Uncomfortable interview questions

ricksanchez

So I recently got an interview for a position with a small tech company, I've been unemployed a long time so jumped at it.

I found the person interviewing me to be quite condescending; constantly bringing up my lack of work experience, asking if I wrote my own application (I did, and spent a long time on it) then pointing out what he thought was a grammatical error (he was wrong, I did not correct him.)

More importantly, two of his questions in particular just haven't sat right with me since and I was wondering if anyone could tell me if I'm right to feel that way.

First, after I mentioned my sister in passing, he asked if she was older or younger, I said older and he asked how old I was. He then asked for my date of birth. I'm sure I've heard this is illegal.

Secondly, and the one I have more of a problem with, he asked if I was a smoker. I told him I was and he asked me if, hypothetically, I was offered the job, would I be willing to quit smoking.

Just interested in hearing your thoughts.

livedadream

ricksanchez wrote: »

So I recently got an interview for a position with a small tech company,

First, after I mentioned my sister in passing, he asked if she was older or younger, I said older and he asked how old I was. He then asked for my date of birth. I'm sure I've heard this is illegal.

, he asked if I was a smoker. I told him I was and he asked me if, hypothetically, I was offered the job, would I be willing to quit smoking.

Yes asking your age, religion, marital status etc is not allowed in an interview. HOWEVER he could get away with it by saying you brought up your sister so he was just following the conversation.

The smoker thing I dont get, the only reason I can think is if its a company like the Irish Cancer Society or something but even then its not relevant.

in general i would always advise people to go with their gut, it depends about how you feel about being unemployed if you can wait it out keep searching and you'll get there in the end, if not take the job and keep looking from there

Mrs OBumble

Age - it's illegal to discriminate based on age (once you're over 18). Technically legal to ask for DOB, but many companies don't to it because it could be used against them as evidence of discrimination.

Smoking status, totally legit. If you're being sent it to customer premises, some employers won't want you going in there reeking of smoke (and it happens if you're a smoker). Even if you're working with other staff in a small office the same applies - maybe someone there is sensitive to cigarette smoke.

Heart Break Kid

ricksanchez wrote: »

He then asked for my date of birth. I'm sure I've heard this is illegal.

Its illegal to discriminate or refuse an applicant based on aged so I'd expect most employers to avoid asking for a "date of birth" in general to avoid liability but its not a difficult detail to find out by just asking "can I see some ID to confirm your details?" or they could almost guess.

Asking your age doesn't necessarily mean their taking your age into account though for an application, it could be just another box they have to enter on an interview form. Most likely at some stage during the process an applicant would have to enter this detail.

intheclouds

There is a perception that smokers take more sick days, and they certainly take more breaks to facilitate the habit. So a smoker probably puts in less work. However, some people take more loo breaks, some goof off more on the internet, some do a lot of "running a bit late this morning" or "have to leave early to do something" so its bit short sighted to focus on one particular time wasting activity imo.

ricksanchez

Thanks for the replies everyone.

I don't mind telling anyone my age, but it was definitely irrelevant and I just wanted clarification.

As for the smoking, I completely understand the problem with smelling like smoke when dealing with customers and coworkers, but my issue was more with being offered the job on the condition of quitting.

BreadnBuddha

ricksanchez wrote: »

Thanks for the replies everyone.

I don't mind telling anyone my age, but it was definitely irrelevant and I just wanted clarification.

As for the smoking, I completely understand the problem with smelling like smoke when dealing with customers and coworkers, but my issue was more with being offered the job on the condition of quitting.

All other things being equal, I'd hire a non/ex-smoker over a smoker any day.

I'd ask the question and depending on the role eliminate a candidate based on their answer and expect timely action if I were to give them a chance.

Smokers are a nuisance in the workplace in too many ways.

intheclouds

BreadnBuddha wrote: »

Smokers are a nuisance in the workplace in too many ways.

What ways besides the breaks and smelling of smoke (just curious?)

BreadnBuddha

intheclouds wrote: »

What ways besides the breaks and smelling of smoke (just curious?)

I write as an ex-smoker.

When you smoke regularly, you're only a short step away from taking a smoke break.

Finish a task, grab a coffee and head outside.

Going to a meeting? Quick smoke first then likely another afterwards.

Something running on the machine? Leave it do its thing and go for a smoke.

How many times do co-workers look for information/input/action from the smoker only to find they're 'just gone for a quick smoke'?

How much time and money, never THEIR money, is wasted because of what we all KNOW to be truly DUMB behaviour?

Smokers mental and physical energy levels/capacity are lower. Carbon monoxide levels are higher amongst many other effects on bodyband mind, stripping away the natural performance we're born with.

Smokers ARE more prone to illness, both in terms of '3 day colds' and longer term chronic illness.

Smokers stink. If you're a smoker and you don't believe it, you're wrong and I'm right. It's worse than B.O. or bad breath. It's rotten. Non-smokers suffer in silence, having to share office/workspace with something that smells like a dead rat.

Smokers, those who don't quit, are either stupid and/or weak willed.

Who WANTS to employ or work with someone like that?

Nobody intelligent.

Harsh?

Truth.

eezipc

I've had a few crappy interviews in my time. I think that some people should not be interviewers in asking questions like that.
Age is a no go and it's stupid to ask that. Smoking is dependent on the type of job I suppose but still a bit strange.

intheclouds

BreadnBuddha wrote: »

I write as an ex-smoker.
............
Harsh?

Truth.

Yes, Im an ex smoker too. But I dont agree with any of your post tbh. It just comes across as ranty.

Im not a ranty ex smoker. I really dont mind if other people still choose to smoke.

As far as staff go I have always found the smokers to be a great networked group - because they gather and talk!

Oh and I dont mind the smell of smoke off someone - I dont find it to be like BO or bad breath at all.

ricksanchez

BreadnBuddha wrote: »

I write as an ex-smoker.

Smokers, those who don't quit, are either stupid and/or weak willed.

Who WANTS to employ or work with someone like that?

Nobody intelligent.

Harsh?

Truth.

I'd say you were a lot more pleasant to be around when you smoked.

livedadream

BreadnBuddha wrote: »

I write as an ex-smoker.



Harsh?

Truth.

feel like i should just add that this is your opinion and not truth.

if you are effective at your job and smoke it wont make a difference to an employer.

I write as a recruiter for 5 years and a HR head for more than I care to think about.

BreadnBuddha

intheclouds wrote: »

Yes, Im an ex smoker too. But I dont agree with any of your post tbh. It just comes across as ranty.

Im not a ranty ex smoker. I really dont mind if other people still choose to smoke.

As far as staff go I have always found the smokers to be a great networked group - because they gather and talk!

You don't have to agree.

As far as being a great networked group?

Yes, amongst themselves.

Everyone else, watching them shivering outside in the carpark, trying to shelter their cigarette from the rain just sees a group of smelly idiots.

That's the opposing view. It's also the majority view these days.

intheclouds

BreadnBuddha wrote: »

Everyone else, watching them shivering outside in the carpark, trying to shelter their cigarette from the rain just sees a group of smelly idiots.

That's the opposing view. It's also the majority view these days.

No its just your view. Cant say Ive heard anyone else so vehement about it tbh, most people just dont care.

Do you know it isnt raining 95% of the time? Smokers are out getting a bit of air, a break and a bit of sociability. Nothing wrong with that.

BreadnBuddha

livedadream wrote: »

feel like i should just add that this is your opinion and not truth.

if you are effective at your job and smoke it wont make a difference to an employer.

I write as a recruiter for 5 years and a HR head for more than I care to think about.

I write as somebody who tells recruiters what my requirements are and tells HR to give the offer and contract.

If recruiters and HR don't have an issue with someone being a smoker, so what?

BreadnBuddha

intheclouds wrote: »

No its just your view. Cant say Ive heard anyone else so vehement about it tbh, most people just dont care.

Do you know it isnt raining 95% of the time? Smokers are out getting a bit of air, a break and a bit of sociability. Nothing wrong with that.

We'll agree to disagree.

AlanG

Just remember that is a small company the person interviewing you may find it as uncomfortable as you do being interviewed. They may well be looking back think they should or should not have asked you something the same way you will often come out of an interview wishing you had answered differently.

The question on Date of birth was badly put but almost every interviewer will try to work out your age so they are just being straight. If you did your leaving at 17 to 19 it is easy to work out a persons age to a year or two.
The smoking question could be relevant depending on they type of job. If you are working as a contractor on the smoke free campus of a major IT firm you may need to go 4 or 5 hours without a smoke as it can take 15 mins to walk off campus and through security.

livedadream

BreadnBuddha wrote: »

I write as somebody who tells recruiters what my requirements are and tells HR to give the offer and contract.

If recruiters and HR don't have an issue with someone being a smoker, so what?

and if you told a recruiter that you are only hiring a non smoker they would tell you that you cant make requests like that and to think again...

your requirments should be the best person for the role,

not i want a 6 foot 2" Swedish non smoker with 32-24-34 measurements.

ricksanchez

AlanG wrote: »

Just remember that is a small company the person interviewing you may find it as uncomfortable as you do being interviewed. They may well be looking back think they should or should not have asked you something the same way you will often come out of an interview wishing you had answered differently.

The question on Date of birth was badly put but almost every interviewer will try to work out your age so they are just being straight. If you did your leaving at 17 to 19 it is easy to work out a persons age to a year or two.
The smoking question could be relevant depending on they type of job. If you are working as a contractor on the smoke free campus of a major IT firm you may need to go 4 or 5 hours without a smoke as it can take 15 mins to walk off campus and through security.

Just to hopefully clear up a view things; I was being vague so as not to give away who or what but no, I guarantee you this man has interviewed many people in his time.

And I get your point, but it was not a smoke free campus, nor near one, just a small building located in inner city Dublin, surrounded by shops and takeaways.

You can work out my age very quickly by looking at me, I think. My CV also makes it quite clear, as you said following the LC progression.

webpal

Perhaps they were offering health insurance as a benefit. A smokers premium would be a higher cost to the employer.

Stheno

ricksanchez wrote: »

Thanks for the replies everyone.

I don't mind telling anyone my age, but it was definitely irrelevant and I just wanted clarification.

As for the smoking, I completely understand the problem with smelling like smoke when dealing with customers and coworkers, but my issue was more with being offered the job on the condition of quitting.

livedadream wrote: »

and if you told a recruiter that you are only hiring a non smoker they would tell you that you cant make requests like that and to think again...

your requirments should be the best person for the role,

not i want a 6 foot 2" Swedish non smoker with 32-24-34 measurements.

There's nothing to stop someone having a policy of only hiring non-smokers, it's not illegal to do so.

webpal wrote: »

Perhaps they were offering health insurance as a benefit. A smokers premium would be a higher cost to the employer.

Health insurance is not weighted against smokers in Ireland.

davo10

. I ask applicants if they smoke, I don't employ smokers. Also nothing wrong with asking a person's age, you just can't discriminate against them based on their answer, you can however be discriminatory over their experience. Some small companies have a certain age profile of employees, if all employees are in their forties then a nineteen year old may find it difficult to fit in or vice versa.

To be fair, being "uncomfortible" when being asked what age you are or if you smoke is being a tad precious. There are a lot more uncomfortible things in life.

irishgrover

intheclouds wrote: »

Yes, Im an ex smoker too. But I dont agree with any of your post tbh. It just comes across as ranty.

Im not a ranty ex smoker. I really dont mind if other people still choose to smoke.

As far as staff go I have always found the smokers to be a great networked group - because they gather and talk!

Oh and I dont mind the smell of smoke off someone - I dont find it to be like BO or bad breath at all.

speaking of questionable things that companies do and smoking...
I "may" have been a senior manager for a consultancy firm that placed groups of highly skilled teams in other companies for consultancy type work. When deciding on the makup of teams for clients we "may" have always tried to ensue that one or more of the team was a smoker...
The reason being that the best source of actual information within a company tended to be the smoking shed....
Now we did not actively discriminate again non smokers, but we always tried to ensure we had at least one smoker per group for key client engagements.....

intheclouds

davo10 wrote: »

I ask applicants if they smoke, I don't employ smokers.

It's certainly a useful filter question for job applicants. If I were asked that question in an interview I would know it wasn't a place I'd like to work.

BreadnBuddha

intheclouds wrote: »

It's certainly a useful filter question for job applicants. If I were asked that question in an interview I would know it wasn't a place I'd like to work.

That's a ridiculous position to adopt, particularly if you are a non smoker.

davo10

intheclouds wrote: »

It's certainly a useful filter question for job applicants. If I were asked that question in an interview I would know it wasn't a place I'd like to work.

Strange stance to adopt, you know you wouldn't like to work there because you were asked if you smoked? I suspect a lot of people would prefer not to have to work in close proximity to someone who smokes so would appreciate the question being asked. Horses for courses, if you are that sensitive, God knows how you would cope with other more important issues.

intheclouds

BreadnBuddha wrote: »

That's a ridiculous position to adopt, particularly if you are a non smoker.

Why?

An employer who is concerned if the employees smoke or not doesn't sound like too flexible an employer. Are they going to start being critical of my hairstyle, or perfume next?

And it also sounds like they are worried about the wrong issues regarding employees. It's moronic to discriminate on someone's smoking habits IMO. You hire the best fit for the job and try to get bright creative people on the team who will move the business forward.

I simply know I wouldn't fit into an environment where that's what was important to an employer.

intheclouds

davo10 wrote: »

Strange stance to adopt, you know you wouldn't like to work there because you were asked if you smoked? I suspect a lot of people would prefer not to have to work in close proximity to someone who smokes so would appreciate the question being asked. Horses for courses.

See my other response.

Unless you've got people jammed in on top of each other it wouldn't matter. You could make the same argument for perfume, BO or any other smell that might be on a person. Ultimately if that's what's driving your hiring policy then it's not somewhere I'd want to work.

davo10

intheclouds wrote: »

Why?

An employer who is concerned if the employees smoke or not doesn't sound like too flexible an employer. Are they going to start being critical of my hairstyle, or perfume next?

And it also sounds like they are worried about the wrong issues regarding employees. It's moronic to discriminate on someone's smoking habits IMO. You hire the best fit for the job and try to get bright creative people on the team who will move the business forward.

I simply know I wouldn't fit into an environment where that's what was important to an employer.

The best person for the job is not always the one with the best qualifications. Employers consider the health implications of smoking, possible associated absences and consider the effect it may have on co workers.

irishgrover

BreadnBuddha wrote: »

That's a ridiculous position to adopt, particularly if you are a non smoker.

I politely disagree. Unless for very specific reasons, I would consider such a question to be an unwarranted intrusion into my personal behaviour. It would indicate a level of expectation of access into my personal life that I would find unwarranted. If a company does not want to hire smokers then put it up in the job advert as a requirement or a preference and not an interview question. At least have the professional aptitude not to waste a smoking candidates time...(they probably have much less of it in the long run )
I would consider it similar to questions such as
"I can see you are a overweight - are you lazy"
"I see you have children and are a woman, will you be able to do your job"
..etc...

davo10

intheclouds wrote: »

See my other response.

Unless you've got people jammed in on top of each other it wouldn't matter. You could make the same argument for perfume, BO or any other smell that might be on a person. Ultimately if that's what's driving your hiring policy then it's not somewhere I'd want to work.

That is your right to reject a job offer based on your stance on the question of smoking, I can think of more weighty issues that might effect the decision but if that's your thing, you go with it.

If you turned up for an interview stinking of BO, I wouldn't employ you either, but if your perfume is nice, well that's ok.

intheclouds

davo10 wrote: »

The best person for the job is not always the one with the best qualifications. Employers consider the health implications of smoking, possible associated absences and consider the effect it may have on co workers.

Of course not, where did I say they were? I said the best fit for the job.

Again, you are just compounding why I wouldn't want to work in such a place. Sounds horribly big brother and backward.

People get sick regardless of their smoking habits. Do you also discriminate against women of child bearing age because they might take maternity leave? What about people with type 1 diabetes? Or back problems? Or heart trouble?

irishgrover

davo10 wrote: »

That is your right to reject a job offer based on your stance on the question of smoking, I can think of more weighty issues that might effect the decision but if that's your thing, you go with it.

If you turned up for an interview stinking of BO, I wouldn't employ you either.

In fairness I think you are being disingenuous with your interpretation of the posters response.
If a potential employer asks a personal question that is not directly related to the position being interviewed for, than I would equate it with being at least potentially reflective on the intelligence level or capabilities of the interviewer and as a consequence the organisation as a whole...

intheclouds

davo10 wrote: »

That is your right to reject a job offer based on your stance on the question of smoking, I can think of more weighty issues that might effect the decision but if that's your thing, you go with it.

If you turned up for an interview stinking of BO, I wouldn't employ you either, but if your perfume is nice, well that's ok.

Its the judgement on an aspect of my personal life that is the problem. It has no place in a professional environment.

Do you also not employ fat people?

davo10

intheclouds wrote: »

Of course not, where did I say they were? I said the best fit for the job.

Again, you are just compounding why I wouldn't want to work in such a place. Sounds horribly big brother and backward.

People get sick regardless of their smoking habits. Do you also discriminate against women of child bearing age because they might take maternity leave? What about people with type 1 diabetes? Or back problems? Or heart trouble?

The employer decides who is the best fit for the job based on their on criteria, smoking is one of mine. Smokers are more likely to suffer from chest problems and are more prone to illness. The other illnesses you list are not due to social choices though diabetes can be linked to diet. It would be illegal to discriminate due to disability or pregnancy, it is not illegal to discriminate due to smoking.

BreadnBuddha

intheclouds wrote: »

Why?

An employer who is concerned if the employees smoke or not doesn't sound like too flexible an employer. Are they going to start being critical of my hairstyle, or perfume next?

And it also sounds like they are worried about the wrong issues regarding employees. It's moronic to discriminate on someone's smoking habits IMO. You hire the best fit for the job and try to get bright creative people on the team who will move the business forward.

I simply know I wouldn't fit into an environment where that's what was important to an employer.

You might not fit.

Also, 'bright' is subjective.

Someone who judges the potential of an employer on whether or not they care if their employees make an intelligent decision to not smoke cuts both ways.

I'd find it an encouraging. As would many.

Smokers, you're second rate employees in everyones minds but your own and those who make excuses for your crappy decision-making.

Seriously, if someone is stupid enough to keep smoking despite the known grave consequences, you're too stupid for me to want to hire you or work with you.

It's that clear cut. I'm not alone in thinking that, even if few will be as blunt in sharing their thoughts. If you look at a room full of well educated and high achieving employees, few will smoke, even if they did previously.

Any forward thinking employer looking to make a long term hire will save themselves by sorting the wheat from the chaff at the start.

They're perfectly entitled to do so. Smokers are not a protected species. They're a species in decline, slowly excluding themselves through their own dumbassed decisions.

davo10

intheclouds wrote: »

Its the judgement on an aspect of my personal life that is the problem. It has no place in a professional environment.

Do you also not employ fat people?

I have no interest in employees personal choices as long as it does not impact on their ability to do their job or on their colleagues. Smoking can effect both.

intheclouds

davo10 wrote: »

The employer decides who is the best fit for the job based on their on criteria, smoking is one of mine. Smokers are more likely to suffer from chest problems and are more prone to illness. The other illnesses you list are not due to social choices though diabetes can be linked to diet. It would be illegal to discriminate due to disability or pregnancy, it is not illegal to discriminate due to smoking.

Everything you say just compounds why I wouldn't want to work in such an organisation.

My social choices are no business of my employer.

intheclouds

BreadnBuddha wrote: »

You might not fit.

Also, 'bright' is subjective.

Someone who judges the potential of an employer on whether or not they care if their employees make an intelligent decision to not smoke cuts both ways.

I'd find it an encouraging. As would many.

Smokers, you're second rate employees in everyones minds but your own and those who make excuses for your crappy decision-making.

Seriously, if someone is stupid enough to keep smoking despite the known grave consequences, you're too stupid for me to want to hire you or work with you.

It's that clear cut. I'm not alone in thinking that, even if few will be as blunt in sharing their thoughts. If you look at a room full of well educated and high achieving employees, few will smoke, even if they did previously.

Any forward thinking employer looking to make a long term hire will save themselves by sorting the wheat from the chaff at the start.

They're perfectly entitled to do so. Smokers are not a protected species. They're a species in decline, slowly excluding themselves through their own dumbassed decisions.

Well this is just ranty ex smoker stuff and not reflective of reality.

intheclouds

davo10 wrote: »

I have no interest in employees personal choices as long as it does not impact on their ability to do their job or on their colleagues. Smoking can effect both.

Great, so my neck tattoo isn't a problem then?

davo10

intheclouds wrote: »

Everything you say just compounds why I wouldn't want to work in such an organisation.

My social choices are no business of my employer.

Obviously they are important to some employers, you won't work for them but they wouldn't offer you a job so no harm done.

BreadnBuddha

intheclouds wrote: »

Of course not, where did I say they were? I said the best fit for the job.

Again, you are just compounding why I wouldn't want to work in such a place. Sounds horribly big brother and backward.

People get sick regardless of their smoking habits. Do you also discriminate against women of child bearing age because they might take maternity leave? What about people with type 1 diabetes? Or back problems? Or heart trouble?

More ridiculous drivel from someone who IS intelligent. Why are you overreaching here, trying to associate gender based or irrelevant medical conditions with someones decision to keep doing something pretty bloody stupid?

davo10

intheclouds wrote: »

Great, so my neck tattoo isn't a problem then?

For some jobs a neck tattoo isn't an issue but surely you understand that for some jobs a neck tattoo would be a big issue.

intheclouds

davo10 wrote: »

Obviously they are important to some employers, you won't work for them but they wouldn't offer you a job so no harm done.

Why wouldn't they? I don't smoke.

Course I could always take it back up AFTER I'd accepted the job.

Or indeed lie about it if I did. If someone is moronic enough to ask that in an interview they can surely expect some people to lie about it and then inflict their dirty smells on the other staff they're jammed in on top of?

irishgrover

BreadnBuddha wrote: »

You might not fit.

Also, 'bright' is subjective.

Someone who judges the potential of an employer on whether or not they care if their employees make an intelligent decision to not smoke cuts both ways.

I'd find it an encouraging. As would many.

Smokers, you're second rate employees in everyones minds but your own and those who make excuses for your crappy decision-making.

Seriously, if someone is stupid enough to keep smoking despite the known grave consequences, you're too stupid for me to want to hire you or work with you.

It's that clear cut. I'm not alone in thinking that, even if few will be as blunt in sharing their thoughts. If you look at a room full of well educated and high achieving employees, few will smoke, even if they did previously.

Any forward thinking employer looking to make a long term hire will save themselves by sorting the wheat from the chaff at the start.

They're perfectly entitled to do so. Smokers are not a protected species. They're a species in decline, slowly excluding themselves through their own dumbassed decisions.

With as much respect as I can muster, your aggressive dismissive obnoxious and plain ridiculous attitude is much more off putting than any odor that you may have emitted prior to you stopping smoking....
I honestly find it very hard to believe that you have any experience or knowledge of the hiring process or how to do it, in any meaningful way....

BreadnBuddha

intheclouds wrote: »

Well this is just ranty ex smoker stuff and not reflective of reality.

Nonsense. Calling it ranty ex smoker stuff is dismissing the point rather than rebutting it because you can't do the latter. The points stand.

davo10

intheclouds wrote: »

Why wouldn't they? I don't smoke.

Course I could always take it back up AFTER I'd accepted the job.

Or indeed lie about it if I did. If someone is moronic enough to ask that in an interview they can surely expect some people to lie about it and then inflict their dirty smells on the other staff they're jammed in on top of?

Probationary period.

ted1

intheclouds wrote: »

No its just your view. Cant say Ive heard anyone else so vehement about it tbh, most people just dont care.

Do you know it isnt raining 95% of the time? Smokers are out getting a bit of air, a break and a bit of sociability. Nothing wrong with that.

There not paid to socialise or take frequent breaks

Stheno

Mod: enough guys, get back on topic, and try and keep it a bit more civil.

Any more and warnings will be dished out.

irishgrover

@OP
- nothing legally wrong with the question, however,
if the interviewer did not indicate a particular reason, or give additional context as to why they were asking the specific question on smoking, and your willingness or otherwise to quit.... I would take it as an potential indicator that they were an opinionated, narrow minded, polarizing control freak, that could not see past their own narrow mindedness and would potential seek to exert influence on other aspects of your personal life that were none of their business...