This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
A friend of mine was shortlisted but was not offered an interview for a job as "she didn't have enough life experience". The job is not age related. Is this age discrimination?
6
In reply to bleddynmawr:
Only if she can demonstrate she someone how has equal or greater life experience than others applying and how that this experience is required for the role. Otherwise it could be argued shes simply lacking a assert required for the job.
Only if she can demonstrate she someone how has equal or greater life experience than others applying and how that this experience is required for the role. Otherwise it could be argued shes simply lacking a assert required for the job.
1
In reply to bleddynmawr:
Age and life experience are not necessarily related.
I wonder how her CV reads?
I've met people in their late teens/early 20s who have had a lot of life experience and done loads.
On the other hand I've met pensioners who have done SFA with their lives......
Age and life experience are not necessarily related.
I wonder how her CV reads?
I've met people in their late teens/early 20s who have had a lot of life experience and done loads.
On the other hand I've met pensioners who have done SFA with their lives......
19
1
In reply to bleddynmawr:
I think probably not. As Trangia says you can be young and have done loads, old and done very little or vice versa.
Having said that 'not enough life experience' could be code for to young.
I think probably not. As Trangia says you can be young and have done loads, old and done very little or vice versa.
Having said that 'not enough life experience' could be code for to young.
1
In reply to bleddynmawr:
Things like this really irritate me. If said employer didn't want to give your friend a job then it is thier choice. Weather it is to do with age, race, sex, hair colour, accent.. the bottom line is it is the employer's choice. They either think you are a fit for the role and the team or you!are not. It's a ridiculous world we live in now where you have to have a justification for not employing someone and that justification may be scrutinised by the politically correct wankers that sit left of centre
Things like this really irritate me. If said employer didn't want to give your friend a job then it is thier choice. Weather it is to do with age, race, sex, hair colour, accent.. the bottom line is it is the employer's choice. They either think you are a fit for the role and the team or you!are not. It's a ridiculous world we live in now where you have to have a justification for not employing someone and that justification may be scrutinised by the politically correct wankers that sit left of centre
Post edited at 10:47
16
35
In reply to elliott92:
The law says it's not the employers choice so really the law is the bottom line.
The law says it's not the employers choice so really the law is the bottom line.
5
6
In reply to Mooncat:
Of course it's the employers choice as long as the employer uses a fair and equitable recruitment process which of course adheres to the equal opportunities act.
> The law says it's not the employers choice so really the law is the bottom line.
Of course it's the employers choice as long as the employer uses a fair and equitable recruitment process which of course adheres to the equal opportunities act.
22
12
5
1
In reply to elliott92:
Yeah black people, gay people, disabled, screw the lot of them! Let them starve or maybe scrub out toilets! White power my friend!
You're either an idiot or a pretty despicable person.
> What a load of bollocks
Yeah black people, gay people, disabled, screw the lot of them! Let them starve or maybe scrub out toilets! White power my friend!
You're either an idiot or a pretty despicable person.
13
16
8
10
In reply to Scarab9:
A third option exists ....
> You're either an idiot or a pretty despicable person.
A third option exists ....
2
2
1
1
5
13
In reply to bleddynmawr:
No, it's clearly not age discrimination as age was not the reason she didnt get the job, experience was. Surprised you find this confusing.
No, it's clearly not age discrimination as age was not the reason she didnt get the job, experience was. Surprised you find this confusing.
4
2
In reply to elliott92:
Fortunately it is perfectly legal to turn someone down for a job if they show themselves to be a complete tool, perhaps by something they wrote on the internet.
Fortunately it is perfectly legal to turn someone down for a job if they show themselves to be a complete tool, perhaps by something they wrote on the internet.
10
1
In reply to JayPee630:
It can still be indirect discrimination because of the requirement to have 'life experience'.
However, if the employer can show that the criteria to have 'life experience' for the job is a necessary means of achieving a legitimate aim then they won't be discriminating on the basis of age.
It can still be indirect discrimination because of the requirement to have 'life experience'.
However, if the employer can show that the criteria to have 'life experience' for the job is a necessary means of achieving a legitimate aim then they won't be discriminating on the basis of age.
3
2
2
In reply to footwork:
I'm actually quite depressed that a number of people on here seem to think it's fine for employers to discrimate on grounds of age/sex/race etc. etc..
What a bunch of nasty bigots we seem to have on here.
I'm actually quite depressed that a number of people on here seem to think it's fine for employers to discrimate on grounds of age/sex/race etc. etc..
What a bunch of nasty bigots we seem to have on here.
7
11
In reply to JayPee630:
What, one?
> I'm actually quite depressed that a number of people on here seem to think it's fine for employers to discrimate on grounds of age/sex/race etc. etc..
What, one?
2
In reply to JayPee630:
As usual its those preaching equality for all who are intolerant of others views
As usual its those preaching equality for all who are intolerant of others views
10
3
In reply to mattsccm:
I'm happy to tolerate whatever views you might have, but fortunately we don't have to tolerate unfair, discriminatory practices.
I'm happy to tolerate whatever views you might have, but fortunately we don't have to tolerate unfair, discriminatory practices.
6
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
Loads of people here liked the post saying it's fine to discrimate on those grounds. Really depressing.
Loads of people here liked the post saying it's fine to discrimate on those grounds. Really depressing.
5
5
In reply to JayPee630:
People like whenever someone says something against political correctness. It makes them feel better about the fact that the world has left them behind.
People like whenever someone says something against political correctness. It makes them feel better about the fact that the world has left them behind.
9
1
In reply to bleddynmawr:
Why is everybody avoiding discussing the elephant in the room?
What is she was discriminated against due to her being female?
Or too short.
Or not entirely 100% hetrosexual.
Or maybe she had a nice tan.
Why is everybody avoiding discussing the elephant in the room?
What is she was discriminated against due to her being female?
Or too short.
Or not entirely 100% hetrosexual.
Or maybe she had a nice tan.
7
1
In reply to JayPee630:
I don't think its bigotry.
Perhaps just a failure to grasp that not having equal-ops requirements allows people to be excluded from roles for prejudicial reasons, or simply because their face doesn't fit. Which then of course results in people being recruited who aren't actually best for the job or don't have the qualifications (but look the part), while those who are ideal are maybe excluded because of their age, colour or the fact they have a limp.
Perhaps never having interviewed or been interviewed, or not having to consider what it might be like not to "look right", the OP hasn't had to consider such things. Being labelled a bigot is a bit harsh tho,
I don't think its bigotry.
Perhaps just a failure to grasp that not having equal-ops requirements allows people to be excluded from roles for prejudicial reasons, or simply because their face doesn't fit. Which then of course results in people being recruited who aren't actually best for the job or don't have the qualifications (but look the part), while those who are ideal are maybe excluded because of their age, colour or the fact they have a limp.
Perhaps never having interviewed or been interviewed, or not having to consider what it might be like not to "look right", the OP hasn't had to consider such things. Being labelled a bigot is a bit harsh tho,
1
In reply to JayPee630:
Sadly it can swing too far. At my last place of employment, individuals who were clearly absolutely perfect for the job would be turned down simple because the way they had filled out their application meant they wouldn't tick all the boxes if it came to appeal. Meanwhile some who were clearly unsuitable couldn't be excluded because they had managed to satisfy those tick boxes.
To this day the company employs individuals at substantial expense who are now in jobs for life and utterly incompetant - with the same right-on approach meaning they will never be sacked (public sector). A bit more discretion at the interview stage and not being held victim to a fear of appeals and ticket punching required of equal-ops legislation would have been welcome.
But I agree, the law is right and unfortunately necessary.
Sadly it can swing too far. At my last place of employment, individuals who were clearly absolutely perfect for the job would be turned down simple because the way they had filled out their application meant they wouldn't tick all the boxes if it came to appeal. Meanwhile some who were clearly unsuitable couldn't be excluded because they had managed to satisfy those tick boxes.
To this day the company employs individuals at substantial expense who are now in jobs for life and utterly incompetant - with the same right-on approach meaning they will never be sacked (public sector). A bit more discretion at the interview stage and not being held victim to a fear of appeals and ticket punching required of equal-ops legislation would have been welcome.
But I agree, the law is right and unfortunately necessary.
5
In reply to bleddynmawr
Life experience is a very vague term and could be used to cover a whole gamut of desirable traits depending on how you define it. I've heard it used a lot to describe people who've done the classic straight through university route, they have the measurable skills for the job but they'd struggle to have a conversation about anything other than work and would be useless at engaging with customers/collaborators/competitors.
Life experience is a very vague term and could be used to cover a whole gamut of desirable traits depending on how you define it. I've heard it used a lot to describe people who've done the classic straight through university route, they have the measurable skills for the job but they'd struggle to have a conversation about anything other than work and would be useless at engaging with customers/collaborators/competitors.
2
In reply to Scarab9:
You're the f*cking idiot, elliot didn't make any claims of the sort at all.
PC types like you see the word 'discrimination' and you're off ... Ooooo, look at me, I'm so right on.
Get off your high horse, you might fall off and hurt yourself.
> Yeah black people, gay people, disabled, screw the lot of them! Let them starve or maybe scrub out toilets! White power my friend!
> You're either an idiot or a pretty despicable person.
You're the f*cking idiot, elliot didn't make any claims of the sort at all.
PC types like you see the word 'discrimination' and you're off ... Ooooo, look at me, I'm so right on.
Get off your high horse, you might fall off and hurt yourself.
11
12
In reply to Lusk:
Elliot's exact words were:
In reply to bleddynmawr:
Things like this really irritate me. If said employer didn't want to give your friend a job then it is thier choice. Weather it is to do with age, race, sex, hair colour, accent.. the bottom line is it is the employer's choice. They either think you are a fit for the role and the team or you!are not. It's a ridiculous world we live in now where you have to have a justification for not employing someone and that justification may be scrutinised by the politically correct wankers that sit left of centre
Post edited at 10:47
It does rather imply that Elliot's fine with the idea that an employer can reject an applicant because they are of a certain race, or gender - because they won't be 'a fit in the role and the team'.
> You're the f*cking idiot, elliot didn't make any claims of the sort at all.
> PC types like you see the word 'discrimination' and you're off ... Ooooo, look at me, I'm so right on.
> Get off your high horse, you might fall off and hurt yourself.
Elliot's exact words were:
In reply to bleddynmawr:
Things like this really irritate me. If said employer didn't want to give your friend a job then it is thier choice. Weather it is to do with age, race, sex, hair colour, accent.. the bottom line is it is the employer's choice. They either think you are a fit for the role and the team or you!are not. It's a ridiculous world we live in now where you have to have a justification for not employing someone and that justification may be scrutinised by the politically correct wankers that sit left of centre
Post edited at 10:47
It does rather imply that Elliot's fine with the idea that an employer can reject an applicant because they are of a certain race, or gender - because they won't be 'a fit in the role and the team'.
Post edited at 11:01
10
2
In reply to Lusk:
So to clarify, is it acceptable for employers to not hire someone because the are Asian, female, ginger, Brummy etc..? I think Elliot's made his position clear on this, so what is your view?
So to clarify, is it acceptable for employers to not hire someone because the are Asian, female, ginger, Brummy etc..? I think Elliot's made his position clear on this, so what is your view?
Post edited at 10:40
6
1
11
In reply to Short&Savage:
I think I was very clear on where I stand. I do feel I need to clarify my views though.. it's not that I believe people are a lessor ormore worthy person because of the things I listed. But there certainly are things out of our control that may or may not suit us to particular jobs. For instance, would a disabled person be a good fit for a job in construction.. probably not. A middle eastern person with a heavy accent be suitable for a call centre position.. no they are not.. hard to understand what they say. although you find this a lot and its another thing that irritates me. It's the old argument.. a woman can not sign up to become an infantryman in the armed services, a point that has been argued many a time but one I ultimately agree with for differing reasons. If I was a dentist wanting to employ a dental nurse and had 2 identically capable applicants, but one had good teeth, the other had poor teeth, I would employ the one with good teeth. But that would likely be seen as discrimination. People love to play the minority card these days. Quite frankly I'm sick of it. I couldn't give a f*ck if you are gay, black, purple, 2 foot tall or an alien from mars. But we all have individual personal traits that may act in our favour or work against us in particular roles in life. That's just the way it is. So I stand by the comment I made.
I think I was very clear on where I stand. I do feel I need to clarify my views though.. it's not that I believe people are a lessor ormore worthy person because of the things I listed. But there certainly are things out of our control that may or may not suit us to particular jobs. For instance, would a disabled person be a good fit for a job in construction.. probably not. A middle eastern person with a heavy accent be suitable for a call centre position.. no they are not.. hard to understand what they say. although you find this a lot and its another thing that irritates me. It's the old argument.. a woman can not sign up to become an infantryman in the armed services, a point that has been argued many a time but one I ultimately agree with for differing reasons. If I was a dentist wanting to employ a dental nurse and had 2 identically capable applicants, but one had good teeth, the other had poor teeth, I would employ the one with good teeth. But that would likely be seen as discrimination. People love to play the minority card these days. Quite frankly I'm sick of it. I couldn't give a f*ck if you are gay, black, purple, 2 foot tall or an alien from mars. But we all have individual personal traits that may act in our favour or work against us in particular roles in life. That's just the way it is. So I stand by the comment I made.
7
14
In reply to elliott92:
You're clutching at straws to defend your original position:
The world wide universal decleration of human rights and the more local Equaliites Act 2010 flat out disagree with you. It is a companies choice who they employ. They simply are not allowed to be racist or sexist.
The "examples" you bring out - physical disability in construction, heavy accent in a call center etc - these are not problems. The job description includes "heavy manual labour" or "passes XYZ telephone conversational test" - and these tests must be passed without prejudice to race, gender, irrelevant disability etc. You might hire a middle eastern person (to use your example) who is well spoken for the call center but not someone from an isolated northern English village whose accent is incomprehensible three valleys over.
I'm wondering if you've ever been involved in hiring people or if you're just mouthing off vitriol you've read in the papers? You certainly don't seem to have any understanding of anything.
> For instance, would a disabled person be a good fit for a job in construction
You're clutching at straws to defend your original position:
> If said employer didn't want to give your friend a job then it is thier choice. Weather it is to do with age, race, sex, hair colour, accent..
The world wide universal decleration of human rights and the more local Equaliites Act 2010 flat out disagree with you. It is a companies choice who they employ. They simply are not allowed to be racist or sexist.
The "examples" you bring out - physical disability in construction, heavy accent in a call center etc - these are not problems. The job description includes "heavy manual labour" or "passes XYZ telephone conversational test" - and these tests must be passed without prejudice to race, gender, irrelevant disability etc. You might hire a middle eastern person (to use your example) who is well spoken for the call center but not someone from an isolated northern English village whose accent is incomprehensible three valleys over.
I'm wondering if you've ever been involved in hiring people or if you're just mouthing off vitriol you've read in the papers? You certainly don't seem to have any understanding of anything.
Post edited at 11:47
11
1
In reply to elliott92:
Actually I was asking Lusk to clarify his view. I think your viewpoint has been clear right from the start.
Actually I was asking Lusk to clarify his view. I think your viewpoint has been clear right from the start.
2
5
In reply to elliott92:
In what setting might race stop somebody being good at a job?
It's still easy enough for an employer to say something vague and undefinable if they don't want to employ somebody due to their personality not seeming to be a good fit..
All the laws are there for are to stop people being discriminated against due to something beyond their control, which isn't stopping employers being able to be choosy over who they employ.
> Things like this really irritate me. If said employer didn't want to give your friend a job then it is thier choice. Weather it is to do with age, race, sex, hair colour, accent.. the bottom line is it is the employer's choice. They either think you are a fit for the role and the team or you!are not. It's a ridiculous world we live in now where you have to have a justification for not employing someone and that justification may be scrutinised by the politically correct wankers that sit left of centre
In what setting might race stop somebody being good at a job?
It's still easy enough for an employer to say something vague and undefinable if they don't want to employ somebody due to their personality not seeming to be a good fit..
All the laws are there for are to stop people being discriminated against due to something beyond their control, which isn't stopping employers being able to be choosy over who they employ.
3
In reply to elliott92:
You've just proved yourself a nasty bigot, hilariously and rather predictably one that thinks he's slightly iconoclastic and clever with his tired anti-PC ranting. F*ck off.
You've just proved yourself a nasty bigot, hilariously and rather predictably one that thinks he's slightly iconoclastic and clever with his tired anti-PC ranting. F*ck off.
9
3
In reply to Greasy Prusiks:
That just happened to me! I had to sew a white shirt, and could only find orange thread - what a grim thread
Joking aside ha-ha, I agree and liked your post.
> What a grim thread.
That just happened to me! I had to sew a white shirt, and could only find orange thread - what a grim thread
Joking aside ha-ha, I agree and liked your post.
2
In reply to Timmd:
Are there still age limits in applying for jobs in police, fire service army etc?
And when there were, did you consider them unfair or quite reasonable?
Are there still age limits in applying for jobs in police, fire service army etc?
And when there were, did you consider them unfair or quite reasonable?
Post edited at 17:36
1
In reply to Tom Valentine:
I'm not sure why you're asking me?
Age limits in those services are something which I've never thought about. It seems logical that a fitness test could be more accurate than an age limit though, and fairer in that sense.
> Are there still age limits in applying for jobs in police, fire service army etc?
> And when there were, did you consider them unfair or quite reasonable?
I'm not sure why you're asking me?
Age limits in those services are something which I've never thought about. It seems logical that a fitness test could be more accurate than an age limit though, and fairer in that sense.
3
In reply to Timmd:
Sorry, I wasn't asking you in particular, it's just that you posted the question "In what setting might race stop somebody being good at a job?"
I transposed age for race in my mind then remembered the age limits which used to apply to jobs in the areas which I mentioned.
This post started off being about ageism but other -isms took over. It's a perfect example of why ageism will never be treated as seriously as racism or sexism.
Sorry, I wasn't asking you in particular, it's just that you posted the question "In what setting might race stop somebody being good at a job?"
I transposed age for race in my mind then remembered the age limits which used to apply to jobs in the areas which I mentioned.
This post started off being about ageism but other -isms took over. It's a perfect example of why ageism will never be treated as seriously as racism or sexism.
In reply to JayPee630:
A lot of things that I am but a bigot is not one. I'm more than happy to debate and listen to other opinions. It's in debating that I have completely changed my views on climate change over the lat few years. My views on social welfare has changed too. I'm no hard line right, but I do sit to that side. Political correctness though.. I happily debate what a crock of shit that is all day long. I woukd suggest you have some pent up anger ragrding politics and quite rightly. Go and climb for a few hours and relax. Come back and we can debate properly
A lot of things that I am but a bigot is not one. I'm more than happy to debate and listen to other opinions. It's in debating that I have completely changed my views on climate change over the lat few years. My views on social welfare has changed too. I'm no hard line right, but I do sit to that side. Political correctness though.. I happily debate what a crock of shit that is all day long. I woukd suggest you have some pent up anger ragrding politics and quite rightly. Go and climb for a few hours and relax. Come back and we can debate properly
2
4
In reply to bleddynmawr:
No
But I'm feeling the stirrings of grammar pedantry (which may or may not be age related) reading some of the contributions to this thread.
> A friend of mine was shortlisted but was not offered an interview for a job as "she didn't have enough life experience". The job is not age related. Is this age discrimination?
No
But I'm feeling the stirrings of grammar pedantry (which may or may not be age related) reading some of the contributions to this thread.
1
In reply to bleddynmawr: Give us more information:
How old is this friend and what was the job? That has a massive bearing on the answer.
How old is this friend and what was the job? That has a massive bearing on the answer.
1
In reply to elliott92:
In which case they shouldn't get the job........ on the basis that their language skills aren't up to it. This would be classed a discrimination, anyone who's language/communication skills weren't up to it could be declined employment with no case for the employer to answer. Their country of birth/ethnicity isn't a factor...... unless you think it is?
This does make you sound like a UKIP candidate, no facts just a lot of bluster........
> A middle eastern person with a heavy accent be suitable for a call centre position.. no they are not.. hard to understand what they say.
In which case they shouldn't get the job........ on the basis that their language skills aren't up to it. This would be classed a discrimination, anyone who's language/communication skills weren't up to it could be declined employment with no case for the employer to answer. Their country of birth/ethnicity isn't a factor...... unless you think it is?
> although you find this a lot and its another thing that irritates me. It's the old argument..
This does make you sound like a UKIP candidate, no facts just a lot of bluster........
2
1
In reply to Babika:
How do I give your post a double like?
> But I'm feeling the stirrings of grammar pedantry (which may or may not be age related) reading some of the contributions to this thread.
How do I give your post a double like?
1
If the company wanted to turn back the person because of age (or any other discrimination reason) they would have came up with a better refusal reason. Normally 'we decided to go with another candidate because he is cheaper' is enough and raises no questions. Or not to provide any reason at all. Legally you are not required to state why you are not hiring a person.
So unless someone wanted to stupidly and boldly discriminate your friend most likely the reason given is a hint how to improve to get a role she was applying for.
Post edited at 12:05
1
In reply to mattsccm:
Utter bollocks I'm afraid. Tolerating the views of others does not require agreeing with them, or biting one's tongue rather than pointing out that they're wrong. It is perfectly possible to be tolerant whilst vehemently opposing someone else's view. An example of intolerance would be going round to elliot92's house and putting a politically correct brick through the window.
> As usual its those preaching equality for all who are intolerant of others views
Utter bollocks I'm afraid. Tolerating the views of others does not require agreeing with them, or biting one's tongue rather than pointing out that they're wrong. It is perfectly possible to be tolerant whilst vehemently opposing someone else's view. An example of intolerance would be going round to elliot92's house and putting a politically correct brick through the window.
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...