Are we related?
September 1, 2009 2:44 PM Subscribe
I'm female; my partner is male. We have a child, but are not going to get married. Are we related for HR purposes?
I'm in the process of applying for a job at a company where my partner already works. Part of the process is to be asked about relationships with people in the company, and I think the question is "Do you have any relatives at this company?" Since we're not married, I think we're not related, but it's a long term partnership, with a child, and the only reason we're not getting married is that for reasons I don't want to get into, is it would be more trouble than it's worth.
I am not sure when or how, to disclose the relationship, or if it's appropriate to do so. I'm also curious about what the intent of policies governing relatives in the workplace are supposed to do.
We would not be working directly together; we would mostly be in separate divisions with occasional overlap, but not a hierarchical association (he's not working for me, or vice versa).
I'm in the process of applying for a job at a company where my partner already works. Part of the process is to be asked about relationships with people in the company, and I think the question is "Do you have any relatives at this company?" Since we're not married, I think we're not related, but it's a long term partnership, with a child, and the only reason we're not getting married is that for reasons I don't want to get into, is it would be more trouble than it's worth.
I am not sure when or how, to disclose the relationship, or if it's appropriate to do so. I'm also curious about what the intent of policies governing relatives in the workplace are supposed to do.
We would not be working directly together; we would mostly be in separate divisions with occasional overlap, but not a hierarchical association (he's not working for me, or vice versa).
It depends. In many Canadian provinces, you're common-law married.
posted by GuyZero at 2:50 PM on September 1, 2009
posted by GuyZero at 2:50 PM on September 1, 2009
Yep, it sounds like you're in a domestic partnership. The legal status of this depends on where you live, but I would certainly disclose it.
posted by Paragon at 2:51 PM on September 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Paragon at 2:51 PM on September 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
I would call and ask HR. Decline to give your name if you are worried about future repercussions.
At my company, we seem to preferentially hire the relatives of employees if they apply. It is a way of keeping quality talent and fostering a more familial corporate culture.
They probably also want to make sure that your relatives don't have a say in the hiring decision. I'd err on the side of reporting him as your partner.
posted by muddgirl at 2:53 PM on September 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
At my company, we seem to preferentially hire the relatives of employees if they apply. It is a way of keeping quality talent and fostering a more familial corporate culture.
They probably also want to make sure that your relatives don't have a say in the hiring decision. I'd err on the side of reporting him as your partner.
posted by muddgirl at 2:53 PM on September 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Really depends on where you are. Good advice to anonymously call HR if you're worried. And besides, HR can't really hold that against you unless it becomes some sort of problem.
But yeah, depending on your state (assuming you live in the US), you might be in a common-law marriage already. I think this is only strictly official in five states, but I'd check.
posted by Lutoslawski at 2:55 PM on September 1, 2009
But yeah, depending on your state (assuming you live in the US), you might be in a common-law marriage already. I think this is only strictly official in five states, but I'd check.
posted by Lutoslawski at 2:55 PM on September 1, 2009
Seconding disclosure. Once you're hired, they'll ask if you're married for insurance purposes, but for now, they are asking about potential conflicts of interest. You'll do much better answering honestly.
Say that your partner works there, and they'll work around it. Lying and getting found out could lose you the job.
posted by explosion at 2:57 PM on September 1, 2009
Say that your partner works there, and they'll work around it. Lying and getting found out could lose you the job.
posted by explosion at 2:57 PM on September 1, 2009
Just to note, in general, a common law marriage (in the u.s.) requires that the couple intend to get married. This is not the case in this situation.
posted by Atreides at 3:02 PM on September 1, 2009
posted by Atreides at 3:02 PM on September 1, 2009
If you or he are already married (and separated or whatever) I don't believe you could be common law married. I'm also pretty sure you couldn't claim to be in a domestic partnership, nor claim any relationship from a legal standpoint until things were settled with prior relationships.
For tax purposes, I'm pretty sure you could go either as one of you single with a dependant and the other would be single, or you could go both as single with dependant but only claiming 50% of the credits with some level of joint custody stated.
It is appropriate to disclose the relationship to HR. This should not be a snafu for HR as long as the two of you are not in positions which could eventually become supervisor/subordinate roll. The policies are there to prevent cronyism, favoritism, and people bringing work both ways. I work for a company with a lot of married couples. Some of them actually work together, but with different supervisors. I know of only one single instance where one was offered a promotion, and the other chose to leave the company to prevent any such conflicts of interest from being discussed by others. They chose to leave - there was ample opportunity for lateral moves which would have allowed both to stay in the company.
posted by Nanukthedog at 3:18 PM on September 1, 2009
For tax purposes, I'm pretty sure you could go either as one of you single with a dependant and the other would be single, or you could go both as single with dependant but only claiming 50% of the credits with some level of joint custody stated.
It is appropriate to disclose the relationship to HR. This should not be a snafu for HR as long as the two of you are not in positions which could eventually become supervisor/subordinate roll. The policies are there to prevent cronyism, favoritism, and people bringing work both ways. I work for a company with a lot of married couples. Some of them actually work together, but with different supervisors. I know of only one single instance where one was offered a promotion, and the other chose to leave the company to prevent any such conflicts of interest from being discussed by others. They chose to leave - there was ample opportunity for lateral moves which would have allowed both to stay in the company.
posted by Nanukthedog at 3:18 PM on September 1, 2009
Common-law in Canada:
b) the couple are parents of a child by birth or adoption
Common-law in the U.S.:
is determined by state and/or those in the marriage.
posted by june made him a gemini at 3:22 PM on September 1, 2009
b) the couple are parents of a child by birth or adoption
Common-law in the U.S.:
is determined by state and/or those in the marriage.
posted by june made him a gemini at 3:22 PM on September 1, 2009
Part of the process is to be asked about relationships with people in the company, and I think the question is "Do you have any relatives at this company?"
You're in an established long-term relationship that sounds functionally equivalent to marriage. It seems obvious to me that the answer to this question is "yes," in all but the strictest, most intentionally literal reading.
posted by desuetude at 6:34 PM on September 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
You're in an established long-term relationship that sounds functionally equivalent to marriage. It seems obvious to me that the answer to this question is "yes," in all but the strictest, most intentionally literal reading.
posted by desuetude at 6:34 PM on September 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
Call prospective employer and ask why their application wants to know. Of course, do this blindly as previously suggested.
The responses re. common-law marriage/domestic partnerships are really not the issue here it seems to me. The OP says she's not married and considers herself to be not married; therefore there's no common law marriage. Moreover, the employer (if in the U.S.) can't legally ask what your marital status is pre-employment. (The company can, however, ask if you're "related" to any other employees for anti-nepotism reasons).
posted by webhund at 6:40 PM on September 1, 2009
The responses re. common-law marriage/domestic partnerships are really not the issue here it seems to me. The OP says she's not married and considers herself to be not married; therefore there's no common law marriage. Moreover, the employer (if in the U.S.) can't legally ask what your marital status is pre-employment. (The company can, however, ask if you're "related" to any other employees for anti-nepotism reasons).
posted by webhund at 6:40 PM on September 1, 2009
A few points to be made here, but contra desuetude, a strict, intentionally literal reading of "relatives" is probably going to be pretty important for a variety of legal reasons.
First of all, common law marriage has been abolished in most states. Those that do still have it require you to hold yourself out as being married, so even if you do live in one of those states, that doesn't apply here. In the eyes of the law, you two are unrelated. This would be different in Canada, where as june made him a gemini points out, common law marital status is ridiculously easy to obtain.
Second, in the US anyways, employers are not permitted to inquire into your marital status before hiring you, and though they can inquire after you've been hired, they may at no time discriminate against you upon that basis. Federal law is pretty clear on that, violations are grounds for EEOC or OCR intervention. Which employers don't tend to like.
But third, employers are generally permitted to ask if you're related to anyone in the company. Knowing where conflicts of interest are going to arise is something any reasonable employer is going to try to stay on top of. And even though you aren't related, you are in a relationship which can generate conflicts of interest, so it's in both your best interest to disclose this and the company's to know it.
If this question appears on a form, it's probably got room for a free-form explanation. If it's asked in person, it should be easy to explain. Either way, you should be honest here. They can't penalize you for telling the truth, but they may well be able to penalize you for lying.
posted by valkyryn at 7:25 PM on September 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
First of all, common law marriage has been abolished in most states. Those that do still have it require you to hold yourself out as being married, so even if you do live in one of those states, that doesn't apply here. In the eyes of the law, you two are unrelated. This would be different in Canada, where as june made him a gemini points out, common law marital status is ridiculously easy to obtain.
Second, in the US anyways, employers are not permitted to inquire into your marital status before hiring you, and though they can inquire after you've been hired, they may at no time discriminate against you upon that basis. Federal law is pretty clear on that, violations are grounds for EEOC or OCR intervention. Which employers don't tend to like.
But third, employers are generally permitted to ask if you're related to anyone in the company. Knowing where conflicts of interest are going to arise is something any reasonable employer is going to try to stay on top of. And even though you aren't related, you are in a relationship which can generate conflicts of interest, so it's in both your best interest to disclose this and the company's to know it.
If this question appears on a form, it's probably got room for a free-form explanation. If it's asked in person, it should be easy to explain. Either way, you should be honest here. They can't penalize you for telling the truth, but they may well be able to penalize you for lying.
posted by valkyryn at 7:25 PM on September 1, 2009 [1 favorite]
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by nadawi at 2:49 PM on September 1, 2009 [2 favorites]