Bloggers Rising

My sincere apologies for Friday's lack of posting. I don't want to be one of those moms who blames her professional screw-ups on her child, so I'll blame you guys. One of you taught Noah how to throw temper tantrums, and when I find out who it was, I will run them over with a Fisher Price plastic lawnmower. Argh.

Anyway, I will make up for Friday with extra bonus posting this week.

Three seemingly-unconnected things about me:

1) I used to live in Pennsylvania.
2) I used to conduct job interviews on a fairly regular basis, back at my old office job.
3) I am so glad that I will never have to interview for a job in Pennsylvania again.

When I interviewed job candidates at my company, I asked a lot of questions. About their resumes and experience and goals and interpersonal skills and give me an example of a time you solved a problem blah blah blah corporate monkeyspeak.

Questions I did not ask: whether they were married and whether they had children or not.

Why didn't I ask those questions? Well, for one, who cares? It's not relevant or any of my stupid business. And two, it is illegal to ask those questions on a job interview in Maryland.

I mean, OF COURSE IT IS ILLEGAL, right? Otherwise, it would be too easy for employers to discriminate against mothers, single mothers...or really, all parents. Why hire someone with a big family that will cost the company more in insurance premiums when there's a single, childless candidate? Why hire someone who will be running off to daycare and doctor's appointments? Why hire a single mother when you can just let your ugly prejudice against "that sort of woman" show through?

Over at MomsRising.org, a few bloggers took a closer look at that table (linked above) and noted that in many states, employers are still allowed to question job candidates about their marital and familial status.

Specifically, in Pennsylvania. But something CAN be done about it.

Currently there are two bills in Pennsylvania, HB352 and SB440 that if passed, would add language to the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act to make it illegal for employers to ask job candidates questions regarding their marital/familial status.

Bloggers Kiki, Cooper and Joan have all written about why it matters that these bills pass. (Kiki, in particular, was a victim of such discrimination, so be sure to read her story near the bottom of the main page.)

There's also a petition you can sign, as well as the contact information for the PA politicians who can get these bills past committee. Your call or email (even if you don't live in Pennsylvania) could be enough to let these guys know that women out there support the legislation.

And really, those questions can cut both ways, if an employer carried a prejudice against...I don't know..."flighty" single people and considered married people more "grounded" or some such crap.

Personally, that table kind of makes my eyeballs bleed with rage over all the states that STILL don't have laws to protect employees from discrimination based on race or ancestry or pregnancy or sexual orientation, but hey, this legislation in Pennsylvania is a good step in the right direction.

The direction of the freaking TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY. Good God.

Comments

[Cheryl]

I'm so glad you brought this to my attention! I thought it was illegal in all 50 states to ask those questions, but as a citizen of Mississippi, I am dumbfounded. I'm planning on graduating and getting married within the year, and I wonder if this might hurt my chances for getting a job and if there's any legal way I can avoid answering questions based on marital or familial status.

[veronica]

Thank you for posting about this. It is unjust that women are still punished for having families.

On discrimination in the other direction, my father sometimes tells me stories of Evil People He Has Known. One of them was a business owner who deliberately only hired single mothers, because he could overwork them and they would stay anyway out of fear that they might not be able to provide for their kids if they quit.

[Megan]

When I was in college, a few friends and I who were all engaged wondered if we should wear our engagement/wedding rings to job interviews. Then I thought "you know, I don't *want* to work for someone who raises a stink because I'm married and might want to have kids later on."

I also always thought the law meant you could ask if someone was married/single/had kids, whatever, but you couldn't use the information in deciding to hire (or not hire) the candidate. However, it would be very difficult to prove that you didn't hire a candidate because she said she was a single mom, so it's safer for interviewers not to ask in the first place. (I'm sure you all could imagine THAT lawsuit - "I told the interviewer I was a single mom with three kids, and they refused to hire me!")

[Megan]

Oh, and dur, I forgot to say this in my last post - I'm so glad you are bringing this to our attention. It's a shame that we need such laws in the first place, but I'm glad we have them.

[AmyM]

I used to live in PA as well & had no idea!

On the other hand, I had worked at a large bank on the East Coast & was told I'd get a bonus if I got married or for each child, as having a family tends to make you more "stable". Now that I have married and had a child (and moved to the Midwest), I'm thinking, where's my bonus?

[Tara]

I can't believe that this is actually going on--that women are being denied employment and/or paid less based on their familial status. That is absurd.

I signed the petition. Thank you so much for bringing this to our attention, Amy.

(still shaking head in disbelief. . .)

[Leah]

I have a somewhat related question that maybe some of you moms can answer. I work for a tiny tiny tiny independent company that can barely make payroll because we're a "nonprofit cultural institution" that relies on grants. Last year a woman was hired and then two months later she revealed that she was four months pregnant. She worked through her pregnancy (and did a great job), then took four months of maternity leave, and then quit when her paid leave was up, without ever coming back to work. We wonder if she didn't do it for the health insurance and the paid leave and never had any intention of returning to the company, which seems more than just a bit dishonest to me. Would my boss have employed her if she'd said she was pregnant at interview time? Probably not, because we can barely afford to pay working employees let alone non-working ones. So was this woman just taking unfair advantage of the system? Or was my company being discriminatory in becoming upset that she used us like she did? Tough call, huh.

[Amalah]

Well, mostly I'd be curious as to whether your company really offers four months paid maternity leave??

Because that's darn near unheard of. Maternity leave is generally unpaid, protected leave. It really isn't the full-paid vacation a lot of people assume it is.

My old company, which offered above-average benefits, provided six weeks of short-term disability (which equals 60% of your pre-tax salary), to be paid by our insurance provider, not the company. They are already paying to offer the benefit, and it doesn't really cost them anything extra when people actually USE the benefit, you know?

I got eight weeks of STD because of my c-section, and then the rest of my Federally protected leave was either me blowing through vacation and sick days, and then I went unpaid for the last two weeks or so.

Most very small companies don't even offer short-term disability. I've never heard of ANY company that will keep a woman on at full pay for all 12 weeks. (Or 16!)

Maternity leave means they can't fire you, but they don't have to pay you. If your company really does offer paid maternity leave, they are exceptional, and I'd be more thankful to work for a place like that and less concerned about trying to read the motives of someone who may have just truly and honestly changed her mind about her career plans postpartum.

[Leah]

To clarify, it wasn't fully-paid maternity leave; I think it was something like 50 percent. But it was four months, and then we have the option of taking another two months (I think) of unpaid leave after that. Yes, it is an exceptional company to work for, but it is precisely because we're so generous that employees sometimes take advantage. (I, for instance, take a two-week paid vacation here, a four-day paid vacation there, another week paid vacation for Christmas, basically coming and going when I please. The difference is I try to make up that work by pulling extra hours and making sure my responsibilities are covered. I just think that as much as companies owe pregnant ladies and mothers (not to mention women in general), we also owe them something in return. Especially when there's not a lot of money to throw around. Thanks, Amy!

[Momish]

Thanks for the information. I live in PA, and was actually on a job interview today (not kidding, I really was!). I never thought anything of it when they asked me if I had kids. (It was kinda casual, but still). As a person directly affected, I will definately check those links out and add input where I can. Thanks!

[Amalah]

Eh, I still don't know if I agree, Leah. I've been downsized and laid off and basically screwed in the end by the seemingly nicest companies ever. I owe my employer a solid work week and to perform my duties to the best of my abilities (abilities I did not exaggerate or distort at my interview, obviously, regardless of the current or future plans of my uterus.)

But I don't owe them my everlasting loyalty just because they've chosen to employ my, nor do I owe them enough to change my decisions over what's right for my family or to always put them before my children. It's a job. They don't really owe ME anything beyond what's in that offer letter, and if that offer letter says at-will employment, then we're pretty much both using the other while it suits our respective purposes.

(That sounds really jaded. Yick.)

Anyway, I have to say, if I were out to deliberately "use" a company for the sweet health insurance while pregnant, I probably wouldn't choose a place that could barely make its payroll, you know? Heh.

Because really -- soooo many new moms have their universe completely turned upside down by their new babies and choose not to go back to work -- even if they SWORE they were going back (hi! me!). And if we start accusing them of "using" their employers or being some kind of human resources drain, well...that's a tremendous blow to feminism and basically reiterates the idea that women really don't deserve equal pay and jobs simply because our reproductive organs make us flight risks, instead of just humans who might choose a different career path at some point.

(I am talky today! Great discussion, Leah! Yay!)

[Teresa Henson]

I agree with you all...what else is there left for me to say!

[AL]

I for one, disagree and wouldn't support this legislation if I lived in PA. However, I'm sure it will pass because it's just the kind of feel good legislation that appears to help the "little guy" (or in this case the "little woman") against the evil corporations.

Frankly, I think employers should be free to choose who is right for their company. No one likes to be discriminated against, and I know that from personal experience.

However, unlike race, sex, and sexual orientation, your lifestyle situation can have a real effect on your job performance. Employers have a right to know if their health insurance premiums are going to increase hellaciously (which will probably result in increases for all employees), or if you might be leaving soon for maternity leave or if you have 5 kids and might need a lot of days off to care for them.

It seems like you would WANT to be upfront about those types of things with an employer so that you know what to expect from your potential job.

Furthermore, this type of legislation hurts small businesses most because they are less able to absorb the cost of these insurance premiums or time off. Small businesses should be the last institution in this country that we want to hinder from growth.

[oz]

I think it's time for me to move to Alabama! Woohoo!

[Megan]

AL, you said:

"Employers have a right to know if their health insurance premiums are going to increase hellaciously (which will probably result in increases for all employees)"

So, does that mean employers can start asking job candidates if they smoke, have had bouts with cancer, etc., etc.? Where does it end? And that's open to men, too, of course.

This law reveals just how sexist society is - do men have to worry about being asked if they're married or plan on having kids? Nope. The assumption is that it's the *woman* who will stay home and take care of the kids - and while that's true of a lot of stay-at-home parents, there are plenty of SAHDs out there!

It's all a gamble, really. I have a coworker who was hired by my company when she was in her early days of her second trimester. And yes, you could tell. She has done a tremendous job since she was hired - and you have to wonder how much of it is "that's just her incredible work ethic" and how much of it is "she feels needs to prove herself to everyone."

[Andrea]

Thank you for pointing this out to us. I am just as suprised as you were to find that this is allowed in more than half the states in this country. I signed the petition. I live in one state and work in another, and the state I live in protects me from this discrimination, but the state I work in does not. I'll be interested to see where this goes in PA.

And I can't help but wonder if, in the states where marital/familial questions are allowed, the men are asked these things. On the flip side, wouldn't it be harder for a married family man to get a job? I think not, or this kind of thing wouldn't be in legislation now. It would've been dealt with a LONG time ago.

[linda]

Good comments and conversation. I wonder how long laws like PA's would last if employers were asking men if they were the custodial parent, or if they intend to provide health coverage for their dependents. Or if they engaged in risky behaviors such as smoking, driving too fast, drinking too much, etc.

It's disturbing how little progress has been made in some areas in the twenty-first century!

[Her Bad Mother]

Eyeballs bleed with rage, indeed. I'll be posting about this tomorrow. (Am blogged out right now. Virtual arms too tired to carry on the revolution this afternoon... need more strength...)

Fact of the matter is, as you point out in your comments, Oh Great Amalah, that this kind of discrimination continues regardless of the legislation. It's illegal to ask those questions in the Province of Ontario in Canada, but that didn't stop my best friend's employer from demanding that she tell them whether she was planning on ever having a second child and taking more mat leave, dammit, because they need to plan their hiring. Nor did it prevent me from losing a sessional teaching contract after taking an unplanned leave to deal with PPD.

Lots of work to do. Lots of work.

[Peyton]

But there is still Title VII, the federal law that prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. That includes gender discrimination! So Pennsylvania may not have a specific law about what you can/cannot ask in an interview, but federal law will hopefully prevent an employer (properly coached by their HR dept. and/or attorney) from asking stoopid questions.

[stilllookingforwork]

i was looking for work in KY after having a baby and actually had the interviewer only ask me questions which i tohught were illegal. when i said i had kids he said "i dont like to hire women with kids there always wanting to leave early or cant find a babysitter." wtf?! HELLO people with kids need to FEED their kids. and then they wanna complain about welfare. well give me a job and i wont have to go on it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i do have a clean background and college degree. i am more than capable of answering a phone.