> Two weeks before the class was over, the head of the deployment team asked, “Steve, are you single?” Yes. “Do you like to travel?” Sure. “Why don’t you come to Korea with us when we ship the system overseas.”
The first of those questions was completely unnecessary, and invited a potential employment discrimination lawsuit; it fairly directly implies they might not have made the offer if he wasn't. It would have sufficed to find out if he was willing to travel.
Its a dangerous question to ask anyway, not because its against the law, but because it is somewhat ethically grey - the candidate would feel they've been discriminated if they had answered that question "poorly".
> There is no federal law about Marital status discrimination, only state law, and not all states.
Asking a woman if she's married could lead to being accused of sex discrimination -- "she's married, and she's a woman, so she'll want to quit to start a family" [or, "she'll have extra home responsibilities because we all know women do the bulk of the work at home"]. I'm not saying that would be a sure-fire claim, just that it could open the door to that accusation.
The weirdest part of the meta discussion is the fixation on legality rather than morality of finding out if someone is single.
Also its an extremely bad business strategy. Take a single dude who probably loves the night life to Korea on a deployment, what could possibly go wrong? If you're planning a party that sounds like a fun plan. On the other hand I hate traveling, so if you pick me I'll get that system up and running faster than any human being on the planet, which sounds highly profitable.
It was likely asked in a perfectly moral way as in, "Do you have any family reason why you couldn't pick up and move to another country next week?"
Moving someone to another country is a huge life change. More so if there is a spouse and/or children involved. Sadly, political correctness makes casual concerns something to be litigated over.
> It was likely asked in a perfectly moral way as in, "Do you have any family reason why you couldn't pick up and move to another country next week?"
A "perfectly moral" (and more appropriate to the goal) method would be to exclude the reference to family and just as "Do you have any reason why you couldn't pick up and move to another country next week?"
I mean, if the intent isn't just to discover information about their family structure, there is no reason non-family reasons would be less relevant than family reasons.
People say things. Some of it is immoral. Some of it is stupid. Some of it is neither, maybe just throw-away. In this case, actually, the original question about having a family stuck in the author's head (not in a bad way) for decades. He thought of it as a good way to introduce the next part of his story.
It seems a shame to me that we're so knee-jerk politically correct that we can't allow people to not say things perfectly the first time, even when their intent was perfectly harmless.
You are blowing this so much out of proportion. I wouldn't have given that question a second thought. Why should I? It's a perfectly normal question and I can understand why it is being asked. If you are single, you have the flexibility to travel.
If you aren't, you have a family to look after and that opportunity will be reserved for someone else. I'd be excited if they asked, I'd be thrilled to travel.
It would have sufficed to find out if he was willing to travel.
Ah, but it would not have sufficed. They were planning to go whoring in Korea. (Yes I am reading between the lines here.)
That's why they asked, "are you single?" A committed man is more likely to spoil their fun. He might abstain, he might look askance at the other men, he might underscore their infidelity.
You're right, however life is never perfect. Most people make statements/questions off the cuff (without the assistance of a team of lawyers whispering into their earbud communicator).
So if you're in a position of responsibility over employment, sit down for an hour or two and learn the handful of questions which you should never ask, lest you get sued.
I think you may be overthinking this a bit much. It seems like it's just a joke about extended business travel, and they would have made the offer either way.
The first of those questions was completely unnecessary, and invited a potential employment discrimination lawsuit; it fairly directly implies they might not have made the offer if he wasn't. It would have sufficed to find out if he was willing to travel.