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

[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"

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

[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

[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

[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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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.

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

[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

[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

[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.

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."

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

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 !!

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.

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!

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?????

[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?????

[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.

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: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

[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.

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.

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.