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.

@youvegottenminuteslynn

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.

Well on what are they based then? You're telling me all things being equal you'd just as likely pick the candidate who will probably have to take off much more? Why?

@swissmodel

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.

Owning a business does involve 'hassle', of all kinds. That's sort of part of the deal and is why for some people being an employee, which has its own downsides, is a better choice than owning a business with its particular downsides.

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.
You haven't addressed the ideas raised in this thread of having an existing staff member act up for a while (which would be less 'hassle' as presumably they'd be at least partially trained for the role); or the fact that specialised agencies exist, with people on their books who would be more ready to step straight into highly skilled positions.

That is to say I don't discriminate on the basis of any prejudice
That is quite frankly horseshit.
You are manifestly prejudiced against women of childbearing age.
It is interesting that you do not express any criticism of men in your posts. And yet men want and choose to have children too.

Anyone who claims they would do otherwise is either virtue-signalling or lying.
That is just such a stupid comment.
I really really fear for anyone who has the misfortune to get employed by you.

Well on what are they based then? You're telling me all things being equal you'd just as likely pick the candidate who will probably have to take off much more? Why?

"All things being equal" isn't real life. If a candidate was the best candidate for the job, then them being a woman who may be likely to have a child in the next few years honestly wouldn't make me any less likely to employ them. I would want to recruit them for their skills regardless and would be happy to organise maternity recruitment and cover to facilitate them being a valued member of staff. Not even for altruistic reasons, before you suggest me saying valued = virtue signally, but because my company performs better when I have skilled, happy staff on board.

You don't seem to be able to respect the fact that your way of thinking isn't what everyone secretly thinks / wishes they could admit. Lots of people simply don't agree with your take on this. It's outdated and isn't the most efficient way to consistently recruit and retain talent.

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

In my friendship circle and generation (people with primary aged kids) I know 1 dad like that, with a SAHM wife. The rest of them, and certainly the ones in 2 working parent families are certainly more involved than being vaguely aware there are some little people living in the house. So unfortunately for you, you cannot guarantee any more that your male employees are not involved in caring for their children.

Men are also entitled to mat leave flexible working etc which is great for women as hopefully as more take this up (I know of least 2 who have) discriminatory practices like this will lessen. In the plus side OP could gave accepted the job only to find out what a terrible working environment she was joining and have to go through looking for another job anyway.

@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.

I'd be tagging them on Twitter and on LinkedIn, asking (publicly) whether all candidates were asked the same questions regardless of gender. If nothing else it gives a heads-up to anyone else thinking to work there, or to use their services. I'd avoid on principle if I saw that.

Bullet firmly dodged.

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

Or mystery door number 3: Just not arseholes.

@Madmama10

Men are also entitled to mat leave flexible working etc which is great for women as hopefully as more take this up (I know of least 2 who have) discriminatory practices like this will lessen. In the plus side OP could gave accepted the job only to find out what a terrible working environment she was joining and have to go through looking for another job anyway.

At my previous company they now give dads the same parental leave as women to promote equality 🥇

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.
You haven't addressed the ideas raised in this thread of having an existing staff member act up for a while (which would be less 'hassle' as presumably they'd be at least partially trained for the role); or the fact that specialised agencies exist, with people on their books who would be more ready to step straight into highly skilled positions.

Because in practice this is often not feasible. In my business, there is no one who could step into the role of the main skilled workers full time, though I could get by for a day or two if the key worker called in sick. And I think you overstate quite a bit the availability of temps in specialised agencies.

As I wrote, my recent new hire was a huge hassle and took up many hours of my time.

I'm all for hiring the best candidate, I just disagree that I should be obligated to keep a position open for 6-12 months for someone who makes a personal decision to have a baby. Why should it be my responsibility to ensure she has a job if and when she decides to return?

The way I see it, I hire someone to do a job, I'm obligating myself to pay and they're obligating themselves to work. If they decide to leave, well they're not my slaves, so I wish them good luck and we part ways.

Everyone understands that if a worker decides to take a sabbatical or a round the world trip, I am not obligated to keep their position open for them if and when they return. I might decide to do that voluntarily, because they're such good workers, but it's neither a moral nor ethical duty.

So why when that worker decides to go and have her baby - something that is entirely her choice and doesn't involve me in any way - is it suddenly my duty to keep her job waiting? How have we switched from a simple contract of labour for money, to a duty to care and support her in all her choices?

And to those saying it's good business practice, so is service with a smile. But that isn't enshrined in law.

@KatharinaRosalie

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

In my friendship circle and generation (people with primary aged kids) I know 1 dad like that, with a SAHM wife. The rest of them, and certainly the ones in 2 working parent families are certainly more involved than being vaguely aware there are some little people living in the house. So unfortunately for you, you cannot guarantee any more that your male employees are not involved in caring for their children.

You just moved the goalposts. Nobody was talking about dads being vaguely aware of the little people living in their houses. The question was how likely it is that dads will actually take off work fairly regularly in order to look after their sick kids. And the answer is not likely at all.

@SusieBob

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

Or mystery door number 3: Just not arseholes.

Don't be silly. It's not aresholery for a business owner to seek to hire people who will actually turn up every day. Are you telling me if two equally qualified candidates applied for a job, yet one of them had a chronic condition which made it likely they'd be off sick on a regular basis, that it would really be a coin toss who gets the job? And any boss who makes a pragmatic decision and hires the healthy employee is an arse?

That is to say I don't discriminate on the basis of any prejudice
That is quite frankly horseshit.
You are manifestly prejudiced against women of childbearing age.
It is interesting that you do not express any criticism of men in your posts. And yet men want and choose to have children too.

I don't criticise anyone and I'm certainly not prejudiced on any arbitrary basis. What I want is employees who are most likely to turn up day in day out, and if they do want to take a long leave to do something they want (go on holiday or have a baby, it's all the same to me), they don't demand I keep the position vacant until their return.

@swissmodel

*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. You haven't addressed the ideas raised in this thread of having an existing staff member act up for a while (which would be less 'hassle' as presumably they'd be at least partially trained for the role); or the fact that specialised agencies exist, with people on their books who would be more ready to step straight into highly skilled positions.*

Because in practice this is often not feasible. In my business, there is no one who could step into the role of the main skilled workers full time, though I could get by for a day or two if the key worker called in sick. And I think you overstate quite a bit the availability of temps in specialised agencies.

As I wrote, my recent new hire was a huge hassle and took up many hours of my time.

I'm all for hiring the best candidate, I just disagree that I should be obligated to keep a position open for 6-12 months for someone who makes a personal decision to have a baby. Why should it be my responsibility to ensure she has a job if and when she decides to return?

The way I see it, I hire someone to do a job, I'm obligating myself to pay and they're obligating themselves to work. If they decide to leave, well they're not my slaves, so I wish them good luck and we part ways.

Everyone understands that if a worker decides to take a sabbatical or a round the world trip, I am not obligated to keep their position open for them if and when they return. I might decide to do that voluntarily, because they're such good workers, but it's neither a moral nor ethical duty.

So why when that worker decides to go and have her baby - something that is entirely her choice and doesn't involve me in any way - is it suddenly my duty to keep her job waiting? How have we switched from a simple contract of labour for money, to a duty to care and support her in all her choices?

And to those saying it's good business practice, so is service with a smile. But that isn't enshrined in law.

I genuinely thought people like you were dying out… yes, it can be a headache when you have to fill positions when people go off, but I’m so glad that protection is enshrined in law, because it’s usually women who get screwed over. I say this as a childless woman, who won’t ever need a maternity leave (baby holiday - joke! 🤣) but would vehemently defend the right of anyone else to have one.

For example, my mum, in 1974, when she had my sister, got the option of 6 weeks leave, or resigning. She was a schoolteacher, so you can imagine the drain from the profession. I find that appalling.

Would you treat someone who needed sick leave fora serious illness, such as cancer, @swissmodel? Or would you like to get rid of them too? Even if these employees are excellent workers, and loyal to your company? Or are you a prehistoric asshole?

@swissmodel based on your last few posts I'm going to stick with arsehole who clearly thinks of their staff as slaves rather than actual people that you have 1) a duty of care towards and 2) are legally obligated to treat equally.

I bet your staff fucking hate you.

At one point in my career I oversaw a small programme team of 4 women which was semi-independent. Over a period of 6 years, three of them got pregnant - one of them twice. One later had health complications afterwards. They were a great team and I was really pleased with their work. When I heard they were pregnant I was pleased for them but yes, it did cause us quite a bit of extra work to put in cover arrangements.

However, I would never, ever, for one moment have regretted hiring them or them going on maternity leave. I am a career woman and had two children whilst working - I was lucky to enjoy flexible working patterns for the first couple of years (working 4 days a week) which really helped me to continue to progress in my work. I ended up being a CEO and having other senior non-exec roles. I will always do my upmost for my staff who are having children. They end up being some of the most effective and committed staff and enrich the working environment. I was always keen to offer them flexible working and to discuss how we could make it work. Excellent workplaces are diverse and family friendly in my view.

I think the questions were discriminatory. Interestingly many years ago some dinosaurs asked me about my childcare arrangements, what my husband felt about me working and what job he did. They were relieved he didn't work in the city so he wouldn't be working long hours! You what????

As I wrote, my recent new hire was a huge hassle and took up many hours of my time.

Recruiting staff is part and parcel of running a business....... if you find it such a huge hassle then I'm not sure it's for you🤷🏼‍♀️

You talk about not being discriminatory yet in nearly every post you've given an example of how you discriminate against particular groups. You're a court case waiting to happen!

How have we switched from a simple contract of labour for money, to a duty to care and support her in all her choices?
If you're a decent employer (moot really, as it's clearer and clearer to me that you're not), then it isn't 'a simple contract of labour for money'. Of course employers have a duty of care.

In my business, there is no one who could step into the role of the main skilled workers full time, though I could get by for a day or two if the key worker called in sick. Your business sounds a bit rickety, then, TBH.
And I think you overstate quite a bit the availability of temps in specialised agencies. I suspect that's not true or these agencies wouldn't bother existing.

As I wrote, my recent new hire was a huge hassle and took up many hours of my time.
I agree with Spins above; did you not realise that recruiting is part of the job when you run a business?

I'm certainly not prejudiced on any arbitrary basis I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make. If you look at someone of a particular sex and a particular age and think 'I wouldn't hire you' because of their sex and/or age... What on earth else would you call that?

You certainly don't seem to have a problem with men, and yet men are also instrumental in women needing maternity leave.

Your approach stinks.

The question was how likely it is that dads will actually take off work fairly regularly in order to look after their sick kids. And the answer is not likely at all.

In my social circle It is not uncommon for dads to share childcare responsibilities and that includes taking time off to care for sick children if needed.

It takes two people to make a baby and it is grossly unfair if only one of those two people has to sacrifice their career.

How have we switched from a simple contract of labour for money, to a duty to care and support her in all her choices?

A business is part of a society - it couldn't function without one. So employers have legal and ethical responsibilities to their employees because it leads to a more equitable society for all.

@SpinsForGin

The question was how likely it is that dads will actually take off work fairly regularly in order to look after their sick kids. And the answer is not likely at all.

In my social circle It is not uncommon for dads to share childcare responsibilities and that includes taking time off to care for sick children if needed.

It takes two people to make a baby and it is grossly unfair if only one of those two people has to sacrifice their career.

Yes, it is interesting that the OP phrases their opinion as fact: 'the answer is…'

In my social circle, the only dads who do not regularly take time off for sick kids, early pick-ups and other family related matters have SAHMs. If both parents work then both also take care of children. I didn't think this was so unheard of in today's society.

@KatharinaRosalie

In my social circle, the only dads who do not regularly take time off for sick kids, early pick-ups and other family related matters have SAHMs. If both parents work then both also take care of children. I didn't think this was so unheard of in today's society.

Other than on MumsNet, where you tend to get a specific subset of relationships, I suspect most families share the caring. Strangely a lot of men actually enjoy being dads even if that means cleaning dirty bums or cuddling sick kids.

@swissmodel There are many things that are part of owning/running a business that are not directly related to the revenue generation aspect of the business. Managing employees is one of them. Hiring new staff is one of them. A team in a neighbours dept within the company I'm in are currently trying to hire skilled staff with specialised knowledge. The process takes months - not hours.

@IntermittentParps

How have we switched from a simple contract of labour for money, to a duty to care and support her in all her choices? If you're a decent employer (moot really, as it's clearer and clearer to me that you're not), then it isn't 'a simple contract of labour for money'. Of course employers have a duty of care.

In my business, there is no one who could step into the role of the main skilled workers full time, though I could get by for a day or two if the key worker called in sick. Your business sounds a bit rickety, then, TBH.
And I think you overstate quite a bit the availability of temps in specialised agencies. I suspect that's not true or these agencies wouldn't bother existing.

As I wrote, my recent new hire was a huge hassle and took up many hours of my time.
I agree with Spins above; did you not realise that recruiting is part of the job when you run a business?

I'm certainly not prejudiced on any arbitrary basis I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make. If you look at someone of a particular sex and a particular age and think 'I wouldn't hire you' because of their sex and/or age... What on earth else would you call that?

You certainly don't seem to have a problem with men, and yet men are also instrumental in women needing maternity leave.

Your approach stinks.

Your need to use insults shows the paucity of your argument. Obviously as an employer I have a duty of care to my employees while at work, meaning they have to feel safe and supported. But why should that duty extend to outside of work and support in their personal choices?

My question isn't a legal one, as we've established women can demand their position be kept on hold while they take ML, but a moral one.

My original point is this thread is that expecting an employer to hold a position for 6-12 months due to one's personal choice, is eminently unfair. By unfair I mean it is morally wrong. There is no moral argument for an employer being obligated to support an employee's choice which means they take off for an extended period.

I want to open a school so I need a teacher. I'm willing to pay £15 per hour and X is willing to teach for £15 per hour. We find each other and shake on it. Why should I be morally or ethically obligated to do any more than pay £15 for each hour worked?

As to my being discriminatory, as stated, I'd happily employ anyone of any gender, colour, race, religion etc, as long as they're qualified and dedicated. My only concern as an employer is to have people on whom I can depend to do the job well and consistently. If you can do that, you get the job, otherwise it would simply be ridiculous for me to hire you.

I'm not sure what is so complicated or revolutionary about this concept.

Would you treat someone who needed sick leave fora serious illness, such as cancer, @swissmodel? Or would you like to get rid of them too? Even if these employees are excellent workers, and loyal to your company? Or are you a prehistoric asshole?

How is getting cancer comparable to someone making a conscious decision to have a baby?

But since you ask, what if a company has been loyal to employees for a number of years and treated them excellently, but now the company has fallen on hard times and can't afford to pay. Do you also think in this case the employees have a moral duty to work for 6 months without pay? Or are you a prehistoric asshole?