discgolfdc
Junior Member
What is the name of your state? Kentucky
Hello all... I have been perusing this forum with enthusiasm, and wanted to ask a question, myself, with some minor "venting" under the surface. I apologize in advance!
I am a chiropractor in the state of Kentucky (or, more properly put, the "Commonwealth of Kentucky), and I have had a recent rash of people coming in for interviews with respect to certain open positions on my team. I have been relatively diligent in asking certain interview questions within the bounds of the law, particularly with respect to smoking and family commitments (such as children) that may disrupt the potential candidate's ability to be available during the clinic's hours. My most recent case involves a young girl who claimed not to have any "outside commitments" that would interfere with her keeping our hours. During her interview, she told us that her husband had signed up for the reserves, and that she and their daughter had moved in with her mother, so her mother would be "taking care" of their girl -- and that this wasn't a problem (this information was offered up, we didn't ask directly about kids). Three weeks later, she calls in saying she won't be able to come in due to a "family emergency," and says she "hopes" she'll be able to come in on Monday. In speaking with her, later that day, it turns out that the "family emergency" was a fight with her step-sister, and that her daughter is really clingy, lately, because, with her daddy gone in the reserves, she feels like she is losing both parents because mommy has to work. I could tell by talking to her that she is thinking of quitting, but she didn't come right out and say it. I did ask her to consider her situation and let me know as "in advance" as possible. She agreed. This exchange made me think about just how much easier it would be if I were allowed to "prefer" people without proximate responsibility to small children (we're not talking about people with teenagers, here, obviously).
My question, generally, is whether or not any developments have been made recently in arguing the need to ask more pointed questions regarding marital/parental status, because, frankly, hiring someone who makes a really good impression at interview but turns out to be an immature, confused dingbat costs a small business operation a whole lot of time and money. We spent time training this girl and all, and now she's teetering on not coming back -- all because we didn't actually get the right answer from her in the interview. Obviously, we can't take her to court for lying during her interview -- that would be ridiculous -- but it would sure set a precedent if successful! But the employee, in this case, generally has the small business owner over a bit of a barrel because it gets worse if the employer pulls out the "you said you didn't have any outside commitments..." card. Then it gets plain ugly. How much cleaner life would be in that office if the situation never existed in the first place...
Hiring people and not knowing whether or not you're ultimately getting a quality employee is like buying a used car and having neither a vehicular history nor a warranty. The questions we have to ask potential employees are like asking the used car salesperson, "Does this car have an engine?" rather than "How many miles does it have on it?", "How was it driven?/Was it beaten on?", "Does it have a problem with stalling?" or "How often do you have to stop and put oil in this thing?" I don't mean to make people sound like commodities, but in a business relationship (employer pays employee for job well-done, you know?), the employer should legally have the right to make that selection. How ridiculous it is to be in a position to buy a car but not be allowed to ask certain questions about it. When you buy the car, what are you buying? Transportation, right. When you hire an employee, what are you buying? Service, right. Is transportation akin to the service sought from an employee? Sure. It's just not politically correct to ask about what are ultimately the drawbacks of the latter in the employer's ("consumer's") eyes. Nor is it legal, and that's a damn shame. On the used car lot, it's called "looking for the best value for your dollar." In the employment world, it's called "discrimination." And, further, sadly enough, there's no option of buying a new car, either.
Perhaps I'll get some hate responses here, but I'd be much more likely to gladly hire people with small children (and proximate commitments to them) if the legislature that made it illegal for me to get that information directly would cover my hiring and training costs.
So anyway, are there any legitimate means of really gaining an insight into this? I guess my next question on the interview will be, "What are the three most important things in your life?" Nothing terribly "discriminatory" there.
I am sure I may have offended some, and I apologize, but I feel my sensibilities are violated by law, and as an employer, I am in the position of "consumer" of "employee services." It's not legal for me to come right out and ask for what I want. That's frustrating.
I appreciate your patience with this post, and hope to spark some dialogue here. I might also, of course, appreciate some answers regarding how to best avoid dead-end hires due to these types of discoveries.
Thank you all in advance.What is the name of your state?
Hello all... I have been perusing this forum with enthusiasm, and wanted to ask a question, myself, with some minor "venting" under the surface. I apologize in advance!
I am a chiropractor in the state of Kentucky (or, more properly put, the "Commonwealth of Kentucky), and I have had a recent rash of people coming in for interviews with respect to certain open positions on my team. I have been relatively diligent in asking certain interview questions within the bounds of the law, particularly with respect to smoking and family commitments (such as children) that may disrupt the potential candidate's ability to be available during the clinic's hours. My most recent case involves a young girl who claimed not to have any "outside commitments" that would interfere with her keeping our hours. During her interview, she told us that her husband had signed up for the reserves, and that she and their daughter had moved in with her mother, so her mother would be "taking care" of their girl -- and that this wasn't a problem (this information was offered up, we didn't ask directly about kids). Three weeks later, she calls in saying she won't be able to come in due to a "family emergency," and says she "hopes" she'll be able to come in on Monday. In speaking with her, later that day, it turns out that the "family emergency" was a fight with her step-sister, and that her daughter is really clingy, lately, because, with her daddy gone in the reserves, she feels like she is losing both parents because mommy has to work. I could tell by talking to her that she is thinking of quitting, but she didn't come right out and say it. I did ask her to consider her situation and let me know as "in advance" as possible. She agreed. This exchange made me think about just how much easier it would be if I were allowed to "prefer" people without proximate responsibility to small children (we're not talking about people with teenagers, here, obviously).
My question, generally, is whether or not any developments have been made recently in arguing the need to ask more pointed questions regarding marital/parental status, because, frankly, hiring someone who makes a really good impression at interview but turns out to be an immature, confused dingbat costs a small business operation a whole lot of time and money. We spent time training this girl and all, and now she's teetering on not coming back -- all because we didn't actually get the right answer from her in the interview. Obviously, we can't take her to court for lying during her interview -- that would be ridiculous -- but it would sure set a precedent if successful! But the employee, in this case, generally has the small business owner over a bit of a barrel because it gets worse if the employer pulls out the "you said you didn't have any outside commitments..." card. Then it gets plain ugly. How much cleaner life would be in that office if the situation never existed in the first place...
Hiring people and not knowing whether or not you're ultimately getting a quality employee is like buying a used car and having neither a vehicular history nor a warranty. The questions we have to ask potential employees are like asking the used car salesperson, "Does this car have an engine?" rather than "How many miles does it have on it?", "How was it driven?/Was it beaten on?", "Does it have a problem with stalling?" or "How often do you have to stop and put oil in this thing?" I don't mean to make people sound like commodities, but in a business relationship (employer pays employee for job well-done, you know?), the employer should legally have the right to make that selection. How ridiculous it is to be in a position to buy a car but not be allowed to ask certain questions about it. When you buy the car, what are you buying? Transportation, right. When you hire an employee, what are you buying? Service, right. Is transportation akin to the service sought from an employee? Sure. It's just not politically correct to ask about what are ultimately the drawbacks of the latter in the employer's ("consumer's") eyes. Nor is it legal, and that's a damn shame. On the used car lot, it's called "looking for the best value for your dollar." In the employment world, it's called "discrimination." And, further, sadly enough, there's no option of buying a new car, either.
Perhaps I'll get some hate responses here, but I'd be much more likely to gladly hire people with small children (and proximate commitments to them) if the legislature that made it illegal for me to get that information directly would cover my hiring and training costs.
So anyway, are there any legitimate means of really gaining an insight into this? I guess my next question on the interview will be, "What are the three most important things in your life?" Nothing terribly "discriminatory" there.
I am sure I may have offended some, and I apologize, but I feel my sensibilities are violated by law, and as an employer, I am in the position of "consumer" of "employee services." It's not legal for me to come right out and ask for what I want. That's frustrating.
I appreciate your patience with this post, and hope to spark some dialogue here. I might also, of course, appreciate some answers regarding how to best avoid dead-end hires due to these types of discoveries.
Thank you all in advance.What is the name of your state?