Asked age again during interview!

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's an even more stupid manager that thinks that knowing the age of the candidate is a useful predictor for parental or maternity leave.

Agree with this I'm early 30s female so prime candidate for an assumption of leaving for maternity leave etc when the reality is I have a teenager and no intentions of more.

PoisonIvyBelle wrote:

I had a boss years ago who was very outspoken about his reluctance to hire women in their 30s because he was convinced they'd fcuk off on maternity leave after getting the job. He actually said it in an interview to a lady who did get the job, but only because she told him she already had 2 kids and didn't want more. Even then, he wanted to know who'd be looking after them and if she'd need time off. He even told me he was on the fence about her because of that. Absolute prick to deal with and I don't know how he got away with it. I believe he'd been sent for "management training" (pretty sure this was a bit of "cop the **** on" training) by HR after I left there. TBH this is very much a thing in recruitment too with both men and women, they are wiser about obviously asking age but they'll do their best to work it out and it will affect whether you get put forward for a job.

It is a big thing in recruitment, I had clients in the past who blatantly refused to consider female clients due to maternity leave etc.
I also had a candidate once and while prepping her I did suggest she remove the giant engagement rock on her finger. A few days pass and pulled in by my manager who was pretty cool about it. She had lodged a complaint about me suggesting she remove the ring. She was not be forward for any more positions

I will put my head above the parapet here and say that we do not entertain CVs from woman for senior roles. Junior or admin roles, yes. We are looking for a candidate for a specific role at the moment.

We seem to get quite a few cvs from woman who want part time work so they can juggle childcare e.g. want to leave at 2.30pm/3pm etc or say 2-3 days a week. No chance. It is not a part time role but yet they are still blasting in cvs- which leads us to think that they do not appreciate the task at hand and are just blindly emailing off cvs to everyone and anyone.

The rest of us are fully committed 10-12 hours a day 5-6-7 days a week. It will only breed resentment if the rest of us are here until 7-8pm most nights running the show and 'she' is fecking off at 3pm. Guaranteed there will be late mornings because of the school run delays, school holidays, and all manner of morning text messages to say little Johnny has a high temperature and she can't make it in. Then everyone else has to pick up the slack. I have seen it countless times before- it just pisses everyone else off. Funnily enough it tends to be other women that are the most vocal. The men tend to stay well clear for fear of being branded sexist etc etc.

Not pc and a bit sad really but the reality is that this is a consideration for small employers. Grand if you are with Apple or Dell but for small employers is just not cost effective. And yes, we also have our own children. Call us horrible human beings all you want.

A friend (mid-late 20s at the time) was once asked in interview if she was single, had kids, or was planning to have kids... by a solicitor!

It's a more disadvantaged area, not near a big urban centre, and this was back 10 years ago ish when jobs were not plentiful. So she just said single, no and no, and we laughed in amazement about how wrong it was after. Unfortunately, in a small town with feck all employment you can't complain about this stuff and not risk getting blacklisted for future jobs, people talk.

crossman47 wrote: »

Ten years work can't be irrelevant. Leaving a gap like that will lead (rightly) to questions about what you did for those ten years. Interviewers have to probe background - you could have been in prison.

Some of the biggest offenders and employers getting in trouble for employment matters are in fact law firms so no surprise to see that.

I think it was quite incompetent of the interviewer to ask this question.

It is not something that I myself would be bothered about though being honest. If an employer does indeed want a certain age profile for a position then they are going to get exactly that. It is often quite obvious from the CV itself, and in the case it is not it usually becomes fairly obvious the first time you meet in person. If an interviewer has a clear picture in their head concerning what age profile that they are looking for, then they are going to get that. If I am going to be canned because of my age then I would rather it as soon as possible into the interview process. The rules are the rules, and they must clearly be respected. I think that you would have to be pretty naive though to think that it makes one iota of difference as to who is hired, and who is not. Not much to be gained from High-horsing here.

6 wrote: »

No it's not.

Never put your year of education on Cvs. Or date of birth. That's a rookie mistake.

People don't even get called for interviews based on this alone. Harsh but it's reality.

I'm interested in why this would be

partyguinness wrote: »

That sounds great in theory but in reality if you are looking for a new role quite a few applicants will not be in a position or even want to get lippy with a prospective employer.


An employer will have several canddiates to interview and it is up to the employee to 'sell themselves' and stand out. Getting ratty is not the best way to stand out. I am not saying that certain questions are correct but but getting high and mighty and indignant about certain questions is fine if you have that luxury

Nobody suggested getting ratty or lippy, that's what your assuming here.

Anyone selling anything, be it themselves or a product/service should be finding out whats the motivation behind asking that question.

The employer needs to sell themselves too, they usually want the best candidate, the best candidates will spot red flags like that straight away and disqualify this role as not being a good fit for them.

Esse85 wrote: »

Nobody suggested getting ratty or lippy, that's what your assuming here.

Anyone selling anything, be it themselves or a product/service should be finding out whats the motivation behind asking that question.

The employer needs to sell themselves too, they usually want the best candidate, the best candidates will spot red flags like that straight away and disqualify this role as not being a good fit for them.

It was I that said that nobody else. Personally I would not ask that question but if a candidate did retort essentially "It's none of your business or it is irrelevant" then it may not be taken well by the employer.

I mean how many times do we fill in our DOB or confirm our age when using the internet? Everyday it seems but yet when an employer asks we freak out and tell them to piss off.

Personally I have been asked my DOB in interviews in the past. Didn't bother me remotely and in fact it is usually a good sign. As far as I was concerned I have nothing to hide. My DOB ties in with the dates in my CV so no big deal.

If it is an employee's market then sure pick and choose but it is generally not an employee's market. If a candidate is that perfect or essential for the role then the employer won't even bother with such questions but will stick to a set of pre prepared questions as a box ticking exercise for HR. Basically offer the job on the spot.

partyguinness wrote: »

I will put my head above the parapet here and say that we do not entertain CVs from woman for senior roles. Junior or admin roles, yes. We are looking for a candidate for a specific role at the moment.

We seem to get quite a few cvs from woman who want part time work so they can juggle childcare e.g. want to leave at 2.30pm/3pm etc or say 2-3 days a week. No chance. It is not a part time role but yet they are still blasting in cvs- which leads us to think that they do not appreciate the task at hand and are just blindly emailing off cvs to everyone and anyone.

The rest of us are fully committed 10-12 hours a day 5-6-7 days a week. It will only breed resentment if the rest of us are here until 7-8pm most nights running the show and 'she' is fecking off at 3pm. Guaranteed there will be late mornings because of the school run delays, school holidays, and all manner of morning text messages to say little Johnny has a high temperature and she can't make it in. Then everyone else has to pick up the slack. I have seen it countless times before- it just pisses everyone else off. Funnily enough it tends to be other women that are the most vocal. The men tend to stay well clear for fear of being branded sexist etc etc.

Not pc and a bit sad really but the reality is that this is a consideration for small employers. Grand if you are with Apple or Dell but for small employers is just not cost effective. And yes, we also have our own children. Call us horrible human beings all you want.

There's a big difference between not offering shorter working weeks or flexitime and writing off all female applicants at the CV stage, no wonder you can't find anyone! :rolleyes:

If someone comes to you who's qualified and can demonstrate the experience needed to perform at your management level it's pretty obvious they're not clocking off at 3 (or if they are they're super human workers anyway).

partyguinness wrote: »

It was I that said that nobody else. Personally I would not ask that question but if a candidate did retort essentially "It's none of your business or it is irrelevant" then it may not be taken well by the employer.

I mean how many times do we fill in our DOB or confirm our age when using the internet? Everyday it seems but yet when an employer asks we freak out and tell them to piss off.

Personally I have been asked my DOB in interviews in the past. Didn't bother me remotely and in fact it is usually a good sign. As far as I was concerned I have nothing to hide. My DOB ties in with the dates in my CV so no big deal.

If it is an employee's market then sure pick and choose but it is generally not an employee's market. If a candidate is that perfect or essential for the role then the employer won't even bother with such questions but will stick to a set of pre prepared questions as a box ticking exercise for HR. Basically offer the job on the spot.

Filling in what age we are on Internet forms online is completety different to being asked how old we are during an interview.

Pathetic comparison to make.

Nobody had told anyone to "piss off", there's you jumping to conclusions and making assumptions again.

And finally the reason employers don't offer employees jobs on the spot is because all might match up well on paper on a cv, there's a lot more to it than that, depending on the role. People's skills, attitude etc.

Not surprised you overlooked that part.

partyguinness wrote: »

I will put my head above the parapet here and say that we do not entertain CVs from woman for senior roles. Junior or admin roles, yes. We are looking for a candidate for a specific role at the moment.

We seem to get quite a few cvs from woman who want part time work so they can juggle childcare e.g. want to leave at 2.30pm/3pm etc or say 2-3 days a week. No chance. It is not a part time role but yet they are still blasting in cvs- which leads us to think that they do not appreciate the task at hand and are just blindly emailing off cvs to everyone and anyone.

The rest of us are fully committed 10-12 hours a day 5-6-7 days a week. It will only breed resentment if the rest of us are here until 7-8pm most nights running the show and 'she' is fecking off at 3pm. Guaranteed there will be late mornings because of the school run delays, school holidays, and all manner of morning text messages to say little Johnny has a high temperature and she can't make it in. Then everyone else has to pick up the slack. I have seen it countless times before- it just pisses everyone else off. Funnily enough it tends to be other women that are the most vocal. The men tend to stay well clear for fear of being branded sexist etc etc.

Not pc and a bit sad really but the reality is that this is a consideration for small employers. Grand if you are with Apple or Dell but for small employers is just not cost effective. And yes, we also have our own children. Call us horrible human beings all you want.

I really just had to comment and say how wrong this is. By all means write off the people who are looking for part time work, but you can't possibly think that every single woman who applies even has children. Even if they do have children that doesn't mean they can't work full time. Their partner could be looking after the children or they could have full time childcare in place for all you know. I'm an only child who was raised by a single mother and she worked full time when I was growing up with no issues. She had a childminder for me up until I was about 11/12 and old enough to look after myself for the few hours after school.

I just feel like it's very wrong that you are writing off women like that based on an assumption and/or experiences you've had in the past. These are the types of questions you can ask in an interview to ascertain if they can work full time. Make it clear that the role is demanding and that the successful candidate could often have to work hours outside their shift. If they can't do it then at worst you've wasted 20-30 minutes of interview time. You could even make it clear that those would be the demands of the role ahead of the interview so that if people can't do it they don't come for the interview. I know people will sometimes embellish/lie a bit to try and get the job, but the point still stands. If you lay it all out at the beginning and they get the job but can't do the required work then you can still let them go while they're on their probationary period.

I dunno, maybe I live in cloud cuckoo land and see the world through rose tinted glasses, but that's just my view on it. You could have missed out on some really good workers by imposing this ideal.