Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Uncomfortable interview questions

2

Comments

  • #32
    davo10
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,926 ✭✭✭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.


  • #33
    intheclouds
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,175 ✭✭✭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?


  • #34
    irishgrover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,496 ✭✭✭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...


  • #35
    intheclouds
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,175 ✭✭✭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?


  • #36
    davo10
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,926 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    BreadnBuddha
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,311 ✭✭✭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.


  • #38
    davo10
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,926 ✭✭✭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.


  • #39
    intheclouds
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,175 ✭✭✭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.


  • #40
    intheclouds
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,175 ✭✭✭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.


  • #41
    intheclouds
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,175 ✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    davo10
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,926 ✭✭✭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.


  • #43
    BreadnBuddha
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,311 ✭✭✭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?


  • #44
    davo10
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,926 ✭✭✭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.


  • #45
    intheclouds
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,175 ✭✭✭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?


  • #46
    irishgrover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,496 ✭✭✭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....


  • #47
    BreadnBuddha
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,311 ✭✭✭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.


  • #48
    davo10
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,926 ✭✭✭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.


  • #49
    ted1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,333 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #50
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,690 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #51
    irishgrover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,496 ✭✭✭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...


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    davo10
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,926 ✭✭✭davo10


    irishgrover wrote: »
    @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...

    None of which will matter a jot if the employer wants to employ non smokers, which is their right they don't need to give reason not context. The next applicant may be a better fit.


  • #53
    irishgrover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,496 ✭✭✭irishgrover


    davo10 wrote:
    None of which will matter a jot if the employer wants to employ non smokers, which is their right they don't need to give reason not context. The next applicant may be a better fit.


    Fully agree with you. However in this case, for this particular thread, the op is a smoking interviewee as opposed to an employer....


  • #54
    intheclouds
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,175 ✭✭✭intheclouds


    davo10 wrote: »
    None of which will matter a jot if the employer wants to employ non smokers, which is their right they don't need to give reason not context. The next applicant may be a better fit.

    So as I already stated, it is a useful filter and the OP should be relieved that they were forewarned rather than signing a contract and finding themselves in a critical, judgemental and non professional work environment.


  • #55
    davo10
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,926 ✭✭✭davo10


    irishgrover wrote: »
    Fully agree with you. However in this case, for this particular thread, the op is a smoking interviewee as opposed to an employer....

    True, but being uncomfortable with a question like that is counterproductive. The op should put it down to experience and be prepared for the next time it is asked. All applicants are different, all employers are different and though discrimination in certain circumstances is illegal, all employers discriminate in one way or another when hiring, it's the way we pick one candidate over all the rest. Personally I like young candidates who are eager to learn and are willing to work hard to reap the benefits of the job rather than older ones who are set in their ways and unwilling to integrate in the business, others look for experienced people who don't require tuition. Horses for courses.


  • #56
    davo10
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,926 ✭✭✭davo10


    intheclouds wrote: »
    So as I already stated, it is a useful filter and the OP should be relieved that they were forewarned rather than signing a contract and finding themselves in a critical, judgemental and non professional work environment.

    That's your opinion, others disagree but it's the employer who offers the job, the applicant can refuse it but only if they are the one among many who receives the offer. The odds favour the employer.


  • #57
    ricksanchez
    Closed Accounts Posts: 97 ✭✭ricksanchez


    davo10 wrote: »
    That's your opinion, others disagree but it's the employer who offers the job, the applicant can refuse it but only if they are the one among many who receives the offer. The odds favour the employer.

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


  • #58
    intheclouds
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,175 ✭✭✭intheclouds


    davo10 wrote: »
    That's your opinion, others disagree but it's the employer who offers the job, the applicant can refuse it but only if they are the one among many who receives the offer. The odds favour the employer.

    I don't understand what odds you are talking about.

    Generally when job hunting one does many interviews and chooses what suits best from what's offered.

    Far better to keep looking for something good than accept something bad IMO.

    No point taking a job somewhere that you would be unhappy? A professional work environment should be an absolute priority.


  • #59
    davo10
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,926 ✭✭✭davo10


    intheclouds wrote: »
    I don't understand what odds you are talking about.

    Generally when job hunting one does many interviews and chooses what suits best from what's offered.

    Far better to keep looking for something good than accept something bad IMO.

    No point taking a job somewhere that you would be unhappy? A professional work environment should be an absolute priority.

    It's pretty simple really, unless you have a particular skill that is in short supply but high demand, there tends to be a lot more applicants than there are jobs. That is why the odds favour the employer, one job, twenty applicants, if you reject that offer, the next job may have another twenty applicants. You do the math.


  • #60
    intheclouds
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,175 ✭✭✭intheclouds


    davo10 wrote: »
    It's pretty simple really, unless you have a particular skill that is in short supply but high demand, there tends to be a lot more applicants than there are jobs. That is why the odds favour the employer, one job, twenty applicants, if you reject that offer, the next job may have another twenty applicants. You do the math.

    But all jobs will have a lot of applicants, and all applicants will be applying for a lot of jobs. And very few employers would be short sighted or unprofessional enough to hire based on the potential candidates social choices.

    And if someone really wants the role they'd lie.

    So you do that math.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    irishgrover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,496 ✭✭✭irishgrover


    davo10 wrote: »
    True, but being uncomfortable with a question like that is counterproductive. The op should put it down to experience and be prepared for the next time it is asked. All applicants are different, all employers are different and though discrimination in certain circumstances is illegal, all employers discriminate in one way or another when hiring, it's the way we pick one candidate over all the rest. Personally I like young candidates who are eager to learn and are willing to work hard to reap the benefits of the job rather than older ones who are set in their ways and unwilling to integrate in the business, others look for experienced people who don't require tuition. Horses for courses.

    I don't disagree with any of the above, however IMHO an interview is a two way street. All too often interviewers have a unjustified sense of self importance and superiority and lack the professional understanding of the damage that they are potentially doing to their organisation, by asking half arsed, opinionated questions and equally offering unsolicited 1/2 arsed unprofessional opinions.

    Interviewing is very much a two way street The interviewee is selling themselves as someone who is going provide a good rate of return on the company investment of giving them a job or contract. The interviewer is representing the company and selling the company as a place that the individual should invest their lives in.
    It is the job of both the interviewer and interviewee to steer the conversation in a direction that will allow both parties to make an informed decision on their potential investment.

    S**t interviewers don't understand this, ask binary questions, potentially inappropriate questions, or questions that will disengage the potential candidate.
    I would consider "do you smoke and will you give up" without any context, as a really sh** question, that would potentially damage the perceived value of the company to the potential candidate. If one of my team asked that question, in that way, I would interject during the interview and provide clarity. If I heard about if afterwards I would sit with the interviewer and provide feedback and additional training.

    Of course everything is context dependent. If the interviewer stated "because the position you are interviewing for is an optician / dentist / make up artist, you will be in direct close proximity to customers and we have a strong preferance for people not to smoke" OR
    "We have a strict break policy which does not facilitate smoke breaks outside of official break periods...". OR
    " We have a vibrant office health program, which encourages and subsidises fitness programs, health screeening, free fruit at work, give up smoking programs etc....."
    Providing that context would IMHO be much more appropriate.
    I know that personally if an interviewer asked me " Do I smoke and will I give up" in the same manner as was asked to the OP then it would raise a huge red flag for me.... and I do not smoke, I personally greatly dislike smoking, but I am also am expected to do my job professionally to a higher standard and ensure that others do the same..


Advertisement