Magnifisyncopathological

By slowly scaring people away from asking "sensitive" questions that would otherwise be completely relevant in a variety of circumstances.

TechRepublic.com: Steer clear of these 10 illegal job interview questions

#1: Where were you born?

#2: What is your native language?

#3: Are you married?

#4: Do you have children?

#5: Do you plan to get pregnant?

#6: How old are you?

#7: Do you observe Yom Kippur?

#8: Do you have a disability or chronic illness?

#9: Are you in the National Guard?

#10: Do you smoke or use alcohol?

Whether these questions are actually outlawed is beside the point. The text points out the deeper issue underneath inquiries like these:

In general, you should not ask interviewees about their age, race, national origin, marital or parental status, or disabilities.

...you can’t discriminate on the basis of marital status...a general prohibition about discrimination over parental status...age discrimination is clearly illegal...[y]ou can’t discriminate on the basis of religion...[disability or chronic illness] is not supposed to be used as a factor in hiring...it’s illegal to discriminate against someone because he or she belongs to the National Guard or a reserve unit...you can’t discriminate on the basis of the use of a legal product when the employee is not on the premises and not on the job.

As a consequence of interfering with the businessperson's right to determine who they may and may not employ, we've now got whole realms of human action that are now off-limits for discussion. If you broach those topics (or even appear to consider them), you open yourself to state-sanctioned legal liability that can take years to resolve.

I've written before about the difference between good discrimination and bad discrimination. None of the above verboten subjects constitutes bad discrimination in principle.

#1: Where were you born? / #2: What is your native language?
Yes, it is entirely possible that bigots use questions like these to weed certain ethnicities and cultures out of the hiring pool. It's a fundamentally irrational and silly choice to make because background does not strictly determine ability, but that remains the legitimate choice of the employer.

However, it is very relevant to them what the potential employee's language proficiencies are and whether that person's culture is compatible with the organization.

#3: Are you married? / #4: Do you have children? / #5: Do you plan to get pregnant?
These are certainly personal questions, but whether they cross the line into "too much information" is not for anyone but the individuals on either side of the table to decide.

It is entirely relevant business information to know whether a person's family life will interfere with his or her productive life. Not all mothers-to-be or single fathers or whathaveyou allow domestic troubles to upset their work, but it can and does happen.

#6: How old are you?
Before going into anything else, isn't this likely to be expressed in the applicant's documentation either explicitly or implicitly? Some paperwork contain dates of birth and graduation dates. Asking this is more of a formality if anything.

It's relevance to business is small but still meaningful. The employer may think some jobs are suitable for certain age groups. Again, a blanket bias may be based in malice but it doesn't make business sense in the long run nor is is logically coherent to deny a job to a well-qualified 61-year-old and give it to a 55-year-old purely on the basis of six years' difference in age.

#7: Do you observe Yom Kippur?
Yes, a very personal question. People often prefer to keep their religious preferences to themselves. That's their prerogative, just as it's the prerogative of the employer to choose to ask.

Most mainstream religions don't require (or consistently enforce their requirement of) substantial time off or disruptive behavior during business hours. However, it is relevant to the employer whether the application belongs to one that does. For example, it might be troublesome for both parties - or outright dangerous - if a Muslim employee was faithful to the Ramadan diet restrictions and was employed in a labor-intensive capacity during that month.

#8: Do you have a disability or chronic illness?
This is absolutely relevant to employers. It is not at all wrong to think such employees may be less productive and more expensive to maintain on the payroll. A disability by it's very nature means the individual's natural abilities are hampered. Some disabilities impact job performance and some don't.

Given the quasi-socialist nature of the health care system and the market-distorting incentives the state creates fo employers to offer health coverage, it is quite relevant to know whether someone has a serious disease.

#9: Are you in the National Guard?
No, of course it's irrelevant/hurtful/invasive/bigoted/discriminatory to know whether someone decided to sign their name to a contract that could - at any moment - sweep them away for months at a time and put them in situations that might kill or severely maim them! Gee, why would that be helpful knowledge to your boss!?

#10: Do you smoke or use alcohol?
There are health puritans out there and they would have every damn right on this planet to post a sign in their lobby that says, "We don't hire drinkers and smokers." I wouldn't do business with them, but it's a right that is completely analogous to my right to deny anyone I deem from entering my house. My property, my rules.

Contrast this with the other approach that is so popular these days: outright government bans. Other than exceptions for politically-favored groups, these actions don't discriminate at all.

That is why I frame my discussions so often from the viewpoint of individual liberty. The banners and the anti-discriminators just cannot stand it when they see someone doing something of which they don't approve. They'll pay lip service to rational conversation, but only as long to organize loud protests and legal action.

Anyway, here's the crystallization of my point:
blackflagconditions:

This article is completely untrue, right from the title

Just to clarify for those that don't know a thing about HR...This is a completely misleading article. There are no illegal interviewing questions in the United States that are on this list. You can not get arrested for these questions, nor will your company get in trouble for just asking them. You can however, get in trouble for acting on the information you get from one of these questions if the information puts the person in a protected class. As a rule, it is safe to not ask these questions but by no means illegal.

ls1313:

Good point, but. . .

Good point about the title and the use of the term "illegal." However, although not technically correct, the title does grab one's attention. It also functions as a good way to really drive into people's heads the following: "Save your company a lot of potential aggravation by NOT letting ANY of these questions EVER escape your lips!!" As a word, "Illegal" does that fairly simply.

rpost:

Hit the nail on the head

Many times the (illegal) questions are more subtle. Don't ask how old you are, just when and where you graduated from high school. It not only gives the employer your age but also if you are "native." Having reached a "protected" age group and not being native, has made it almost imposible to get a job. The irony here is; I work for a non-profit whose benefits and wages are way sub par and they apprear to get away with it because they appear to intentionally hire older people.

Can you see it?

The tightening constriction of your freedom? These don't need to be illegal. Treating a politically favored class in an unapproved way is the real issue. That's where you get hammered in the press and the courts.

ssharkins:

Great article

Education is a great tool -- more more! My husband has been on a few interviews this past year and has been asked a few of those questions. He is nearing 60 and practically unemployable at this point -- but proving that a prospective employer discriminated on the basis of an illegal question is another matter. Knowing the questions are illegal is good. But, what do you do when it happens and although you know you're qualified, you don't get the job and you suspect it was the answer to that illegal question?

And this is precisely what I'm talking about. Here is a man whom his wife openly states as being "practically unemployable." We don't know the reason. Notice she confuses the issue by implying he's still qualified to work. Well, who ought to make that final decision? I say it's the business owner's right to decide who is really qualified for a job. He could suffer from growing dementia. He could have a terrible back. His eyesight might be rapidly failing. He could be firmly set in his ways. He could have any number of things that are wrong with him from the standpoint of someone who wants to hire a reliable, effective, and flexible employee.

But with the power of the state behind them, they can force employers to hire them or suck blood money from them in civil litigation. Why are these people tolerated in our society? Why can't we laugh assholes like these from our offices when they start complaining?

And yet all day I hear in and out that this is a freewheeling, everything-goes, capitalist society.

What rubbish.