To think that asking an interviewee if they have children should be banned?

[SeaSickSal]

I was made redundant this year, by a company who tend to make women who've taken maternity leave redundant when they come back, but that's another story.

I've been going for interviews and the question of children seems to come up. I have a one and a half year old and as soon as he is mentioned the temperature seems to change in the interview because there seems to be an assumption that because I've had one I will probably be having another fairly soon.

I've actually been asked outright if I'm intending to have more and in one case offered the job but only if I did it on a self employed basis, despite it always being done by an employee before. I am fairly certain they only offered on that basis to avoid maternity pay. Other interviews have been wrapped up fairly quickly after it's been mentioned.

This seems that there is some pretty blatant discrimination going on and I'm getting the impression that private sector jobs are extremely difficult to get in these circumstances.

The question doesn't even come up in public sector interviews.

Am I being unreasonable to think the only way of stopping this kind of discrimination is to ban asking questions about kids in the first place?

[5Foot5]

maddening "But mameulah - mat pay is covered by the government not your husband unless he chooses to enhance such pay (and you don't sound like the type of people who would) so he could employ a replacement during mat leave."

What a MASSIVE assumption for you to make based on what has been posted

[Andro]

maddening - mat pay might be covered by the government, but training costs, background security checks/clearances and other routine employment costs are not covered - and that assumes that it's possible to find a temporary member of staff with the appropriate basic skill set!

[maddening]

But mameulah - mat pay is covered by the government not your husband unless he chooses to enhance such pay (and you don't sound like the type of people who would) so he could employ a replacement during mat leave.

Additionally - surely propensity for time off work exists with all humans - not just via child rearing - eg sickness, personal emergency etc, and then single and childless folk are less tied to a job and place so potentially more likely to jump ship for a better offer.

[5Foot5]

And I wouldn't assume because I work all hours because I own a business and directly benefit form doing so.....that the person male or female working for me should be expected to do so.

APartridgeAmongThePigeons I interpreted mameulahs post a little different to you. I don't think she was necessarilly implying that her DH expected his employees to work all hours, just that if he had an employee who needed time off with children then he personally would be working all hours and then some to make up for this.

My DH has been in this position. He used to run a small company and shortly after they started up one of his employees needed to go on ML. While she was off DH basically did her work as well as his own because at that stage they couldn't really afford to get in anyone else on a temporary basis. When she returned to work she asked if she could do so on a 3 day a week basis as she now had two children. DH agreed because he didn't want to lose her but, once again it was him making up the extra time. Eventually this lady decided she wanted to be a SAHM after all. When she had left DH employed someone who would be full time and it made such a difference to his work load.

[JennyPiccolo]

Ok, I am going on my own experience. I am much more organised and responsible since becoming a parent. Is a total generalisation though, you're right.

[Andro]

I would never ask that question - as others have said, it's unlawful.

I would however appreciate people being more honest with me in interview etc. When I offer a position with the need for overnight travel (domestic and/or abroad) at short notice made clear from the outset, I don't think it's then right for the person taking the job to start moaning 3 weeks after accepting that they can't arrange child care in time (obviously a change in circumstances once in post is a very different matter).

[roweeena]

I was asked this in a public sector job interview (GP surgery) - I was invited back for a second interview but refused to go. Blatant sexual discrimination and I wouldn't want to work for an employer like that.

If someone asks that question - just say you are not happy to be asked that question in the interview as it has no beating on my ability to do the job and that you assume they don't ask that question unto male applicants.

[TheFabulousFuckingIdiotFucker]

To theop and anyone else interested. I am pretty sure the to can ask if the same question was asked of all candidates, and if not then it is illegal.

[FamiliesShareGerms]

I do feel like putting at the top of my CV "DH has had the snip, no more children for me!"

[HoleyGhost]

OP - I would avoid any mention of a toddler and stick to the line that you have a family, excellent childcare in place, ability to travel etc

[EBearhug]

I suspect the most organised parents were probably the most organised single people, too. There are some people who improve because they have to sort their children out, but I think that while you can learn techniques, it does just come more naturally to some people than others.

[GrendelsMum]

Yes, I don't think you can really argue that being a parent necessarily makes anyone a better employee, although I can see that it would make some individuals better.

I have two colleagues of much the same age (early 40s), one with kids, one without, and I don't really see that they have much difference in their skills. Well, one's a better dresser than the other, but I don't think that's attributable to having children.

[utreas]

I would be surpised if the asking of this question is widespread. The only way it is relevant is when the job requires people to work away or well ouside the conventional working hours at short notice or if the person may have to take time off work at short notice.

I think anyone who argues that being a parent makes them a better employee is barking up the wrong tree. When interviewing we have had people usually from those who have been recently SAHM who try and use examples from this to display competencies, we do not score them very highly though.

[Strumpetron]

It is indeed ha

[PrincessFlirtyPants]

Agree that parents are much more responsible and organised and are therefore better employees.

Whoah, that's quite a generalisation isn't it!

[fancyanother]

The Equality Act 2010 says this:
It is against the law to discriminate against anyone because of:

being married or in a civil partnership
being pregnant or having a child

These are called ‘protected characteristics’.

You’re protected from discrimination in these situations:

at work (including interviews and promotion)
in education
as a consumer
when using public services
when buying or renting property
as a member or guest of a private club or association

It doesn't mean that the question is illegal but that it is in indication of discriminatory practice. It can be used as evidence of discrimination if you were to take the business to court. What would probably happen in practice though is that businesses will ask both men and women the question but in reality only take the women's answer into account when making the decision. If you can prove this is the case, they can be sued under the Equality Act.

[JennyPiccolo]

To be fair, my dp didn't get a job it seemed very likely he would get when my dd was tiny and he mentioned her at the interview. So it occasionally happens to men as well. It's total nonsense though. Agree that parents are much more responsible and organised and are therefore better employees.

[Strumpetron]

Seems like something the US has indeed got correct.

[Strumpetron]

He fought it*

[Strumpetron]

I'm only going off personal experience and reading forums of men going through the same thing.

An old co-worker of mine applied for a different job in our workplace and was denied on the grounds of having a high needs child. I fought it, and won. He was offered the job, refused it and got a pay out instead. This isn't an isolated case it seems from what I've been reading.

If women can be unlawfully discriminated against on the grounds of having a child I find it that the law doesn't protect men too.

[flowery]

"Also a man can protest and win if he thinks he hasn't been given a job because he has a child"

How? What claim would he make?

We were talking about unlawful discrimination because the OP wanted the question to be banned, then there was discussion about whether it was already illegal.

[Strumpetron]

Were we? I thought we were talking about discrimination as

Also a man can protest and win if he thinks he hasn't been given a job because he has a child, it's not just monopolised by women.

[fanjofarrow]

I've never been asked in an interview if I have kids, but I was asked how long I've been with my fiance, when we were planning to marry, etc. I only realised afterwards (I'm not usually so slow, but I'd never been asked such things at interview before) that he was trying to work out how likely I was to get pregnant and go on maternity leave. I was not impressed.

[flowery]

We are talking about unlawful discrimination, for which you need to be treated less favourably because you are part of a protected group.

[Strumpetron]

Anyone can be a victim of discrimination, not just a member of a protected group.