Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: How Have You Handled Illegal Interview Topics?
kodiaktau writes "Salary.com profiles 14 questions that interviewers may or may not ask during the interview process such as the standards of age, gender and sexual orientation. They also profile several lesser known illegal or border line questions like height/weight, military background, country of origin and family status. With the recent flap over companies asking potential employees for passwords during the interview process it is important to know and review your legal rights before entering the interview. Have you been confronted with borderline or illegal interview questions in the past? How have you responded to those questions?"
i answer their questions in hopes that they will give me a job. i need beer money badly
I work for DoD indirectly (not a defense contractor) and my emplyoer cannot hire non-US citizens, so there are exceptions to that rule.
Even then, the link is to the last page. Here's a slightly better page.
Anyway, on-topic, do you really want to work for a company that requires you to know your legal status prior to a job interview? Discrimination is disgusting, and as much as it may hurt, you're better off being knocked back for the job than having it present 40 hours a week.
People need to feed their families, but degrading one's self respect by accepting work where it happens is only inviting more trouble.
This article is just the sort of government intrusion that makes me never want to hire anyone. Freedom of contract used to mean something in this country. No more. So I'll answer my own phones.
As Peter Schiff has said, hiring someone in the United States is one of the most expensive and riskiest things a business owner can do.
I'm sure you'll all mod this "-1, I disagree with you," but I am speaking very honestly. Keep throwing taxes and regulations at something, and you'll get less of it. Like jobs.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
If you are desperate for the job, answer away.
If you are not, answer only those you are comfortable with at the risk of not getting the job. Depending on the question and situation, you may attempt to side step the question which probably will not work in more strict interviews. If you do encounter such a interview and do not get the job, report illegal interview question to your responsible government body and be glad you didn't get hired by a company that blatantly does not respect it's employees.
That would be literal, even down to cleanly enunciating the word "ahem", and even if I had been recruited via a social networking contact. I'd probably try to make it sound stilted, or look at my cupped hand like I was reading from a cue card, to make it painfully clear this is a prepared response.
Do you like Japanese imports?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The questions posted are stuff an interview gets anyway, because every job application has a form to fill asking for race, religion, etc. It supposedly is optional, but in reality, if an applicant bins that form, their resume gets binned.
I've been asked on interviews worse questions:
"How many piercings or tattoos do you have?" Apparently, any is grounds for termination at some places.
"How fast can you get to work from your place at both wee hours of the morning as well as rush hour?" The place graded people on a tier system -- people who were lower tiers were people who were not in the center of town or had to commute through a main, overcrowded highway.
"What kind of car do you drive?" I've had two places where they considered the choice of vehicle as part of the hiring process. One place viewed anyone driving anything but a hybrid subcompact as contemptible, and anathema to their "green" image. Another place viewed anything but European sedans as "too pedestrian for our parking lot." I even overheard the interviewer saying, "hire the BMW guy, beemer drivers have organizational skills."
"Do you pack?" Having a concealed carry will help you get a job at some places because it means that you already went through some criminal screening.
The best one was a question/statement: "Do you have a CISSP or a TS/SCI clearance? If not, GTFO. We don't hire garbage who can't prove themselves."
During a recent poll on interviews, we received an alarming number of reports from people who had been asked highly inappropriate questions during an interview. We decided to take this opportunity to review questionable interview topics.
This slideshow, however, is not comprehensive, nor is it a replacement for a legal consultation. At the end of this slideshow we will provide you with important contact information to use if you feel you have been discriminated against.
Topic: Race
15.0% of readers had been asked about this
20.7% felt discriminated against on this topic
Topic is: Illegal
Details: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made it illegal make hiring decisions based on race or perceptions of race.
However, this law only applies to companies with 15 or more employees.
Topic: Gender
14.6% of readers had been asked about this
29.0% felt discriminated against on this topic
Topic is: Illegal
Details: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also made it illegal make hiring decisions based on gender.
Again, this law only applies to companies with 15 or more employees.
Topic: Religion
13.7% of readers had been asked about this 9.8% felt discriminated against on this topic
Topic is: Illegal
Details: An employer may not ask you about your religious beliefs, what holidays you celebrate, or what religious institution you belong to.
However, this law only applies to companies with 15 or more employees, and religious institutions are exempt.
Topic: Marital Status
53.9% of readers had been asked about this
18.3% felt discriminated against on this topic
Topic is: Illegal (in some states)
Details: In 20 U.S. states, an employer may not ask you if you are married, widowed, divorced, intend to be married, are in a committed relationship or how many times you have been married. They may not make decisions based on your marital status or their perception of your marital status.
Topic: Family Status
49.2% of readers had been asked about this
22.3% felt discriminated against on this topic
Topic is: Illegal
Details: Employers may not ask you about your family or plans for your family. They may not ask about the number or age of your children. They may not ask if you intend to have children. And they may not ask about the living arrangements of your children. It is even illegal for employers to refuse to hire a visibly pregnant woman based on her pregnancy.
However, this law only applies to companies with 15 or more employees.
Topic: Age
36.3% of readers had been asked about this
41.7% felt discriminated against on this topic
Topic is: Illegal (in some cases)
Details: The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 prohibits discrimination against potential employees over the age of 40.
The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 prevents agencies receiving federal funding from discriminating against potential employees on the basis of age - for all age groups.
It is also important to note that minors have certain restrictions on the types of work, work times and number of hours per week they are allowed to work. This may cause them to be excluded from certain types of employment.
Topic: Physical Disabilities
22.8% of readers had been asked about this
8.9% felt discriminated against on this topic
Topic is: Illegal (with exceptions)
Details: A company may not discriminate against a qualified person based on certain physical disabilities. An employer may require a physical examination of an employee but only after making a job offer and only if all employees are subject to the same examination.
However, this may not apply to companies with fewer than 15 employees.
Topic: Ethnic Background
18.4% of readers had been asked about this
16.1% felt discriminated against on this topic
I answered, yes !! She said, let me see !! I said, no way !! She said, way !! I pulled it out !! I was asked to leave !! This was an insurance company !!
I was asked my nationality in an interview once. I clarified the question with the interviewer, then told him I felt it was inappropriate and not relevant. He insisted, so I thanked him for his time, got up and left.
I don't want to work for a company where such things are pressing enough for the interviewer to feel like he needs to address it.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
I set my phone to record audio when I am at an interview. I have not caught anything worth a lawsuit yet, but they say all sorts of crazy illegal shit. Someday I'll have the balls to set it for video and place it on the table pointing at them. I get cocky at interviews considering I already have a great job so it is more like I am interviewing them.
take one of those nifty button or pen cams with you. Complete with audio!
I don't mind any of the regulations discussed in the article.
I keep my interview questions focused entirely on whether the person will do a good job. That's what I really care about, not whether the person has a wife and kids, whether they're Irish or Turkish or Chinese, or what religion they are. I'm hiring the person to code, or answer phones, or clean the bathroom, not choosing them to be my best buddy. I like many of my coworkers and subordinates and bosses personally, but when it comes down to it it's a business relationship, not a personal relationship, and I have no problem hiring somebody I personally dislike if they're going to be profitable for the company to hire.
Here's the difference in questions between a legal interview and an illegal interview. Ok:
"I see you've worked in C++ on a variety of platforms. Did you ever use Qt, and if so what did you think its good and bad points were?"
"This job involves moving boxes weighing about 50 pounds to upper shelves. Would you be able to do that?" (obviously, only if that is what the job involves)
"This job requires that you work on Sunday mornings. Will that work for you?" (again, only if you actually need them to work on Sunday mornings)
"What's your approach to prioritizing tasks when multiple people come by with urgent requests?"
"Are you legally allowed to work in the United States?"
Not OK:
"Do you like hip-hop?" (noticing the candidate is black, for a position not in the music industry)
"How many kids do you have?"
"Are you married?"
"Could I get a recommendation from your pastor?" (unless you're hiring for a religious institution)
"Are you currently on any medications?"
Notice that the first set is all about the economic transaction - I'm considering hiring you to do XYZ, I need to make sure you can do XYZ. The second set is all about things that have nothing to do with whether they can do XYZ.
I am officially gone from
Also record the interview without them knowing. That way if they decide to fire you for lying and then lie about why they fired you, you can post the recording online.
Freedom of contract used to mean something in this country. No more. So I'll answer my own phones.
Then you won't have a problem with posting your name and your business' name so I can black list it because I just don't like you.
Freedom of contract and all that.
"I'm sorry, that information is classified."
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Once, in an interview, I went through a marathon process of several managers and supervisors.
My last interview was with Ana (...sigh...) - quite possibly the hottest woman I've ever known - if not ever seen. The interview went normally (for me - blatant truth has always been the best course of action for me) - and when it was apparently over I was asked "Do you have any questions for me?"
Perhaps that was the wrong question to ask a person who had only recently got over the agony that is divorce. I answered with the most pressing question on my mind - "Would you like to go out to dinner?"
Unfortunately, she wasn't wearing her wedding ring that day, or I wouldn't have asked (really, that's just tacky). After a very hot blush, she explained her marital status and I became a little embarrassed. She said she was flattered...
That job was great for a little over a year until the company moved to Korea and I moved to Texas. Ana's assistant Christina was quite possibly the second hottest women I've ever known - or seen. The scenery was incredible!
"Lame" - Galaxar
Partially just based on my judgement. If it just seemed like the interviewer was bantering and being interested it wouldn't bother me, particularly if it was just one thing. Einmal ist keinmal and all that, everyone slips up.
If I felt like they were on a discrimination tract it would probably depend on my situation. Feeding myself comes before standing up for ideology but I'd certainly be looking for a new job immediately if I felt there was a culture of discrimination there. If I didn't need the job it would depend on the company. If it is a big place with an HR department I'd take it to them, regardless of it I got the job or not because it was probably an interviewer who went off the rails and they'd need to know to correct it. If it was a smaller place I might politely remind the guy it was off limits, and then my further reaction would be based on what he did.
"That is not an acceptable question to ask me, thank you for your time", then I walk.
Even if i "needed" the job, i wouldn't be able to work there.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The article is pure bunk - none of these questions are illegal. Discrimination based on on answers to these questions is illegal, but not asking them.
As an interviewer, these are questions which should never be asked, because they leave you open to an accusation of discrimination. That doesn't make them illegal.
Comprehensive discussion and advice on the topic: http://www.manager-tools.com/2011/06/answering-illegal-interview-questions-part-1
There are quite a few places that would be illegal. And several industries where, if the potential employer found out about it afterwards, they could have legitimate cause to sue you.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Let's name some names here. I don't have any particular beef with this company or individual. It's just what came to mind when the question came up.
Back in 2006 or so, I was looking for a new job and pegged an interview with a company called 41st Parameter. They were an financial anti-fraud company. Kind of like credit card fraud detection sort of stuff.
I had an interview with Ori Eisen, their founder. He didn't seem too terribly interested in my job-related abilities so much as my background and personal family situation. He asked about my marital status, parents, current family situation, where I had lived previously, personal life stuff. He focused in on ethnicity and all kinds of shit you just don't do. He went there. I seem to remember that he might of been Israeli and asked me something about my ethnicity related to that, but I don't recall exactly. I just remember that he basically was not interested in my technical abilities and just wanted to know about my family background and personal details.
In summary the guy when into HR no-no territory.
I obliged the man on some questions where I just didn't mind, but I refused to answer other questions. That seemed to piss him off. He was a very forceful and fast-paced guy. He wanted to know all about me but wasn't willing to answer any of my very basic questions about the company.
After that first interview, I wasn't interested in the job and I ended up working somewhere else soon after.
I can't say that I had another interview where I had been asked such inappropriate and career-irrelevant questions.
You're wrong because most of that should not even come up at the office.
If it is an issue then the owner needs to be informed on the realities of operating in a multi-cultural nation.
some of personality tests are not fully legal as well
Try hiring someone in Germany. Or better yet, try firing them. No wonder the German economy is doing so poorly compared to the United States.
What? Germany's growth is at 2.9% Unemployment is at 5.9% Youth ( Now, we in the US have the following: 8.3% unemployment rate. As of July 2011, the youth unemployment rate was 18%. The debt % of its GPD is at 103.3%
Where the US leads Germany is in GDP per capita (Germany: $37,935. US: $48,147) and in America's post-HS education (in particular with grad-level education) and R&D. Where the US and Germany seem to meet is the rising level of incoming inequality.
But considering all other indicators (growth, unemployment debt/GDP ratios), your comment is completely off the mark. As an American, I wish we had those numbers.
I don't understand why so many of these questions are illegal if they are allowed to put them on a job application.
.. well, it's not on the app but it's on the questionnaire the gov't provides you to hand to me. Am I supposed to believe they don't look at it?
I mean, you can't ask my age? But you requested my date of birth on my application.
My address? Ditto.
Criminal history? Yeah that was there to. A long with a statement that says if I lied you can fire me on the spot.
Education? See my application.
Race
I've had interviews where I'm asked all of those questions, and then some. I've been propositioned on interviews. Asked to give up bodily fluids and hair. I've had interviewers slander me for no good reason. Or worst of all of them, I can't tell you how many times I've showed up for an interview and the person who I was supposed to talk to was "too busy." Or simply not there. Hasn't been so bad over the last ten years or so, but during the .com boom, it really made me feel unimportant. Once, I was sent to an abandoned warehouse in San Francisco, where I met a crazy Indian woman who wanted me to work for "equity only." Once, in Indiana, I was sent to an address that didn't even exist.
On the other hand, I've also had some pretty decent interviews, and I like to think that when I interview people, that my process is fair, legal, and honest.
I can think of only one time it's ever come up.
I was doing contract work. I was just finishing up one when a headhunter I worked with left a message on my machine. "I think I have a really interesting contract job for you. I have only one question: Are you jewish? Give me a call."
I have to admit--I was intrigued. So I gave him a call.
Turns out that the contract position would require travel to Saudi Arabia. I'm not sure if Saudi Arabia will issue you a visa if you are jewish, making it difficult for a jewish person to complete the obligations of the contract. Since I'm not jewish, it wasn't really an issue for me, so I ended up taking the contract.
Jews that I have told that story to since then have pretty much said, "Yeah, I wouldn't take the contract. Even if they let me into the country, who knows what would happen?"
So what, you'd refuse to hire a worker to increase output when the demand's there, just because the government's being mean to you by protecting the person's civil rights?
Asking for your Facebook password is practically the same as asking forbidden interview questions.
What happens when the HR person looks at your page and sees that you're participating in the setup of inter-racial gay Jewish recognition events?
Do they really want the risk of having to defend themselves in court against charges of discrimination when you are not hired?
There is a reason that they avoid certain questions. Those questions can land them in court. Demanding access to your personal life can be the same as asking those questions. With the same results.
Than "last time I checked."
The US remains in the aftermath of a massive economic downturn due to a housing and credit bubble bursting, and the current administration's incompetent and often counter-productive attempts to deal with it. But if you actually look at US vs German economic growth over time, it isn't even close. You do realize that the US - extant for a mere 238 years - has a GDP the size of the entire EU?
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
I don't want to work for anyone who doesn't want to work with me. That is a bad relationship which will end in nothing but misery.
I don't care why they don't want to work with me. Pounding square pegs into round holes is a stupid idea.
Futurist Traditionalism
Fail, dude. Just fail. Ever hire in Europe? There is a lot more red tape to go through. Europeans have mandatory vacation time, and they will take it.
It's not just that we will take their vacation it just because it's been _earned_. It's actually legally required. Something called a work life balance
Overtime pay goes up exponentially.
Want to cite some sources for this nonsense rhetoric?
And they actually enforce this as opposed to burying it in some court docket.
So you think that laws to protect citizens of a country and their rights should not actually be enforced?
Firing is worse.
So you think that citizens should have zero rights to actally know they have a job for longer than the 5 minutes you can be bothered to pay them?
Don't forget that you have to pay a lot more taxes (think 60% VAT for starters.)
You think that anywhere in the EU there is a sales tax of 60%? What the hell have you been smoking?
Stop disparaging the US until you get a clue.
Stop disparaging the system in other countries until _you_ get a clue
In an interview, you only have so many minutes to make a decision on the job. Most of these questions are just a waste of time, as well as insulting to the candidate. It should also make the interviewer feel uncomfortable, as they have likely been advised of this by HR before they are allowed to talk to any potential candidate. People should be spending time figuring out if the person is a good fit with the skills, as well as someone you actually want to spend eight or more hours a day with.
I cannot think of valid questions to ask about race, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation or marital status that might apply to any job I've ever hired for. There are valid questions regarding family status, physical disability, country of origin, and height/weight. But you don't ask them that way. You ask them in terms of the job you are hiring for. Even then, you have to keep in mind if the person could do the job with a reasonable affordance for whatever it might be.
Examples:
For family status, the employer might be really asking if you can work late, work nights, weekends, travel extensively or if you can be on call to respond to something. These are all legitimate questions and they have nothing to do with the person's family status. Some people with kids don't want to travel, others it's not a big deal.
Physical disability: If a job requires carrying 75 lbs of equipment over broken terrain in the middle of the night, then that's going to exclude some people. But if someone in a wheelchair needs a desk that's five inches higher, that's not exactly hard to accommodate.
Country of origin: What you are probably asking is if you are authorized to work in this country for any employer, or if you have a security clearance, or if you have US citizenship. It doesn't matter how you became a citizen (born or naturalized), but if you must work with ITAR data, for example, there you are.
Height/Weight: Similar to the disability question, if the job requires crawling through openings that are a certain diameter, you can't exceed that. Same for operating some kind of equipment that only allows a maximum height. Or climbing up a ladder that only supports a certain weight.
Only one time have I ever been asked directly "Do you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ?" to which I replied, "Yes, and I think he's just told me this job is the wrong fit for me." (No, I don't have a relationship with Jesus nor would I be comfortable working in an office where it was expected).
But other than that one time, Questions about my religion and sex life aren't things which are directly asked. But they do come up indirectly. I'm sometimes asked questions about "what do you do to relax away from the office?" I actually think this is a valid line of questioning since folks who have no lives outside of work may be better or worse suited for certain types of job pressures.
So I don't get offended when asked "how do you spend your Sundays?" But I respond with a (hopefully slightly uncomfortable) answer like "perusing the Vestal virgins of ancient Rome, or whatever ebook I happen to be plowing through this week." in other words humorously pointing out that the question is out of line.
When asked about what would be involved in relocating my family for the job (which I suspect was a way to fish out the answer about whether I was single, married, gay, etc) I responded "Oh, do you have Queen sized cubicles?" after a brief laugh, I suggested we stick to the subject of deciding whether I was right for the job and the job was right for me before pulling in any more complications.
In general, I think humorously pointing out that the question is out of line leaves both of us comfortable enough to keep going with the interview.
Uh, I don't answer any question I don't want to, regardless of whether some bureaucrat says it's legal or not. Nobody owes me a job and I don't owe them any answers. Easy.
In this job market, I have no problems with any question. Really.
First, unless you're recording the interview, you cannot prove anything.
Second, if you litigate, don't expect to be hired in your field, EVER; your
expectation should be the cash award 'cause you're going to need it.
The reality is that there's a reason why some of these questions are asked
and it tells me about my prospect as well as tells them about me in how I
answer. Questions of beliefs are taboo, but people have a right to know and
I've no problem with that. Typically a West-coast "thing", some companies
will not hire a person who is divorced. That's the way it is. But I digress.
A good company will look for a "family" member so I'm actually unsettled
when some topics are avoided.
Now, I'm not talking about the HR person, they're supposed to "follow the law".
But if the HM takes the time to speak with me, I own him the courtesy of honesty.
Amazingly, after the interview, the "illegal" questions make perfect sense in the
overall context of the job requirement.
Basically, an employer find things out; best up front then after you commit to a job
and be made uncomfortable later - it happens - ain't nobody going to bat for you, either.
I've been doing this for a long time and generally win 9/10 interviews.
Abiding by the law is a good way to never see an honest paycheck ever again.
Of course they do. And they can do that all they want in their personal lives.
On the job though they're expected to behave professionally.
And part of "professionally" means not bringing up issues such as religion or politics and so forth. Or being able to deal, professionally, with others who have differing views.
And when an employer is selecting for religion / politics / whatever then there is a problem.
Interviewers should be prepared, and ought to know the law, but many may not. I wouldn't assume the worst, and say something that permits them to save face, like:
[pause] I don't think I heard you correctly -- it sounded to me like you were asking about my [prohibited topic]. But that cannot possibly be right since [prohibited topic] questions are illegal, and this appears to be a law-abiding business. What were you asking about?
[F@cebook]: I'm sorry, but the ToS prehibits my sharing passwords with anyone, and I take my agreements seriously. No, I cannot login on your computer -- my password credentials are only on my home machine in a segregated account. I don't remember them.
Anyplace that pushes might just be testing if you're unethical. If they're really pushing 'cuz they want to be unethical, you surely do not want to work for such exploiters.
tell them that is a it security violation to give your password out.
You haven't even bothered trying to tell us why it's a disincentive; you've provided no justification at all, so how are we supposed to believe you? Is there a specific reason that you need to ask one of these prohibited questions? Or is there perhaps a reason why you think one of these might unavoidably come up during an interview?
I stood up, thanked the man for his time, told him I didn't think he was the right choice to be my employer. I then went out to my car and parked across the street. I sat for hours observing movements in and out of the building until I spotted him get in his car. I followed him to his house, keeping my distance so as not to be seen. I noted the location of his residence and left the whole matter alone for nearly three years. I then began following him and secretly taking photographs of him. I self developed these photographs to avoid any link to myself. I then took a red marker and circled his face in each photograph with an arrow pointing saying "YOU". I compiled these photographs into a padded yellow envelope and mailed them to him from a post office two states away. I think he learned his lesson.
I've 'worked' with more then a few. I wasn't born a castest. Many had lower caste 'help' to get through university. The trick is to hire their former help, not them.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
If it's not a government job (they own the law) I have no problem lying, cheating or deceiving anyone who would dare fuck with me.
They just erased any moral obligation to them by initiating unethical conduct, so all is fair in war.
Don't be a sheep. You don't owe any thing to any one who wants to invade your privacy except utter malice. They just freed you to fuck them, so do what amuses you for revenge.
For example, can you say "BSA audit?".
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Well, ok, here is the thing.... People will only ask you your gender if they cannot tell, i.e, it's not blatantly obvious. You obviously don't ask Chuck Norris if he is male because: 1) You can see from his beard that he is. 2) He would shatter all of your teeth with his gaze.
The only people you would ask their gender of would be the ones that were NOT obvious, and you might need to know how to refer to the applicant in the third person.
I would think that ANYONE (not just 29% of 14.6% of applicants) who appears to obviously be a member of their gender would take offense to being asked, as if it was NOT obvious.
Height or Weight: If you don't ask this question, then you end up with an elf like Will Farrell instead of Troy Verner. Ridiculous! Sure it's funny for a 2 hour movie, but if you were hiring actors to play elves at disneyworld, it may just be a stupid hiring decision. You're fired!
..either way, he loses due to taxes.
No, he still gains civilization. That's what taxes are meant to pay for. Good roads, educated neighbors, safe water and food, rule of law, & etc.
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
Also I think the "small company" excuse is rubbish because a lot of small places are far more casual and tolerant anyway. People are more likely to accept somebody they have a lot of contact with than somebody they only see occassionally.
Larger groups are the problem but should have their shit together enough to deal with a few people that don't fit a stereotype.
If it's a verbal question it's too difficult to prove they asked, so how will you make sure the law is enforced? It's an employers market out there and there is little you can do unless you're willing to buckle down for the fight which is going to hamper your job search... get it?
That's why I think laws against recording conversations should be dropped completely, you should be allowed to record anything anywhere...that would put an end to a lot of BS that goes on.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
If the government regulations increase the cost of doing business so that the marginal employee is no longer a profitable hire, then yes.
But we can't ask about weight, race, sexual orientation or age.
Huh?
Why is it illrgal for them to ask your age? After all the application form has a field for DOB
Or are they to lazy/stupid to work it out.
But is there a law against phone discrimination? What about car discrimination? Where do you draw the line?
What really constitutes duress? Being afraid that you won't get the job?
Hey I'm against it as much as anyone but I don't know if it should be illegal.
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
"Will you suck my cock?"
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
I'm a n-th (n > 7 or so) generation American of European ancestry. I had an interview with, ahem, a major search company. In one of the sessions, I estimated a short distance in meters. The shocked interviewer flipped quickly through my resume and hiring notes:
Him: Wait, are you an American?
Me, very surprised: Ummm, yeah... does that matter?
Him: It's just that you used the Metric system.
Me: I minored in physics.
Him: Oh.... [scribbling]
I don't think my citizenship status affected the eventual hiring decision, but that really caught me off guard. I wondered how that same question would've felt if I wasn't born and raised here.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I'm not even going to pretend to read TFA. The summary refers to sexual orientation as something that employers aren't allowed to ask, but in most states in the US, that's simply not true. Apparently some idiot doesn't understand the difference between his state's laws and the laws in other states or federal law. Or just doesn't know jack shit about employment law, and is making assumptions. Guessing.
Under US federal law, sexual orientation is not a protected trait. The law offers no protection whatsoever to someone who is gay/lesbian/bi/transgender or who is perceived as such. Many states do offer that kind of protection. But many do not. Some cities offer protection. Most do not. An interviewer can ask, and if they don't like your answer, they can deny you a job. Or an employer can fire you from one you already have. There is no penalty for it. If this strikes you as unfair, maybe you should get off your ass and tell your Senator and Congressperson, so maybe they'll feel some pressure to pass ENDA someday. Thanks.
Once upon a time when I was looking for work, and collecting unemployment benefits, I was "this close" to a formal job offer from an organization which I knew had problems with gay people. To protect my benefits from the consequences of getting hired and then fired again, I told the HR director that I was gay, and that I was involved in publicly advocating for the rights of gay people, such as being interviewed briefly on TV about it the year before (which is why I had to tell her), hoping that by being up-front about it, I'd inoculate myself from unpleasant surprises down the road. She got very quiet, and the next communication I received was a terse form letter saying that they were not offering me the job. And that's when they're nice about it. I got to collect unemployment benefits for several more months while I found another place that would hire me.
Most employers don't ask. At least not directly. But I've learned that, unless I am willing to suppress any hint that I'm gay (e.g. mentioning that I am unmarried at my age), my employment options are limited. At least they aren't allowed to ask if I'm married or what church I go to, which might give me away, but I've had to go from "activist" to "passivist", effectively going back into the closet, because I can't afford the luxury of being an openly gay member of the workforce.
So to answer the question: I'm rarely asked illegal questions. But when I'm asked legal ones that I know will result in me not getting hired... I lie.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
The only shocking thing about this thread is not one person said :
"Wow, this isn't a company I'd want to work at/for.. I'm sorry we wasted our time"
Let me give you a hint: If you're in software or engineering, not a complete retard and don't have any history of sticking a fork in the neck of your secretary or coworkers, you can go knock on another door and get a job. Go find a company that doesn't want to snoop around in your social media accounts. Believe me , they are out there.
Whenever i hear this topic come up I just think to myself, what kind of pathetic would would even consider working for such a company.
Most of us who did college know how poor a filter it is.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
I'm involved quite a bit with interviewing for technical positions, and for me, staying out of the realm of those illegal questions is quite easy. I really don't care about what they like, what they do, or who they do it with. We need people with brains who are going to show up for work and actually do work. Incidentally, we had quite the HR presentation regarding good/bad questions and those questions that are borderline. Bottom line from HR was that you just stay away from all of that, or your ass is going to be on the chopping block.
What a cheap way to get extra pageviews. One or two tiny paragraphs and an inconsequential image per slide. I assume that's what's on every slide, anyway. I didn't actually click through everything. No point in giving them additional ad impressions.
Or is there perhaps a reason why you think one of these might unavoidably come up during an interview?
No, the problem is that he likely doesn't know these are illegal. Hiring employees opens up a businessman to lawsuits from literally hundreds of angles.
Heck, if I were hiring, I'd strongly favor former military - they tend to make excellent workers. But, apparently that would be illegal to ask.
To hell with that - I'll hire another subcontractor for projects instead, but I have that luxury - Mom & Pop running a diner sure don't, and they don't have the time or money to hire lawyers or attend professional HR training just to hire a busboy.
Oh, but Denny's *can* afford all these regulations, so screw the local diner, I can still get $4 pancakes somewhere, and nobody has to worry about getting their tender feelings hurt.
Regulations *always* favor the incumbent and adults who can't handle their emotions are creating the fascist state.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
There was a non-compete clause in the employee agreement for a job in California. I crossed it out and initialed those parts. In California it's against the law to require or enforce such a clause: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10010724-92.html
"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
It seems a cast system has been formed based on peoples education levels
That's "caste".
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
I once had an interviewer get red faced and flustered when he realised he had just said he wanted to hire someone "younger". I'm pretty sure he meant "less experienced and therefore cheaper" so I told him it's okay, I understood he meant he was looking for someone with less experience.
Most people probably mean well.
I wish interviewers would ask the questions they want and ignore those guidelines. I want to know as much about the company and its practices before I take a job, and if they stick to bland questions, I lose a lot of information. If they think my race or religion or political views are important, then I want to give them smartass upsetting blasphemous answers before I walk out of the interview, not after I have had the job for a few days.
I really REALLY wish the government would stop trying to help me with its one-size-fits-all-politically-correct-thinking policies. I have a direct stake in the outcome of my decisions, and where I make mistakes, I learn for the future, unlike government bureaucrats.
Infuriate left and right
At least they didn't bother if their presidential candidates weren't born on Roman soil. Isn't it illegal to ask a presidential candidate about this as well, if it's illegal to ask a job applicant for these details?
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
I live in Europe and I'm currently in the process of applying for a telecommuting job at a US based company. Now, I know Americans can make a lot of money suing people left and right. This is not possible where I live. At the most you get a couple of euros in compensation, no matter how big the insult. My question is, if this company asks me inappropriate questions, can I sue, not being a US citizen, and make millions?
I told them they could go fuck themselves, and that they better goddamned hire me anyway, and they did. They gave me a full time job. That's why I'm wasting time on /. Because I'm so busy with my job. That they gave me. After the interview. In which I told them to fuck themselves, in response to their question. The one about can they have my fb pw.
Okay, I feel stupid even typing this shit. Seriously. I would tell them the plain honest truth: I don't have a facebook account, because I consider having one a waste or time I'd much rather spend jerking off to internet porn, or plucking my nasal hairs, both activities, by the way, WAY more productive than anything you can do on fb.
Holy cow, didn't we JUST cover this? It is NOT ILLEGAL to ask a prospective questions. You can ask them pretty much anything. BUT if you do ask them questions concerning race, religion, age, sex, and a few other things, and you don't hire them. You open yourself up to a lawsuit. So rather than risk it, it is recommended you don't ask these sort of questions.
Of course it makes it difficult sometimes. We were told not to ask where someone lived (could indicate living situation as in living in the poor part of town. But when I used to walk a candidate back to my office, I used to talk about the weather. And I liked to know where they lived, so I could compare our weather to what they are used to.
BUT IT IS NOT ILLEGAL! Just strongly recommended you don't ask certain questions.
That's what I thought at first too, but maybe they're just getting the benefit of the doubt because the cost of a legal case (regardless of whether they were guilty or innocent) would put them out of business.
But you shouldn't have to do that when we already have laws on the books that _should_ be more than enough to prevent them from pawing through your social network page to decide if they will hire you. Adding some "but that's not good security" shouldn't change anything except as a means of proving that you're geekier than the person who didn't point that out.
By "the productive class", do you mean the fat sleazeballs in their multi-million $ mansions sitting on their asses?
Or the actual workers doing the actual fucking work?
Eat the rich.
You say that as a joke; but reality is that the way you respond depends *heavily* on the employment-situation. An interview is for two purposes. One is for the employer to figure out if they'd like to hire you, and the other is for you to figure out if you'd like to work there.
The answer to the second is a given only if unemployment is high and/or there are low demand for people with your skillset. This will tend to be the case in fascist states offcourse since employers like having employees be easily and cheaply replacable.
If someone tried pulling such a trick here (Stavanger, Norway) I'd just stand up and leave. "I don't think this job is the right one for me. I wish you luck in your search for another candidate." That's easy to do, offcourse, when sending 10 job-applications results in ~5 interviews and ~3 job-offers.
If I really needed the job, and the question was clearly illegal, I'd just lie, with perfectly good conscience. If they don't feel bound to act in good faith towards me, why should I act nicely towards them ?
If you are creating a film and hiring actors or actresses, it seems that gender, age, and race would all be key qualifiers for the position. I have never seen an elderly white woman play the role of a young hispanic boy in a movie. Although, we've already seen males win lawsuits against Hooters bar and restaurant.
How about grief counselors? In certain situations gender is an important factor when a patient is talking to a psychologist.
How about detectives? For example, a woman who was a victim of rape may only feel comfortable speaking to another woman. Does this mean that the police department shouldn't be able to hire a woman specifically for this position?
I can go on and on here. Gender, age, and race can all be very important qualifiers for certain job positions. We are all different, and saying so doesn't equate to racism, sexism, or age discrimination.
Whether the applicant is flaming or not is easily seen in an in person interview. Are there scorchmarks on the ceiling?
It would make one perfect for a stunt job though, especially if he can control it.
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
What obstacles exactly? That you must not ask about a prospective employer's religion or sexual orientation? What the hell does this have to do with his ability to do some sensible work? Does a Jew work worse than a Muslim, or does a lesbian work less than a heterosexual guy?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I have often been asked two types of questions that are, in most cases, illegal to ask:
1. Age-based
2. Family-based (specifically, about kids)
In short, I inform the interviewer politely that the question they asked is not legal to ask in an interview. Most people know this. Some small businesses do not -- my experience is that they seem to feel they are exempt from these rules. And, yes, these are illegal questions because they can be used to selectively hire -- which is discrimination. They have nothing to do with one's skills and everything to do with judging if a person can be worked overtime or if the interviewer determines they are "too old" for the job (i.e., set in their ways an therefore unable to learn new things -- possibly taking a position "too low" for their experience/age and would soon be looking for promotion or another job -- etc.).
In general, I find people ask these questions because they want to connect with a detail in my life. For example, they see the college I went to and they want to know when I was there because a friend/acquaintance/child/friend's-child/etc went there. While that isn't always an age indicator, it can be, and I think it is in most cases. This is why your graduation date should not be on your resume. It may be completely inaccurate to assume you graduated at 22 (undergraduate), but we are good at making assumptions.
The family-based questions are usually to make small-talk. I get it. They want to chit-chat a bit to reckon personality and see if they want to work with you -- or if they'll enjoy kibitzing over lunch, in the break-room, etc. But asking martial status and whether or not you have children is illegal. It allows assumptions to be drawn, most often about work hours. (Kids == after-school commitments == juggling work and transporting urchins ... I mean kids.)
Yes, there are exceptions. But, as a general rule, you should know what questions are illegal and why employers ask them. Sometimes they are trying to draw conclusions without asking direct questions: i.e., would you be willing/able to work overtime; are you compulsive about your work; etc.
I had HR choad at national lab ask about religion. I always answer questions that are none of their business by telling them it's none of their business. I got the job, btw and was there for a decade
It's best to play interviews by ear and to answer questions based on your gut feeling of whether it's an appropriate question. Laws be damned. If it's too inappropriate I don't want to work there. Let them ask "illegal" questions and let me ask them too. /Obama fundraiser, or a passionate rock climber. In the former case, I'd gladly go look elsewhere. In the latter, there's some commonality which will allow us to relate to one another better.
It's in my best interest that a potential employer has a good feel for who I am and what makes me tick and vice-versa. I need to not only perform my job duties but to personally get along with and befriend the people I'll be spending a large portion of time with. For instance, I'd want to know if my potential boss is a militant feminist
Also, I welcome questions about my military service. If a potential employer has a problem with it, I'm going to have a problem with them and we would both be miserable.
Which companies ask these kinds of questions?
In one case the phrasing of the question may be too broad.
The safest question is the one that asks for the minimum amount of information to fulfill the job requirements. In this case, so long as the person is eligible for clearance, you don't need to know anything at all about his/her country of original, just that he/she is legally able to do the job.
But I'm not allowed to ask about religious beliefs?
Or I'm looking to hire a Planned Parenthood exec, but it's "iffy" asking if a prospective employee is a member of Operation Rescue?
While you aren't forced to get issued an SSN at birth, part of filling out the paperwork offers the parents the chance to apply for one. (Kind of like getting your driver's license and registering to vote or become an organ donor.) Since the IRS has required the SSN of all dependents on your taxes for a couple of decades now, pretty much all parents go ahead and get the SSN.
(I know this is not true when I was born, and I did not get an SSN until it was time for me to get my first bank account.)
The only time somebody born in the last twenty years or so would be a citizen and not have an SSN would be if they were born in the US to foreign parents. (US parents living abroad would still need to file US taxes, and would want the SSN for the newborn.)
If you apply for an SSN now and you are over a year old, it's a lot harder to get one. You can't just shove a US birth certificate over the counter... the only thing they'll accept is a form authorizing the SSA to obtain a birth certificate directly from the appropriate issuing authority, along with extensive ID checks to make sure you are who you say you are. It's actually easier to get a US Passport than for somebody other than a newborn to get an SSN.
If you lose your SS card, and need a new one RIGHT NOW in order to begin a job, the local SS office gives you a black-and-white document, not an actual blue card. The card comes later in the mail.
I remember a phone screen I had 5 months ago for a software developer position at a mobile app co. The whole time, the recruiter listened in on the conversation. One of the interviewers was the software architect and he kept grilling me about my age. First, he flat-out asked me what my age was. I hesitated but told him. Thereafter, he continuously mentioned he was expecting to interview and hire someone in their 20's. He then asked me why I thought he should hire me instead of someone in their twenties. I felt like mentioning that what he was doing is age discrimination. Afterwards, I sent the recruiter an email raising the subject about the architect but the recruiter never replied, nor could I reach him by phone again. A week later, I mentioned the entire experience to a retired lawyer who is supposedly a friend to my folks. The lawyer said its only age discrimination if you are over 50 (which I am not)...What a crock! I ended up not sueing, as it's probably not worth the effort. Discrimination by potential employers is alive and well in the United States.
When I was secure in a job and looking to move up, I would decline to answer inappropriate questions. After dot com bust, when I'd been unemployed for a couple of years, I would have (and did) say anything to get hired. I agree that it's important to know your rights in an interview, but what you do about it depends on the economy and your current situation. Shouldn't be that way, but what are you going to do?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
If you feel threatened in some way by question, then you apparently are not suited for that specific job, imho.
Reason being - everything in life we decide to do (follow some religion, or life philosophy, music, movies, humor, etc.) affect our personality, and the way we deal with things. Other things, like nationality, also influence to some extent (depending on some other factors, like culture where the person grew up).
So if I interview you, you answer my questions, I'll know what kind of person you are, and if you suited for the specific job. For some positions I don't care about your personality, for some others, I do. Although there are traits in every person that can override the 'problematic' parts. Person hiring need to be aware of that, and not blindly discard someone just because he _failed_ at one question.
On the other side, if the employer is just an racist ahole, then again you win.. you wouldn't want to affiliate yourself with that kind anyway. This is the thing you can't prevent, you can't prevent people to be shallow judgmental barely conscious creatures, some of them. You can make everything illegal, the morons will still be out there, and will influence our lives in a bad way.
I watch you american people; I work for US $, I watch your shows, your movies, I'm communicating 10 hours a day on English (not native speaker), and I grew up doing the same thing, and as an example...since I'm not American, having and outside (but still ... somewhat inside) perspective I can say that you people generally share some traits on a nation scale. And that's normal, it's called culture. If for what I want, people from your culture doesn't fit, then I won't hire you, and vice versa.
Your feelings of entitlement as a business owner mean precisely dick. There is no "discentive to hire", and these things we're talking about are NOT obstacles. You're just trying to make excuses to cover up your bigotry.
Quite frankly, I find it incredibly offensive that you would even consider protecting someone's civil rights to be "increasing the cost of doing business."
These 4 are violated at each and every interview. You don't have to ask by gender, but unless an interviewer is blind and deaf, they can see your age, they can see your gender, they can assume your race and they can see your marital status.
Women dress in dresses, heals, and female tailored business suits.
Men will have the same type of shoes and in many cases long sleeve shirts, suit coats, and ties.
If you couldn't tell by their face or frame size you certainly can make the assessment by the way they were dressed.
Since most married individual wear a wedding ring, again a visual assessment will garner that info as well.
Age is a tad trickier, but you can usually ball-park an age range
Race is a tad trickier in some cases as well. But for the most part you can generalize a race based on the limited categories provided.
Family Status is more difficult for men, but any woman who carries a purse will have tell-tale signs of being a mom.
Ethnic background and religion, may also be garnered by the wardrobe of the job applicant.
In all of these cases, these are visual assessments.
If you have a phone interview in most cases you can tell the gender by voice (not all cases)
A well trained HR rep may even be able to assess where a persons ethnic background is or religious background by discussing the company holidays. They will elude to the floating holiday for X Y and Z and many times people are responding to that info with a bit of personal background about how that time might be used.
So unless you look only at the qualifications documented on a standard resume that is formatted the same way for every job applicant and never see a name or an address or phone number, then you there is far less possibility of any discrimination at all for any reason other than for skills that meet the job criteria. Then that isn't discrimination it is simply most qualified candidate for the job based on skill info.
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
"so that the marginal employee is no longer a profitable hire"
That is EXACTLY the opposite scenario I brought up. Frankly, though, if your profit margin is so narrow that you can't afford the extra cost of not knowing your employee's facebook information, you aren't running a very good business to begin with.
Offensive? Really? What do you mean by "protecting their civil rights"? Are you referring to this topic about illegal questions, or about real civil rights, like voting and free speech?
Regulations have costs and produce burdens. Some of those burdens are worth paying. Some aren't. And when the burden is borne by the employer, rather than the public at large, it is entirely possible that the added cost of doing business will wipe out the extra profit you were expecting that employee to provide. In such a case, you don't hire, even if the rights being protected are really important, because it's not profitable to do so. This is arithmetic, not philosophy.
If that's what you meant - that the employee would be a net positive even with the regulation - then you misunderstood unassimilatible.
Funny thing about race is that a discriminating employer doesn't have to ask you about it to know. So race not only doesn't have anything to do with illegal interview questions, it can't.
Absolutely yes!
I interviewed for a company famous for offering "Open Source Perl Telecommute Jobs" in Pittsburgh, PA.
First off, their interview process & questions - technically speaking - was ridiculous. For an advanced level perl "expert" position they asked questions suitable to a first year perl trainee. I mean, they asked questions so basic, I had forgotten the answers they were so simple. Stuff I had forgotten so long ago, I hadn't seen them since read Randal Schwartz's Learning Perl book.
All was good until they wanted to fly me to Pttsburgh for an "in person" interview, prior to a "2 week orientation period. Never mind that I had been telecommuting for 3 years already - all telecommute employees had to start out with 2 weeks on site to "learn the ropes" in their system.
I had to provide my birthdate for "TSA Requirements" to book the flight, which under any other circumstances is completely illegal for a job interview. I provided it as requested on a Thu afternoon. To this day, I have *never* heard back from anyone at the company. Period.
Now I had already passed 3 rounds of telephone & practical interviews. They only disappeared when I gave my birthdate, so they figured out my age. You figure it out.
--
Tagline
Discrimination is RIFE in the workplace. Employers take exception to people with hearing or other disabilities which they dislike despite it being illegal.
I interviewed many years ago at Lotus Notes in Cambridge, MA. The interviewer asked me something akin to "how do you manage Japanese engineers since at meetings they only say 'yes' and will never admit to not knowing something?". To which I replied, "Isn't that question based on a racist assumption?" The rest of the interview was pretty uncomfortable. I didn't get an offer. :)
In fascist states? Wow. Do you do a lot of interviews in fascist states where you've seen this regularly? I'd bet that the employers in your country would also like to see a surplus of talent in the candidate pool so that they also had a competitive advantage to control what is likely their highest business expense. And I don't think that, in and of itself, would make your state fascist. To turn the name-calling around, perhaps you live in a socialist state where the workers have the market advantage?
*grin* Yeah okay. I admit it, using that word was trollish.
What I meant was, high unemployment seems epidemic in states where the interests of big bussiness and the wealthy few are prioritised higher, at the cost of the interests of the average person.
It's a continuum, offcourse, a "more-less" scale, not a "black-white" scale, and the best policy is certainly not at either of the extremes.
It's interesting to me, by the way, that you consider "socialist" a swear-word on a similar level to "fascist", I'd have thought you'd want to drag out communist for that.
And yes, I do think USA has swung *much* too far in a direction that benefits the few, at the cost of the many. Have a look at your GINI-index compared to that of any other wealthy nation.
In your note above, you write "...why should I act nicely towards them ?". I pull out the old proverb that two wrongs do not make a right, and it would lead to an undesirable situation for all parties. Most interviewers are poorly trained non-hiring professionals (software engineers, for example) and it should not be hard for a skilled interviewer to control most interview situations. Unless you're dealing with someone that SHOULD be professional (like an HR person) it might be best to raise the issue of concern directly. Sometimes, a polite confrontation is the best course. You might find the interviewer happy to learn something, and that would tell you a lot more than just politely leaving.
Today you say "high unemployment seems epidemic in states..." and I have to question what states you refer to. Unemployment is high in most of Africa. Unemployment is high in Greece, Italy and Spain. Do these states (if you'll allow "states" to apply to my generalization about Africa) have "the interests of big bussiness and the wealthy few are prioritised higher, at the cost of the interests of the average person"? I would view Greece and Italy as socialist-like (to different degrees) with that being the root cause of their current economic trouble.
Finally, I think that communism exists in theory only, and I don't see anything close to a truly communist state in the world. Thus, there's little point in considering their employment situations. Just like true democracies. They simply don't exist. The point of my "denigrating" socialism (and I admit to disliking the concept mainly because of its failure to provide incentives for productivity) was only as a counter example to your denigration of other states as fascist. ("...the case in fascist states of course since employers like having employees be easily and cheaply replaceable") I doubt your state is truly socialist, and if the simile offended you, it wasn't my intention, and I extend my apologies.
From Dictionary.com:
"Fascism: a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism."
"Socialism: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."