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?"

Comments

what

[Anonymous Coward]

i answer their questions in hopes that they will give me a job. i need beer money badly

Re:what

[Khyber]

You'd have better luck just sitting on a corner, well-dressed, holding a sign saying "Wife won't let me spend my own money on beer."

Re:what

[Nom du Keyboard]

You'd have better luck just sitting on a corner, well-dressed, holding a sign saying "Wife won't let me spend my own money on beer."

Works even better if you have a dog with you while panhandling. But do have one that looks sad, hungry, and doesn't bite the donors. And have a water dish there so that they know that you're a caring pet owner.

Re:what

[garyebickford]

... and a towel. I was told this by a visitor from the future.

Re:what

[Hognoxious]

I just saw a cat with a sign saying "Ownr sez i kan not haz cheezburgr"

Re:what

[Opportunist]

Employer may not ask that.

Doesn't anyone read the articles anymore?

Re:what

[R. M. Dasheff]

That's odd, the guy who told me this said he was from a planet somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse.

Citizenship

[colsandurz45]

I work for DoD indirectly (not a defense contractor) and my emplyoer cannot hire non-US citizens, so there are exceptions to that rule.

Re:Citizenship

[Anonymous Coward]

Though apparently it is just fine to get hired as non-US citizen by the DoD.

On November 25, 2008, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates signed a memorandum authorizing the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force to implement a new non-citizen recruiting pilot program for the United States Armed Forces. Titled âoeMilitary Accessions Vital to the National Interestâ (MAVNI), the new pilot program allows certain non-citizens who are legally present in the United States to join the military and apply immediately for US citizenship without first obtaining lawful permanent residence.

http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2009/02/fast_citizenship_the_armys_new.html

"service guarantees citizenship!" (Starship Troopers)

Re:Citizenship

[jordanjay29]

Which isn't a topic that interviewers are forbidden to ask about. Just so long as they ask everyone "Are you a US Citizen?" they're in the clear. Someone from a different ethnic background or originally from another country can be a citizen just the same as a natural born US Citizen.

Re:Citizenship

[Alotau]

Some clarification from http://www.uwec.edu/career/online_library/illegal_ques.htm :

"May ask about legal authorization to work in the specific position if all applicants are asked."

So if you must legally be a US citizen for the job and everyone is asked, it's OK.

Re:Citizenship

[realityimpaired]

"service guarantees citizenship!" (Starship Troopers)

The Romans beat them to it.

Re:Citizenship

[luis_a_espinal]

I work for DoD indirectly (not a defense contractor) and my emplyoer cannot hire non-US citizens, so there are exceptions to that rule.

I work with a DoD contractor, and to be honest, that which you describe is not an exception to the rule. Requiring US citizenship is not the same as asking for one's country of origin, for example. You can have India or Guatemala as the country of origin, and a gig requiring US citizenship can only ask you to prove your citizenship (via a US passport, voter's registration, birth or naturalization certificate.)

The DoD background check that follows for a sec. clearance (either after getting hired, or as a pre-requisite to allow your employer to hire you), that process and that entity can dig around those questions, to determine if you are a risk. But that's a process distinct from employment. For employment alone, no one, and I mean no one can legally ask for such questions during an employment interview.

Maybe for some black-ops shit that is beyond the comprehension of us mere pedestrian schmucks, but that is highly speculative to begin with.

Re:Citizenship

[luis_a_espinal]

How about terminating an interview for being a naturalised sitizen from Europe or asking for a social security number

The first type of question is illegal beyond belief (the Feds and or State would love to drag said interviewer to a federal/state court.) As long as you can work legally in the states (independently of the nature of your citizenship or legal residence/immigration status), an employer cannot terminate the interview just because you are from Europe (or a naturalized citizen with Europe as the region of origin.)

The second one, it depends. If the employer asks for your social security as part of your job application and you refuse, they can (and should) stop the interview. After all, if you are a citizen (naturalized or otherwise), you will have a ssn. And your employer needs your ssn to employ you, pay you and deduct your taxes, for verification, etc. You can refuse giving it, but then the employer should reject you (I would.) And if you don't have one, it would call your naturalization (and your entire immigration status/history) into question.

Re:Citizenship

[nurb432]

No one can hire illegals, so its a valid question to ask *any* applicant.

"Are you legally allowed to work in the US, and do you have proof"

Re:Citizenship

[Obfuscant]

After all, if you are a citizen (naturalized or otherwise), you will have a ssn.

Not necessarily. You don't just get one issued at birth, although the state would love to do that. You have to apply.

And your employer needs your ssn to employ you, pay you and deduct your taxes, for verification, etc.

Employment comes after the offer and acceptance. Until you are an employee, you don't need to tell them. When they need it to deal with Social Security, they will get it. For "verification"? Well, that's illegal too. SSN Is not to be used for Identity. My card says this in black and white right on the front.

And if you don't have one, it would call your naturalization (and your entire immigration status/history) into question.

If a potential employer questions your citizenship because you won't tell him your SSN until you are hired, you will have worse problems than the interview awaiting you.

Re:Citizenship

[ChrisMaple]

Tell them you're concerned with identity theft and that you'll provide a SSN at the appropriate time. "I don't reveal confidential company information to anyone outside the company nor anyone inside the company without an immediate need to know, and my SSN is just that sort of information."

Re:Citizenship

[IICV]

I think that even in that case, they still can't ask if the applicant is a US citizen - they say something like "fyi you must be a US citizen to work here", and then HR just doesn't approve the hire if it turns out the applicant isn't a citizen.

Re:Citizenship

[Anonymous Coward]

I work for DoD indirectly (not a defense contractor) and my emplyoer cannot hire non-US citizens, so there are exceptions to that rule.

I work with a DoD contractor, and to be honest, that which you describe is not an exception to the rule. Requiring US citizenship is not the same as asking for one's country of origin, for example. You can have India or Guatemala as the country of origin, and a gig requiring US citizenship can only ask you to prove your citizenship (via a US passport, voter's registration, birth or naturalization certificate.)

The DoD background check that follows for a sec. clearance (either after getting hired, or as a pre-requisite to allow your employer to hire you), that process and that entity can dig around those questions, to determine if you are a risk. But that's a process distinct from employment. For employment alone, no one, and I mean no one can legally ask for such questions during an employment interview.

Maybe for some black-ops shit that is beyond the comprehension of us mere pedestrian schmucks, but that is highly speculative to begin with.

Emigration status and citizenship status cannot be asked. I've been in the interviewer position for mor than a few high level security jobs and have been advised to rephrase those questions as "Are you eligible for a Secret/Top Secret clearance?". That can then be followed with eligibility requirements as a statement of fact.

Re:Citizenship

[DrgnDancer]

Small difference between requiring service for citizenship and saying 'Hey, this is one way you could become a citizen. Since you're helping us out we'll even fast track the process". That said, nearly all the rules are a little more stringent for contractors than actual members of the military. Especially with junior enlistees (those most likely to be non-citizens) the service has a lot of control over the day to day lives of servicemen. They have much less control over contractors so they tend to hold them to higher standard. It's ironic, but makes a certain amount sense from their point of view.

Re:Citizenship

[frinkster]

No one can hire illegals, so its a valid question to ask *any* applicant.

"Are you legally allowed to work in the US, and do you have proof"

You do not have to be a citizen to work in the US. There are all sorts of visas that allow non-US citizens to work in the US, and then there is NAFTA - a lesser-known section of that treaty allows citizens of Mexico, Canada and the US to work in any of the three countries for any professional occupation on a multi-page list you can find on the State Department website.

Re:Citizenship

[DuranDuran]

> No one can hire illegals

Tell that to the A-team!!

Re:Citizenship

[Chris Mattern]

If you can find them...

Re:Citizenship

[Anonymous Coward]

Canada doesn't use Social Security Numbers, we use Social Insurance Numbers.

Re:Citizenship

[Anonymous Coward]

"In black and white" is a figure of speech meaning "in print"

Re:Citizenship

[chill]

Joining the military and working as a civilian for the DoD are two very different things.

Re:Citizenship

[cyberfringe]

Our GC advised us that the legal wording is as follows: "Are you legally entitled to work in the United States?" And it is also legal to ask for verification.

Re:Citizenship

[dryeo]

Also Native American Indians and Canadian First Nations (50%+ blood) are allowed to cross the border and work etc by terms of various treaties starting with the Jay treaty.

Re:Citizenship

[Ihmhi]

Also, it takes on average a bare minimum of 7 years to get citizenship in the United States, and that's if conditions are good for you all around. 4 years in the military could be as sweetheart deal compared to (potentially) 20 years of paperwork.

Re:Citizenship

[DerekLyons]

When I was in the Navy, back in the 1980's, that was already old news and a popular way for Filipino's to gain US citizenship. I think the program goes back at least as far as WWII.

Re:Citizenship

[Chrisq]

If you can find them...

If you need them the'll find you.

Re:Citizenship

[Plunky]

After all, if you are a citizen (naturalized or otherwise), you will have a ssn

That may be true to a certain extent, but the reverse is certainly not true. I am not from the USA but I have met two people who had US Social Security Numbers without citizenship. The first was a Canadian, I'm not sure how he got it but he used to live very close to the border and worked both sides (dating back to the 70s). The second was a South African, he told me he was working as a 'white water rafting' instructor one summer (in the late 90s) and they asked for his SSN - when he said he didn't have one, they pointed him at the correct office. Apparently the department responsible for issuing such things never checked for citizenship, they were just concerned about being able to collect taxes..

Re:Citizenship

[csrster]

A temporary work permit in the USA will get you an SSN. I have SSN, or equivalent, in four different countries.

Re:Citizenship

[Alioth]

You don't need citizenship to have an SSN.

I'm not a US citizen, never been a US permanent resident, and don't even live in the US, but I have an SSN. I worked on an L-1 visa for a while, and I had to get an SSN to be able to report taxes. All you need for an SSN is some valid form of ID like a passport, IIRC. (It might have changed now, but at the time that's all I needed).

Re:Citizenship

[halcyon1234]

"service guarantees citizenship!" (Starship Troopers)

The Romans beat them to it.

No. He wasn't referring to the movie. You do know there was a book before the "movie", right? The book came out in, like-- the 60s or something, way before the Roman empire. Caesar stole the idea from Heinlein, just like Stephanie Meyers did.

Discrimination

[Mattygfunk1]

Why is Slashdot STILL posting "articles" with 15 pages containing two or three sentences per page?

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.

Re:Discrimination

[GoChickenFat]

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?

Well...yes. And why wouldn't I already know that? How is an interviewer asking the question discrimination? What am I missing here?

Re:Discrimination

[rwa2]

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.

Word. At a job interview I'm investigating my potential employers just as much as they're investigating me. I drop plenty of hints as to my life / education / health etc. status, and if it sounds like they might have a problem with that, it's better to work things out in advance rather than be miserable because they expected me to not have a family or something.

As a business owner

[unassimilatible]

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.

Re:As a business owner

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:As a business owner

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Yes because the thing you need to know about someone is if they're a homosexual Muslim from Norway to do a job.

Please.

Re:As a business owner

[Sebastopol]

"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."

There is so much fail in that logic, it boggles the mind. Regulation and taxes have been increasing for a 100+ years and the economy has boomed exponentially. Granted, most of the boom in the 2000's was due to UNREGULATED BANKERS, but your statement is almost 100% ignorant of history.

Re:As a business owner

[Sprouticus]

It is a shame that these laws have to be in place. It is a shame that people were so vile and disgusting that they decided to discriminate based upon age or marital status or a host of other reasons. But they did, so now YOU have to deal with is. Suck it up and deal. Dont get mad at the government, get mad at the morons who decided to abuse their power as employer.

The thing about people like you that shocks me no matter how many times I see them post is that you don't seem to realize that most of these regulations were created for a REASON. People don't (usually) make laws in a vacuum. I would be more than happy to discuss how we can regulate BETTER and SMARTER, but to imply that regulations are evil in and of themselves is to ignore the entire first 150 years of the industrial revolution.

Re:As a business owner

[Anonymous Coward]

So what's your solution to the Facebook password problem? Allow employers to investigate every detail of every applicant until they find something wrong with them? If you let that happen, then employers would be more invasive to minorities and people they don't want to hire (based on race) to the point that they found a reason - any reason - that the applicant shouldn't be hired.

As an employee, there are certain privacy lines that should not be crossed by my employer. If I post pictures of my wild parties during the workweek and let the public see them on my facebook page that's my own fault (and if the employer wants to go looking for/at those photos they are more than welcome to), but why should my privacy be intimately invaded in pursuit of a job?

Furthermore, you could have employers that dig deep and hard enough to find all sorts of blackmail material and then blackmail their employees to work long hours for low wages and never leave or complain.

The balance of power in a potential employer/potential employee situation is heavily tilted in the potential employers favor because presumably the potential employee either needs the job or wants it bad enough to switch away from their current job. And that unbalanced power has to be rebalanced by the law because there are asshole employers out there that would love to screw over their employees.

I understand that hiring people is a risky venture, but unfortunately that's part of the risk you take on when you decide to hire somebody - that you might have to fire them (and pay unemployment) if they don't work out. They take on the risk that they may not work out, but it is much less of a risk for them because they do not have to pay unemployment compensation, they get unemployment compensation.

There really isn't much that can be done about this situation without upsetting the applecart one way or another.

Re:As a business owner

[billcopc]

Ahem! As a business owner too, I'm glad there are regulations in place to level the playing field for everyone. If not being legally allowed to discriminate based on irrelevant information causes your business to suffer, you were doing it wrong in the first place, and I'm quite happy to replace you in the market. I work with people on 5 continents, and all are at the top of their game. If you base your staffing decisions on whoever seems "whitest" or worships the same imaginary friend in the sky, you are severely limiting your ability to compete in the global market.

Hiring is expensive because it is a serious relationship that must not be taken lightly. If it were any cheaper, there would be absolutely no job security because bosses like you could hire and fire people on a whim. Do you really expect an employee to perform well if they're under constant threat of losing their job ? You need to look beyond the tip of your nose and realize you need them as much as they need you.

Re:As a business owner

[Kat M.]

Actually, I'd argue it is more expensive in most other countries (not counting those that allow child labor and sweatshops).

The problem is that employees are human beings, not pieces of furniture that don't have any needs. They need a place to live, they need food, they need healthcare, and often not just for themselves but for their spouse and children, too (for many people it's not even possible anymore to support a family on a single income). That doesn't come cheap if you don't enjoy living at the poverty level.

That is unfortunate, but unless you enjoy living in a society with an across-the-board lower standard of living (which will also affect you, because it drags the GDP down, increases crime rate, and so forth), it's pretty much unavoidable.

That doesn't mean that you have a duty to hire people. Trust me, I understand that it can be difficult to make ends meet as a small business. But you have to recognize that you can't both have your cake and eat it, too. If all employees suddenly were paid 20% less across the board, then you'd eventually see a drop in sales, too. Someone has to buy your products or services.

Re:As a business owner

[JosephTX]

I don't see how "sexual orientation" or "marital status" are important questions. Then again, I'm one of those crazy people who don't see how "what's your facebook password?" is a relevant question either. Being told you can't discriminate based on private details must be a horrible intrusion on your freedoms. Also, what Schiff failed to mention is that the US is ranked #4 in the world in ease of doing business (after Singapore, Hong Kong, and New Zealand) according to the World Bank. I can't imagine why, what with our unique tax system that lets multi-billion-dollar companies pay a smaller percentage in taxes than their bottom-line employees, or our largely ineffective regulatory agencies which are constantly being neutered by Congress.

Re:As a business owner

[TranquilVoid]

Yes, strictly you don't, but the smaller the company the more important it is to get someone who fits the office culture, and religous, poltical and even sexual orientation can have a massive impact. Nevertheless, most governments have said, mostly rightly in my opinion, that an office culture that cannot accomodate these things is inappropriate.

Re:As a business owner

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh gee, I think my BIGOT radar just went off! So you can't work with people who are different than you? Where do you work exactly, the KKK gift shop?

If you don't, you may want to apply. I'm sure if you're white you'll fit right in there.

Re:As a business owner

[Capsaicin]

... since he would be an immigrant

Are you seriously asking us to believe there are no native-born homosexuals in Norway?!

Re:As a business owner

[luis_a_espinal]

Ah, but was that because of or in spite of?

Ever heard the term "begging the question?".

Do you think that growth you have boomed like that for 100 years if tax increases had been a significant impediment? A great deal of the growth was due to the war effort, infrastructure, etc. Infrastructure development is the numero uno factor (or one among the top) in almost any development success in the 20th century. Where the hell do you think that gets funded from? Miracles and prayers? Taxes man, taxes. That and a lot of other things provide sufficient proof that taxation is not inherently an impediment to growth.

What do you have to back up your position? A self-referencing, speculative question?

Re:As a business owner

[TubeSteak]

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.

Then I guess discriminating against someone in the hiring process is the second most expensive and riskiest thing a business owner can do?

Re:As a business owner

[ChrisMaple]

I take it you've never worked with an obsessive Christian who's always asking you to pray with him. Or an extremist from either end of the political spectrum who sarcastically criticizes anyone who disagrees with him.

Small businesses are frequently marginal affairs, and it only takes one bad employee to sour the work environment, cause the good people to quit, and destroy the lifetime investment of the owner. It isn't bigotry to be sensitive to the sensibilities of people who already work for you, and reject a newcomer who'd destroy the existing balance. It is bigotry to yell "BIGOT" when an employer can see that someone won't fit in.

--
Just because you have air flowing between your ears doesn't mean you have an open mind.

Re:As a business owner

[slimjim8094]

No. You're wrong. The whole point of this is that you don't need to know anything about somebody's family status, sexuality, national origin, and so on in order to get to know somebody beyond the basics. Education, interests, experience, general conversation...

If you think you need to know something protected in order to hire someone, you're doing it wrong - at best. At worst it means you're (consciously or subconsciously) going to not offer someone a job because of their sexuality or something, which isn't OK. You should want to prevent even the possibility of that, so if you hire someone more qualified, the guy you didn't can't sue you alleging that you discriminated against him.

Re:As a business owner

[ChrisMaple]

The people I'm angry with are those who consider it acceptable to use government power to restrict the activities of any person or organization that is not actively harming or cheating someone else. Refusing to deal with someone is an individual's absolute right, and those who wish to force me are my enemies.

Re:As a business owner

[trytoguess]

Yea, I agree the laws in question are rather pessimistic and assumes the worst of the employer. Then again, do you think getting rid of these laws and allowing employers to ask if you're a certain religion/ethnic group/political party/etc would be a good thing? That we'll have more cases of disruptive members of society being kept out of companies, instead of employers refusing to hire good people simply because the very notion of working with a homosexual/republican/whatnot is offensive?

Re:As a business owner

[Pseudonym]

An employer should be able to fire any employee for any reason, even if he doesn't like the way they sneeze. It may not be ethical or moral, but it surely shouldn't be illegal.

If you like working under those conditions, there are plenty of opportunities in the Chinese manufacturing industry.

Re:As a business owner

[aaarrrgggh]

Also as a small business owner, the article is wrong. I can ask you any question I want in an interview. What I cannot do is discriminate against you based on your responses. If I am discriminating, I am screwed. If I simply want to see how people react to the question... it is fair game. Of course, someone could file a claim, and I might need to prove that they were not discriminated against for their response.

From EEOC.gov:

Although state and federal equal opportunity laws do not clearly forbid employers from making pre-employment inquiries that relate to, or disproportionately screen out members based on race, color, sex, national origin, religion, or age, such inquiries may be used as evidence of an employer's intent to discriminate unless the questions asked can be justified by some business purpose.

You don't even need to ask a question to be accused though. Take this as an example:
An admitted alcoholic, seeking treatment, comes into an interview stinking of booze. They tell you they have a drinking problem, and the stress of an interview sent them into a bit of a relapse, but they were headed to their 12-step meeting after the interview. Believe it or not, they are disabled according to ADA, and you can't discriminate against them for that transgression. Don't hire them? They have solid grounds for a suit.

It is a pain when things go wrong, but when you behave in an honest and forthright manner the risks are minimal.

Oh, and we do discriminate in our hiring practices. So does everybody else. It isn't a union hall where first in first out... We try to hire the best person for the job. For one opportunity, that might mean a 35 year old has less of a chance than a 25 year old (legal). For another, we might not be able to hire a non-citizen (Badging requirements which are likely illegal imposed by a defense contractor)-- but if they are qualified for something else we might still give them a shot. An Armenian partner of mine was willing to hire a Turk... anything can happen.

When I ask someone where they are from, it is curiosity. It might not be that way for every interviewer, but give people the benefit of the doubt. Restore some sanity to the process.

Re:As a business owner

[gottabeme]

Sorry, that's a false dichotomy. At-will employment (from both the employer's and employee's perspectives) is the law in many states.

Re:As a business owner

[Jessified]

You know what isn't illegal to ask: "Are you a bigot??"

Seriously, rather than asking the candidates if they ARE a Muslim/Gay/Transgender whatever, how about you ask everyone if they would HAVE A PROBLEM working with such an individual. Don't hire bigots and do fire the bigots. Then you'd have a nice "office culture" or whatever it is you're after.

But yea, punish the person who "sticks out" rather than all the people who irrationally have some sort of bigoted problem. How expedient.

Re:As a business owner

[Jessified]

I can see why hiring is risky for you if you choose to discriminate on prospective employees.

Re:As a business owner

[Khashishi]

Many of the antidiscrimination laws don't apply to businesses with less than 15 employees.

Re:As a business owner

[Vellmont]

  It isn't bigotry to be sensitive to the sensibilities of people who already work for you, and reject a newcomer who'd destroy the existing balance. It is bigotry to yell "BIGOT" when an employer can see that someone won't fit in.

I think you're just trying to defend bigotry by institutionalizing it. If someone can't get along with someone for the sole reason of skin color, then the problem is that person and they need to go. You can call not hiring black people "not upsetting the existing balance" if you like, but nobody is really fooled by that. That's just simple racism. If you're really saying "Gee... I think he wouldn't really fit in" when someone in the company doesn't like someone because of a protected class (sex, national origin, race, religion, and sometimes sexual orientation) you're actually breaking the law. The law doesn't really give a shit about your balance, nor should it.

If you REALLY want to avoid this situation, I'd suggest not hiring Archie Bunker in the first place. It's perfectly legal to discriminate on the basis of douche-baggery. Douche bags can be fired at will. In fact, your company is actually liable for workplace harassment suits if 'old Arch starts harassing people based on a protected class. Don't believe me? Ask Herman Caine about workplace harassment.

Re:As a business owner

[Darinbob]

However a government's responsibility is to provide for a smoothly running society. That is in opposition to the idea that everyone can just do whatever they hell they want. Thus we have regulation because we know that without it people and businesses will take advantage of other citizens and businesses. Just because some regulations are overreaching or badly implemented does not mean that the concept of regulation is bad; and yet this idea that all possible regulations are evil is taking root in some political arenas. It's mostly a way to scare the voters into their camp. Other times people are just so irrationally frightened of the slippery slope that they prefer no laws at all.

So on one hand you have an idiot that refuses to hire someone who goes to the wrong church, which would seem to be allowed due to the general idea of freedom. On the other hand you have a government that needs to keep the economy working smoothly, that needs to represent all segments of society, and that has a legitimate interest in providing for fair workplaces. These two things are in opposition and one has to win out. In this case since we aren't an anarchy the government's interests win out over the interests of the bigot.

Re:As a business owner

[Darinbob]

Not hiring someone based on their religion is actively harming or cheating someone else. What if you were refused to enter a chain of stores merely because the owner does not like people who believe as you do or look like you do or vote like you do? If you have the right to discriminate in hiring then why shouldn't every single store in your town not also have the right to refuse to serve anyone who looks like you? We may all be individuals but we are also members of a community and society, excepting some hermits. And societies, communities, and governments also have the right to say "dude, not cool!"

Re:As a business owner

[Mr. Underbridge]

Regulation and taxes have been increasing for a 100+ years and the economy has boomed exponentially.

Correlation, causation, yada. There are enough confounding variables there that if you try to use that example to PROVE that regulations cause growth, I will be forced to mock you.

Granted, most of the boom in the 2000's was due to UNREGULATED BANKERS

Don't blame the weasel for being a weasel. The boom in the 2000s was due to holding interest rates at a level that can be charitably described as stupid. Kind of like we are now.

Aside from that, whether it be an ugly truth or otherwise, the OP is pretty much right: regulations do place a cost on businesses. Making it a pain in the ass to hire people and fire people, and placing overhead on the costs of employing them, causes a drag on employment. That's not to say the tradeoff isn't worth it - we want good jobs, not crappy jobs - but pretending that tradeoff doesn't exist, because we don't like it, doesn't make it go away. It's government's job to ensure the tradeoff is a favorable one.

Re:As a business owner

[ShakaUVM]

>>The whole point of this is that you don't need to know anything about somebody's family status, sexuality, national origin, and so on in order to get to know somebody beyond the basics.

Reminds me of a friend who was applying for a job at Microsoft. Long story short, this big Russian guy on the interviewer panel starts laughing and asks him if he's gay, as a sort of off the cuff response to something my friend said.

There's a long pause from the panel, and then one of the interviewers says, "Yeah, I think we're going to be hiring you."

Re:As a business owner

[Plunky]

hell, if I was going to hire a science teacher, I'd like to know if they're a creationist.

So you ask them questions about the curriculum they will be teaching. If they cannot display adequate knowledge about it, then don't hire them. If, after you hire them, they refuse to teach the set curriculum to your satisfaction, let them go. You should definitely monitor the classroom way before the examinations, since a bad teacher who is unable to teach the subject is just as bad as one who refuses to teach it. If the students do not pass their exams, you have failed them and they go out into the world with your failures holding them back.

Re:As a business owner

[billcopc]

I get what you're saying, and yes it's true a company does not put all its eggs in one basket (usually). Despite that, a bad economy is bad for everyone who isn't a bankster. Jobs are down, but so is consumption, so most businesses' income is reduced as well. I've certainly noticed the crunch, even though I'm way up in Canada, as many of my clients are U.S. based and have had to scale things back a fair bit.

That said, it is not trivial to replace an employee. Walmart greeters may be easily interchangeable, but developers, engineers, (good) managers, and countless other professionals amass rich business knowledge and history, extremely difficult to transfer to paper; perhaps impossible. There is also the relational element. It takes a while before random strangers become a team. There was this one job where, for the first 3 months I hardly ever saw my own boss. A year later we were tag-teaming almost every contract, once we realized we both complemented and counterpointed each other quite nicely. That's not something you can shove down anyone's throat with training slides.

I dunno, maybe I'm the weird one, but if I'm having a fundamental problem with an employee, or even a boss or client, I discuss it with them - lay out what each party's expectations are, and what can be done to satisfy them. Some cases require more patience than others, and there have been incidents where the mutually agreed resolution was to terminate. I had one guy who was slacking off all the time, and after talking it over, admitted he had strong moral objections with some of our clients (porn sites). I didn't fire him, instead he started freelancing and I handed him a few prude-friendly contracts. Nothing huge, but enough to give him a running start. Why would I give him some of my business ? Because a few years prior, someone else did the same for me and helped to get me established. I'm not trying to preach some "pay it forward" meme, but in business I think you're better off making friends than enemies. I can think of no quicker way to make enemies than by taking away their income over some superficial matter. In today's money-centric reality, that's worse than a dozen punches to the face.

Re:As a business owner

[TheRaven64]

The point of the law isn't to stop people from being bigots. People have the right to be as bigoted as they want as long as it doesn't affect anyone else. The point of these laws is to prevent bigots in a position of power from adversely affecting the lives of others.

These laws are most important when bigots outnumber non-bigots in such positions. When the converse is true, they become self defeating. If most businesses are run by non-bigots then they will be hiring the top people while the ones run by bigots will be stuck with the best from the subset that their bigotry allowed them to hire[1] and so they'd fail. With these laws, bigots get to keep operating successful companies and complain that the evil government stops them from being as successful as they could be if they didn't have to hire competent people.

[1] For fear of invoking Godwin, one of the best examples of this is Nazi Germany. If they hadn't kicked out all of the Jewish physicists then the Second World War would probably have ended quite differently...

Re:As a business owner

[Attila Dimedici]

You know the interesting thing is that when people were allowed to discriminate on the basis of race in hiring and business decisions, black income relative to white income rose faster than it has since the laws outlawing such discrimination were passed. The biggest problems at the time was government mandated discrimination. It was not the bus companies that decided to make blacks sit at the back of the bus, it was laws that forced them to do so. Laws written by the people from the same political party that is now taking credit for getting rid of them (even though it was only because of overwhelming support from the other party that the laws forbidding such practices were passed over objections from those within that party--the majority of whom went on to become major players in that party).
The easiest way to understand what happened is to look at nightclubs. White owned nightclubs only hired white acts and only allowed whites to come in (there may have been exceptions, but that was the case for most of them). However, black owned nightclubs allowed anybody to come in and they hired the best performers regardless of race. As a result, the most popular, and profitable, nightclubs were black owned.

About that facebook thing...

[Catiline]

When the article about the Facebook checking company appeared, I determined in advance what I would say to any prospective employer asking me to grant them access to Facebook:

"Ahem. I do not have any public social networking accounts. If I did, I regret what you are asking would violate their terms of service, and I would have to respond in the negative."

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.

Re:About that facebook thing...

[guspasho]

Furthermore, it's almost certain the prospective employer wants you to agree to certain terms of employment, particularly secrecy if you work in any sort of computer industry these days. If you violated your Facebook terms of use for them, why should they trust you not to violate their terms for someone else?

That was going to be part of my response if I was ever in that situation.

Re:About that facebook thing...

[IBitOBear]

"I would no more disclose the personal information of third parties to you, than I would disclose the information you expect to entrust to me as your employee to a third party. Since, clearly, the material sent to me via social networking would constitute the former, that isn't going to happen. How, since we are on the subject, could you ever trust someone who would turn over sensitive information like an account password to a third party like that? Woudn't you be afraid that they would then give the interviewer at their -next- job interview the password to their accounts you provided for them on -your- computers?"

Re:About that facebook thing...

[bill_mcgonigle]

"Ahem. I do not have any public social networking accounts. If I did, I regret what you are asking would violate their terms of service, and I would have to respond in the negative."

That gets me thinking. Next time I'm interviewing somebody I'll ask that question, and if they don't answer the way you did, I'll end the interview right there, and suggest some security books for them to read.

I've had worse questions...

[Anonymous Coward]

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."

Re:I've had worse questions...

[Anonymous Coward]

See, personally, I would deliberately not hire somebody who carries a concealed weapon. There's a chance they may bring it to work, and that is a bad thing.

If they have a concealed carry permit, they will not bring it to a workplace that does not allow guns. One of the main components of getting the license is knowing where NOT to carry, along with having a very clean criminal record.

Plus those with a concealed carry permit commit a lot less crimes as a group. Why worry about someone who took the time to get licensed and knows appropriate behavior, when someone who says they don't carry might be lying?

Re:I've had worse questions...

[Darinbob]

In the past I've had some people in interviews have their eyes light up when they saw the name of a defense contractor on my resume, and then they asked if I had a clearance or not even though the job being applied for didn't need one. It's just such a major hassle to get an employee with a clearance that they would love to get someone who previously had a clearance as it's simpler. Ie, even if applying for a normal run of the mill job if they see you have a clearance they may try to encourage you towards a different position. At some companies they have a room for all those employees who are waiting for a clearance who just twiddle their thumbs and play solitaire for half a year.

Of course this was a long time ago and rules may have changed since then so I don't know if today they're allowed to base hiring decisions on having had prior clearance.

Full article

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the full article, just because it was split up over 15 pages. 15 pages.

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

Re:Full article

[Anonymous Coward]

Some ways that employers get the answers they want without appearing to do anything illegal:

* age: what year did you graduate?
* race / country of origin: where did you go to school?
* citizenship: have you had or are you able to obtain a security clearance?
* membership in clubs: what activities do you engage in, in your free time?
* family status: what would you costs be to relocate to our new location?

WAS ASKED IF I HAD ANY TATOOS !!

[Anonymous Coward]

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 !!

This actually happened to me

[grasshoppa]

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.

Re:This actually happened to me

[dkleinsc]

See, that's too nice a response. Now, I'll grant you that I've never had to face these kinds of questions, because I'm a fairly young straight white guy who can look reasonably square and business-y when I need to, but I do know people who have, and this is my advice to them.

The correct answer to that question is "So you are aware, that question is illegal under current US employment law." You can then choose whether you want to take a hard line, and follow it up with either "Even though you can't use it in your hiring decisions, I'm mostly of _____ ancestry." or "If you absolutely insist on knowing this information, I see no reason to continue this interview, and will report you to the EEOC."

Re:This actually happened to me

[grasshoppa]

Well, when I established that a) I had heard the question correctly and b) they wanted to know even though I mentioned it was inappropriate and irrelevant, I determined that I didn't want to work for the place. Threatening wouldn't have accomplished anything in my favor, so I classified that as a pointless option.

I could have reported them, I suppose. And probably should have. I just didn't feel it was overly critical; if that's how they want to run their business ( from the looks of it, straight in to the ground ), that's their choice. I ended up finding a smaller employer where my benefits package is far more substantial, so everything worked out in my favor. :)

Re:This actually happened to me

[Tastecicles]

Because it has been the basis for discrimination. Simple answer.

I was passed over for a job because I'm white and English - the company was run by a heirarchy of mostly Muslim men who clearly didn't like the idea of hiring an ICT manager who was not in their club. I sued out of principle, and won (because I covertly recorded the interview, transcribed it and handed the transcription in with my claim, it was open and shut). That company continues to not operate since I demanded and got their client accounts seized by the court. I wasn't interested in the job or the money anymore, what I wanted I got - them stopped from doing business in the UK since they couldn't play by the rules.

Re:This actually happened to me

[bill_mcgonigle]

He insisted, so I thanked him for his time, got up and left.

You are what's right with the world.

As a frequent interviewer and manager ...

[dkleinsc]

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.

Re:As a frequent interviewer and manager ...

[King_TJ]

Absolutely.... but I think most of your points will fall on deaf ears with the small business owner, or the project manager type in "middle management" who is tasked with hiring a person or a few people to form a group he/she is directly in charge of. Why? Because in the former case, there really is a blurring of the lines between professional and personal. The small business owner most likely only got the business off the ground and to the point where another hire is needed by sacrificing a lot of personal or family time to do it. The small business owners I know put in FAR more than 9-5 Mon-Fri type hours, so there's definitely an interest in their office or workplace being as "entertaining" for them as possible. By that, I mean they're probably doing things like bringing in a collection of their favorite music to listen to when they're working late, and there's a good chance they've got their fair share of computer games installed on the company PC too. They do a lot of talking on the phone as well, a good sized chunk of which is personal conversations (needed to keep their sanity under the circumstances!).

So yeah, they're definitely thinking about "is this candidate somebody I can actually enjoy being around, and won't be offended by my humor or political comments, or ??"

In the second case, it's sometimes just a matter of middle managers/project managers not looking at or caring much about the "big picture" of what's best for the company as a whole. They just put in their hours, get their paycheck every other week, and try to placate their superiors. They figure they've got nothing to lose if they select a hire they're more likely to want to hang out with at happy hour after work or whatever.

questions on military background??

[Tastecicles]

"I'm sorry, that information is classified."

Re:questions on military background??

[shutdown -p now]

And a black helicopter is on standby if you persist with further inquiries.

Turning the tables

[Crudely_Indecent]

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!

Re:Turning the tables

[freeze128]

You should have then asked her if she had any tattoos....

Normal Answer:

[nurb432]

"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.

Illegal?

[BlameCanada]

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

Re:Lie

[mark-t]

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.

Family background questioning

[lanner]

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.

Hey, fuck you.

[khasim]

Yes, strictly you don't, but the smaller the company the more important it is to get someone who fits the office culture, and religous, poltical and even sexual orientation can have a massive impact.

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.

Say what?????

[luis_a_espinal]

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.

Re:Say what?????

[lee1026]

I would argue that GDP per capita is more important than unemployment in terms of economic indicators. To see why this is the case, consider the following policy - raise taxes by around 2% GDP and use the money to hire all the unemployed people to dig holes and fill them back in at minimum wage. This will drive unemployment to zero and have a small (and probably negative) impact on GDP. If people truly consider unemployment to be more important than GDP, you would expect for this to be a very popular policy. But it obviously isn't (or else you would hear about serious politicans suggesting it) so people obviously care more about GDP.

Re:Say what?????

[luis_a_espinal]

I would argue that GDP per capita is more important than unemployment in terms of economic indicators. To see why this is the case, consider the following policy - raise taxes by around 2% GDP and use the money to hire all the unemployed people to dig holes and fill them back in at minimum wage. This will drive unemployment to zero and have a small (and probably negative) impact on GDP. If people truly consider unemployment to be more important than GDP, you would expect for this to be a very popular policy. But it obviously isn't (or else you would hear about serious politicans suggesting it) so people obviously care more about GDP.

Exactly. It isn't (which is a shame, for there is nothing in capitalism or free market ideas that would preclude such a policy.)

Also, it's not like we are comparing the American GDP vs, say, the one from my country of origin (Nicaragua, the 2nd poorest country in the Western Hemisphere with an annual $3,185 GDP per capita, 6.6% the US GPD/capita, a whooping 93% differential.) The German per capita GDP is about 78% that of the US, a 22% differential.

Then you have to consider the price of the common basket of goods, and other quality indicators like overall health, health coverage, public transportation and infrastructure, the widespread use of technology (where Japan knocks the shit out of Germany and/or the US for example.)

With those things combined, the GDP/capita difference between the US and Germany is/might not be as significant as it might be. I would argue that having a greater GDP per capita is important only if, say, the difference is half an order of magnitude or more (and/or combined with severe income/social inequality as found in, say, Latin America.)

The reality, a sad reality, is that we are the most powerful and richest country in the world, and yet we are lagging in every indicator (except military might and academic research) compared to other developed countries with smaller GDP per capita and we have the greatest economic disparity of any developed nation. This status quo is unacceptable.

Re:Say what?????

[mbkennel]

I would argue that median income of working age people (including unemployed) is an important measure.

Re:Say what?????

[lee1026]

Hmm, you can ding the US on a lot of things, but I think there is quite a few indicators that we do quite well on. American homes are the largest in the world, the American transportation system allows for people to move large distances both quickly and cheaply. A passenger-mile by private automobile cost around 40 cents in the US, which is far cheaper than any first world public transportation system that comes to mind, especially when you factor in income.

I would argue that America is quite a nice place to live if you like large houses and driving everywhere. In other words, America is extremely well suited to the average American.

Re:Say what?????

[azalin]

Germany has some problems the US doesn't have that you have somehow forgotten to mention. Like demographics - like an ageing and shrinking population. That distorts the labor figures you mentioned, and very dramatically. Ultimately this makes the future look pretty grim for Germany.

One more thing the Germans had to deal with, is having to more or less rebuild former eastern Germany from scratch. This was one very expensive thing to do. There are few economies in the world that wouldn't have been crippled by such a stunt.
The US isn't as bad as it is often portrayed, but sadly also not as good as some would like it to be.

Re:Say what?????

[Alioth]

When we consider German GDP per capita versus US GDP per capita, we must remember that the average German works a 35 hour week and has 6 weeks paid vacation, vs the average American who works a 40 hour week and has only 2 weeks paid vacation. Germans nominally have a 1610 hour work year, vs a 2000 hour work year for the aveage American. 37935/1610 = avg. $23.56 per hour, while the US is only slightly higher per hour, $24.07. I suspect the Germans have a far higher quality of life for their money.

Re:Say what?????

[Dr_Terminus]

I would argue GDP per capita isn't all its cracked up to be in terms of a societal indicator. Yes, the GDP per capita in the US is higher than in Germany, but I would argue that quality of life is much higher in Germany than in the US. Consumers in the US spend a huge amount of money on frivolous things, and waste quite a bit on things like overpaying for healthcare. This article from a few years back gives a good overview of why GDP per capita is quite flawed: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/magazine/16GDP-t.html?pagewanted=all

You think those are bad?

[javascriptjunkie]

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.

Religion

[R3d M3rcury]

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?"

Re:Religion

[OzPeter]

Turns out that the contract position would require travel to Saudi Arabia.

Some middle eastern countries will not even let you in the country if they can see you visited Israel - regardless of your heritage. Which is why Israel will not stamp your passport if you request it.

Re:Fine, don't believe me

[JosephTX]

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?

Inform them of the risk they're taking.

[khasim]

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.

Maybe you need a longer time sample

[unassimilatible]

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?

Re:Maybe you need a longer time sample

[boxxertrumps]

The US has double the landmass and a slightly higher GDP/capita, which is probably because the population is less dense.

Re:Maybe you need a longer time sample

[jasontheking]

every country has a rick santorum. Not every country has a large group of people that tolerate having a rick santorum being a serious contender for president.

Re:Maybe you need a longer time sample

[Concerned Onlooker]

"...which is probably because the population is less dense."

I really doubt that!

Re:Maybe you need a longer time sample

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather live in a place where most people are not the products of public schools.

I'd rather live in a place where most people are not the products of "public is always bad, private is always good" propaganda.

Re:Maybe you need a longer time sample

[guspasho]

And you realize that, if we're going to use your standard, the German state has only existed about 21 years?

It's quite revealing how weak your argument is that you have to cite the overall rate of US economic growth, all the way back to the founding of the republic, to find a standard by which the US is doing (present tense, as in now) better than Germany, never mind that it is a completely specious standard.

I actually thought someone could answer how the US economy is still doing better than Germany *right now*. I guess not.

Re:Maybe you need a longer time sample

[drsmithy]

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.

So it's reasonable to include the effects of the GFC on the USA but not, say, WW1 and WW2 on Germany ?

Re:Maybe you need a longer time sample

[Kentari]

Don't forget 50 years of communist economic mismanagment on quite a large chunck of Germany (and Europe).

Make all the questions legal

[hessian]

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.

Re:Make all the questions legal

[muridae]

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.

So you are white and male? And don't see how these laws are meant to protect you as well as me? My answers to some of those questions would get me lynched in towns near-by, and since they don't affect my ability to perform a job, I'd like to keep the option of working available.

nonsense alert!

[fireylord]

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

Re:nonsense alert!

[Interfacer]

+1.

Heaven forbid that people actually have rights, and a measure of protection against exploitation.
It amuses me that some Americans apparently think it is offensive
a) to have a right to holidays
b) to actually take your holidays
c) to have some measure of protection against termination without cause.

These questions are a waste of valuable time

[enjar]

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.

Of course they do.

[khasim]

What I was trying to say is that employees are people, and people are often unprofessional and discriminatory, and of course naturally get on better with others who share their values.

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.

Re:Of course they do.

[Darinbob]

As a note here, I read in News of the Weird that some meth makers were arrested and one was a white supremacist and the other was a black gang member, but they managed to put that aside in order to work together.

Re:Of course they do.

[azalin]

It gives me a very nice warm feeling, that there is still some hope for humanity, if even drug producing gangsters can get over hate and prejudice and work together for a common goal.
These are the shining examples our shaken world needs!~

Doesn't matter

[koan]

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.

Re:Fine, don't believe me

[demonlapin]

If the government regulations increase the cost of doing business so that the marginal employee is no longer a profitable hire, then yes.

We're hiring for chubby black gay teen porn

[Quila]

But we can't ask about weight, race, sexual orientation or age.

Huh?

Yep, I'm an American

[Just Some Guy]

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.

ignorance about the law

[tverbeek]

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.

Re:How about education level?

[symbolset]

Most of us who did college know how poor a filter it is.

Interviewer - Know your stuff

[Slop121]

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.

Land Mines

[bill_mcgonigle]

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.

Non-compete clause

[tobiah]

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

I answer truthfully, and maybe exaggerate

[A nonymous Coward]

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.

It is NOT illegal

[chrismcb]

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.

Re:Romans?

[Opportunist]

From my memory, it ain't illegal to ask a prez candidate pretty much anything up to and including the color of his undies. Quite seriously, it seems the US are more concerned with the private life of their presidents than their ability to run a country.

Re:Romans?

[TheCarp]

Honestly, I think what we have is a perfect example of why republics are problematic. Sure, on a small level, like say 13 states with a paltry number of people.... they are great.

However, when you make elections about Alice vs Bob, then it just devolves into a popularity contest between them. Religion, and family life come into it...because its about those individuals. I think this is a real strength of parliments in that the parties get elected to seats and then they fill the seats with the people.

I don't see this republic getting back on track really.... its become a really bad joke of a system where you have Moderate conservatives (the democrats) vs the coalition of the batshit crazy religious zealots and ultra rich who love tax breaks for themselves and the cash that they can rake in from government contracts. (any surprise the republicans just passed a budget that slashes more than expected but...still manages to increase military budgets and maintain cushy tax policy that favors their cronies)

I have absolutely no confidence left in the federal government. They jumped the shark a long time ago.