We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Mentioning children at interview
Comments
-
My wife has told interviewers about her child free status in the past, its usually a big advantage over candidates with children for the roles she is going for.0
-
It didnt go right over my head at all, but what do you want me to say because I made a typo in an online debate near midnight. Im still waiting for you to back up your claims that its against the law to ask a persons marital status and if they have children during an interview. I have already done this, even copied and pasted the relevant sections of the Act
On another point everyone is attacking my common sense approach and calling me a a terrible boss / idiot / child / troll because of my point of view. Does it really upset you that much? Your approach is not common sense at all. It's not the best way to operate your business and in fact it is illegal to operate in the way you describe. You are clearly trolling as you continue to spout ridiculous and inflammatory comments even when people have patiently explained the law to you
I have stated that I and many others will factually discriminate during interview. I admitted that single parents would struggle getting a position with me because of child care issues. Unless they have very solid back up I cannot take that risk. For example our local primary doesn't have an after school club so what happens here, we live in a rural area. Then we have the numerous holidays. There are that many options available I would always choose a person in a relationship where one of the parties didnt work, assuming a similar skills level. hmm yes this is another example of your silly trolling
The other comment I made was about disabled people, I said it would depend on the disability, which I would have thought is obvious. and another
I would also add religious discrimination. I have first hand experience in as much as a person came for a job with dreadlocks. I informed him as he would be meeting customers on occasion I wasnt willing to compromise my rules on appearance and I would happily employ him if he got his hair cut. He wouldnt as he said it was part of his religion so that was the end of that. I would also include here facial piercings, visible tattoos etc. I dont want that and nor do many of my customers. Its hard enough building a companies image without it being harmed by some feral youths latest fad. and another
I suggest you stop posting here as you're not helping the OP in any way0 -
Anyway, I dont employ liberals either ....
Are you American? What do you mean by 'liberal'? It's a strange organisation that wants such a uniform labour force, given that I presume your market encompasses a wide diversity of customers. Or maybe it doesn't... To my mind it makes it sound more like a cult.
Somebody commented "It's as if the 60s, 70s 80s etc never happened".
I can't help feeling that you are stuck back in the 18th century.0 -
My wife has told interviewers about her child free status in the past, its usually a big advantage over candidates with children for the roles she is going for.I would tend to favour her if it was a position that required relaibility of attendance.
Someone could tell you that she doesn't have children but not mention that she is looking after a disabled husband or elderly relatives or has deteriorating health problems of her own. Without more questions about her life, you wouldn't know enough to think she would be reliable!0 -
Other things being equal she would tend to be more reliable.Someone could tell you that she doesn't have children but not mention that she is looking after a disabled husband or elderly relatives or has deteriorating health problems of her own. Without more questions about her life, you wouldn't know enough to think she would be reliable!
Mothers with young children can be terrible for unscheduled absences.0 -
Other things being equal she would tend to be more reliable.
Mothers with young children can be terrible for unscheduled absences.
Two things - if fathers took equal responsibility that wouldn't be the case and carers for sick/elderly/disabled people are just as likely to have emergencies.0 -
Two things - if fathers took equal responsibility that wouldn't be the case and carers for sick/elderly/disabled people are just as likely to have emergencies.
In an ideal world, yes.
But it is not and as an employer I need to look after my own business.
Large companies and public sector can deal with it, it can cause mayhem for a small business of only 3 or 4 people though.0 -
I suggest you stop posting here as you're not helping the OP in any way
Firstly there is no act that makes inquiring about someones marital status or the fact they have children during an interview illegal. Is says you arent meant to discriminate because of this. However, as a small or medium sized business, the harsh facts are, you will have to discriminate in the best way to suit your companies needs.
My approach is common sense. If I have a position to fill and training to give, I need to meet the criteria for that post. I certainly dont have time to work around a single parent without guaranteed childcare that will in all likelihood result in him becoming unreliable. He or she probably cant start till gone 8 assuming there is a pre school group and gone by 2.45. The summer holidays will bring other challenges as well as bank holidays, easter etc. Why would I not favour a single person with no dependents or a married person with a stay at home partner. That is common sense. If you disagree, please explain why? If the law doesnt like this it can take a running jump. I havent worked as hard as I do to be disadvantaged by yet another pathetic government directive. These rulings do nothing but destroy industry.
Ive actually lost the will to reply to any more of your post. I stated that I would have to establish what a persons disability was before I employed them and I would have to discriminate as some conditions wouldnt be suitable to our working environment. To this you called me as silly troll. Very grown up Im sure, but I cant see your logic. Disabilities DO stop certain people doing certain things. Unfortunately they dont stop people such as yourself spouting rubbish on internet forums.0 -
silverwhistle wrote: »Are you American? What do you mean by 'liberal'? It's a strange organisation that wants such a uniform labour force, given that I presume your market encompasses a wide diversity of customers. Or maybe it doesn't... To my mind it makes it sound more like a cult.
Somebody commented "It's as if the 60s, 70s 80s etc never happened".
I can't help feeling that you are stuck back in the 18th century.
Weve had liberals over here for many years so why would that make me american, Anyway There is a lot to be said for a regimented uniform workforce. You have a set way of performing an operation to its optimum, so why change this. I do appreciate there are some industries that this doesnt apply to though.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards