It shouldn't have been asked. Years ago an interviewer for a post of electrician remarked to a female candidate that she was the only female for the job as a break the ice type comment on the way into the interview. When she didn't get the post, she took and won a case on discrimination on the grounds of gender.
Mr Man , I disagree. There were guidelines put in place many yrs ago on interviewing best practise and all because of discrimination
guidelines to avoid getting strung up by over sensitive people who see a nice way of making money for nothing and never consider the possibility that they weren't the best person for the job and that maybe they could do with working on presenting themselves better at the next interview.
Guidelines to avoid getting strung up by over sensitive people who see a nice way of making money for nothing and never consider the possibility that they weren't the best person for the job and that maybe they could do with working on presenting themselves better at the next interview.[/QUOTE
Society has made me sensitive about this type of stuff... and I wouldn't bother to follow this up for money, I am an intelligent woman, but asking me do I have kids leads me to believe I am being judged athow I will work before I get the chance. There is no need to have such questions.
Guidelines to avoid getting strung up by over sensitive people who see a nice way of making money for nothing and never consider the possibility that they weren't the best person for the job and that maybe they could do with working on presenting themselves better at the next interview.[/QUOTE
Society has made me sensitive about this type of stuff... and I wouldn't bother to follow this up for money, I am an intelligent woman, but asking me do I have kids leads me to believe I am being judged athow I will work before I get the chance. There is no need to have such questions.
Of course you are being judged thats part of why they are interviewing you, they need to know with as much certainty as is possible that you will be an asset. Asking questions is the only way you can get people to reveal themselves especially when people are now so adept at 'interview techniques'.
I don't see the harm in finding out a bit about a candidate before you invest time and money in them.
If people are that sensitive you might wonder how they will cope under the stress of work or how they will deal with clients who don't behave by the book.
So how is a person's marital status or family status relevant to their ability to do the job?
It's nothing to do with sensitivity. It is to do with (as others posters have demonstrated) concern about getting involved with such an amatuerish and unprofessional approach to business.
Terrible to think that interviewers are still so amateurish in this day and age. It is very much in their own interests to avoid any questions, apart from the fact that they are completely unnecessary.
About 10 years ago, I was asked did I have kids towards the end of an interview in a large multi-national, in a kind of chatty. I told the interviewer that he really shouldn't ask those questions.
I got the job. A couple of years later, the interviewer (not a HR person) was promoted to a post responsible for all recruitment.
No - my last line suggests that the interview isn't capable of his/her position because they asked you a question that exposes the company to considerable risk - risk of finding themselves on the wrong end of an Equality Tribunal judgement. Completely amatuerish.Your last line seems to suggest that the interviewer isn't capable of his/her new position because they asked you a question that you consider amateurish.
No - my last line suggests that the interview isn't capable of his/her position because they asked you a question that exposes the company to considerable risk - risk of finding themselves on the wrong end of an Equality Tribunal judgement. Completely amatuerish.
No - my last line suggests that the interview isn't capable of his/her position because they asked you a question that exposes the company to considerable risk - risk of finding themselves on the wrong end of an Equality Tribunal judgement. Completely amatuerish.
Simple questions that are deemed to infringe on ones rights and reasons for outrage shows just how fickle some of us have become.
Simple questions can quite often have a sinister motive behind them.
If you read through the case reports on the Equality Tribunal website, you will see that discrimination is rarely about a single remark or question. It is generally about a web of attitudes/comments/questions.That is true but an off-the-cuff remark (not even a question) that an interviewee is the only woman who applied for the job should hardly be construed as a form of discrimination (all other things being equal)
A number of years ago I attended an interview for a job in Belfast. As part of the interview process, right at the start, the interviewer "read me my rights" under Equality legislation in NI, with particuler reference to religous discrimination. The process freaked me out a bit I have to say and was one of the reasons I didn't do a great interview.
However I can understand why they had to do it, for the same reason I can understand why Equality Legislation exists in the South. It's a harsh reality that there are idiots out there who will refuse to employ someone on grounds of race, gender or because they may be a women with kids and thus they may be perceived to be more prone to "taking time off" as a result. Simple questions can quite often have a sinister motive behind them.