My Status

poorgrad

lisamummytoarchieplusbump wrote: »

i got asked a question like that as i mentioned i got made redundant while on maternity leave as i have a 2 year work gap on my CV so thought this would be best to explain it, he then asked how many kids and what their ages was

i never got as far as an interview

Sorry to hear that. Did you ask for feedback? What reason did they give?

terra_ferma

hothothot wrote: »

I mean record with it covertly, and before we go into legality of it: im pretty sure theres nothing illegal as it is only public bodies who are bound by legislation like RIPA, from a data protection act point of view im not entirely sure.

I was thinking along the lines of......

start dictaphone recording then conceal in pocket/bag whatever
walk into room, greet interviewer, sit down
take paper work out and pen and say "ok if i take some notes"
interviewer id imagine would not have problem "sure no problem"

this would be the official permission that you could take notes, obviously he has seen the paper and pen and assumes that is all you meant but he has unwittingly allowed you to take notes by use of the dictaphone.

meanwhile any incriminating questions are recorded on the dictaphone, nice insurance for any potential unfair discrimination.

It may or may not be admissible (covert recordings have been used in ET cases in the past), but is that the right attitude to go to an interview?

hothothot_3

terra_ferma wrote: »

It may or may not be admissible (covert recordings have been used in ET cases in the past), but is that the right attitude to go to an interview?

I wouldnt as a white non disabled young middle class man, and ive always had a job after the interview stage so I guess I havent been discriminated like some people have reported - it is evidently a prejudiced world we live, the problem that employers can deny things when no evidence is there to support any claim on behalf of the victim.

Another thing is that if you dont get the job you can also review your performance at interview and think how you mightve responded differently to certain questions.

Savvy_Sue

greenbee wrote: »

So you can only discriminate based on age, race, religion, disability or just taking a dislike to the individual

We could do all of those, but we don't. :rotfl: I've usually formed an opinion about who NOT to employ because I've dealt with their enquiries, but I don't pass that opinion on. We take off the identifying information before the forms go to the selection panel, so the only information they have about age, race, religion or disability is what the candidate chooses to disclose in their personal statement.

pinkshoes

poorgrad wrote: »

But you are making assumptions:

a) that because a candidate is female they want children
b) that as a mother they would take the maximum maternity leave - my sister went back to work the following week

Don't father's get paternity leave? That means that they may also take time off and also need to stay at home when their children are ill.

Yes, they are assumptions...

But like many other things in life, people do "risk assessments" on everything, which are indeed based on assumptions as well as facts and figures.

Given genetically a man cannot physically have a baby (:rolleyes:), then in terms of a risk assessment, he would be a "safer" candidate for a job!

Paternity leave is 2 weeks. Most men don't take it, and instead use their holiday entitlement.

Having many friends with children, it is usually the woman who takes time off work to deal with a sick child.

wontfallforit

I can see why some employers are wary of taking on childbearing-age women (because, let's face it, some do take the biscuit). However, the majority of mums work just as hard as everyone else (I suppose there's also a case for mums working harder in some instances), so such assumptions drag not only them down, but the childless females amongst us too.

Owing to some old medical problems, it's unlikely that I'll ever be able to have children. Yeah, there's always options (and miracles!), and I'm still young enough to mother a child through 'alternative' means.

However, I really don't want children! Certainly not until I'm well-off (if there is a God...), as I was raised by a young teenage mother and although we had all the love in the world, times were hard. Additionally, my partner already has children, so his need for any more is also quite reduced.

I think there's about a 50/50 chance of me ever wanting a child, without allowing for any potential conception problems that I could overcome.

I'll probably die childless. Not really bothered.

I've only ever been asked once if I have kids (back when it was still OK to ask, I think), and I got that job. I do suspect that the interviewer was just being friendly, though. I still see her on a personal basis, and her own kids are her world, so I can understand why she'd want to talk about kids, woman-to-woman, just out of interest.

If I was asked about it now, which I never have been since, I'd be quite open about the fact that a) I'm fairly certain I'd struggle to conceive, and b) I don't really want them anyway, certainly not in the next 5-10 years. I don't see how that could go against me. Without blowing my own trumpet too much, I'm highly educated, fairly skilled and experienced, and have had my nose to the grindstone since age 16. So for anyone who'd write me off just because I might one day take 9 months paid leave, way in the future, it's their loss.

If I ever suspected that the simple fact that I'm a young female had ever played against me in a job interview, I'd be pretty angry. However, those suspicions would only ever be raised if I was applying for the field in which I'm qualified and experienced, and if I'd felt the interview had otherwise gone very well.

Savvy_Sue

wontfallforit wrote: »

I've only ever been asked once if I have kids (back when it was still OK to ask, I think), and I got that job. I do suspect that the interviewer was just being friendly, though. I still see her on a personal basis, and her own kids are her world, so I can understand why she'd want to talk about kids, woman-to-woman, just out of interest.

Of course, there is a classic way of doing it, through casual just-being-friendly chit-chat on the way back to Reception. :rotfl: I've had that, when I was applying for a job at a substantially reduced salary out of London, and I don't think it hurt my chances to say that I'd left London to be near my boyfriend and now wanted a more local job.

But that was BC, not sure if I would ever have let on about them after that, having been 'caught' once! :rotfl:

That's not to say I haven't been open and up front about having children in some interviews. I just don't mention them on my application forms or CVs, and if I choose to volunteer the information then it's on my terms. I have never been asked outright.

dukesy_2

hothothot wrote: »

start dictaphone recording then conceal in pocket/bag whatever
walk into room, greet interviewer, sit down
take paper work out and pen and say "ok if i take some notes"
interviewer id imagine would not have problem "sure no problem"

this would be the official permission that you could take notes, obviously he has seen the paper and pen and assumes that is all you meant but he has unwittingly allowed you to take notes by use of the dictaphone.

meanwhile any incriminating questions are recorded on the dictaphone, nice insurance for any potential unfair discrimination.

Shocking !!!

You accept this as reasonable behaviour, yet an employer looking to pay you money to do a task of work has to put up wiht this kind of thing before you even interview.

Remind me again, Are you LOOKING for work, or looking for a tribunal ??

Unbelievable.....

hothothot_3

dukesy wrote: »

Shocking !!!

You accept this as reasonable behaviour, yet an employer looking to pay you money to do a task of work has to put up wiht this kind of thing before you even interview.

Remind me again, Are you LOOKING for work, or looking for a tribunal ??

Unbelievable.....

Personally? I have a secure job in the recession, being going strong 2 years now. Ive had previous employers misbehave, I took to tribunal twice - both time won, the reason I win is because of evidence.

What you should consider 'unbelievable' is employers stopping people with valid qualifications and skills getting a job due to UNLAWFUL sex discrimination. Thats what I find shocking.

If you are shocked so much, you probably havent came across or been strong enough to challenge malpractice at work.

dukesy_2

hothothot wrote: »

Personally? I have a secure job in the recession, being going strong 2 years now. Ive had previous employers misbehave, I took to tribunal twice - both time won, the reason I win is because of evidence.

What you should consider 'unbelievable' is employers stopping people with valid qualifications and skills getting a job due to UNLAWFUL sex discrimination. Thats what I find shocking.

If you are shocked so much, you probably havent came across or been strong enough to challenge malpractice at work.

I fully appreciate that there are employers out there that will (in your words) "misbehave".

But i dont think that this excuses deliberatley misleading them, taping an interview andf looking for reasons to go to a tribunal.

I havent come across malpractice at work , correct, but that is because I work for a company who engender a mentality of being Mutually open, honest and truthful from both parties.

There is nothing wrong with asking questions regarding a persons circumstances in order to qualify their ability to carry out their job. Sometimes that information can overlap into territories that you would consider discrinimatory. Surely the onus is on the employee to prove that they can be relied upon to fulfil their role ?

If two IDENTICAL applicants (regardless of sex, colour, pregnancy, disability, creed, religion or any other criteria) applied for a role, and applicant A said that they were only able to work from 10am due to "other commitments" and applicant B could start at 9am as required by the role, would you consider this discrimnatory or common sense ?

The incident above happened at a nearby employer, they employed candidate B, and A took them to tribunal (and to my mind, fortunately lost) as the REASON he/she couldnt start til 10am was due to childcare problems.

My point is, I am genuinley worried that Tribubnals are becomming todays "Where there's blaim there's a claim", and behaviour like this reinforces, and indeed gives credence to it. For this very reason, we, as an employer, choose to use agencies to "whittle down" the candidates, and we end up only seeing the 2-3 candidates that the AGENCY feel are best.

I think this is a shame, as if we WERE able to see more candidates, other people who may be equally qulaified/competent are often not even interviewed.



Thoughts ?