Mentioning children at interview

ILW

duchy wrote: »

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:

Sorry, I meant childcare issues
Example - single mother, 3 children under 8. Would it be right to even consider this woman for a responsible position such as elderly domestic care where the clients are relying on them to turn up regularly?

Walstri

duchy wrote: »

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:

Compute or not it doesn't matter. A lot of employers won't be thinking of boilers, funerals etc, but they will judge female candidates if they're likely to be needing time off work for childcare. That's all that matters. The law says they shouldn't, you say they shouldn't, but they do reject people on this basis and you won't be able to prove it.

Southend1

ILW wrote: »

Sorry, I meant childcare issues
Example - single mother, 3 children under 8. Would it be right to even consider this woman for a responsible position such as elderly domestic care where the clients are relying on them to turn up regularly?

Of course it would be right. As long as the applicant is available for work as required by the employer it doesn't matter a jot whether she is single or has children. All the interviewer need ask is "Are you available for work every Monday, Tuesday and Friday from 6am to 3pm? Could you stay until 4.30 if we were busy on any given day? And are you flexible to work overtime on a Wednesday and Friday if required?". If she isn't available because she has childcare "issues" on a Wednesday morning, washes her hair every Tuesday at 6am or can't work mornings because she is addicted to Homes Under the Hammer then all she need answer is no she is not available those hours.

ILW

Southend1 wrote: »

Of course it would be right. As long as the applicant is available for work as required by the employer it doesn't matter a jot whether she is single or has children. All the interviewer need ask is "Are you available for work every Monday, Tuesday and Friday from 6am to 3pm? Could you stay until 4.30 if we were busy on any given day? And are you flexible to work overtime on a Wednesday and Friday if required?". If she isn't available because she has childcare "issues" on a Wednesday morning, washes her hair every Tuesday at 6am or can't work mornings because she is addicted to Homes Under the Hammer then all she need answer is no she is not available those hours.

From experience, she will say she (and probably believes) she will be free at all these times. Then what happens is that emergencies pop up at regular intervals and clients are left unwashed and unfed. That is the reality in many cases.
It can then be very difficult to sack this person as chilcare can fall within gender disrimination issues.

debrag

capeverde wrote: »

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.

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?

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.

The other comment I made was about disabled people, I said it would depend on the disability, which I would have thought is obvious.

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.

Southend1 wrote: »

I suggest you stop posting here as you're not helping the OP in any way

Actually companies do judge on appearance but that's usually done before interview, take the police service for one.

FBaby

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?

This makes me smile. How many employers expect no more than what is the job criteria? Most job descriptions I know are written vaguely purposely to insure that they can ask more when it suits them whilst still fitting the 'job criteria'.

The reality is that some employers will be prepared to be flexible (when you are prepared to be too), whilst others are not. What is the point of wasting time on both side if someone is likely to need some flexibility but this won't be offered? Flexibility being defined as adaptable not expecting to do as little as possible and taking the p***.

silverwhistle

duchy wrote: »

By your logic anyone

like me who is a veteran football player with an ageing parent, over 50 and a sexual minority has no chance!

Anyway, I freelance.. :-)

Savvy_Sue

duchy wrote: »

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:

As it happens, where I work most of our jobs are legally only open to women. I've been there more than 10 years. Several of us have or have had school age children in that time. We've had the following unplanned absences (other than the usual short term sickness):

• bereavements (parents, grandparents, even parents-in-law);
• a partner's broken ankle (half a day for attendance at A&E plus a few further visits as partner could not drive, some lateness for taking partner to work before coming to us);
• someone stranded the other side of the world for two weeks by the Icelandic ash cloud;
• maybe six long sickness absences (one for specifically 'female problems', the rest could equally have happened to a man);
• a few weeks when an adult child suffered a serious head injury.

There have also been occasional "I'll be late in because the dog ran off and won't come back" and "I need to take the cat to the vet" calls. And a few "your child is sick" calls from schools.

These VASTLY outnumber the number of "can't come in my child is sick" calls - don't think I EVER made one, although I once had to leave to get a child with a suspected broken nose, and DH went to get one who'd bashed his lip and was bleeding profusely.

The staff with young children who are required to work antisocial hours arrange their childcare to suit. None of them have stay at home partners.

Successful_Day

Is it a good idea to mention your family during the interview or to mention you have a daughter for instance? It may not be as bad of an idea as you think.

Sure, having family is not necessarily relevant to a job interview nor is it relevant to your ability to do the job. And in fact, having a daughter could be a setback for you, because know you've got an extra responsibility that may prevent you from doing your job on a daily basis.

At the same time, what you want to do through the job interview is build a relationship and create trust with the person across the desk from you. So, by saying that you do have a daughter or that you have family, you are acknowledging that you're actually a person who has relationships outside of work. That makes you more real, more three dimensional. The key to the interview is to create trust and comfort with the job interviewer.

So, if the job interviewer were to ask you questions about you’re out of job life, what you do there, it's definitely appropriate to reference your family and the things that you enjoy doing with your family. That makes you look more human and feel more trust worthy.

At the same time, if you are at an interview that is very formal, and where that kind of information doesn't seem to fit the conversational flow, you don't need to force it in there to make you seem more trust worthy.

DKLS

duchy wrote: »

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 ?

Nothing to do with luck but you are right attitudes are changing, so far she has never been interviewed by a woman, like I said the roles she goes for are more suited to those without children.

Last interview was 2 weeks ago and the CEO loved the fact that she was childfree as he had been let down badly in the past by working parents, if they can agree on terms and package she will be taking that job.