Mentioning children at interview

Southend1

capeverde wrote: »

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.If you ask the question, how will you prove the answer didn't influence your decision? 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. Exactly! 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. No, it's a generalisation based on your own prejudices. If you disagree, please explain why? I disagree. The fact that someone is single/has kids etc is irrelevant. What matters is whether the applicant is available for work when you need them. If the law doesnt like this it can take a running jump. Ok..... you really are a plonker. What does your business do exactly? Sell crack to schoolkids? I havent worked as hard as I do to be disadvantaged by yet another pathetic government directive. These rulings do nothing but destroy industry. Actually it would be more beneficial for your business to have employees who are the best people for the job regardless of your prejudices about their personal circumstances.

Ive actually lost the will to reply to any more of your post. Yay! :j 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. Yes but the law requires you to make reasonable adjustments. But let's not get into this as it's clearly another area about which you are ignorant of the law and prejudiced against certain groups of people.Unfortunately they dont stop people such as yourself spouting rubbish on internet forums. Ummm.... ok. Who's spouting rubbish here?

All i have to add to this is that your business must be extremely dysfunctional! Unless you really are a drug pusher?

Georgiegirl256

@capeverde Your quote "if the law doesn't like this, it can take a running jump" So I'll ask again, do you think you're above the law?

In answer to your other questions, I don't have to back up my claims, Southend provided a link, I don't know if you've read it or not, but it actually makes interesting reading.

I wouldn't call your mistake a typo, rather a grammatical error, which I'm surprised someone as clever (:rotfl:) as you would make!

Errata

capeverde wrote: »

There is a lot to be said for a regimented uniform workforce. .

DKLS

Mojisola wrote: »

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!

Thats why she would be happy to further qualify her position, but tbh someone looking after a sick or disabled relative wouldn't be applying for the types of roles my wife applies for.

Lovelyjoolz

I have to stand up up capeverde here. Georgiegirl & southend are almost trolling themselves here by refusing to accept that the world does not work in an ideal way. Capeverde is giving you an honest picture of the way things actually work in the real world and your responses are tantamount to bullying!

Yes, it would be lovely if the working world was an ideal, equal place where every employee had the same work ethic and and every employer was able to fall in line with the Equality Act.

But in reality, this doesn't and cannot happen. Capeverde is not alone in his stance and if Georgiegirl & Southend had any experience of running a small business then they would understand how the Equality Act could literally bankrupt a small business.

Discrimination happens all the time. It has to. If 10 people interview for the same role, with identical experience, identical qualifications, identical abilities then how is the employer to choose between them? Its an almost impossible choice, but if 9 of them happened to be single parents you can guarantee that the other one will get the job. A small business of 4 people cannot function with an unreliable staff member. Regardless of whether that unreliability is a result of hangover sick days or failure of childcare, an absenteeism of 25% will seriously affect the business - why can you not see that?

Every business owner has a responsibility to his existing employees. A responsibility to keep the business going so that those employees can pay their mortgage and feed, clothe and house themselves. If you had any concept of how heavy that responsibility lies on a business owners shoulders you would understand. Unreliable employees impact the employer, their colleagues and the business itself. No business owner worth their salt would run the risk of putting all his staff out of a job for the sake of one person's feelings or Equality Legislation that couldn't be proven to have been broken.

Southend1

DKLS wrote: »

Thats why she would be happy to further qualify her position, but tbh someone looking after a sick or disabled relative wouldn't be applying for the types of roles my wife applies for.

All she needs to qualify is whether she is available for work at the times required and how flexible she would be about working at other times if needed. Whether she has kids/ disabled relative/ dislikes bananas etc is irrelevant and doesn't need to be discussed.

duchy

DKLS wrote: »

Thats why she would be happy to further qualify her position, but tbh someone looking after a sick or disabled relative wouldn't be applying for the types of roles my wife applies for.

What type of roles would these be?
Are you saying if you became ill or disabled tomorrow your wife wouldn't be prepared or able to give you any kind of support ?
Disability and illness don't care what kind of career your nearest and dearest have-They strike indiscriminately .

Southend1

Lovelyjoolz wrote: »

I have to stand up up capeverde here. Georgiegirl & southend are almost trolling themselves here by refusing to accept that the world does not work in an ideal way. Capeverde is giving you an honest picture of the way things actually work in the real world and your responses are tantamount to bullying!
tbh I think Capeverde is being deliberately provocative. He has expressed some extreme views here and does it in such a way that it will deliberately provoke others. I take your point that the world doesn't work in an ideal wag but that doesn't mean that Capeverde is right about being above the law
Yes, it would be lovely if the working world was an ideal, equal place where every employee had the same work ethic and and every employer was able to fall in line with the Equality Act.every employer is required to comply with the equality act. In fact there is a strong business case for doing so

But in reality, this doesn't and cannot happen. Capeverde is not alone in his stance and if Georgiegirl & Southend had any experience of running a small business then they would understand how the Equality Act could literally bankrupt a small business. i have worked for a number of years in a role supporting small businesses and I do understand that they are under enormous financial pressure. This doesn't mean they are above the law.

Discrimination happens all the time. yesIt has to. not illegal discrimination thoughIf 10 people interview for the same role, with identical experience, identical qualifications, identical abilities then how is the employer to choose between them? Its an almost impossible choice, but if 9 of them happened to be single parents you can guarantee that the other one will get the job. what if the other one has a disabled mother to care for but one of the single parents only looks after his/her kids on a Sunday? The personal circumstances are irrelevant. The availability for work IS relevant and a good interviewer will be able to quickly establish who's availability best meets the needs of the business without resorting to stereotyping or generalisationsA small business of 4 people cannot function with an unreliable staff member. Regardless of whether that unreliability is a result of hangover sick days or failure of childcare, an absenteeism of 25% will seriously affect the business - why can you not see that? i can see that but would you also then ask an applicant about their drinking habits to establish how often they are likely to have a hangover? If an employee has attendance issues there are established and effective ways to deal with these when they arise.

Every business owner has a responsibility to his existing employees. A responsibility to keep the business going so that those employees can pay their mortgage and feed, clothe and house themselves. If you had any concept of how heavy that responsibility lies on a business owners shoulders you would understand. good point, and I totally accept and understand thisUnreliable employees impact the employer, their colleagues and the business itself. No business owner worth their salt would run the risk of putting all his staff out of a job for the sake of one person's feelings or Equality Legislation that couldn't be proven to have been broken.

Business owners can be compliant with the law and run a successful business. In breaking the law they risk fines and in some cases imprisonment which would clearly effect their employees badly. There is a strong business case for not discriminating on the grounds of sex/race/marital status etc and businesses who understand this are more likely to succeed than those who take a prejudiced and stereotypical view of the world.

Lovelyjoolz

Southend1 wrote: »

Business owners can be compliant with the law and run a successful business. In breaking the law they risk fines and in some cases imprisonment which would clearly effect their employees badly. There is a strong business case for not discriminating on the grounds of sex/race/marital status etc and businesses who understand this are more likely to succeed than those who take a prejudiced and stereotypical view of the world.

I think what actually happens is that businesses appear to be compliant with the law. Which is wholy different.

Have a look at businesses in the construction industry. Sex discrimination is alive and well in construction! Particularly SME's. The vast majority of these businesses are staffed predominately by men. This is not an accident. The problem is, unless the employer says "sorry, you didn't get the job because you're female" how do you prove that's what happened? You can't. And so the business appears to be compliant with the law. And mostly it won't be just her sex that stops her from getting the job, but the likelyhood that she'll be taking maternity leave at some point and costing the small business a small fortune. No one will actually say that that is the case, but rest assured, it's happening all the time.

What will be interesting is when the paternity leave schemes open up to allow men to take 6 - 12 months off, or rather, IF men actually do start to take off extended periods of paternity leave. Will employers then stop recruiting men of "child-bearing age" so to speak :rotfl:

I'm fascinated to see what happens.

Southend1

Lovelyjoolz wrote: »

I think what actually happens is that businesses appear to be compliant with the law. Which is wholy different.

Have a look at businesses in the construction industry. Sex discrimination is alive and well in construction! Particularly SME's. The vast majority of these businesses are staffed predominately by men. This is not an accident. The problem is, unless the employer says "sorry, you didn't get the job because you're female" how do you prove that's what happened? You can't. And so the business appears to be compliant with the law. And mostly it won't be just her sex that stops her from getting the job, but the likelyhood that she'll be taking maternity leave at some point and costing the small business a small fortune. No one will actually say that that is the case, but rest assured, it's happening all the time.

What will be interesting is when the paternity leave schemes open up to allow men to take 6 - 12 months off, or rather, IF men actually do start to take off extended periods of paternity leave. Will employers then stop recruiting men of "child-bearing age" so to speak :rotfl:

I'm fascinated to see what happens.

Construction is an interesting one. I think the story behind the statistics is probably quite complex. What would be relevant to look at here is not simply what proportion of the construction workforce are female but what proportion of applicants were female and how likely were these applicants to be offered a job compared to their male counterparts.

Anecdotally, I have noticed a fairly high proportion of apprentices in the construction industry are female, in news stories and conversations with colleagues as well as companies that I have come across myself. So I would expect the overall makeup of the workforce to become more evenly distributed in the next decade or so.

There's some quite interesting material on this issue here: http://www.ciob.org/sites/ciob.org.uk/files/WEB-INF/files/documents/REPORT__web.pdf