Attending interview on crutches?

muddled1

I work in the public sector as a Clerical Officer (grade III) and am currently on sick leave (and crutches) due to mobility issues. In a few weeks time I will be interviewing for a grade IV position. I will still need a mobility aid (may get by on one crutch, or at best a walking stick). Anyone have any insight as to whether showing up with walking aids will go against me? I know it shouldn't, but at the same time I am realistic about the public sector and know there could be issues, though not sure if I am being overly-paranoid. I am also an older worker, so the two factors combined makes me wonder. I hope to be well prepared for questions

amdublin

If you need them you need them??

Will it affect you doing the job? If not then no, the walking aids won't matter

Why are you off sick? Maybe that will affect though

micks_address

muddled1 wrote: »

I work in the public sector as a Clerical Officer (grade III) and am currently on sick leave (and crutches) due to mobility issues. In a few weeks time I will be interviewing for a grade IV position. I will still need a mobility aid (may get by on one crutch, or at best a walking stick). Anyone have any insight as to whether showing up with walking aids will go against me? I know it shouldn't, but at the same time I am realistic about the public sector and know there could be issues, though not sure if I am being overly-paranoid. I am also an older worker, so the two factors combined makes me wonder. I hope to be well prepared for questions

I'd say turning up on crutches if anything will show how much you want the job. Wouldn't worry me at all

zapper55

The crutch on its on wouldn't be an issue for the interview.

But if you are well enough to go to an interview are you not well enough to go to work? I'd imagine your hr dept or manager would take a very dim view of it and it could jeopardise your current position.

Wildly Boaring

Will you be back to work at that stage?
If so cannot see it affecting.

muddled1

Wildly Boaring wrote: »

Will you be back to work at that stage?
If so cannot see it affecting.

No, GP keeping me off work until New Year.

AndrewJRenko

Public bodies are generally better about employing people with disabilities than other employers. It may well depend on how well trained your particular interviewers are, but in general, it shouldn't be an issue, assuming it doesn't impact your ability to do the job.

There may even be an opportunity for you to stand out against other candidates, and be memorable. Have a clear story ready to show that it won't impact your ability to do the job.

muddled1

Wildly Boaring wrote: »

Will you be back to work at that stage?
If so cannot see it affecting.

I have issues with both of my feet and am at greater risk of a fall; I need to keep off my feet up as much as possible. Also my work location is on an upper floor and the lift is out of service for the forseeable. Ironically I work in the health service.

Wildly Boaring

Ok if I were interviewing i would worry more about the need for time off and the extra stress that a promotion may put on you.

My advice is to have a comprehensive detailed answer on this to give them comfort. They'll want to be fair to you and the other interviewees.

muddled1

zapper55 wrote: »

The crutch on its on wouldn't be an issue for the interview.

But if you are well enough to go to an interview are you not well enough to go to work? I'd imagine your hr dept or manager would take a very dim view of it and it could jeopardise your current position.

I disagree with your rationale; everyone who is off sick for work isn't neccesarily at death's door. I am medically unfit to attend work at this time. I am not out partying or bungy-jumping while I am off. I have my feet up and get up to use the toilet or eat. Also I cannot keep my feet up while at work, or even get to my office on the first floor as the lift has been taken out of service for the forseeable.

There have been very few opportunities for advancement for the lower grades in the health service/public sector in the past 10 years. If I do not attend this interview I blow ANY chance at working at a higher grade which I am quite capable of. Also, I am hoping with the time off my mobility will improve (GP hopes it will too).

AndrewJRenko

Wildly Boaring wrote: »

the extra stress that a promotion may put on you.

What has stress got to do with a mobility issue?

Teyla Emmagan

I can't see how this would be held against you. But I would ring ahead to say you have mobility issues at present i.e. you will need the interview room to be inside the door and not miles away as you will be on crutches. Shows more forethought than saying nothing. No one is going to want their interviewee falling over on them because they unnecessarily marched them through the building.

Rikand

If nothing else it will be a great conversation opener for the interview

Wildly Boaring

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

What has stress got to do with a mobility issue?

I don't know. I'm no medical expert. I hire and fire plenty people.

I'd want comfort prior to offering a promotion.

You cannot work right now but are ok to promote and fill a more vital/critical role.

Added stress could tire them more in their role and hence impact mobility

Wildly Boaring

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

I can't see how this would be held against you. But I would ring ahead to say you have mobility issues at present i.e. you will need the interview room to be inside the door and not miles away as you will be on crutches. Shows more forethought than saying nothing. No one is going to want their interviewee falling over on them because they unnecessarily marched them through the building.

Nice. Shows forward planning and initiative.

muddled1

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

I can't see how this would be held against you. But I would ring ahead to say you have mobility issues at present i.e. you will need the interview room to be inside the door and not miles away as you will be on crutches. Shows more forethought than saying nothing. No one is going to want their interviewee falling over on them because they unnecessarily marched them through the building.

Great points!! Thanks:D

Wildly Boaring

Wildly Boaring wrote: »

I don't know. I'm no medical expert. I hire and fire plenty people.

I'd want comfort prior to offering a promotion.

You cannot work right now but are ok to promote and fill a more vital/critical role.

Added stress could tire them more in their role and hence impact mobility

And I really mean it more in the time off factor than the mobility itself.

AndrewJRenko

Rikand wrote: »

If nothing else it will be a great conversation opener for the interview

Yes and No.


If an interviewer opens with 'What's wrong with ya' or similar, it is a good indication that they haven't been trained on diversity in recruitment. A trained interviewer with not mention crutches or any other devices, unless they are directly relevant to doing the job. They won't want to be accused of discriminating against you on grounds of your disability.

muddled1

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yes and No.


If an interviewer opens with 'What's wrong with ya' or similar, it is a good indication that they haven't been trained on diversity in recruitment. A trained interviewer with not mention crutches or any other devices, unless they are directly relevant to doing the job. They won't want to be accused of discriminating against you on grounds of your disability.

Excellent point.

I've also had a read of this so am hoping it won't be an issue if the interviewers are doing their jobs correctly. It also may be of assistance to others:
https://www.hse.ie/eng/staff/resources/employment-legislation-guidelines/guidelines%20on%20employment%20of%20people%20with%20disabilities.pdf

One eyed Jack

muddled1 wrote: »

I am also an older worker, so the two factors combined makes me wonder. I hope to be well prepared for questions

There’s no way of knowing what way it could be perceived by your interviewers to be honest. Of course we all like to think employers are equal employers and so on, but individuals can be funny like that. I was previously having to be dependent upon crutches for a long time and 20 years ago, my employers wouldn’t let me inside the building for insurance reasons. I suppose I could see where they were coming from at the time because from their perspective, I was far more a liability than an asset - they didn’t know I wouldn’t sue if I had a slip, trip or fall, some kind of an accident in work, as they figured it was more likely to happen when I was on crutches.

My current employers (private sector again), after I recently had a hip replacement couldn’t have been more accommodating. I explained to them before the operation that I’d go off my game sitting at home, and they were more concerned about how soon I could come back to work They were nervous alright about me shifting around the office on crutches because they’re a mix of carpets in the offices and linoleum in the breakout room (coffee spills could be a potential slipping hazard), but they didn’t have an issue with me being on crutches per se. They were just wary about whether or not I might be doing the right thing in coming back to work so early after having the operation done, and I had to reassure them that I was mobile enough to be able to get around unassisted by anyone else and didn’t need to be chaperoned.

I’d spent 20 years on and off crutches but have been with my employer for only the last two of those years so they weren’t to know any better. I heard no end of stories though about their relatives ailments and hip replacements and concern for my welfare as regards how did I feel after having the operation done. As another poster said if nothing else it’s a conversation starter, as practically everyone had a story about someone they knew who either had a hip replacement (they were much older than I was) and was now more mobile than ever!

Whatever you do, I suppose what I’m saying is try and reassure your interviewers (without going OTT :pac:) and have them focus on all the positive benefits to employing you. Put them in the frame of mind that your current predicament is not a predicament at all as as regards the benefits you are uniquely positioned to bring to the role. They may well be able to relate to your current circumstances and may not see what you see as potential issues with your employment in the same way as you currently do.

AndrewJRenko

Wildly Boaring wrote: »

I don't know. I'm no medical expert. I hire and fire plenty people.

I'd want comfort prior to offering a promotion.

You cannot work right now but are ok to promote and fill a more vital/critical role.

Added stress could tire them more in their role and hence impact mobility

Wildly Boaring wrote: »

And I really mean it more in the time off factor than the mobility itself.

With all due respect, if you're no medical expert, why do you assume a connection between a physical disability and psychological stress? The stress of a new role could tire any employee, and impact their ability to do work. If you were to ask questions that indicated that you assumed a connection between stress and physical ability for one candidate only, you would be exposing your company to a discrimination claim.


If you have any medical concerns about the ability of employee to do the job, you need to get a medical assessment by a medical expert, like an occupational health doctor. Any conclusions made by a non-expert interview would be very suspect.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Whatever you do, I suppose what I’m saying is try and reassure your interviewers (without going OTT :pac:) and have them focus on all the positive benefits to employing you. Put them in the frame of mind that your current predicament is not a predicament at all as as regards the benefits you are uniquely positioned to bring to the role. They may well be able to relate to your current circumstances and may not see what you see as potential issues with your employment in the same way as you currently do.

That's one possible approach, and it has its merits. It also has its risks - you could be talking yourself OUT of a job, as often happens at interview. If you have good interviewees who are focused on your ability to do the job, you don't have to mention your crutches and neither will they.


The interview panel should not know anything about your sick leave, so I would avoid bringing that up at all. It may come up with HR when they come to check references from your current manager, but wait till after interview to deal with that.

Wildly Boaring

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

With all due respect, if you're no medical expert, why do you assume a connection between a physical disability and psychological stress? The stress of a new role could tire any employee, and impact their ability to do work. If you were to ask questions that indicated that you assumed a connection between stress and physical ability for one candidate only, you would be exposing your company to a discrimination claim.


If you have any medical concerns about the ability of employee to do the job, you need to get a medical assessment by a medical expert, like an occupational health doctor. Any conclusions made by a non-expert interview would be very suspect.



That's one possible approach, and it has its merits. It also has its risks - you could be talking yourself OUT of a job, as often happens at interview. If you have good interviewees who are focused on your ability to do the job, you don't have to mention your crutches and neither will they.


The interview panel should not know anything about your sick leave, so I would avoid bringing that up at all. It may come up with HR when they come to check references from your current manager, but wait till after interview to deal with that.

Only giving my opinion.
I wouldn't ask any such questions.
I'm no idiot

But if someone is off sick for a couple months and does not come to interview and give me comfort that they'll be fine to come in to work and do their job, I'll just find someone else to do it.

You seem to think an interview panel is some type of all knowing HR enthused group.

You don't live in the real world so

Wildly Boaring

Again the crutches wouldn't bother me.
Or any mobility issues.

Just the fairly long time off for illness.

One eyed Jack

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's one possible approach, and it has its merits. It also has its risks - you could be talking yourself OUT of a job, as often happens at interview. If you have good interviewees who are focused on your ability to do the job, you don't have to mention your crutches and neither will they.

You make a valid point in fairness, as it could go either way, but from my own experience of conducting interviews, I personally anyway wouldn’t leave that elephant in the room. If someone were to walk into an interview on crutches, the first question I’d ask is what happened to them! The crutches while they may be unusual, aren’t invisible, and they aren’t a characteristic of a person. I’m making that point because you mentioned in an earlier post about diversity training, and then in the above post you talked about how being focused on the interviewees ability to do the job makes them a good interviewer.

I would be of the complete opposite opinion. The first and foremost thing to keep in mind from my perspective is that you’re dealing with people, and the interviewer wants to hire you, or they wouldn’t have wasted their time calling you for interview in the first place, you’d have gotten a rejection letter/email/no feedback at all. There are different styles of conducting interviews and I have always taken the more informal approach as I’m interested in building a rapport with the person, not just for their comfort, but also for my own, and it makes for a better interview when people feel more confident and at ease in talking about themselves.

Their ability to do the job isn’t the only criteria I’m looking for. I’m working on the basis that every single candidate selected for interview is there because it’s already been established from their resumé that they have the ability to do the job. I’ve always used interviews as a way to find out more about the individual as a person, and I’m assessing whether or not they would be a good fit for the team, what they could contribute to the team and to the company as a whole - you’re probably familiar with the modern phrase “company culture”, that’s exactly what I’m looking for in any candidate - I’m looking for a lot more than simply the fact they have the ability to do the job. Every candidate has that. What differentiates them is their character, and in that sense, that’s why I suggested to the OP that what they may see as their predicament, may not be seen the same way as they do by a potential employer at all. At no time for example did any interview candidate know I had to get around on crutches, because I was sitting down during the interview, but if the OP in their current mindset were to walk in and hope I would ignore the crutches, they would be anxious to draw attention away from the crutches where from my perspective interviewing them, it’s absolutely not necessary and would come across to me at least as their being avoidant. Avoiding something is never a good way to build a rapport, and I wouldn’t hire a person if I felt they couldn’t be trusted. That would have nothing to do with a candidates ‘disability’ (and I’ve got a shedload of ‘invisible disabilities’ ), it has everything to do with their character.

muddled1

Wildly Boaring wrote: »

Only giving my opinion.
I wouldn't ask any such questions.
I'm no idiot

But if someone is off sick for a couple months and does not come to interview and give me comfort that they'll be fine to come in to work and do their job, I'll just find someone else to do it.

You seem to think an interview panel is some type of all knowing HR enthused group.

You don't live in the real world so

The HSE is a very large organisation; unless my line manager is on the interview panel (which is possible) there's no reason for anyone on the panel to know that I am signed off as medically unfit to work. I could just be a "disabled" (in some respects, and I mean that with respect) staff member that wants to work at a higher level. I am hoping the mobility will improve so I can return to work (sooner rather than later) either way. Thankfully the public sector is obligated to hire, retain and promote people with disabilities (though I can't vouch for it) though I have a colleague in another office in the HSE who is permanently in a wheelchair. If I am reading your posts correctly it seems much easier to show a disabled person the door in the private sector?

Wildly Boaring

muddled1 wrote: »

The HSE is a very large organisation; unless my line manager is on the interview panel (which is possible) there's no reason for anyone on the panel to know that I am signed off as medically unfit to work. I could just be a "disabled" (in some respects, and I mean that with respect) staff member that wants to work at a higher level. I am hoping the mobility will improve so I can return to work (sooner rather than later) either way. Thankfully the public sector is obligated to hire, retain and promote people with disabilities (though I can't vouch for it) though I have a colleague in another office in the HSE who is permanently in a wheelchair. If I am reading your posts correctly it seems much easier to show a disabled person the door in the private sector?

Jeez no I'd never ever sack a disabled person.
Best guy I have right now is deaf.
I'd never not promote due to a disability.

No my point is the illness.
I would not promote someone who was off for 2 or 3 months unless full sure they are ok to do the job going forward.

Illness means that they are not doing the job for that period and I've to find and train a replacement. Why promote them when I could promote a better candidate.

amdublin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You make a valid point in fairness, as it could go either way, but from my own experience of conducting interviews, I personally anyway wouldn’t leave that elephant in the room. If someone were to walk into an interview on crutches, the first question I’d ask is what happened to them! The crutches while they may be unusual, aren’t invisible, and they aren’t a characteristic of a person. I’m making that point because you mentioned in an earlier post about diversity training, and then in the above post you talked about how being focused on the interviewees ability to do the job makes them a good interviewer.

Are you for real? It's none of your business "what happened them
What if they tell you they had polio as a child. What do you say then?? Or a tumour in their bone and one of their legs was amputated?

Would you ask someone in a wheelchair what happened them? Or a deaf person "so what happened you, why are you deaf?"

One eyed Jack

amdublin wrote: »

Are you for real? It's none of your business "what happened them
What if they tell you they had polio as a child. What do you say then?? Or a tumour in their bone and one of their legs was amputated?

Would you ask someone in a wheelchair what happened them? Or a deaf person "so what happened you, why are you deaf?"

I’m very much for real. In your opinion it’s none of my business. In my opinion, it is. Who’s opinion do you think I’m more likely to lend more weight to? I’ll give you a hint - it’s not yours.

And to answer your second question - yes I would, and I have done. Many, many, many times. It helps to accommodate people who have what other people may perceive to be disabilities. I don’t tend to perceive people by what they can’t do, and certainly in interviews I’m interested in their potential as to what they could do.

Employers, like employees, are generally not mindless, policy driven automatons either... although in the public sector...


*hobbles away* :pac:

muddled1

While going to a higher grade is a promotion, this is a national competition. Should I be successful I could be offered an assignment in another area or public sector body. I see this as an opportunity to show my capacity to work at a higher level than what I have been, regardless of what the assignment is. It may be splitting hairs, but I don't view this as me asking for a promotion; this isn't how the public sector operates (for some of us great unwashed).

So after all the opinions, I'm going to the interview. If I can get by on one crutch just for this, I may just do that. I have to believe I will get better and go back to work, whether it at the very bottom rung of the ladder or one wrung up.

amdublin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m very much for real. In your opinion it’s none of my business. In my opinion, it is. Who’s opinion do you think I’m more likely to lend more weight to? I’ll give you a hint - it’s not yours.

And to answer your second question - yes I would, and I have done. Many, many, many times. It helps to accommodate people who have what other people may perceive to be disabilities. I don’t tend to perceive people by what they can’t do, and certainly in interviews I’m interested in their potential as to what they could do.

Employers, like employees, are generally not mindless, policy driven automatons either... although in the public sector...


*hobbles away* :pac:

Umm. There are correct HR forums about finding out if people need accommodation or not.

And it's certainly not asking someone "what happened you" in the interview
Hello, I see you have burn scars all over your face and arm, what happened you?
Hello, what happened you that you a limp?
Hello, what happened you that you're in a wheelchair?
Hello, what's with the sling on your arm, what happened you?

Seriously??? If someone asked me about my gammy eye and what happened me in an interview I'd be making a complaint that I was not treated equally/fairly to other candidates

One eyed Jack

amdublin wrote: »

Umm. There are correct HR forums about finding out if people need accommodation or not.

And it's certainly not asking someone "what happened you" in the interview
Hello, I see you have burn scars all over your face and arm, what happened you?
Hello, what happened you that you a limp?
Hello, what happened you that you're in a wheelchair?
Hello, what's with the sling on your arm, what happened you?

Seriously??? If someone asked me about my gammy eye and what happened me in an interview I'd be making a complaint that I was not treated equally/fairly to other candidates

I’ve been asked about my gammy eye, and my limp, and a multitude of other things that have never fazed me at interviews. You’re telling me what you would do if I asked you about something, and making a complaint that you weren’t treated equally or fairly to all the other candidates. If the candidate sitting next to you is me, then you would lose the grounds upon which you were making that complaint.

AndrewJRenko

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’ve been asked about my gammy eye, and my limp, and a multitude of other things that have never fazed me at interviews. You’re telling me what you would do if I asked you about something, and making a complaint that you weren’t treated equally or fairly to all the other candidates. If the candidate sitting next to you is me, then you would lose the grounds upon which you were making that complaint.

The fact that you've been asked about your disabilities in the past does not make it a good idea and certainly does not make it good HR practice. We used to advertise posts for 'girls' or for 'young people' or for 'men', even though these had nothing to do with the requirements of the job.


If you ask any candidate about anything to do with their disability that is not directly related to the job, you are exposing your employer to the costs of a discrimination claim at the Workplace Relations Commission. Your simplistic suggestion about other candidates is not stood up by precedents set at the Workplace Relations Commission.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m very much for real. In your opinion it’s none of my business. In my opinion, it is. Who’s opinion do you think I’m more likely to lend more weight to? I’ll give you a hint - it’s not yours.

And to answer your second question - yes I would, and I have done. Many, many, many times. It helps to accommodate people who have what other people may perceive to be disabilities. I don’t tend to perceive people by what they can’t do, and certainly in interviews I’m interested in their potential as to what they could do.

Employers, like employees, are generally not mindless, policy driven automatons either... although in the public sector...

The 'What's wrong with you' question is pointless, insulting and demeaning.



Here's a typical view from a person with a disability:
https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/nov/15/seven-things-you-should-stop-saying-doing-to-disabled-people

3. Don’t ask what my disabilities are

I wish people would stop asking what my disabilities are. It’s an intrusive and unnecessary question; you only need to know what my access needs are, not why I have those needs. You wouldn’t ask a non-disabled person to give details about their medical history, so why should it be different for me? If I want you to know, I’ll tell you.
Alice Kirby, 26, Sheffield
twitter.com/alice__kirby

And here's an academic paper looking deeper into the issue;


https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277953602005117


It is pointless because you don't have the qualification to interpret the results. Let's say you ask the question and are told that the interviewee has cerebral palsy, or post-polio syndrome - so what? What are you going to do with this information? What does a name or label of a condition mean to a non-expert? How does this help you to interpret the employee's ability to do the job?


It doesn't - it is just nosy prurience. Unfortunately, it's not that unusual. Every person with any form of disability that goes on the Late Late show or many other RTE shows gets a polite variation of the 'What's wrong with you' question in the first 1 or 2 minutes of the interview. Check out Friday night's interview with a young lady with sight loss. Why does this happen? Because of institutionalised nosiness towards disability matters. People feel entitled to ask 'what's wrong with you', even though the answer isn't relevant to the situation, and even if it was relevant, they don't have the qualifications to interpret the answer.



BTW, the HR 'automatons' that you want to insult are the ones who don't get their employers brought to the Workplace Relations Commission on discrimination claims. They apply fair processes to all candidates, and they aren't nosey. You could take a leaf out of their book.

AndrewJRenko

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Their ability to do the job isn’t the only criteria I’m looking for. I’m working on the basis that every single candidate selected for interview is there because it’s already been established from their resumé that they have the ability to do the job. I’ve always used interviews as a way to find out more about the individual as a person, and I’m assessing whether or not they would be a good fit for the team, what they could contribute to the team and to the company as a whole - you’re probably familiar with the modern phrase “company culture”, that’s exactly what I’m looking for in any candidate - I’m looking for a lot more than simply the fact they have the ability to do the job. Every candidate has that. What differentiates them is their character, and in that sense, that’s why I suggested to the OP that what they may see as their predicament, may not be seen the same way as they do by a potential employer at all. At no time for example did any interview candidate know I had to get around on crutches, because I was sitting down during the interview, but if the OP in their current mindset were to walk in and hope I would ignore the crutches, they would be anxious to draw attention away from the crutches where from my perspective interviewing them, it’s absolutely not necessary and would come across to me at least as their being avoidant. Avoiding something is never a good way to build a rapport, and I wouldn’t hire a person if I felt they couldn’t be trusted. That would have nothing to do with a candidates ‘disability’ (and I’ve got a shedload of ‘invisible disabilities’ ), it has everything to do with their character.

What you're doing here, whether you realise it or not, is recruiting people like you.


http://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/article-details/the-dangers-of-recruiting-for-cultural-fit



Smarter organisations are recognising the strength of recruiting for diversity.

One eyed Jack

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The fact that you've been asked about your disabilities in the past does not make it a good idea and certainly does not make it good HR practice. We used to advertise posts for 'girls' or for 'young people' or for 'men', even though these had nothing to do with the requirements of the job.

And now there are moves by Government to allow Universities to advertise roles for women only.

If you ask any candidate about anything to do with their disability that is not directly related to the job, you are exposing your employer to the costs of a discrimination claim at the Workplace Relations Commission. Your simplistic suggestion about other candidates is not stood up by precedents set at the Workplace Relations Commission.

I wouldn’t ask any candidate about their disabilities if it wasn’t directly related to the role advertised.

The 'What's wrong with you' question is pointless, insulting and demeaning.

It is, but that was amdublin putting words in my mouth. I would ask what happened to a person if they arrived for interview on crutches. It’s not pointless, but it can be taken as insulting and demeaning by the candidate. However it is never intended that way and I have never perceived it to be intended that way when asked.

Here's a typical view from a person with a disability:
https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/nov/15/seven-things-you-should-stop-saying-doing-to-disabled-people

[/U]

And here's an academic paper looking deeper into the issue;

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277953602005117

It is pointless because you don't have the qualification to interpret the results. Let's say you ask the question and are told that the interviewee has cerebral palsy, or post-polio syndrome - so what? What are you going to do with this information? What does a name or label of a condition mean to a non-expert? How does this help you to interpret the employee's ability to do the job?

It tells me more about the candidate, and as pointed out above by that person, it informs me as to what their needs may be and whether or not their needs can reasonably be met.

It doesn't - it is just nosy prurience. Unfortunately, it's not that unusual. Every person with any form of disability that goes on the Late Late show or many other RTE shows gets a polite variation of the 'What's wrong with you' question in the first 1 or 2 minutes of the interview. Check out Friday night's interview with a young lady with sight loss. Why does this happen? Because of institutionalised nosiness towards disability matters. People feel entitled to ask 'what's wrong with you', even though the answer isn't relevant to the situation, and even if it was relevant, they don't have the qualifications to interpret the answer.

It’s not “a polite version of the ‘what’s wrong with you?’ question”, that’s not the question at all, and that’s not the motivation behind the question. It also has nothing to do with “institutionalised nosiness towards disability”, that itself is just nonsense. Their answer is of course relevant to the situation as not only does it tell the interviewer more about the person, it allows the interviewer to determine what the candidates needs are and whether those needs can be reasonably accommodated.

BTW, the HR 'automatons' that you want to insult are the ones who don't get their employers brought to the Workplace Relations Commission on discrimination claims. They apply fair processes to all candidates, and they aren't nosey. You could take a leaf out of their book.

It was a joke, referring to the public sector, which is mired in bureaucracy and spin and as you acknowledged earlier yourself - appears to be more interested in meeting diversity quotas and token appointments than whether or not a candidate has the potential to add additional value to the role, to the team, or to the organisation in question. You can check with your HR dept btw and they will tell you there is nothing unlawful in anything I have suggested above. The company I work for doesn’t have a department of able-bodied oxygen thieves.

AndrewJRenko

I could spend half an hour explaining the many factual errors in your post, but I'll just focus on the most important issue.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It tells me more about the candidate, and as pointed out above by that person, it informs me as to what their needs may be and whether or not their needs can reasonably be met.

OK, so the candidate with the crutch tells you they have cerebral palsy in response to your 'what happened' question. How do you work out there needs from that?

One eyed Jack

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I could spend half an hour explaining the many factual errors in your post, but I'll just focus on the most important issue.

OK, so the candidate with the crush tells you they have cerebral palsy in response to your 'what happened' question. How do you work out there needs from that?

How long did you actually spend coming up with a question that stupid?

You are aware of course that I said I would ask someone what happened if they arrived for interview on crutches.

Your more important issue is that you haven’t read my post, so I don’t trust that you can do any better explaining the many factual errors are in it, but have a go anyway. Take as much time as you need.

AndrewJRenko

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How long did you actually spend coming up with a question that stupid?

You are aware of course that I said I would ask someone what happened if they arrived for interview on crutches.

Your more important issue is that you haven’t read my post, so I don’t trust that you can do any better explaining the many factual errors are in it, but have a go anyway. Take as much time as you need.

Please don't get evasive now.



You said: "I would ask what happened to a person if they arrived for interview on crutches" because "it informs me as to what their needs may be and whether or not their needs can reasonably be met".


So let's say the OP arrives on crutches, you ask them 'What happened?'. They tell you that they have cerebral palsy. So what's your conclusion about their needs and whether they can be reasonably met?

amdublin

I don't know what one eye Jack is going to say.

But here is what I would do From a Correct and Non discrimatory HR perspective.

I would not ask someone about crutches. Because (a) them telling me they have cerebral palsy does not give me any information about their needs and (b) by asking the question, and then if they don't get the job, I have left myself open to them having a case to say they didn't get the job because I discriminated against them because they have cerebral palsy.

If I want to know about their needs I will ask Every Single Candidate, do you have any special needs the company needs to know about? What accommodations do you need?

One eyed Jack

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Please don't get evasive now.

You said: "I would ask what happened to a person if they arrived for interview on crutches" because "it informs me as to what their needs may be and whether or not their needs can reasonably be met".

So let's say the OP arrives on crutches, you ask them 'What happened?'. They tell you that they have cerebral palsy. So what's your conclusion about their needs and whether they can be reasonably met?

I’m not being evasive at all. I’m just not entertaining your efforts at a strawman argument.

The original poster gave no indication that they have cerebral palsy, and I was speaking in the context of the opening posters circumstances. Your original contention that an employer would ignore the fact that the opening poster is on crutches is factually inaccurate. It would be the first thing many employers would ask about in my experience, and to try and avoid that discussion or to encourage anyone to avoid that discussion is actually encouraging them to be evasive.

Someone giving indications at the interview stage that they are not a particularly open and trustworthy individual is not someone I would consider would add value to any role, and they would not be a person I would be interested in working with.

That’s essentially the whole point of an interview - because their resumé will already indicate whether or not they have the ability to do the job. However, whether or not they are suitable for the role will depend entirely upon their character, as determined at the interview stage.

AndrewJRenko

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m not being evasive at all. I’m just not entertaining your efforts at a strawman argument.

The original poster gave no indication that they have cerebral palsy, and I was speaking in the context of the opening posters circumstances.

I'm confused now. You said "I would ask what happened to a person if they arrived for interview on crutches". Are you now saying that you would only ask some people 'what happened?'. How do you decide who you should ask 'what happened?'. How do you know by looking at the crutches whether the person has cerebral palsy or twisted their ankle skiing last week?

amdublin

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

How do you know by looking at the crutches whether the person has cerebral palsy or twisted their ankle skiing last week?

You can't. So you don't ask. Simple as. It's safer from recruitment process perspective.

When I'm interviewing I stay away from personal questions like this.

One eyed Jack

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm confused now. You said "I would ask what happened to a person if they arrived for interview on crutches". Are you now saying that you would only ask some people 'what happened?'. How do you decide who you should ask 'what happened?'. How do you know by looking at the crutches whether the person has cerebral palsy or twisted their ankle skiing last week?

I wouldn’t be asking the question if I knew the answer, would I?

One eyed Jack

amdublin wrote: »

You can't. So you don't ask. Simple as. It's safer from recruitment process perspective.

When I'm interviewing I stay away from personal questions like this.

You don’t ask, or you wouldn’t ask, or you can recommend that other people shouldn’t ask.

That doesn’t mean that other people who aren’t you won’t ask, and I have met many people in interviews who do ask. I would never assume that I was treated unfairly or that I was the victim of inequality if I was unsuccessful at an interview, and certainly I would not assume it was down to being asked anything about myself.

amdublin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You don’t ask, or you wouldn’t ask, or you can recommend that other people shouldn’t ask.

That doesn’t mean that other people who aren’t you won’t ask, and I have met many people in interviews who do ask. I would never assume that I was treated unfairly or that I was the victim of inequality if I was unsuccessful at an interview, and certainly I would not assume it was down to being asked anything about myself.

https://www.nibusinessinfo.co.uk/content/discrimination-when-recruiting-staff

What training did you have before being part of the recruitment process in work? It should be clear what questions you can and can't ask

Just Google it dude there's loads of info out there

AndrewJRenko

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I wouldn’t be asking the question if I knew the answer, would I?

More evasiveness and confusion. I can only hope that you've seen the pointlessness of asking the question now, but you're just not big enough to admit this yourself.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You don’t ask, or you wouldn’t ask, or you can recommend that other people shouldn’t ask.

That doesn’t mean that other people who aren’t you won’t ask, and I have met many people in interviews who do ask. I would never assume that I was treated unfairly or that I was the victim of inequality if I was unsuccessful at an interview, and certainly I would not assume it was down to being asked anything about myself.

And by your own logic, that doesn't mean that other people who aren't you who ARE asked the question would not decide that they have been treated unfairly or that they are a victim of inequality.


That's why you don't ask such questions at interview. Any half-educated HR professional would know how to get the information you require during requirement without blurting out pointless, stigmatising questions like 'what's wrong with you' or 'what happened to you'.

One eyed Jack

amdublin wrote: »

https://www.nibusinessinfo.co.uk/content/discrimination-when-recruiting-staff

What training did you have before being part of the recruitment process in work? It should be clear what questions you can and can't ask

Just Google it dude there's loads of info out there

Could you point me to the relevant piece on the page you linked to that you do seem to have just googled and thrown up the first link from another jurisdiction? This being an Internet forum I’m making allowances for the fact that you may not be resident in Ireland. I would have thought an Irish context would be more relevant.

I’m familiar with what questions I can ask, and your link in spite of it’s being relevant in another jurisdiction doesn’t contradict anything I’ve said. What I won’t do however, is get into a pissing contest with you over our respective experience of training and recruitment processes, as it’s quite clear our experiences differ, significantly.

ConnyMcDavid

micks_address wrote: »

I'd say turning up on crutches if anything will show how much you want the job. Wouldn't worry me at all

The most naive comment I've ever read. You are living in the movies if you think companies would think like this.

One eyed Jack

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

More evasiveness and confusion. I can only hope that you've seen the pointlessness of asking the question now, but you're just not big enough to admit this yourself.

And by your own logic, that doesn't mean that other people who aren't you who ARE asked the question would not decide that they have been treated unfairly or that they are a victim of inequality.

That's why you don't ask such questions at interview. Any half-educated HR professional would know how to get the information you require during requirement without blurting out pointless, stigmatising questions like 'what's wrong with you' or 'what happened to you'.

Any half-educated professional shouldn’t be working in HR. There’s far too many of them working in HR already.

amdublin made the point already that they would make a complaint that they were treated unfairly during the interview stage, and I pointed out that on the grounds they would claim they were treated unfairly, they would fail to make that complaint stick, as I treat every candidate fairly and equally. I’m aware of my own bias to favour some candidates over others, and I keep meticulous records.

AndrewJRenko

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Any half-educated professional shouldn’t be working in HR. There’s far too many of them working in HR already.

amdublin made the point already that they would make a complaint that they were treated unfairly during the interview stage, and I pointed out that on the grounds they would claim they were treated unfairly, they would fail to make that complaint stick, as I treat every candidate fairly and equally. I’m aware of my own bias to favour some candidates over others, and I keep meticulous records.

When you ask the candidate with crutches "what's wrong with you" and you don't ask other candidates without crutches the same question, you are not treating all candidates equally.

You're exposing your employer to discrimination claims.

One eyed Jack

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

When you ask the candidate with crutches "what's wrong with you" and you don't ask other candidates without crutches the same question, you are not treating all candidates equally.

You're exposing your employer to discrimination claims.

Andrew? Stop.

You’re ignoring my posts where I have indicated that I myself have been on and off crutches for the last 20 years. I have the perspective of being interviewed while on crutches myself, and I have interviewed people who were on crutches when they attended for interviews and didn’t realise that I used crutches because I was sitting down at the time. You originally advised the opening poster that an interviewer would ignore the fact that they were on crutches.

Patently, you were talking complete nonsense.

I’ll leave it there.

AndrewJRenko

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’re ignoring my posts where I have indicated that I myself have been on and off crutches for the last 20 years. I have the perspective of being interviewed while on crutches myself, and I have interviewed people who were on crutches when they attended for interviews and didn’t realise that I used crutches because I was sitting down at the time.

Yes, you're right. I did ignore that point, because it is entirely irrelevant.

Your experience with crutches does not make it OK for you to pry into other people's medical history. There are no exemptions in equality law or HR practices for interviewers who used to use crutches.

Your avoidance and evasion of my question about what you're going to do with a response like "cerebral palsy" confirms that it is a pointless and demeaning question.

It is prurient nosiness that demeans and stigmatises people with disabilities.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You originally advised the opening poster that an interviewer would ignore the fact that they were on crutches.

That's exactly what a professional skilled interviewer would do. They certainly wouldn't blurt out "What happened ya" to a person who may well have a life long condition from birth.

They might say something like "Do you need any help?" though a professional organisation would already have cleared this up when inviting for interview.

If you don't believe me, please speak to any HR expert about this before you cause your employer to lose a discrimination claim.