Feeling angry realising that I wouldn't get the job I have if I went for it now because I have children

[Rollergirl1]

I overheard a phone conversation today between one of my colleagues (senior management) on the phone to a recruitment agency, talking about a candidate that he had just seen. The candidate was a woman in her 40's. He was very pleased with her, liked her profile, how she came across, was happy with her experience. Her only downfall was that she has children. He went on to explain that he didn't feel that he could ask how old (her children were). But his concerns were that she would not be able to be away from home for, example, 3 days at a time. He didn't even ask her these questions. But the upshot was that she was not a candidate, because she had children. I couldn't believe what I was hearing.

I have 2 young children and work part-time. This overheard conversation has brought me right back down to earth. Although I have worked for the company for over 10 years and have a wealth of experience within our company and within our business, if I were to be interviewed now for a full-time job with my company, I probably wouldn't be considered because I have children.

How disgusting is that?!

Foot in both camps here. When the DS was 5 months (many many years ago) I gave the DH a kiss at 6.30am and walked out of the children's ward and got in cab for Heathrow. Got back 8pm that night and after another night on the Z Bed called the office and confirmed my resignation in writing as soon as we were discharged.

YANBU. This happens all the time. It's just that we don't expect to hear it said out loud.

The problem is - NO ONE CHALLENGES IT. What are you doing about it? Just posting on MN isn't the answer. The guy is being sexist. If he were being racist in the hiring process, would you do anything then? This is just as bad.

I know I'm putting you on the spot, but if it's nobody's responsibility to challenge this kind of behaviour, nothing will change.

That is very, very wrong. The recruitment consultant should challenge this by checking with the woman that she can travel.

She could have older children, at boarding school, a sahp anything. How ridiculous.

Recruitment consultants are paid by the employers - they have no incentive whatsoever to ensure a fair employment process.

A RC can easily say to the woman can you travel?

Is this discriminatory anyway?

Even a rc wants to place someone. And is probably in competition with rc companies. And hopefully another agency will fill the role because this one question wasn't actually asked.

Anyway, silly assumptions.

As you were only hearing one side of the conversation, you do not know that the woman in question hadn't specifically requested not to travel

And you never need to disclose you have children to agents or potential employers

I'm dismayed at some of the attitudes on this thread. This employer has broken the law! It is totally unacceptable to discriminate against women in this way.

rc companies are only paid by employers if they fill the role.

But the issue is I suppose whether she did mention her ability to travel or not.

I was wondering that, how do they know she has children. I don't write it on my job application, I don't give either marital status or children, I'm not asked to by the forms I've filled recently and would never volunteer this information.

It's a bit different if it's a small world and everyone 'knows', but then, I'm in a career in which people are expected to have children but also work very hard, the two aren't seen as mutually incompatible.

And if you see sexism, call them on it.

I did when the talk went to how we would have to take account of whether we took on a female assistant as they might leave after maternity leave. I pointed out that the last two assistants were both male, and both left after six months as they got better paid jobs, so their assumption that only women would leave a short-contract post was wrong.

Usually they make up some gumpf about culture fit. Since it is obvious what the concern is, it is easily checked.

It's not a reasonable assumption. My DH has exactly the same childcare responsibilities as me. We share it 50/50. But it's me who would be passed up for a job. A prospective employer wouldn't think for a minute that DH's children might be a problem.

YANBU, as others have said if it had been a man being interviewed would the question even have come up, I doubt it, and even if it did I bet it wouldn't have the same effect on the decision to employ or not!

I hate this sort of attitude which is why I never mention to a potential employer that I have a child. I was asked in an interview once whether I have any children, and I told them that I felt it was an inappropriate question to be asked in an interview and didn't answer. I think they must have realised they were on shaky ground as they offered me the job. I turned it down.

Well I'm 27 and (so far) childless, but keep getting turned down for jobs. It is fairly likely that part of the reason for this is that employers assume I would shortly be requiring maternity leave. Basically if you're female and in a relationship assumptions are going to be made unless you're too old to have children at which point they will consider you too old.

Equality in the workplce is a lovely fairy tale to tell little girls, but it means squat IRL.

My DH has moved around a lot for work, and afaik has never even been asked whether he has children. He certainly doesn't mention his family circumstances on his CV. I'm quite shocked at what the OP has heard; how naive is that?

It's not remotely in the interests of the company to discount candidates purely because of their sex, of course it isn't.

There are two things, firstly it is of course illegal, but secondly it makes no business sense at all. Far better to find out whether each and every candidate is prepared to do the travel, then decide on their merits.

Yes it's probably true that more female candidates than male candidates would prefer not to travel. But discounting them on that assumption without checking is plain daft when it's so easy to check.

Both DH and I travel abroad for work. Since being a mother, I have done it since DD was 8 months old when I went away for couple of days. While the person in question is breaking the law, I also think that if I had posted on here when DD was 8 months that I was being asked to go abroad, there are plenty of posters who would have come on and asked me how I could even contemplate it etc etc. If we want to be treated equally in the workplace, then we need to be careful not to perpetuate some long held assumptions that women are the primary carers all that there is something not quite right about a mother of a baby who would travel abroad for a few days for a business trip. We can't have it both ways.

So women all either need to stay at home with their children, or go out to work and do long hours and travel and be away from home a lot. There is no room for women to make choices based on what is best for their family, and there is no middle ground. Men can do anything they want however, and that is fine.

but why did the woman in question not sell herself? i would make a point of saying my children won't be a problem because of x.y and z backup arrangements

Absolutely disagree Capreece, of course it has come to mean something, gender discrimination has been challenged and changes in attitudes and the law are a result of that. However, when this kind of prejudice arises it does need to be highlighted for what it is - blatant sexism. It doesn't matter that the individual has these personal opinions, what is important is that he is challenged on them and that the company makes it clear that at an organisational level this attitude is embarassing and won't be tolerated. If this us made clear to employees then he'll have no choice but to comply.

If she didn't know that the job involved travel then she wouldn't have known to point out that it was a problem. From what the OP heard he didn't actually ask her, he just assumed she wouldn't do it.

Pretty foolish interview technique - what if he employs a man on the basis that he assumes he will travel, and when the man is presented with that he says no.

wasn't a problem