Mentioning children at interview

DKLS

Southend1 wrote: »

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.

Very far from irrelevant and she believes its worth discussing as her child free status puts her ahead in the recruitment game. So she happily will volunteer the relevant information.

Southend1

DKLS wrote: »

Very far from irrelevant and she believes its worth discussing as her child free status puts her ahead in the recruitment game. So she happily will volunteer the relevant information.

I can see why she may believe this to be the case but surely it could just as well work against her? E.g. If someone took the attitude that if she hasn't had kids yet she might well be taking maternity leave in the near future? Or it could just come across as unprofessional to be raising the subject at an interview?

Takeaway_Addict

The easiest way I can see to stop/lessen discrimination and especially to help those companies that comply at the moment in terms of sex discrimination are

1) All employers pay an extra 0.X % levy (via NI contributions?) per employee
2) Then any employee who has someone go on maternity/paternity gets all Statutory costs/holiday costs paid for by the government as well the employer gets a one of fee to pay for recruitment costs.

That way there is no extra (on top of the levy)cost to the employer if someone does go on maternity or paternity leave and the overall cost for the countries companies is spread out more evenly and even those that deliberately discriminate are making a contribution.

The problem with the current system is that it effectively punishes companies in hiring someone who goes on to have maternity or paternity.

A similar way could be done for sick pay.

Spread the cost across all companies!

ILW

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.

For some businesses in certain sectors that is not true in practice. The "non compliant" and larger competition would put them out of business.

capeverde

Basically small companies in a lot of sectors are being damaged irreparably by the run away train of regulations and directives. Now aside from the snide digs Ive been getting from a few on here, Im quite successful in what I do. I have some excellent workers who genuinely care about the business and who enjoy what we do. However to keep up with this raft of directives you almost need a person full time to monitor and implement things, This simply isnt possible for many companies.

When I consider the financial controls I have to put in place and how hard I have to work and apply myself to move ahead, it does anger me when I see the cancerous amount of waste that happens in local authorities. Then you have the workforces in these organisations who are so caught up in this, they actually start to believe its importance. We've moved past sending kids up chimneys, but you arent allowed to apply commons sense. The poster previously who mentioned that many SMEs simply have to blindside a lot of these rules is absolutely spot on. It happens in nearly every small business every day. They would not survive if they did everything by the book. Ultimately many other peoples livelihoods depend on this though, as do the pensions of those that sit high in their ivory towers.

Southend1

capeverde wrote: »

Basically small companies in a lot of sectors are being damaged irreparably by the run away train of regulations and directives. Now aside from the snide digs Ive been getting from a few on here, Im quite successful in what I do. I have some excellent workers who genuinely care about the business and who enjoy what we do. However to keep up with this raft of directives you almost need a person full time to monitor and implement things, This simply isnt possible for many companies.

When I consider the financial controls I have to put in place and how hard I have to work and apply myself to move ahead, it does anger me when I see the cancerous amount of waste that happens in local authorities. Then you have the workforces in these organisations who are so caught up in this, they actually start to believe its importance. We've moved past sending kids up chimneys, but you arent allowed to apply commons sense. The poster previously who mentioned that many SMEs simply have to blindside a lot of these rules is absolutely spot on. It happens in nearly every small business every day. They would not survive if they did everything by the book. Ultimately many other peoples livelihoods depend on this though, as do the pensions of those that sit high in their ivory towers.

You make a good point here. Much more sensible than trying to pretend that you're above the law and making extreme and inflammatory remarks to try to prove a point.

Yes the burden of regulation is high and may seem disproportionate for SMEs. Ultimately it's about the kind of society we want to live in though. Yes it is inappropriate for children to be sent up chimneys, but it's equally inappropriate for married women to be denied work just because they're married women or for gay men to be denied work just because they fancy other men or for disabled people to be denied work just because they have a disability. Why should any of this matter to you as an employer? All you need concern yourself with is whether am employee is competent and available for work. Their marital status, sexuality etc have nothing to do with this.

I would rather live in a country where people have equality of opportunity than one where disabled babies are aborted routinely or women are treated as second class citizens. If you don't agree then that's a shame but luckily we live in a democracy and have laws like the Equality Act to protect us all from extremists and bigots.

capeverde

Southend1 wrote: »

You make a good point here. Much more sensible than trying to pretend that you're above the law and making extreme and inflammatory remarks to try to prove a point.

Yes the burden of regulation is high and may seem disproportionate for SMEs. Ultimately it's about the kind of society we want to live in though. Yes it is inappropriate for children to be sent up chimneys, but it's equally inappropriate for married women to be denied work just because they're married women or for gay men to be denied work just because they fancy other men or for disabled people to be denied work just because they have a disability. Why should any of this matter to you as an employer? All you need concern yourself with is whether am employee is competent and available for work. Their marital status, sexuality etc have nothing to do with this.

I would rather live in a country where people have equality of opportunity than one where disabled babies are aborted routinely or women are treated as second class citizens. If you don't agree then that's a shame but luckily we live in a democracy and have laws like the Equality Act to protect us all from extremists and bigots.

Its not about thinking Im above the law, its about necessity more often than not. I also understand that we aren't all equal though. There will always be some worse off and others better. Some people are more suited to certain careers or industries than others and this may be determined by education, looks, sex, age, marital status and many other things. Its just the way it is and for me it underlines the fact we are all different and individual.

Southend1

capeverde wrote: »

Its not about thinking Im above the law, its about necessity more often than not. I also understand that we aren't all equal though. There will always be some worse off and others better. Some people are more suited to certain careers or industries than others yes, agree with thisand this may be determined by education, looks, sex, age, marital status and many other things. this is where we disagree - and so does the law - unless there is a specific need e.g. A disabled female requiring a carer to help with washing and dressing will clearly require another female for the role - but for a sandwich shop requiring a sales assistant it doesn't matter whether the person hired is male or female, gay or straight, married or single Its just the way it is and for me it underlines the fact we are all different and individual.

Yes we are all different and individual and we all deserve to be judged on our merit, not our marital status! It's common sense, and it's the law.

Southend1

Capeverde - take a look at this info, you might find it useful: http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/advice-and-guidance/here-for-business/guidance-for-businesses/

capeverde

How many wheelchair bound roofers have you seen, blind surveyors, amputee digger drivers or deaf bell ringers? I accept I cant be a brain surgeon and do in fact have many limitations, this despite the fact I am able bodied. I have a lot of machinery in my factory and this isnt manufactured for the use of people with certain disabilities. Some of it simply couldnt be modified and other things would be cost prohibitive or unsafe for the user.