6 ms·

I think we missed the key point that he implied he was a women with kids. Some set of hiring managers assumed a mother with kids would likely focus more on fam

I think we missed the key point that he implied he was a women with kids. Some set of hiring managers assumed a mother with kids would likely focus more on family then career. That assumption may or may not be dumb. It's certainly correctable if there is serious statistical evidence it is wrong (unlike someone just being a bigot). That wouldn't help this case though, because the inclusion of kids in the resume was an intentional signal that mangers were meant to interpret as such. Since the applicants gender was misread, the signal was read as they wanted flexible hours, not that they were stable. Sure, dad's could ask for flexible hours, but that is on the whole a less frequent occurrence. This is an even stronger single because asking if I have kids in an interview is in fact not legal in most places in the US, so including it your self is making a huge point. Oh, there's also the fact that if you did interview them and not hire, the fact that it was in their resume might give the grounds for sueing you for gender discrimination.

LockeWatts 13y ago
Maybe I missed it, where did he say his name implied he had kids?
- Falling3 13y ago
  "If they did read further, the next thing they saw (as politeness declared at the time) was a little personal information, and that declared I was married with kids."
  - LockeWatts 13y ago
    Ah, thank you!
  - ams6110 13y ago
    Your marital status and whether or not you have kids should NOT be on your CV. It's illegal for an employer to even ask about it in an interview.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > It's illegal for an employer to even ask about it in an interview. I think you'd be hard pressed to find such a law. What you will more likely find that it is illegal for an employer to discriminate in hiring based on that information, and an employer asking the question in an interview is quite likely to be used in any lawsuit over alleged discrimination as evidence that they were, in fact, discriminating in hiring based on the information, since asking a question in an hiring interview is pretty compelling evidence of an intent to use the response in making hiring decisions.
      - aroberge 13y ago
        It likely depends on the country; for all practical purpose, it is illegal to ask this question in Canada.
      - usefulcat 13y ago
        I think that asking such questions in an interview in the US can make it easier for people to sue if they don't get hired.
    - mattstreet 13y ago
      He isn't an American. Not all countries have the same laws.
etler 13y ago
I'd like to see a study of response rates on resume's that are nearly the same, except for the gender, and race implied by the name. I feel like that would provide a pretty good measure to figure out how discriminatory our jobs system is.
- anologwintermut 13y ago
  They've done them, the results strongly imply discrimination. There's been some criticism of the methodology though. I believe there was a chapter in Freakonomics criticizing the "black name" resume studies (though I cannot remember the criticism). With some of the gender ones the claim is that the career trajectories were gender atypical when the names were switched and hence looked odd. I.e. that if you took a resume of a women and a man and swapped the names, the male named female resume would get lower responses. A more salient question is why there is discrimination on gender in hiring. Is it outright sexism or is it discounting for the fact that a women is far more likely to exit her career to have kids or reduce her hours. The answer radically effect how you fix the problem.
  - whiterabbit2 13y ago
    Women "more likely" to drop out to provide childcare doesn't make it "100% women". But without fixing problems of families with small children (lack of affordable childcare, culture of long hours and such), anti-discrimination laws only create more discrimination and stereotyping... All women would be stereotyped as risky. I've known quite a few men providing childcare and needing flex hours, while their wives are too busy at work. Yet, such men are stereotyped as an exception. Because asking questions and deciding on a case by case basis is illegal, so it's a breeding ground for stereotyping.
  - anologwintermut 13y ago
    Note, the part about criticism was incorrect. The criticism was that if you handed someone a gender inverted resume, it would score lower period. So of course, if you took a "male" looking resume and gave it to someone with a female name on it, they'd find it odd just as they would if they got a female looking resume with a male name on it. The claim was the study failed to account for this. The study in question: http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.full.pdf http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.full.pdf
anotherevan 13y ago
> This is an even stronger single because asking if I have kids in an interview is in fact not legal in most places in the US, so including it your self is making a huge point. It's not such a huge point if you read the bio at the top of the article and noticed that the author lives in Australia and not just assume he lives in the US. Mind you, Australia does have similar anti-discrimination laws.
whiterabbit2 13y ago
> Some set of hiring managers assumed a mother with kids would likely focus more on family then career. In the present times, some set of managers would assume it for ANY woman of childbearing age. And if a woman doesn't have kids, she's assumed to get pregnant and go on maternity leave.
- pjmlp 13y ago
  In some countries that can happen to dads as well, because you can share the time with the kid afterwards. The point is that not hiring women because they have kids, is stupid, as the same can happen to men as well. Except for the pregnancy time, of course.
  - Tichy 13y ago
    What happens is that women usually get to do the reduced time because they have a higher claim to their kids. It is not only the paternity leave, but also for example working part time later on. Dads don't get the option to do part time instead of their wives a lot. Of course it happens, but it is not the usual thing to expect.
    - pjmlp 13y ago
      It all depends on which country one speaks about. Many European countries, have shared leaves between parents.
      - Tichy 13y ago
        As I said, it's not only the parental leave that is an issue. Often later on one parent decides to only work part time. Usually it is the mother.
        pjmlp 13y ago
        I guess I may be biased, because on our office guys also do that, which makes me wrongly extrapolate the common situation.

LockeWatts 13y ago

Maybe I missed it, where did he say his name implied he had kids?

Falling3 13y ago
"If they did read further, the next thing they saw (as politeness declared at the time) was a little personal information, and that declared I was married with kids."
- LockeWatts 13y ago
  Ah, thank you!
- ams6110 13y ago
  Your marital status and whether or not you have kids should NOT be on your CV. It's illegal for an employer to even ask about it in an interview.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > It's illegal for an employer to even ask about it in an interview. I think you'd be hard pressed to find such a law. What you will more likely find that it is illegal for an employer to discriminate in hiring based on that information, and an employer asking the question in an interview is quite likely to be used in any lawsuit over alleged discrimination as evidence that they were, in fact, discriminating in hiring based on the information, since asking a question in an hiring interview is pretty compelling evidence of an intent to use the response in making hiring decisions.
    - aroberge 13y ago
      It likely depends on the country; for all practical purpose, it is illegal to ask this question in Canada.
    - usefulcat 13y ago
      I think that asking such questions in an interview in the US can make it easier for people to sue if they don't get hired.
  - mattstreet 13y ago
    He isn't an American. Not all countries have the same laws.

etler 13y ago

I'd like to see a study of response rates on resume's that are nearly the same, except for the gender, and race implied by the name. I feel like that would provide a pretty good measure to figure out how discriminatory our jobs system is.

anologwintermut 13y ago
They've done them, the results strongly imply discrimination. There's been some criticism of the methodology though. I believe there was a chapter in Freakonomics criticizing the "black name" resume studies (though I cannot remember the criticism). With some of the gender ones the claim is that the career trajectories were gender atypical when the names were switched and hence looked odd. I.e. that if you took a resume of a women and a man and swapped the names, the male named female resume would get lower responses. A more salient question is why there is discrimination on gender in hiring. Is it outright sexism or is it discounting for the fact that a women is far more likely to exit her career to have kids or reduce her hours. The answer radically effect how you fix the problem.
- whiterabbit2 13y ago
  Women "more likely" to drop out to provide childcare doesn't make it "100% women". But without fixing problems of families with small children (lack of affordable childcare, culture of long hours and such), anti-discrimination laws only create more discrimination and stereotyping... All women would be stereotyped as risky. I've known quite a few men providing childcare and needing flex hours, while their wives are too busy at work. Yet, such men are stereotyped as an exception. Because asking questions and deciding on a case by case basis is illegal, so it's a breeding ground for stereotyping.
- anologwintermut 13y ago
  Note, the part about criticism was incorrect. The criticism was that if you handed someone a gender inverted resume, it would score lower period. So of course, if you took a "male" looking resume and gave it to someone with a female name on it, they'd find it odd just as they would if they got a female looking resume with a male name on it. The claim was the study failed to account for this. The study in question: http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.full.pdf http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.full.pdf

anotherevan 13y ago

> This is an even stronger single because asking if I have kids in an interview is in fact not legal in most places in the US, so including it your self is making a huge point. It's not such a huge point if you read the bio at the top of the article and noticed that the author lives in Australia and not just assume he lives in the US. Mind you, Australia does have similar anti-discrimination laws.

whiterabbit2 13y ago

> Some set of hiring managers assumed a mother with kids would likely focus more on family then career. In the present times, some set of managers would assume it for ANY woman of childbearing age. And if a woman doesn't have kids, she's assumed to get pregnant and go on maternity leave.

pjmlp 13y ago
In some countries that can happen to dads as well, because you can share the time with the kid afterwards. The point is that not hiring women because they have kids, is stupid, as the same can happen to men as well. Except for the pregnancy time, of course.
- Tichy 13y ago
  What happens is that women usually get to do the reduced time because they have a higher claim to their kids. It is not only the paternity leave, but also for example working part time later on. Dads don't get the option to do part time instead of their wives a lot. Of course it happens, but it is not the usual thing to expect.
  - pjmlp 13y ago
    It all depends on which country one speaks about. Many European countries, have shared leaves between parents.
    - Tichy 13y ago
      As I said, it's not only the parental leave that is an issue. Often later on one parent decides to only work part time. Usually it is the mother.
      - pjmlp 13y ago
        I guess I may be biased, because on our office guys also do that, which makes me wrongly extrapolate the common situation.