Secretaries with extra services. Yay or Nay?

I would not hire either of them. A qualified applicant need not offer “benefits” in a job interview.

I’ve never been in this position.

I’m sure you will select the best applicant.

Seriously, how exactly did they say that? I cannot imagine how it came up. “Along with skills in excel and wordperfect I also give blowjobs.”

People have been watching Mad Men way too much!

@jackfright “A part of me wants to hire one of the two immediately (the other’s a little overweight)”
Are you afraid that her overweight fingers are going to smash the computer keyboard?
Why is her being overweight relevant for (not getting) the job?

dude…first off I can’t say you are a bad man for openly considering it (even though it is wrong) and I applaud you for having the balls to ask this question here on fluther, now with that said….
So have you noticed that we are in a depression? That the world economy is at it’s lowest since the 30’s? Have you considered that people are just desperate for a fucking job?
As an employer you have a moral responsibility to provide a safe, clean work environment free from sexual harassment and degrading people for pay. Don’t be a prick, be a friend. You’re helping people by hiring them. Don’t scar them by making them provide benefits. Hire the one that is best for the job duties. Cheers and good luck.

Anyone whose skills and self esteem were up to the job doesn’t need to resort to offering ‘benefits’ to get the job.

How, exactly, did you get on to this topic during the interview?!

Ask the one you think is cute out on a date. And then, get another person who is strictly business to work in the office. That, (in my opinion) would be the more efficient route. In other words, mixing business with pleasure can potentially be a big mess.

@rebbel taken out of context, I meant that if I were to hire one based on the extra benefits, it wouldn’t be the fat one.

@jackfright
Ah, i see.
I misread the context then.
Thanks for clarification.

@jackfright Why not? You fatist or something?

Oh! A Typing Hooker!

Let me know how that works out for you.

@Lightlyseared yes, but that’s not the main focus here man.

@judochop i realise that, but thats part of the reason i posted this question. i didn’t make them do anything, i didn’t bring it up. Two people brought it up entirely on their own. It was very awkward with one of them, but the other did a great job acting totally fine with it. Neither one is likely to get the job. One of the guys we interviewed earlier seems more suitable.

@janbb yes, and it’s entertaining when it’s on TV, but it’s not as amusing in real life.

@Lightlyseared on how we got onto this topic; we run 2 – 3 interviews per candidate; the first is technical proficiency (a potential 3d animator would first be interviewed by the senior 3d animator) before i meet and interview the candidate. My portion of the interview tends to focus on candidates history, salary, expectations and personality traits.

Because this is a secretary and someone i’m likely to spend a lot of time with, it’s incredibly important our personality’s aren’t out of sync (or at least don’t clash). So I brought the candidates to a few of our events with suppliers and clients to see how they would behave/interact. I deliberately did not give them any instructions. Some of them kept very formal, some relaxed. One mentioned it in the car on the way back to the office, the other while we were waiting for a supplier at lunch.

In today’s lawsuit happy world, I would steer clear of any chance that a secretary would consider this as part of her job.
You have a lot to lose here. Protect yourself.

I noticed this question also.

Maybe you need a more promising social environment outside the office so you can avoid complicating your professional life.

@Jeruba i’ve thought the same thing myself.

If I were interviewing these people I’m quite sure I would have asked what was meant by benefits. Maybe she brings donuts every morning.

Not that kind of benefits silly. She’s talking about sexual harassment lawsuit disguised as a Tuesday blues blowjob… that benefit.

It’s making me wonder if there is some womens magazine out there that suggests those types of key words to shuffle out during interview time. Ya know, tell em’ what they want to hear, get the job, and sue em’ later for pursuing the suggestion. But I must admit to also being somewhat suspicious of @jackfright‘s intentions. Odd to see two questions related as such. What kind of business could you be in @jackfright?

Not worth the major risk and trouble and probably not what you really want.

You’re being set up for a lawsuit. If you accept the benefits, it will last for a while. Shortly thereafter, you’ll find that she has all sorts of evidence, video, audio, documentation, of your abusive behavior.

No the more I think about it, the more I think we’re being punked here. I don’t think any of this is true whatsoever, when compared to the question @jackfright asked a month ago here as Jeruba so wisely caught.

As @janbb points out, either someone is watching too much Mad Men, or as I believe, someone is entertaining too many work place fantasies.

Was @chyna‘s question ever addressed here?
“Seriously, how exactly did they say that? I cannot imagine how it came up. “Along with skills in excel and wordperfect I also give blowjobs.”

I’m having a hard time buying the story at all.

There are still secretaries? What does a secretary do that could not be done better by a computer?

“A part of me wants to hire one of the two immediately (the other’s a little overweight), but the more decent part of me is wondering if they can perform professionally if this is what they’re resorting to.” – the decent part of me is trying to figure out how to fire you.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies you might be skimming through some of my responses i think; i answered @Lightlyseared who had a similar question. But no, it wasn’t alongside excel and wordperfect. They brought it up in response to “what would your edge over other candidates be?”. Its a standard question. You usually get a response thats more along the lines of “i’m willing to work harder, or i know my stuff better than they do”.

Really? This is so strange, that it only happens on T.V.? I mean really? Now that’s something i dont believe. Where would the fun in punking you lot be? The last question i posted was different in that she didn’t do anything out of the ordinary, i was attracted to her.

In this situation i’m not the guilty party for once.

Some of them definitely are, other times not. I just don’t post the more mundane or everyday occurrences. I’m surprised more of you aren’t either admitting similar experiences or owning up to it. You dont have to “buy” the story at all. But not having experience of something first hand really doesn’t make it false by default.

What do you need a secretary for? What can a secretary do, apart from special benefits, that could not be done better, cheaper and faster by your desktop computer?

@LostInParadise perhaps the term “personal assistant” might be more appropriate?

Essentially to screen communications, meet up with partners, suppliers for updates, etc. in my case, the secretary would also have to speak multiple languages and is my main contact for office administration while i’m travelling (i spend on average 6 months out of every year abroad). She keeps an eye on the team and manages some of the more sensitive HR related tasks.

So yeah, tell me more about that desktop computer you have that’ll do these things for me.

That was sarcasm of course, but i hope you get my point. We’re in the design/production/IT field, so we aren’t complete luddites, but computers cant manage relationships yet.

If I am not mistaken, the appropriate title for the position would be office manager. The economy must be in real bad shape for someone with the skills required for the position to need to promise anything more.

As to the question you asked, the biggest problem that I can see is in terms of employee morale. You would not be able to keep any relationship a secret for very long. The other employees will start, rightly or wrongly, to complain about special treatment being given to your assistant. This is not a position that you want to be in.

No dude don’t do that, if you employ her for the extra service than you are a real asshole, if she have the right profile than employ her but make her understand that you are a professional and what you expect from her, and if she tries to offer that extra service again than reprimand her, if she makes you feel uncomfortable with her than get rid of her. In overall it’s about doing the job right and feeling comfortable with her.

@Jeruba – funny, as soon as I read the question, I started to wonder if he was the guy who had written that other one….

@LostInParadise, the customary title these days in the office environments within my knowledge span is “administrative assistant,” known familiarly as “admin” (accent on the first syllable). I haven’t heard an office worker called “secretary” in decades except in old movies. That’s one of the things that made me suspicious about the authenticity of the story. This wouldn’t be the first fluther user to pose a genuine-sounding question for fantasy purposes.

On the other hand, some of us may be wrongly assuming a U.S. context. I don’t know what the current usage is in the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand.

@Jeruba The U.S. company I worked for still uses the title of Executive Secretary for those that support a VP or above. Someone who supports a team is referred to as an Administrative Assistant.

@Pied_Pfeffer, that’s a little different. Terminology does vary from company to company, but “executive” anything carries special weight. “Executive secretary” is a different order of magnitude from “secretary.”

When I was first seeking employment, dozens of ads in the daily paper were tagged “Secretary” and “Gal Friday,” and their meaning was generally understood. I was hired for such a position. It was a little better than “general office” because it implied special assignment to a (usually male) boss whose orders you took, unless you belonged to a “secretarial pool,” which basically meant you typed on a typewriter all day. Those terms went away decades ago. Even corporate executives these days have “admins.” Until recently I worked for an international megacorp based in Silicon Valley whose CEO and senior VPs have admins.

The executive secretaries that I know of actually head the paid staff of organizations such as nonprofits and professional associations. I don’t think that’s what our OP is talking about.

@Jeruba I agree; companies will call it what they wish. Executive Secretaries at the company I worked for have no staff to manage, and the vast majority of their time is spent handling travel arrangements, phone calls, e-mail, meetings and communications for their supervisor.

I see a General Secretary (and other types of Secretary) in the job categories listed on Monster.com, and search results for current job listings come up with those titles. I hear people talk about secretaries fairly regularly here in Seattle.

Not to make an issue of this, but I still think office manager is an appropriate description. In any event, the responsibilities required go beyond what is ordinarily associated with secretary.