TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:RE: Question of the Day From:"James Barrow" <vrfour -at- verizon -dot- net> To:<techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com> Date:Thu, 16 Nov 2006 13:50:29 -0800
>Lori Olcott wrote:
>>Jim Barrow said:
>>Okay, so a recruiter asks me if I have any travel plans and that's okay,
>>but it's not okay to ask any question related to child birth or time off
>>for child birth?
>Travel plans and maternity leave are actually very different things with
>very different expectations attached.
Not really. What I'm focusing on is the 'time off' aspect. To avoid a
brouhaha like last time, let's assume the following:
* 1 year contract position
* Go live date is eight months from today
* The potential employee are not *asked* about pregnancy, but rather she
offers that information on her own.
In scenario #1, a male candidate is asked if he has any upcoming travel
plans. He answers yes, he's taking a two-week cruise nine months from
today. So the interviewer decides that since he needs someone on-site,
every day, for the next year, he cannot hire this candidate.
Scenario #2 (same job position): A female candidate says - after all of the
formal interview questions - "This job will really help since my husband and
I are expecting a baby in eight months". The interviewer decides that since
he needs someone on-site, every day, for the next year, she would not work
out, but he cannot deny this person based on this.?
>If a potential employer knows about travel plans, they can expect you to
>be gone 1-2 weeks. However, maternity leave can be anywhere from 1-3
>months, plus all the newborn checkups and "Mom can't watch the baby today"
>and all the other joys of early parenthood. Not all these problems will
>crop up for every couple, but the expectation is there.
Precisely. This issue has always intrigued me because it sounds like a
double-standard. It sounds like an employer can pass over a candidate if,
for example, the candidate states that they need time off to watch the World
Series. But if a candidate for the same job states that they need 1-3
months off to have a baby, then the employer's hands are tied.
>As a result, there is a distinct chance that that an expectant mother may
>be turned down for a position simply because the employer doesn't want to
>deal with all the hassles they expect to see. That's why it's a prohibited
Understand, I have nothing against propagating the human race. But after
reading the list of prohibited questions, this one still makes me wonder.