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.

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?

Because in this scenario you would be seriously understaffed. Parental leave is one of the most important benefits that employees are looking for in a job. In a scenario where no employer is required to pay for maternity leave, women would likelynot return to work after having a child, or would choose not to have children.

If significantly less people choose to have children it will result in a labour shortage in 20 years.

If women have to leave their jobs to care for their children families would be spending much less money which would have a significant impact on the economy. Good luck to your schools profits if there are no kids to teach.

This might have worked years ago when the expectation was that women left the workforce when they had children but that's no longer expected.

swissmodel, you must be having a laugh.

You said earlier, '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.'
By 'statistically speaking' you meant 'female and of childbearing age', no?
So, as you're not allowed to ask about their plans if any for children, and in the absence of a crystal ball, how is that NOT prejudiced against that candidate?

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. Several posters have addressed this point by discussing businesses as a part of society's fabric. You've not responded.

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?
That's fine in a freelancer or contractor scenario. But generally employers and employees are both somewhat bound by contracts, which often enshrine a duty of care, responsibilities and standards of behaviour on both sides. Legal obligations, yes, but with a moral/ethical aspect too.
Incidentally, I'm freelance and my relationships with clients are basically like the teacher scenario you outline. My work is all about meeting deadlines. On the very odd occasion when I cannot make a deadline because of illness or some personal circumstances or other, and have to ask for longer, my clients, although all they technically owe me is a job done to a certain date, will say yes. And that's in the most transactional work relationship.

@swissmodel

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?

You've changed your tune on illness since you wrote before anyone brings up long-term illness once again, actually why should that be the employer's responsibility? Why?

@NewYearNewTwatName

OMG the misinformation on this thread is awful! all those questions asked of a woman or a man are unlawful!

www.interview-skills.co.uk/free-information/interview-guide/illegal-interview-questions

8.1.4 - Sexual Discrimination
This area of discrimination is usually more targeted towards women but do also be aware that male applicants can also experience the same

Interviewers should not make any reference to a person’s marital status, children they may have now or in the future or their sexual preference. All could be grounds for discrimination as companies might be deemed to view a person being married as either favourably in that they may see an applicant as being more stable or, perhaps, unfavourably in that they may see a conflict of interest between a single person having more time to devote to the job over a married person who might have to juggle family commitments

Questions may include

<span class="italic">When do you plan to get married?</span>
<span class="italic">Do have any children?</span>
<span class="italic">When do you plan to have children?</span>
<span class="italic">How old are your children?</span>
<span class="italic">Will childcare arrangements be a problem for you?</span>
<span class="italic">Will the hours of the job clash with your family commitments?</span>

The other area of sexual discrimination would include questions on sexual orientation, which is absolutely off-limits

there are lots of other example questions out there that all fall under same as these.

I strongly suggest if any of you are in a position to interview people, you should brush up on what you can ask, (and it's not just sexual discrimination) before someone comes along and decides to take your company to a tribunal.

Oh my fucking god! I can't believe the women on here, bloody women who think these questions are ok never mind fucking legal.

I despair, I genuinely despair.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE OP report this company/department or even highlight it to their HQ.

In 40 fucking years working full time and scores
of interviews I have never been asked similar questions and would have given them short shrift if they had.

My apologies for the swearing but fuck me my daughter is doomed if young women today think this is ok!!!

Swissmodel your posts make me very sad. It is a well established principle that having a diverse workforce enables your business to keep up with the needs and wants of a diverse marketplace. By avoiding women of child bearing age you are not appointing the best talent for the job or representing your marketplace. You assumptions that men don't take parental leave or look after sick children are positively 19th century. Dinosaurs and dinosaur businesses which don't keep up with the best talent die out. Very short sighted.

And this is why we have the law. To make people do the right thing, even if they're not inclined to.

@Bouledeneige

Swissmodel your posts make me very sad. It is a well established principle that having a diverse workforce enables your business to keep up with the needs and wants of a diverse marketplace. By avoiding women of child bearing age you are not appointing the best talent for the job or representing your marketplace. You assumptions that men don't take parental leave or look after sick children are positively 19th century. Dinosaurs and dinosaur businesses which don't keep up with the best talent die out. Very short sighted.

That might be true in certain industries, but, to use an example from before, it matters not a whit if all the chefs in a kitchen are the same race and gender, or if they're diverse in every way. In fact, they would probably work better as one unit if they come from the same background etc.

That might be true in certain industries, but, to use an example from before, it matters not a whit if all the chefs in a kitchen are the same race and gender, or if they're diverse in every way. In fact, they would probably work better as one unit if they come from the same background etc.

This has got to be a wind-up.

@VividGemini

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.

In that case employees should have the same ethical responsibilities to their employers. But they don't. They are not legally, morally or ethically obligated to work without pay if the company has run into financial difficulties.

Heck, according to many here they don't even have a moral obligation not to leave an employer in limbo for 6-12 while they have a baby.

So if employees aren't morally bound by all this fabric of society nonsense, why should it be different for employers?

I've yet to see a single argument why it is morally fair for an employee to take 6-12 months off for something they chose in their personal life, and demand the employer not fill the vacancy. Sometimes it might make sense for the employer to hold out, ie when the worker is of such exemplary quality, but that should be the employer's decision. Anything else is entitled and grubby.

@IntermittentParps

That might be true in certain industries, but, to use an example from before, it matters not a whit if all the chefs in a kitchen are the same race and gender, or if they're diverse in every way. In fact, they would probably work better as one unit if they come from the same background etc. This has got to be a wind-up.

Is that the best you can do in lieu of a coherent response?

Well, what you've said IS pretty gob-smacking.
But anyway, I and many others have responded coherently to various of your points on this thread and you've not replied.

@IntermittentParps

Well, what you've said IS pretty gob-smacking. But anyway, I and many others have responded coherently to various of your points on this thread and you've not replied.

I don't think you have. The most I've seen is a broad statement about jobs being part of the social fabric, but why that means that any specific employer has a moral duty to any specific employee to support he personal life choices at the business's cost (and perhaps even detriment) is quite a leap.

Sometimes it might make financial sense for the employer. But that's their decision to make.

Look I get that you're a woman and would want to be able to have children without losing out career-wise. But people want lots of things. Why does this particular want translate into a moral duty on the random person who just happened to employ you?

Look I get that you're a woman and would want to be able to have children without losing out career-wise.
I don't have or want children.

Re: previous arguments, so what is your response (other than your 'chefs in a kitchen' assertion, which anyway I'd like to see some evidence for) to 'It is a well established principle that having a diverse workforce enables your business to keep up with the needs and wants of a diverse marketplace. By avoiding women of child bearing age you are not appointing the best talent for the job or representing your marketplace.'?

And more broadly, what would you have us do? (us as a society and species, I mean).
Would you have people who are skilled, talented, experienced leave the workforce and never come back? Would you have people not have children and see the human race die out?
How, realistically, would this work?

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.

Because a company exists as part of the fabric of society and therefore has a moral obligation to reflect and operate within the societal values and norms. If as a business owner your personal opinions are outside societal norms, it is irrelevant because you need to operate within the legal framework.

So to answer your question - do I think it is fair? Yes I do.

That might be true in certain industries, but, to use an example from before, it matters not a whit if all the chefs in a kitchen are the same race and gender, or if they're diverse in every way. In fact, they would probably work better as one unit if they come from the same background etc.

You have got to be a troll. Nobody would actually admit to thinking like this! It's outrageous.

I don't think you have. The most I've seen is a broad statement about jobs being part of the social fabric, but why that means that any specific employer has a moral duty to any specific employee to support he personal life choices at the business's cost (and perhaps even detriment) is quite a leap.

Sometimes it might make financial sense for the employer. But that's their decision to make.

Look I get that you're a woman and would want to be able to have children without losing out career-wise. But people want lots of things. Why does this particular want translate into a moral duty on the random person who just happened to employ you?

But pointing out that a business operates within a society is important. Its not a broad meaningless statement. As society evolves then businesses need to evolve in line with that..... otherwise we'd still be employing kids in workhouses.

@sillysmiles

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.

Because a company exists as part of the fabric of society and therefore has a moral obligation to reflect and operate within the societal values and norms. If as a business owner your personal opinions are outside societal norms, it is irrelevant because you need to operate within the legal framework.

So to answer your question - do I think it is fair? Yes I do.

That argument (repeated in other words by several posters) is entirely circular. It's fair because society has said it's fair.

Do you agree for example that TWAW with all that entails, because 'societal values and norms' have decided they are?

How's this for a thought exercise, imagine you came to a country where the law wasn't such that people could take 6-12 months off to have a baby and be guaranteed of their previous position if and when they returned. How would you convince the lawmakers to enact this law?

You'd be explaining how beneficial it would be to woman to not have to make the choice between a career or a family, and how companies would benefit from showing loyalty to their employees.

But then a small business owner challenges you: Hang on a minute. While it's true that it might be worth it for me to retain specific employees, it certainly wouldn't be the case for every single employee. Obviously with some it would be far more hassle and cost to keep the position vacant rather than find new permanent employees. So why should I be obligated to support the life choices of any random employee?

How do you reply in way that would satisfy that business owner?

@swissmodel

Could you not just like, Google "why is parental leave important"? Anyway I did it for you 🌟

• Studies show that adequate maternity leave can lead tolower infant mortality rates, health benefits for the mother, higher female labor force participationandincreased breastfeeding rates.

• Paternity leave also has a wide range of benefits that can improve development outcomes, including health and economic benefits to the mother, more equitable division of household labor and increased child bonding.

• Paid maternity or paternity leave signals a flexible attitude to the challenges of life outside of work, and has shown to boost a parent’s feeling of goodwill towards their employer, particularly if pay is enhanced during parental leave time.

• Paid maternity and paternity leave also makes organisations more appealing to an increasingly diverse workforce, making it easier to retain good staff as well as hold on to staff you’ve spent time and money on training up.

It can cost up to400 percentof a talented employee’s annual salary toreplace them, but paid parental leave can helpinstil loyalty and boost retention.

• Studieshave shown that companies whose employees have access to paid leave, allowing employees to potentially spend more time with their new addition, have seen a positive impact on morale. Positive and engaged staff are important key performance indicators for any business.

• TheNorwegian school of economicsfound thatintroduction of paid maternity leave has important medium and long-term health benefits.Mothers who are physically and mentally healthier may be better able to invest in their children, leading to better outcomes.

• Not only does it increase vaccination rates and well-baby care doctor visits, paid parental leave has been found todecrease infant mortality rateby as much as 10 percent. These health benefitsextend beyond infancy, with research suggesting that parental leave can help strengthen those parental social bonds and benefit children during those initial developmental years.

Do you agree for example that TWAW with all that entails, because 'societal values and norms' have decided they are?

Yeah

I'm assuming they had an informal chat with your previous employer. I sometimes get this type of feedback and just don't add to the final shortlist.

That argument (repeated in other words by several posters) is entirely circular. It's fair because society has said it's fair.

It's not just a case of someone randomly deciding that it is fair that women are not discriminated in the work place just for being women. The fact you think it is fair says more about you that the rest of society!

Do you agree for example that TWAW with all that entails, because 'societal values and norms' have decided they are?

This isn't really a comparable argument.

How's this for a thought exercise, imagine you came to a country where the law wasn't such that people could take 6-12 months off to have a baby and be guaranteed of their previous position if and when they returned. How would you convince the lawmakers to enact this law?

I have actually done something like this. I'm a university academic and I teach career development . I have a specific interest in women's career development.
I organise student debates and one year the topic was enhanced maternity leave....they were asked to either argue for or against. They weren't allowed to just shout 'its not fair'! They had to provide evidence ( as did those in the 'for' camp).
The students found that there is a lot of evidence that enhanced maternity leave is a good thing. A PP has outlined some of that evidence but from a business perspective it is clear that enhanced benefits ( be that maternity leave, parental leave, Annual leave, flexible working etc) mean that employees feel valued and this translates into higher productivity and less staff turnover as employees are more likely to stick around. This often offsets the costs associated with maternity leave.

You'd be explaining how beneficial it would be to woman to not have to make the choice between a career or a family, and how companies would benefit from showing loyalty to their employees
There is evidence to show this. I'm not sure why you present it like it's a bad thing!

But then a small business owner challenges you: Hang on a minute. While it's true that it might be worth it for me to retain specific employees, it certainly wouldn't be the case for every single employee. Obviously with some it would be far more hassle and cost to keep the position vacant rather than find new permanent employees. So why should I be obligated to support the life choices of any random employee?

How do you reply in way that would satisfy that business owner?

Because that is part and parcel of running a business. If you don't understand that, then you shouldn't be running a business. It's really as simple as that.
It might help if you actually viewed your employees as people who have lives outside of work.

The fact you think it's not fair says more about you that the rest of society!

@SpinsForGin

*How do you reply in way that would satisfy that business owner?

Because that is part and parcel of running a business. If you don't understand that, then you shouldn't be running a business. It's really as simple as that.
It might help if you actually viewed your employees as people who have lives outside of work.*

And again there is a lot of waffle, but when it comes to answering the actual question how is it fair to demand a business owners supports an employees personal choice to the detriment of the business, there's nothing of substance.

Some posters have claimed it's beneficial to the business to give employees such flexibility. FTR I think overall the hassle and costs outweigh the benefits, but even if it is worth it, shouldn't that be a employer's decision? Good customer service also benefits the business, but nobody is saying that should be the law to smile at customers.

And to say I should view my employees as people etc. is just a silly attempt at winning by ad hominem attack. I do see my employees as people, and I treat them very nicely. But I still don't see why I should be forced to hold a position open because they want to go off and have a baby.

In fact you seem to understand and agree that this is okay for freelancers (which btw is also part of society's fabric). So as long as I use a freelancer for all my designing needs it would be fine for me to start with a new designer when they have a baby. But the second I offer the freelancer a steady wage as an employee I somehow become responsible for her personal choices?

"But I still don't see why I should be forced to hold a position open because they want to go off and have a baby."

Because society has decided - rightly - that the right for a woman to give birth and recover from doing so is more important than a business owner whinging that it's oh so unfair that they have to enable it.

That is the long and short of it.

swissmodel, you're not really engaging with the answers people have given. You say when it comes to answering the actual question how is it fair to demand a business owners supports an employees personal choice to the detriment of the business, there's nothing of substance.
but people have pointed out that a diverse workforce (by which I think we're all meaning people including but not limited to women of childbearing age) is proven to be better for business/the economy.
You do not address that beyond giving your own opinion on how 'the hassle and costs outweigh the benefits' (and again the word 'hassle' very much shows your attitude to the perfectly usual and normal business of recruiting and retaining staff).
but even if it is worth it, shouldn't that be a employer's decision?
Well, in many cases it is; many employers pay better maternity pay than the legally mandated minimum, which indicates that they feel it's good for their business.

In fact you seem to understand and agree that this is okay for freelancers (which btw is also part of society's fabric). So as long as I use a freelancer for all my designing needs it would be fine for me to start with a new designer when they have a baby. But the second I offer the freelancer a steady wage as an employee I somehow become responsible for her personal choices?
Leaving aside the questionable phrase (which you use a lot) 'her personal choices' (I'll just say again, society needs babies and men want babies too), in freelancing you accept that you get a different deal from an employee. I'm a freelancer myself; I know I couldn't expect things like sick or parental paid leave, structured support to improve my performance etc. The flipside of that is that I can choose to say yes or no to potential clients and contracts pretty much at the drop of a hat; I don't have to go through lengthy recruitment processes or work long notice periods. I do the job for the agreed fee or number of hours and then I'm out of there. There's no particular loyalty or notion of going 'above and beyond' in the sense of sticking with a company or putting in extra hours.

An employer does tend to want these 'extras' from staff; having a steady salaried job does tend to demand more flexibility in terms of staying late etc. The flipside of that is that an employee gets better support and loyalty from their employer (well, in theory anyway) –like maternity pay and a job that remains theirs, and sick pay, and a pension, and support if they're about to miss a deadline or if they mess up a job.