next »

[untenured]

As I was told by an upper manager at a major multi-national (I think they're a Fortune 500) based in the U.S., the company's policy is to disallow spousal hires because of the fear of lawsuits relating to sexual harassment, favoritism, etc. Hence the "legal worries" in my previous post.

Ironically, my friend's wife--who works for a different major multi-national--confirmed that at her company they have the same policy for the same reason. It's not a matter of business--it's a matter of CYA.

I would disagree with you that there is no "ethical dimension" to spousal hires. Considering whom one has married is very different from considering their professional accomplishments, skills, abilities, etc. Why is there no ethical dimension to that?

If a manager told you that, the policy is more conservative than it needs to be.  Favoritism is not illegal in the workplace.  It's perfectly legal, for example, to have 'favorites' and promote your friends over more qualified subordinates.  So spousal hiring does not prevent favoritism lawsuits because they don't exist.

As for sexual harassment, that's a real stretch.  If a man and woman are married, they probably get along with each other and thus lowering the chances for sexual harassment.

The manager's legal worries are not strongly justified.  More interestingly, it's evidence that businesspeople tend to act more conservatively than the law requires because they don't understand the rules.

Is there an ethical problem?  That's a whole other question.

Untenured

[msparticularity]

My experience in corporate America was that spousal hires were far more problematic because of supervisory problems and issues of accountability; on a practical level, it's often nearly impossible for spouses to work for the same corporation and not to also have impact upon one another's work, especially when both are at a management or executive level. At universities, OTOH, there is often large-scale and diffuse bureaucracy that prevents most spouses from having any impact at all upon one another's careers after hiring.

[gekko]

I work in an industry outside education but maintain an adjunct position. I have no role in hiring other than occasionally recommending someone. I'll try to actually answer the original question for discrimination I would use if in such a position in either environment, industry or education. Here's a few things I would consider in a negative light:

-Visible tattoo.
-Militant sports fan. (Face and chest painter, for example.)
-Use of crutch words such as like, um, ya know by someone for whom English is a first language.
-Wears any article of clothing with prominent logo.
-Bumper sticker of any kind on vehicle, even if I agree with the premise.
-Trust funder.
-Actually believes the fairly tales associated with his/her religion.
-Participates in religious activities even though does not believe in above.
-Knowledge that individual has been dishonest in business or personal capacity, including infidelity.
-Has a litter of children. 

Would I state any of these things? Probably not directly, although I would certainly point to the underlying traits that would lead to the above situations. I could very easily make the case that any of the above traits are at least indicators of other negative traits that may be job related. 

I view any of the above situations negatively, although only a couple would be a deal breaker if I were hiring someone. Most are just eye brow raisers that would render any position impossible to fill if followed.

[untenured]

Well, it's good at least that you are self-aware of your personal biases.

How does a bumper sticker indicate poor job performance?

Untenured

[madhatter]

I work in an industry outside education but maintain an adjunct position. I have no role in hiring ...

Thank goodness for that. Dude, you have issues.

[ideagirl]

My experience in corporate America was that spousal hires were far more problematic because of supervisory problems and issues of accountability; on a practical level, it's often nearly impossible for spouses to work for the same corporation and not to also have impact upon one another's work, especially when both are at a management or executive level. At universities, OTOH, there is often large-scale and diffuse bureaucracy that prevents most spouses from having any impact at all upon one another's careers after hiring.

FWIW, there seems to be no problem with spouses working for the same law firm. If they're both lawyers, it's actually more problematic for them to work for different law firms because of confidentialty issues, etc. In the corporate world, I would thInk the same would be true if both spouses were in the same industry--you wouldn't watn them working for competitors.   

[pollinate]

Racial Discrimination comes to mind. :D

Do you mean to imply that you have one?

[crazy]

But this just is not true.  There are no legal restrictions to hiring spouses.  None at all.  Nor are the considerations ethical.  These are straightforward organizational matters of the possibility of conflicts of interest.

I am all for clarifying issues, but that is not done on the basis of false claims and unclear distinctions.  There are no legal or ethical dimensions to spousal hires.

The line is drawn at whether attracting one spouse is a sufficiently strong business motivation to accommodate the other spouse, and then creating the appropriate organizational structure to avoid conflicts. Nothing legal or ethical about it, just business.

You sound like one of those married spouses.  Have you ever tired managing three couples and a forth colleagues that is married to the Dean.  If it aint illegal, it certainly should be,  especially if the married couples are within the same department. 
[/quote]

[crazy]

You sound like one of those married spouses.  Have you ever tried managing three couples and a forth colleague that is married to the Dean.  If it aint illegal, it certainly should be,  especially if the married couples are within the same department.

[helpful]

You sound like one of those married spouses.  Have you ever tried managing three couples and a forth colleague that is married to the Dean.  If it aint illegal, it certainly should be,  especially if the married couples are within the same department.

forth?

[frogfactory]

You sound like one of those married spouses.  Have you ever tried managing three couples and a forth colleague that is married to the Dean.  If it aint illegal, it certainly should be,  especially if the married couples are within the same department.

forth?

Seventh, unless helpful was implying the Dean is a serial monogamist within the department, or a Morman.

[offthemarket]

based on the name of the thread, I'm waiting for the list of acceptable criteria for discrimination.

[mended_drum]

based on the name of the thread, I'm waiting for the list of acceptable criteria for discrimination.

People who use multiple exclamation points in their job letter.  I'm open to colleagues of any race, gender, sexual orientation, political affiliation and food habits, but I draw the line at someone whose excitability is splattered all over the page. 

[msmicrobe]

Following up on what Mended Drum said, I'd be against hiring anyone who used all lower case in their written communications. Proper use of the shift key is not optional.