Ive subcontracted at firms with posters that said Try Bush for War Crimes and offices where they played Rush on the radio in office - my own office is clear of politics. Politics and religion are something to argue about anonymously on the web but have no place in a work environment or a bar.

Yes, the question is highly inappropriate and says a lot about the character of the owner - or insecurity of the owner having to have his beliefs reaffirmed by a person sitting across from them who has no choice but to answer the way the boss wants.

If I were going to hire someone, I'd surely want to know where they stand ideologically. That's because when I run a firm, I will need to feel like I can talk to my employees as my friends and maintain a rapport that I could not with people I felt uncomfortable with.

Not to say that I am uncomfortable around hard-lined republicans, but it is possible that your interviewee enjoys a more liberal atmosphere.

Rush Limbaugh can be conceived as a contemporary icon of bigotry and a narrow minded, easily persuaded perspective.

The question was definitely in bad taste, but understandable.

I doubt that the recession has had any real impact on the acceptable level of candor in the workplace. I wish that it had! If we were more open and honest with each other in an office environment we could potentially see more individualism, character and diversity, which would enrich our day to day lives.

I can't say I've worked with anyone that made politics or religion a big issue, even though my former coworkers have had a wide spectrum of beliefs. Often I would work with someone for months before I knew they were Republican, a Jehovah's Witness, or even had started their own church. And any conversation about it would be asking questions and not arguing or debating things.

I did have two politicians come into my workplace (retail store), one was a Republican Congressman handing out his business cards, saying if we had any issues we could contact his office, which is fine, even though I didn't live in his district and couldn't vote for or against him anyway.

The second was a Republican candidate for Governor. He wanted to see the owner of the company, who came from a very rich family in the state. He had no interest in talking to me about anything (he was campaigning mind you), aside from me putting him in contact with our rich owner. Needless to say, I didn't vote for him, and he ended up losing anyway.

And its not the recession, its people in a position of power wanting everyone they control to think like them. Because they can.

"An employer should not ask any questions regarding the marital status of the applicant. Nor should an employer ask questions regarding the applicant's spouse, spouse's application, political affiliation, criminal record, etc. Questions as to whether the applicant intends to marry or is married should also not be asked. However, an employer can ask information concerning who the employer should contact in case of an emergency, but this information should be obtained after an offer has been made and accepted.
# Names: An employer may ask if other names have been used in the past so that the employer can check references. However an employer should not draw any inferences regarding the name changes, i.e. marital status."


I am available for hire as a bookkeeper, human resources manager, office manager or a financial manager on the Eastern Seaboard.

I seriously enjoy this stuff way too much.

via Anderson, Bottrell, Sanden & Thompson, Attorneys at Law

yes.. that question is definitely illegal.

Of course, there are lots of ways to confirm to that somebody is not, in fact, a teabagging birther without asking about it so bluntly or breaking the law, for that matter. Personally, I support the non-hiring of teabagging birthers.

oh great, archinect's now giving legal advice or worse, misreading some north dakota ambulance chaser's website (a lot of bad hair going on at that law firm).

As a follow-up, I was conditionally offered the position and I am considering taking it. There are still some logistical issues to be worked out but this is the first place I applied to since the contract at my last firm wasn't renewed.

Bad hair or not-- it is an illegal practice. It was just something popped up from a reputable source (licensed professionals).

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html

"Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;

the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older;

Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended (ADA), which prohibit employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in the private sector, and in state and local governments;

Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibit discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities who work in the federal government;

Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), which prohibits employment discrimination based on genetic information about an applicant, employee, or former employee; and

the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which, among other things, provides monetary damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination."

While Title VII does not protect political affiliation directly, it is the basis for many state laws that do.

However, anyone employed in the public sector or the private sector-- think twice about taking government projects-- falls under
TITLE 42, CHAPTER 21, SUBCHAPTER I, § 1985. SUBSECTION 3.

"(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators. "


For individual states, there are various cases that can and have crossed over into other states. This sort of practice is a massive liability. Most employers are likely to lose.

And many architectural firms really don't have the pockets to finance ideological shifts in practices through litigious provocations.

Stop IRL trolling each other-- if you're not creative enough to tip toe around this issue (ask about property rights, taxation policies, general socioeconomic concepts), you shouldn't even thinking about politics.

Go ask any seasoned HR officer or a lawyer... and they'll cringe at the question.

not as bad as a potential residential client telling you, "we liked your work but my wife thought you wouldn't have a full take on american lifestyle and culture. but you were my favorite, i am sorry man.."
(true story)

these are terrible times for people with mid-east sounding ethnicities/names. really bad since 9/11.
discriminations on different scales happen to me almost everyday even i don't go out much.

i wonder if those lawyers in fargo would defend me?

I think if I was interviewing someone, I would want to see their iPod. Seeing their taste and selection of music is all the information I need to know to determine if they will fit in the office. This is of course assuming the office doesn't resemble a scene from Office Space.

I went to an interview once where the guy interviewing me knew that I was acquainted with several of the other staff members in the office through school, either as classmates or as instructors. He wanted to know my opinion about them and their work and it was asked in a manner that suggested he wanted to dish the gossip on everyone. Totally unprofessional and a complete waste of my time. When I didn't get the job (probably because I evaded his rumor prodding) I wasn't too disappointed. As much as the interview is an opportunity for the office to get to know the applicant, it's also an opportunity for the applicant to get to know the office.

Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal?
A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination, Marianne Bertrand and Sendhil Mullainathan, June 20, 2004

http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/mullainathan/files/emilygreg.pdf

You might enjoy this Ohran.

People with black names or black-sounding names are less likely to receive a call back than people with white or white-sounding names.

Guess who has gotten three phone calls in a month since they've started using just the first initial instead of their full name? Me!

thanks. i wonder if there is one on muslim americans of mid eastern and african origin? we know the situation is really bad in france.

When I get my citizenship in a couple of months I'll be adding a new name,probably an American name. I know "John" and "Brian" get invited to more job interviews than "Kumar" or "Sandeep".

"I think if I was interviewing someone, I would want to see their iPod. Seeing their taste and selection of music is all the information I need to know to determine if they will fit in the office."

Good. I have a wide variety of selections on my Ipod ranging from Frank Sinatra to Ludacris to Yeah Yeah Yeahs to Rob Zombie. (What does that tell about me?) I also have some advanced seduction podcasts mixed with AIA podcasts.

I don't have an Ipod. I would like one though.

I wouldn't like to work for racists, so Orhan be glad you missed that job. What if they were having KKK fundraisers in your beautiful designed clean white interior (if that's your thing), how would that make you feel...

Not to take a tangent, but randomized, I've used that kind of rationalization before (except I often replace the word racist with ignorant/biased), but you know what? There are a lot of people ignorant and biased about a variety of things, and at the end of the day, there are less opportunities for those that are discriminated against.

And yes, I kept my name (not Slartibartfast, although my real name is seemingly harder to pronounce with less letters), after having the opportunity to do so as I became "naturalized" and knowing fully having an "American" sounding name would make my life a little easier. But I just couldn't bring myself to do it.

But this is a political bias thread I think so I'll stop there. Its interesting that the OP asked - Has the recession made it "okay" to ask these kinds of questions? I thought the recession made it "okay" for Employers to be more selective about pay, experience, skill level, talent, etc, but not personal beliefs?

I personally wouldn't want to work at a place where politics are that important, when it isn't a congressman's office or the white house. I would've refused to answer the question. The recession has not made it okay to ask those questions, he probably just feels since he has a larger applicant pool he can weed people out via political views.

Frankly I think if you want to listen to Rush Limbaugh go ahead, but don't bring it to the office. I also don't feel listening to any particular radio personality is an indicator of anything - narrow-mindedness, political affiliation, etc.

Perhaps employers and employees self-select. There are probably firms that only hire teabagging birthers, and they can go off somewhere and happily design mcmansions and bigbox stores with facades covered by plastic columns, the detailing of which alternates shamelessly between Corinthian, Ionic, and Doric. As I do not have the detailing skills, I would not be empoyable by such a firm.

When I hire people I avoid over reactionary, emotionally responsive and linear thinkers such as many of the posts above, however I dont need to ask questions about their politics to diagnose the problem children.

potential clients weren't racists per se, but more like duped into thinking middle easterners, muslims in general are enemies of ours, an alien culture, to whom newspapers almost never extend kind words for their holidays, and they are not to be let near our most sacred virtue; a real estate investment. our home.
even though they hold a professional certification such as an architect's license and a diploma from a reputable american institution, and, even though they have a variety of accomplished projects, relative percentage of being hired is still very low.
however, there are very rare exceptions. i spend a lot of time cultivating some of those possibilities. i don't have the personality of giving up and moving into assimilated id, but i don't blame people for doing it after what goes on.

anti discriminatory laws are there but they are very hard to apply in reality and sometimes they exploit the very people they are supposed to protect. a lot of these things happen in whispers.

"I only want to practice design with people who think exactly the same way I do"

Jeeze.

Some prospective employers will ask numbskull questions like the above, hoping to get additional, inappropriate information about a candidate. Some probably do it innocently; others, knowingly, but either not caring or figuring no one will call them on it.

the reality is that we live in interesting times. I had an interview a couple of weeks ago for a municipal project in a Mid-Atlantic city. The commissioner who chaired the selection board opened the discussion with, "You know it's an election year here. Convince us you're all good Democrats." Everybody had a good laugh at that one. As it was, I'm pretty sure everybody - us, our subs, the officials present, were all Democrats, and they probably knew that, so the comment was more of a joke than anything else, but the subtext was pretty clear: the mayor of that city will only work with people he regards as politically aligned and who aren't a threat to his base.

The truth is, These are divisive times. The country is split into rival, mutually non-communicative camps. I personally feel that we would do more interesting design if we worked in diverse environments, politically speaking, but the times we are in often do not give our clients that flexibility. History won't kind to the era we're living through now, for many reasons, but it is what it is.