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 had a similar experience albeit the questions werent as blatant as the OPs and I turned them down. My husband even called a few lawyers to see if this was legal..he was absolutely furious that I was subjected to such questioning.

I was speaking to a younger, female colleague, who's in her mid 20's about this post. She's very ambitious, and I can't see her having much empathy with parents in the future. Whilst she agrees it's illegal to ask these questions, she does agree that the questions should be asked. From an employers point of view they need to plan for future staffing levels. Even if the both men & women are asked the questions this did make me bristle a bit. I'm interested in what people think of her opinion?

Well, all I can say is that @swissmodel makes me very grateful for all the work and fight that unions have had, to enshrine so many workers rights in law. If their behaviour is genuinely reflective of their comments here, I’m afraid it’s only a matter of time before you’re taken to an employment tribunal.

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.

I think I it's more to do with your refusal to actually engage with the answers you've been given because you personally think it's unfair.

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?
Many employers offer more than the statutory requirements which suggest many do think it is of benefit to the organisation.

Good customer service also benefits the business, but nobody is saying that should be the law to smile at customers.
Poor customer service doesn't mean an entire group of people are systematically disadvantaged due to their sex..... so hardly comparable.

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.

We know you don't. However, thankfully the law disagrees.

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?

Are you forgetting men are part of the baby making process??

You are not responsible for anyone's personal choices. However, yes there is a difference between using freelancers and formally employing someone and freelancers know this and is a risk that is built into the way they work and the prices they charge.
Once you make someone your employee then you have certain legal responsibilities and that is reflected in the contract you offer someone.

@Halloweencat

I was speaking to a younger, female colleague, who's in her mid 20's about this post. She's very ambitious, and I can't see her having much empathy with parents in the future. Whilst she agrees it's illegal to ask these questions, she does agree that the questions should be asked. From an employers point of view they need to plan for future staffing levels. Even if the both men & women are asked the questions this did make me bristle a bit. I'm interested in what people think of her opinion?

There is a reason these questions should not be asked to anyone. Even if they are asked to both men and women it is always going to result in more women being discriminated against..... and that's the crux of it really.

I've seen this attitude from young women before. It generally stems from them striving for equality but not fully recognising that we should be pushing for equity as this takes into account differing circumstances.

@SpinsForGin

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.

I think I it's more to do with your refusal to actually engage with the answers you've been given because you personally think it's unfair.

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?
Many employers offer more than the statutory requirements which suggest many do think it is of benefit to the organisation.

Good customer service also benefits the business, but nobody is saying that should be the law to smile at customers.
Poor customer service doesn't mean an entire group of people are systematically disadvantaged due to their sex..... so hardly comparable.

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.

We know you don't. However, thankfully the law disagrees.

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?

Are you forgetting men are part of the baby making process??

You are not responsible for anyone's personal choices. However, yes there is a difference between using freelancers and formally employing someone and freelancers know this and is a risk that is built into the way they work and the prices they charge.
Once you make someone your employee then you have certain legal responsibilities and that is reflected in the contract you offer someone.

I've made these points to swissmodel too (as have others) but it's head against a brick wall. They've decided that babies are a woman's – not a man's – personal choice and nothing else; refuse or are unable to see that many employers have decided to offer more than the statutory requirements, which means precisely that they find it to be of business benefit; do not or will not understand the difference between freelancers and formally employed staff… And as for the attempt to draw a comparison between parental leave and smiling at customers, words fail me really.

And as for the attempt to draw a comparison between parental leave and smiling at customers, words fail me really.

It was a very bizarre comparison!
I'm very glad I work for an organisation that supports and values women in the workplace.

I've made these points to swissmodel too (as have others) but it's head against a brick wall. They've decided that babies are a woman's – not a man's – personal choice and nothing else; refuse or are unable to see that many employers have decided to offer more than the statutory requirements, which means precisely that they find it to be of business benefit; do not or will not understand the difference between freelancers and formally employed staff…
And as for the attempt to draw a comparison between parental leave and smiling at customers, words fail me really.

What are you talking about? I keep addressing the points and then I'm accused of ignoring them.

The main points that keep being made is that (a) diverse workforces are better for the business/economy, and (b) when employees get better benefits they feel more loyal.

Have I missed anything?

To the first I say that's a gross overstatement. While there might be industries that would benefit from a diverse workforce, in many others it doesn't matter one bit. In fact I'd argue that in many cases (labourers, kitchen workers and the like), they work much better as a cohesive group when they share the same identity. I've yet to see a building site suffer because the workforce doesn't include women/other-group.

The second argument is one for the employer to consider, but that isn't a reason for the law to be that way, nor does it even make it fair for an employee to behave in that way. If an employer wants to give various benefits, that's up to them. But it's the height of entitlement for an employee to take off 6-12 months to go do their own thing, and expect the employer to keep the position open.

As to hiring people being part of running a business, well duh, of course it is. But I'd want to maximise the rewards of my efforts and hassle by hiring employees who'd be likely to stay long term. It is for that reason I offer excellent remuneration packages, because I don't want to have to hire new people every day.

But when an employee takes off 6-12 months and expects to return, I have to go through the entire hiring process with the temp for a mere 6-12 months. That is an unnecessary hassle.

In the past I have employed women as I have zero problem hiring anyone as a person. But I do want to hire not only the most qualified, but also the most likely to stay in the job. And if women are high risk for causing disruption, it just doesn't make sense for me to hire one. And don't worry about tribunals, it's almost impossible to prove the reason a man was hired over a woman is due to discrimination.

One more thing, it's quite irrelevant who is involved in the baby making process, whether women, men or even aliens. Which is why I don't keep saying an employer shouldn't have to support the 'women's' personal choices, but 'employee's' personal choices.

As a boss I should only have a duty of care insofar as the workplace is concerned, but it makes zero sense for me to somehow become responsible for every personal choice an employee makes, and I shouldn't have to support them. That's what their parents are for.

The main points that keep being made is that (a) diverse workforces are better for the business/economy, and (b) when employees get better benefits they feel more loyal…To the first I say that's a gross overstatement. While there might be industries that would benefit from a diverse workforce, in many others it doesn't matter one bit. In fact I'd argue that in many cases (labourers, kitchen workers and the like), they work much better as a cohesive group when they share the same identity.
'you'd argue'. YOUR opinion. Not evidence that a diverse workforce is better.
the same identity. a) how do you define that? b) isn't that getting into murky waters?

I've yet to see a building site suffer because the workforce doesn't include women/other-group. Have you? How many building sites have you seen that include women or another group to know this?

But it's the height of entitlement for an employee to take off 6-12 months to go do their own thing, and expect the employer to keep the position open. We could have a long discussion about your choice of the words 'entitlement' and 'do their own thing' here, but they're just so offensive and contemptuous I actually can't face thinking about them that much.
This has been asked many times, but here I go again: if it's 'the height of entitlement' for an employer to keep a position open and pay for maternity leave, why do many choose to do it and pay above the minimum legal entitlement? Do you think it's a purely altruistic decision? or one that includes altruism/social motivations AND business ones?
I'd want to maximise the rewards of my efforts and hassle by hiring employees who'd be likely to stay long term. It is for that reason I offer excellent remuneration packages, because I don't want to have to hire new people every day. And if people offer excellent maternity leave terms, the people who take maternity leave are more likely to come back and continue being good employees –long term.
And if women are high risk for causing disruption, it just doesn't make sense for me to hire one. And don't worry about tribunals, it's almost impossible to prove the reason a man was hired over a woman is due to discrimination. That is breathtaking. I wonder how many of these tribunals you've been involved in and got away with.
One more thing, it's quite irrelevant who is involved in the baby making process, whether women, men or even aliens. No it isn't. Women are systematically disadvantaged by the fact of their biology. Which is why laws exist that are intended to address that disadvantage and promote equity. Which makes for a better workforce and a better economy.

Which is why I don't keep saying an employer shouldn't have to support the 'women's' personal choices, but 'employee's' personal choices.
Here's some things you've said about that:
it is because of this that many employers simply make the prudent choice of not employing women of a certain age
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?
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
any specific employee to support he personal life choices at the business's cost
But the second I offer the freelancer a steady wage as an employee I somehow become responsible for her personal choices?
As a boss I should only have a duty of care insofar as the workplace is concerned, but it makes zero sense for me to somehow become responsible for every personal choice an employee makes
The workplace and maternity are inextricably linked (unless we went back to the practice of women being obliged to give up work as soon as they started having babies). Duty of care is not simplistically separable like that. Just as it isn't in cases of sickness or disability.

The questions should not have been asked. However as an employer I would want to know whether a senior management appointee is able to cope with the workload which comes with the position, having children is not a reason to not be able to fulfill the role. We are doing working parents (and I included men because it's a joint obligation) a disservice by pretending no adaptations are needed, something has to give. I personally stayed at home until my children started school and worked part time through the school years which enabled my exh to rise to a very senior position, a two working parent household would have meant him actually coming home from work on time, which his employer would need to factor in. My now dp never can take time off, carries phone and laptop at all times (weekdays) if we go away, again it's non negotiable and was brought up at the interview along with travel 2 weeks in 4 (pre covid, I love virtual meetings ). They had to ensure he could fulfill this otherwise he wouldn't have been hired

However as an employer I would want to know whether a senior management appointee is able to cope with the workload which comes with the position, having children is not a reason to not be able to fulfill the role.
it's hard to see how an interview can 'ensure' this without asking questions about candidates' personal circumstances. Which will often involve children and which will ultimately disadvantage women more, and therefore be discriminatory.

You're an absolute disgrace swissmodel
I can only hope at some point you can't escape an employment tribunal because if you practice what you preach you are clearly breaking the law.

Well, all I can say is that I'm glad I don't work for you @swissmodel and I am well past my baby making days

I've yet to see a building site suffer because the workforce doesn't include women/other-group.

Actually, there is probably an argument to be made that all male environments can result in serious incidents due to "practical jokes" and forms of hazing gone wrong.

www.rte.ie/news/2001/0212/12429-prank/

Potentially in certain industries - because women are (usually) as physically strong as men - they'd be less likely to attempt certain risky behaviours.

The UK HSE report for 2021 www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/pdf/fatalinjuries.pdf doesn't breakdown fatalities by sex, but judging but the industries represented, it is possible that they are more male orientated workspaces. If the safety requirements had to be met to suit a female body, would it be safer?

I work with some of the most entitled parents known to mankind (seriously, I’d get the Guinness World Record lot in it there were such a category), who’ve rung out “family friendly” so hard that there’s nothing left, to ensure that they’re prioritised, coddled and left to their own devices at all times. It is a wonder to behold. I work in a niche profession in the public sector, so no mat cover and no extra resource to cover the hours they’re not doing. and the slack is picked up by women without kids, which makes the cries of feminism all the more ironic.

All of that said, even I, at the very end of my tether with these people and their weaponisation of discrimination law, recognise that asking these questions at interview is wrong and illegal and that we haven’t got a hope of doing right by the next generations if we continue to act as if it’s normal or acceptable for people to be questioned about their reproductive status at interview.

In answer to the whole “how would you satisfy a small business owner?”, I wouldn’t. I’d say, this is what is best for society as a whole and if you want to run your business in that society then you need to abide by it. Feel free not to run your business if it offends you. Law doesn’t get made only if everyone likes and agrees with it.

So many typos on that post - apologies, typing on phone!

But I still think it's entitled and unfair for an employee to take up to a year off to do their own thing, and expect the employer to keep the position open for them.
You have not replied to any further posts and questions on this topic, swissmodel. I am interested to hear your replies.

Cannot wait until @swissmodel is taken to tribunal and left without a pot to piss in. If they’re not telling inflammatory porkies….

Saying that, their posts are utterly hilarious. They ignore all the salient points raised by others, attempt to gaslight posters into saying they have responded with verbose responses and also have such an inflated sense of self worth (‘all my employees love me’) that they can only be lying, on a wind up or trolling.

Name change fail vocifery/swissmodel??

There have been plenty of logical arguments presented (often supported by research) but you discount them because they don't align with you opinion.

So why then do you think supporting an employee through her pregnancy/birth by keeping the position open is something the employer should be obligated to do? This is a personal decision made by the employee, about their personal life, with no input from or added value to the employer. So why should they have to support that decision?

It's really very simple and comes down to whether you thinks it's acceptable to discriminate against someone due to a protected characteristic. There needs to be laws around maternity leave because women are routinely discriminated against because only they can get pregnant. Society is built on this fact and therefore the laws need to reflect this and project women from discrimination.

If you think it's acceptable for women to be routinely discriminated against and disadvantaged because of their sex and if you don't value womens contribution to the labour market then you are never going to agree that laws to protect their jobs are a good thing.

It's really as simple as that 🤷🏼‍♀️

That's because most of the replies are either statements with no logical backup ('You do have to!'), insults ('I can't believe this outdated mindset still exists'), or non sequiturs ('So why does company X offer such good mat leave terms?').
So answer the ones that aren't.
And 'So why does company X offer such good mat leave terms?' isn't a non sequitur. It's key to understanding why businesses might choose to do something (clue: usually because it makes good business sense).

So why then do you think supporting an employee through her pregnancy/birth by keeping the position open is something the employer should be obligated to do?
What do you think the difference is between endeavours like holidays, personal growth etc, and maternity? (again, clue: a) only one sex can do it and b) human society depends on it).

This is a personal decision made by the employee, about their personal life, with no input from or added value to the employer. So why should they have to support that decision?
Is there no added value to an employer to retain an excellent member of staff in the long term?

Please can you explain how 'fabric of society' is a 'mythological' notion?

The issue of freelancers has been addressed by me and various other posters; again, I'm interested to hear your response to those points.

Another argument was that business thrive by having a diverse workteam. Leaving aside the fact that in most cases it's probably nonsense Is it?
And no, I don't need to bring proof, just open your eyes and look around.
You mean be persuaded by anecdata, rather than the evidence of studies, supplied on this thread? Why? And, as you say your position is based on logic, can you explain the logic behind these assertions?

For example I've seen butcher shops with entire Polish teams, kitchens staffed solely by Bangladeshi workers, all-male building sites and so on, and they do just fine. As above, it'd be great to see you discuss 'just fine' in the context of published evidence about diversity at work.

But even if it were true, that is no argument for enshrining this right into law. At most you can write an article how it's good business sense to offer such terms.
Why just 'an article'? And is 'good business sense' a very insignificant point, in your view? That would seem to go against one of your central points, which is that it does NOT make good business sense to have people return after maternity leave.