4 ms·

> Ms. Colafrancesco, now 59 and divorced, started determinedly looking for a full-time job three years ago. As soon as she mentioned that she had taken off time

> Ms. Colafrancesco, now 59 and divorced, started determinedly looking for a full-time job three years ago. As soon as she mentioned that she had taken off time to care for two children, she could see in the interviewer’s face that she had been summarily dismissed. Anybody has a clue why having taken time off to care for her children is relevant for a potential employer now that she is 59 years old, and the likelihood of her having more children fairly low?

chillingeffect 11y ago
More explicitly stated, "Put your best foot forward in a job interview. Don't give anyone any reason to think you might know less than the next candidate." Also, lying through omission is more acceptable in some places than others.
maguirre 11y ago
could it be because, in their eyes, she showed lack of commitment to her job? It feels awful just thinking it in those terms but I can see how that can be used against parents that decide to stay home to take care of their children
morgante 11y ago
It could also be that she has missed out on relevant experience due to the time spent child-rearing.
- tomp 11y ago
  This argument is reasonable on the surface, but when you think about it a bit more, it seems quite unlikely that missing 2 years of work 20 years ago would result in lack of relevant experience... Most people never have 20 years of experience (more like 20 times 1 year of experience); furthermore, whatever experience another person might have had 20 years ago is most likely either forgotten or completely irrelevant by now.
  - mistersquid 11y ago
    > This argument is reasonable on the surface, but when you think about it a bit more, it seems quite unlikely that missing 2 years of work 20 years ago would result in lack of relevant experience... I don't think the article states precisely how much time, whether 2 years or 20, Colafrancesco took off from work to raise her children. However, that's not to justify unequal hiring practices if and where such details keep employers from hiring Colafrancesco and women in similar positions.
  - cbr 11y ago
    Trying to match her linkedin profile [1] to the article, it sounds like she worked in reinsurance from 1980-2003 (age 23-46), took time off to care for kids, and started substitute teaching a few days a week in 2007 (age 50). Not working within your field for the last 13 years does seem like it would have a large effect on experience; this is getting close to your "whatever experience another person might have had 20 years ago is most likely either forgotten or completely irrelevant by now". [1] https://www.linkedin.com/in/lynn-colafrancesco-5800163 https://www.linkedin.com/in/lynn-colafrancesco-5800163
  - morgante 11y ago
    I don't necessarily agree with the argument, but I do see where employers might be coming from. She likely took off a lot more than 2 years (cbr says 13). Not working in your field for 13 years is a pretty easy way to fall out of touch with the latest practices. Employers should treat her fairly, which would probably be treating her like a slightly above entry level candidate, since so much of her experience is so dated. If they're refusing to hire her at all, that's a problem. But if they're not valuing her experience from 13 years ago as equal to experience from last year, I understand.
facepalm 11y ago
It seems like pure speculation on the part of the author of the article. Maybe these words basically write themselves in any article containing the words "women" and "jobs".
hkmurakami 11y ago
I would say that here are so many qualified candidates that look virtually identical on the surface that employers can feel justified to "play it safe" and pass on any semblance of even a slight possible negative in a candidate.
gotchange 11y ago
Can you tell how much did she take off the job to raise her kids? How many years we're talking about here and was she able to stay up to date with the latest developments and trends in her profession or industry? Also, did she feel really "dismissed" after sharing this piece of info at interviews or just "disqualified" because "dismissed" is a strong word and entails humiliation and lack of respect unlike the other one?

chillingeffect 11y ago

More explicitly stated, "Put your best foot forward in a job interview. Don't give anyone any reason to think you might know less than the next candidate." Also, lying through omission is more acceptable in some places than others.

maguirre 11y ago

could it be because, in their eyes, she showed lack of commitment to her job? It feels awful just thinking it in those terms but I can see how that can be used against parents that decide to stay home to take care of their children

morgante 11y ago

It could also be that she has missed out on relevant experience due to the time spent child-rearing.

tomp 11y ago
This argument is reasonable on the surface, but when you think about it a bit more, it seems quite unlikely that missing 2 years of work 20 years ago would result in lack of relevant experience... Most people never have 20 years of experience (more like 20 times 1 year of experience); furthermore, whatever experience another person might have had 20 years ago is most likely either forgotten or completely irrelevant by now.
- mistersquid 11y ago
  > This argument is reasonable on the surface, but when you think about it a bit more, it seems quite unlikely that missing 2 years of work 20 years ago would result in lack of relevant experience... I don't think the article states precisely how much time, whether 2 years or 20, Colafrancesco took off from work to raise her children. However, that's not to justify unequal hiring practices if and where such details keep employers from hiring Colafrancesco and women in similar positions.
- cbr 11y ago
  Trying to match her linkedin profile [1] to the article, it sounds like she worked in reinsurance from 1980-2003 (age 23-46), took time off to care for kids, and started substitute teaching a few days a week in 2007 (age 50). Not working within your field for the last 13 years does seem like it would have a large effect on experience; this is getting close to your "whatever experience another person might have had 20 years ago is most likely either forgotten or completely irrelevant by now". [1] https://www.linkedin.com/in/lynn-colafrancesco-5800163 https://www.linkedin.com/in/lynn-colafrancesco-5800163
- morgante 11y ago
  I don't necessarily agree with the argument, but I do see where employers might be coming from. She likely took off a lot more than 2 years (cbr says 13). Not working in your field for 13 years is a pretty easy way to fall out of touch with the latest practices. Employers should treat her fairly, which would probably be treating her like a slightly above entry level candidate, since so much of her experience is so dated. If they're refusing to hire her at all, that's a problem. But if they're not valuing her experience from 13 years ago as equal to experience from last year, I understand.

facepalm 11y ago

It seems like pure speculation on the part of the author of the article. Maybe these words basically write themselves in any article containing the words "women" and "jobs".

hkmurakami 11y ago

I would say that here are so many qualified candidates that look virtually identical on the surface that employers can feel justified to "play it safe" and pass on any semblance of even a slight possible negative in a candidate.

gotchange 11y ago

Can you tell how much did she take off the job to raise her kids? How many years we're talking about here and was she able to stay up to date with the latest developments and trends in her profession or industry? Also, did she feel really "dismissed" after sharing this piece of info at interviews or just "disqualified" because "dismissed" is a strong word and entails humiliation and lack of respect unlike the other one?