Common illegal questions in job interviews

[onlyrp]

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/secre...201733303.html

For those who worry about being asked facebook passwords, or private questions about your life, notice that there's already lots of laws that unfairly prohibit an employer from asking. Do you want more regulations? or will you realize that they don't owe you anything, and they don't care if not having you is "their loss"?

[tttppp]

It seems like a fair question to ask about how well you manage your money. Also many of these other questions seem pretty fair. These rules are complete bs. And by the way, employers do violate these all the time.

[onlyrp]

It seems like a fair question to ask about how well you manage your money. Also many of these other questions seem pretty fair. These rules are complete bs. And by the way, employers do violate these all the time.

Is your position that there should be no laws against any questions ? or that some questions should be illegal, just not these?

[tttppp]

Is your position that there should be no laws against any questions ? or that some questions should be illegal, just not these?

I think we should get rid of them. Say for example, someones religion is really time consuming, its understandable that a person might not be able to give a 100% commitment. Employers should be able to ask about religion and how consuming it is for them. Same with marriage. There are some companies who may only want single people because they would have more time available for the job. I think asking someone if they drink heavily is a good question to ask. Seems kind of stupid that you can drug test them but you can't ask if they drink.

[onlyrp]

I think we should get rid of them. Say for example, someones religion is really time consuming, its understandable that a person might not be able to give a 100% commitment. Employers should be able to ask about religion and how consuming it is for them. Same with marriage. There are some companies who may only want single people because they would have more time available for the job. I think asking someone if they drink heavily is a good question to ask. Seems kind of stupid that you can drug test them but you can't ask if they drink.

You can drug test them because it's illegal to do drugs, and not illegal to discriminate against people who break the law. Not so with drinking, that's my guess. Otherwise I agree with you, I don't think employers should be prohibited from asking any questions, nor be punished for "discriminating". Although I suspect a lot of these questions, if legal to ask , will get dishonest answers anyway, therefore over time they'll be tired of asking them.

Kind of like asking "Why do you want this job? Where do you see yourself in 5 years?" all these questions are designed to get kiss ass answers they know are probably false, eventually they'll know these are not good indicator questions. Either way, it should be the employer's choice what stupid questions to ask and whose time they want to waste.

The only thing I might add is, applicants can, should, probably ask for "non disclosure" agreements, to protect such information from being shared. Most privacy laws already protect this, but hard to say if they will continue to if there are no illegal questions.

[papitosabe]

It seems like a fair question to ask about how well you manage your money. Also many of these other questions seem pretty fair. These rules are complete bs. And by the way, employers do violate these all the time.

hell yea, I've violated them in the past, but not malicious intent... i think i've asked if someone had kids, if they had a car, and a few others...this was before I was informed on what not to ask...

[tttppp]

You can drug test them because it's illegal to do drugs, and not illegal to discriminate against people who break the law. Not so with drinking, that's my guess. Otherwise I agree with you, I don't think employers should be prohibited from asking any questions, nor be punished for "discriminating". Although I suspect a lot of these questions, if legal to ask , will get dishonest answers anyway, therefore over time they'll be tired of asking them.

Kind of like asking "Why do you want this job? Where do you see yourself in 5 years?" all these questions are designed to get kiss ass answers they know are probably false, eventually they'll know these are not good indicator questions. Either way, it should be the employer's choice what stupid questions to ask and whose time they want to waste.

The only thing I might add is, applicants can, should, probably ask for "non disclosure" agreements, to protect such information from being shared. Most privacy laws already protect this, but hard to say if they will continue to if there are no illegal questions.

Anytime an employee gets access to sensitive information, they should be required to sign a non-disclosure agreement and possibly a non-compete agreement. Thats what I would do.

And employers still ask those stupid questions. I got those questions all the time. Most employers have no clue how to conduct an interview. They just ask stupid pointless questions that have nothing to do with getting the job done. I've interviewed with for some really easy jobs before and they're asking questions as if I'm running for president. I'm just like, "the job is simple, I get it. I'll get the job done with no problem. End of discussion." And for many of these piece of cake jobs, they'll ask you if you have any questions. This is by far the dumbest question that I always struggled with. I'm smart, so I always knew what the job entailed, so I had no real questions for them. I have no clue how they want you to answer that one.

[RickyJ]

And for many of these piece of cake jobs, they'll ask you if you have any questions.

The pay? That would be a very important question if you didn't know already.

[LibertyRevolution]

An employer should be able to ask you whatever they want.
An employer should be able to discriminate against whoever they want.
So if an employer only wanted to hire single, athiest, males, that should be their right.
It is their money, its their business at risk by hiring, its their property, they should have total control.

You have every right not to work for them if you don't like there hiring policy.

[AFPVet]

Yup... I still keep a list of "acceptable questions" from when I worked HR. While not many people like HR, they do keep companies out of a lot of legal trouble... speaking of which, what the fluck are the HR/personnel departments doing at these companies demanding FB passwords?

[Pericles]

My personal fave: "I see on your resume that you were in the Army a long time, have you ever had a real job?"

[tttppp]

The pay? That would be a very important question if you didn't know already.

The pay is usually something you negotiate after they make you an offer. The important thing in an interview is to get an offer from them. Once you get an offer, you can have some say in your pay.

[tttppp]

hell yea, I've violated them in the past, but not malicious intent... i think i've asked if someone had kids, if they had a car, and a few others...this was before I was informed on what not to ask...

There are many companies that violate these rules with malicious intent. One company I worked for would try to find out every detail of your life. When asked if you can work extra hours (for no extra pay), they would ask what your personal plans were, and if they did not approve of them, they would make you work extra hours. Eventually I was told by another staff member they couldn't do this, so when they asked me what my plans were, I just said "its personal". So from there on I would just tell them I had plans and that it was personal.

[onlyrp]

Yup... I still keep a list of "acceptable questions" from when I worked HR. While not many people like HR, they do keep companies out of a lot of legal trouble... speaking of which, what the fluck are the HR/personnel departments doing at these companies demanding FB passwords?

protecting their asses, at least that's their rationale, they want to find reasons why they dislike a person, so they can be honest about it if they have a good one. It's not illegal yet to ask, but it may be in the future.

[tttppp]

protecting their asses, at least that's their rationale, they want to find reasons why they dislike a person, so they can be honest about it if they have a good one. It's not illegal yet to ask, but it may be in the future.

Most HR people think its their job to find reasons why not to hire somebody. The facebook passwords issue is just another example. I guarantee you an HR person will never look at someone's facebook page and say we got to hire this guy.

[kuckfeynes]

Most HR people think its their job to find reasons why not to hire somebody.

Well... isn't it?

[onlyrp]

Well... isn't it?

yeah, what IS there job?

[tttppp]

Well... isn't it?

Its their job to find a pool of qualified candidates for the real managers to choose from...and to handle all the paperwork bs associate with it. They should be finding reasons to hire people, not find reasons not to hire somebody.

[AFPVet]

Its their job to find a pool of qualified candidates for the real managers to choose from...and to handle all the paperwork bs associate with it. They should be finding reasons to hire people, not find reasons not to hire somebody.

You're absolutely right. In fact, we didn't do the actual hiring... once the applications came through us, we screened them and sent them to the department managers who did the actual hiring. Yes, I did have to file several applications for falsification and other issues, but most of the time, I sent them on down to the departments.

[papitosabe]

Its their job to find a pool of qualified candidates for the real managers to choose from...and to handle all the paperwork bs associate with it. They should be finding reasons to hire people, not find reasons not to hire somebody.

they just want to help weed those people out for the real managers...cuz if they don't then the real managers will be like, why in the hell did you send me that one guy or those guys...not bad if its only one, but when you get too many of them, then that HRs job could be questioned... they will always do their best to weed people out...maybe its not right, but thats how it is...

[tttppp]

they just want to help weed those people out for the real managers...cuz if they don't then the real managers will be like, why in the hell did you send me that one guy or those guys...not bad if its only one, but when you get too many of them, then that HRs job could be questioned... they will always do their best to weed people out...maybe its not right, but thats how it is...

I was one of those people weeded out by HR people, and passed over for people I went to school with who were obviously less qualified in many different areas and vastly inferior. I worked with most of them on school projects, I wouldn't trust them to run anything, let alone a business. HR people should let the real managers make the employment decisions. HR people should make sure that each employee meets the minimum requirements and verify the accuracy of their application and resume...thats it. Let the real managers do the rest.

[papitosabe]

I was one of those people weeded out by HR people, and passed over for people I went to school with who were obviously less qualified in many different areas and vastly inferior. I worked with most of them on school projects, I wouldn't trust them to run anything, let alone a business. HR people should let the real managers make the employment decisions. HR people should make sure that each employee meets the minimum requirements and verify the accuracy of their application and resume...thats it. Let the real managers do the rest.

I'd repeat my comment but we'd get nowhere... I dunno, maybe your most qualified, but there is something that you're doing... depending on the job, unfortunetly, its not always about who's most qualified... there are many factors an HR rep would want to save the manager from interviewing, ex creeping someone out, attire, looks, confidence, etc... again, its not right, but thats how it its...

[tttppp]

I'd repeat my comment but we'd get nowhere... I dunno, maybe your most qualified, but there is something that you're doing... depending on the job, unfortunetly, its not always about who's most qualified... there are many factors an HR rep would want to save the manager from interviewing, ex creeping someone out, attire, looks, confidence, etc... again, its not right, but thats how it its...

I've seen some of the techniques HR people use to evaluate you on your interviews. They are doing way more than they should be doing. They are attempting to decide who is best for the job, using completely bs techniques that have nothing to do with the job. HR people don't have a real job. They don't know what makes a great employee. They shouldn't be the ones deciding.

I once had an HR person ask me details about stuff that happened at a job years ago, which I gladly answered. However, that wasn't good enough for this guy. He wanted me to recite to him word for word the conversations I had when I gave him examples. I politely told him I couldn't site dialog from one conversation because these were things I did everyday. I explained to him when you manage a business, there's no one speech that magically gets people to do their job day after day. You have to show up day after day and do your job. This didn't satisfy him. As I gave him more and more examples, he preceded to yell at me, telling me to be specific. I think we all can agree, this HR jerk was overstepping his bounds. There are very few jobs that requires a photographic memory that remembers ever conversation you ever had.