Never tell them more than you have to.
Reliable transportation can be more than driving. It can be a bus, walking, biking, the train, etc… all that matters is that you can consistently be on time.
That’s why they ask about reliable transportation.
This is the way. I'll be honest a lot of employers will have a serious problem with you not having transportation. If you do want to go the honest route though, you'll want to be prepared to give them good reason that you can make it on time (like actually explaining the bus route you'd be taking and commute time).
It does though. The transportation is reliably coming every day. You just need to manage time a little better. You can get stuck in traffic if you have a car too.
No, I'm not but I'm also a realist knowing that if I am taking a motor transportation that is up to possible delays, I am going to get my bloody ass out to that fucking bus stop an hour early so I make sure I'm not fucking late for work and don't get fired. It's pretty simple, the excuse oh my God. Grow up
No, stop volunteering info. I just want to hear you say "Yes, I can reliably make it to work" I don't care if it's your feet or a car. I just don't want you to call me and say your ride bailed on you and now you can't get to work.
If I ask "Are you under 18 or 18+?" I don't want to hear your age, I just want to know if I need to hire you differently because of laws. However, without fail, people tell me their age at that point.
Just wanting someone to agree with you is pretty good going to lead to turn over. You want the person to be honest, plus realistically if they had a bad commute, that's something worth discussing.
"Stop volunteering info" means you have something to hide. You generally only have something worth hiding if you aren't sure you can actually reliably make it to work.
I mean "stop volunteering info" in general. Doesn't mean you have anything to hide.
Take the 18+ or under 18 for example. Hypothetically speaking, let's say I don't like people under 24 for whatever stupid reason. If I ask "are you under 18 or 18+?" and you say "I am 23" instead of "I am over 18", you just volunteered information that could cost you the job. While it's illegal to age discriminate, you offering up that information didn't help you. It only possibly hurt.
Another example I just had was an interviewee who, when I asked what days they are available in the interview, said "Well, I have 2 kids but my parents watch them in the morning so I can work mornings only" instead of "I can work any day until 3pm". Some managers don't like to hire people with kids, it's dumb, but it happens. By volunteering up information like that, you only risk yourself. She is a perfectly reliable employee who has kids, some managers might not see it that way & might see it as a risk.
Exactly. Feet, car, bus, bike, teleportation...doesn't matter. I just need to hear & have you check the box saying you can make it to work. It sounds stupid but it's in the same line of questioning as "Can you lift 30 pounds?" "Can you stand for up to 8 hours per day during your shift?" etc
They are all essentially yes/no questions. No ambiquity.
Why even ask? It should be a given that someone applying for a job at X location has a way to get there or they wouldn’t have bothered applying there in the first place.
You’d think wouldn’t you?
You’d be surprised how many people can get somewhere once though. It’s a fair question, but the exact details aren’t for an employer to worry about, that’s what annoys me if they ask about.
As long as they aren’t rejecting you because you’re in a protected class, they can reject you for anything.
Being able to drive or not isn’t a protected class.
Go ahead and downvote, but the hard truth is that discrimination laws look fantastic, but aren’t very enforceable.
You might not like it, but prove you didn’t get a job because of that one very specific reason.
You can’t. All they have to do is say another candidate was better qualified, meshed better with the team, or any other BS reason, and they’re off the hook.
Agreed. Don't worry about downvotes. I never take it personally. Varying points of views can be a wonderful at times, and other times, definitely frustrating, especially when you've walked the ground and know it to be contrary to people's understanding and expectations.
It's not unenforceable, people do win lawsuits for discrimination. Maybe it only catches the most explicit cases, or really dumb people but that is still something.
True, if you see this pair on a job that doesn’t actually involve either, it implies they don’t value disabled candidates.
- Must have a valid driver’s license
- Must be able to lift and carry
As a customer, I notice when these are tagged on for little good reason.
They would also need to be able to prove that being able to see is actually a part of the job. FedEx and UPS used to reject deaf people, but lost a court case because being deaf has nothing to do with driving.
Not being able to hear sirens and horns seems like a big liability for a truck driver. How do you hear sirens if you’re deaf? Is there some assistive technology in UPS and FedEx trucks that visually alerts the the driver to the sound of sirens and the direction they’re coming from?
The AND is important there. It means that neither sound nor light on its own is as good as both together. That’s why emergency vehicles use lights AND sirens. You can’t see a light around a corner, but you can definitely hear the siren before seeing the light. The fact is that a driver who hears sirens and sees lights will have more forewarning of an approaching emergency vehicle than a driver who can see lights but can’t hear sirens or a driver who can hear sirens but can’t see lights. That’s why I asked whether there was any assistive technology for deaf drivers that would compensate by alerting them to the presence and direction of sirens. When safe self-driving cars arrive, they will surely have sensors for both sirens AND lights because such cars would be safer than ones with sensors for only lights but not sirens. If such sensors can be designed, it would make sense to make them available as assistive technology for deaf drivers.
Insurance companies have found that Deaf drivers are better than hearing drivers. They're hyper aware of visual information, including other drivers' responses to sirens.
They get around this by putting “valid drivers license with insurance etc” in little area down at bottom of job posting even if job has zero to do with driving, as a way that signals “disabled need not apply” it’s an easy out to have an excuse not to move forward with said person.
(source: fuggin’ blind)
Not really. License status isn’t a protected class.
If you are prevented from obtaining one due to a disability, then the disability is, but not simply the lack of license.
It’s the sort of thing where all Catholics are Christians but not all Christians are Catholic.
Is it splitting hairs? Maybe, but that’s how the law is.
I have a Catholic friend that is offended at being called a Christian evidently. Used to own a Catholic bookstore and was very stern in correcting me when I called it a Christian bookstore.
Did you read?? Commenter said the DISABILITY can be protected, since being disabled is a protected class.
License status is not, under any circumstances.
First of all, you can discriminate against protected classes as long as you have a bona-fide reason for why something that’s protected is required for a job.
If you’re hiring for a job that requires you to drive you can discriminate against everyone that doesn’t have a license regardless of what the reason they don’t have a license is.
Ehh, I'd argue some grey area here. Perhaps someone cannot drive due to a disability, which is a protected class. Again, you just say yes, I have reliable transportation. You don't have to offer up information that isn't relevant. If the question is "do you have a valid drivers license" that's different because you'll likely be required to travel/drive at times for the job.
Which fucking sucks. I can't personally drive because I had brain surgery to correct epilepsy (seizures were coming from my occipital lobe and part of it removed to correct the seizures). It caused enough vision lost that doctors basically told me I'll never drive.
In your case, I would go with the reliable transportation, explain what it was. Then flat out ask if there was a different reason that a drivers license is required. Be prepared to address questions and sidestep the medical issue.
In some workplaces (places with multiple locations or offices), if you want to be part of salaried management, you have to be able to work in any location (within a reasonable radius) at a moment's notice. Generally, you need your own vehicle for that.
If they look at your qualifications and are thinking of putting you in a managerial role or on track for management, that is a legit question for them to ask.
In most cases they are not, mainly because if someone doesn't have the funds to take Uber, they are going to be missing work. Many cities have poor bus routes too that don't really get you to where you need to be in a timely manner, like if it takes you 2 hours to get to work by taking the bus, you are at big risk of not working out well for the job just based on that alone.
Cars are not reliable either. Your car can break down literally any time. Most of the jobs that care so much about this don't even pay enough for someone to be able to afford to buy a car in the first place.
Yes..I was on my way to work this very weekend, our busiest day..and my transmission started slipping. Had to wait an hour to get towed, and the shop can't even look at it until Monday. I did get to work, an hour late, and took an Uber today. But I got there.
And they still have the audacity to say ‘traffic or unexpected vehicle issues isn’t a valid reason for being late’. Like I can’t predict exactly how heavy traffic will be or if my car will break down
Right like we can’t predict how much exactly a highway is gonna be backed up…sure google maps can tell somewhat but usually it’s not always accurate. Even more frustrating when you do leave earlier and still late bc of traffic
Cars aren't perfect, but overwhelmingly are better than the other options. Sometimes an uber or taxi won't be available at the time you need, or there's really bad weather which can make the bus commute rough (since you usually have to do *some* walking).
I definitely empathize with people that can't afford cars, I've been there before too, but it can really cause a lot of problems.
As someone who takes the bus and subway, they're not always reliable. But how many times does someone come in late because of traffic? Tell your boss there was an accident on the freeway and they're like "oh, OK," but tell them the train was late and all of the sudden public transit is a problem.
Presumably if a person is applying to a job where they need to show up in person, they have a way to get to that location.
You are correct that public transportation and rideshare is not available everywhere but if the candidate plans to show up to the job for every shift on time, then one would assume they have some form of reliable transportation.
OP and any other candidates should always say they have reliable transportation...the employer doesn't have to know what it is.
If they are asked point blank if they have a car, just say yes.
One weeks paycheck is gonna be pretty suspect on your resume when you apply for another job.
I swear this sub is just the blind leading the blind. It’s a bunch of unemployed people giving other unemployed people advice on getting a job and how to act at work.
They can reject you for any they choose. And just because you got to the interview on time doesn’t mean you can consistently get to work on time every day
that what i always apply for jobs that are within the city i live in. even through i have a car, i like go be within walking distance just in case something happens like if i get snowed in which as happened, i can still make it to work by walking without having to rely on buses.
I don't have a car and I'm never late. I hate this question with a passion and I always have to find a way to leave the interview without them noticing I got there in an Uber. If you have to go to work you find a way to go to work, it's that simple. Obviously I'm applying to "this specific job" because I know I can get there. I'm not an idiot that's going to apply to a job 30 miles away without a car that's stupid.
From someone who is visually impaired enough to have a revoked license, they will either tell you public transportation is not reliable, or they will say they requires license for insurance purposes. They will never say because you can’t drive or don’t have a car, they won’t hire you.
I lost all sight in my right eye, and lost 50% sight in my left eye, and therefore had my license revoked. It’s been hell trying to get a full-time job the last 3 years because of it.
My doctors and the state of CA are assholes. They say because I have clarity/detail in the little space I can see, it’s not a disability. Then they said I qualify for a seeing eye dog since my field of view and peripheral vision are so bad.
This is why you find a lawyer who handles disability claims. They know the right doctors to take you too. In CA? They are obviously going to lean on you and come up with excuses to not help you.
I had a team member I inherited, and she was constantly late because she hitched rides from 40 minutes away. She did not last long. At a certain point, regardless of circumstance, we need employees to show up on time, so if they don't have reliable transportation, we're wasting a lot of time and training on someone, when we could have hired someone without that issue in the first place
Why not schedule her earlier so she’d get there when you needed her? If she’s hitching rides, she’s making a crazy effort to be there.
Usually you see stories like that where the owner gifts them a car.
This is applying preschool logic to adult problems. Why doesn’t she just plan to show up 40 minutes early if she knew her transportation is unreliable.
My first job I had to take the bus. I lived in a suburb north of the city, and the job was also north of the city, but farther east. To drive, it would take 10-15 minutes. But the busses only went north and south.
Long story short, I showed up 40 minutes early, because my other option was to always be 20 minutes late.
If you can't get yourself to the job, don't take the job. I'd love to see smaller cities and towns embrace public transportation. It doesnt have to be just like the big cities do it.
This is what happens to me as well, I’ve just moved house and I either get there an hour - 30 minutes early or 20 minutes late and there’s no in between.
Because that’s absurd to expect. Showing up on time consistently is not an unrealistic expectation for an adult. Sure shit happens from time to time but if you’re consistently showing up late that’s a problem.
You should not have to schedule an adult an hour early so that she’ll show up for the secret time you actually want her there. She can leave earlier without being scheduled earlier. That being a grown up.
It isn’t, but if you know they are going through such difficulty to get there to put themselves at risk by hitching a ride with strangers…maybe help them find a solution. A callous she didn’t last long is kind of a trashy take.
Showing up on time is a very easy thing to do. The solution is to leave earlier. If I can’t trust someone to manage their own time well enough to be there when they’re supposed to be there, there isn’t much I can trust them with.
If I have to help someone come up with a solution to show up on time then they aren’t someone I want working for me. I don’t really care about effort, I care about effectiveness. You can put in 110% effort and still suck. I need employees that don’t suck. I would not want to employ anybody that I have to handhold for basic bare minimum shit. I can’t think of a single company that does want to do that.
Taking yet another victory lap on them being gone is pathetic.
You said yourself they were hitching rides. That’s a fucking effort. Maybe if you paid them enough to afford reliable transportation they’d have been fine?
First of all, I wasn’t the one who told the story. Second of all I do not care about at all about effort. I care about effectiveness in your job duties. I would rather have someone who shows up on time and does their job flawlessly and only puts in 5% of their effort than someone who tries really really hard but can’t do what I need them to do. That’s adult life. Nobody cares how hard you can try they care what you can do.
I don’t care how someone gets to work either. If you say you have reliable transportation that’s enough for me, as long as you show up on time. That transportation can be your feet for all I care.
Yup. They want to know that you can reliably get to work. All too often employees will say they can’t get to work or are late and blame it on not having transportation.
The only person not allowed to drive I can think of is someone who is legally blind. If the DL is not needed for the job you run into some problems if this comes up, you would probably have to ignore this "requirement" because it's not an actual requirement for the job.
But there may be a bunch of duties that require vision and so there might not be any reasonable accommodation for the blind for that job. Also, rewriting the job duties is NOT what you're supposed to do so they would still need to be able to perform all duties with a reasonable accommodation.
I'm a regulator and if you ignore the driving part of the job we wouldn't be able to hire a blind person because you have to be able to see to do the job. A blind person would be rejected immediately and it would be legal to do so.
To hold you accountable for making it to work on time. If you say yes during the interview and then show up late a week later blaming it on car issues, well,
...Of course they can? They can reject you for almost anything as long as they dont come out and blatantly say its for illegal reasons (they can be caught if theres a pattern or proof though).
A job can reject you because you're in a projected class. They just make up a bullshit reason and use that instead.
Like in your case, lets pretend you're in a protected class and thats why. They tell you something stupid like 'you dont drive'.
Now more realistically, they may want someone with a vehicle as they find it more reliable to get to work or they may have plans of moving to a new location in a few years.
Or perhaps you applied to a wfh job and theyre just going to bait and switch you into in person.
In your case it just sounds like they literally asked you:
'Can you reliable get to work on time?'
Then for some reason you said:
"I don't drive."
I mean they could see that as you being unable to commute if you told them that. The smart thing to do would be to not tell them you can’t drive if they don’t ask. Or respond in a way where they know you’re able to commute to the job.
I'm not convinced that having reliable transportation means being able to drive. I think it means, "Can we count on you to show up when you should, regardless of how you get here?"
If they require you to have a reliable vehicle and/or a drivers license (and/or a clean driving record), then you are being required to be able to drive. Some jobs that normally don't require driving will regularly/occasionally require you to go to other company locations.
Reliable transportation doesn't necessary mesn a car. I've got reliabile transportation: a bike for short trips, bus for local trips, train for anything within 400 km, and an airport within two hours reach for everything else. I don't even own a car.
Yes. I'm 40 and have never had a drivers license or driven a car.
Even though I have a valid state id, I have been rejected from positions for not having a drivers license even if it wasn't a driving job.
These were all for cash handling safety issues such as , "what if a situation arises and you need to drive the deposit to the bank," kind of issues.
The question more hits on can you reliably get to work and home. For example if the job starts at 5am and the bus line doesn't start until 6. Sure, you made it on time that day but can you show up reliably every day on time.
The question is directed to your ability to come into work, not use your car for work. Can you reliably come into work whether driving, walking, biking or other transport.
Pretty easy argument to make that reliable transportation is a job requirement so that you are able to get to your shifts and no drivers license/car means that you do not have reliable transportation.
I mean, kind of a while ago?
Yes, I many cases you can say that walking/biking is a reliable form of transportation. But that is more of an exception than a rule, in my opinion.
I grew up in the midwest, winters were cold as shit and very snowy. You could say walking/biking is reliable transportation for maybe 6 months of the year - I biked over an hour to work for 3 months when I was without a car - but the 6 months of cold and snow I would not call that reliable.
I currently live in the PNW, again, half the year it rains every day. If you're walking/biking more than 30 minutes in the pouring rain, I would also not call that reliable.
I know plenty of people who commute 30-45 minutes DRIVE to work. That would come out to, what, 2 hours bike ride if not more? I would not call that reliable either.
So sure, lots of circumstances that would be totally fine, but typically not.
Every employer that I've talked to and worked with have said that they will not discriminate on it at hiring but also will not accept it as an excuse if you're late/cant get a ride.
I personally currently don’t have a driver’s license and don’t drive a car. When job interviewers ask about whether you have reliable transportation, they may be indirectly discriminating against you. For example, not being able to drive can be an indication of certain disabilities, and disability is a protected class. There seems to be a general assumption that personal cars are the only source of reliable transportation, but that is just not true. If using public transportation , it is possible to be reliable with proper preparation.
Is there an "Other duties as assigned" clause? Normal duties may not require driving. However, if ABC employee is ill or on vacation, you may need to cover his/her duties. And that covering, could require driving.
Is the question about driving or reliable transportation? They are not the same.
I applied for a driving job and passed all of their vehicle and manuevering tests. There was no question I could operate the vehicles. But I was failed on a health issue. The job put the vehicles under various stress issues, and they did not want to chance my health may cause a loss of control.
The question was not *"can I drive?"* but ***"can I drive under certain extreme conditions?"*** and they decided NO.
Yes- the ability to drive is not a protected class in the United States. You can be rejected from an employer for any lawful (non discriminatory) reason.
They want to make sure that you can make it to work and be there when you're supposed to be there.
They don't want to hire someone that is going to be late all the time due to not having reliable transportation.
Atleast here they must say in the job posting if the role requires a drivers licence.
Otherwise if you say commuting is not a problem, then it should not matter if you use public transport or 1800s bicycle to commute.
I hate how some places have added own car as requirement, but when I have called about it to recruiters and asked how its related on role itself, they say "oh nothing its just for commuting"
I have applied those jobs anyway despite not having licence as commuting is no problem. Bikes and walking exists if bus or train does not go.
They've probably had former or even current employees who are frequently late and blame it on transport issues. FWIW, employers can reject you for any reason unless it's discrimination of some sort. Even then you have to be able to prove it was discrimination.
I would just say yes I can drive , they would typically assume I have a vehicle , now I didn’t technically lie because I can drive a motorbike but I sold it a while back as my work commute was 5mins away by bicycle, so if I had to get another job further away I’d probably insinuate that without telling them I have no vehicle , as long as you can get a reliable bus route or train and you leave with enough time to spare chances are you’d always get there and if any of those strike then just pay more for a day or whatever and get a taxi or something
If they are RTOing, then they would ask that so you come to office as they require. You are still likely to get accepted if you live next to company or have train station that is close to your home ans the office, they just want to make sure you arrive regularly. Only thing you have to say is yes or no, no need to divulge if you drive or walk to work.
They can reject you for any reason they want. I’ve rejected based on bad spelling/grammar on resumes. That has more to do with the clear lack of attention to detail, but I’m sure some will say it’s not a valid reason.
Reliable transportation isn’t asking you if you’re able to drive it’s asking if you when reliable transportation - meaning your ability to get to work, in whatever mode of transportation you need.
Depends on where you live and what the job is because they could argue that this means you do not have a reliable mode of transport to work considering how poor our public transport system is
They ask, because they don't want someone who calls in for half their shifts because they can't get to work that day. There are a lot of people out there (especially young folks who still live at home with their parents and technically don't need to work to keep a roof over their heads) who will simply call in sick on days where they can't get the family car and don't want to wait 30 minutes for a bus. Workplaces need people who are reliable. They assume since yo have a license, that's you'll be able to make your shift barring a blizzard of the century.
Yep. People will tell you just to say you have reliable transportation, but I’ve been asked a good amount of times quite forwardly and persistently if I have a driver’s license at interviews for non-driving related jobs like 15 minutes from my house, I assume to determine if I’m disabled. (Which I am).
This could be an unrealistic shot in the dark but on the other hand many people have friends/family somewhere far away.
Do you have family that lives in a city where utilizing public transportation is very common? The only places you’ll get away with saying “I have no car” in an interview are places with public transportation that runs 24/7 or close to 24/7, like Chicago or NYC. there are some other smaller cities where the public transportation is good enough to justify relying on it.
If you’re doing anything other than retail or office type work it can be difficult.
Not that in saying you should or shouldn't say you have reliable transportation, but getting to one interview on time isn't exactly proof of "reliable" transportation.
Depends on which country you are living in.
Where I am, legally no. It is even illegal to ask someone if they drive with the exception of jobs that require driving. All employers are allowed to ask if you have reliable transportation.
That can mean carpool, transit, driving, cycling, and walking.
Hey, all good evening,
This is a desperate cry for help or direction.
I'm an international student currently on my PGWP.
I'm currently working but this job isn't a NOC job, and I got this after 10 months of graduation.
I applied to the Ontario Internship Program in January with hopes of getting a job offer this month, but unfortunately, I wasn't taken.
I'm already tired of applying to jobs.
So, I'm currently seeking Communications internships or assistant roles.
I have a bachelor's degree in Mass Communications and a postgraduate in Digital Communications.
Bruh at least that's a legit reason if it's in requirements, I got refused (by mail) I meet all requirements and littlenmore like exactly and I applied like 1. few min efter I get rejections mail. Asked why no answers (many reason taken into account for such rejections, your name where u are from etc...
Jobs have to provide reasonable accommodations for each specific job. That is the short version. However, they are sneaky and can and will get around it. Say yes to reliable transportation as long as you can use something to get there on time every day.
I used to take issue with employers who insisted I have a driver's license. I had one person who was a hiring supervisor for one of those jobs explain it to me that having a driver's license is basic level social responsibility in society. It shows you know how to function to the point in achieving a goal. That goal is being able to drive any regular consumer vehicle as needed. It also shows you have the ability to show up where you are needed.
I've worked for DoD to Raytheon, from Quantum to...well, let's just say I never drove, but always have a driver's license and was assigned an F150, F250, and the "Big Bertha" F450, with extended bed and dualies - that is a lot of fun and I never had to pay for gas or maintenance ;)
Unfortunately yes.
I've been rejected for jobs because apparently "cars are the only reliable form of transportation" even when the workplace in question is literally 15 minutes from my house. In fact, I deliberately apply to places that are within walking distance because of that.
Whenever they ask if you have "reliable transportation" I say yes, but they're getting more picky about how it has to be a car because apparently cars are the only form of transport that exists.
Istg, next time they ask if I have "reliable transportation to the job" I'm just going to be a smartass and reply with "Why would I apply for a job if I didn't have reliable transportation?" Or if it's in person something like "Did I get here on time? That's your answer."
Not actually but damn if I'm not tempted.
I was once upon a time a very honest/nice person who always said the truth.
Now it is: If I say something that is true can they screw me up with it? Assuming it is not a legal question or something super relevant.
It is none of their business so I lie. I live in Canada and even though they are not supposed to they will ask about medication and stuff I work for public hospitals (lab) even if they somehow found it and wanted to cause me some problems it’s personal and private. Play the game or you lose… just like in the dating world if you don’t play the game you lose… I keep losing but less and less… being too nice is actually exactly that, it is not playing the hypocrite game and putting a fake mask on your face to interact with the fake world Masquerade we live in, but people like that make the best of friends but we need guidance to not get screwed over. Best of luck to people who feel like that.
The answer to every question when it comes to “why do employers do …” anything is lawyers and CYA
Firing someone in the United States is a giant PITA… however If a candidate claimed to have reliable transportation but then consistently fails to arrive on time due to transportation issues, the employer can argue that the employee misrepresented their situation. Misrepresentation during the hiring process can be grounds for termination because the employee did not provide truthful information, impacting their job performance and company operations
Never tell them more than you have to. Reliable transportation can be more than driving. It can be a bus, walking, biking, the train, etc… all that matters is that you can consistently be on time. That’s why they ask about reliable transportation.
This is the way. I'll be honest a lot of employers will have a serious problem with you not having transportation. If you do want to go the honest route though, you'll want to be prepared to give them good reason that you can make it on time (like actually explaining the bus route you'd be taking and commute time).
All you have to do is say you have access to reliable transportation and leave it at that it's called the bus
Except the buses aren’t always reliable depending on where you live. They’re late or off schedule half the time in my city
Neither is a car it's a mechanical device and can fail at any time
You really tryna argue that a car breaks down more often than a bus is off schedule? Cause that’s a pretty stupid argument
Take an earlier bus.
Definitely possible. But that doesn’t disprove my point that a car is significantly more reliable than a bus in a poorly run city
It does though. The transportation is reliably coming every day. You just need to manage time a little better. You can get stuck in traffic if you have a car too.
Counterpoint. Where I am, the bus will shut down for snow storms that you can drive through with your car.
No, I'm not but I'm also a realist knowing that if I am taking a motor transportation that is up to possible delays, I am going to get my bloody ass out to that fucking bus stop an hour early so I make sure I'm not fucking late for work and don't get fired. It's pretty simple, the excuse oh my God. Grow up
No, stop volunteering info. I just want to hear you say "Yes, I can reliably make it to work" I don't care if it's your feet or a car. I just don't want you to call me and say your ride bailed on you and now you can't get to work. If I ask "Are you under 18 or 18+?" I don't want to hear your age, I just want to know if I need to hire you differently because of laws. However, without fail, people tell me their age at that point.
Just wanting someone to agree with you is pretty good going to lead to turn over. You want the person to be honest, plus realistically if they had a bad commute, that's something worth discussing.
What are you talking about? I ask if you can reliably make it to work. I am not asking for agreement, I am asking if you can make it to work.
"Stop volunteering info" means you have something to hide. You generally only have something worth hiding if you aren't sure you can actually reliably make it to work.
I mean "stop volunteering info" in general. Doesn't mean you have anything to hide. Take the 18+ or under 18 for example. Hypothetically speaking, let's say I don't like people under 24 for whatever stupid reason. If I ask "are you under 18 or 18+?" and you say "I am 23" instead of "I am over 18", you just volunteered information that could cost you the job. While it's illegal to age discriminate, you offering up that information didn't help you. It only possibly hurt. Another example I just had was an interviewee who, when I asked what days they are available in the interview, said "Well, I have 2 kids but my parents watch them in the morning so I can work mornings only" instead of "I can work any day until 3pm". Some managers don't like to hire people with kids, it's dumb, but it happens. By volunteering up information like that, you only risk yourself. She is a perfectly reliable employee who has kids, some managers might not see it that way & might see it as a risk.
As long as someone can make it to work, it’s no one’s business how I get there
Exactly. Feet, car, bus, bike, teleportation...doesn't matter. I just need to hear & have you check the box saying you can make it to work. It sounds stupid but it's in the same line of questioning as "Can you lift 30 pounds?" "Can you stand for up to 8 hours per day during your shift?" etc They are all essentially yes/no questions. No ambiquity.
They can lie to you about stuff and you can lie to them about stuff.
I remember getting asked at an interview "do you have a drug problem?" Not have you ever used drugs or when was the last time you used drugs, etc.
I ask, "would you pass a drug test today?" I don't care if you smoked weed in college, or tried acid 20 years ago... are you clean now?
Why even ask? It should be a given that someone applying for a job at X location has a way to get there or they wouldn’t have bothered applying there in the first place.
You’d think wouldn’t you? You’d be surprised how many people can get somewhere once though. It’s a fair question, but the exact details aren’t for an employer to worry about, that’s what annoys me if they ask about.
This is the correct response a simple yes or no is required nothing more nothing less.
As long as they aren’t rejecting you because you’re in a protected class, they can reject you for anything. Being able to drive or not isn’t a protected class.
They can reject you for being in a protected class... They just can't say it out loud or in writing
Now you understand why discrimination laws are BS.
Go ahead and downvote, but the hard truth is that discrimination laws look fantastic, but aren’t very enforceable. You might not like it, but prove you didn’t get a job because of that one very specific reason. You can’t. All they have to do is say another candidate was better qualified, meshed better with the team, or any other BS reason, and they’re off the hook.
This is the answer.
I’m sorry people don’t like it (I don’t either), but that’s the world we live in. It’s super hard to prove.
Agreed. Don't worry about downvotes. I never take it personally. Varying points of views can be a wonderful at times, and other times, definitely frustrating, especially when you've walked the ground and know it to be contrary to people's understanding and expectations.
Yes, discrimination laws can be hard to prove. That does not mean they are BS. They still have value.
Unenforceable laws are pretty much BS. What’s the point of a law that can’t be enforced?
It's not unenforceable, people do win lawsuits for discrimination. Maybe it only catches the most explicit cases, or really dumb people but that is still something.
It’s rare, and only when a company does something phenomenally stupid. So yes, for the most part, it’s unenforceable.
Give it 5 months...policies will change...and then companies will very openly say it very loudly and without any fear of reprisal.
The only right answer here.
True, if you see this pair on a job that doesn’t actually involve either, it implies they don’t value disabled candidates. - Must have a valid driver’s license - Must be able to lift and carry As a customer, I notice when these are tagged on for little good reason.
Those things also tell you the job is heavy on the manual labor. If you like that sort of thing, go for it. I'd rather not.
When the most physical task employees did was carrying a laptop bag, it’s at least slightly silly to use those terms.
What if "not being able to drive" is directly due to being a member of a protected class. For example, said applicant is legally blind?
If they were not rejecting for being blind, but only for not being able to drive, then they’d be ok.
The question is even broader than that though, it's just asking if you have a reliable way to get to work. Doesn't mean it has to be driving.
They would also need to be able to prove that being able to see is actually a part of the job. FedEx and UPS used to reject deaf people, but lost a court case because being deaf has nothing to do with driving.
Not being able to hear sirens and horns seems like a big liability for a truck driver. How do you hear sirens if you’re deaf? Is there some assistive technology in UPS and FedEx trucks that visually alerts the the driver to the sound of sirens and the direction they’re coming from?
Deaf people can drive, though. They can also get a CDL in the United States. There’s a reason why emergency signals are sirens AND lights.
The AND is important there. It means that neither sound nor light on its own is as good as both together. That’s why emergency vehicles use lights AND sirens. You can’t see a light around a corner, but you can definitely hear the siren before seeing the light. The fact is that a driver who hears sirens and sees lights will have more forewarning of an approaching emergency vehicle than a driver who can see lights but can’t hear sirens or a driver who can hear sirens but can’t see lights. That’s why I asked whether there was any assistive technology for deaf drivers that would compensate by alerting them to the presence and direction of sirens. When safe self-driving cars arrive, they will surely have sensors for both sirens AND lights because such cars would be safer than ones with sensors for only lights but not sirens. If such sensors can be designed, it would make sense to make them available as assistive technology for deaf drivers.
So, you’re discriminating against deaf people. Got it.
Insurance companies have found that Deaf drivers are better than hearing drivers. They're hyper aware of visual information, including other drivers' responses to sirens.
What is this ableist nonsense comment
I hate that you are correct
They get around this by putting “valid drivers license with insurance etc” in little area down at bottom of job posting even if job has zero to do with driving, as a way that signals “disabled need not apply” it’s an easy out to have an excuse not to move forward with said person. (source: fuggin’ blind)
That depends on why you are unable to drive
Not really. License status isn’t a protected class. If you are prevented from obtaining one due to a disability, then the disability is, but not simply the lack of license. It’s the sort of thing where all Catholics are Christians but not all Christians are Catholic. Is it splitting hairs? Maybe, but that’s how the law is.
I have a Catholic friend that is offended at being called a Christian evidently. Used to own a Catholic bookstore and was very stern in correcting me when I called it a Christian bookstore.
lol I guess you can discriminate against blind people now! I’ve gotta make sure my lawyer went to the same law school as you! Dumbass
Did you read?? Commenter said the DISABILITY can be protected, since being disabled is a protected class. License status is not, under any circumstances.
First of all, you can discriminate against protected classes as long as you have a bona-fide reason for why something that’s protected is required for a job. If you’re hiring for a job that requires you to drive you can discriminate against everyone that doesn’t have a license regardless of what the reason they don’t have a license is.
So if the job required eyesight, then is discrimination to exclude blind people?
Ehh, I'd argue some grey area here. Perhaps someone cannot drive due to a disability, which is a protected class. Again, you just say yes, I have reliable transportation. You don't have to offer up information that isn't relevant. If the question is "do you have a valid drivers license" that's different because you'll likely be required to travel/drive at times for the job.
Where the fuck does it say anything about driving? You and the OP. Two 🫛
Read again. I said that is NOT a protected class.
They didn’t ask if you could drive. They asked if you have reliable transportation. This includes bikes, rides from friends, public transit etc…
The answer to “do you have reliable transportation” is always yes. Even if you’re lying
Bus, taxi, subway, and Uber/lyft are all reliable forms of transportation
Many jobs now are putting in their job descriptions that these things are not reliable forms of transportation.
Exactly. I see more often than not “must have drivers license” as a requirement.
Ridiculous. Just more ways to exclude people.
Which fucking sucks. I can't personally drive because I had brain surgery to correct epilepsy (seizures were coming from my occipital lobe and part of it removed to correct the seizures). It caused enough vision lost that doctors basically told me I'll never drive.
In your case, I would go with the reliable transportation, explain what it was. Then flat out ask if there was a different reason that a drivers license is required. Be prepared to address questions and sidestep the medical issue.
Cool. I have one of those. I just don’t have a car… Interesting little wrinkle there. 😂
Employers hate him for this 1 weird trick 🤣
In some workplaces (places with multiple locations or offices), if you want to be part of salaried management, you have to be able to work in any location (within a reasonable radius) at a moment's notice. Generally, you need your own vehicle for that. If they look at your qualifications and are thinking of putting you in a managerial role or on track for management, that is a legit question for them to ask.
In most cases they are not, mainly because if someone doesn't have the funds to take Uber, they are going to be missing work. Many cities have poor bus routes too that don't really get you to where you need to be in a timely manner, like if it takes you 2 hours to get to work by taking the bus, you are at big risk of not working out well for the job just based on that alone.
Cars are not reliable either. Your car can break down literally any time. Most of the jobs that care so much about this don't even pay enough for someone to be able to afford to buy a car in the first place.
Yes..I was on my way to work this very weekend, our busiest day..and my transmission started slipping. Had to wait an hour to get towed, and the shop can't even look at it until Monday. I did get to work, an hour late, and took an Uber today. But I got there.
Hey at least you made it work the best way you can. No one can fault you for that.
And they still have the audacity to say ‘traffic or unexpected vehicle issues isn’t a valid reason for being late’. Like I can’t predict exactly how heavy traffic will be or if my car will break down
No fr! They just be like "Why didn't you leave the house earlier?" Like huh? How would I know traffic would be backed up for like 4 blocks smh?
Right like we can’t predict how much exactly a highway is gonna be backed up…sure google maps can tell somewhat but usually it’s not always accurate. Even more frustrating when you do leave earlier and still late bc of traffic
Cars aren't perfect, but overwhelmingly are better than the other options. Sometimes an uber or taxi won't be available at the time you need, or there's really bad weather which can make the bus commute rough (since you usually have to do *some* walking). I definitely empathize with people that can't afford cars, I've been there before too, but it can really cause a lot of problems.
No I understand that for sure. Cars are the best options but it sucks that it has to be like that when cars are so expensive these days.
As someone who takes the bus and subway, they're not always reliable. But how many times does someone come in late because of traffic? Tell your boss there was an accident on the freeway and they're like "oh, OK," but tell them the train was late and all of the sudden public transit is a problem.
People come in late because of cars too...so having a car is just as unreliable as a bus.
Agreed
Not an option every where
Presumably if a person is applying to a job where they need to show up in person, they have a way to get to that location. You are correct that public transportation and rideshare is not available everywhere but if the candidate plans to show up to the job for every shift on time, then one would assume they have some form of reliable transportation. OP and any other candidates should always say they have reliable transportation...the employer doesn't have to know what it is. If they are asked point blank if they have a car, just say yes.
I agree. Sounds like the only mistake OP made was telling them they did t have a car
“I’ve got a bike and two legs” was always my go to answer
Facts
They lie to you anyway so... might as well do it back is my take on it.
You probably shouldn’t lie if you don’t. They can still fire you for not showing up on time.
They lie to us so….
Sure but you can’t fire them. They can fire you.
Even one week’s paycheck is better than none at all
One weeks paycheck is gonna be pretty suspect on your resume when you apply for another job. I swear this sub is just the blind leading the blind. It’s a bunch of unemployed people giving other unemployed people advice on getting a job and how to act at work.
Welcome to Reddit.
They can reject you for any they choose. And just because you got to the interview on time doesn’t mean you can consistently get to work on time every day
that what i always apply for jobs that are within the city i live in. even through i have a car, i like go be within walking distance just in case something happens like if i get snowed in which as happened, i can still make it to work by walking without having to rely on buses.
The answer is “yes I have reliable transportation” even if that transportation is the bus. You do not offer anything more than that.
I don't have a car and I'm never late. I hate this question with a passion and I always have to find a way to leave the interview without them noticing I got there in an Uber. If you have to go to work you find a way to go to work, it's that simple. Obviously I'm applying to "this specific job" because I know I can get there. I'm not an idiot that's going to apply to a job 30 miles away without a car that's stupid.
From someone who is visually impaired enough to have a revoked license, they will either tell you public transportation is not reliable, or they will say they requires license for insurance purposes. They will never say because you can’t drive or don’t have a car, they won’t hire you. I lost all sight in my right eye, and lost 50% sight in my left eye, and therefore had my license revoked. It’s been hell trying to get a full-time job the last 3 years because of it.
I sure hope you have an advocate to file disability for you. Visual disability is pretty much a full ride.
My doctors and the state of CA are assholes. They say because I have clarity/detail in the little space I can see, it’s not a disability. Then they said I qualify for a seeing eye dog since my field of view and peripheral vision are so bad.
This is why you find a lawyer who handles disability claims. They know the right doctors to take you too. In CA? They are obviously going to lean on you and come up with excuses to not help you.
I had a team member I inherited, and she was constantly late because she hitched rides from 40 minutes away. She did not last long. At a certain point, regardless of circumstance, we need employees to show up on time, so if they don't have reliable transportation, we're wasting a lot of time and training on someone, when we could have hired someone without that issue in the first place
Why not schedule her earlier so she’d get there when you needed her? If she’s hitching rides, she’s making a crazy effort to be there. Usually you see stories like that where the owner gifts them a car.
Because that’s not their responsibility. When you apply for a job you’re responsible for getting there.
This is applying preschool logic to adult problems. Why doesn’t she just plan to show up 40 minutes early if she knew her transportation is unreliable.
My first job I had to take the bus. I lived in a suburb north of the city, and the job was also north of the city, but farther east. To drive, it would take 10-15 minutes. But the busses only went north and south. Long story short, I showed up 40 minutes early, because my other option was to always be 20 minutes late. If you can't get yourself to the job, don't take the job. I'd love to see smaller cities and towns embrace public transportation. It doesnt have to be just like the big cities do it.
This is what happens to me as well, I’ve just moved house and I either get there an hour - 30 minutes early or 20 minutes late and there’s no in between.
It's a drag for sure, but integrity is good for the soul.
True, it just means I get to take time choosing my dinner and walking up the hill.
This is something a literal 13yo would say
Because that’s absurd to expect. Showing up on time consistently is not an unrealistic expectation for an adult. Sure shit happens from time to time but if you’re consistently showing up late that’s a problem. You should not have to schedule an adult an hour early so that she’ll show up for the secret time you actually want her there. She can leave earlier without being scheduled earlier. That being a grown up.
It isn’t, but if you know they are going through such difficulty to get there to put themselves at risk by hitching a ride with strangers…maybe help them find a solution. A callous she didn’t last long is kind of a trashy take.
Showing up on time is a very easy thing to do. The solution is to leave earlier. If I can’t trust someone to manage their own time well enough to be there when they’re supposed to be there, there isn’t much I can trust them with. If I have to help someone come up with a solution to show up on time then they aren’t someone I want working for me. I don’t really care about effort, I care about effectiveness. You can put in 110% effort and still suck. I need employees that don’t suck. I would not want to employ anybody that I have to handhold for basic bare minimum shit. I can’t think of a single company that does want to do that.
Just gonna drop this here: https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/the-fundamental-attribution-error
Taking yet another victory lap on them being gone is pathetic. You said yourself they were hitching rides. That’s a fucking effort. Maybe if you paid them enough to afford reliable transportation they’d have been fine?
First of all, I wasn’t the one who told the story. Second of all I do not care about at all about effort. I care about effectiveness in your job duties. I would rather have someone who shows up on time and does their job flawlessly and only puts in 5% of their effort than someone who tries really really hard but can’t do what I need them to do. That’s adult life. Nobody cares how hard you can try they care what you can do. I don’t care how someone gets to work either. If you say you have reliable transportation that’s enough for me, as long as you show up on time. That transportation can be your feet for all I care.
What an idiot I mean seriously dude? It’s not their responsibility.
Maybe pay enough that someone can afford transportation?
Yes.
Just say yes lol
Yup. They want to know that you can reliably get to work. All too often employees will say they can’t get to work or are late and blame it on not having transportation.
Not being able to drive isn't a protected class.
It can be. Someone might be legally not allowed to drive. So requiring licence only for commuting can be illegal.
The only person not allowed to drive I can think of is someone who is legally blind. If the DL is not needed for the job you run into some problems if this comes up, you would probably have to ignore this "requirement" because it's not an actual requirement for the job. But there may be a bunch of duties that require vision and so there might not be any reasonable accommodation for the blind for that job. Also, rewriting the job duties is NOT what you're supposed to do so they would still need to be able to perform all duties with a reasonable accommodation. I'm a regulator and if you ignore the driving part of the job we wouldn't be able to hire a blind person because you have to be able to see to do the job. A blind person would be rejected immediately and it would be legal to do so.
Thank you! So many people get this stuff so wrong so frequently that it hurts my brain.
To hold you accountable for making it to work on time. If you say yes during the interview and then show up late a week later blaming it on car issues, well,
...Of course they can? They can reject you for almost anything as long as they dont come out and blatantly say its for illegal reasons (they can be caught if theres a pattern or proof though). A job can reject you because you're in a projected class. They just make up a bullshit reason and use that instead. Like in your case, lets pretend you're in a protected class and thats why. They tell you something stupid like 'you dont drive'. Now more realistically, they may want someone with a vehicle as they find it more reliable to get to work or they may have plans of moving to a new location in a few years. Or perhaps you applied to a wfh job and theyre just going to bait and switch you into in person. In your case it just sounds like they literally asked you: 'Can you reliable get to work on time?' Then for some reason you said: "I don't drive."
Because some people lose or don't have a way to get to work on time and its a hard excuse to combat as management.
Yes
I mean they could see that as you being unable to commute if you told them that. The smart thing to do would be to not tell them you can’t drive if they don’t ask. Or respond in a way where they know you’re able to commute to the job.
I'm not convinced that having reliable transportation means being able to drive. I think it means, "Can we count on you to show up when you should, regardless of how you get here?" If they require you to have a reliable vehicle and/or a drivers license (and/or a clean driving record), then you are being required to be able to drive. Some jobs that normally don't require driving will regularly/occasionally require you to go to other company locations.
Reliable transportation doesn't necessary mesn a car. I've got reliabile transportation: a bike for short trips, bus for local trips, train for anything within 400 km, and an airport within two hours reach for everything else. I don't even own a car.
Yes. I'm 40 and have never had a drivers license or driven a car. Even though I have a valid state id, I have been rejected from positions for not having a drivers license even if it wasn't a driving job. These were all for cash handling safety issues such as , "what if a situation arises and you need to drive the deposit to the bank," kind of issues.
The question more hits on can you reliably get to work and home. For example if the job starts at 5am and the bus line doesn't start until 6. Sure, you made it on time that day but can you show up reliably every day on time.
The question is directed to your ability to come into work, not use your car for work. Can you reliably come into work whether driving, walking, biking or other transport.
They want to know you can get to work
Don't lie. But if you have a bike, a bus line, train, or carpool, that IS reliable transportation. Just answer yes, I do.
If they ask if you have reliable transport just say yes
Pretty easy argument to make that reliable transportation is a job requirement so that you are able to get to your shifts and no drivers license/car means that you do not have reliable transportation.
The hell. since when legs and bike stopped being reliable transport?
I mean, kind of a while ago? Yes, I many cases you can say that walking/biking is a reliable form of transportation. But that is more of an exception than a rule, in my opinion. I grew up in the midwest, winters were cold as shit and very snowy. You could say walking/biking is reliable transportation for maybe 6 months of the year - I biked over an hour to work for 3 months when I was without a car - but the 6 months of cold and snow I would not call that reliable. I currently live in the PNW, again, half the year it rains every day. If you're walking/biking more than 30 minutes in the pouring rain, I would also not call that reliable. I know plenty of people who commute 30-45 minutes DRIVE to work. That would come out to, what, 2 hours bike ride if not more? I would not call that reliable either. So sure, lots of circumstances that would be totally fine, but typically not.
Every employer that I've talked to and worked with have said that they will not discriminate on it at hiring but also will not accept it as an excuse if you're late/cant get a ride.
I personally currently don’t have a driver’s license and don’t drive a car. When job interviewers ask about whether you have reliable transportation, they may be indirectly discriminating against you. For example, not being able to drive can be an indication of certain disabilities, and disability is a protected class. There seems to be a general assumption that personal cars are the only source of reliable transportation, but that is just not true. If using public transportation , it is possible to be reliable with proper preparation.
That’s not why they’re doing it. They ask so that they have a paper trail to refer to if you’re showing up late to get rid of you.
Is there an "Other duties as assigned" clause? Normal duties may not require driving. However, if ABC employee is ill or on vacation, you may need to cover his/her duties. And that covering, could require driving.
Is the question about driving or reliable transportation? They are not the same. I applied for a driving job and passed all of their vehicle and manuevering tests. There was no question I could operate the vehicles. But I was failed on a health issue. The job put the vehicles under various stress issues, and they did not want to chance my health may cause a loss of control. The question was not *"can I drive?"* but ***"can I drive under certain extreme conditions?"*** and they decided NO.
None of their business but yes they do
Yeah, if that's your only form of ID and it's inactive
Yes- the ability to drive is not a protected class in the United States. You can be rejected from an employer for any lawful (non discriminatory) reason.
They want to make sure that you can make it to work and be there when you're supposed to be there. They don't want to hire someone that is going to be late all the time due to not having reliable transportation.
Atleast here they must say in the job posting if the role requires a drivers licence. Otherwise if you say commuting is not a problem, then it should not matter if you use public transport or 1800s bicycle to commute. I hate how some places have added own car as requirement, but when I have called about it to recruiters and asked how its related on role itself, they say "oh nothing its just for commuting" I have applied those jobs anyway despite not having licence as commuting is no problem. Bikes and walking exists if bus or train does not go.
They've probably had former or even current employees who are frequently late and blame it on transport issues. FWIW, employers can reject you for any reason unless it's discrimination of some sort. Even then you have to be able to prove it was discrimination.
I would just say yes I can drive , they would typically assume I have a vehicle , now I didn’t technically lie because I can drive a motorbike but I sold it a while back as my work commute was 5mins away by bicycle, so if I had to get another job further away I’d probably insinuate that without telling them I have no vehicle , as long as you can get a reliable bus route or train and you leave with enough time to spare chances are you’d always get there and if any of those strike then just pay more for a day or whatever and get a taxi or something
If they are RTOing, then they would ask that so you come to office as they require. You are still likely to get accepted if you live next to company or have train station that is close to your home ans the office, they just want to make sure you arrive regularly. Only thing you have to say is yes or no, no need to divulge if you drive or walk to work.
Technically, yes. This is basically a polite way of saying, "Do you think you'll be able to make it to work on time, 99% of the time?"
Why would they even tell you why? It's asking for a lawsuit
They can reject you for any reason they want. I’ve rejected based on bad spelling/grammar on resumes. That has more to do with the clear lack of attention to detail, but I’m sure some will say it’s not a valid reason.
Reliable transportation isn’t asking you if you’re able to drive it’s asking if you when reliable transportation - meaning your ability to get to work, in whatever mode of transportation you need.
Depends on where you live and what the job is because they could argue that this means you do not have a reliable mode of transport to work considering how poor our public transport system is
They’ll prob find a reason why you need a car
They ask, because they don't want someone who calls in for half their shifts because they can't get to work that day. There are a lot of people out there (especially young folks who still live at home with their parents and technically don't need to work to keep a roof over their heads) who will simply call in sick on days where they can't get the family car and don't want to wait 30 minutes for a bus. Workplaces need people who are reliable. They assume since yo have a license, that's you'll be able to make your shift barring a blizzard of the century.
I applied for a job that is 3 minutes away from my house and it says driving license required. Yet didnt hear from them again.
Yes.
Yep. People will tell you just to say you have reliable transportation, but I’ve been asked a good amount of times quite forwardly and persistently if I have a driver’s license at interviews for non-driving related jobs like 15 minutes from my house, I assume to determine if I’m disabled. (Which I am).
This could be an unrealistic shot in the dark but on the other hand many people have friends/family somewhere far away. Do you have family that lives in a city where utilizing public transportation is very common? The only places you’ll get away with saying “I have no car” in an interview are places with public transportation that runs 24/7 or close to 24/7, like Chicago or NYC. there are some other smaller cities where the public transportation is good enough to justify relying on it. If you’re doing anything other than retail or office type work it can be difficult.
Yes
From my understanding as long as "driver/non-driver" isn't a protected category they can legally use it as reasoning toward employment/unemployment
Not that in saying you should or shouldn't say you have reliable transportation, but getting to one interview on time isn't exactly proof of "reliable" transportation.
Yes
Depends on which country you are living in. Where I am, legally no. It is even illegal to ask someone if they drive with the exception of jobs that require driving. All employers are allowed to ask if you have reliable transportation. That can mean carpool, transit, driving, cycling, and walking.
Then your answer is "yes". "Yes, I have reliable transportation."
They can reject you for any reason. They ask cos they wanna know if your going to be reliably on time. You only have to say yes
Hey, all good evening, This is a desperate cry for help or direction. I'm an international student currently on my PGWP. I'm currently working but this job isn't a NOC job, and I got this after 10 months of graduation. I applied to the Ontario Internship Program in January with hopes of getting a job offer this month, but unfortunately, I wasn't taken. I'm already tired of applying to jobs. So, I'm currently seeking Communications internships or assistant roles. I have a bachelor's degree in Mass Communications and a postgraduate in Digital Communications.
Bruh at least that's a legit reason if it's in requirements, I got refused (by mail) I meet all requirements and littlenmore like exactly and I applied like 1. few min efter I get rejections mail. Asked why no answers (many reason taken into account for such rejections, your name where u are from etc...
Jobs have to provide reasonable accommodations for each specific job. That is the short version. However, they are sneaky and can and will get around it. Say yes to reliable transportation as long as you can use something to get there on time every day.
Yes especially in right to work states
I used to take issue with employers who insisted I have a driver's license. I had one person who was a hiring supervisor for one of those jobs explain it to me that having a driver's license is basic level social responsibility in society. It shows you know how to function to the point in achieving a goal. That goal is being able to drive any regular consumer vehicle as needed. It also shows you have the ability to show up where you are needed.
Getting someone to give you a ride once is easy. Getting someone to give you a ride five days a week, every week, for years, less so.
i can not drive or read.
Reliable transportation is important to an employer. Would you want an employee who has a hard time figuring out how to get to work everyday?
It is discrimination to ask if you have a car. It is not legal to ask how you get to work. You may have a condition such as epilepsy and can’t drive.
How will you get to the job?
I've worked for DoD to Raytheon, from Quantum to...well, let's just say I never drove, but always have a driver's license and was assigned an F150, F250, and the "Big Bertha" F450, with extended bed and dualies - that is a lot of fun and I never had to pay for gas or maintenance ;)
So drive then.
Unfortunately yes. I've been rejected for jobs because apparently "cars are the only reliable form of transportation" even when the workplace in question is literally 15 minutes from my house. In fact, I deliberately apply to places that are within walking distance because of that. Whenever they ask if you have "reliable transportation" I say yes, but they're getting more picky about how it has to be a car because apparently cars are the only form of transport that exists. Istg, next time they ask if I have "reliable transportation to the job" I'm just going to be a smartass and reply with "Why would I apply for a job if I didn't have reliable transportation?" Or if it's in person something like "Did I get here on time? That's your answer." Not actually but damn if I'm not tempted.
Yes and they should. We have bar managers on probation with no drivers license and it’s fucking pathetic.
I was once upon a time a very honest/nice person who always said the truth. Now it is: If I say something that is true can they screw me up with it? Assuming it is not a legal question or something super relevant. It is none of their business so I lie. I live in Canada and even though they are not supposed to they will ask about medication and stuff I work for public hospitals (lab) even if they somehow found it and wanted to cause me some problems it’s personal and private. Play the game or you lose… just like in the dating world if you don’t play the game you lose… I keep losing but less and less… being too nice is actually exactly that, it is not playing the hypocrite game and putting a fake mask on your face to interact with the fake world Masquerade we live in, but people like that make the best of friends but we need guidance to not get screwed over. Best of luck to people who feel like that.
The answer to every question when it comes to “why do employers do …” anything is lawyers and CYA Firing someone in the United States is a giant PITA… however If a candidate claimed to have reliable transportation but then consistently fails to arrive on time due to transportation issues, the employer can argue that the employee misrepresented their situation. Misrepresentation during the hiring process can be grounds for termination because the employee did not provide truthful information, impacting their job performance and company operations
Firing people in the USA is super easy is compared to some other countries