Over qualified/Over experienced?

Serpentine

Is this a valid reason not to get a job? Just out of a Masters (where we were all guaranteed jobs by our lying lecturers :rolleyes:) and I find I get the "over qualified" line quite alot esp if I apply for assistant/trainee jobs (I work in the media)

My CV is much better than the majority of people I've met who are trying to break into the Irish media but if I go for higher positions I get the opposite reaction (someone with more experience got the position blah blah)

I can't really complain but I find it ludicrous that I'm over qualified yet unemployable!

nesf

Do you actually make it to interview or was this from follow up replies?

BostonB

Serpentine wrote: »

Is this a valid reason not to get a job? Just out of a Masters (where we were all guaranteed jobs by our lying lecturers :rolleyes:) and I find I get the "over qualified" line quite alot esp if I apply for assistant/trainee jobs (I work in the media)

My CV is much better than the majority of people I've met who are trying to break into the Irish media but if I go for higher positions I get the opposite reaction (someone with more experience got the position blah blah)

I can't really complain but I find it ludicrous that I'm over qualified yet unemployable!

What research did you do on jobs in this area before you started the masters? What your describing IMO is the typical job hunt. I'm surprised you're surprised by it. Jobs aren't got by simply having a better CV either.

AARRRGH

Serpentine wrote: »

Is this a valid reason not to get a job?

I think it can be.

If they are looking to hire someone who will develop their career within that job (i.e. not jump jobs) perhaps your cover letter/education are suggesting you're too ambitious for the job and will be gone once something better comes along.

nesf wrote:

Do you actually make it to interview or was this from follow up replies?

I'd be interested to hear the answer to this too.

Dudess

Serpentine wrote: »

Is this a valid reason not to get a job? Just out of a Masters (where we were all guaranteed jobs by our lying lecturers :rolleyes:) and I find I get the "over qualified" line quite alot esp if I apply for assistant/trainee jobs (I work in the media)

My CV is much better than the majority of people I've met who are trying to break into the Irish media but if I go for higher positions I get the opposite reaction (someone with more experience got the position blah blah)

I can't really complain but I find it ludicrous that I'm over qualified yet unemployable!

Oh boy do I know how you feel! I did the "esteemed" masters in journalism in DCU in 2006 and I did some crappy freelancing all right but the lack of work and money sent me temping and that's what I'm doing now. I've gone for tons of positions and no luck. Lately I've been going for publicity/communications jobs and zilch.

cronos

Thats one of the main reasons I chose not to do a masters. I think its best to get your foot in the door somewhere after a degree and if the company want you to do a masters they will ask. And they might fund it too as you will prob be doing something specific for them.

nesf

cronos wrote: »

Thats one of the main reasons I chose not to do a masters. I think its best to get your foot in the door somewhere after a degree and if the company want you to do a masters they will ask. And they might fund it too as you will prob be doing something specific for them.

It depends on your level of academic ability really. If you are outstanding at your subject, further education straight away might be a no-brainer.


Personally I find it bemusing that people just believe a lecturer who tells them that this or that Masters opens loads of doors for a job. Seriously people, they're trying to sell you something, it's a really useful life skill to develop at least a little scepticism when someone is doing this.

jdivision

What work experience have you done? And if you've done an MA you shouldn't be at trainee level, you should be out there breaking doors down with article suggestions. Going for trainee after doing an MA is lazy imo. (and yes I've been there, I did the BA) you should know how to get stories and how to pitch them. Try and find regular shift work to help with the bills. Freedom of information Act always a good way to get stories. In journalism your qualifications do not matter, nor does the grade of your degree. Your ability to do the job matters more.

Where did you do the MA. I'm curious because in DCU it was always understood by BAs and MAs I knew that likelihood was they'd be freelancing for years before getting full-time work.

Serpentine

nesf wrote: »

Do you actually make it to interview or was this from follow up replies?

Yep I always make it to interview stage (except one case where I applied for a job specifying waaaay more exp than I had at the time) and usually I get feedback saying my CV is impressive etc or if I ask for feedback I am given these excuses. I guess my real question was is this just an excuse employers use when they really can't think of anything else or if they've given the job to someone internally?

nesf

Serpentine wrote: »

Yep I always make it to interview stage (except one case where I applied for a job specifying waaaay more exp than I had at the time) and usually I get feedback saying my CV is impressive etc or if I ask for feedback I am given these excuses. I guess my real question was is this just an excuse employers use when they really can't think of anything else or if they've given the job to someone internally?

Maybe you need to work on your interview technique? If they're interviewing you then they're at least willing to consider the prospect of hiring you and you might not be approaching the interview correctly.

Just a thought.

Serpentine

Once again I have to say I am good at interviews & have always been told this (unless I am being lied to, excuse my cynicism!!) I have worked in lots of places since I graduated from the MA but they've all been temporary gigs and once I go for something more full time I'm hit with the same excuses from employers. Has anyone else experienced this? I also worked for nothing for a long time so its not that I'm not eager to learn it's disheartening that it's so hard to get a job particularly when you leave college full of enthusiasm!

nesf

Serpentine wrote: »

Once again I have to say I am good at interviews & have always been told this (unless I am being lied to, excuse my cynicism!!) I have worked in lots of places since I graduated from the MA but they've all been temporary gigs and once I go for something more full time I'm hit with the same excuses from employers.

a) Never just assume you're good at interviews, everyone makes mistakes in them and you (generally speaking) can always look to improve things.

b) There's a big difference between hiring a full time employee and a temp, the interview and what they are looking for can be quite different.

c) Don't get too upset about it, loads of people have trouble landing the first "proper" job and spend ages going from temp to temp to "full time stuff" (where there's no way they'll stick it for longer than a year) before finding something.

BostonB

Theres only one way to know if you are good at interviews, and thats if you get the job.

stepbar

If I could give one piece of advice to those starting out in college it would be to load up on the work experience because it comes in handy when you have a 100 odd people fighting it out for a top job in years to come. Having brains to burn is worth shag all if you haven't shown the ability to apply your skills.

cronos

stepbar wrote: »

If I could give one piece of advice to those starting out in college it would be to load up on the work experience because it comes in handy when you have a 100 odd people fighting it out for a top job in years to come. Having brains to burn is worth shag all if you haven't shown the ability to apply your skills.

+1

shantor

i get the same response OP

I now leave the MSc of my CV

BTW overqualified for the job is a load of sh*t, how can you be too good for a job, its more or less a PFO

are you a mature student?

Kernel32

A few years ago I held a manager position in a technology company and I did all the hiring and firing of the technology people. I started a round of hiring, brought on a couple of mid level people. I needed one more and I had this guy apply. He was over qualified for what I needed but I talked to him informally because I saw he was out of work. He had come back to the states from doing a stint in London and found the job market not so hot. I liked him and he said he wanted the job. I explained that I couldn't pay him the level he was at because I was tied to a budget. Against my better judgement I hired him.

8 weeks later he was gone to a better more senior position. Because I hired him and he was better and more senior than the rest of the team the other guys had relied on him too much and basically ground to a halt. It took me another 8 weeks to hire someone new. So 16 weeks later we have a mess of a project with another new guy coming on board and I have a huge chunk eaten out of my budget and I have to explain to the board of directors at the end of the quarter why we didn't deliver. Hiring someone over qualified can cost you big time if you're not careful and anyone who has done it for a while knows that.

loyatemu

Kernel32 wrote: »

A few years ago I held a manager position in a technology company and I did all the hiring and firing of the technology people. I started a round of hiring, brought on a couple of mid level people. I needed one more and I had this guy apply. He was over qualified for what I needed but I talked to him informally because I saw he was out of work. He had come back to the states from doing a stint in London and found the job market not so hot. I liked him and he said he wanted the job. I explained that I couldn't pay him the level he was at because I was tied to a budget. Against my better judgement I hired him.

8 weeks later he was gone to a better more senior position. Because I hired him and he was better and more senior than the rest of the team the other guys had relied on him too much and basically ground to a halt. It took me another 8 weeks to hire someone new. So 16 weeks later we have a mess of a project with another new guy coming on board and I have a huge chunk eaten out of my budget and I have to explain to the board of directors at the end of the quarter why we didn't deliver. Hiring someone over qualified can cost you big time if you're not careful and anyone who has done it for a while knows that.

could you avoid a situation like this by putting a longer notice period into the contract if you're afraid the guy might walk? If he was desperate enough at the time, he'd have no option but to sign (but on the other hand is it enforceable?)

Kernel32

loyatemu wrote: »

could you avoid a situation like this by putting a longer notice period into the contract if you're afraid the guy might walk? If he was desperate enough at the time, he'd have no option but to sign (but on the other hand is it enforceable?)

The simple answer, in the good old USA, no. There are a couple of basic ways you become an employee here. The most common is "employee at will" and most employees fall in that category. An employee at will or the employer can at any time terminate the employment agreement. The employee would normally have signed something when they took employment to say they will work a notice period, normally a week, could be up to two weeks but rarely longer. The other is an employment contract. This is more rare and generally only used with more senior staff. I was under an employment contract in that particular position. The basics of a contract are usually a requirement for a longer notice period, 1 month, 2 months etc but also the employer is also required to provide a severance package if the employee is terminated. With employee at will a severance package is entirely at the employers discretion, except when unions are involved.

One of the reasons that Europe is often less than enticing for small to mid size US companies is because of the much more stringent employment laws. For the most part you can hire and fire at will in the united states and employees also have more freedom, but less protection. A friend of mine works at a senior level at a company locally that had an office in Germany as an example. They felt so constrained by the local employment laws they shut the office down. They moved part of the work to Dublin but they are only doing sales from there now. Bigger companies have more resources and can deal with it better.

shantor

Kernel32 wrote: »

A few years ago I held a manager position in a technology company and I did all the hiring and firing of the technology people. I started a round of hiring, brought on a couple of mid level people. I needed one more and I had this guy apply. He was over qualified for what I needed but I talked to him informally because I saw he was out of work. He had come back to the states from doing a stint in London and found the job market not so hot. I liked him and he said he wanted the job. I explained that I couldn't pay him the level he was at because I was tied to a budget. Against my better judgement I hired him.

8 weeks later he was gone to a better more senior position. Because I hired him and he was better and more senior than the rest of the team the other guys had relied on him too much and basically ground to a halt. It took me another 8 weeks to hire someone new. So 16 weeks later we have a mess of a project with another new guy coming on board and I have a huge chunk eaten out of my budget and I have to explain to the board of directors at the end of the quarter why we didn't deliver. Hiring someone over qualified can cost you big time if you're not careful and anyone who has done it for a while knows that.

i dont get it, he was good at his job and you paid him according to your wage structure? and he overdelivered.. your point is over delivery is a bad thing? he was so good the whole project messed up.. doesnt add up mate :P

cronos

shantor wrote: »

i dont get it, he was good at his job and you paid him according to your wage structure? and he overdelivered.. your point is over delivery is a bad thing? he was so good the whole project messed up.. doesnt add up mate :P

Yes he overdelivered in the time he was their, however he wasnt their as long as he should have been. Also he caused them to have to do a second job search.

Cant really blame the guy for leaving either though.

Kernel32

shantor wrote: »

i dont get it, he was good at his job and you paid him according to your wage structure? and he overdelivered.. your point is over delivery is a bad thing? he was so good the whole project messed up.. doesnt add up mate :P

He accepted an offer which was at the top of my budget but was below what normally would be the lowest he would take. He didn't over deliver, he delivered exactly as I expected, but he unbalanced the team. A team with more senior members, particularly a new team will rely on that person to take the lead. This isn't always a good thing, particularly when the senior person is not committed and was contrary to how I had intended to do things. A balanced team can lose a member and lose velocity proportionally, an unbalanced team can grind to a halt.

This is a newbie management mistake I had to take responsibility for. It's simple risk analysis that I do for projects and I should have done for people. You take impact of something happening by the percentage chance of it happening and you end up with the risk to your project. In hindsight the risk of losing him was much higher than I had realized. So my point is hiring an over qualified person has a lot of risk attached and the damage from it going wrong is way worse that the upside of doing the hire.

cronos wrote:

Cant really blame the guy for leaving either though.

I don't blame him in the least. I was mad at him for about 5 minutes, got over it and moved on. I even keep in touch with him, IT is a small industry and you never know when someone you know is a decision maker somewhere else that you are trying to do business with

shantor

you should have screwed him and emotionally blackmailed him or threatened legal action.. you are losing rep for a guy who said he could do a job for you then took off

but as per the original subject, if someone tells you that you are over qualified is usually a pfo.. its not the real reason they dont wont hire

example job interview I did and the guy who had the final decision and who also ran the team had the same experience & qualifications as me, he was also physically half my size, the other interviewers loved me (and even remarked see you soon with a wink, as in you got the job) but I got turned down, IMO it was because the guy saw me as a threat to his job and in his situation I would have done the same

never hire some-one that can potentially replace you!! but the pfo was 'overqualified'

board om

shantor wrote: »

example job interview I did and the guy who had the final decision and who also ran the team had the same experience & qualifications as me, he was also physically half my size, the other interviewers loved me (and even remarked see you soon with a wink, as in you got the job) but I got turned down, IMO it was because the guy saw me as a threat to his job and in his situation I would have done the same

never hire some-one that can potentially replace you!! but the pfo was 'overqualified'

i had this situation in 2 differnt companies over the years. i actually got the positions and started working under managers that i could have wiped the floor with. both times it was female managers which made it that bit more difficult.

the first time it happened i spent the first 6 months having my ideas stolen by the manager and her taking credit for everything i did. the first senior position that came up within the company i applied for and i got it so i got away from her team. she did try and fcuk it up for me though, by telling me i couldnt apply for new roles within the first year, which wasnt true. so i applied for it anyway and then she decided to throw a bit of competition in the way by advising other people on my team to go for the position, even though they didnt stand a chance and they hadnt any thoughts of going fot it before she 'suggested it'. (which i think was a bit mean on her behalf becuase she knew they werent going to get it but she convinced them they would). bottom line was if i was going to be working in the company she wanted me on her team becuase i was young, keen, and more importantly full of great ideas that she could pass off as her own. so after 6 months i had bypassed that bitch and never looked back, except to grin my ass off at her. years later i was still rising up the ranks of the company, and she was still sitting in the exact same position (even the same seat actually)

unfortunetly the second time it happened i wasnt as luck. the manager i came up against was with the company about 8 years longer than me. so i worked my ass off, and she took the credit. i worked harder again, and she still took the credit. after about a year or 2 of that i realsied it was a lost cause and got the hell out of there.

the moral of the story is never sell yourself short and take a job out of desperation. you end up working under managers that you are far stronger than and it is very difficult to answer to someone you know you are smarter than.

homeOwner

Serpentine wrote: »

Is this a valid reason not to get a job? Just out of a Masters (where we were all guaranteed jobs by our lying lecturers :rolleyes:) and I find I get the "over qualified" line quite alot esp if I apply for assistant/trainee jobs (I work in the media)

My CV is much better than the majority of people I've met who are trying to break into the Irish media but if I go for higher positions I get the opposite reaction (someone with more experience got the position blah blah)

I can't really complain but I find it ludicrous that I'm over qualified yet unemployable!

Just a thought but maybe the person hiring doesnt want someone more qualified than they are to come in and step over them?
From my expereince whe I hire for a junior role I wouldnt want a more senior person because it would upset the balance on the team, there is only so much work to go around and you need a good balance between people who will do repetitive, boring, junior tasks who have somewhere to grow into the role and people who can handle difficult tasks and mentor.

A practical suggestion if you are really interested in getting junior roles, take the Masters off your CV - you dont have to mention it. Peg yourself as a junior and when you have your foot in the door you can always apply for a more advanced role.

DublinWriter

Serpentine wrote: »

My CV is much better than the majority of people I've met who are trying to break into the Irish media...

The media sector in Ireland is a complete and utter clique. I've seen barely literate guys with a junior cert get proof-reading jobs with a major Irish broadsheet just because of family connections.

If you're not connected, then leave Ireland. My best advice to you would be to move to the UK, preferably London.

If you really want to stay in Ireland they be prepared for a lot of door-knocking and cold-calling at provincial organisations outside of Dublin; there's a lot of local radio stations and free ad-rags that constantly need stringers, runners and researchers.

Best of luck.

DublinWriter

DublinWriter wrote: »

The media sector in Ireland is a complete and utter clique .

+1

Irelands too small a country

Dudess

It's incredibly difficult all right. I graduated with my MA in journalism in September 06 and I got random but infrequent shifts at radio stations in Dublin, but the possibility of getting a full-time job is minimal - and you'd be amazed at how unfair recruitment policies/politics can be in this regard. E.g. people with far less experience being the ones to get permanency over those who've been working in the area longer. Sometimes it can be simply down to your personality, timing, luck - the usual.
After a year of freelancing, I couldn't live that way any longer and I'm a receptionist now. Unless you want to work as a writer for Basketweaver's Monthly and the like, you won't get a permanent job, you'll just have to make do with freelancing - and it's a sh1t way to live. I missed out on holidays and the Electric Picnic because I had to be on call for freelance shifts. I would get calls at 7am from people asking me to come in at 8. I would be on the bus/train home to Cork and I'd get a call to come in the next day. And if you turn down the work, there's a queue a mile long of people who'll do it instead, and you've thus lessened your chances of getting called again. It's a nightmare.

The other type of freelance is that which offers the full-time hours all right (more likely in newspapers than in radio) but there are no staff benefits (since you're not actually staff), you only get paid per shift so you're not entitled to sick pay or holiday pay, and who's to say you're guaranteed a job as long as you want it? They might decide they want to replace you and there's nothing you can do about it.

I felt so disheartened having paid the money and worked so hard for that MA - I felt like I had wasted a chunk of my life. But now I'm seeing things with more perspective - I wanted to do it at the time, and I'd regret it if I didn't. It was an area that interested me hugely, and simply studying something as an end in itself is often good enough reason to do so. I'm on the lookout the whole time for something that might be somewhat related to my masters, but in the meantime, administrative work is nice and cushy and I can write articles on the side.

AARRRGH

Dudess, just a thought: if you're earning **** money doing receptionist work at the moment, why not do a Ph.D? I think you get about 18 - 24k per year. You could fit in some freelance work around your studies too.

nesf

dublindude wrote: »

I think you get about 18 - 24k per year.

The numbers are smaller than that for Arts PhDs generally. 16K is the IRCHSS one iirc.

leeroybrown

shantor wrote: »

but as per the original subject, if someone tells you that you are over qualified is usually a pfo.. its not the real reason they dont wont hire

I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. I've encountered situations where candidates are excellent but it's clear that their experience doesn't match up with a two/three year stay in a specific position. You have to weigh up the risk of someone moving on quickly, becoming bored or causing tension, particularly when you know that you probably won't have an opportunity to move them into a more suitable position. On top of this, you'll probably be asking yourself if the salary premium you might pay is worth it. At the end of the day you do have a job description and budget.

Unfortunately in the OP's case it might just be being used as a convenient answer. As previous posters have said the media area is a bit weird - I reckon there are probably 10 times as many people with some form of 'media qualification' as there are people working in the media so there will be a glut of applicants of varying quality.

board om

homeOwner wrote: »

A practical suggestion if you are really interested in getting junior roles, take the Masters off your CV - you dont have to mention it. Peg yourself as a junior and when you have your foot in the door you can always apply for a more advanced role.

this is exactly why managers dont want to hire over qualified candidates. becuase they will do exactly this. the manager will spend their time and effort recruiting for a position. the manager finally finds the right person and offers them the position which they accept. the candidate is 5 minutes in the door and they applly for a 'better position'. then the manager is left having to start his search all over again. so a big waste of time for the manager.

Dudess

But not necessarily! *Sigh* It's this attitude that's making it difficult for the likes of me and the OP on the career front. I mean, if the job was really that "beneath us" why the hell would we be going for it? "As a means to an end until something better comes along"... Maybe, but maybe not. Maybe there is nothing better! What we're qualified in isn't exactly something that gets you a whole variety of jobs.
It's actually discrimination. Companies face penalties for discrimination on the basis of age, gender etc - can't see why not for this nonsense either.

board om

Dudess wrote: »

But not necessarily! *Sigh* It's this attitude that's making it difficult for the likes of me and the OP on the career front. I mean, if the job was really that "beneath us" why the hell would we be going for it?

i am just poinitng out various differnt scenarios that may occur. in response to that particular post which said take the lower position and then apply for something better once you are in the door, that would be exactly one of the reasons why a manager might not hire someone over qualified for a role. if you look at it from their point of view, they are doing all this work to get the right person and as soon as they find them and gives them the position, they thank the manager by taking the next better position that becomes available. a big waste of the managers time. if you read through the thread there is a perfect example of this where a poster said he hired someone over qualified and within 2 months they had fcuked off for something better, which left him in the siht with his bosses because he was behind on a project as he had to find a replacment for the over qualifed candidate.

another reason companies might not like to hire over qualified candidates might be because the position might really be TOO junior and again you might leave for something better. say you went for a position that you were over qualified for and you got offered it, and you turn up the first day and they say "right, the kettle is there and the coffee is there, ill have milk and 2 sugars in mine", and imagine this went on for the next few months and the closest you got to do any work involving media was when you changed the station on the bosses radio? id say you would be pretty pissed off. so they could be doing you a favour in that case.

another scenario might be that it is just a pfo.

no seriously though, what another poster said about it being a bit incestuous in the media industry is very true. and a lot of the time you end up working for free in the begining just to get to know other people in the business. but once it takes off for you its all go from there. i suppose it would be worth doing to progress your career.

board om

Dudess wrote: »

It's actually discrimination. Companies face penalties for discrimination on the basis of age, gender etc - can't see why not for this nonsense either.

its not discrimintation, its the company looking after their own interests. they arent there to give you a job just because there is nothing else there for you, just so you can fcuk off when something better comes along. they are there to run a profitable business. and it costs a lot of money when people screw them around like that. think about it.....

money spent on advertising the job,
HR and management interviewing you and several other candidates,
they may use a recruitment agency so thats more money,

then once you start there are more costs like......
salary,
training,
management and colleagues taking time out from their work to help you,


all this costs money. if you stayed in the company for a few years then all that money spent is a great investment. but if you leave after 2 months, then they are going to have to repeat this all over again.

if you dont mind me asking, what area of media are you trying to get in to?

nesf

Dudess wrote: »

It's actually discrimination. Companies face penalties for discrimination on the basis of age, gender etc - can't see why not for this nonsense either.

Sure, but it's legal and justifiable discrimination. Companies have to have the freedom to discriminate between candidates on certain grounds. This is one of them.

As has been pointed out many times in this thread, there are good reasons for not wanting to hire an overqualified person. These reasons might not seem like something that would apply to you but in general they are a good rule of thumb and honestly if you got one of these low level entry positions would you not be applying for every better position which came up and would you not leave if you got offered one?

Dudess

board om wrote: »

if you read through the thread there is a perfect example of this where a poster said he hired someone over qualified and within 2 months they had fcuked off for something better, which left him in the siht with his bosses because he was behind on a project as he had to find a replacment for the over qualifed candidate.

Yeah I saw that - one incident.

board om wrote: »

its not discrimintation, its the company looking after their own interests. they arent there to give you a job just because there is nothing else there for you, just so you can fcuk off when something better comes along. they are there to run a profitable business. and it costs a lot of money when people screw them around like that. think about it.....

money spent on advertising the job,
HR and management interviewing you and several other candidates,
they may use a recruitment agency so thats more money,

then once you start there are more costs like......
salary,
training,
management and colleagues taking time out from their work to help you,


all this costs money. if you stayed in the company for a few years then all that money spent is a great investment. but if you leave after 2 months, then they are going to have to repeat this all over again.

I know, but as I said, there's no guarantee something better will come along - or even if something does, it might not be for years. I suppose I'm referring more to the over-qualified side of things, rather than the over-experienced one: having arts qualifications might mean you're educated but it doesn't qualify you for anything so maybe a fairly junior role is all you can hope for anyway.
But I agree, it's a dilemma for the employer.

if you dont mind me asking, what area of media are you trying to get in to?

Press office - and here's my problem: I don't have experience as a press/PR official so I'm out of the loop on that count, which means administrative work within a press department would be the logical one to go for (I also have admin experience). But then I'm considered over-qualified for that... Grrr, it's soul-destroying!

doolox

Was that his fault? He worked hard at his job and the others "ground to a halt". I'd say that was the bosses fault. The others should have been made to buck up and pull their weight and it should have been detected and sorted out on time. Blaming an "overqualified" person is a bit simplistic.

Kernel32

Dudess wrote: »

But not necessarily! *Sigh* It's this attitude that's making it difficult for the likes of me and the OP on the career front. I mean, if the job was really that "beneath us" why the hell would we be going for it? "As a means to an end until something better comes along"... Maybe, but maybe not. Maybe there is nothing better! What we're qualified in isn't exactly something that gets you a whole variety of jobs.
It's actually discrimination. Companies face penalties for discrimination on the basis of age, gender etc - can't see why not for this nonsense either.

So what would the case be? I was discriminated against because I didn't get a job that I felt I should have gotten? If those type of discrimination cases were ever allowed it would be a very bad thing indeed. Half the posters on this forum would have a case pending.

doolox wrote:

Was that his fault? He worked hard at his job and the others "ground to a halt". I'd say that was the bosses fault. The others should have been made to buck up and pull their weight and it should have been detected and sorted out on time. Blaming an "overqualified" person is a bit simplistic.

If you actually read the post you would see that I didn't blame him, I blamed myself for making a management rookie mistake of hiring him. Based on your comment you obviously know a lot about team building, how to build a balanced team, how to unbalance a team and how to motivate a team.