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.

It is beyond disappointing that such sexist and illegal questions are still being asked at job interviews.
I had hoped things had moved on from my own experience in 1980 of being asked "How will your husband breast feed your children while you are at work?", during an interview for a hospital doctor post.
I was childless at the time - and remained so for the next 9 years!

@Babdoc That’s awful

@itbereet

Wow! But you'd be surprised how often these questions are asked.

I work in HR and was once quizzed at an interview by two women about when I was going to have kids.

Several (male and female) managers have openly told me that they won't employ women in their 30s as they get pregnant and it costs too much to cover their maternity.

Female workers are often told to concentrate on their kids as they won't want a career when they work part-time.

It's a constant battle...

@itbereet when I left my practice I trained in at 29 one of the partners who was helping me find a new position told me not to wear my engagement ring to interviews. He said that knowing I am about to get married and my age would make me a weaker candidate vrs a male who might even be less qualified/ experienced then me. He didn't say it was fair, just that it was how it would be perceived!

If they do not pose the same questions to male candidates then yes, they are being discriminatory, but the questions themselves are not.

Some of the replies on this thread are vile. Why are your standards in the toilet? No wonder the gender pay gap is increasing if women can't even stand behind other women.

@S2617

Men can be asked these questions.

No, they can’t. No one can be asked those questions.

See the statute quoted by @forinborin

@bpirockin

If they do not pose the same questions to male candidates then yes, they are being discriminatory, but the questions themselves are not.

Yes they are.

As a previous poster pointed out they are likely to lead to indirect discrimination.

@bpirockin

If they do not pose the same questions to male candidates then yes, they are being discriminatory, but the questions themselves are not.

Yes they are!

@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.

What part of it's nothing to do with the business. Their job is to hire the best person for the role, based on their skills and competencies and experience. There is nothing stopping any employee leaving after 6 months, or going on long term sick leave or being injured and needing time off. The businesses role is to have clear policies in line with legal requirement. Mat Leave is one of them.

There is nothing stopping any employee leaving after 6 months

This is true, but then the business would find another employee. With ML they have to leave the position open.

Say I'm a business owner, one that need skilled workers. For example I run a restaurant and I need a head chef. Now I'm all for equality, even positive discrimination, so I actively look for a female to fill that role.

I employ a female head chef, and she does an excellent job for 3 years. Now she comes and says she wants to take off 6-12 months for ML.

Now finding a replacement head chef for only 6 months is nigh impossible, as is running the restaurant without a head chef. So what am I to do?

If a good male head chef had asked for a 6-12 month sabbatical, I'd have been very clear that he can reapply for a job whenever he's ready, but I cannot leave that position open for so long. So why when a female head chef demands what is essentially the same, shuld things be different?

What it boils down to is my business and me being punished for employing a woman in the first place. How can that be fair? I'm not being goady and please don't come back with ad-hominem attacks about my views being outdated. Can anyone actually explain why this is fair and why my business should have to close down or at least suffer heavy financial losses?

FTR what I think would be fair and right for society is for the government to pay ML wages, as giving birth is vital to the human species being perpetuated. But it shouldn't be incumbent on any business to leave a skilled position open for 6-12 months.

Things might be different for unskilled labour, where it is much easier to find temps. But when that isn't a viable option, it is unfair to expect the business to bear the cost of an employee making a personal choice to have children.

(The same would apply to a man who decided to take PL.)

@swissmodel the government does cover maternity pay. Businesses claim statutory maternity pay from the government.

Your arguments about keeping the position open are weak. There are viable alternatives. You could temporarily promote the chef below the Head Chef, or you could use an agency to recruit temporary staff - there are people who actively go looking for a mat cover roles!

Ultimately if you want to be an employer and enjoy all of the benefits that come with that, you have to bear some responsibility for equality - whatever the protected characteristic. Replace your argument about a woman taking maternity leave with someone who has time off or needs other types of reasonable adjustments because they have a disability. Now do you see how much of a bigot you sound....

[quote lawandgin]@swissmodel the government does cover maternity pay. Businesses claim statutory maternity pay from the government.

Your arguments about keeping the position open are weak. There are viable alternatives. You could temporarily promote the chef below the Head Chef, or you could use an agency to recruit temporary staff - there are people who actively go looking for a mat cover roles!

Ultimately if you want to be an employer and enjoy all of the benefits that come with that, you have to bear some responsibility for equality - whatever the protected characteristic. Replace your argument about a woman taking maternity leave with someone who has time off or needs other types of reasonable adjustments because they have a disability. Now do you see how much of a bigot you sound....[/quote]
Exactly what I was about to say.

When people start using phrases such as 'being punished for employing a woman' it tell you all you need to know about your views on equality.

If you are an employer or business owner you have to accept that dealing with staff absences is part and parcel of that. If you letting yourself be influenced by the fact someone might go on maternity leave or has children then you are guilty of discrimination.

I've worked in female dominated professions where we've had multiple people off on maternity leave at once. It is challenging but that a part of the responsibility of employing people.

@swissmodel

Christ. How does it look from 1950?

As a (fictional) employer you have a duty of care and certain responsibilities towards your employees. If you don't like that, then you don't employ anyone, male or female.

@swissmodel

Are you not aware that employers can claim back statutory maternity pay and are therefore not out of pocket if they have adequate provisions in place eg if cashflow means offering more than statutory maternity pay for staff would cripple the business, they should obviously only offer SMP and not more.

It's part of running a business. There are always risks in doing so. It's stressful running a business but nobody forces anyone to employ others!

Now finding a replacement head chef for only 6 months is nigh impossible, as is running the restaurant without a head chef. So what am I to do?

I don't believe that there are either no internal candidates that can "act up" in the role for mat leave cover and hire a junior chef on temporary contract. Or you can use the time from the time your head chef tells you she's pregnant until the time she takes mat leave finding viable solutions.
If you own a restaurant - making food and getting customers is not your only business - managing all the requirements of your staff are equally your responsibility. That includes the health and safety of your staff. Policies for dealing with bullying in the work place. Providing mat leave is equally a legal requirement of owning and running a business as paying you taxes.

@Sharletonz

I don't think the details of childcare arrangements are anything to be wary of, my nhs employer asked me how old my daughter was and what childcare I had in place, didn't seem discriminatory to me. The maternity leave question and typical day question sound a bit off, but again I wouldn't let it put me off, as long as you were open and honest in the interview it's not something they can hold against you.

Any questions asked at interview should be applicable to all interviewees. Asking about maternity leave is discriminatory against mothers, asking about childcare is discriminatory against parents. Shocking that they’d even ask these questions!

@swissmodel

There is nothing stopping any employee leaving after 6 months

This is true, but then the business would find another employee. With ML they have to leave the position open.

Say I'm a business owner, one that need skilled workers. For example I run a restaurant and I need a head chef. Now I'm all for equality, even positive discrimination, so I actively look for a female to fill that role.

I employ a female head chef, and she does an excellent job for 3 years. Now she comes and says she wants to take off 6-12 months for ML.

Now finding a replacement head chef for only 6 months is nigh impossible, as is running the restaurant without a head chef. So what am I to do?

If a good male head chef had asked for a 6-12 month sabbatical, I'd have been very clear that he can reapply for a job whenever he's ready, but I cannot leave that position open for so long. So why when a female head chef demands what is essentially the same, shuld things be different?

What it boils down to is my business and me being punished for employing a woman in the first place. How can that be fair? I'm not being goady and please don't come back with ad-hominem attacks about my views being outdated. Can anyone actually explain why this is fair and why my business should have to close down or at least suffer heavy financial losses?

FTR what I think would be fair and right for society is for the government to pay ML wages, as giving birth is vital to the human species being perpetuated. But it shouldn't be incumbent on any business to leave a skilled position open for 6-12 months.

Things might be different for unskilled labour, where it is much easier to find temps. But when that isn't a viable option, it is unfair to expect the business to bear the cost of an employee making a personal choice to have children.

(The same would apply to a man who decided to take PL.)

Oh dear dear dear…

Ive been asked in the past if i was intending to have any more children.

[quote SusieBob]@swissmodel

Christ. How does it look from 1950?

As a (fictional) employer you have a duty of care and certain responsibilities towards your employees. If you don't like that, then you don't employ anyone, male or female.[/quote]
I see for some it's just too hard to refrain from ad hominem attacks rather than address the actual issue. As a matter of fact I'm a real employer, albeit not a restaurant owner. But I do have key skilled workers, without whom the business couldn't function.

As it happens every single one of my employees ever has belonged to at least one minority class (even the white women I have employed were foreign). So don't lecture me about equality or make any judgements about my views.

All the replies conveniently ignore the fact that maternity is an elective state. This isn't as if an employee suddenly takes ill long-term, through no fault of their own, in which case it would be my bad luck.

How do you justify to yourself taking off for 6-12 because of your own personal choice and wish, yet expecting the employer to suffer the hassle and financial loss? How is this fair?

How would you like it if you were the employer, and you suffer all the above due to an employee's choices? Would you not feel punished for giving them a job?

Rightly or wrongly, it is because of this that many employers simply make the prudent choice of not employing women of a certain age. And as much as I feel bad for those women, I can 100% understand any employer who tries to avoid problems by making such a choice.

Answer me this, imagine you're an employer and you can hire 2 equally qualified candidates, would you go for the one who poses a risk of throwing things into disarray a year from now, or would you go with the seemingly steady candidate?

How do you justify to yourself taking off for 6-12 because of your own personal choice and wish, yet expecting the employer to suffer the hassle and financial loss? How is this fair?

It's the law. Employers can claim back SMP so they aren't out of pocket. If an employee going on maternity leave would ruin a business then that business isn't adequately prepared to have employees or is on its knees financially already.

How would you like it if you were the employer, and you suffer all the above due to an employee's choices? Would you not feel punished for giving them a job?

I've been the employer when my first (and at the time, only) employee got pregnant and went on mat leave. I didn't feel punished. I had factored in the possibility with my accountant, so offered only SMP in my employee contract and had a contingency budget for recruitment / use of temps if I needed them while filling the mat cover role.

It's business. It's not personal.

How do you justify to yourself taking off for 6-12 because of your own personal choice and wish, yet expecting the employer to suffer the hassle and financial loss? How is this fair?

It's the law. Thankfully women are protected in law from people who hold views like this.

What is you solution to this? Should only men and women over childbearing age be employed?

How would you like it if you were the employer, and you suffer all the above due to an employee's choices? Would you not feel punished for giving them a job?

I have been that employer and no I've never felt punished for employing a woman who has taken maternity leave. I'm not that shortsighted or against equality.
Should I never employ a disabled person because they may need to take time off for medical appointments?

Rightly or wrongly, it is because of this that many employers simply make the prudent choice of not employing women of a certain age. And as much as I feel bad for those women, I can 100% understand any employer who tries to avoid problems by making such a choice.

Any employer who does this is acting unlawfully.

Answer me this, imagine you're an employer and you can hire 2 equally qualified candidates, would you go for the one who poses a risk of throwing things into disarray a year from now, or would you go with the seemingly steady candidate?
Yes because if I've discriminated against someone because they potentially might go on maternity leave then I would have acted unlawfully.
I have employed pregnant women because they were the best person for the job and I've dealt with the maternity cover as appropriate.

Attitudes like yours disgust me. I research women's career development as part of my job and unfortunately we're a long way off equality and seeing posts like this you can see why

Wow, shocking that some people still think women alone ought to bear the financial sacrifice of the continuation of the species. Like that happens without men. Unbelievable. It's already stacked against women as it is.

And it's not like employers and recruiters are queueing up to hire older women so women suffer sexism and ageism. Women cannot win.

As a matter of fact I'm a real employer, albeit not a restaurant owner. I do hope your business has a good lawyer or a lot of money for paying out settlements then.

So don't lecture me about equality or make any judgements about my views. Why not? Your lack of knowledge (or wilful ignoring) about equality as you lay it out in your posts is absolutely fair game.

All the replies conveniently ignore the fact that maternity is an elective state. This isn't as if an employee suddenly takes ill long-term, through no fault of their own, in which case it would be my bad luck.

• what about if, before you became an employer, all women had 'elected' not to have children? You wouldn't have any staff at all.
• do men not also 'elect' to have children? Should they be discriminated against for this?
• what if an employee of yours gets pregnant unexpectedly and chooses to have the baby? Would you think it appropriate to ask your employee for the circumstances in which she got pregnant? And if an employee of yours gets ill with something related to, say, drinking too much, or is off with a physical injury because they go rock-climbing in their spare time? Do you have a sliding scale of 'fault' that you apply?

How do you justify to yourself taking off for 6-12 because of your own personal choice and wish, yet expecting the employer to suffer the hassle and financial loss?
'own personal choice and wish' is covered in 'elects' above. Others have pointed out that businesses are expected to claim back statutory maternity pay.

Rightly or wrongly, it is because of this that many employers simply make the prudent choice of not employing women of a certain age. I have been of childbearing age and yet have been offered and taken jobs without a single question being asked about anything to do with my reproductivity. I have not had children, but I have served various employers for quite a lot of years and quite well. Should my employers all have not offered me jobs? Do you think they'd be better off if they had, or did they get a good staff member?

Answer me this, imagine you're an employer and you can hire 2 equally qualified candidates, would you go for the one who poses a risk of throwing things into disarray a year from now, or would you go with the seemingly steady candidate?
ANYONE can 'throw things into disarray a year from now' in the world of work, for any reason.

Wow @swissmodel you're a business owner?! I hope you're aware of the fact that you are acting unlawfully then - you're leaving yourself open to huge tribunal costs. How would your business manage then?

What else isn't it fair for you as an employer to manage? Reasonable adjustments for disabled applicants? Nah - too expensive don't employ them. Health and safety assessment? Nah might have to spend some money making something safe?

And how good of you to employ foreign white women