I'm not assuming it's a bad place to work. But I wouldn't want to work there with that man supervising me and I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels that way. I could report him to the main manager, but I don't know what that would result in. I doubt that on the basis of one complaint they're going to fire him.Originally Posted by Persephone
Check the BC Labour Standards Act for what's acceptable and what's not with what really were job interview questions, whether you were in his office or not. Some things may have changed since I dealt with it, but the husband/boyfriend question was probably out of line. If he was challenged on his question about your current earnings, his implication that you couldn't be supporting yourself on that amount of money, and whether or not you have a husband or boyfriend, his defence might be that he was concerned that you might be supplementing your (in his opinion) unliveable earnings with illegal activity like selling drugs, even 'tho I'm sure that never occurred to him. Who would basically semi-offer a job to someone they suspect might be dealing drugs on the side? Some people will say darned near anything to defend themselves if they're facing questions from the Employment Standards people. He might defend his question about a husband/boyfriend on the basis that perhaps there are two incomes coming into the household. Or possibly that a partner could pick up the slack with childcare if you had to go to work early, delivering kids to daycare, etc. But if some guy referred to "my girls" while discussing his staff, I'd be likely to point out to him that slavery ended in this country long ago. Oops, forgot. Saw a commercial last night, Salvation Army, that says there are approximately 15,000 sex slaves of both sexes in Canada right now.
In my experience that's how things sometimes go when an potential employer has crossed the line in the opinion of the potential employee during an interview, and the potential employer is called on it, with the Employment Standards Branch coming in. Or when an employee is laying a charge of out and out violation of the Code. Sometimes a whole lot of lying, "misunderstanding", "I didn't know that was a law", and forgetting goes on.
However, if you felt uncomfortable with the questions, then if I were you, I'd go with my gut, just the way you did. Not much of an Oprah Winfrey fan, but she was very wise when she said that she'd learned from her dogs that if it was a situation they'd run from, she should, too. But it wouldn't take much time and effort for this guy who semi-interviewed you for a job to change his wording from "my girls" to "my staff". He's more than one step behind the times in that area.
But--like the old commercial said: "We've come a long way, baby" In my interview for my second job after finishing my schooling, I was not only asked if I was planning on getting pregnant any time soon, because the company woudn't be interested in training me for a specialized position to discover later that I was pregnant and taking time off or quitting completely to raise a baby--I was even asked what method of birth control my husband and I were using.
To be entirely fair, 'tho, is there any way we can give this company, or this employee of the company, an opportunity to defend himself? Or to decide that it's time to move into, at the very least, the last part of the twentieth century?
Last edited by Nostradama; 02-25-2010 at 11:21 AM. Reason: Addition at end of first paragraph
They are drivers
Big Mac- Yeah, see, that's what I figured.
There is no way in hell that I would have answered those questions and I'm not a girl! Does this idiot not know anything about the privacy act? Does he now know that he can be reported for asking anything about race, creed, orientation and marital status? Good grief.
Wyatt Earp
Knows a thing or two about a thing or two but is always willing to learn about a third!
www.arrowsmithpm.com
What really concerns me is the women who do not know this and people who are not aware of thier rights and just answer with missgivings.
There are just some good old fashioned unaware peple out there and "this idiot" might not know that he may have been asleep and the rules have changed.
People live in little pockets sometimes that have not seen the light of the changes.
This is my sense of what is happening here.
It is the friendliest one I can find.
(pic) Keep warm, and winter well.
The rights I'm talking about have been around since our charter was written - nothing new here! He is praying on the immigrant or uneducated to use them, not to employ them!
Sick. truly, sick.
Wyatt Earp
Knows a thing or two about a thing or two but is always willing to learn about a third!
www.arrowsmithpm.com
I have to agree with you that it looks that way.
The prey of such inapropriate and unprofessional questioning would be immigrants and other vulnerable women who are unaware that this is Not required information for an interview..
Just trying to give the man the benifit of the doubt.
I would like a little more info before assuming this individual is craeting a little kingdom over the rights of his female workers.
I only learned about six years ago that there were things I did not need to answer that appeared regularily on applications and interviews.
I am not sure how long things have been so well understood as my employment has been thankfuly stable.
(pic) Keep warm, and winter well.
I agree that this man should be given the benefit of the doubt and that assumptions should not be made.
At some point in, I believe, the 1990s, a course called Career and Personal Planning was introduced in secondary schools, and it was mandatory. It's now been revised into Health and Career Education, Planning 10, and Career and Personal Planning 11 and 12, I believe. And in the career portion of the earlier courses introduced in the nineties, students should have been taught about all of these things. That material was certainly contained in the curriculum. There were blue booklets handed out to each student, issued by the provincial government, outlining what questions could and could not be asked in an interview situatiion, what were acceptable questions for a job application to be filled out by prospective employees, what and what should not be mentioned in a resume, and the rights of both the employee and the employer. For example: no picture attached to a resume, no social insurance number mentioned--the employer can only ask for the SIN once the person is hired.
I learned this in a re employment progrm in the 90's as well, infact was overjoyed at the new simplicity of the application process.
Had I not been in that program I would not have knowen about the information no longer required on a resume.
It is possible not to know about such things as the program was just a fluke, I have not done any such program before or since and had I not I would still be handing out resumes with nformation that was required in the 70"s.
If this manager graduated in 1980 ish he may not have been informed of the changes,
In the eighties I told a perspective employer not just many children I had but how I proposed to look after them so as to not have too many absences at work due to their need for care.
For the benifit of the doubt this fellow needs one of theose little blue books.
I wouldnt mind taking a look at it myself!
for those of you who are under 40 I need you to know the world has changed in many many ways!
(pic) Keep warm, and winter well.
Posting Permissions
View Profile
View Forum Posts
Private Message
Reply With Quote
