To think this is of no relevance and could lead to discrimination

[bagpuss90]

My DD was invited for a second interview last week with an insurance company - she already works as an underwriter. She finds out tomorrow if she’s got the job. One of the questions was asking what myself and her dad do for a living .AIBU to think this is of no relevance and could lead to discrimination? I don’t actually think it’s any of their business either . Just for the record- her dad works in IT and I’m a former nurse now a trainer . If we were a cpl of jailbirds - well she’s hardly going to say is she ? Also I think it’s a bit of a red flag for the potential employer .

Was she asked during the interview or on the eqaulaities monitoring form?

If I'm the interview that's bizarre and none of their interest.

The equalities monitoring form is a different matter and a sign that this is an employer that takes EDI seriously. This is a measure to understand the socio-economic back grounds of candidates. It will anonymous.

The intent is actually the opposite.

I don’t believe that these things are not used in recruitment, if they were they wouldn’t be asking for them during the recruitment process. It may not be done openly, but what’s to stop HR giving a gentle steer towards someone who has ticked what are perceived to be the correct boxes.

Anyway, I wouldn’t put down two professions that require degrees, that could potentially be a disadvantage. Either don’t fill it in or lie and put something that doesn’t need a degree. If it is genuinely not used in selection, it shouldn’t matter if you tell the truth or not!

I know that, I am just wondering if they are trying to pre empt any issues with that rather than it being a DEL question.

😂😂😂

Normally they ask what your parents did when you were aged 14 (don't know why but that's the standard). Anyway this seems to be a variation of that. Nothing to worry about except that the interviewer should have been clear that answering the questions is optional.

The equalities monitoring form is a different matter and a sign that this is an employer that takes EDI seriously.

Do you have any metrics to back that up ?

It should be work of a moment to demonstrate that firms with EDI/DEI processes are any less discriminatory than firms without ? Using official statistics.

In my experience "taking things seriously" seems to shorthand for "doing fuck all because, you see, we have a form. Or a sign. Or we say something on out website."

titchy
it was in the interview

And if they didn't ?

I've been not answering this bilge for 40 years. Try and get an answer out of me by abusing social convention and see how much it hurts.

But I can see an 18 year old first interviewee feeling under pressure to provide an answer. And I will say here and now I don't think that is right.

What happens if the candidate just Makes Shit Up ? "My Dad was a Brigadier General and my Mum a milkmaid". Would they make you prove it ?

A: But what about you and Mum?

H: Well yes, yes, I grant thee when I first met her I was the farmer's
son and she was just the lass who ate the dung, but that was an
exception.

A: And Aunty Dot and Uncle Ted.

H: Yes, yes alright, he was a pig poker and she was the Duchess of
Argyle, but-

A: And Aunty Ruth and Uncle Isiah, she was a milkmaid and he was-

H: The Pope! Yes, yes, all right. Don't argue. Suffice it to say if you
marry we need never be poor or hungry again. Sir, we accept.

The OP's daughter is presumably not a first time interviewee, as she is already working.

Presumably you can also lie about your sexual orientation, disabilities, religion etc, but you don't seem bothered about that...

What exactly is your concern? Because you seem unusually aggressive about this. I don't know who you are accusing of "abusing social convention" but surely the social convention that some jobs are only from people with a higher socio economic background deserves to be abused?

What exactly is your concern?

The fact you missed my explaining it in this thread is why:

you seem unusually aggressive about this

I've had 40 years of this. And the only thing that has improved has been the graphics on the reports.

I have read all your posts. You haven't explained it.

Your first post says:
You don't have to answer.
I never do.

Your last post eventually gets to:
I've had 40 years of this. And the only thing that has improved has been the graphics on the reports.

So you agree with the aims, but you feel the means is ineffective? That still doesn't explain why you're threatening to hurt people or offering to go to prison to defend your right not to tell people what your parents did for a living when you were at school.

And of course someone can lie. I don't really understand why you think they should; I work in a professional, senior manager role and while I don't do around shouting about my working class background, I'm not ashamed of it. Why do you think that when someone asks me what my parents did for a living, I should tell them "You can send me to jail before I'll tell you that!"?

I think it is. I was asked when applying for a couple of jobs...

I have read all your posts. You haven't explained it.

Hmmm. I have you know.

If it’s a DEI question they’re going about it completely the wrong way. It should be anonymous via questionnaire and optional - the “prefer not to say” option.

it’s very hard to opt out of the question if you’re directly asked in an interview. Plus the interviewers have no business knowing details of someone’s parents’ occupations.
I’d be tempted to say “I’m afraid that’s classified information, Mr Pratt” 😏

It’s definitely for diversity monitoring. They want to check for bias in the interview process and the only way to do that is to have information about candidate background.

the best way to do this would be to make sure the data is siloed though. The people conducting the interviews do not need to know. It would also be better to have the information at the cv stage because you want to check for bias at that stage as well, but again, in order to do that, the information needs to be separated. The people and even the computer programs reviewing applications should not see the demographic data collection.

Normal diversity monitoring question but odd if she was asked in the interview itself - would normally be a separate questionnaire

It is becoming more common in big companies, but it’s a ludicrous way of assessing backgrounds. Richard Branson’s kids could say their dad was a non-graduate.

I believe in France it is illegal to collect demographic data like faith, ethnicity etc, as, since the French Revolution, everyone is deemed equal and such details are private.

They want to try and get more people from disadvantaged backgrounds, so if she said you were both terminally unemployed/ in prison, it would probably tick one of their diversity boxes.
I didn't even know what job my dad did when he was alive, so it does seem a bit of a weird question. But it's to get people from wider backgrounds as financial services has a bit of a rep for being a posh boys club kind of thing.

It isn’t used by the interviewer. It’s used for diversity monitoring.

What, that you don't believe in "class" and believe that socio economic grading is "someone else's term"? Is that the post you're referring to?

The fact is that today, someone whose parent(s) left education at 14 and then worked in a low-status role is less likely to go on to secure a high-status job, than someone whose parents worked in high-status jobs. The fact that you don't believe that there's such a thing as "working class" and "middle class", and you don't consider yourself to fall into either of those (or indeed upper class), doesn't prevent it being true. Why are you not upset about that? Instead of just not telling people what your parent(s) did for a living, in case they decide you were ABC1 rather than C2DE?