Campbell Ritchie wrote:It was not intended to discriminate so much as to provide a few minutes' conversation about a neutral subject to let the
victimapplicant settle down before the “real” questions.
In the jobs I was applying for back then, that info was all known already, and people usually moved, so they were not “real” questions. You are describing something different. As I said, that sort of question went out many years ago.
Jan de Boer wrote: . . .
The guy actually had a note in front of him, which looked like it was the general set of questions he wanted to ask, something like:
location and travel time
Hence the answer was probably important, not for small talk.
And if that isn't unlawful discrimination on the grounds of marital status, I don't know what is.
. . . For example if you have trouble in your thuissituatie, it mostly means you are going through a rough divorce case. . . .
Campbell Ritchie wrote:If somebody applies for a job paying £55000 from a current salary of £23000 people will get suspicious.
Ulf Dittmer wrote:The question about the previous salary might be advantageous for the employer to know, but I wouldn't answer it. The salary should be in line with what a future employee brings to a company, and what they're asking of him; since that might be very different from the previous company, there's no benefit for the prospective employee to divulge it.