Uncomfortable interview questions

irishgrover

ricksanchez wrote: »

You'll be glad to hear I did get offered it so.

Congrats, and best if luck if you take it....

Irish_Elect_Eng

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.

You are correct "the same argument for perfume, BO or any other smell that might be on a person" is correct. Anyone that comes ill-prepared to an interview stinking of anything will drop down the selection list. Being well prepared for and interview reflects how a person will prepare for their work. So it is a red flag.

Irish_Elect_Eng

BreadnBuddha wrote: »

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.

While BreadnBuddha may be putting his points across in a very blunt way, his points are very valid in many work environments.

Most MNCs have very strong EH&S wellness, healthy eating and smoking cessation programs on which they spend money to help improve the working environment and employee health. Given that there is a vibrant job market at the moment and employers are in the enviable position of having many good candidates for each position, they are highly unlikely to chose employees that are not in alignment with their company policies.

And even if these companies do not overtly discriminate against smokers and indeed obese people, it will certainly have a impact on their chances when competing with an equally capable non-smoker or fit person.

TBH, when it comes to hiring and progression there are so many challenges to overcome to get a job/promotion, competition from colleagues, qualifications, being in the right place at the right time, getting on the right projects, supportive manager, etc. Your personal "Brand" is very much under your control. Being appropriately dressed, reasonably fit, not obese, no very visible tattoos, no noticeable personal substance habits, smoking, drink, drugs, etc. Having a "perceived" problem with one of these can really stunt your opportunities, particularly if your role is customer (Internal or External) facing.

A particularly direct senior manager in a company that I worked for pointed out to me that I needed to lose some weight and dress consistently in a suit if I wanted to move up. He said, look at those that are successful in our company, that is the template here. It was a great company and he was a supportive person, just stating the facts as we work with a varied international team with quite conservative expectations. It was then my choice, play the game or find another team, I chose to play and succeed in that environment, others may have chosen to leave.

Good Luck.

livedadream

irishgrover wrote: »

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...

adding to this point which i have to agree with, it shows a bias.

im a woman and have actually been asked the marriage question
oh your engaged, do you plan on having children soon after marrying..

having a bias be it a concious or unconcious one needs to be addressed this is why people in recruitment or HR get trained in interview technique.

dr.fuzzenstein

Some places hire on professionalism, attitude, dress sense, blue sky thinking, personal hygiene, "fitting in", giving the right performance in an interview and being a "team player". You know, bullsh*t. Some apparently will have a meltdown at the thought of the person smoking and throw all other considerations right out the window. I would smoke a cigarette in front of them purely to annoy them. These people give ex smokers a bad name...

Some employers hire on actual competence and performance. if you wore a suit here to advance yourself, you will most likely be asked if you've been to a funeral, court appearance or a job interview. People advance on skill and performance here. It's that simple.

edit:
I someone asked me my age and if I smoke, fair enough, don't mind too much.

Alun

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Some places hire on professionalism, attitude, dress sense, blue sky thinking, personal hygiene, "fitting in", giving the right performance in an interview and being a "team player". You know, bullsh*t.
<snip>
Some employers hire on actual competence and performance.

Back in the days when I used to assist in the interview process I found I could get a much better feel for whether a candidate would be suitable, not by asking them awkward questions taken directly from "Interview Techniques for Dummies" or trying to play the amateur psychologist, but simply by putting them at their ease and letting them speak. More often than not they'd dig their own holes for themselves and reveal any potential weaknesses more readily than if you'd deliberately put them on edge and on their guard.

After all, you're hiring someone to do a job, not be an expert in interview technique.

dr.fuzzenstein

Alun wrote: »

Back in the days when I used to assist in the interview process I found I could get a much better feel for whether a candidate would be suitable, not by asking them awkward questions taken directly from "Interview Techniques for Dummies" or trying to play the amateur psychologist, but simply by putting them at their ease and letting them speak. More often than not they'd dig their own holes for themselves and reveal any potential weaknesses more readily than if you'd deliberately put them on edge and on their guard.

After all, you're hiring someone to do a job, not be an expert in interview technique.

I guess that's fair enough.
A lot of interviewers are purely trolling though

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zP0sqRMzkwo

Thoie

While employers are perfectly entitled to hire or not hire smokers or non-smokers as they see fit, the question about being willing to quit is just downright weird.

Can you imagine if someone in an interview asked "Do you drink tea? Would you be willing to quit drinking tea if you worked here?" Immediately you'd be thinking "Can I still drink tea at home? Is it just on the premises I can't have tea? What if I'm on my lunch break at the shop across the road - can I drink tea there?"

Saying outright "we don't allow smoking in these areas, and don't allow smoke breaks beyond the legal minimum break requirement" is grand. Asking someone if they're willing to quit is just weird.

pogsick

BreadnBuddha wrote: »

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.

I write as a smoker, I have only ever smoked on my breaks, I would never smoke while working unless it was on an official break.

I have been absent from work a grand total of 4 times in the last 10 years and have never been absent due to illness.

I would hapilly hire a smoker if there seemed able for the job