Swedish Firm Settles Over “Offensive” Job Interview
A 56-year-old man from Gothenburg has been awarded 60,000 kronor (GBP5,200 / $8,600) in compensation after being asked a question during an employment interview that was, in his view, insulting.
When the man arrived at the company, located on the outskirts of Gothenburg, for his scheduled employment interview, the first question he received caught him by surprise. “Do you oppress women?” He answered ‘no’ and moved on.
The 56-year-old said he was “shocked” by the question and promptly reported the matter to Sweden’s Equality Ombudsman (Diskrimineringsombudsmannen – DO), Aftonbladet newspaper reports.
“I really felt discriminated against; I’m sure he asked the question because of my origins and my skin colour,” the man wrote in his complaint. “You can’t take it for granted that all Oriental men are the sort who oppress women and look down on them.”
Now TheEye can’t see what’s wrong with this question – he was asked similar things as ambushes in University application interviews. The point was to test logic, mental reasoning, the ability to think on ones feet and the capacity to string an argument together without warning on an unexpected topic. So far, so useful as an interview strategy. Frankly the guy shouldn’t have got a job because he couldn’t think outside the box, not because he was an Asian with a chip on his shoulder and a quick eye for a fast dollar.
So, a nice little pay day for pretending to be offended. Must try that some time…could do with a new laptop.
Now what would one find offensive about this question? Allow the Dillinger to think for a moment. Here’s a thought, I’ll just toss it out there. What if for example, a man followed beleifs and acts that others viewed as oppressive to women and he knew this. Even though he didn’t feel that it was oppressive toward women, it irritates him that others don’t see his point of view on his ignorant ways. This makes the man angry and offended and he then becomes defensive. The man then sues and wins because he’s a fucking useless twat from a shit-ass backward country and he gets a free payday because the swedes are self-deprecating socialist fucktards. That’s just on possibility out of many though.
He wasn’t offended by the question but by having to lie to the answer.
Good post.
Lots of companies do it. Well, they used to. They simply ask questions that you wouldn’t have rehearsed the answers to. Thinking outside the box, as you say.
But the Swedes have become as soft touch as Britain. Professionally offended Righteous by the bucket load working in places they shouldn’t be allowed within a mile of.
And if he found it that offensive – well, “nothing to hide, nothing to fear”, and all that…
Jings, I was using techniques like that back in the 80s and never one complaint. But we were sensible then. Now of course it’s the Righteous who call the tune not the employer.
Oh to live in a country where the courts grew a pair as soon as they saw this lawsuit and threw him in jail for being an oxygen thief.
It was a job interview…isn’t lying the whole point? 🙂
If he’d answered “Yes, because of my religious beliefs” then he would have been unsackable after that. It’s a liberal hand-wringer’s worst nightmare.
Unrehearsed, exactly – and as I said in the post, most of my Uni interviews were ridiculously off-topic. I only came to really appreciate afterwards how effective the technique was when used properly and have always used it since when taking on people. In my line of paid exhaustion you need a backbone from minute one…wimpy interview answers are definitely a sign you’ll be a liability later on.
Ten years ago if I held a couple of days of testing interviews I’d have ended up with a tough and competent team. If I asked the same questions today I’d end up with a few of them in tears (probably the men) and half a dozen lawsuits.
Never give a reason for rejection and never write anything down these days either. Please Do Not Feed The Lawyers.
The Labour party seem to be demanding that all political parties provide details of ethnic and other minority proto-candidates rejected in the selection procedure. >:o WTF ? It’ll be any job selection process next.
Yes, I saw that. They were also after admissions of gayness too. Just imagine if you hadn’t had the courage to tell your parents yet but the law said you had to tell Harriet Harridan?