SAHM Reentering the Work Force - What not to do

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I and a colleague recently got over 400 resumes for one federal sector attorney job. We whittled our interviews down to ten. Then down to three. One was a woman who interviewed quite well until we asked her what she wanted out of the position. She basically said she wanted a chance to do meaningful work and raise a family (she was unmarried at that time). Both I and my colleague have kids, but we didn't like her stating this in an interview. We hired a very bright gay man who didn't say anything about kids instead. And we never looked back for a second.

That applicant lucked out. And you and your colleague are complete asshats. And possibly discriminatory.
Congrats.

Discrimination based on family/parent status IS in violation of an executive order that came out during Clinton's administration. I was an attorney at OPM at the time (no kids) and I thought it was the silliest thing ever b/c EVERYBODY (almost) had kids -- so how/why would they discriminate! But... now I see why the exec. order was necessary.... and apparently still is.

Sad commentary on hiring practices. It is illegal in the fed. gov.

She was unmarried. She did not have kids. I don't even know if she had a date. She was stating that the position would entitle her to a family friendly schedule IN A JOB INTERVIEW. We did not discriminate based on family status. We discriminated based on poor judgment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I and a colleague recently got over 400 resumes for one federal sector attorney job. We whittled our interviews down to ten. Then down to three. One was a woman who interviewed quite well until we asked her what she wanted out of the position. She basically said she wanted a chance to do meaningful work and raise a family (she was unmarried at that time). Both I and my colleague have kids, but we didn't like her stating this in an interview. We hired a very bright gay man who didn't say anything about kids instead. And we never looked back for a second.

That applicant lucked out. And you and your colleague are complete asshats. And possibly discriminatory.
Congrats.

No, she lost out on a good opportunity. Just ask the very happy man we hired.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I and a colleague recently got over 400 resumes for one federal sector attorney job. We whittled our interviews down to ten. Then down to three. One was a woman who interviewed quite well until we asked her what she wanted out of the position. She basically said she wanted a chance to do meaningful work and raise a family (she was unmarried at that time). Both I and my colleague have kids, but we didn't like her stating this in an interview. We hired a very bright gay man who didn't say anything about kids instead. And we never looked back for a second.

You are vile.

Why? We made a fantastic hire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Neither candidate (single woman, gay man) had children at the time, so how can discrimination be based on family status?

I do wonder how the PP knew that the man was gay though -- did it come up in conversation? maybe that's a good thing to let your interviewers know? I would have thought maybe to keep quiet about sexual orientation, personally, as not being relevant to the job description and duties...

You are correct. Both candidates were single at the time (as far as we knew). We certainly knew that neither was married or had children. We absolutely did not discriminate on the basis of family status.

I did not know at the time of the interview that he was gay. I had a sense that he was, both from activities listed on his resume, and from certain non-verbal cues. But I was not certain he was gay until he told me (after hire). I agree that sexual orientation is not relevant to the job.

My point is that the talented gay man did not imply that he was in a hurry to get married and take advantage of a family-friendly job schedule IN HIS INTERVIEW. Instead of talking about how we could make his life easier, he talked about what he could do for us. Only.

Another turn-off: We asked the woman why she transferred law schools. Like, across the country. She said she "was in a relationship". This alone would not have sealed her fate. This, coupled with the other remark? Doom.

The result is a hugely successful hire. We are often praised for picking him out of 400.

[Anonymous]

The hypersensitivity in this thread is astounding. In most cases, someone saying they stayed home to raise their kids has nothing to do with you. It is not implying anything- no one is talking about you, no one is slamming you- they are simply stating what they did (or currently do). All this "so you are saying I don't raise my kids" is ridiculous.

Get over your animosity or guilt and find something else to gripe about.

It also has nothing to do with the job, which is exactly what this thread is about. I don't care if you stayed at home with your kids, but please don't use it an explanation for why your skills are out of date. The only thing I care about are the skills and qualifications you bring to the job you say you want.

I'm not sure why this is so confusing to some of you.

[Anonymous]

Yup. And stating that a position offers you a chance to raise a family has nothing to do with the job, either.

If that kind of discrimination makes me vile, then I am happy to be so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I and a colleague recently got over 400 resumes for one federal sector attorney job. We whittled our interviews down to ten. Then down to three. One was a woman who interviewed quite well until we asked her what she wanted out of the position. She basically said she wanted a chance to do meaningful work and raise a family (she was unmarried at that time). Both I and my colleague have kids, but we didn't like her stating this in an interview. We hired a very bright gay man who didn't say anything about kids instead. And we never looked back for a second.

You are vile.

Why? We made a fantastic hire.

Because someone stating they want to do do meaningful work and raise a family is offensive to you. You want to get all up in arms because she choose to plan well. That doesn't mean she feels entitled, it means she is smart. And so what if she did feel entitled to a family friendly schedule...is that a bad thing?

If you know you want to have a family, it's probably a good idea to pick a job that's family friendly so that when the time comes you don't have to scramble around like an idiot trying to figure out what you are going to do. Perhaps that doesn't need to be stated in an interview, but I am having a hard time understanding why you sound so bitter about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Man here. You ladies are still at it? It's Friday night so you're all SAHMs for the next 2 days (3 for some of you because of the holiday). Enjoy yourselves and don't waste away a weekend feeling combative and insecure.

LOL

[Anonymous]

If someone stated to me in a bar or at a party or at a park or PTA meeting that they wanted to do meaningful work and raise a family it would not be offensive to me.

Context is all. When asked specifically why she wanted this particular job, half of her response embodied an assumption that, since we were Feds, we would provide a family-friendly schedule for her. She stated that a big part of her reason for wanting to work for us was that we would make her life plan easier for her. This told me a lot about attitude going in. It wasn't about what she could do for the government; it was about what her government could do for her.

My preference for another applicant was not driven by bitterness, but my judgment as to which candidate seemed to have a better work ethic.

What do I have to be bitter about? I've got the job, the husband, and the kids. But when I was in my 20s and interviewing? All I wanted WAS THE JOB. She seemed to want a husband and kids and, oh, a job too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:nonplussed= unperturbed. it is exactly what I think it means

That usage has only emerged in the past dozen years or so. The original meaning, and the one that most people consider to be correct, is the opposite of what you think.

Look it up in the dictionary sister. Whether you like it or not, it is correct usage. Honestly, when you try to slam someone and make yourself feel superior, you should at least be right. Better luck next time. Maybe you need a SAHM to tutor you in the English language. Hopefully she can meet you on your day off work.

New PP. Unfortunately, when enough people butcher a word, MW will adopt it at as a second usage. It sucks, because now nonplussed apparently means two things that are the exact opposite. This also happened with the word "literally." Now it means both literally and figuratively. Problem is, now we have no word for literally. But I wouldn't continue to "misuse" either if you want to come across as word smart. Most people still consider the second definition of nonplussed to be inaccurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She wasn't always ON our team. That's the difference. So the camaraderie among WOHMs was already built. When you've been in the workforce all that time - w/o stepping out - you see things differently.

I've seen so many SAHMs throw themselves into school activities - running the auction, becoming volunteer coordinator, assisting with lunch duty. I've always said that if they could take that energy and put it into a job, they'd become CEOs in no time. So many substitute volunteering for work. why? It's a way to shine w/o the pressure of really performing. It's also an excuse to NOT work b/c you're so instrumental in ensuring your child's school is run well.

Anonymous wrote:When you are offended (or making the choice to feel insulted) by a SAHM who says quite honestly "I stayed at home to raise my kids" then YOU are creating the controversy where there is none!

I totally agree with the WOHMs who advise SAHMs not to talk on and on about their kids in an interview. Fair point. But, to assume a judgment or insult from someone who is talking about HER own choices... well, that's just making it all about you when it's not about you.

I have been asked several times in different interviews "how old are your kids." They know I have kids b/c of the gap and my explanation of what I was doing. The interviewers are the ones trying to bring in more info. about the kids.... and then they are subtly calculating if the kids still young and going to cause a problem for the employer.

If a person says she decided to stay home and take care of her kids it is NOT the same thing as judging all WOHMs for not taking care of their kids. It's not about the the WOHM!

Lastly, you would think that a person who WOH, would be thrilled to see the arch-enemy (SAHM) trying to follow in the WOHM's footsteps! Here is a person from the "opposing" team trying to join your team, and all you can do is insult the person who wants to join your team???? You insult the SAHMs for staying at home, but when they try to be WOHMs you want to kick them back into their corner (which you sarcastically deride).

Seriously. Think about your logic if you are one of the WOHMs who is slamming on the SAHMs trying to get jobs. And try to let go of the perceived attacks, b/c I've never heard SAHMs insulting WOHMs in real life. Ever.

Let's see to the PP quoted on the top (the WOHM): you say that if the SAHMs would put their energy into a job rather than to volunteer activities, that "they'd become CEOs in no time." You're right, but someone would need to HIRE her first. Maybe that's where all the WOHM animosity comes from. You don't want to hire someone who could rise to that level (especially after that woman has stayed at home). After all, wouldn't that mean the she could 1) raise her children and 2) succeed at work? How horrible for you if that type of track was actually available to women. That would mean that working/staying at home didn't need to be an all or nothing proposition. Could it be that, you MUST deny the SAHM the opportunity to return to work and succeed there? Because if she returns and succeeds then, by definition she would have achieved it ALL/the holy grail: staying at home when the kids needed her and achieving at work despite that choice. How, then, would you feel about having missed the opportunity (one that can never be recreated, btw) to be with your children when they are little? Wouldn't you feel like you had gotten a raw deal by staying at work (most likely to make sure you didn't lose your career, etc.) if some SAHM comes along and is accepted back into the workplace and succeeds when she is there. By holding the SAHM down, you WOHM/interviewer perpetuate the all or nothing paradigm.

The only reason the SAHM is even considered for the job is because working moms exist. Because women become moms and continue to work. So achieving the holy grail for a SAHM is dependent on WOHMs and that is a fact. You (not you, as in you, but in people in general) can't have it both ways. You can't say the ultimate goal should be to stay home and raise kids and then get back into the workforce because if a significant number of women did that, there would be no returning to the workforce for SAHMs in any role other than what my moms' friends returned to in the 1980s after raising kids - teaching, nursing, etc.

[Anonymous]

She basically said she wanted a chance to do meaningful work and raise a family (she was unmarried at that time).

You know, I am a working fed with kids, and I have to say, I agree that this is not an appropriate answer in an interview. Yes, you want to ask questions about life in the office and how it will work with your family - AFTER you have the offer. The interview is a chance to show why you are interested in the work that the position offers - meaning the job duties. I mean, if a single person intereviewed for a job and one of their answers about why they were interested in the position was "because it will allow me to telework one day a week," that would look pretty weak too, right? Certainly they shouldn't pass this woman over on the basis that she has kids, but one of her stated reasons for wanting the job shouldn't be because it has an easy schedule. Also, the answer is insulting because it insinuates that she feels that the people who currently work there aren't willing to work hard/long hours if necessary.

[Anonymous]

What do I have to be bitter about? I've got the job, the husband, and the kids. But when I was in my 20s and interviewing? All I wanted WAS THE JOB. She seemed to want a husband and kids and, oh, a job too.

I think this is a very negative statement. Why shouldn't she want the husband, kids, and job too? I do. The problem is that her answer doesn't reflect that she is willing to work as hard as it takes to have all three.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

She basically said she wanted a chance to do meaningful work and raise a family (she was unmarried at that time).

You know, I am a working fed with kids, and I have to say, I agree that this is not an appropriate answer in an interview. Yes, you want to ask questions about life in the office and how it will work with your family - AFTER you have the offer. The interview is a chance to show why you are interested in the work that the position offers - meaning the job duties. I mean, if a single person intereviewed for a job and one of their answers about why they were interested in the position was "because it will allow me to telework one day a week," that would look pretty weak too, right? Certainly they shouldn't pass this woman over on the basis that she has kids, but one of her stated reasons for wanting the job shouldn't be because it has an easy schedule. Also, the answer is insulting because it insinuates that she feels that the people who currently work there aren't willing to work hard/long hours if necessary.

[Anonymous]

11:28, thanks for making such a meaningful addition to this thread. I know exactly why you disagree with the quoted post, and you made some really interesting and cogent points. Oh wait, maybe not.