Part Two: Element of instability (Cheese is later)

The next installment of our day in Toulouse.

As I said, we were in Toulouse for a job interview for B. When we met up afterwards, I asked him how it went.

(paraphrase)
"They were really up front with me about everything. There are three candidates for two positions. They asked me if I what I was doing now, if I was married, everything like that. I said I was pacsé and that you were unemployed. They told me straight up that you were an element of instability in my life."

At which point I responded: "WHAT? Me? I am an element of instability? What the f does the fact that I don't currently have a job have to do with how you'd do your work?" I fumed on and on.

According to B, it's perfectly normal to ask questions about your private life, married, kids, etc. and in this case, the profession of your significant other during an interview.

I, of course, don't see it this way. If your partner decides that his/her profession is not pleasing, and that they want to go back to school or try to change fields, and that means they aren't working for a few months, I don't see how that should be taken into consideration in a job interview. Being unemployed is not your fault.

I felt like the doctor(s) wanted B to get rid of me; I'm some kind of pest keeping him from achieving greatness.

B interprets it more as instability meaning "mobile, dynamic", and takes it almost as a compliment. The clinic wants someone who's never going to move and will want to work there till they retire. They'd prefer a Tanguy living comfortably with his parents than someone liable to move to follow the career/education of their partner.

And this is where B and my point of view really differ. I am of the opinion that I owe little if any loyalty to my employer (especially a brand new one) and if my private life forces me to move, or a find a better job elsewhere, I'm going to leave my current job. I didn't divulge that I was leaving San Diego when I signed up at the temp agency because I knew they wouldn't hire me if I was 100% truthful.

B, on the other hand, sees the CDI as proof of reciprocal trust between employee and employer. The company agrees to hire you, train you, and not fire you or lay you off tomorrow, and you agree work for them for a decent length of time and give 1 to 3 months notice when you want to leave. "They were reglo with me, I wasn't going to lie," B says in response to my question as to why he didn't say I was an English teacher looking to switch to an office job.

B's accepting the job today (he left the interview with the contract to sign at his convenience), so in the end the "element of instability" didn't cost him the job.

In the abstract, I understand the employer's point of view that they don't want to hire someone who is going to leave 2 months later and thus they want to find out about any extenuating circumstances which might cause the employee to leave. But to me, I see it eventually as a small level of prejudice against couples or blaming someone for being unemployed. The ideal candidate is single, no kids, and lives at home with their parents.

My impression for the States is that companies try to offer attractive pay and benefits packages to keep employees from moving on, instead of screening them out during the interview. Maybe the French economy and job market doesn't allow for companies to modify their pay and benefits enough to persuade people to stay.

I just had a thought: I wonder what their response would have been if B had said I was a "femme au foyer" (housewife). Would they have accepted that as legit? Is it okay for me to be at home and not looking for work, but not if I'm at home and looking for work?