Asking personal Questions at interviews??

Mr Man , I disagree. There were guidelines put in place many yrs ago on interviewing best practise and all because of discrimination
 
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.

On the other hand, I once had a female candiadate explain that she recently had a child, this was in the early stage of the interview. I had to congratulate her and tell her it wasn't relevant to the interview but she got all flustered. She did get the job btw.
 

I'm sure her case did wonders for equality in the workplace!
 
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.
 

+1
 
 
 
Well good news for me got another job and hoping this will be where I will shine, going to get stuck in and look.forward to great new career !
 
I don't see the harm in finding out a bit about a candidate before you invest time and money in them.

So how is a person's marital status or family status relevant to their ability to do the job?

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.

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.
 

You might think it amateurish, but people are so conditioned as to how they should present themselves and what is the best way to answer questions then it is should be no harm to deviate away from the path and try and find out who this person that wants to get paid for a postition in your company really is. The fact that people get so disgruntled and refuse to answer questions is really down to their own opinions on how the world should work.
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. If you were the best person for the job well then they hired you and therefore did their own job correctly.
 
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.
 

+1 Complainer. I would expect an interviewer to know the law and and ask questions that do not put the company at risk.
 

So you would right off a persons capabilities based on a bit of small talk at the end of an interview. The fact that you find it amateurish is half the problem these days.
The attitude that every little thing should be nit picked upon and analysed to death is seriously nauseating and more than a little depressing.
Simple questions that are deemed to infringe on ones rights and reasons for outrage shows just how fickle some of us have become.
 
It's not really about my opinion or how nitpicking/fickle I am. It's about the law. You can like the law or hate the law, but it is still the law. To expose the company to unnecessary risk is simply foolish.
 
Simple questions that are deemed to infringe on ones rights and reasons for outrage shows just how fickle some of us have become.

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.
 
Simple questions can quite often have a sinister motive behind them.

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)
 
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)
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.
 
Surprise today.. for phone call for 2nd interview face to face. Dam it I'm good lol.
 

Of course equality is great but I can tell if you are a woman and generally what race you are by just looking at you. When people then presume that questions are leading to a case of discrimination it goes to show how soft we have become.
I would imagine those that do discriminate on any basis have pre conceived notions that will be held before an interview ever takes place so your basically damned in the first place, but when an interviewer tries to get under your skin to find out who is really sitting before them people cry foul and that makes no sense personally to me.