Exactly. And it's my business on how to handle my family. I can think of one employer who specifically said that they didn't want to hire me because he didn't want my family to move across the country. EXCUSE ME! Isn't that my decision to make. Do you think I would have applied thinking anything different?
Why is having a family such a big deal?
- Thread starter mshunter
- Start date
Exactly. And it's my business on how to handle my family. I can think of one employer who specifically said that they didn't want to hire me because he didn't want my family to move across the country. EXCUSE ME! Isn't that my decision to make. Do you think I would have applied thinking anything different?
ComplexHiAv8r
Well-Known Member
mshunter said:
I have seen and documented (via email) a VERY large company wanted contractors but want younger experienced people even to a point to say that the two offerings were capable but they were concerned on their ages (56 and 62). But say anything and get blacklisted....
Matt13C
Well-Known Member
Just to play devils advocate, if its a flying position, they might want to avoid the situation of "My kid needs to go here, sorry I cant make it, call it a sick day." That or they pay a terrible wage and know its tough to support a family on and youll end up leaving for a better position at your first opportunity.
Total BS and should not matter one bit. I agree with you, having a family to support in general would make you more willing to go above and beyond to keep the job. But as was said earlier, if it matters that much to them, do you really want the job? My family is my life and if it is an issue with a potential employer then its most likely not going to work out, its a job, they are my family, they win always.
Good luck in the job search, I hope you find something soon.
SpiceWeasel
Tre Kronor
Everyone here lives under a rock, or something similar, I assume?
Where in the Constitution of the United States of America does it say (and sure, consult the Bill of Rights specifically) that a private business has to allow freedom of the xyz?
I thought the Bill of Rights was there to protect us from the government? So why are we all up in arms about a private business and its shady hiring practices? Choose not to work there - choose not to do business there...
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/02/unemployment-discrimination.html
Perhaps they're asking if you have a family because part of the job is being a gigolo and that hasn't worked out for the married folks in the past?
Maybe it looks bad for the customers that you've got a kid? Much like it could look bad if you had piercings or tattoos clearly visible all over your body? And why would you want to give them ammo "I can provide reasons why I'd be a better employee because I have a kid". Maybe an ex-employee with children abused the crap out of their sick time to pick the kid up from school. When you're not at work you're not productive, so they're hedging their bets by lowering the number of "qualified" (in their eyes) applicants to the ones who won't flake out?
Purely playing devils advocate here. It's truly interesting to see things from the conservative, business perspective.
PositionAndHold
Well-Known Member
Fixed it for you. I too am just playing devils advocate.
I'm a middle of the road kinda guy, not really political at all. I believe the most qualified should be hired. Period. Race, gender or any other "factors" shouldn't influence the hiring decision. Problem is, a lot of the dirt bag companies didn't see it that way, and it's taken a couple generations to right those wrongs, and we still have a long way to go.
The Bill of Rights is also there to protect us from each other.
jrh
Well-Known Member
:yeahthat:
If a person has a family, it brings an entirely new set of variables in to the picture, both for good and bad.
Employers care about those variables.
For example, I work in a small office of 5 employees. One of my coworkers will be taking a two month maternity leave in April. That single event has had a dramatic impact on the way we're structuring the business. Job descriptions, hiring of new employees, pay, schedules, and many other elements related to the *other* employees have been affected by this one employee leaving for two months.
It's nice to say, "Having a family shouldn't matter," but the reality is that it does. If a business has seen a higher turnover among employees with families versus without, that means families are costing the company money.
I'm not saying it's right to ask the question during an interview. I'm just saying that's the way it is and I think it's a bit naive to claim it doesn't matter.
Ok.
Because we don't want to hire people who have outside commitments. If we need to extend you to fly a trip, we can't afford for you to say "No thanks, I have child care issues." We want you to be available one hundred percent of the time on your working days. Also, with our half hour call out time, we have found that people with families just can't make it here in time.
And people without kids don't have issues/commitments either?
In life, stuff happens. People get knocked up when they're taking precautions not to, older family members (elderly or aging parents) fall, get hurt and require assistance, sometimes they even live hundreds of miles away.
If you want to only hire single people with no family who will never have any family, your (as a business) hiring pool is pretty slim.... The human element is something that is a part of LIFE, and that reaches into the business world too. What if your single, child-less person gets in a horrific car accident one day? That would take that person out of work too. It comes back to the human aspect. We're all human, things happen, and punishing someone by not hiring them solely because of a spouse and/or kids isn't the right thing to do.
As for "people with families" not making a 1/2 hour callout or an extended trip, who are you to know what their family dynamic is during an interview? Maybe the person has two kids. Maybe that person has a stay-home spouse or a live-in grandparent to take care of the kids. There would be no reason that family/childcare would keep that person from making a 1/2 hour callout.
[edit to add] And this is kind of a generic hiring discrimination thing, but you can't always judge whether or not someone is a "family-risk" by their appearance. For example, a female of 35-ish being interviewed... the interviewer is concerned about possible maternity leave issues. How does he know if she'll get pregnant and have to go on maternity leave? On the other hand, how does he know she hadn't had a hysterectomy 3 years prior, and the possibility of that interviewee becoming pg is absolutely 0. He doesn't... and by judging by age/gender he has now cost himself a possibly fantastic employee who has NO chance of ever needing maternity leave!
In life, stuff happens. People get knocked up when they're taking precautions not to, older family members (elderly or aging parents) fall, get hurt and require assistance, sometimes they even live hundreds of miles away.
If you want to only hire single people with no family who will never have any family, your (as a business) hiring pool is pretty slim.... The human element is something that is a part of LIFE, and that reaches into the business world too. What if your single, child-less person gets in a horrific car accident one day? That would take that person out of work too. It comes back to the human aspect. We're all human, things happen, and punishing someone by not hiring them solely because of a spouse and/or kids isn't the right thing to do.
As for "people with families" not making a 1/2 hour callout or an extended trip, who are you to know what their family dynamic is during an interview? Maybe the person has two kids. Maybe that person has a stay-home spouse or a live-in grandparent to take care of the kids. There would be no reason that family/childcare would keep that person from making a 1/2 hour callout.
[edit to add] And this is kind of a generic hiring discrimination thing, but you can't always judge whether or not someone is a "family-risk" by their appearance. For example, a female of 35-ish being interviewed... the interviewer is concerned about possible maternity leave issues. How does he know if she'll get pregnant and have to go on maternity leave? On the other hand, how does he know she hadn't had a hysterectomy 3 years prior, and the possibility of that interviewee becoming pg is absolutely 0. He doesn't... and by judging by age/gender he has now cost himself a possibly fantastic employee who has NO chance of ever needing maternity leave!
ppragman
No pasa nada.
Deal with it. Maybe you should have more than a "half hour callout time" (you do realize that that's kind of a BS amount of time right? it decides where you can live, what you can do, etc, you'd damn well better pay well if that's what you expect out of your pilots), prior proper planning prevents piss poor performance, right? You should have a general idea of a trip is going to get extended. If you don't, then compensate the pilot adequately for it so its not too much of a burden for childcare. Basically what you mean by "we don't want to hire people who have outside commitments" means "we don't want anyone working here except for people who can essentially be married to this job." That's wrong for a lot of reasons.
I don't have kids. But, (oh teh noes, maybe this will disqualify me in the interview) I'd like to have them some day. If a company isn't going to hire me because of that, or because someone already has kids, then they're an awful place to work already. A company should want pilots with kids. There are more advantages for a company if their pilots have young'ens than elsewise:
1. They're probably going to stick around. Unless the pay is abysmal, most guys I know with kids want to give their kids a place "to grow up," so if you have to deal with a few "daycare" induced problems, then so be it, your pilot is going to be around for a lot longer than the guy who has no kids, and is trying to jump to the next thing toute de suite.
2. Pilots with kids have a lot more to lose. I've noticed in my "aviation life," - one which - until recently - was in a part of aviation known for its safety challenges - that those pilots who had kids were more conservative in the airplane than those without. For the most part (this isn't wholly true, but I'd estimate at a rate of around 80%) pilots who had kids tended to take fewer chances with weather, maintenance, loads, etc. than those without. (Entirely unscientific anecdotal polling used)
3. Having a kid tends to mellow one out a little. Myself, and my buddies without kids occasional lead some raucous lives. We drink more, "hoop-it-up" more, and tend to carouse a little bit more than our kinder'ed-counterparts. While that might make us a little more fun on the overnight, it makes us more of a liability.
4. People with kids tend to be older. I'm a young guy, and I've found youth to be a problem at times in this industry, but as I get older I realize that I was a cocky little bastard at a younger age. For the most part, people with kids are usually older, and have more life experience and are often times more mature.
5. A "family friendly" workplace is a more comfortable workplace. With kids involved, the company Christmas party is usually more than just a good excuse for half of the company to get drunk, and the other half to look uncomfortable. Also, a company that offers (and bothers to pay for) benefits which make having kids affordable is more likely to attract more qualified candidates.
The list goes on and on, regardless, while I don't have kids yet, I'd like to have them one day, its upsetting that hiring managers want slaves.
(oh, and btw, are you out of Twin Oaks? I've never been to the strip there, seems fun.)
SpiceWeasel
Tre Kronor
I think the point that the business folks are making is that employees are not assets, they are liabilities. Why pay more for a liability than you have to (health insurance f. ex.)
ppragman
No pasa nada.
This is wrong to the point of being nearly criminal (figuratively speaking). What business people need to realize is that without the employees the company would be nothing. There would be no company. None of the trips would get flown, and not a single passenger would arrive on time.
BEEF SUPREME
Well-Known Member
Damn man we need the airlines to start hiring again to get rid of this pile of unemployed pilots. That is the only way these hiring practices will stop. Seriously if you just read this thread I would rather work for Satan or Adolf Hitler than fly 91 or 135. This thread is just downright depressing.
Easy there folks. The guy asked for an explanation about why a family might make him a bad employee. I offered one. BTW those were not abstract examples. In my career I don’t know, how many flights I delayed/cancelled because a crewmember had a family emergency. Not faulting them. Just pointing it out. I also once interviewed for a job in which pilots had a thirty minute call-out. That was their business model. It was an on demand charter freight company. Their market was the “gotta-get-it-there-fast-before-the-assembly-line-shuts- down” sector.
Perhaps “bad employee” is poor choice of words, but the point is that all employers look for certain characteristics in their employment candidates that will fit and support their business model. They’re not “punishing” anybody. They just chose not to hire candidates that do not fit that profile.
And if you think that’s bad, consider this: How would you like to explain to the family of the deceased that the reason their air ambulance flight cancelled because was the pilot had “family issues?”
Perhaps “bad employee” is poor choice of words, but the point is that all employers look for certain characteristics in their employment candidates that will fit and support their business model. They’re not “punishing” anybody. They just chose not to hire candidates that do not fit that profile.
And if you think that’s bad, consider this: How would you like to explain to the family of the deceased that the reason their air ambulance flight cancelled because was the pilot had “family issues?”
Screaming_Emu
Well-Known Member
Catty much?
[modhat]see the little red flag under his avatar? That means he has already been dealt with for this comment. Move along...thank you.
[/modhat]
Pépé le Pilot
Well-Known Member
WIN !
Blackhawk
Well-Known Member
The question about a family may not necessarily be a discriminator question for the employer. It may be a question that then leads to other situation questions about the job. Say the job requires six month deployments (like some government contract positions or private companies with government contracts). I would sure want to know from an applicant if he/she has a family that the family really understands the ramifications of taking the job. Maybe first year pay is not that great. By contract employers normally can't pay pilots with families more than single pilots. Maybe I want to make sure the applicant understands the salary and how they will support the family the first year.
jrh
Well-Known Member
:yeahthat:
My company is very supportive of everyone, no matter if they have a family or not. But that doesn't erase the fact that we need to know what we're "getting in to" so to speak if we hire a particular person. We have to be able to plan for different situations.
People want to be treated like humans on the job, yet don't want to be asked human questions during the interview? I don't get it. This is a two way street. If the employer is scum for wanting to know anything more than what hours a person is available and if they can lift more than 50 pounds or not, we might as well hire robots to do everything.
ppragman
No pasa nada.
I'm an open book when I go to an interview, I have absolutely nothing to hide, they can ask me about all the family things they want, that said, they shouldn't disqualify me because I have a family, or the desire to have one. Yes I want to be treated like a human being, but too many companies out there don't treat people like human beings. Yes a medevac company might need a 30min call out, but most medevac ops make the pay worth it. Most on demand cargo jobs do as well. There are jobs out there though, that expect you to be waiting at their beckon call "off duty" so that you can be called to start your duty at any time - day or night. These are the same kinds of places that wouldn't hire a guy because he has a family. My relevance to my employer is how qualified I am, how long I'll stay, and how I'll fit in. Not hiring someone because they might have family issues is asinine at best, and discriminatory at worst.
So. I have a list of things that "I'm not going to do when/if I ever run my busines/am in charge of hiring. This is getting added to the list.
If you're going to ask about family, do it after you've given them the job. My $.02.
Autothrust Blue
“If you jump on my shift, that’s just rude, man.”
:yeahthat:
Or...just don't ask. Asking might put the company at risk if the employment relationship ever goes pear-shaped.
When you're on call, you're on call and have a duty to show up. When you're off, you're off, and you do not have a duty to show up. (If you choose to show up, you may. But you're not required to.)
Would you like to be the HR manager for Doug's [future] School of Wayward Aviators?
Not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but the more I read, the more convinced I am that asking about a prospective employee's family situation (in particular, marital status) is unlawful in the United States. I'll just leave this here.