Inappropriate interview questions

[30andgrey]

I just turned down a job offer because I deemed these questions inappropriate….AIBU?

1. How many times have you been on maternity leave during your current employment?

2. What are the details of your childcare arrangements?

3. What does a normal day look like for you in terms of balancing raising a young family and a senior post?

The above questions were asked in a telephone conversation after a panel interview.

Anyone else think these are extremely discriminatory?

I turned down the offer that was 4 pay scales higher than my current role because it seemed like they were asking me to prioritise work if it came to it and I had to go over and above to assure them that being a parent would not hinder my ability to do the role.

Would love to know if I’m an idiot for turning down a whopping pay increase or if I am reasonable for thinking it would have been a nightmare to work for an organisation with this mindset.

@Dnaltocs

Many years ago my boss had 3 years off on Mat leave, different children. She was an egg doner - yes more leave. Multiple family deaths. Time off. She had maximum sick leave and holiday leave. She did maximum and more of everything. When on holidays, (all of the years I was there)She’d have a cold and therefore had to extend her holiday. She’d arrive late as taking her children to GP., go to nativity events etc Children sick, yes working from home. Had she been asked these questions at interview, and answered truthfully, then many would not have been overworked - doing her job. Sad as it seems, sometimes these questions are necessary.

Interviews are not the best way of recruiting candidates.

People can be and are trained to answer questions at interviews to show themselves in their best light which isn't necessarily a truthful depiction of how they will act on the job. This is why lots of companies hire people in their social circle or through word of mouth.

So if they asked her (illegal) questions at interview about her children, voluntary activities, own health and health of close relations she wouldn't have told anyone the truth.

Incidentally one of my SILs told me years ago the reason why her department stopped giving people compassionate leave if their children were sick including in hospital. They caught a man taking the piss out of it. He lied that one of his children was sick again within a month, and by accident someone spoke to his wife the day after. She said none of their children had been sick for months....

As if they would EVER ask a man any questions even remotely related to this!!!

So agree with this .I had this type of interview once ,on a much lower level .I was a single parent with two primary school aged children I was asked what I would do if either child became sick , would I leave work etc? From what I can remember I gave him some alternative care providers but he kept pressing and gave me no alternative but to say I would have to leave work and be with them under those circumstances .It was only a coffee shop job ! I just remember feeling how heartless he was .I just have to add that behind him there was an employee mouthing 'dont work here ' I appreciated her honesty ! Very surreal .I went on to do numerous jobs that fitted more around the needs of the children.

@swissmodel

It's interesting that anyone who tried to answer my question why is it fair, simply replied that it's legal. It might be legal for a six foot six adult male bodybuilder to self identify as female and enter women sports, but is that fair?

Imagine if there was no law that a position must be kept open for someone on ML, and you were trying to persuade parliament or a business that this is the fair and right thing to do, what would be your argument?

To me it seems eminently unfair that a business ha to keep the position open for 6-12 months while an employee goes on ML. I'm all for the government supporting women who take ML by paying their wages (with our taxes), as that is a societal obligation for the greater good. But it shouldn't be the responsibility of any single business to facilitate an employee's procreation.

Why should it be? And before anyone brings up long-term illness once again, actually why should that be the employer's responsibility? Why?

'simply' replied that it's legal? Is that not a good reason? (and the 'six foot six adult male bodybuilder' argument is just whataboutery).

Imagine if there was no law that a position must be kept open for someone on ML, and you were trying to persuade parliament or a business that this is the fair and right thing to do, what would be your argument? That I would want to retain my excellent employee, to the benefit of the business and thus the country's economy. And that this would also present opportunities for other staff to be temporarily promoted, which would equip them to then be permanently promoted in the future, either in my business or if and when they moved on. So, an increase in highly trained and experienced high-level staff in the employment market. That also benefits my business, as well as potential future businesses this person might move to.
I'd also bring up the fact that some recruitment agencies and the people on their books specialise in temporary contracts. Again, more people going into employment; more money for them and for their agency. The economy wins again.

And before anyone brings up long-term illness once again, actually why should that be the employer's responsibility? Why?
What would you have us (as a society) do, then? Invent the technology to screen everyone going to job interviews for signs of future long-term illness? That's probably happened in a Philip K. Dick novel, actually; and, like his idea of 'pre-crime', is probably best left in the world of fiction.

swissmodel, I should also say that PPs had already raised the ideas of temporarily promoting other staff and of specialised recruitment agencies and the people on their books. Which you have not addressed. Perhaps you didn't see those posts.

FFS I would definitely complain- or at least feedback that their line of questionning was the reason you decided not to take the job.

I have been asked about childcare at least 3 times in different interviews. Once was by a woman who had DC younger than mine ( but she wasn’t a single parent like me). I just pointed out politely that she seemed to manage it and also that it had never been a problem in the past (it was an internal vacancy). I really wish I had asked if they were asking male candidates and/or women with a partner that question.

@swissmodel

It's interesting that anyone who tried to answer my question why is it fair, simply replied that it's legal. It might be legal for a six foot six adult male bodybuilder to self identify as female and enter women sports, but is that fair?

Imagine if there was no law that a position must be kept open for someone on ML, and you were trying to persuade parliament or a business that this is the fair and right thing to do, what would be your argument?

To me it seems eminently unfair that a business ha to keep the position open for 6-12 months while an employee goes on ML. I'm all for the government supporting women who take ML by paying their wages (with our taxes), as that is a societal obligation for the greater good. But it shouldn't be the responsibility of any single business to facilitate an employee's procreation.

Why should it be? And before anyone brings up long-term illness once again, actually why should that be the employer's responsibility? Why?

It's the employer's responsibility because they are the employer. That is the long and the short of it.

Employers have a duty of care to their staff. Employees are not slaves; they have rights because that is how a decent society operates.

Do you think paying NI on their wages or pension contributions is unfair too?

All I can say is thank fuck I don't work for you, and I feel sorry for anyone who does.

As if they would EVER ask a man any questions even remotely related to this!!!

^Exactly so. And it’s such a massive assumption that childcare responsibilities only impact upon women. It isn’t the case at all.

And, even if the woman is the primary caregiver, that can and does change. I was the main caregiver, as a SAHM to adopted DDs, but then, at the start of the pandemic, I developed Long Covid. This isn’t something that my DH could have foreseen when he last applied for a promotion at work and was successful.

But, as he works for our Local Authority, such questions would definitely not have been asked.

@IntermittentParps

swissmodel, I should also say that PPs had already raised the ideas of temporarily promoting other staff and of specialised recruitment agencies and the people on their books. Which you have not addressed. Perhaps you didn't see those posts.

And @swissmodel while you say you're a business owner, you didn't seem to understand that companies can claim back SMP payments and are under no obligation to offer more than that statutory pay in contracts. It's business, not personal.

If a business doesn't have the financial foresight to understand SMP and factor in contingencies for recruitment / temp staff, or if one employee taking statutory maternity would cripple the company... then the business isn't robust enough to employ contracted staff.

And a man isn't going to be called out every other week because the kid is ill, or the childminder is ill and needs the kid to be picked up. And a man isn't going to be taking time off to spend time with the sick child.

Wow what kind of fathers do you know?

Give them a review on Glassdoor.

This is a big WTAF from me, and I do a lot of work in HR.

A man isn't going to go off for a year on maternity leave (and possibly never return) is he? And a man isn't going to be called out every other week because the kid is ill, or the childminder is ill and needs the kid to be picked up. And a man isn't going to be taking time off to spend time with the sick child

Well that rather depends on whether the employer has a policy of only employing childless men or dead beat dads.

And also on whether women keep telling each other this is what they should expect and the best they can hope for. Have you ensured that your DC carers/schools have their father as first contact? or even equal contact? If not then you are supporting the status quo which you present as immutable.

Asking personal questions of this nature is very worrying. Especially perhaps demanding that she describe a 'typical day' in her life.

One thing that I note is that it wasn't in the panel interview, but in the phone conversation afterwards. I suspect that this was a deliberate attempt to make it difficult for the OP to prove that the questions happened in the way that she described.

do you have any evidence in writing that these questions were asked?

Either way, you should definitely lodge a discrimination claim against them through ACAS. Even though you turned the offer down, they still discriminated against you in an employment context.

Did they actually make an offer or did you just say you were no longer interested?

These are inappropriate even if they asked a man. Your personal circumstances are none of their business. I remember working a remote location which required a your own transport to get there but we couldn't ask if they had a car. What we had to say was our location is quite remote are you OK with this.

@C8H10N4O2 there are a few posters on MN who have stated even when dad is the first contact, the school automatically phones the first listed woman.

@Madmama10

These are inappropriate even if they asked a man. Your personal circumstances are none of their business. I remember working a remote location which required a your own transport to get there but we couldn't ask if they had a car. What we had to say was our location is quite remote are you OK with this.

You didn't want to be done for disability discrimination.

Oddly adverts can say you require your own transport to get to a job, but you can never be asked that in person at interview.

Oddly adverts can say you require your own transport to get to a job, but you can never be asked that in person at interview.

I used to recruit staff for a job that required travel to various locations across the uk. We weren't allowed to specify a driving license. We had to say 'driving license or the ability to travel to locations across the UK'
It was a very, very difficult job to do if you couldn't drive though as you also had to take lots of things with you which made public transport a challenge.

[quote RedWingBoots]@C8H10N4O2 there are a few posters on MN who have stated even when dad is the first contact, the school automatically phones the first listed woman.[/quote]
And that is a reason not to put the father down as first contact or not to employ a women? Which is the point I was addressing.

IME people learn pretty rapidly not to rely on the default mother when they can't get an answer.

@30andgrey

I did exactly this, I declined and explained that such questions did not have anything to do with my competency to do the role and they could be deemed discriminatory.

I had a reply that said that this suggestion is “baseless and insulting”

I think I made the right choice.

WOW! You have definitely made the right choice!

@C8H10N4O2

Definitely. When the mum doesn’t answer, they automatically phone the dad. That was definitely our experience once I became ill; they soon got used to my DH being the first point of contact, despite it being a very big change.

It really doesn’t have to be a major obstacle.

My sons school think it's weird they only deal with my husband. They've made comments to him about it.

Also when we remortgaged even though I am down on everything as borrower 1 and he as joint borrower... guess who they addressed alllll the correspondence to? That annoyed me more tbh.

And @swissmodel* while you say you're a business owner, you didn't seem to understand that companies can claim back SMP payments and are under no obligation to offer more than that statutory pay in contracts. It's business, not personal.

If a business doesn't have the financial foresight to understand SMP and factor in contingencies for recruitment / temp staff, or if one employee taking statutory maternity would cripple the company... then the business isn't robust enough to employ contracted staff.*

It was never about the ML money but about the hassle. I recently had to hire a skilled new employee in a key position, and I spent many hours on that. There was advertising the vacancy (a cost that isn't reimbursed by HM's government), vetting the potential candidates, interviewing and more.

I offered a really attractive remuneration package for the very reason that I don't wish to have to go through this again in the very near future. But to do all this for a temp replacement, I'd find that extremely unfair.

Previous posters have accused me of being discriminatory. I'm absolutely not. That is to say I don't discriminate on the basis of any prejudice. As I wrote earlier, every single one of my employees ever belonged to at least one minority group. That wasn't done on purpose, but they happened to be the best candidates. But the point is I don't discriminate on arbitrary characteristics.

However, and this is the key, I do only want to hire those who I think will be best for my business and those who will probably cause the least wobbles. So if there is someone who, statistically speaking, will take far more days off or will not be able to commit etc, it just makes sense for me to hire a different candidate.

Anyone who claims they would do otherwise is either virtue-signalling or lying.

@KatharinaRosalie

And a man isn't going to be called out every other week because the kid is ill, or the childminder is ill and needs the kid to be picked up. And a man isn't going to be taking time off to spend time with the sick child.

Wow what kind of fathers do you know?

I'm guessing this would be the real world case for most fathers.

Anyone who claims they would do otherwise is either virtue-signalling or lying.

My recruitment decisions and reaction to staff going on ML aren't based on virtue signalling and I'm not lying... so you're absolutely wrong.