouldn't ask those questions. 

I got the job. A couple of years later, the interviewer (not a HR person) was promoted to a post responsible for all recruitment.


----------



## BONDGIRL (26 Sep 2010)

Complainer; fair play to u. Next time if I am asked that Q I will give your answer.


----------



## MrMan (27 Sep 2010)

Complainer said:


> So how is a person's marital status or family status relevant to their ability to do the job?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You might think it amateurish, but people are so conditioned as to how they should present themselves and what is the best way to answer questions then it is should be no harm to deviate away from the path and try and find out who this person that wants to get paid for a postition in your company really is. The fact that people get so disgruntled and refuse to answer questions is really down to their own opinions on how the world should work.
Your last line seems to suggest that the interviewer isn't capable of his/her new position because they asked you a question that you consider amateurish. If you were the best person for the job well then they hired you and therefore did their own job correctly.


----------



## Complainer (27 Sep 2010)

MrMan said:


> Your last line seems to suggest that the interviewer isn't capable of his/her new position because they asked you a question that you consider amateurish.


No - my last line suggests that the interview isn't capable of his/her position because they asked you a question that exposes the company to considerable risk - risk of finding themselves on the wrong end of an Equality Tribunal judgement. Completely amatuerish.


----------



## VOR (27 Sep 2010)

Complainer said:


> No - my last line suggests that the interview isn't capable of his/her position because they asked you a question that exposes the company to considerable risk - risk of finding themselves on the wrong end of an Equality Tribunal judgement. Completely amatuerish.



+1 Complainer. I would expect an interviewer to know the law and and ask questions that do not put the company at risk.


----------



## MrMan (27 Sep 2010)

Complainer said:


> No - my last line suggests that the interview isn't capable of his/her position because they asked you a question that exposes the company to considerable risk - risk of finding themselves on the wrong end of an Equality Tribunal judgement. Completely amatuerish.



So you would right off a persons capabilities based on a bit of small talk at the end of an interview. The fact that you find it amateurish is half the problem these days. 
The attitude that every little thing should be nit picked upon and analysed to death is seriously nauseating and more than a little depressing.
Simple questions that are deemed to infringe on ones rights and reasons for outrage shows just how fickle some of us have become.


----------



## Complainer (27 Sep 2010)

It's not really about my opinion or how nitpicking/fickle I am. It's about the law. You can like the law or hate the law, but it is still the law. To expose the company to unnecessary risk is simply foolish.


----------



## Mpsox (27 Sep 2010)

MrMan said:


> Simple questions that are deemed to infringe on ones rights and reasons for outrage shows just how fickle some of us have become.


 
A number of years ago I attended an interview for a job in Belfast. As part of the interview process, right at the start, the interviewer "read me my rights" under Equality legislation in NI, with particuler reference to religous discrimination. The process freaked me out a bit I have to say and was one of the reasons I didn't do a great interview.

However I can understand why they had to do it, for the same reason I can understand why Equality Legislation exists in the South. It's a harsh reality that there are idiots out there who will refuse to employ someone on grounds of race, gender or because they may be a women with kids and thus they may be perceived to be more prone to "taking time off" as a result. Simple questions can quite often have a sinister motive behind them.


----------



## DB74 (27 Sep 2010)

Mpsox said:


> Simple questions can quite often have a sinister motive behind them.


 
That is true but an off-the-cuff remark (not even a question) that an interviewee is the only woman who applied for the job should hardly be construed as a form of discrimination (all other things being equal)


----------



## Complainer (27 Sep 2010)

DB74 said:


> That is true but an off-the-cuff remark (not even a question) that an interviewee is the only woman who applied for the job should hardly be construed as a form of discrimination (all other things being equal)


If you read through the case reports on the Equality Tribunal website, you will see that discrimination is rarely about a single remark or question. It is generally about a web of attitudes/comments/questions.


----------



## BONDGIRL (27 Sep 2010)

Surprise today.. for phone call for 2nd interview face to face. Dam it I'm good lol.


----------



## MrMan (28 Sep 2010)

Mpsox said:


> A number of years ago I attended an interview for a job in Belfast. As part of the interview process, right at the start, the interviewer "read me my rights" under Equality legislation in NI, with particuler reference to religous discrimination. The process freaked me out a bit I have to say and was one of the reasons I didn't do a great interview.
> 
> However I can understand why they had to do it, for the same reason I can understand why Equality Legislation exists in the South. It's a harsh reality that there are idiots out there who will refuse to employ someone on grounds of race, gender or because they may be a women with kids and thus they may be perceived to be more prone to "taking time off" as a result. Simple questions can quite often have a sinister motive behind them.



Of course equality is great but I can tell if you are a woman and generally what race you are by just looking at you. When people then presume that questions are leading to a case of discrimination it goes to show how soft we have become. 
I would imagine those that do discriminate on any basis have  pre conceived notions that will be held before an interview ever takes place so your basically damned in the first place, but when an interviewer tries to get under your skin to find out who is really sitting before them people cry foul and that makes no sense personally to me.


----------



## Caveat (28 Sep 2010)

BONDGIRL said:


> Surprise today.. for phone call for 2nd interview face to face. Dam it I'm good lol.


 

Good luck!

For a laugh, why don't you turn the tables on them on the whole personal questions thing?

As soon as you sit down ask them how often they have sex.


----------



## Complainer (28 Sep 2010)

MrMan said:


> Of course equality is great but I can tell if you are a woman and generally what race you are by just looking at you. When people then presume that questions are leading to a case of discrimination it goes to show how soft we have become.
> I would imagine those that do discriminate on any basis have  pre conceived notions that will be held before an interview ever takes place so your basically damned in the first place, but when an interviewer tries to get under your skin to find out who is really sitting before them people cry foul and that makes no sense personally to me.



I really don't think it's anything to do with soft. Quite the opposite - it takes significant guts to stand up to an interviewer. It is nothing to do with pre-conceived notions - the reason to avoid these issues during interviews is to avoid any possibility of discrimination.

But regardless, perhaps you might explain why you think it necessary to find out someone's family/marital status in an interview situation?


----------



## MrMan (29 Sep 2010)

Complainer said:


> I really don't think it's anything to do with soft. Quite the opposite - it takes significant guts to stand up to an interviewer. It is nothing to do with pre-conceived notions - the reason to avoid these issues during interviews is to avoid any possibility of discrimination.
> 
> But regardless, perhaps you might explain why you think it necessary to find out someone's family/marital status in an interview situation?



How does it take guts when you can stand up and say 'I feel uncomfortable with that question as it seems to have an underlying tone to it that may lead to discrimination' cue alarm bells and 'oh God we have to hire this person regardless of how poor their interview was'. 

It's not necessary but it might soften them up and take them away from the rehearsed answers, a curve ball as some might say. It wouldn't bother me 'Am I married' 'No', 'Any kids' 'No'. It's not exactly a case of prying into personal life.


----------



## Complainer (29 Sep 2010)

MrMan said:


> How does it take guts when you can stand up and say 'I feel uncomfortable with that question as it seems to have an underlying tone to it that may lead to discrimination' cue alarm bells and 'oh God we have to hire this person regardless of how poor their interview was'.


It takes guts because you know the interviewer won't like to be challenged.



MrMan said:


> It's not necessary but it might soften them up and take them away from the rehearsed answers, a curve ball as some might say. It wouldn't bother me 'Am I married' 'No', 'Any kids' 'No'. It's not exactly a case of prying into personal life.


So do you think that any half-competent interviewer could come up with other 'curve balls' that don't put the employer at risk? Would that be hard?

In my opinion, it is EXACTLY a case of prying into personal life.


----------



## Seagull (29 Sep 2010)

MrMan said:


> How does it take guts when you can stand up and say 'I feel uncomfortable with that question as it seems to have an underlying tone to it that may lead to discrimination' cue alarm bells and 'oh God we have to hire this person regardless of how poor their interview was'.
> 
> It's not necessary but it might soften them up and take them away from the rehearsed answers, a curve ball as some might say. It wouldn't bother me 'Am I married' 'No', 'Any kids' 'No'. It's not exactly a case of prying into personal life.


 
I hope you're not responsible for conducting interviews. You're likely to cost the company a lot in lawsuits. 

Bear in mind that there can be a big difference in the interpretation of the answers depending on the gender of the interviewee. e.g. going down the stereotyping route -
Male interviewee - married = likely to be more solid and dependable
Female interviewee - married = likely to start a family and be out on maternity leave, and then taking time off to look after children.
I'm not saying these are correct, or that the interviewer is considering this, but that is how it can be interpreted.


----------



## MrMan (29 Sep 2010)

Seagull said:


> I hope you're not responsible for conducting interviews. You're likely to cost the company a lot in lawsuits.
> 
> Bear in mind that there can be a big difference in the interpretation of the answers depending on the gender of the interviewee. e.g. going down the stereotyping route -
> Male interviewee - married = likely to be more solid and dependable
> ...



Let me worry about my professional life.

On the subject of interpretation, the possibility for possible discrimination is so broad that it really negates most of it. Are you married doesn't mean 'are you planning on maternity leave' because as most of us are aware that marriage is not necessary for pregnancy. 
If the problem of hiring a woman between 18-40 was that the employer was afraid she might have paid leave to have kids then no question needs to be asked because the possibility is already known.
CV's are misleading and never show negative traits (intentionally anyway) and people are their most polished selves during interviews so there should be plenty of room for a company to try and paint a more accurate picture of who they are condering for a post.


----------



## MrMan (29 Sep 2010)

Complainer said:


> It takes guts because you know the interviewer won't like to be challenged.
> 
> 
> So do you think that any half-competent interviewer could come up with other 'curve balls' that don't put the employer at risk? Would that be hard?
> ...




I didn't mean to insult you I'm sure it did take guts to stand up for yourself in that interview.

The fact that you seem so riled up at an innocent question would suggest to me that any other curve balls might not be the best way to go.


----------



## Complainer (29 Sep 2010)

MrMan said:


> any other curve balls might not be the best way to go.


The penny drops.


----------



## MrMan (29 Sep 2010)

Complainer said:


> The penny drops.



Not the best way to go for the individual due to their over -reaction was the point being made, but I guess we are destined to read from different pages.


----------



## Seagull (29 Sep 2010)

Bear in mind that the interview process is a two way affair. It's the interviewees first exposure to the company as well as the company's introduction to the interviewee. It's not necessarily a case of being upset by the question itself, as surprise that an interviewer would be so unprofessional as to even ask the question. It raises questions about the standards of the company, and whether you actually want to work at a place that sloppy. You can very easily wind up driving away the best candidates as they will have other offers from more professional interviewers.


----------



## MrMan (30 Sep 2010)

Seagull said:


> Bear in mind that the interview process is a two way affair. It's the interviewees first exposure to the company as well as the company's introduction to the interviewee. It's not necessarily a case of being upset by the question itself, as surprise that an interviewer would be so unprofessional as to even ask the question. It raises questions about the standards of the company, and whether you actually want to work at a place that sloppy. You can very easily wind up driving away the best candidates as they will have other offers from more professional interviewers.


 
It's the first that an interviewer sees of the candidate and not the other way round. If a candidate decides that a question is 'sloppy' and therefore decides that they could not prosper in such an unprofessional environment given that they were asked 'are you married' it might just be to the companies benefit that a person who takes such a highly strung position on trivial matters goes elsewhere.


----------



## Complainer (30 Sep 2010)

MrMan said:


> It's the first that an interviewer sees of the candidate and not the other way round.


Seeing an interview as a one-way process is a really good sign of a bad interviewer.


----------



## MrMan (30 Sep 2010)

Complainer said:


> Seeing an interview as a one-way process is a really good sign of a bad interviewer.


 
Was spin doctor the post you interviewed for?

A candidate will (usually) have researched the company, looked at facts and figures and have given themselves a general feel for what they are walking into. The interviewer has the candidates own written account of their professional lives to look at before they meet.
The candidate is looking at the company and the role they would like to fulfill, the interviewer is looking at the individual and trying to ascertain whether or not they will be an asset.


----------



## Firefly (30 Sep 2010)

MrMan said:


> It's the first that an interviewer sees of the candidate and not the other way round.


 
Facebook?


----------



## MrMan (1 Oct 2010)

Firefly said:


> Facebook?



Not unless you are friends as most people above a certain age will have their profile on private and only available to their selected friends.


----------



## PetrolHead (1 Oct 2010)

Just to throw this into the debate....

A candidate's ability to perform a certain job role maybe affected by their lack of a third level qual (for example) and therefore, make them unsuitable for the role.

Also...

A candidate's ability to perform a certain job role maybe affected by their having three children under the age of five (for example) and therefore, make them unsuitable for the role.


Explain to me how these situations are different and why the question is irrelevant in an interview.

...and before anyone says it, I know the law on interview questions... I'm talking ethics.


----------



## Complainer (1 Oct 2010)

PetrolHead said:


> A candidate's ability to perform a certain job role maybe affected by their having three children under the age of five (for example) and therefore, make them unsuitable for the role.


Perhaps you could explain what is meant by this? How does having kids make you unsuitable for any role?


----------



## Vanilla (1 Oct 2010)

Agree with Complainer.

If having three children under five makes you unsuitable to a certain position, would it be different if you were the dad or the mom?


----------



## PetrolHead (2 Oct 2010)

Vanilla said:


> If having three children under five makes you unsuitable to a certain position, would it be different if you were the dad or the mom?




Not implying any difference. Just making the point that there are many factors beyond education and previous experience that either add or detract from a candidates ability to undertake a certain role and yet questioning these areas is banned. 

Doesn't make much sense really.


----------



## Complainer (2 Oct 2010)

PetrolHead said:


> Not implying any difference. Just making the point that there are many factors beyond education and previous experience that either add or detract from a candidates ability to undertake a certain role and yet questioning these areas is banned.
> 
> Doesn't make much sense really.



Technically, nothing is banned. You can ask whatever questions you like. 

Legally, you cannot discriminate on grounds of marital status or family status or disability or....

Asking questions about these matters exposes the employer to the risk of a claim of discrimination.

But regardless, I'm still confused about your point "that there are many factors beyond education and previous experience that either add or detract from a candidates ability to undertake a certain role and yet questioning these areas is banned"

Are you suggesting that having three kids may 'add or detract from a candidates ability'?


----------



## BONDGIRL (2 Oct 2010)

There it is again kids being mentioned...  let the new employee prove themselves before judging.


----------



## BONDGIRL (2 Oct 2010)

Vanilla said:


> Agree with Complainer.
> 
> If having three children under five makes you unsuitable to a certain position, would it be different if you were the dad or the mom?




Here here


----------



## MrMan (3 Oct 2010)

BONDGIRL said:


> There it is again kids being mentioned...  let the new employee prove themselves before judging.



Prove themselves at a cost to the employer. Between training, wages and lost time it could be a very costly practice of act first ask questions later.


----------



## MrMan (3 Oct 2010)

Vanilla said:


> Agree with Complainer.
> 
> If having three children under five makes you unsuitable to a certain position, would it be different if you were the dad or the mom?



Therein lies the problem, a woman automatically assumes that sexism is at play when a general remark was made.


----------



## micmclo (3 Oct 2010)

MrMan said:


> Not unless you are friends as most people above a certain age will have their profile on private and only available to their selected friends.



It is ridiculously easy to hack into a person's facebook even if it set to private.
Sure google it and learn more
A reason I never had a facebook or bebo account.

Having said that, there are many posts from me on AAM I'm not proud of!


----------



## MrMan (3 Oct 2010)

micmclo said:


> It is ridiculously easy to hack into a person's facebook even if it set to private.
> Sure google it and learn more
> A reason I never had a facebook or bebo account.
> 
> Having said that, there are many posts from me on AAM I'm not proud of!




I know facebook is very open, but having a company hack your file to find out more about you is a little extreme.


----------



## Complainer (3 Oct 2010)

micmclo said:


> It is ridiculously easy to hack into a person's facebook even if it set to private.
> Sure google it and learn more
> A reason I never had a facebook or bebo account.


It is quite difficult to find a given person on FB, let alone hack their privacy. Unless they have a very rare name, you probably won't find them. And if you do find them, you wont know for sure that the Joe Bloggs you've found is the Joe Bloggs you are interviewing. 

So fancy a challenge? I'll set up a new FB account, and give you 3 days to take the 'ridiculously easy' actions to hack it? €100 to a charity of your choice if you succeed?




MrMan said:


> Therein lies the problem, a woman automatically assumes that sexism is at play when a general remark was made.


I think the sexism is shown by your decision to challenge the female poster while ignoring the male poster who made pretty-much the same point.  Now I'm starting to understand why you are so attached to those probing questions about issues that are none of your business.


----------



## BONDGIRL (3 Oct 2010)

MrMan said:


> Prove themselves at a cost to the employer. Between training, wages and lost time it could be a very costly practice of act first ask questions later.



This is bull... everyone has to prove themselves, everyone... my point if finding out I have kids at interview stage and not letting me prove myself first is unfair, unprofessional.

I started mew job last week (not this job I interviewd for). I am doing great. Had to stay back late few nights as I am manager and my husband took care of our child. I am dedicated to my family and to always working hard. I can do both but so so many employers men and woman don't seethe bigger picture.


----------



## Pope John 11 (3 Oct 2010)

Complainer said:


> ........And if you do find them, you wont know for sure that the Joe Bloggs you've found is the Joe Bloggs you are interviewing.........



Who's to say that the company that is interviewing a person, checks up only on that persons FB account before the interview..............what is to stop the company checking up the persons FB account after the interview....just to get some additional info........afterall a company may not decide to offer a position to a person straight away!


----------



## Complainer (3 Oct 2010)

Pope John 11 said:


> Who's to say that the company that is interviewing a person, checks up only on that persons FB account before the interview..............what is to stop the company checking up the persons FB account after the interview....just to get some additional info........afterall a company may not decide to offer a position to a person straight away!


Same issue applies after interview. Finding someone on FB by name is a needle in a haystack job.


----------



## MrMan (4 Oct 2010)

Complainer said:


> I think the sexism is shown by your decision to challenge the female poster while ignoring the male poster who made pretty-much the same point.  Now I'm starting to understand why you are so attached to those probing questions about issues that are none of your business.



Which male poster are you talking about?


----------



## Complainer (4 Oct 2010)

MrMan said:


> Which male poster are you talking about?


Me


----------



## MrMan (4 Oct 2010)

BONDGIRL said:


> This is bull... everyone has to prove themselves, everyone... my point if finding out I have kids at interview stage and not letting me prove myself first is unfair, unprofessional.
> 
> I started mew job last week (not this job I interviewd for). I am doing great. Had to stay back late few nights as I am manager and my husband took care of our child. I am dedicated to my family and to always working hard. I can do both but so so many employers men and woman don't seethe bigger picture.



You say let them prove themselves before judging them, Surely the interview is the most important part of the judging process?
I'm not sure of the relevance of you working late and your husband doing what a father should do, but I presume you think that this is out of the ordinary. 
Maybe it's time that the viewpoint of how women are perceived needs to be changed by women themselves.


----------



## MrMan (4 Oct 2010)

Complainer said:


> Me


I didn't realise that you made a statement regarding women being viewed differently to men in an interview.


----------



## truthseeker (4 Oct 2010)

MrMan said:


> Maybe it's time that the viewpoint of how women are perceived needs to be changed by women themselves.


 
Just from a practical perspective. Ive a friend who just told her boss she is pregnant. On a personal level he was happy for her etc... But on a professional level he is fuming that she is going to be off on maternity leave, again (3rd time in 5 years). Its not easy to change a viewpoint when practically speaking its only women who give birth!!

Same applies to interviews. If a young, recently married woman, interviews for a position and so also does a young man, there is some chance in the coming years that she will be off on maternity leave - but there is NO chance the man will. Its biology.

Getting past the actual mechanics of who gives birth. Many women end up being the one to do the creche collections, stay off with a sick child etc... Sometimes its because the mans job is perceived as more important, sometimes its because the mother feels its her 'role' to do so, but whatever the reason, it happens. 

So questioning a woman at an interview about whether or not she is married or has children is more loaded than questioning a man about the same thing.


----------



## Complainer (4 Oct 2010)

MrMan said:


> I didn't realise that you made a statement regarding women being viewed differently to men in an interview.


The hint was in the "Agree with Complainer" bit of Vanilla's post.


----------



## MrMan (4 Oct 2010)

Complainer said:


> The hint was in the "Agree with Complainer" bit of Vanilla's post.



But did you not say 'how does having kids make someone unsuitable for a role' whereas Vanilla made the point that such a question would have more of an impact on a woman than a man. Can you see the difference?


----------



## MrMan (4 Oct 2010)

truthseeker said:


> Just from a practical perspective. Ive a friend who just told her boss she is pregnant. On a personal level he was happy for her etc... But on a professional level he is fuming that she is going to be off on maternity leave, again (3rd time in 5 years). Its not easy to change a viewpoint when practically speaking its only women who give birth!!
> 
> Same applies to interviews. If a young, recently married woman, interviews for a position and so also does a young man, there is some chance in the coming years that she will be off on maternity leave - but there is NO chance the man will. Its biology.
> 
> ...



What your point is missing (in my opinon) is that there never needs to be an interview given or a question asked for a company to realise that a woman may take maternity leave within the next few years if hired, so the fact that she is called in the first place would suggest to me that this isn't a factor when it comes to hiring. 
With regard to personal relationships i.e who picks up the kids and collects from the creche, that is completely down to the dynamics of each relationship. If a husbands deems his job more important than his kids then it says more about him than men in general.

Going back to the question, it just doesn't stack up that it is more loaded for one than the other.


----------



## Complainer (4 Oct 2010)

MrMan said:


> But did you not say 'how does having kids make someone unsuitable for a role' whereas Vanilla made the point that such a question would have more of an impact on a woman than a man. Can you see the difference?


I can see two people  "who made pretty-much the same point" like I pointed out above.


----------



## truthseeker (4 Oct 2010)

MrMan said:


> What your point is missing (in my opinon) is that there never needs to be an interview given or a question asked for a company to realise that a woman may take maternity leave within the next few years if hired, so the fact that she is called in the first place would suggest to me that this isn't a factor when it comes to hiring.


 
I dont think thats true MrMan. A lot of CVs dont have age/marital status on them. If during an interview an interviewer asks a woman whether or not she is married/has kids - s/he is also figuring the chances of maternity leave. If a woman already has 3 kids, the youngest of which is 10, then she is less likely to go on maternity leave than a woman who has just married but has no children. You wont know any of that unless you ask at an interview.

So it is a more loaded question - which is why there are guidelines in place, to avoid people being put into an awkward spot.

Just as an aside - one NEVER knows why someone is turned down after an interview. I remember a friend telling me he had interviewed 10 people for a particular role and he turned down the most qualified person - because she was very overweight. In his opinion he felt that her weight would prevent her from doing the job as efficiently as someone fitter as it involved quite a bit of running about, up and down stairs etc... He also felt that someone with that amount of weight would be more prone to sick days etc... Unfair maybe, but thats the decision he made.

I also know a girl who was waiting for a bus back to dublin after interviewing in a company in kildare and the guy who interviewed her came along and offered her a lift back, which she accepted. During the lift he asked her out on a date. She was FUMING. She was offered the job but felt she couldnt possibly take it after he'd asked her out (she had said no).

So all sorts of 'human' stuff happens with interviewers, its just that a lot of it cannot be proven. You might feel you didnt get the job because you were a 30 year old just married woman, well maybe so, but maybe you didnt get it because there was a better candidate, you didnt sell yourself well, or you were just unlucky that day?


----------



## BONDGIRL (4 Oct 2010)

That's it Truthseekeer, well said.


----------



## MrMan (5 Oct 2010)

truthseeker said:


> I dont think thats true MrMan. A lot of CVs dont have age/marital status on them. If during an interview an interviewer asks a woman whether or not she is married/has kids - s/he is also figuring the chances of maternity leave. If a woman already has 3 kids, the youngest of which is 10, then she is less likely to go on maternity leave than a woman who has just married but has no children. You wont know any of that unless you ask at an interview.
> 
> So it is a more loaded question - which is why there are guidelines in place, to avoid people being put into an awkward spot.
> 
> ...



Why not just cut the risk out and don't hire a woman? If it is such an issue for employers they could easily sidestep the issue. 
There is potential for every person to be discriminated against, but surely we are not all gone so soft that simple questions cannot be answered ort tactfully batted away.


----------



## Complainer (5 Oct 2010)

MrMan said:


> Why not just cut the risk out and don't hire a woman? If it is such an issue for employers they could easily sidestep the issue.


Because they will find themselves on the wrong end of an equality tribunal judgement. Because they will find that their male-dominated decision making and lack of diversity hurts their effectiveness.


MrMan said:


> There is potential for every person to be discriminated against, but surely we are not all gone so soft that simple questions cannot be answered ort tactfully batted away.



There is nothing soft about preventing discrimination.


----------



## Staples (5 Oct 2010)

MrMan said:


> surely we are not all gone so soft that simple questions cannot be answered ort tactfully batted away.


 
If there's a good reason for any any particular question, then there isn't a problem as long as it's asked of _all_ interviewees.  

A small bit of tact and commmon sense is required though.


----------



## DB74 (5 Oct 2010)

Complainer said:


> So fancy a challenge? I'll set up a new FB account, and give you 3 days to take the 'ridiculously easy' actions to hack it? €100 to a charity of your choice if you succeed?


 
Here you are!

[broken link removed]


----------



## MrMan (5 Oct 2010)

Complainer said:


> Because they will find themselves on the wrong end of an equality tribunal judgement. Because they will find that their male-dominated decision making and lack of diversity hurts their effectiveness.
> 
> 
> There is nothing soft about preventing discrimination.



Your suggesting that the best person on each occassion couldn't be a man which in itself is discrimination. How could a lack of diversity be construed by choosing men only, are you sayijng that woman are more suitable for some jobs?

It is soft to consider a question to be anything other than that - A question. To deem simple questions as a lead up to discrimination is fanciful. Some people enjoy creating drama and to see an innocent question turned into a possible lawsuit would suggest as much.


----------



## MrMan (5 Oct 2010)

Staples said:


> If there's a good reason for any any particular question, then there isn't a problem as long as it's asked of _all_ interviewees.
> 
> A small bit of tact and commmon sense is required though.



I would be against having a set of questions for everyone as I think it would be more beneficial to adapt the questions according to how you feel the interview is going.
If the candidate is open and forward with responses then great you have something to go on, but if they freeze a little or are stiff in their replies then they might need to be settled down and retreat a little from the formal approach. I can see how personal type questions can be used to try and relax the candidate (ask them questions they know the answers to first). A company wants to hire the right person and not simply trip up as many as they can and see who they are left with.


----------



## Complainer (5 Oct 2010)

MrMan said:


> Your suggesting that the best person on each occassion couldn't be a man which in itself is discrimination. How could a lack of diversity be construed by choosing men only, are you sayijng that woman are more suitable for some jobs?


No - I'm suggesting that if the best person on EVERY occasion is a man, then that is discrimination. 



MrMan said:


> It is soft to consider a question to be anything other than that - A question. To deem simple questions as a lead up to discrimination is fanciful. Some people enjoy creating drama and to see an innocent question turned into a possible lawsuit would suggest as much.


Nonsense - taking a hard line to stop foolish interviewers asking questions that expose the company to risk is not soft. It is good management. 

I'm getting a bit tired of this now. Clearly you have a bee in your bonnet about this and you consider yourself to be above the law. I'm not going to debate this with you any further.

Best of luck with your future recruitment.


----------



## MrMan (6 Oct 2010)

Complainer said:


> No - I'm suggesting that if the best person on EVERY occasion is a man, then that is discrimination.
> 
> 
> Nonsense - taking a hard line to stop foolish interviewers asking questions that expose the company to risk is not soft. It is good management.
> ...



I have been making my points about what should be the case, not what falls under possible equality law, I thought that might have been obvious. 
Your first line really proves my point, if you say that a man cannot be the best on every occassion then you are bringing a discriminating attitude to the table. If there are 6 positions available and the first 5 go to men, it sounds like you would discount any other men for the role regardless of how good they were. Same goes for if it were 5 women the last would go to a man by your black and white rules.

We should strive for better or take your approach and follow a manual to the bitter end.


----------



## BONDGIRL (11 Oct 2010)

Had second interviw.. didn't like it... asked me lots of irrelevant questions... lots and lots of where do u see yourself in TEN yrs...  just bored me and I felt very uneasy.. so if he rings back will be a big fat no from me !


----------



## becky (11 Oct 2010)

Bondgirl - I hate that question as well, gives the spoffers more scope to spoffe while the non spoofers find it unsettling.  

I have yet to see someone get a job/not get a job based on their answer to that question.


----------



## truthseeker (12 Oct 2010)

BONDGIRL said:


> Had second interviw.. didn't like it... asked me lots of irrelevant questions... lots and lots of where do u see yourself in TEN yrs... just bored me and I felt very uneasy.. so if he rings back will be a big fat no from me !


 
The only answer to this question (if being interviewed by potential future boss) is: In your position......or higher.

I always hate that question as well - its just silly, no one can possibly tell where theyll be in 10 years, depends on so many factors.


----------



## MrMan (12 Oct 2010)

truthseeker said:


> The only answer to this question (if being interviewed by potential future boss) is: In your position......or higher.
> 
> I always hate that question as well - its just silly, no one can possibly tell where theyll be in 10 years, depends on so many factors.



I suppose its a safe question that won't bring a lawsuit and won't find out anything about the potential employee, just the type that some posters would prefer to be common in interviews (not you btw).


----------



## Complainer (12 Oct 2010)

BONDGIRL said:


> Had second interviw.. didn't like it... asked me lots of irrelevant questions... lots and lots of where do u see yourself in TEN yrs...


Try answering "I hope to be a competent interview who can ask decent interview questions by then".


MrMan said:


> I suppose its a safe question that won't bring a lawsuit and won't find out anything about the potential employee, just the type that some posters would prefer to be common in interviews (not you btw).


PS It's me he's misrepresenting here.


----------

