Mentioning children at interview

Southend1

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

I did actually find the page Southend posted, but I wanted to find the actual sentence that stated that it was illegal to do so, even though it was an American page, the law is still the same in this country.

Here you go....


4The protected characteristics

The following characteristics are protected characteristics—
age;
disability;
gender reassignment;
marriage and civil partnership;
pregnancy and maternity;
race;
religion or belief;
sex;
sexual orientation.

Direct discrimination

(1)A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others.

Southend1

And...



39Employees and applicants

(1)An employer (A) must not discriminate against a person (B)—
(a)in the arrangements A makes for deciding to whom to offer employment;
(b)as to the terms on which A offers B employment;
(c)by not offering B employment.
(2)An employer (A) must not discriminate against an employee of A's (B)—
(a)as to B's terms of employment;
(b)in the way A affords B access, or by not affording B access, to opportunities for promotion, transfer or training or for receiving any other benefit, facility or service;
(c)by dismissing B;
(d)by subjecting B to any other detriment.
(3)An employer (A) must not victimise a person (B)—
(a)in the arrangements A makes for deciding to whom to offer employment;
(b)as to the terms on which A offers B employment;
(c)by not offering B employment.
(4)An employer (A) must not victimise an employee of A's (B)—
(a)as to B's terms of employment;
(b)in the way A affords B access, or by not affording B access, to opportunities for promotion, transfer or training or for any other benefit, facility or service;
(c)by dismissing B;
(d)by subjecting B to any other detriment.
(5)A duty to make reasonable adjustments applies to an employer.
(6)Subsection (1)(b), so far as relating to sex or pregnancy and maternity, does not apply to a term that relates to pay—
(a)unless, were B to accept the offer, an equality clause or rule would have effect in relation to the term, or
(b)if paragraph (a) does not apply, except in so far as making an offer on terms including that term amounts to a contravention of subsection (1)(b) by virtue of section 13, 14 or 18.
(7)In subsections (2)(c) and (4)(c), the reference to dismissing B includes a reference to the termination of B's employment—
(a)by the expiry of a period (including a period expiring by reference to an event or circumstance);
(b)by an act of B's (including giving notice) in circumstances such that B is entitled, because of A's conduct, to terminate the employment without notice.
(8)Subsection (7)(a) does not apply if, immediately after the termination, the employment is renewed on the same terms.

capeverde

Southend1 wrote: »

:eek: you really don't get it do you?

I recommend you sign up for a recruitment and selection course ASAP. The fee will be more than offset by the saving on future legal fees and compensation spend.

Of course I get it, I run a small business and this is how it works. Like it or not its a fact. You can ask the same of thousands of other private employers and the majority would give you the same answers.

capeverde

Southend1 wrote: »

Here you go....


4The protected characteristics

The following characteristics are protected characteristics—
age;
disability;
gender reassignment;
marriage and civil partnership;
pregnancy and maternity;
race;
religion or belief;
sex;
sexual orientation.

Direct discrimination

(1)A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others.

Where does it say that I cant ask their marital status though, it simply says I cant make a judgement based on it.

Southend1

capeverde wrote: »

Of course I get it, I run a small business and this is how it works. Like it or not its a fact. You can ask the same of thousands of other private employers and the majority would give you the same answers.

The majority of small business owners pride themselves on running good businesses and complying with all the relevant laws. You clearly shouldn't be in charge of the kettle let alone the hiring and firing. It's a shame you don't take your responsibilities as a manager seriously, but chances are you will get caught out sooner or later. I hope it's sooner.

gwen80

Wow. If you do have a business capeverde as you say you do, you may be living on borrowed time. I know of a small business which is run by two incompetents who are currently being taken to a tribunal. Just because you do the HR, doesn't mean you can do it properly.

If you are actually involved in recruitment capeverde, it's worth noting that it is a two-way process. The candidate also has to want to work for you...

Southend1

capeverde wrote: »

Where does it say that I cant ask their marital status though, it simply says I cant make a judgement based on it.

You'd have a tough time justifying why you asked the question in an interview if it wasn't relevant to the decision making process. All sensible guidance recommends you do not ask questions about marital status. You may however ask if the employee has any circumstances which may affect their availability for work or other such relevant question.

capeverde

Southend1 wrote: »

The majority of small business owners pride themselves on running good businesses and complying with all the relevant laws. You clearly shouldn't be in charge of the kettle let alone the hiring and firing. It's a shame you don't take your responsibilities as a manager seriously, but chances are you will get caught out sooner or later. I hope it's sooner.

Thats fine if you believe that, but trust me youre wrong. I run a business, you obviously dont. I pride myself also on running a good business, I provide employment, contribute to the economy and treat both my staff and customers fairly. However. I wouldnt be doing this for very long if I had to cater to people whos circumstances provided obstacles. I appreciate its different in the public sector where waste is justified as it provides employment to more of societies weak and useless.

capeverde

Southend1 wrote: »

You'd have a tough time justifying why you asked the question in an interview if it wasn't relevant to the decision making process. All sensible guidance recommends you do not ask questions about marital status. You may however ask if the employee has any circumstances which may affect their availability for work or other such relevant question.

Youre talking nonsense. If a one armed man walked in should I where a blindfold beforehand?

Southend1

capeverde wrote: »

Thats fine if you believe that, but trust me youre wrong. I run a business, you obviously dont. I pride myself also on running a good business, I provide employment, contribute to the economy and treat both my staff and customers fairly. However. I wouldnt be doing this for very long if I had to cater to people whos circumstances provided obstacles. I appreciate its different in the public sector where waste is justified as it provides employment to more of societies weak and useless.

I have been responsible for running a business in the private sector. I have also worked in the public sector. So it's not that obvious is it?

You clearly don't treat your staff (or at least prospective staff) fairly, based on what you've said in this thread.

Just because someone is married/black/gay/disabled/etc does NOT mean they are also "weak" or "useless".