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.

@CocoaDelight

I don't get why people (usually women) get so het up about this. To me ML just feels so entitled. Don't get me wrong, I know childbirth is necessary for the continuation of our species, but from a business owner's perspective, a key employee taking 6 months leave is just unsustainable.

The business owner didn't make a decision to have a baby, yet they're the one to pay the price. How is this fair? Seriously speaking, how is it fair to place this kind of onerous burden and tax on a business owner, simply because they gave a woman a job? I'm all for equality, but it seems a huge price is placed on the business owner, who shouldn't have to shoulder the burden for all of society.

You don't understand why many of us lost out on careers and opportunities we had worked hard to qualify for because we are women?? Are you serious?

As long as we have people spouting bollocks like this then equality will remain very far off.

@CocoaDelight

I don't get why people (usually women) get so het up about this. To me ML just feels so entitled. Don't get me wrong, I know childbirth is necessary for the continuation of our species, but from a business owner's perspective, a key employee taking 6 months leave is just unsustainable.

The business owner didn't make a decision to have a baby, yet they're the one to pay the price. How is this fair? Seriously speaking, how is it fair to place this kind of onerous burden and tax on a business owner, simply because they gave a woman a job? I'm all for equality, but it seems a huge price is placed on the business owner, who shouldn't have to shoulder the burden for all of society.

That is quite good satire. I applaud you.

How depressing that so many women STILL think these sorts of questions are reasonable and understandable.

So what would be your suggestion @CocoaDelight? Sack women at 6 months and allow them to return to work only when the kids are 12 or can prove the Dad has quit? What about people with ongoing health conditions who might need extended leave? Someone goes on a skiing holiday and breaks a leg? Sack them all because the employer didn't choose it?

@CocoaDelight

I don't get why people (usually women) get so het up about this. To me ML just feels so entitled. Don't get me wrong, I know childbirth is necessary for the continuation of our species, but from a business owner's perspective, a key employee taking 6 months leave is just unsustainable.

The business owner didn't make a decision to have a baby, yet they're the one to pay the price. How is this fair? Seriously speaking, how is it fair to place this kind of onerous burden and tax on a business owner, simply because they gave a woman a job? I'm all for equality, but it seems a huge price is placed on the business owner, who shouldn't have to shoulder the burden for all of society.

So the correct answer is to not employ any women in their 20's or 30's just incase they decide to have a child?

What if a father does most of the childcare? Let's just ignore that shall we and not employ women just incase.

What are you implying here?

Should we also not be employing anyone with a disability just incase they have to take more sick days or more time off for hospital appointments?

Why are so many women on here brainwashed into justifying discrimination towards their own sex. Actually scary!

Wow. That’s unbelievable.

A senior person at General Mills once asked me in an interview (a couple of years ago) whether I was planning on having any more children. I complained to HR and was subsequently ghosted by them. Totally unacceptable this still happens.

@SleepingStandingUp

So what would be your suggestion *@CocoaDelight*? Sack women at 6 months and allow them to return to work only when the kids are 12 or can prove the Dad has quit? What about people with ongoing health conditions who might need extended leave? Someone goes on a skiing holiday and breaks a leg? Sack them all because the employer didn't choose it?

I haven't really got a suggestion, and I fully understand the reasoning behind ML. But I also get the frustration of a business owner, getting saddled with a huge expense and hassle. Just because it's a shit for women to miss out on promotions doesn't mean it isn't equally shit for businesses to suffer.

How do you see ML as actually being fair to businesses?

[quote LittleDandelionClock]@30andgrey

Of COURSE it's a bit shit, but tbf, a woman (who has school age children) IS going to be more of a liability to many employers than a man.

People say 'well you know they wouldn't have asked a man that!' Well of course they wouldn't, because their job and the ability to do it, isn't going to be affected by babies/young children as much as a woman.

A bitter pill to swallow, and for people to admit, but it's true. 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.

You can all argue differently, but as I said, rightly or wrongly, many employers see women - especially child bearing age - as much more of a liability than a man... So yep, a woman is far more likely to be asked these questions. Not great and not nice, but understandable IMO.

@Decaffe

All three of those questions are illegal.

Do you have a source for this statement?[/quote]
I had 14 months off for adoption leave, I take time off when my son is unwell, has appointments, school play etc, I use my full entitlement of unpaid parental leave per year.

I’m a man.

"How do you see ML as actually being fair to businesses?"

Fuck sake. It's not about being fair to businesses, it's about having a society where women aren't fucked over for having the audacity to need a few months recovery after having a child.

Any business that doesn't understand this can do one.

How do you see ML as actually being fair to businesses?

@CocoaDelight how do you see not employing women because they might get pregnant being fair on the whole female species?

And small business can claim the cost of SMP back, so no financial loss needs to be incurred.

@CocoaDelight Sorry, but you sound as though you haven't moved on much from the 1970s.

Women miss out on many opportunities due to this sort of bollocks. Too right we get het up about it. If we don't then nothing will change and we will continue to be second class citizens. You may be happy with that as the status quo, but the rest of us aren't. I certainly don't want it for my DDs and they don't want it for themselves.

Why is any of that hard to understand?

@SusieBob

"How do you see ML as actually being fair to businesses?"

Fuck sake. It's not about being fair to businesses, it's about having a society where women aren't fucked over for having the audacity to need a few months recovery after having a child.

Any business that doesn't understand this can do one.

Yes.

But also, businesses could and do lose a lot of valuable workforce and talent if they don't employ women in the first place, or employ women and then manage them out when they go on ML.

@CocoaDelight It is also true that businesses can claim back most of the costs of SMP. Whatever else they give financiallyover and above that is up to them to decide

Your arguments are truly ridiculous and belong in the last century. Then women could hardly get jobs anyway. Perhaps we should go back to that.

"But also, businesses could and do lose a lot of valuable workforce and talent if they don't employ women in the first place, or employ women and then manage them out when they go on ML."

Oh, absolutely that too.

@Minceandonions

All discriminatory. I was just interviewed and the interviewer described it being a really demanding role that needed lots of flexibility and working weekends and late nights, then asked "What's your personal situation - are you married, do you have children". I had to answer "I don't have children, but I'm afraid my home life is very important to me and if you want someone to work every hour under the sun, I'm not the candidate for you".

Good for you! What did they say when you said that?

I've often thought one of the most contentious interview questions of all must be "Do you work well under pressure?" Answer Yes and you risk making a rod for your own back if you get the job; answer No and you won't be offered it.

@SusieBob

"How do you see ML as actually being fair to businesses?"

Fuck sake. It's not about being fair to businesses, it's about having a society where women aren't fucked over for having the audacity to need a few months recovery after having a child.

Any business that doesn't understand this can do one.

^This. Were are always being told how vital it is to involve the private sector when the Tories are busy selling off the NHS and Schools to the their mates - so the private sector can shoulder the costs of mat leave for the benefit of society as a whole.

@CocoaDelight

I don't get why people (usually women) get so het up about this. To me ML just feels so entitled. Don't get me wrong, I know childbirth is necessary for the continuation of our species, but from a business owner's perspective, a key employee taking 6 months leave is just unsustainable.

The business owner didn't make a decision to have a baby, yet they're the one to pay the price. How is this fair? Seriously speaking, how is it fair to place this kind of onerous burden and tax on a business owner, simply because they gave a woman a job? I'm all for equality, but it seems a huge price is placed on the business owner, who shouldn't have to shoulder the burden for all of society.

Jesus Christ.

You clearly don't believe in equality.

That is absolutely awful.

@SusieBob

"But also, businesses could and do lose a lot of valuable workforce and talent if they don't employ women in the first place, or employ women and then manage them out when they go on ML."

Oh, absolutely that too.

Yes, wasn't arguing at al, just agreeing and adding to

I haven't really got a suggestion, and I fully understand the reasoning behind ML. But I also get the frustration of a business owner, getting saddled with a huge expense and hassle. Just because it's a shit for women to miss out on promotions doesn't mean it isn't equally shit for businesses to suffer.

How do you see ML as actually being fair to businesses?

If a business isn't adequately secure to manage legal employee absences, such as ML, sickness, jury service etc, then it isn't doing well enough to employ anyone.

Funny how it is always ML that is brought up as unfair and unmanageable, rather than any other reason employees might be away from work. Almost as if it is more of an issue due to being associated with women

@CocoaDelight

I don't get why people (usually women) get so het up about this. To me ML just feels so entitled. Don't get me wrong, I know childbirth is necessary for the continuation of our species, but from a business owner's perspective, a key employee taking 6 months leave is just unsustainable.

The business owner didn't make a decision to have a baby, yet they're the one to pay the price. How is this fair? Seriously speaking, how is it fair to place this kind of onerous burden and tax on a business owner, simply because they gave a woman a job? I'm all for equality, but it seems a huge price is placed on the business owner, who shouldn't have to shoulder the burden for all of society.

Are you American, a man or both?

Why don't they ask the female candidates if they'll give special massages whilst they're at it?

On another note, any evidence of schools being sold off to Tory mates? Or the NHS for that matter as it's been parroted for as long as I can remember. Surprised there is enough NHS left to spend so much money on a year.

Who was on the panel and who phoned you?

I think you should write to each panel member and tell them why you declined it.

If nothing else there's a training need there.

I am a recruiting manager and I would get flamed if I asked any of these questions. You hire the best candidate on their ability to do the job, not on their personal circumstances. Astonished how many people think this is OK.

Question is can OP report this to anyone?