Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Age Discrimination

  • 08-06-2016 07:46PM
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 154 ✭✭


    Have a read of this and tell me what you think. I was interviewed for a job and this is why I wasnt offered the role: I thought they werent allowed mention age??

    "we decided to opt for someone quite young with much less experience, who we felt could grow into the position."


«1

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,926 ✭✭✭davo10


    A lot of employers, and I count myself among them, prefer to employ new graduates who are enthusiastic/ambitious, and haven't developed bad work practices/attitude. We can guide them in the way the business works and nurture their development. If someone comes in with a sense of entitlement/bad attitude or we don't think they will buy into the team ethic, better to cut them lose now rather than waste time and money.

    They effectively told you that they didn't see you as right fit for the job. Silly of them to be so honest but thems the breaks.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 154 ✭✭jamesdublin12


    I didnt present with this. they emailed me to tell me that I wasnt offered the position for this reason. Surely thats discrimination on grounds of AGE... no??


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 348 ✭✭hearmehearye


    I didnt present with this. they emailed me to tell me that I wasnt offered the position for this reason. Surely thats discrimination on grounds of AGE... no??


    Not exactly. Without detail, you could be over qualified or have too much experience, something a young person wouldn't necessarily have. Lots of companies like people who can be molded to fit that particular company's ethos. Young or old.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 154 ✭✭jamesdublin12


    then they could say we have offered to someone with less experience.
    they knew my experience before the interview saying it was impressive and like an ideal person.

    Surely they can say we offered the job to someone else who we felt was more suited.
    Not that it was do with age... cheek!!!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 348 ✭✭hearmehearye


    "we decided to opt for someone quite young with much less experience, who we felt could grow into the position."


    To me they're just describing the candidate they chose.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 154 ✭✭jamesdublin12


    they opted for someone younger?? exactly age!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,260 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    they opted for someone younger?? exactly age!


    The better candidate just happened to be younger I think.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,926 ✭✭✭davo10


    they opted for someone younger?? exactly age!

    Also someone they see more potential in and who can grow into the job. Mentioning age wasn't clever but the jist of the reply is obvious, they saw more of what they are looking for in the other candidate. Put it down to experience and move on.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8 Bizarro Stormy


    What they meant was: we went with someone we can get away with basically paying minimum wage to. I've seen a few jobs recently offering 20k for someone with 3 years experience. Pay peanuts...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,926 ✭✭✭davo10


    What they meant was: we went with someone we can get away with basically paying minimum wage to. I've seen a few jobs recently offering 20k for someone with 3 years experience. Pay peanuts...

    Depends on the job, and if they are paying minimum and can employ someone at that rate to do the job required, what's the problem?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 666 ✭✭✭sadie1502


    All about moola they want someone in there slightly green who would be happy with apprentice wage and someone they can mold into what they want. See it all the time where I'm working.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,358 ✭✭✭Aineoil


    davo10 wrote: »
    A lot of employers, and I count myself among them, prefer to employ new graduates who are enthusiastic/ambitious, and haven't developed bad work practices/attitude. We can guide them in the way the business works and nurture their development. If someone comes in with a sense of entitlement/bad attitude or we don't think they will buy into the team ethic, better to cut them lose now rather than waste time and money.

    Depends on the person. Some young people have bad attitudes to work too.

    I work with people in their mid late 20's and early 30's and their sense of entitlement knows no bounds. I would never go where they have gone or go. But they seem to get away with it.

    Now at 50, I just shake my head at what they say. To be honest, there are a few that have no manners and they think they know it all.

    Where I work it's the young people who don't buy into the team ethic because they know better.....


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 789 ✭✭✭jimd2


    davo10 wrote: »
    Depends on the job, and if they are paying minimum and can employ someone at that rate to do the job required, what's the problem?

    Very blaze there Davo. I reckon if you were out of work and people being offered €20k to do your job you wouldn't be so easy going about it. In the case of the OP it looks as if the job was advertised / sold as a bigger job.

    Looking at this I am happy that I have continued to up skill over the years but that's not straightforward for everyone.

    Very difficult situation for the OP but it is almost impossible to prove ageism in this case. As someone said move on but it certainly would leave a bad taste in the mouth.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,278 ✭✭✭NapoleonInRags


    I'm surprised at the responses to be honest. It's blatant age discrimination in my view. Age is one of the nine grounds under the equality legislation.

    If they said, 'we decided to hire someone less black' - would people think it was race discrimination? You bet your life they would.....


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,260 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    I'm surprised at the responses to be honest. It's blatant age discrimination in my view. Age is one of the nine grounds under the equality legislation.

    If they said, 'we decided to hire someone less black' - would people think it was race discrimination? You bet your life they would.....

    I think you are reading it wrong. They said
    "we decided to opt for someone quite young with much less experience, who we felt could grow into the position."


    When I read that I see we went for someone with much less experience (you are over qualified for the job) and she happens to be quite young.
    Where does it say that op was too old. I'm sure they had everyone's age from cv. Can't imagine why they would bother asking her in for the interview if she was too old.

    Op I'm sorry you didn't get the job. It's a crappy feeling. I'm sure that you will find one soon where the appreciate your talents.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,358 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    To me they're just describing the candidate they chose.
    The Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015 prohibit discrimination in employment on a number of grounds, including age. It is unlawful to discriminate against anyone in employment on grounds of age. The Acts only apply to persons above the maximum age at which a person is statutorily obliged to attend school (16 currently). However there are a number of exceptions to the general principle of non-discrimination. The Acts also provide for positive action on a number of grounds including age.

    They've clearly described age discrimination simply by specifying that they chose someone younger. The problem though is that its difficult to prove unless there is clear evidence based on experience.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,394 ✭✭✭DivingDuck


    Have a read of this and tell me what you think. I was interviewed for a job and this is why I wasnt offered the role: I thought they werent allowed mention age??

    "we decided to opt for someone quite young with much less experience, who we felt could grow into the position."

    I think they may have covered their asses with "much less experience who we felt could grow into the position".

    They can easily say that the mention of age in this case was simply a minor wording slip-up, relating only and specifically to the final and best candidate chosen at the end of the process; that their age was incidental, and their experience level was what was won them the role. Since they mentioned this in their communication to you (and explained why this lack of experience was a preference for them-- someone with less experience will continue to be challenged/interested in the role longer than someone who has been doing it for years), I suspect this would hold up.

    As others have said, hiring someone with less experience is cheaper and gives them a blank slate to work with, so is consequently often the most appealing choice to an employer. They dropped the ball by mentioning age at all, but I wouldn't go to the hassle of following up on it, personally, as I don't think the end result would rule in your favour.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,706 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    I'm surprised at the responses to be honest. It's blatant age discrimination in my view. Age is one of the nine grounds under the equality legislation.

    I agree that it's blatant discrimination.

    And if the OP wanted, they could take a case with the rights commissioner (or whatever they're called now), and might get a small payout from it.

    But on the other hand, taking this case would take some time/energy that could be better spent job-hunting for an employer who's not so pure stupid as to say something like that. This may be a better use of that time/energy.


    And I agree with the other posts explaining why a less-experienced candidate is sometimes a better fit. But they're just expanding the 2nd, non-discriminatory, part of the explanation the OP got.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 154 ✭✭jamesdublin12


    What they meant was: we went with someone we can get away with basically paying minimum wage to. I've seen a few jobs recently offering 20k for someone with 3 years experience. Pay peanuts...

    Exactly... We never mentioned money in the interview and they knew my experience before an interview. Wastingvmy time of they had no intent.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 154 ✭✭jamesdublin12


    I agree that it's blatant discrimination.

    And if the OP wanted, they could take a case with the rights commissioner (or whatever they're called now), and might get a small payout from it.

    But on the other hand, taking this case would take some time/energy that could be better spent job-hunting for an employer who's not so pure stupid as to say something like that. This may be a better use of that time/energy.


    And I agree with the other posts explaining why a less-experienced candidate is sometimes a better fit. But they're just expanding the 2nd, non-discriminatory, part of the explanation the OP got.

    Exactly they mentioned age as a reason abs another reason reason was experience. But one of the reasons was age... Which was wrong


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,455 ✭✭✭livedadream


    its silly of them to phrase it like that was but i agree with other posters, they picked a candidate who just happens to be younger than the OP.

    they dont say we didnt pick you because of your age or because the other person is younger than you.

    people jumping up shouting discrimination are the same people who don't understand what discrimination actually is. the I know me rights and im entitled to it brigade.

    let it go, they gave the job to someone their preferred and were stupid to tell you that as a coincidence that person is younger than you.

    sure take a case for age discrimination but be prepared to have every ounce of your interview and experience in the organisation picked over.

    they dont say they picked someone younger because thats what they wanted and that your age was a factor they say as an aside the person we selected is younger ie could be a graduate we want to develop and indoctrinate to our org.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    I agree on both sides

    - The wording of the response indicates discrimination based on age

    - The intention was most likely to say, "You would be bored with this role, you have too much experience".

    A silly misphrasing by someone who is likely quite inexperienced themselves. They should have said "junior" instead of younger.

    Ultimately in terms of doing anything about discrimination, I think you'd be onto a loser. The age of the other candidate doesn't appear to have been a defining factor in their selection - rather their level of experience is the defining factor. And this is pretty clear in the response - they are young, but they were selected for the fact that they're inexperienced and will grow into the role.

    What that really means is that they were way cheaper than you and the role isn't so important to the company that they need an experienced person straight away.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,706 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    ithey dont say we didnt pick you because of your age or because the other person is younger than you..

    They said:
    "we decided to opt for someone quite young ..."


    There are plenty of older people who have less experience, too. But no, they wanted a young one and are blatant about it.

    If they'd just picked someone with less expereince, they would have said:
    "we decided to opt for someone with much less experience, who we felt could grow into the position."


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,455 ✭✭✭livedadream


    They said:

    There are plenty of older people who have less experience, too. But no, they wanted a young one and are blatant about it.

    If they'd just picked someone with less experience, they would have said:

    poorly phrased i agree but not age discrimination.

    and its fierce easy to cut out the rest of the OP quote to make it suit your argument but thats not how the law works, the whole situation would be considered if OP was to make a claim.

    all the applicants, all this qualifications, the difference in age between OP and the successful candidate and the rest of the people interviewed, the interview notes, the general demographic of the org and a million other things.

    its not that simple, as they said, we picked someone who is this, this, this and this but is coincidentally/conveniently also younger than you.

    compared to: we picked someone younger than you because old people are ****e.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 182 ✭✭Laura_A


    I don't think it is blatant discrimination - its not surprising that most people who have less experience are younger.

    But they clearly say it is because they found someone who better suited the role and more than likely better suited the direction the company are headed in.

    Any mentioning of making claims and possible payouts - this is exactly why companies use the generic rejection template and dont give detailed feedback because people are too sensitive to wording and rejection.. People want detailed feedback but don't want the truth about why they weren't hired?

    I don't think it is time wasting - for some roles there can genuinely be two options that might work for a company and the personality can swing it a lot of the time. I don't think the age was a reason it was simply a description of the person they went with. The key thing is that they decided you were over experienced so your time would be better spent trying to assess if you are under selling yourself with the type of jobs you are applying for...


  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 19,242 Mod ✭✭✭✭L.Jenkins


    Have a read of this and tell me what you think. I was interviewed for a job and this is why I wasnt offered the role: I thought they werent allowed mention age??

    "we decided to opt for someone quite young with much less experience, who we felt could grow into the position."

    I wouldn't worry to much about it. I was offered a role earlier this year, but upon a medical, discovering I had Psoriasis, they retracted the offer. Another potential employer with whom I applied for a contract role, told me I was too focused on permanent roles and that my marriage might be an issue or road block to an hour long commute in total per day. My CV is crammed with contracting roles.

    If that is the attitude of a potential employer, then you dodged a bullet. I've brushed myself off and kept going.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,455 ✭✭✭livedadream


    Itzy wrote: »
    I wouldn't worry to much about it. I was offered a role earlier this year, but upon a medical, discovering I had Psoriasis, they retracted the offer. .

    out of pure nosiness what were the grounds?

    i cant see psoriasis effecting many roles...


  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 19,242 Mod ✭✭✭✭L.Jenkins


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    ...Where does it say that op was too old. I'm sure they had everyone's age from cv. Can't imagine why they would bother asking her in for the interview if she was too old...

    It would seem that age and experience was not explicitly mentioned, but implied, which could be misconstrued as discrimination on those grounds. Some hiring managers aren't that stupid, but they do slip up. If I were the OP, and while I said I brushed myself off and kept going, if the potential employer sent that as a mail, I would forward it as an email to someone with experience in employment law for an opinion.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,492 ✭✭✭stoplooklisten


    I was asked this in the last 3 interviews I had, I must look really young, or really old, but I was like wtf ..."I'm not sure that's relevant..."


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 19,242 Mod ✭✭✭✭L.Jenkins


    out of pure nosiness what were the grounds?

    i cant see psoriasis effecting many roles...

    I have psoriasis, a skin condition. They refused on those grounds. So maybe on the grounds of a disability, which is not in anyway, a disability.


Advertisement