irritating interview questions

[interviewing]

Admittedly the interviewer either received all the information from me (the house bit was one of my reasons for leaving last job) or could read it out of my CV but this seriously angered me. If I don't vent about it here I might punch the interviewer in 2nd interview should I get one.

• so Mrs 'interviewing's foreignsurname', you used to be called Interviewing Englishsurname (uni certificate), you're married and you have recently renovated a house, what's next on your list and how does that relate to you potentially working here?

arrgggggggg. ARGGGGG. You stupid f**king dark ages interviewer. Don't you realise your smarmy formulation of - are you going to have a baby? is going to potentially lose you excellent candidates.

Am I going to have a baby? At some point, hopefully. Is it any of your business or an appropriate topic for a job interview. Hell NO.

You're in HR you clueless Arsehole. Get your stupid self into the 21st century.

And breathe.

how did you answer?

The head of my department regularly asks her female staff of childbearing age if they are thinking of having babies. Doesn't bring it up at interview (that I know of) but she asks people regularly.

I had a job interview on Friday in which the interviewer pointedly asked about my children and childcare arrangements, which I answered because I really wanted the job even though I knew he had no right to ask as it wasn't relevant to the post.

I have been asked directly at interview when I was planning on having children too. Really irritating though the lead interviewer quickly shut the person up.

I have also been asked what my husband thought of me doing a risky job. Wtf?

I've never been properly trained in interviewing technique, practice or HR law but have interviewed people and one thing I've been told is that you must ask the same question to every candidate (same broad question, obviously could be tailored a bit to them), because, if they sue you for unfairly not hiring them, this is an obvious thing to look at i.e. did the interviewers discriminate through the questions they chose to ask and not ask. Probably just 'good pratice' but does raise the question, did they ask everyone else about their child-bearing intentions and chidcare commitments?

I may have given him a stony stare for a moment whilst I briefly considered the conflictual - Would you ask me the same question if I was a man? then I smiled pleasantly and said,

As I mentioned earlier, I have also been doing an evening/weekend course related to my career over the past months whilst looking for my next role and plan to take the follow on, also related to career, evening/weekend course, future work responsibilities allowing. That's my next step and it relates very well to your open job role and what you have described you are looking for.

There was no way for him to push it further without getting into illegal territory.

How would you/others have answered?

scurryfunge wow. what did you answer?

i probably would have played dumb and said "i'm not quite sure i follow what you mean, can you clarify what you are asking?"

probably not the best response but i can't think on my feet.

Re the risky question, I stated that I was confident in my abilities and that although I had a supportive husband, his opinion did not feature in my career choices. I did not think I had got the job at that point and was quite short with them.( I did get it though).

"My 5 year plan is to be [xxxx] director of this company. The company is doing so well at [whatever] and I know that my [xxx] skills can best position us to be [vvv], blah, blah, blah and sack little sexists gits like you

Actually I always raised it in interviews myself as it's very relevant. I as able to say I used 2 weeks holiday to have my baby in and worked until I went into labour, I have a nanny who has stayed X years. etc etc. In other words if you are organised as a man or woman as regards your childcare that's great news for an employer.

Of course I agree that sexist questions however should never be asked in interviews.

In my view, they were skirting the margins of what is acceptable under the Equality Act 2010. The law doesn't allow discrimination on grounds of ethnicity, marital status, gender and a whole host of other grounds, in recruitment and selection.

If you weren't THAT fussed about the job, I'd have been tempted to say, "Sir, I am unclear how my change of surname upon marriage and arrangements for renovating my home relate to my capability to perform in this job. Are you actually trying to find out whether I am planning to have children in the near future?"

If the dude looked sly or actually slipped up and said yes, I'd have said, "You've broken the law in asking that question," and walked out, leaving them to stew over whether you might take them to court or not.

Lottie, it's not correct that if you ask the same question of every candidate, you won't violate the law. You could ask every candidate if they envision any issues or challenges with using equipment available in the office. Most would say, no, but a disabled candidate might raise an issue and it could be seen that the question was used to "flush out" any disabled candidates so you could eliminate them. Similarly, if you ask all candidates (male and female) if they plan to have children in the next x number of years, the implications for a man and a woman would be different. If the woman actually plans to give birth rather than adopt, at a minimum they would be taking a few weeks off, but most likely more. Again, the question could be used to flush out women who might become pregnant during employment in order to eliminate them from the running.

It irks the heck out of me that there are still firms completely flouting the law when it comes to gender and other forms of discrimination.

The most horrible interview I ever had was when I was visibly seven months pregnant.

I had been doing the actual job on a fixed-term contract, excellently, for a year. It had been agreed to convert it to a permanent contract.

I did a great interview and presentation. And I wasn't appointed.

I still feel fucking sick about that.

Not just women who are on the receiving end of this - a few years ago DH was asked (by a knobbish female interviewer) how many children he had and how he managed childcare.

He told her that we used a nursery and then asked her how many children she had and what she did for childcare (her partner was divorced, and they had his son at weekends which made it much easier for work purposes, in case anyone is interested)

Needless to say he didn't take the job.

The last job I was interviewed for I was 5 months pregant and had a 1 and 3 year old at home. I got it of course.

Why 'of course'?

I was just playing up my usual image of confidence. I think I'm the best at what I do in the UK.

Thanks for the feedback everyone. I've reminded myself that I'm highly employable. This HR interviewer couldn't answer the most basic questions when it was my turn to interview them and isn't worth wasting my energy on. Fortunately, the hiring manager was totally engaged, asked intelligent questions, enthusiastically agreed with my views on employee motivation and immediate improvements the company could make and seemed to be someone from whom I could learn something.

KRITIQ I am in another country, the gender discrimination laws are the similar but the attitudes here in southern Germany can be a little backward to say the least.

Xenia, it's good to have confidence, but that alone won't get you what you seek if those making the decision about your fate have already decided they don't want you because of your marital status, ethnicity, gender, being of childbearing age, etc. I hope you're not suggesting that those who've been shafted in employment for reasons like these just weren't confident enough.

Sorry to hear about the backwards attitudes where you are. Interviewing is a two way process and if you pick up vibes that an employer isn't quite "on," it's probably best to listen to the gut anyhow.

I certainly wasn't. I think we need discrimination legslation and I am glad we have it. In fact I think the fat I could say I've had 2 pregbnancies when I've barely taken any time off, I have a nanny (she came each day for 10 years) and my chidlren's father is the first port of call if those arrangements fail was a very positive thing I could say in an interview, that the fact I had 2 little children and still never had a day off sick, off work etc was a positive thing and the fact I was 5 months pregnant neither here nor there.

The Germans are still tool much into Kinder Kuche and Kirche despite having a female leader. They've a long way to go even to get to the UK position as regards women and work sadly.

The thing is though Xenia, you have to have healthy children and be in a position to afford infallible childcare to say that having children isn't going to affect your time off. I've had about 6 days off sick in the last 10 years (5 of which in one go when I had shingles). But I've had loads of time off because of my DC.

Most children pick up bugs from time to time. If you're relying on CMs or nurseries, they won't have your DC so you have to have time off, especially if you don't have family support to step into the breach, which is increasingly the case as people move around the country chasing jobs.

Even if there was 100% gender equality in the workplace, that would still leave 75% of parents in a position where they cannot afford a reliable nanny (based on ASHE national earnings stats).

What is needed is an increase in paternity leave, flexible working patterns in all appropriate industries, and a strong political drive to get more men into caring roles so that it ceases to be the mother likely to take time off, and could be either parent equally.

We need to get part this dichotomy of career v mother set up. Yes some careers are always going to be incompatible with being a parent (or at least being the primary parent), but just as many (if not more) are not.

In a society where more than 80% of people become parents, there has to be a better way of creating working patterns suitable for 21st century life in which children are a normal feature. It should be normal and expected that parents will want/need time off for sick children or the school nativity play (just as others will want time off for elderly relatives, etc). I don't see why any parent should feel the need to apologise for that. I have taken time off for all these things and can honestly say that my work or commitment have not suffered as a result. That would be the case in many other sectors as well, and if more male parents pressed for it, I truly believe it would become normalised much more so than is currently the case.

I too have used the fact that I am a single parent successfully (though not without stress) juggling childcare and work to my advantage, but I'm not naive enough to believe that it's all about spin. It isn't. If the ability to juggle children and career was really respected by society there would be far more women in the workforce at a higher level and more men would be clamouring to do it than is currently the case.

Why you though and not their father? If it's because he earns more why is that so?
Also if women earn enough they can pick careers which enable them to pay for child care and also emergency back up child care.

Also we have a family view that unless you're virtually dead you go to school always and I go to work and you do that year and year. We are the arch attenders not the arch skivers. Britain is absolutely crammed full of the arch skivers so it's not hard as a woman or man to do better than others at work if you don't have that mentality.

Well in my case there isn't a father around (he's only allowed supervised access so isn't going to be stepping into the childcare breach any time soon). Of course it would be a help if someone could get any money from him, and a contribution towards childcare costs would transform my life, but it's not going to happen any time soon; just as it isn't for 60% of the other lone parents out there.

You clearly missed the point that less than 25% of people in the UK earn enough to afford truly reliable childcare. For a couple on average earnings, after tax they bring home about 35-40,000 together. If you have two children in full-time care, you'll be spending more than 15,000 on childcare. That leaves about £20-25,000 to keep a family of 4. Possible? Yes, of course if is and some do it on far less. But there isn't enough room for manoeuvre to cover emergency childcare. There just isn't. Yes, if you're in the top 25% of earners you can, but that's a minority and will continue to be a minority in society even if we achieve 100% gender equality. Even if every single woman in the UK out-earned her partner, still only 25% of women would be able to afford emergency childcare. That's the nature of capitalism.

This is, of course, why so many people end up with one parent either not working at all or choosing a much lower-paid, more flexible career so that there is someone available for the DC.

Where I agree with you is that why should this always be the woman. It shouldn't. Where I differ from you, however, is that I believe it should be possible for this to be shared between parents rather than making it automatically one or the other.

The reality is that anyone interviewing a woman of childbearing age will be wondering if they will soon be looking for maternity cover, with all the hassles and complications that entails

it sucks, but we are less employable as a result

I've had some job interviews recently for quite large companies and they have been scrupulous in not asking anything like that, even to the point of not asking about a strange job move on my CV which was down to having a baby. When I have offered the information they have practically stuck their fingers in their ears while going "Of course it's fine it's fine, we all have families, it's fine, shut up now!"

So it has got through in some areas.

HOWEVER even if they don't ask you about this stuff you never know what they're thinking. Again it helps with the proper companies where they have to score competancy based questions and have someone from HR there and it's all very careful.

Indeed, a friend in Germany was offered a contract and told "we don't expect you to become pregnant in the next year"

that absolutely would not happen here, and it is a good thing

but there is discrimination all the same