Hiring: be honest

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One thing that has changed is 25 years ago a newly married man about to have kids with his wife’s was your best employee. They took their job very serious as now a wife, kids to support and a mortgage.

Today they are your worse. Between paternity leave, running out door day care, snow days schools, coaching teams. They are a horror show.

I have one working for me a 45 year old male with two young kids. I actually told him I wish I could hire your wife instead of you. He is a man child. I think he might grow up by 60

My guess is this has more to do with the type of job you are offering than gender. You probably offer "trailing spouse" jobs that don't pay well enough to be the sole or primary income for a family in your area or don't have much growth. As a result, you get employees (of both genders) who are responsible for snow days, daycare etc. and the other spouse hustles because they earn more or have more upward potential. If you offer "leading spouse" jobs, then you get people who are the best employees in your eyes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One thing that has changed is 25 years ago a newly married man about to have kids with his wife’s was your best employee. They took their job very serious as now a wife, kids to support and a mortgage.

Today they are your worse. Between paternity leave, running out door day care, snow days schools, coaching teams. They are a horror show.

I have one working for me a 45 year old male with two young kids. I actually told him I wish I could hire your wife instead of you. He is a man child. I think he might grow up by 60

Can you imagine saying to a female employee, "I wish I could hire your husband instead of you?"

[Anonymous]

Do you think that being fat looks unprofessional? No snark; genuinely interested in your answer.

In general, no, as long as the appearance is otherwise neat, but I wouldn't want a fat person as a receptionist at a weight-loss clinic or doctor's office. It sends the wrong message to customers.

For what positions do you consider marital status?

None for which I have hired. I could see where it would make a difference for, say, a job that required significant travel away from the home. Or had significant on-call or after-hours work requirements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing that has changed is 25 years ago a newly married man about to have kids with his wife’s was your best employee. They took their job very serious as now a wife, kids to support and a mortgage.

Today they are your worse. Between paternity leave, running out door day care, snow days schools, coaching teams. They are a horror show.

I have one working for me a 45 year old male with two young kids. I actually told him I wish I could hire your wife instead of you. He is a man child. I think he might grow up by 60

My guess is this has more to do with the type of job you are offering than gender. You probably offer "trailing spouse" jobs that don't pay well enough to be the sole or primary income for a family in your area or don't have much growth. As a result, you get employees (of both genders) who are responsible for snow days, daycare etc. and the other spouse hustles because they earn more or have more upward potential. If you offer "leading spouse" jobs, then you get people who are the best employees in your eyes.

That’s not the issue. It is the lazy his guys with no hustle or drive. All the jobs I hire for pay well or will pay well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They definitely think “fat” = “lazy”

+1
More for women than men and there have been studies done on this. Women of color are dinged the hardest (of course).

I have heard this before, but in my office we have several large black women who are extremely put together and great employees. I am so impressed by their style, independent of their size.

[Anonymous]

I’m surprised to read about the 35-year-old who might go on maternity leave. This doesn’t resonate with me because I work With professional knowledge workers and by mid 30s you’re pretty far in your career probably management or director level. so I’m thinking more long-term and not thinking this person might need three or four months off. Seems really shortsighted to eliminate a huge pool of talent.

I can see for someone who is looking for entry-level data entry, retail, or something like a call center being concerned about this, but not for professional knowledge workers.

I’m in my late 40s and I feel like in my 30s my career was white hot and people were falling over themselves to hire me. I mean I just feel like that was sort of the prime on my career and people were still looking at my potential and excited about that. So that doesn’t track with my experience, and I’m a mom of two by the way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you are interviewing applicants do you take into consideration things that you’re not technically allowed to consider? Like for example the fact that a woman just got married at 35 and is probably going to have children soon and therefore either taking maternity leave or quitting to stay home? Or someone highly qualified has dyed pink hair and therefore may turn off your conservative clients? Just examples. Anonymous forum here so curious about what decision makers are really thinking, especially small business owners where the one hiring is also the one most invested in the success of the company.

Yes, I generally don't like to hire female big law refugees who are looking to come be government lawyers and have their babies. I have no problem with government attorneys who have already put their time in and want to have children but I've experienced too many women in their mid 30's/early 40's escape to the government and then be on the fast track to motherhood because they feel like they are running out of time. I understand it though.

Huh. I think those hires are great because they appreciate how good they have it in the government and knock it out of the park.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you are interviewing applicants do you take into consideration things that you’re not technically allowed to consider? Like for example the fact that a woman just got married at 35 and is probably going to have children soon and therefore either taking maternity leave or quitting to stay home? Or someone highly qualified has dyed pink hair and therefore may turn off your conservative clients? Just examples. Anonymous forum here so curious about what decision makers are really thinking, especially small business owners where the one hiring is also the one most invested in the success of the company.

Yes, I generally don't like to hire female big law refugees who are looking to come be government lawyers and have their babies. I have no problem with government attorneys who have already put their time in and want to have children but I've experienced too many women in their mid 30's/early 40's escape to the government and then be on the fast track to motherhood because they feel like they are running out of time. I understand it though.

Huh. I think those hires are great because they appreciate how good they have it in the government and knock it out of the park.

Also, if they were actually smart, they’d stay at the firm long enough to take advantage of their firm’s parental leave, which is likely better than the federal gov’t’s parental leave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Marital status does not count as a protected class in about half of the US states. Even when it does, it often depends upon the size of the company (must have more than X employees).

Hair style and being fat/thin are also not protected classes.

I would consider all of these when hiring, depending upon the position. (Marital status is not protected in my state.) If you are stacking boxes in a warehouse, I don't care what you look like. If you are in a public-facing position, I want someone who looks professional.

Do you think that being fat looks unprofessional? No snark; genuinely interested in your answer.

For what positions do you consider marital status?

Thanks.

I don't care if someone is fat at all but like anyone else, they should appear neat, clean and dress professionally in clothes that fit, for the interview. I have never heard anyone say anything negative about someone's weight when on an interview panel and I've never felt like someone did not choose someone based on weight. I have thought that older candidates or certain ethnic groups were not chosen by colleagues based on age/background.

[Anonymous]

GenX person here. I am a lawyer very involved in hiring for my Federal government legal office. Of the things that have been mentioned here, I would not hire someone with a stretched earlobe piercing, because I’m squeamish and that makes me feel ill to see. Not a fan of septum piercings or tongue piercings for the same reason, but could overlook for the right candidate. Don’t care about hair coloring or tattoos or other piercings.

Vocal fry is so incredibly grating, but we recently hired a 30 year old woman with both a terrible case of that plus statement-as-question-disorder. She’s excellent, so I’m training myself to deal.

Mostly I look to avoid people who are smug or arrogant. I would not have thought to avoid this candidate type, but we once had an interviewee so confident that she would get the job that did the University of Arkansas hog call to wrap things up. I hope she landed somewhere good, but we were unsettled/ terrified.

[Anonymous]

I used to do a lot of hiring on panels. I always noticed their particular nitpicks about people and often felt like they were blinded by certain prejudices but usually we agreed on who were the top candidates. An example would be a colleague who judged people based on their smiles. I am sure that I had my own blind spots. My point in writing this is to say that sometimes it's just a crapshoot and depends on who interviews you. You also don't know who you're competing against--sometimes they're stellar or there are several great people to choose from. That's why you just have to try again if you don't succeed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:GenX person here. I am a lawyer very involved in hiring for my Federal government legal office. Of the things that have been mentioned here, I would not hire someone with a stretched earlobe piercing, because I’m squeamish and that makes me feel ill to see. Not a fan of septum piercings or tongue piercings for the same reason, but could overlook for the right candidate. Don’t care about hair coloring or tattoos or other piercings.

Vocal fry is so incredibly grating, but we recently hired a 30 year old woman with both a terrible case of that plus statement-as-question-disorder. She’s excellent, so I’m training myself to deal.

Mostly I look to avoid people who are smug or arrogant. I would not have thought to avoid this candidate type, but we once had an interviewee so confident that she would get the job that did the University of Arkansas hog call to wrap things up. I hope she landed somewhere good, but we were unsettled/ terrified.

Priceless story!

[Anonymous]

I do think about “illegal” things, but it’s never come close to being the deciding factor. I would not let it be. But I’m human so I think about it.

[Anonymous]

No - absolutely not. I've hired tattooed and pierced and brightly colored hair. I don't consider whether someone is likely to get pregnant. Years ago someone took a chance on me after I'd been out of the work force to stay home with my kids and I've never forgotten the opportunity I was given.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you are interviewing applicants do you take into consideration things that you’re not technically allowed to consider? Like for example the fact that a woman just got married at 35 and is probably going to have children soon and therefore either taking maternity leave or quitting to stay home? Or someone highly qualified has dyed pink hair and therefore may turn off your conservative clients? Just examples. Anonymous forum here so curious about what decision makers are really thinking, especially small business owners where the one hiring is also the one most invested in the success of the company.

Yes, I generally don't like to hire female big law refugees who are looking to come be government lawyers and have their babies. I have no problem with government attorneys who have already put their time in and want to have children but I've experienced too many women in their mid 30's/early 40's escape to the government and then be on the fast track to motherhood because they feel like they are running out of time. I understand it though.

Huh. I think those hires are great because they appreciate how good they have it in the government and knock it out of the park.

Also, if they were actually smart, they’d stay at the firm long enough to take advantage of their firm’s parental leave, which is likely better than the federal gov’t’s parental leave.

Actually, shows smarts to get out while they can. Being a parent of a baby at a law firm is the worst thing ever. I watched many women do it and quit in tears, and got out myself to put in 3 years with the government before having kids. The "family friendly" law firm just didn't outright show you the door when you had kids. They still expected you to work until midnight on no notice - which is tough when your baby is in the day care downstairs that closes at 6 pm - and dinged you for taking the maternity leave offered. I saw colleagues take the leave and then be held back a year or denied a bonus. Way better to do it at the government, even unpaid, with no strings attached and no one telling you that you owed them hard work because of all the time you took off. Heck I got promoted to a supervisory position at 8 months pregnant and took my (unpaid) leave, and no one said boo about it. That would not have happened at my firm. Yeah, you have to save up to be able to afford not to get paid; but if you can do that, it is completely worth it.