Mentioning children at interview

Southend1

capeverde wrote: »

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.

The law only requires reasonable adjustments. E.g. Clearly it is unlikely a wheelchair user could be a roofer but there's no reason why an amputee can't be a digger driver with reasonable adjustment as required.

Some adjustments are minimal e.g. a VDU user with scotopic sensitivity syndrome may just need a coloured screen filter or the ability to organise their work to allow regular breaks from the screen.

By discriminating against all people with disabilities you limit the pool of talent you can recruit from and may well miss out on the best person for the job (as well as risking a hefty fine for breaking the law)

Errata

Nowt wrong with deaf bellringers and some bellringers wear industrial strength ear defenders. They don't have to hear anything once they've started on a peal at the captain's signal.

Southend1

Errata wrote: »

Nowt wrong with deaf bellringers and some bellringers wear industrial strength ear defenders. They don't have to hear anything once they've started on a peal at the captain's signal.

Now that's interesting, you learn something new every day. And a great example of why prejudice against people with disabilities has no place in the world of work.

Savvy_Sue

Errata wrote: »

Nowt wrong with deaf bellringers and some bellringers wear industrial strength ear defenders. They don't have to hear anything once they've started on a peal at the captain's signal.

Southend1 wrote: »

Now that's interesting, you learn something new every day. And a great example of why prejudice against people with disabilities has no place in the world of work.

It's all in the vibrations - Evelyn Glennie for example ...

DKLS

Southend1 wrote: »

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?

It has always worked out for her she had landed every job she has interviewed for, but to be fair it is a very specific type of role she goes for.

duchy

DKLS wrote: »

It has always worked out for her she had landed every job she has interviewed for, but to be fair it is a very specific type of role she goes for.

She's been lucky.
All it takes is for her to give the impression that being childless by choice is preferable to an interviewer (of either sex) struggling with infertility, the loss of a child or is a working parent themselves to find her attitude offensive or distasteful and she won't even be considered. Attitudes are changing -when out of interest did she last interview ?

As for the deaf issue-I know a man who is deaf who is a very competent violinist -his uncles who are also profoundly deaf also play several instruments between them. Ironically some of the (hearing) family members make a good living in the music business.

FBaby

This thread seems to assume that a mother applying for a particular job would be desperate for it to be offered it. It is far from always the case. When I applied for my position, I was in employment and quite happy. I mainly applied for that particular job because it was local whereas my current one was an hour drive away. I wasn't desperate for it, I only wanted it if it offered me more than my current position. One key benefit of my job was that it was family friendly and that was something I certainly wasn't prepared to give up.

That's why it was important for me to mention that I was a mum of very young children during my interview. It didn't come out as a 'by the way, you better know...' The woman who I was informed would be my colleague was clearly very pregnant, so I asked her at the end when her baby was due, which prompted me saying that I had given birth only 5 months earlier. It went from there.

After the interview, reassured that they were family friendly and that the job looked very interesting, I was very hopeful that they would offer it to me, but if they hadn't on the basis that they were concerns about my ability to do the job because of my circumstances, then I would have been happy to remain with my employer.

Georgiegirl256

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!

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.

Hardly "trolling" or "bullying" here, as can be seen capeverde is more than able to put his point of view across perfectly well. It's a debate, nothing more, nothing less. He's got one point of view, me and many others have another standpoint.

No, you're quite right, I have never run a small business, but I'd like to think that if I did, I'd be a fairer boss, not judging people not only on their circumstances (it would make no difference to me wether they're married, single, no children, 5 children, bi, straight, gay, you get the idea!) but also not judging them on the way they look either. For example (using an example capeverde used), my optician has really long dreadlocks, he's about 50 odd, he wears them tied back at work, and while to some, that might not be the most professional look, he's damn good at his job. So yes, while I agree, people do judge other people on many things, I'd try and let any prejudices I have go, and pick the right person for the job based on their skills, qualifications, and how they came across in their interview, to me that's one of the most important things, trying to judge their character and wether or not I'd get on with them and wether they'd fit into my team or not.

ILW

If childcare is actually likely to mean an applicant will be unable to fulfil a job criteria, should they even be considered for employment?

duchy

ILW wrote: »

If childcare is actually likely to mean an applicant will be unable to fulfil a job criteria, should they even be considered for employment?

Plenty of women use childcare -in varying forms- to enable them to work -why would using childcare mean they shouldn't be considered for employment ....... Does not compute.

By your logic anyone who has a boiler should not be considered for employment in case it broke down and they needed to stay home for an engineer, or no-one with parents alive should be employed in case there was a family emergency -or a funeral to attend ......Maybe they shouldn't have friends either -just in case they die.............and forget employing a pet owner - bound to need a vet visit at some time. No employees who take part in sport - they might get injured ..... Not left with much of a workforce to employ really :rotfl: :rotfl: