unhappy about interview

sangie595

sulphate wrote: »

Honestly, your post is pretty outrageous, and thankfully the law disagrees with you.



This is from ACAS.
http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=3235
https://www.gov.uk/time-off-for-dependants
https://www.workingfamilies.org.uk/articles/time-off-for-dependants-leave/

Children and dependents come first and any employer worth their salt will know that.

Sorry, but you are entirely wrong. The legal right is to time off, unpaid, to make arrangements for dependants care. NOT to provide it. Children and dependants do not come first - your job does. Maybe you think it should be different. Maybe I do. But opinions are irrelevant. The law does not permit unlimited time off for dependants. If your child is sick you have a right to LIMITED time off to make arrangements for them. That is all.

Which, by the way, is what every link you provided says!.

sangie595

sulphate wrote: »

I’m going to go against the grain here, I think that the employer has acted unprofessionally.

The question regarding childcare if you have a sick child is potentially discriminatory against you on the basis of your sex - would they have asked the same question of a man? It’s not unreasonable that working parents don’t have a backup plan for sick children. Either myself or my husband has to take the day off if our son is ill and can’t go to nursery. Not everyone has family members or friends “on tap”! In addition, employers should expect that there may well be times that staff can’t come in due to emergencies. That is not limited to employees with children.

Every employer I have worked for has a policy that when a job offer is made, the name of the successful candidate is not released until they have accepted the offer and until the unsuccessful candidates are contacted. This is to prevent the situation that you have described.

However, realistically, I’m sure the job offer went to the candidate who gave the best interview and had nothing to do with the childcare question. You’re not going to get a resolution that you’re happy with, but in your situation I would point out the flaws in their recruitment process.

Did you actually read the posts? Because several, including mine, said that if the question was asked, then it would be against the law. Potentially. But there is a small question of proof.

And it is totally unreasonable of working parents to expect unlimited time off to care for a sick child. And it is also not a legal right. Sympathy is fantastic - it doesn't pay bills. Wages do. To get wages you have to be in work. Term time workers are not allowed to book leave to care for children ( or for anything else) . That is the condition of employment. Term time workers get a lot of non working time - the trade off is that you are expected to be in work during the school term. Flexibility is not one way.

sulphate

sangie595 wrote: »

Sorry, but you are entirely wrong. The legal right is to time off, unpaid, to make arrangements for dependants care. NOT to provide it. Children and dependants do not come first - your job does. Maybe you think it should be different. Maybe I do. But opinions are irrelevant. The law does not permit unlimited time off for dependants. If your child is sick you have a right to LIMITED time off to make arrangements for them. That is all.

Which, by the way, is what every link you provided says!.

Of course the law doesn't permit unlimited time off. Please point out where I suggested that.

The law states that the amount of time off granted to an employee must be "reasonable". Rather than the couple of hours that you suggested, the ACAS website states that usually a day or two is sufficient, but dependent on specific circumstances.

The law also states that employees needing to take time off for dependents should not be treated unfavourably, which would include not being sacked as a result.

I agree that opinions are irrelevant. I am providing info from the websites I provided. Please back up your claims, in particular:
- "The legal right is to time off, unpaid, to make arrangements for dependants care. NOT to provide it".
- "The employer would be perfectly fair in refusing you time off to care for a sick child, and sacking you if you did it"

jobbingmusician

I am also outraged if the question was, as I suspect, posed to female candidates and not male candidates. However....

It deserved a decent answer. Any candidates should have a contingency plan in place.

It may have been designed to try to get more information out of the candidate. A candidate who described excellent fallback plans such as neighbours and THEN said 'of course, I'd inform the school if my child had repeated diarrhea and/or vomiting, as I wouldn't like to risk spreading such an illness and I'm aware that people involved in food preparation have special responsibilities' would score top points if I were marking that question.......