application form requesting childcare providers details? surely not right?

ab7167

And what about those of us who didn't have children when we started working for a company, but have subsequently had them? I was single and committment free when I started with my employer, and yes, used to be on short notice for meetings all over the UK. Fast forward and I now have 2 children and work parttime, but still have to have that flexibility. I just spent a large amount of my first lot of maternity leave making sure my childcare arrangements were flexible and robust. My continued committment to the company by doing this and ensuring my role of mother does not conflict with my job (and vice versa!) has resulted in pay rises and promotions. It works both ways, IMHO.

milliebear00001

mrcow wrote: »

There is no evidence of this. That is purely an inference that you are making based on your discrimitory prejudgements on reading the opening post. Be careful before you start shouting "discrimination" from the rooftops. If a company has a position that demands flexible working practice then it needs to ensure that its employees are prepared for this at appointment level for those whom they have parental responsibility for. There is no evidence that this company would ever employ a male member of staff over a female one.

Maybe they could have worded it differently and didn't exactly need the OP's inside leg measurement, but going around pointing the finger of discrimination against all and sundry is really a little OTT.

We're be here next:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7079231/Advert-for-reliable-workers-banned-as-discrimination-by-Jobcentre-Plus.html

Hang on a minute - I haven't shouted anything from the rooftops! What I stated were the reasons most well-informed companies wouldn't dream of asking a question like this on an application form. The situation I posed was a completely theoretical one, but it is one that has been in the tribunal courts many times.

The questions posed are discriminatory because they impact upon women's potential recruitment more than men's. A Court would take a dim view. I used to work in the HR dept of a large multinational - we disciplined more than one Manager for asking questions about childcare during my time there. Not because we cared a jot about the applicant - but because of the danger creating grounds for that applicant to take us to a tribunal!

milliebear00001

DKLS wrote: »

I think the questions are fair, My wife actively volunteers her child free status to prospective employers and in her line of work she needs to be flexible with her time.

Recently my wife has been:

At the office past midnight
Had 24hrs notice for a 3 day trip to NY
Been in the office regularly to 7-8pm
And last week 3 hours notice for a 2 day trip to Amsterdam

How much harder would that be for a parent to accomplish the same?

Dunno - plenty of fathers seem to manage it though. Are they ever asked if childcare is likely to be a problem?

milliebear00001

From the Equality and Human Rights Commission, for those in need of further persuasion about the legal position:

"Indirect discrimination Indirect sex discrimination occurs when an employer applies a provision, criterion or practice equally to both women and men that puts one sex at an unfair disadvantage.
Example
An employer specifies that applicants for a job must be over six feet tall, even though this would not affect the person’s ability to do the job. This would be indirect discrimination against women, since it would be harder for them to fulfil this criterion."


In this instance, the company is committing indirect discrimination because they are asking a question that indirectly disadvantages women (who take a disproportionate responsibility for childcare).



Although the company do not state an applicant must not have dependents/must have adequate childcare etc, the question would be construed as likely to be included to ascertain the same information from candidates. The Court would make a decision about why the company would be likely to want that information, and what decisions they might take based upon answers given.

mrcow

milliebear00001 wrote: »

The questions posed are discriminatory because they impact upon women's potential recruitment more than men's. A Court would take a dim view. I used to work in the HR dept of a large multinational - we disciplined more than one Manager for asking questions about childcare during my time there. Not because we cared a jot about the applicant - but because of the danger creating grounds for that applicant to take us to a tribunal!

Working in HR for a large blue chip corporate would mean that you are more used to treading on eggshells than the majority. Living andd breathing equal opps can even lead to the ridiculous situation that I posted to you earlier (when sanity is actually seen to leave the building). You may well have disciplined your own personnel, but that is a far cry for it standing in any court.

milliebear00001

Regardless of your views on the 'common-sense' of the situation...

A question on an application form like the one the OP cites, would be very difficult to explain in a tribunal court. That question would mean a tribunal would be much more likely to accept that an employer had been discriminatory in its approach to recruitment. The employer may well not intend to discriminate by asking that question, but their own ignorance of the law has significantly weakened their position if they get a disgruntled candidate willing to go to tribunal over it.

Additionally - it is perfectly possible (as many other posters have stated) to let candidates know a job requires flexibility of working hours that may be unsociable, without asking them any questions about their personal arrangements at all -this is what the company's standard practice should be, and is very much the common sense approach.

mrcow

milliebear00001 wrote: »

Regardless of your views on the 'common-sense' of the situation...

A question on an application form like the one the OP cites, would be very difficult to explain in a tribunal court. That question would mean a tribunal would be much more likely to accept that an employer had been discriminatory in its approach to recruitment. The employer may well not intend to discriminate by asking that question, but their own ignorance of the law has significantly weakened their position if they get a disgruntled candidate willing to go to tribunal over it.

Additionally - it is perfectly possible (as many other posters have stated) to let candidates know a job requires flexibility of working hours that may be unsociable, without asking them any questions about their personal arrangements at all -this is what the company's standard practice should be, and is very much the common sense approach.

I'm not disputing that the company doesn't need all the info asked for (have already stated that)

I'm just disputing your post earlier where you stated that someone would have good grounds for sexual discrimination.

concerned43

I was single when I started working for a large global company and had to work away from home a lot. when i had my baby I could no longer go at the drop of a hat and I was made redundant because of this - I sued for sex descrimination and unfair dismissal and I won. The judge decided the wording in the contract regarding travel and long hours was discriminating to those with other responsibilities and I won substantial damages! The employer had to change everyone's contract - taking out that particular clause!

milliebear00001

concerned43 wrote: »

I was single when I started working for a large global company and had to work away from home a lot. when i had my baby I could no longer go at the drop of a hat and I was made redundant because of this - I sued for sex descrimination and unfair dismissal and I won. The judge decided the wording in the contract regarding travel and long hours was discriminating to those with other responsibilities and I won substantial damages! The employer had to change everyone's contract - taking out that particular clause!

This is precisely my point. Your experience is by no means unusual.

milliebear00001

mrcow wrote: »

I'm not disputing that the company doesn't need all the info asked for (have already stated that)

I'm just disputing your post earlier where you stated that someone would have good grounds for sexual discrimination.

Not sure what it is you're disputing! It is sexual discrimination simply to ask the question in the first place. A female-parent candidate turned down for interview or position could take the company to Court simply for asking it.