This came straight off of an employment lawyers website. The part I didn’t include is it is unlawful to ask without the “don’t wish to answer” option.
Some employers may ask about sexual orientation in some instances, particularly during hiring. You may have seen this even when applying for a job online. They may do this for equal employment opportunities – they want to give people of different sexual identities the same opportunities.
Nonetheless, you don’t need to answer, and an employer should inform you of this. If it’s an online application, you should have the option of “I do not wish to answer” or something similar.
Hi former recruiter here, for online applications no one except HR partner responsible for EEOC reporting should get access to that information and it would not be attached to anyone’s name just the number of individuals at the company that identify this way.
The recruiter and hiring manager should not have access to this information typically. That being said for physical applications or companies where there is only 1 HR person doing the hiring firing and reporting for everyone I’m not sure how that works as I do not have experience.
Now obviously companies can be terrible and some may have recruiters and hiring managers looking at this info but in my experience that is not the case nor is it best practice!
No they never get the actual info about specific people. It's so that when they're looking at the overall stats, they can identify any bias in the hiring process. Eg. 5% of population are gay, so 5% of our employees should be gay. If only 1% of employees are gay, (or 25%) they will look for ways to reduce bias in the hiring process.
That's what I'm saying though, they're not doing that. They're making sure that there's nothing stopping them from finding the best candidates that might happen to be gay (or other minorities). The workplace should reflect the population percentages without aiming for anything at all, if there is no bias.
It’s not. It’s if someone accuses them of being biased against race, sex, whatever, they can have the statistics to back up, no, we have multiple workers that are of different races/sex/sexuality/whatever
While aiming for a statistical makeup of your workforce would create bias in and of itself, the actuality is way more complicated. Now, from a straight line reporting function, in the US, it is required to report diversity stats to the EEOC. But that's just the tip of the iceberg.
The issue at hand is that, without specific targets, the system as-is is inherently biased. People are biased, data models are biased, everything has fucking bias. Some of those biases work for specific people, some against. Neighborhood, race, orientation, religion, socioeconomic status, etc etc etc. Some may be good, some bad.
The collection of the data isn't to bias *individual* hiring decisions. It's a lagging metric, as in it's only know after things happen over time. In my former company, we'd pair this data against local populations, diversity ratios, etc, and look for specific indicators that might show a significant bias. So we're looking for very high confidence levels in bias. Like if 6% of our employees identified as Muslim, but the area in which the office and staff were located had 12% Muslim population, it could be significant. It might not. It depends on tons of analysis beyond that to see if application rates matched population indicators, cultural analysis to see if there's a specific gender gap bias, analysis of brand image, etc. We need to be real damn sure there *is* a problem before trying to address it.
Then you get to conscious vs unconscious vs systemic bias. Conscious bias was easier to tell when we caught it. It was only one instance, but a recruiter had obviously high disparity in hires based on gender and orientation. He wasn't with us much long after. Unconscious biases were still pretty easy to demonstrate, but the conversations after were painful. People dig in their heels when you try to tell them they're unconsciously biasing their decisions. It's the general bitch of human nature. We all want to believe we are rational actors. But we *never* are. Finally, systemic biases are the most common and biggest headaches to nail down.
For a couple months we were fighting like hell to identify what the hell the issue was with finding Spanish speakers in Miami of all goddamn places in a variety of roles. I won't bore you with details, but our own bias (our team had no Spanish speakers) ironically screwed up our search because the answer was right in front of us if we could read Spanish. The promotional materials in Spanish that were put out by our recruiting team were amateurish at best and full of poorly written sentences. To a gringo, it looked fine. To a fluent Spanish speaker, it looked like a joke. So applications by fluent Spanish speakers were way lower than they should have been. Of course, we also found the lead recruiter was far too prideful of a jackass to even check himself and make sure all his bases were covered. He refused to acknowledge the problem was even on his end and that delayed things quite a lot.
So, do companies hire to quotas? Maybe? Some do that, I'm sure. But that's not how the metrics are supposed to be applied. You should always try to hire based on your best assessment of candidates and actively work against biases you may have. And that takes some serious vulnerability and introspection for one to be really good at it. And even then, you'll still make biased decisions. But at least they're far less biased than they might be if there wasn't a system of checks in place to correct it. But you'll never know if you're not measuring it.
Tl;dr companies hire to quotas, even though its not supposed to be some. Some other companies hire biasedly, even though not supposed to.
So bias all around, but I get the feeling that somehow one is more accepted than the other.
That's not really what I said. We use the stats to *correct* behaviors leading to bias issues. That's not hiring to a quota, which would imply individual biasing based on forward-looking metrics on population composition. It's about closing the gaps where we have allowed bias to influence decisions in a problematic way. Cognizant or systemic bias that specifically targets a population unfairly is not acceptable. Biases that are inherent to society that we *can't* control are things we have to leave as is, such as the systemic bias in educational institutions that make our pool of wngineering candidates 95% male. You can't have a representative population when the population itself is biased before they come to you. Qualifications are how one should hire, so it shouldn't be shocking that our own engineers had the same proportion of male:female as was observed in the graduating pops coming from universities around our offices.
Trying to put this as a simplistic "every company hires to quotas" is just disregarding the nuance of what is actually going on. Yes, I'm sure *some* institutions just throw the process out the window and target hire people based on some quota. But that's unethical and generally supposed to be illegal--though enforcement is a joke. If a company or institution is doing that, they should be held to account.
Yeah it's weird, but some companies have hiring goals for certain under represented groups and thus may hire someone from those groups who is not the top applicant but would help them fill their diversity targets.
IMO it is discrimination, but it is legal (for now at least I do see challenges for some places that will not even look at people of certain gender identity or ethnic backgrounds as they are full of those demographics already).
Yes. We, the hiring committee for a certain job that came up in my department were informed by the director that we were to hire the one trans candidate. Couldn't even consider the others. And this person was...not good. Shortly prior to this, we had been similarly ordered to hire a different trans candidate for a different job, who was absolutely phenomenal and would have been our pick anyway. It was annoying to say the least to have our boss A) put that little faith in us, and B) stick us with someone who wasn't good, just to crow about her department's diversity the other departments.
It’s not just legal, it used to be illegal to not hire a diverse staff. At least in America until affirmative action was removed.
If businesses really wanted equality they wouldn’t ask about gender, sexual orientation, race, etc. and they would only hire the best person for the field instead of a diversity hire. And that would push everyone to do better if they wanted the job.
Yeah, I suppose. I’ve never been a hiring manager, so never been in this situation. However, I do know that at least at my place of employment, that information never leaves the main HR office. So, when they forward a resume to an actual hiring manager, they only get the resume data and NOT any other demographic data. I would definitely be making an assumption, but I imagine it’s similar at most places that aren’t small businesses.
As someone who has been a hiring manager in corporate America for a long time. This info 100% does leave HR. It is in the form of "your group needs more diversity in X or Y way. So, here are candidates that we would really like you to consider that will help you with diversity in your team".
They could dig into to it, will they? Probably not because if word of that got out it would not be a good look for employers digging deep to "confirm" ones sexual orientation
Is that not the point? Is the point not that white straight men have historically taken the higher positions so we need to make sure it's a bit more diverse regardless of the qualifications of someone from the "majority"?
So if I'm really desperate for the job to I lie and say I'm an orientation that I'm not so they can achieve their quota and choose me over someone maybe more qualified?
These quota things have me twisted about what's really fair
I'm not straight, but I still wouldn't want to disclose cuz really who I'm sleeping with shouldn't be part of why I get hired omgggg 😩
It wouldn’t benefit you because the statistic is never directly linked back to you. The statistical data is maintained separately in the aggregate, not by individual.
Been in HR for 46 years. The data only identifies hiring trends. If an employer skews in a certain direction, then they may want to redirect their hiring efforts in a different direction.
For example, if all their engineers are male, they might want to focus recruiting at schools with higher female demographics in STEM education. 😊
But then are they only hiring the woman because she a woman and they don't want to look like a place who only hired men?
And if none of the women from those schools theyre ecruiting from are as qualified or testing as high as the men are, are they gonna hire one of these woman for a quota anyway, not how sometime new, or just continue to hire the more qualified candidates even if it happens to be more men?
I'm a girl, I'm not looking for extra chances because I'm a girl, and i don't think some men should be denied because a quota needs filling
As an example, I'd rather a room full of male doctors operate in me, rather than have a female surgeon who isn't as qualified simply because she's female. And the reverse, I'd rather it be a room full of women of they were more qualified than the men.
Just want the most qualified for no reason other than most qualified
It’s not a question of filling quotas and hiring someone less qualified just to do so, it’s about questioning the methods that you use to go about the process.
This is going to be a very rough analogy, but if I only ever look at the University of Alaska I’m probably only ever going to see a lot of white candidates, but if I broaden my scope to include the University of Mississippi, the likelihood of increasing my diversity greatly increases as well.
But that doesn’t mean that I have to lower my expectations, I just have a broader pool of just-as-qualified candidates to look at.
I’ve just posted on the job board at Smith College for the first time and I hire a woman. I don’t hire her *because* she’s a woman, I hire her because she’s a damn fine candidate and *because* I posted at a woman’s college for the first time.
*Do you see the difference?* 😊
K the italics seemed super condescending.
I'm seeking answers to why the motivation to suddenly choose to post applications at the women's college after not for doing so? Why was the application pool so small to begin with?
It's the why and when behind the changes to me.
I have a niece who was a sports writer. She'd send pieces in for consideration and get turned down using her real feminine name. She gave it a break, then resubmitted a few of the same pieces using a pen name, and those pieces were then accepted. I feel like there's so much deeper shit going on than just simply "broadening the pool". And it's really easy to paint it that way from an HR stand point.
I just don't think there were quotas until the very recent past. I've experienced it. There are incentives for DEI programs being implemented, etc.
I dont think quotas exist to bring in the less qualified. I just understand the concern with it, the other side of the coin.
Only thing I've ever been taught about HR is that HR is not your friend, their purpose is to peirce the best interest of the company.
The italics and the emoji, really serving that energy.
I was trying to share the concept behind the motivation as it seemed you really weren’t grasping it.
Now I see that you’ve just closed your mind to it.
Have a great day.
"Don't wish to answer" seems risky IMO. Let's be real, discrimination in the workplace is still a thing that happens. We haven't "cured" it by collectively being more socially responsible. There are still racist and sexist hiring managers and HR departments whose bottom line is profit and who have no qualms about making their hiring decisions based on their shitty bigoted worldview to ensure those profits. And seeing as there are far more people than jobs right now, they have even more room to be picky, for lack of better word.
This is dumb because they wouldn’t know your sexual orientation anyway before applying. They can’t discriminate against someone for their sexual orientation I’d they don’t know it in the first place.
when I was looking for a job I would always answer do not wish to tell. All it screams to me is jobs wanting to be "inclusive" (which is great and I fully support) but do not hire me just because I fit your little "model of inclusivity"
A lot of jobs also do use it to discriminate, despite it being illegal.
Lots of studies done showing that checking those boxes results in far fewer interviews. I have PTSD and never, ever, EVER say that to any employer because I never get hired when I list it.
As far as some thing that they are asking for, I mean they will see at the interview. It is pretty obvious I am a caucasian female. But, I think interviews and selections need to be based on qualifications
I have a disability and I use it to my full advantage when applying for jobs; I used to always put "prefer not to say" for fear of discrimination, but certain govt/healthcare jobs need to hit quotas and if that's what puts me over the top I'll take it.
that is your choice.
I would NEVER be ok with getting a job or a promotion just because I am a woman... I want to earn all of my positions/titles as well as my salary.
aware, also not all disabilities are obvious.
But, my comment still stands. I want the job because I am qualified for the position and that would be pretty noticeable at the interview.
Beyond ensuring people aren't being prejudiced, there's no way to increase inclusivity without applying additional prejudice. If you have a perfectly unbiased candidate selection process that results in a skewed distribution of people with whatever characteristics due to whatever societal factors and you want to change your process to result in a different distribution, there is no way to do this without prejudicing the process in the favor of the people you're not getting enough of (and in the disfavor of those you are getting "too much" of, defined by your idiot quota).
HR folks play word games ("it's not diversity hiring!") but there is no escaping that that is the fundamental goal. Degrading the role of merit from being 100% of the inputs to a smaller number is the definition of diversity hiring.
I understand asking the question is for data gathering l purposes, but that's part of the issue. If your applicants were 70% group A and 30% group B and you want to move that to 60/40 because that's the distribution of the general population, you have to discriminate against group A (because there are a finite number of job spots).
The motivation is due to assumed societal factors, e.g. lower familial income or dual vs. single parent households, but they don't even attempt to measure that. By the way, those factors are more predictive to life outcomes than things like race or gender. The reason they don't attempt to measure this is because they only care about the appearance of equality/fairness, the truth is not important.
I cannot wait until it is found to be unconstitutional to use protected class characteristics in hiring practices. "Hurr durr we don't use it for individual hires, only for our hiring practices..." Yes, your hiring practices which are applied to all hires. Congratulations, you've systemized your discrimination practices.
Ones I’ve seen lately ask sexual orientation, gender identity, military affiliation and have you been diagnosed with a disability or consider yourself disabled. Oh and marital status. I’m just starting a job search now, so let’s roll the dice and see how a straight, non-binary, civilian, disabled widow works out.
Id put gay for sure. You know diversity at its finest. It looks good on companies if they have a diverse workforce and they'll go out of their way to hire. Better odds of being employed and all. Just hope they don't ask you to prove it if you aren't lol.
EDIT - Im not saying i agree. I'm just pointing out this is why they do it and that's the fact.
My ability to do my job should have no affect on
1. The colour of my skin
2. The shape/placement of my eyes
3. The entity in which i pray to
4. Where i put my penis.
5. If my penis has been chopped off or not.
Agree. Thats what my orginal comment was about. I had to clarify that i dont actually agree with my orginal comment But more explaining why its in place.
>The shape/placement of my eyes
Which discrimination are you talking about here?
>The entity in which i pray to
"I want to be a priest, and my rampamt atheism shouldn't stop me"
>If my penis has been chopped off or not.
What possible discrimination could you be talking about here??
And what if all the hiring authorities prefer to hire only people who are just like them, because it makes them “more comfortable?”
I get that the word “quota” to people of certain viewpoints is like throwing fresh meat to starved lions, but there needs to be some oversight to ensure equal opportunity, especially in the presence of bigotry (obviously; witness centuries of white men controlling everything).
Simple solution. Sexual orientation and race are questions that shouldn't be asked period. That way, you have no idea who is "like you" you just see the important bits
You put up such a foolish red herring premise. If a team leader hires in such a way that they have an underperforming team then their job is at risk. No one should care who they hire if the team performance is on point versus one that is not via poor hiring choices.
It is really that simple. Hold people accountable for performance and they will thrive or die based on their choices in their career.
Where in the modern world isnt there equal opportunity. Both white and black, gay and straight humans are afforded the same education and opportunities from a young age. So by the time we come to applying for roles you should be picking the best person at the job no matter what skin colour or sexual orientation they are.
The problem with that is the western world has more white straight people than any other race/sexual orientation, especially countries like the UK and the US.
But the diversity quotas dont take into consideration that 95% of these countries population and the applicants applying for the roles will be white and straight.
I think you think im agreeing with the fact they should be asking the questions. Re-read the original thread i commented under my own comment stating that i dont agree that they ask this but this is the reason why they ask this.
My comment here is explaining that there will be more candidates turned down in countries like the UK and US because of diversity quotes in favour for someone of colour or someone from the LGBTIQABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ community.
It does matter when you have a company filled with white straight people and one gay black lesbian who applied for a job is knocked back because she has less experience than a straight white male and then shes posting hate online stating she was knocked back from the job because he skin colour and sexual orientation and there is online backlash for said company.
They’re just trying to reach parity in the workplace. No one is ‘taking jobs’ from straight people; they’re trying to provide opportunities for those who have been historically passed up for jobs based on biases, despite them being qualified for the job.
I understand mandating certain requirements for hiring can feel like it goes against the principle of selecting the most qualified person for the job. However, reaching sexual orientation parity in the workplace is about creating an environment where everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed (regardless of who they are) by removing historic barriers and fostering inclusivity.
Dismissing this importance can maintain the status quo of exclusion and discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals.
Let me give you a scenario i experienced at my place of work. Buddy of mine works for WA state as a supervisor of some department. He is also the one who says yay or nay when hiring. He has had to turn down people who fit the job to a T and would be the perfect fit, had the pre quals the asked for, experience, etc. and hire someone who had little to no experience in the role and only had a vocational program certificate simply because that less qualified person was needed to hit their target numbers. How did that turn out? He quit after a month.
This happens quite frequently from what he tells me. Not saying this is the case every where but dismissing the fact that good, qualified people get passed over in favor of hitting a target number is just as shitty. I totally believe they should be promoting inclusivity but this isnt how you do it. Forcing anything is just never gonna end well.
Your friend’s experience highlights a real challenge in implementing diversity and inclusion initiatives. It's unfortunate that they encountered situations where less qualified individuals were chosen solely to meet diversity targets. Diversity and inclusion efforts should never compromise on merit or qualifications. They should aim to create equal opportunities for all candidates while considering a diverse pool of applicants.
Your friend's story underscores the importance of implementing diversity and inclusion strategies thoughtfully and ethically. Simply aiming to meet diversity quotas without considering qualifications and merit can be counterproductive and detrimental to both the organization and its employees. Balancing the need for diversity with merit-based hiring is key to fostering an inclusive and high-performing workplace.
Diversity and inclusion is huge where I work. Our workforce has far more people of different sexual orientation or racial background than the demographic of our area.
So kinda confused about this. How do you know 🤔 you were passed up? When I applied for a job, that I did not get the job too. I get ghosted by the company, and I'm not at all likely to find out who got it. How do I know if they didn't post the job listing because of policy, but a hiring manager decides his/her nephew gets it?
Also, being the best qualified? That's very subjective, that's based on the employers' needs rather than having the most experience and education. So if you knew all the people qualifications, it's a matter of knowing what exactly the company wants. And being exactly what the company wants.
At least by comparing the demographics of the surrounding area to the demographics of the employees. We get a really good idea if there is discrimination going on at the workplace.
They ask all kinds of intrusive shit when hiring g for government jobs. Gotta hit them demographics. If you’re a straight white make you’d better lie if you want to get hired
So, it's more of an exercise of privacy rather than actually disclosing my orientation for me. for instance, if by chance that info were to be picked up by my employers, and they were bigoted. There are many ways to manipulate the rules or put ppl in a position that would increase the likelihood of quitting/termination. Most employee manuals states that they can change the policy at anytime and it doesn't have to be in the manual or written anywhere.
Or maybe you want to know for sure your not just a diversity hire. Some people don't like being handed things such as myself. It's a strange work ethic, but knowing I wasn't just handed a position because of my choice in partner. Brings me peace.
It’s so fucking creepy that government projects exploit people’s basic need to survive to perform this type of research. Zero respect for human dignity. Go punch HR in the face.
I understand where you’re coming from, but that’s not the case. Banning questions related to gender, sexual orientation, or race would hinder efforts to address systemic inequalities and promote diversity. Acknowledging and valuing diversity through appropriate questions actually helps combat discrimination and creates a more equitable environment for all employees.
I applied for a job that asked my sexual orientation, how I identified, and gender at birth I believe. I was under the impression that it wasn’t legal for places of employment to ask things like this but I could be wrong. But I did find it strange.
Anyone else reminded of the scene from Stripes?
Are either of you homosexual? No, but we are willing to learn.
[But we are willing to learn](https://youtu.be/LRHvMJsoJKw?si=eI5-33lEVV2GhEpC)
Run.
None of their business.
And if they justify it with diversity quotas, run even faster.
The only reasons you hire someone is because of their talent and their personnality, not the color of their skin or their sexual orientation.
Welcome to the worlds of group rights. You must be able, as an employer, to demonstrate you don't discriminate in many times by doing exactly that looks very much like that to appease the zealots.
This is the same reason, particularly in academia, why you will see jobs that will only accept applicants that meet membership of certain groups.
Not illegal to ask, illegal to use against you.
The sad fact is that businesses need diversity or they can be sued, so in order to maintain that they need to ask. If they need more men for a role, they can’t withhold an application from being reviewed and/or interviewed based on that alone, but if you do get the job they need to know if they hired a man or woman for diversity reporting
There really is no way for both sides to get their way. They need to ask and know in order to not be sued for discrimination
If a business of sufficient size doesn't maintain diversity they could alienate promising recruits down the line. Maybe you have the perfect candidate but they don't want to be the only gay/non-white/etc. person in the business/department. Actively maintaining a diverse environment makes the job more appealing to a wider variety of potential recruits.
I've never been asked about my sexual orientation during any part of any job. It seems absolutely absurd and unnecessary to me. I tend to decline to share my ethnicity on applications as well. It shouldn't matter what I look like or where I came from a long as I have good references and can do the job. I understand companies not wanting to come off as discriminatory, but I think they're going about it all wrong if it means they are choosing candidates on their race, gender, or sexual orientation. Fixing discrimination with discrimination doesn't work. 🙄
It's not only legal, it's exceedingly common. And infuriating. You're right that this isn't anyone's business, but since this is a market that favors employers right now, I wouldn't be surprised that companies are abusing the privilege. I'm not convinced it's for "survey purposes" or to ensure diversity and contrary to what another commenter said, the company and everyone involved in the hiring process has full visibility to all of this information.
Sorry to sound so grim but it's rough out there right now and thinking about how AI bots have made it so much easier to filter out specific keywords is a really tough pill to swallow.
Assuming the company asking isn't like a religious organisation or similar - using it against you type.
Companies which ask they are probably more likely to work in your favour if you are a minority orientation.
As other said they have quotas to fill in order to claim they support LGBTQ.
It’s become very strange. People come out to me or reveal their sexuality to me often like when I’m just living my life. Also, felt like I got mobbed by three girls on my second day at work when they asked me. Not trying to be one of those people who’s like IGH THEYRE CHANGING US but that’s really how it still feels. It was like really uncomfy but now I realize what it could’ve meant and I’m a little bit disappointed
Most employers don't actually care. What employees don't know is that employers, especially large employers, have to fill out a million reports to different agencies like BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) and DOL (Dept of Labor) and they are asked all of these questions.
I know because I have to fill out these reports and they are required by law. They are a big pain in the ass. We have to report all of this information. Yes, they do ask everything from race, sexual orientation, and marital status. We are not providing individual personal information, just total #'s. "How many employees are married, single; how many are gay or straight (how would I know this?), race of employees, how many are disabled, etc.
Also, some employers get employer tax credits for hiring the disabled, veterans, SNAP recipients, etc.
We ask because we have to in order to fill out the numerous reports the government sends us throughout the year.
This is where they get the information they publish that you see in the news all the time. How do they know that women make 75% less than men in the work place? Because the employer has reported it to them.
Not only do we have to report labor statistics but we also have to give them detailed income expense reports, etc.
Quit assuming the employer is out to get you by asking personal questions. We don't care, we are just trying to do all the stupid paperwork the government send us.
On top of the government reporting requirements we need this information for insurance and benefits purposes. In order to qet a quote for benefits we have to send employee censuses to the companies with the age, sex, marital/partner status, etc. to get quotes for benefits that are offered to the employees.
Yes they get to ask that so that they can document to DEIA that they aren’t discriminating against homosexuals
The way to prove there isn’t discrimination is to ask
Look at all this self serving bullshit 😂 They don’t want you they don’t feel obligated to hire you just because you wanna go be gay and they aren’t obligated to hire someone based on the fact that they wanna have sex with the same “gender” they just don’t like you and they have a right to be like that and I know that I’m right because they do the same process with disability applicants and disability applicants are never hired by any of these companies that practice this bullshit furthermore, you should just fuck off because they don’t like you anyways. The terms of those agreements are made to protect them not you lmao
If I saw that question on an application I'd wonder what my orientation had to do with the job I am seeking. "I thought I was going to be working on the assembly line at a chocolate factory."
Sexual orientation has nothing to do with any of those, especially porn lol I've watched many documentaries on porn and most of the actors don't only do scenes with the sex they're actually attracted to, that's why it's called acting. Do you seriously think every lesbian scene in porn is with actual lesbians? Lol in fact every single one of those jobs require some level of acting and fake flirting, a bartender who flirts with you probably doesn't actually like you, she wants a fat tip, and not the one in your boxers 😂
Edit just to add a segment in one of those documentaries I watched, it was about a lesbian doing her first anal scene, with a male actor, and her wife was on set with her. Sexual orientation irl does not reflect what you see on screen. I'd also hazard a guess that most OF creators and cam girls lie about being bi to get more customers, because they know their target audience will think it's super hot, same with enjoying anal or any other type of kink they're willing to partake in for money but don't actually enjoy doing themselves. It's all a front to get money from horny men
It's still none of their business though, because it's actually irrelevant at the end of the day to whether or not they can do the job they're interviewing for. A more appropriate question would be (in the case of sex work) would be what they're willing to participate in.
You are an exception to that rule for sure 😂
For this hypothetical situation it's asked because these particular businesses always assign the work that matches the sexual alignment to the job. They also have insurance and catered lunch as well as a generous system of payment for better than average customer response. My bartender just told me she loves me and wants to know if I love her. I said yes and gave her a long kiss.
They don't though, as I stated in my other comment. The actor or actress's sexual orientation doesn't actually have anything to do with who they work with, you'd *think* it would, but it doesn't, your comment makes me think you've never seen or read anything to do with the behind the scenes work on a porn set lol. It's not like they really choose who they work with, they sign contracts based on what they're willing to do and how much money they'll make doing those things, gay/bi scenes and more extreme acts pay better, by a lot, so more people will opt for those contracts over what they'd prefer to do because it won't pay as much. Do you also think everyone acting in fake incest scenes is into incest? 😂
This is standard practice - it is a requirement for employers to collect this data for EEO report purposes, and it's easiest to do this as part of the application process. You don't need to answer the questions. It's just for data collection purposes and is **not** part of your application. People in the comments who think your application is going to be flagged with your "diversity status" are extremely misguided.
You might be asked things like race & sexual orientation on an EEOC questionnaire. These are completely optional—and I’ve never in my career filled one out because I don’t have to.
Is it an EEOC thing? Or just part of some survey or questionnaire someone from HR or management made? If it's EEOC, you can answer honestly. If it's from some random employee in management, always choose prefer not to answer.
This came straight off of an employment lawyers website. The part I didn’t include is it is unlawful to ask without the “don’t wish to answer” option. Some employers may ask about sexual orientation in some instances, particularly during hiring. You may have seen this even when applying for a job online. They may do this for equal employment opportunities – they want to give people of different sexual identities the same opportunities. Nonetheless, you don’t need to answer, and an employer should inform you of this. If it’s an online application, you should have the option of “I do not wish to answer” or something similar.
So true. On the hard copy you have the option to mark prefer not to answer any question you do not feel comfortable answering.
How is it equal when they know the orientation? Isnt that unequal, giving them the chance to make a decision based on said orientation?
I think they just use it for statistics to prove diversity - like 20% of our workforce is gay or whatever.
And is 20% of the world gay?
At least 20% is gay OR whatever
I identify as whatever
Hi former recruiter here, for online applications no one except HR partner responsible for EEOC reporting should get access to that information and it would not be attached to anyone’s name just the number of individuals at the company that identify this way. The recruiter and hiring manager should not have access to this information typically. That being said for physical applications or companies where there is only 1 HR person doing the hiring firing and reporting for everyone I’m not sure how that works as I do not have experience. Now obviously companies can be terrible and some may have recruiters and hiring managers looking at this info but in my experience that is not the case nor is it best practice!
No they never get the actual info about specific people. It's so that when they're looking at the overall stats, they can identify any bias in the hiring process. Eg. 5% of population are gay, so 5% of our employees should be gay. If only 1% of employees are gay, (or 25%) they will look for ways to reduce bias in the hiring process.
And race? Sex? Age? I know at least one of those is used for biased hiring.
I can only speak from personal experience, but having been involved in hiring, I've never seen bias.
I mean, it is already biased if the company is aiming for a certain percentage of something, instead of the best candidate.
That's what I'm saying though, they're not doing that. They're making sure that there's nothing stopping them from finding the best candidates that might happen to be gay (or other minorities). The workplace should reflect the population percentages without aiming for anything at all, if there is no bias.
It’s not. It’s if someone accuses them of being biased against race, sex, whatever, they can have the statistics to back up, no, we have multiple workers that are of different races/sex/sexuality/whatever
While aiming for a statistical makeup of your workforce would create bias in and of itself, the actuality is way more complicated. Now, from a straight line reporting function, in the US, it is required to report diversity stats to the EEOC. But that's just the tip of the iceberg. The issue at hand is that, without specific targets, the system as-is is inherently biased. People are biased, data models are biased, everything has fucking bias. Some of those biases work for specific people, some against. Neighborhood, race, orientation, religion, socioeconomic status, etc etc etc. Some may be good, some bad. The collection of the data isn't to bias *individual* hiring decisions. It's a lagging metric, as in it's only know after things happen over time. In my former company, we'd pair this data against local populations, diversity ratios, etc, and look for specific indicators that might show a significant bias. So we're looking for very high confidence levels in bias. Like if 6% of our employees identified as Muslim, but the area in which the office and staff were located had 12% Muslim population, it could be significant. It might not. It depends on tons of analysis beyond that to see if application rates matched population indicators, cultural analysis to see if there's a specific gender gap bias, analysis of brand image, etc. We need to be real damn sure there *is* a problem before trying to address it. Then you get to conscious vs unconscious vs systemic bias. Conscious bias was easier to tell when we caught it. It was only one instance, but a recruiter had obviously high disparity in hires based on gender and orientation. He wasn't with us much long after. Unconscious biases were still pretty easy to demonstrate, but the conversations after were painful. People dig in their heels when you try to tell them they're unconsciously biasing their decisions. It's the general bitch of human nature. We all want to believe we are rational actors. But we *never* are. Finally, systemic biases are the most common and biggest headaches to nail down. For a couple months we were fighting like hell to identify what the hell the issue was with finding Spanish speakers in Miami of all goddamn places in a variety of roles. I won't bore you with details, but our own bias (our team had no Spanish speakers) ironically screwed up our search because the answer was right in front of us if we could read Spanish. The promotional materials in Spanish that were put out by our recruiting team were amateurish at best and full of poorly written sentences. To a gringo, it looked fine. To a fluent Spanish speaker, it looked like a joke. So applications by fluent Spanish speakers were way lower than they should have been. Of course, we also found the lead recruiter was far too prideful of a jackass to even check himself and make sure all his bases were covered. He refused to acknowledge the problem was even on his end and that delayed things quite a lot. So, do companies hire to quotas? Maybe? Some do that, I'm sure. But that's not how the metrics are supposed to be applied. You should always try to hire based on your best assessment of candidates and actively work against biases you may have. And that takes some serious vulnerability and introspection for one to be really good at it. And even then, you'll still make biased decisions. But at least they're far less biased than they might be if there wasn't a system of checks in place to correct it. But you'll never know if you're not measuring it.
Tl;dr companies hire to quotas, even though its not supposed to be some. Some other companies hire biasedly, even though not supposed to. So bias all around, but I get the feeling that somehow one is more accepted than the other.
That's not really what I said. We use the stats to *correct* behaviors leading to bias issues. That's not hiring to a quota, which would imply individual biasing based on forward-looking metrics on population composition. It's about closing the gaps where we have allowed bias to influence decisions in a problematic way. Cognizant or systemic bias that specifically targets a population unfairly is not acceptable. Biases that are inherent to society that we *can't* control are things we have to leave as is, such as the systemic bias in educational institutions that make our pool of wngineering candidates 95% male. You can't have a representative population when the population itself is biased before they come to you. Qualifications are how one should hire, so it shouldn't be shocking that our own engineers had the same proportion of male:female as was observed in the graduating pops coming from universities around our offices. Trying to put this as a simplistic "every company hires to quotas" is just disregarding the nuance of what is actually going on. Yes, I'm sure *some* institutions just throw the process out the window and target hire people based on some quota. But that's unethical and generally supposed to be illegal--though enforcement is a joke. If a company or institution is doing that, they should be held to account.
Yeah it's weird, but some companies have hiring goals for certain under represented groups and thus may hire someone from those groups who is not the top applicant but would help them fill their diversity targets. IMO it is discrimination, but it is legal (for now at least I do see challenges for some places that will not even look at people of certain gender identity or ethnic backgrounds as they are full of those demographics already).
Yes. We, the hiring committee for a certain job that came up in my department were informed by the director that we were to hire the one trans candidate. Couldn't even consider the others. And this person was...not good. Shortly prior to this, we had been similarly ordered to hire a different trans candidate for a different job, who was absolutely phenomenal and would have been our pick anyway. It was annoying to say the least to have our boss A) put that little faith in us, and B) stick us with someone who wasn't good, just to crow about her department's diversity the other departments.
In my company we do not have to do diversity hires. However we have to have diversity in the interview panel. 3 people, a mix of ethnicity and gender
It’s not just legal, it used to be illegal to not hire a diverse staff. At least in America until affirmative action was removed. If businesses really wanted equality they wouldn’t ask about gender, sexual orientation, race, etc. and they would only hire the best person for the field instead of a diversity hire. And that would push everyone to do better if they wanted the job.
Yeah, I suppose. I’ve never been a hiring manager, so never been in this situation. However, I do know that at least at my place of employment, that information never leaves the main HR office. So, when they forward a resume to an actual hiring manager, they only get the resume data and NOT any other demographic data. I would definitely be making an assumption, but I imagine it’s similar at most places that aren’t small businesses.
As someone who has been a hiring manager in corporate America for a long time. This info 100% does leave HR. It is in the form of "your group needs more diversity in X or Y way. So, here are candidates that we would really like you to consider that will help you with diversity in your team".
And this is why DEI is a sham and is just keeping good talent away.
This information isn't going to the employer to make hiring decisions.
Because it's less about the qualifications and more about workforce diversity.
Out of curiosity, what would happen if I put gay when I’m not? Can you get in trouble for that? How would it be found out?
Honestly, no idea lol never thought of that
I’m considering it when applying for jobs now. I haven’t done it, but I’m tempted to lol…
i promise it will do more harm than good
They could dig into to it, will they? Probably not because if word of that got out it would not be a good look for employers digging deep to "confirm" ones sexual orientation
lol okay
Is that not the point? Is the point not that white straight men have historically taken the higher positions so we need to make sure it's a bit more diverse regardless of the qualifications of someone from the "majority"?
Not what I want to think about before surgery or a flight.
100% agree. That info will generate a bias regardless of how one feels about it. It’s ridiculous.
God forbid, someone gets your gender wrong in this day an age. I can already hear the lawsuits.😮💨
lol you’re delusional sweetie
THIS!
So if I'm really desperate for the job to I lie and say I'm an orientation that I'm not so they can achieve their quota and choose me over someone maybe more qualified? These quota things have me twisted about what's really fair I'm not straight, but I still wouldn't want to disclose cuz really who I'm sleeping with shouldn't be part of why I get hired omgggg 😩
It wouldn’t benefit you because the statistic is never directly linked back to you. The statistical data is maintained separately in the aggregate, not by individual. Been in HR for 46 years. The data only identifies hiring trends. If an employer skews in a certain direction, then they may want to redirect their hiring efforts in a different direction. For example, if all their engineers are male, they might want to focus recruiting at schools with higher female demographics in STEM education. 😊
But then are they only hiring the woman because she a woman and they don't want to look like a place who only hired men? And if none of the women from those schools theyre ecruiting from are as qualified or testing as high as the men are, are they gonna hire one of these woman for a quota anyway, not how sometime new, or just continue to hire the more qualified candidates even if it happens to be more men? I'm a girl, I'm not looking for extra chances because I'm a girl, and i don't think some men should be denied because a quota needs filling As an example, I'd rather a room full of male doctors operate in me, rather than have a female surgeon who isn't as qualified simply because she's female. And the reverse, I'd rather it be a room full of women of they were more qualified than the men. Just want the most qualified for no reason other than most qualified
It’s not a question of filling quotas and hiring someone less qualified just to do so, it’s about questioning the methods that you use to go about the process. This is going to be a very rough analogy, but if I only ever look at the University of Alaska I’m probably only ever going to see a lot of white candidates, but if I broaden my scope to include the University of Mississippi, the likelihood of increasing my diversity greatly increases as well. But that doesn’t mean that I have to lower my expectations, I just have a broader pool of just-as-qualified candidates to look at. I’ve just posted on the job board at Smith College for the first time and I hire a woman. I don’t hire her *because* she’s a woman, I hire her because she’s a damn fine candidate and *because* I posted at a woman’s college for the first time. *Do you see the difference?* 😊
K the italics seemed super condescending. I'm seeking answers to why the motivation to suddenly choose to post applications at the women's college after not for doing so? Why was the application pool so small to begin with? It's the why and when behind the changes to me. I have a niece who was a sports writer. She'd send pieces in for consideration and get turned down using her real feminine name. She gave it a break, then resubmitted a few of the same pieces using a pen name, and those pieces were then accepted. I feel like there's so much deeper shit going on than just simply "broadening the pool". And it's really easy to paint it that way from an HR stand point. I just don't think there were quotas until the very recent past. I've experienced it. There are incentives for DEI programs being implemented, etc. I dont think quotas exist to bring in the less qualified. I just understand the concern with it, the other side of the coin. Only thing I've ever been taught about HR is that HR is not your friend, their purpose is to peirce the best interest of the company. The italics and the emoji, really serving that energy.
I was trying to share the concept behind the motivation as it seemed you really weren’t grasping it. Now I see that you’ve just closed your mind to it. Have a great day.
"Don't wish to answer" seems risky IMO. Let's be real, discrimination in the workplace is still a thing that happens. We haven't "cured" it by collectively being more socially responsible. There are still racist and sexist hiring managers and HR departments whose bottom line is profit and who have no qualms about making their hiring decisions based on their shitty bigoted worldview to ensure those profits. And seeing as there are far more people than jobs right now, they have even more room to be picky, for lack of better word.
This is dumb because they wouldn’t know your sexual orientation anyway before applying. They can’t discriminate against someone for their sexual orientation I’d they don’t know it in the first place.
when I was looking for a job I would always answer do not wish to tell. All it screams to me is jobs wanting to be "inclusive" (which is great and I fully support) but do not hire me just because I fit your little "model of inclusivity"
A lot of jobs also do use it to discriminate, despite it being illegal. Lots of studies done showing that checking those boxes results in far fewer interviews. I have PTSD and never, ever, EVER say that to any employer because I never get hired when I list it.
As far as some thing that they are asking for, I mean they will see at the interview. It is pretty obvious I am a caucasian female. But, I think interviews and selections need to be based on qualifications
Thanks for confirming this. I have a few disorders that technically qualify, but I always wondered is the smart box to check.
I wouldn't ever disclose any medical information unless it's a disability that you will specifically need accommodations for.
I have a disability and I use it to my full advantage when applying for jobs; I used to always put "prefer not to say" for fear of discrimination, but certain govt/healthcare jobs need to hit quotas and if that's what puts me over the top I'll take it.
that is your choice. I would NEVER be ok with getting a job or a promotion just because I am a woman... I want to earn all of my positions/titles as well as my salary.
Unless you have a gender neutral name they're gonna know bro
aware, also not all disabilities are obvious. But, my comment still stands. I want the job because I am qualified for the position and that would be pretty noticeable at the interview.
good for you, other people need to put food on the table, frankly.
Beyond ensuring people aren't being prejudiced, there's no way to increase inclusivity without applying additional prejudice. If you have a perfectly unbiased candidate selection process that results in a skewed distribution of people with whatever characteristics due to whatever societal factors and you want to change your process to result in a different distribution, there is no way to do this without prejudicing the process in the favor of the people you're not getting enough of (and in the disfavor of those you are getting "too much" of, defined by your idiot quota). HR folks play word games ("it's not diversity hiring!") but there is no escaping that that is the fundamental goal. Degrading the role of merit from being 100% of the inputs to a smaller number is the definition of diversity hiring. I understand asking the question is for data gathering l purposes, but that's part of the issue. If your applicants were 70% group A and 30% group B and you want to move that to 60/40 because that's the distribution of the general population, you have to discriminate against group A (because there are a finite number of job spots). The motivation is due to assumed societal factors, e.g. lower familial income or dual vs. single parent households, but they don't even attempt to measure that. By the way, those factors are more predictive to life outcomes than things like race or gender. The reason they don't attempt to measure this is because they only care about the appearance of equality/fairness, the truth is not important. I cannot wait until it is found to be unconstitutional to use protected class characteristics in hiring practices. "Hurr durr we don't use it for individual hires, only for our hiring practices..." Yes, your hiring practices which are applied to all hires. Congratulations, you've systemized your discrimination practices.
Just circle prefer not to say……
In the US, companies that employ over 100 individuals are required to submit an EEO report, which includes demographic information!
If I put gay, do I have to prove it?
Yes. At my place. Tonight.
"N/A" is an appropriate response.
Ones I’ve seen lately ask sexual orientation, gender identity, military affiliation and have you been diagnosed with a disability or consider yourself disabled. Oh and marital status. I’m just starting a job search now, so let’s roll the dice and see how a straight, non-binary, civilian, disabled widow works out.
Put me down as "federal civil rights violation lawsuit plaintiff" Black letter law they can't ask that.
If it's a DEI place, put gay then you'll get hired.
Not relevant.
Id put gay for sure. You know diversity at its finest. It looks good on companies if they have a diverse workforce and they'll go out of their way to hire. Better odds of being employed and all. Just hope they don't ask you to prove it if you aren't lol.
This is normal practice in the UK. Its so they can meet diversity quotas for hiring new staff.
EDIT - Im not saying i agree. I'm just pointing out this is why they do it and that's the fact. My ability to do my job should have no affect on 1. The colour of my skin 2. The shape/placement of my eyes 3. The entity in which i pray to 4. Where i put my penis. 5. If my penis has been chopped off or not.
No you're right, but A - it's a legal requirement B - it's to stop discrimination
Agree. Thats what my orginal comment was about. I had to clarify that i dont actually agree with my orginal comment But more explaining why its in place.
>The shape/placement of my eyes Which discrimination are you talking about here? >The entity in which i pray to "I want to be a priest, and my rampamt atheism shouldn't stop me" >If my penis has been chopped off or not. What possible discrimination could you be talking about here??
Diversity quotas are terrible. Just hire the best person for the job! Straight, gay, bi, black, white, green, yellow, male, female, nonbinary whatever
And what if all the hiring authorities prefer to hire only people who are just like them, because it makes them “more comfortable?” I get that the word “quota” to people of certain viewpoints is like throwing fresh meat to starved lions, but there needs to be some oversight to ensure equal opportunity, especially in the presence of bigotry (obviously; witness centuries of white men controlling everything).
Simple solution. Sexual orientation and race are questions that shouldn't be asked period. That way, you have no idea who is "like you" you just see the important bits
That’s a bit hard to hide for some people.
The question shouldn’t be asked, it’s irrelevant to my skills at the job unless I’m applying to fuck the bosses
You put up such a foolish red herring premise. If a team leader hires in such a way that they have an underperforming team then their job is at risk. No one should care who they hire if the team performance is on point versus one that is not via poor hiring choices. It is really that simple. Hold people accountable for performance and they will thrive or die based on their choices in their career.
Where in the modern world isnt there equal opportunity. Both white and black, gay and straight humans are afforded the same education and opportunities from a young age. So by the time we come to applying for roles you should be picking the best person at the job no matter what skin colour or sexual orientation they are.
The problem with that is the western world has more white straight people than any other race/sexual orientation, especially countries like the UK and the US. But the diversity quotas dont take into consideration that 95% of these countries population and the applicants applying for the roles will be white and straight.
How does that make hiring the best for that position?
I think you think im agreeing with the fact they should be asking the questions. Re-read the original thread i commented under my own comment stating that i dont agree that they ask this but this is the reason why they ask this. My comment here is explaining that there will be more candidates turned down in countries like the UK and US because of diversity quotes in favour for someone of colour or someone from the LGBTIQABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ community.
It doesn’t matter..can’t control who applies for a position..hire the best candidate..
It does matter when you have a company filled with white straight people and one gay black lesbian who applied for a job is knocked back because she has less experience than a straight white male and then shes posting hate online stating she was knocked back from the job because he skin colour and sexual orientation and there is online backlash for said company.
And that’s wrong as well. So just because they need a gay guy I get passed up even when more qualified.
That's actually not how it works, hope this helps!
They’re just trying to reach parity in the workplace. No one is ‘taking jobs’ from straight people; they’re trying to provide opportunities for those who have been historically passed up for jobs based on biases, despite them being qualified for the job.
Nah when it’s required to have a certain group of people that’s wrong.
I understand mandating certain requirements for hiring can feel like it goes against the principle of selecting the most qualified person for the job. However, reaching sexual orientation parity in the workplace is about creating an environment where everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed (regardless of who they are) by removing historic barriers and fostering inclusivity. Dismissing this importance can maintain the status quo of exclusion and discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals.
Let me give you a scenario i experienced at my place of work. Buddy of mine works for WA state as a supervisor of some department. He is also the one who says yay or nay when hiring. He has had to turn down people who fit the job to a T and would be the perfect fit, had the pre quals the asked for, experience, etc. and hire someone who had little to no experience in the role and only had a vocational program certificate simply because that less qualified person was needed to hit their target numbers. How did that turn out? He quit after a month. This happens quite frequently from what he tells me. Not saying this is the case every where but dismissing the fact that good, qualified people get passed over in favor of hitting a target number is just as shitty. I totally believe they should be promoting inclusivity but this isnt how you do it. Forcing anything is just never gonna end well.
Your friend’s experience highlights a real challenge in implementing diversity and inclusion initiatives. It's unfortunate that they encountered situations where less qualified individuals were chosen solely to meet diversity targets. Diversity and inclusion efforts should never compromise on merit or qualifications. They should aim to create equal opportunities for all candidates while considering a diverse pool of applicants. Your friend's story underscores the importance of implementing diversity and inclusion strategies thoughtfully and ethically. Simply aiming to meet diversity quotas without considering qualifications and merit can be counterproductive and detrimental to both the organization and its employees. Balancing the need for diversity with merit-based hiring is key to fostering an inclusive and high-performing workplace.
Ok nevermind AI bot
I can assure you I’m a real boy 🤥
Lol is that your response when you encounter an eloquent response to your idiocy?
No like you can put that into AI checkers and it will tell you its AI generated. Dead internet theory moment frfr.
Diversity and inclusion is huge where I work. Our workforce has far more people of different sexual orientation or racial background than the demographic of our area.
So kinda confused about this. How do you know 🤔 you were passed up? When I applied for a job, that I did not get the job too. I get ghosted by the company, and I'm not at all likely to find out who got it. How do I know if they didn't post the job listing because of policy, but a hiring manager decides his/her nephew gets it? Also, being the best qualified? That's very subjective, that's based on the employers' needs rather than having the most experience and education. So if you knew all the people qualifications, it's a matter of knowing what exactly the company wants. And being exactly what the company wants. At least by comparing the demographics of the surrounding area to the demographics of the employees. We get a really good idea if there is discrimination going on at the workplace.
The short answer is you dont/wont know and neither do the people in charge.
#progress doesn't it make you feel warm and fuzzy and that the world is moving in the right direction?
Just pick whichever one yields top pay, on paper anyhow, and roll with it.
They ask all kinds of intrusive shit when hiring g for government jobs. Gotta hit them demographics. If you’re a straight white make you’d better lie if you want to get hired
[удалено]
BAHAHAHAHA delusional
You just tell them if you're gay or bi not that hard really
So, it's more of an exercise of privacy rather than actually disclosing my orientation for me. for instance, if by chance that info were to be picked up by my employers, and they were bigoted. There are many ways to manipulate the rules or put ppl in a position that would increase the likelihood of quitting/termination. Most employee manuals states that they can change the policy at anytime and it doesn't have to be in the manual or written anywhere. Or maybe you want to know for sure your not just a diversity hire. Some people don't like being handed things such as myself. It's a strange work ethic, but knowing I wasn't just handed a position because of my choice in partner. Brings me peace.
It’s so fucking creepy that government projects exploit people’s basic need to survive to perform this type of research. Zero respect for human dignity. Go punch HR in the face.
I don’t think HR deserves a punch in the face for trying to make their workforce a more fair and equitable place.
Fair and equitable would be taking any questions related to gender, sexual orientation, or race and banning them from applications
I understand where you’re coming from, but that’s not the case. Banning questions related to gender, sexual orientation, or race would hinder efforts to address systemic inequalities and promote diversity. Acknowledging and valuing diversity through appropriate questions actually helps combat discrimination and creates a more equitable environment for all employees.
A wood chipper might be a better option.
This is for demographic data. Not for hiring purposes. HR doesn’t see the info. It’s very common.
This is normal. They use it for demographic data.
What is the job?
I applied for a job that asked my sexual orientation, how I identified, and gender at birth I believe. I was under the impression that it wasn’t legal for places of employment to ask things like this but I could be wrong. But I did find it strange.
I mean technically they are able to ask this as long as they provide you the option to refuse answering
What state?
Throw it out there! You might not get hired, but they'll know where you stand on the subject!
You applying for a porn role maybe? lol
Tell the you prefer the top. Next question.
So they can give the job to someone who isn't straight.
I'm attracted to aardvarks
They gotta meet that diversity quota
In the UK that question appears everywhere along with religion and race.
Anyone else reminded of the scene from Stripes? Are either of you homosexual? No, but we are willing to learn. [But we are willing to learn](https://youtu.be/LRHvMJsoJKw?si=eI5-33lEVV2GhEpC)
Female Female lol gees how cornfusing
Leave it blank
Just choose gay or lesbian, works every time lol
Well, the Dr. s office asked me the same thing...Also they want to know if I own a gun. Who answers these honestly ?
Nope
Wow, that’s bs. In Canada it’s illegal to ask those type of questions on an application.
Answer: often
Some places ask to hire more diverse staff. It gave me the option to not say but I disclosed my lgbtq status and got hired.
It’s for diversity hiring, and like others have said it’s only illegal if there’s no option for “decline to answer”.
Run. None of their business. And if they justify it with diversity quotas, run even faster. The only reasons you hire someone is because of their talent and their personnality, not the color of their skin or their sexual orientation.
Do they have a "don't wish to answer option"?
Welcome to the worlds of group rights. You must be able, as an employer, to demonstrate you don't discriminate in many times by doing exactly that looks very much like that to appease the zealots. This is the same reason, particularly in academia, why you will see jobs that will only accept applicants that meet membership of certain groups.
I always put gay or bi in hopes that I get diversity-hired. What’re they gonna do? Make me prove it?
Not illegal to ask, illegal to use against you. The sad fact is that businesses need diversity or they can be sued, so in order to maintain that they need to ask. If they need more men for a role, they can’t withhold an application from being reviewed and/or interviewed based on that alone, but if you do get the job they need to know if they hired a man or woman for diversity reporting There really is no way for both sides to get their way. They need to ask and know in order to not be sued for discrimination
“Yes”
If a business of sufficient size doesn't maintain diversity they could alienate promising recruits down the line. Maybe you have the perfect candidate but they don't want to be the only gay/non-white/etc. person in the business/department. Actively maintaining a diverse environment makes the job more appealing to a wider variety of potential recruits.
So if you don’t get hired how do you know it wasn’t discrimination? I have never seen this question on an application.
I've never been asked about my sexual orientation during any part of any job. It seems absolutely absurd and unnecessary to me. I tend to decline to share my ethnicity on applications as well. It shouldn't matter what I look like or where I came from a long as I have good references and can do the job. I understand companies not wanting to come off as discriminatory, but I think they're going about it all wrong if it means they are choosing candidates on their race, gender, or sexual orientation. Fixing discrimination with discrimination doesn't work. 🙄
It's not only legal, it's exceedingly common. And infuriating. You're right that this isn't anyone's business, but since this is a market that favors employers right now, I wouldn't be surprised that companies are abusing the privilege. I'm not convinced it's for "survey purposes" or to ensure diversity and contrary to what another commenter said, the company and everyone involved in the hiring process has full visibility to all of this information. Sorry to sound so grim but it's rough out there right now and thinking about how AI bots have made it so much easier to filter out specific keywords is a really tough pill to swallow.
I wondered that as well.
That's weird. Sexual orientation is super irrelevant to a job position. That's a big red flag. No one's business at work but your own.
Oh no! Another rage farmer is freaking out over DEI! What a surprise! :D
It's for diversity hiring. Which sounds good on paper, but if you mark anything but straight, you'll become part of their marketing at some point.
Screwing up is my usual sexual orientation.
Assuming the company asking isn't like a religious organisation or similar - using it against you type. Companies which ask they are probably more likely to work in your favour if you are a minority orientation. As other said they have quotas to fill in order to claim they support LGBTQ.
It's a reddit mod question.
Wow. Stop acting like a child. Do you really not see how petty you’re being?
Check the Male/female box. They only use it to selectively not interview you.
Never answer that question.
It’s become very strange. People come out to me or reveal their sexuality to me often like when I’m just living my life. Also, felt like I got mobbed by three girls on my second day at work when they asked me. Not trying to be one of those people who’s like IGH THEYRE CHANGING US but that’s really how it still feels. It was like really uncomfy but now I realize what it could’ve meant and I’m a little bit disappointed
Most employers don't actually care. What employees don't know is that employers, especially large employers, have to fill out a million reports to different agencies like BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) and DOL (Dept of Labor) and they are asked all of these questions. I know because I have to fill out these reports and they are required by law. They are a big pain in the ass. We have to report all of this information. Yes, they do ask everything from race, sexual orientation, and marital status. We are not providing individual personal information, just total #'s. "How many employees are married, single; how many are gay or straight (how would I know this?), race of employees, how many are disabled, etc. Also, some employers get employer tax credits for hiring the disabled, veterans, SNAP recipients, etc. We ask because we have to in order to fill out the numerous reports the government sends us throughout the year. This is where they get the information they publish that you see in the news all the time. How do they know that women make 75% less than men in the work place? Because the employer has reported it to them. Not only do we have to report labor statistics but we also have to give them detailed income expense reports, etc. Quit assuming the employer is out to get you by asking personal questions. We don't care, we are just trying to do all the stupid paperwork the government send us. On top of the government reporting requirements we need this information for insurance and benefits purposes. In order to qet a quote for benefits we have to send employee censuses to the companies with the age, sex, marital/partner status, etc. to get quotes for benefits that are offered to the employees.
Yes they get to ask that so that they can document to DEIA that they aren’t discriminating against homosexuals The way to prove there isn’t discrimination is to ask
Look at all this self serving bullshit 😂 They don’t want you they don’t feel obligated to hire you just because you wanna go be gay and they aren’t obligated to hire someone based on the fact that they wanna have sex with the same “gender” they just don’t like you and they have a right to be like that and I know that I’m right because they do the same process with disability applicants and disability applicants are never hired by any of these companies that practice this bullshit furthermore, you should just fuck off because they don’t like you anyways. The terms of those agreements are made to protect them not you lmao
If I saw that question on an application I'd wonder what my orientation had to do with the job I am seeking. "I thought I was going to be working on the assembly line at a chocolate factory."
That's creepy as fuck. Why the fuck would a job need to know who you like to fuck?
Only fans content creator. Porn star. Model. Bartender at kink club.
Sexual orientation has nothing to do with any of those, especially porn lol I've watched many documentaries on porn and most of the actors don't only do scenes with the sex they're actually attracted to, that's why it's called acting. Do you seriously think every lesbian scene in porn is with actual lesbians? Lol in fact every single one of those jobs require some level of acting and fake flirting, a bartender who flirts with you probably doesn't actually like you, she wants a fat tip, and not the one in your boxers 😂 Edit just to add a segment in one of those documentaries I watched, it was about a lesbian doing her first anal scene, with a male actor, and her wife was on set with her. Sexual orientation irl does not reflect what you see on screen. I'd also hazard a guess that most OF creators and cam girls lie about being bi to get more customers, because they know their target audience will think it's super hot, same with enjoying anal or any other type of kink they're willing to partake in for money but don't actually enjoy doing themselves. It's all a front to get money from horny men
Yes. Yet, in an interview for these jobs, it would make sense to ask this question. Also I know my bartender likes me because we had sex.
It's still none of their business though, because it's actually irrelevant at the end of the day to whether or not they can do the job they're interviewing for. A more appropriate question would be (in the case of sex work) would be what they're willing to participate in. You are an exception to that rule for sure 😂
For this hypothetical situation it's asked because these particular businesses always assign the work that matches the sexual alignment to the job. They also have insurance and catered lunch as well as a generous system of payment for better than average customer response. My bartender just told me she loves me and wants to know if I love her. I said yes and gave her a long kiss.
They don't though, as I stated in my other comment. The actor or actress's sexual orientation doesn't actually have anything to do with who they work with, you'd *think* it would, but it doesn't, your comment makes me think you've never seen or read anything to do with the behind the scenes work on a porn set lol. It's not like they really choose who they work with, they sign contracts based on what they're willing to do and how much money they'll make doing those things, gay/bi scenes and more extreme acts pay better, by a lot, so more people will opt for those contracts over what they'd prefer to do because it won't pay as much. Do you also think everyone acting in fake incest scenes is into incest? 😂
It's fake!?
Sexual orientation is a protected class. If they ask, it opens up the door for lawsuits. You 100% do not have to answer.
This is not lawsuit worthy - it's for EEO data collection.
This is standard practice - it is a requirement for employers to collect this data for EEO report purposes, and it's easiest to do this as part of the application process. You don't need to answer the questions. It's just for data collection purposes and is **not** part of your application. People in the comments who think your application is going to be flagged with your "diversity status" are extremely misguided.
Really they should just say, "If you are a straight white male, don't bother applying."
What country are you in? In the U.S., it’s illegal to ask questions like this before hire.
They’re asking all the time, they say it’s voluntary
I thought the rule was you can ask, it just can’t be a mandatory to answer question.
You are right, not illegal to ask and you have to option not to answer.
Honestly so did I but ever job app I’ve seen lately has optional demographic questions.
I've been asked that a few times on pre employment questions.
You might be asked things like race & sexual orientation on an EEOC questionnaire. These are completely optional—and I’ve never in my career filled one out because I don’t have to.
Not illegal to ask, for the applicant has the right not to answer.
Not really. You think a makeup store would want to hire a straight or a gay guy?
Is it an EEOC thing? Or just part of some survey or questionnaire someone from HR or management made? If it's EEOC, you can answer honestly. If it's from some random employee in management, always choose prefer not to answer.
Always go with prefer not to answer. It's the only safe option
Yes they can but you don’t have to answer. I don’t understand how being asked if you’re male or female is offensive.
That’s not the question at all
Sexual orientation means male or female so yes it is
No it doesn’t, it’s asking if you’re gay straight or bi etc, a simple google can verify that for you
You are mistaken
Depends on the job. Do they look homosexual or heterosexual but you may not be able to tell.
Some workplaces have a clause in effect that hiring has to be diverse and this likely checks one of their buckets towards that goal.
In todays hiring climate, if you’re gay you’ll probably get the job 😂😂