On my very first interview (recent grad) with firm #1 on my list I was asked some questions that at the very least were a bit inappropriate. I had interviewed with a project manager at the firm and everything went as well as a nervous first interview could go.
I spoke to the principal next who asked a series of seemingly pointless questions. The ones that stood out were "can I watercolor", "do I have a car to get to work", and lastly "would there be a problem with working the necessary hours b/c I had children."
The last one is obviously the one that seemed to stand out the most. I have been told by a couple of friends and my husband that these are HR no-no's. I have been told by several people that they are a good firm and they have a great website that seemed to present that they had a diverse (age/sex/race) group.
So should I be offended and what should I do?
And I would say based on the first interview with the pm that I had a decent chance but based on the interview with the principal that it doesn't look so good. Also, I had 2 other interviews today that went fabulous so I know that I am a good prospect.
1. i don't think it's illegal...maybe at a fortune 500, but not in
architecture at least.
2. what should you do? nothing? are you goin to write them
and tell them off? sue them? if they're a good firm they
want to make sure that they're hiring someone who's willing
to put in time when it's needed. is that wrong?
3. the car and the watercolor questions don't seem particularly
odd either...maybe they need you to do websites and presentations?
all in all i think you may be just a tad bit oversensitive if these
kinds of questions are really throwing you off.
the kids question maybe..but it's a reality of the profession that
most places are going to want you to put in hours..would you
prefer to find out about that after you get hired?
I've been interviewing heavily in the last 2 weeks.. I've pretty much been asked all the main illegal questions. I really don't care, either. They can probably figure out most of this stuff anyway, between my resume, portfolio, googling, and my facebook page
I dont have kids so I cant really say - but I will say something.
-I think its a pretty valid question to ask. If I was the employer I would be worried about people that have to cut out at 4pm to go pick up the kids everyday...or the "emergencies" every other week. I see it at all the offices I've worked for. Male and Female! - and quite frankly when people get paid salary(and even if they dont) its not fair to the 27yr old(w/ no kids) who is working just as hard as the person w/ a child to get the job done before the 5:00 deadline and the one with the kids cuts out at 4 to pick up the kids at school.
Maybe the project mgr was wondering if you would have the time to take on the responsibility he wanted to give you.
Absolutely illegal. Your family and/or marital status may not be considered a basis on which you are deemed ineligible for employment. The car thing is iffy- if you are required to have a car to drive yourself to outside meetings, or run errands for the firm, then it is a valid question. If you are not required to do such things, all they can ask is whether you have "reliable transportation" that will allow you to arrive at work in a timely manner. That reliable transportation can be a car, bus, bike, or your feet and they can't really care as long as it does not affect your ability to do your job.
Much harder is the fact that A LOT of offices still ask these questions, and there's not really much you can do about it. Especially after the fact. I tend to raise my eyebrows at the questions in the first place, and respond with the least amount of information I am legally required to give, i.e. "I have reliable transportation," or "My home life does not impair my ability to do my job in any way." People can tell that I find the question intrusive, and generally back off the subject. But since you're past that stage, you should probably just take this as a lesson learned and know for sure next time when they are venturing into improper territory.
I agree with there being a concern over the hours I can work it just seems like it could have been asked in a more professional manner. The other thing that threw me was that they asked little to no questions relevant to architecture. I could have been interviewing anywhere based on the majority of questions asked.
I guess the reason that it bothers me is because this firm was at the top of my list. Part of me wants to attempt to clarify the situation with the principal and the other part thinks maybe this was just a heads up. The other two firms I interviewed with didn't ask any questions remotely like the ones I was asked at the first firm so it just makes them seem that more odd.
I realize ultimately that they just want to hire the best person for the job. But I also realize that based on the candidate pool in the area for my level that I am pretty close to the top so again its just incredibly frustrating.
rationalist, would you recommend steering clear of this firm? Is it possible that this particular principle at this smallish firm was just having an off day or he is just not well versed in h.r. protocol?
He is probably just not well versed in HR protocol/legalities. Most people aren't. In fact, I can't even remember why I know it, but have found that most people do not. They, like most of the posters above, consider them logical questions. I would only avoid the firm if the suggestions of those questions (that you need a car, and will probably be working a lot of hours) make you uncomfortable.
If he is a principal at the firm, then he SHOULD be well versed in HR protocol. His lack of being so may be indicative of a wayward management practice. And if he is older and has children of his own (as principals often are) then he should know instinctively the inappropriateness of the question. I wouldn't say run away as fast as you can, but do think about walking away at a moderate pace -- which may be slow enough for them to catch you and convince you otherwise. But do be wary until they pony up.
I've pretty regularly been asked, where were you born? how old are you? .. both of which are illegal questions. The thing is, I usually say "native Californian" on my letters and on my resume and you can easily work out my age from my resume. So not only are these people breaking the law, they're doing so despite the fact that I've already given them the "illegal" answers as freebes.
oh.. my other favorite is "What's your native language?" (also illegal).. um, first of all, do I speak with an accent? second of all, see that little thing at the bottom of my resume that says "English: Native Tongue, Spanish: Functional, etc etc" .. again, I offer them the answer as a freebe, and they still insist on breaking Federal law.
Thanks for the advice. I will absolutely proceed with caution and be better prepared for off the wall questions. I was a bit naive to the whole process obviously on my first interview. I guess I could understand the concern regarding the hours I would be able to work. It just seems like if I was able to complete a 5 year professional degree in architecture that required a much more strenuous time commitment that I could surely be able to work a more regulated 9-5 with a bit of overtime every now and then.
As juan moment points out in the news item Urbanist links to above, and I think this is true: it's not actually illegal to ask the question. It is illegal to not hire someone based on their answer to the question.
I think this is so, does anyone know a lawyer? Do you think they ever get asked those questions? Because I'm guessing most first year lawyers work a lot longer hours than most first year architects.
liberty, actually when I was interviewing for a firm once, we were given a briefing and they told us that it actually is illegal to even ask anything from the forbOEdden list of questions
- "Can you watercolor?
- "It depends."
- "Allllriiight. Every sunday we go to the river to watercolor. The whole office!"
- "Hmmmn. Thank you for telling me about the company activities."
~~~
- "Do you have a car to get to work?"
- "It depends."
- "Allllriiight. You can drive the company car if you want, it is a Benz."
- "Hmmmn. Thank you for telling me about the company activities."
~~~
- "Would there be a problem with working the necessary hours b/c you have children?"
- "It depends."
- "Allllriiight. Just you and I, late hours but fun, ahhh."
- "Hmmmn. Thank you for telling me about the company activities."
i checked out urbanist's link to paul's link at it says asking about children discriminates based on parental status.
the employment poster (summarizing california and federal law) in my office prohibits discrimination based on religion, race, origin, sexual orientation, sexual identification, gender, age, physical disability, etc but parental status is not there. it is also not in the aia professional practice handbook.
i would like more info on this. i don't buy that parental status discrimination is illegal just based on that posting.
if this office interests you and you see them as a good practice, then speak to them again. ask to have another chance to speak with the principal. ask straight out what is the concern behind the question.
the point for both you and the office is to get the best possible match between company and employee. if you can't settle that at the beginning, what's it to be like later.
perhaps, based on purely 'legal' terms, some of these questions are 'illegal' or at least inappropriate. but honestly, when you are running an office, you want to hire great people and you want to try - in a short amount of time - to judge whether or not they fit in. the more these hiring moments become 'standardised' and dictated by a rigid code of conduct, the less there is the chance to actually determine who fits best where.
i would call them again. what have you got to lose? if they are offended that you were offended, then better off not being there. sounds more like a misunderstanding than an evil plan.
firstly, arch99 mentioned that this firm was her top choice. speaking from experience, however, i recommend not getting too excited about "top choice" firms. i've worked at many places and the experience is often different from the expectation. the places that excite you right now likely won't live up to expectations and often the firms that you want to disregard and/or ignore turn out much better than you think.
secondly, this whole notion of illegal questions is somewhat baffling to me. i can understand the desire to avoid discrimination...but interviews are a form of negotiation and the more open & transparent they are then the better in my opinion. besides, i feel that the burden should be on an interviewee to adroitly sidestep a question that he or she feels uncomfortable with. a legally mandated laundry list of "do's & don'ts" only handicaps both the interviewer & interviewee.
perhaps if we want to eliminate discrimination we should make it protocol for everyone to wear a veil at interviews so that we can't be judge by our looks either. i've long suspected that i've only been given jobs because i'm pretty and, frankly, i'd like to know if i can stand on merit alone.
aspect, being less flexible about one's hours is a behaviour, not a 'common fact.' To assume that someone will exhibit a certain behaviour which they have not persnally exhibited based on an assumption about a broad group of people (i.e. 'parents' or 'immigrants' or 'blacks') is discrimination. What if arch99 has some form of help, like a stay-at-home mom or very active grandparents, that eliminates this concern, or his kids are of an age where they are no longer a big hassle, or *gasp* he's just learned to manage his time really well? He's got to have a chance to demonstrate what behaviour he chooses to adopt, because having kids does not lock him in to one specific behaviour pattern as you have assumed.
"would there be a problem with working the necessary hours b/c I had children."
if the owner discriminate, he would not ask and assume.
btw, i still u not think that being less flexible in working hours is a behaviour, more like a habitual pattern.
behaviour-
[n] manner of acting or conducting yourself
[n] (psychology) the aggregate of the responses or reactions or movements made by an organism in any situation
[n] (behavioral attributes) the way a person behaves toward other people
[n] the action or reaction of something (as a machine or substance) under specified circumstances; "the behavior of small particles can be studied in experiments"
Not to thread jack, but I think childless employees are discriminated against. Do a google search, there's literally dozens of articles about this, from the pro-kids gov't laws to policies of big business. And from my own observation, co-workers with children are in the office subtantially less time. Some have even admitted using their child as an easy excuse to shirk work and delegate off duties. See why it burns me.
While it's unethical, and possibly illegal to ask about children & family in an interview I firmly believe it plays a direct role in productivity at the office. Of course not for everyone, but statistically enough to make it something to think about as an employer.
aspect, I guess my experience is that nobody's mind is ever really changed by a person's answers to those questions, so they are really just evidence of a discriminatory attitude.
I worked in a firm where we were swamped with work and they hired
a guy over the telephone after a telephone interview. He had the ivy paper and had been living on the big island for the past eight years or so....and had returned to the mainland because his lady friends parents were getting on in age. So he shows up at work well dressed
but not over dressed and is soft spoken and capable as all get out, however he has a beard down to his belly button and locks of hair to match....this is like 1973....in a conservative MIT oriented office.
We became fast friends because we road the subway together along with a couple of other people in the office. Often had drinks and meals together. Anyhow things start to slow down in the office and
the person who delegates work, starts cutting him out of work. We
all see and know what is going on but our long haired friend decides to fight fire with fire and starts working on designing his home in the country (his father and mother inlaw) had set him and his girlfriend up with some land in an ideal spot close to home. So basicly the office was paying him to design his own diggs, just because someone
not a principal was a bugger enough to not delegate in a fair and eqaul manner. My friend was let go....and off he went to build his dream house...
as someone who cant work past sundown on a friday (jewish sabbath) i have been asked MANY religious questions in interviews. i never bring it up until the job offer comes, but they either decide im jewish in the interview and go about asking me "how jewish" i am, or sometimes they take more sly tactics. either way, its illegal. there are always ways to make up the work, or to work arond it. been doing it for years. clients tend to be more understanding than the boss, i have found.
Oct 25, 07 3:28 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Is this illegal?
On my very first interview (recent grad) with firm #1 on my list I was asked some questions that at the very least were a bit inappropriate. I had interviewed with a project manager at the firm and everything went as well as a nervous first interview could go.
I spoke to the principal next who asked a series of seemingly pointless questions. The ones that stood out were "can I watercolor", "do I have a car to get to work", and lastly "would there be a problem with working the necessary hours b/c I had children."
The last one is obviously the one that seemed to stand out the most. I have been told by a couple of friends and my husband that these are HR no-no's. I have been told by several people that they are a good firm and they have a great website that seemed to present that they had a diverse (age/sex/race) group.
So should I be offended and what should I do?
And I would say based on the first interview with the pm that I had a decent chance but based on the interview with the principal that it doesn't look so good. Also, I had 2 other interviews today that went fabulous so I know that I am a good prospect.
1. i don't think it's illegal...maybe at a fortune 500, but not in
architecture at least.
2. what should you do? nothing? are you goin to write them
and tell them off? sue them? if they're a good firm they
want to make sure that they're hiring someone who's willing
to put in time when it's needed. is that wrong?
3. the car and the watercolor questions don't seem particularly
odd either...maybe they need you to do websites and presentations?
all in all i think you may be just a tad bit oversensitive if these
kinds of questions are really throwing you off.
the kids question maybe..but it's a reality of the profession that
most places are going to want you to put in hours..would you
prefer to find out about that after you get hired?
I've been interviewing heavily in the last 2 weeks.. I've pretty much been asked all the main illegal questions. I really don't care, either. They can probably figure out most of this stuff anyway, between my resume, portfolio, googling, and my facebook page
I dont have kids so I cant really say - but I will say something.
-I think its a pretty valid question to ask. If I was the employer I would be worried about people that have to cut out at 4pm to go pick up the kids everyday...or the "emergencies" every other week. I see it at all the offices I've worked for. Male and Female! - and quite frankly when people get paid salary(and even if they dont) its not fair to the 27yr old(w/ no kids) who is working just as hard as the person w/ a child to get the job done before the 5:00 deadline and the one with the kids cuts out at 4 to pick up the kids at school.
Maybe the project mgr was wondering if you would have the time to take on the responsibility he wanted to give you.
'would there be a problem with working the necessary hours b/c I had children' is slang for 'are you willing to work 80+ hr weeks'
Absolutely illegal. Your family and/or marital status may not be considered a basis on which you are deemed ineligible for employment. The car thing is iffy- if you are required to have a car to drive yourself to outside meetings, or run errands for the firm, then it is a valid question. If you are not required to do such things, all they can ask is whether you have "reliable transportation" that will allow you to arrive at work in a timely manner. That reliable transportation can be a car, bus, bike, or your feet and they can't really care as long as it does not affect your ability to do your job.
Much harder is the fact that A LOT of offices still ask these questions, and there's not really much you can do about it. Especially after the fact. I tend to raise my eyebrows at the questions in the first place, and respond with the least amount of information I am legally required to give, i.e. "I have reliable transportation," or "My home life does not impair my ability to do my job in any way." People can tell that I find the question intrusive, and generally back off the subject. But since you're past that stage, you should probably just take this as a lesson learned and know for sure next time when they are venturing into improper territory.
I agree with there being a concern over the hours I can work it just seems like it could have been asked in a more professional manner. The other thing that threw me was that they asked little to no questions relevant to architecture. I could have been interviewing anywhere based on the majority of questions asked.
I guess the reason that it bothers me is because this firm was at the top of my list. Part of me wants to attempt to clarify the situation with the principal and the other part thinks maybe this was just a heads up. The other two firms I interviewed with didn't ask any questions remotely like the ones I was asked at the first firm so it just makes them seem that more odd.
I realize ultimately that they just want to hire the best person for the job. But I also realize that based on the candidate pool in the area for my level that I am pretty close to the top so again its just incredibly frustrating.
rationalist, would you recommend steering clear of this firm? Is it possible that this particular principle at this smallish firm was just having an off day or he is just not well versed in h.r. protocol?
He is probably just not well versed in HR protocol/legalities. Most people aren't. In fact, I can't even remember why I know it, but have found that most people do not. They, like most of the posters above, consider them logical questions. I would only avoid the firm if the suggestions of those questions (that you need a car, and will probably be working a lot of hours) make you uncomfortable.
If he is a principal at the firm, then he SHOULD be well versed in HR protocol. His lack of being so may be indicative of a wayward management practice. And if he is older and has children of his own (as principals often are) then he should know instinctively the inappropriateness of the question. I wouldn't say run away as fast as you can, but do think about walking away at a moderate pace -- which may be slow enough for them to catch you and convince you otherwise. But do be wary until they pony up.
I've pretty regularly been asked, where were you born? how old are you? .. both of which are illegal questions. The thing is, I usually say "native Californian" on my letters and on my resume and you can easily work out my age from my resume. So not only are these people breaking the law, they're doing so despite the fact that I've already given them the "illegal" answers as freebes.
Paul posted this the other day, btw: http://archinect.com/news/article.php?id=66403_0_24_0_C
list of illegal questions
oh.. my other favorite is "What's your native language?" (also illegal).. um, first of all, do I speak with an accent? second of all, see that little thing at the bottom of my resume that says "English: Native Tongue, Spanish: Functional, etc etc" .. again, I offer them the answer as a freebe, and they still insist on breaking Federal law.
Thanks for the advice. I will absolutely proceed with caution and be better prepared for off the wall questions. I was a bit naive to the whole process obviously on my first interview. I guess I could understand the concern regarding the hours I would be able to work. It just seems like if I was able to complete a 5 year professional degree in architecture that required a much more strenuous time commitment that I could surely be able to work a more regulated 9-5 with a bit of overtime every now and then.
As juan moment points out in the news item Urbanist links to above, and I think this is true: it's not actually illegal to ask the question. It is illegal to not hire someone based on their answer to the question.
I think this is so, does anyone know a lawyer? Do you think they ever get asked those questions? Because I'm guessing most first year lawyers work a lot longer hours than most first year architects.
liberty, actually when I was interviewing for a firm once, we were given a briefing and they told us that it actually is illegal to even ask anything from the forbOEdden list of questions
- "Can you watercolor?
- "It depends."
- "Allllriiight. Every sunday we go to the river to watercolor. The whole office!"
- "Hmmmn. Thank you for telling me about the company activities."
~~~
- "Do you have a car to get to work?"
- "It depends."
- "Allllriiight. You can drive the company car if you want, it is a Benz."
- "Hmmmn. Thank you for telling me about the company activities."
~~~
- "Would there be a problem with working the necessary hours b/c you have children?"
- "It depends."
- "Allllriiight. Just you and I, late hours but fun, ahhh."
- "Hmmmn. Thank you for telling me about the company activities."
i checked out urbanist's link to paul's link at it says asking about children discriminates based on parental status.
the employment poster (summarizing california and federal law) in my office prohibits discrimination based on religion, race, origin, sexual orientation, sexual identification, gender, age, physical disability, etc but parental status is not there. it is also not in the aia professional practice handbook.
i would like more info on this. i don't buy that parental status discrimination is illegal just based on that posting.
discrimination is that he thinks that ur lazy and stupid because u have children...
and not he thinks that u have less flexible hours because u have children (which is a common fact).
da! i would hire you if you had a port....a respectful one....
if this office interests you and you see them as a good practice, then speak to them again. ask to have another chance to speak with the principal. ask straight out what is the concern behind the question.
the point for both you and the office is to get the best possible match between company and employee. if you can't settle that at the beginning, what's it to be like later.
perhaps, based on purely 'legal' terms, some of these questions are 'illegal' or at least inappropriate. but honestly, when you are running an office, you want to hire great people and you want to try - in a short amount of time - to judge whether or not they fit in. the more these hiring moments become 'standardised' and dictated by a rigid code of conduct, the less there is the chance to actually determine who fits best where.
i would call them again. what have you got to lose? if they are offended that you were offended, then better off not being there. sounds more like a misunderstanding than an evil plan.
a couple of thoughts...
firstly, arch99 mentioned that this firm was her top choice. speaking from experience, however, i recommend not getting too excited about "top choice" firms. i've worked at many places and the experience is often different from the expectation. the places that excite you right now likely won't live up to expectations and often the firms that you want to disregard and/or ignore turn out much better than you think.
secondly, this whole notion of illegal questions is somewhat baffling to me. i can understand the desire to avoid discrimination...but interviews are a form of negotiation and the more open & transparent they are then the better in my opinion. besides, i feel that the burden should be on an interviewee to adroitly sidestep a question that he or she feels uncomfortable with. a legally mandated laundry list of "do's & don'ts" only handicaps both the interviewer & interviewee.
perhaps if we want to eliminate discrimination we should make it protocol for everyone to wear a veil at interviews so that we can't be judge by our looks either. i've long suspected that i've only been given jobs because i'm pretty and, frankly, i'd like to know if i can stand on merit alone.
...on second thought, i don't have any talent so maybe i should just keep using my good looks to succeed. yeah, that works.
aspect, being less flexible about one's hours is a behaviour, not a 'common fact.' To assume that someone will exhibit a certain behaviour which they have not persnally exhibited based on an assumption about a broad group of people (i.e. 'parents' or 'immigrants' or 'blacks') is discrimination. What if arch99 has some form of help, like a stay-at-home mom or very active grandparents, that eliminates this concern, or his kids are of an age where they are no longer a big hassle, or *gasp* he's just learned to manage his time really well? He's got to have a chance to demonstrate what behaviour he chooses to adopt, because having kids does not lock him in to one specific behaviour pattern as you have assumed.
puddles, take it from a 40yo - use your prettiness to advance for as long as you possibly can...;-)
prove it. 'nuff said. move on. Obviously you dont like them, they prob dont want you. Not a good match.
rationalist> the owner ask arch99 that -
"would there be a problem with working the necessary hours b/c I had children."
if the owner discriminate, he would not ask and assume.
btw, i still u not think that being less flexible in working hours is a behaviour, more like a habitual pattern.
behaviour-
[n] manner of acting or conducting yourself
[n] (psychology) the aggregate of the responses or reactions or movements made by an organism in any situation
[n] (behavioral attributes) the way a person behaves toward other people
[n] the action or reaction of something (as a machine or substance) under specified circumstances; "the behavior of small particles can be studied in experiments"
Not to thread jack, but I think childless employees are discriminated against. Do a google search, there's literally dozens of articles about this, from the pro-kids gov't laws to policies of big business. And from my own observation, co-workers with children are in the office subtantially less time. Some have even admitted using their child as an easy excuse to shirk work and delegate off duties. See why it burns me.
While it's unethical, and possibly illegal to ask about children & family in an interview I firmly believe it plays a direct role in productivity at the office. Of course not for everyone, but statistically enough to make it something to think about as an employer.
None of that really seems inappropriate.
"oh shit. everything checks out but, your telephone number leads to an unfavorable numeric result. sorry. do you have a different number?"
"it depends"
"orright, dialing for dollars"
"thanks for telling me about the company"
What You Can Ask and What You Can’t
aspect, I guess my experience is that nobody's mind is ever really changed by a person's answers to those questions, so they are really just evidence of a discriminatory attitude.
• Require applicant submit a birth certificate or
naturalization or baptismal record before
employment.
"are you baptised?"
"allah is mah lord"
"securiteeeee!!!"
"thanks for telling me about your company"
Sketchup may not actually require the use of a PC's electronics.. dunno.
'course there's always architecture before digital design:
something tells me that THIS is going to get illegal...
I was once asked if I had a fecal fetish at an interview.
"do you have a fecal fetish?"
"depends"
"ye. we fart a lot around here"
"tftmayc" (thanks for telling me about your company)
I love it , I love it....I love it....
I worked in a firm where we were swamped with work and they hired
a guy over the telephone after a telephone interview. He had the ivy paper and had been living on the big island for the past eight years or so....and had returned to the mainland because his lady friends parents were getting on in age. So he shows up at work well dressed
but not over dressed and is soft spoken and capable as all get out, however he has a beard down to his belly button and locks of hair to match....this is like 1973....in a conservative MIT oriented office.
We became fast friends because we road the subway together along with a couple of other people in the office. Often had drinks and meals together. Anyhow things start to slow down in the office and
the person who delegates work, starts cutting him out of work. We
all see and know what is going on but our long haired friend decides to fight fire with fire and starts working on designing his home in the country (his father and mother inlaw) had set him and his girlfriend up with some land in an ideal spot close to home. So basicly the office was paying him to design his own diggs, just because someone
not a principal was a bugger enough to not delegate in a fair and eqaul manner. My friend was let go....and off he went to build his dream house...
as someone who cant work past sundown on a friday (jewish sabbath) i have been asked MANY religious questions in interviews. i never bring it up until the job offer comes, but they either decide im jewish in the interview and go about asking me "how jewish" i am, or sometimes they take more sly tactics. either way, its illegal. there are always ways to make up the work, or to work arond it. been doing it for years. clients tend to be more understanding than the boss, i have found.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.