Asked age again during interview!

hots

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why would the year of qualification be relevant?

Tbf what's taught in a qualification in 2000 vs 2020 is pretty different. Also someone continually improving themselves over the years Vs someone doing all their education 10 years ago I would judge differently.

skallywag

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

It is discrimination when people are promoted with a weighting for their gender/ethnicity/disability etc. Now you might argue that it is a good thing but positive discrimination is still discrimination.

I agree fully that it is discrimination, but that said it is an undeniable fact in many firms at the moment. As I mentioned in a previous post we are currently hunting high and low for a woman to either promote or to hire into a vacant open position, the pressure is to do so is intense. I would more than gladly see a woman in the position, as the vast bulk of my colleagues also sincerely would. It is proving very difficult though to find someone suitable, and before too long we will have to fill the position. This will inevitably lead to the same questions again during the next All-hands or Townhall as to why it is still the case that we are not hiring women into senior roles.

doc22

doc22 wrote: »

I'm going to say the disabled; the PS try to hire a certain percentage target. Even gender balance SEEMS to play its part in promotions too

From the Civil Service Code of Practice for the Employment of People with Disabilities

All Departments and Offices are required to appoint a DLO to assist and support staff with disabilities and their line managers by the provision of necessary information, appropriate contacts, guidance, suggestions and advice.

Public sector bodies are obliged under the Disability Act 2005

• To promote and support the employment of people with disabilities;
• To ensure, where practicable, that 3% of all staff employed are people with disabilities;
• To report every year on the number and percentage of employees with disabilities.

I personally do not have a problem with this practice.

AndrewJRenko

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

It is discrimination when people are promoted with a weighting for their gender/ethnicity/disability etc. Now you might argue that it is a good thing but positive discrimination is still discrimination.

Where and when has this happened please?

AndrewJRenko

skallywag wrote: »

I agree fully that it is discrimination, but that said it is an undeniable fact in many firms at the moment. As I mentioned in a previous post we are currently hunting high and low for a woman to either promote or to hire into a vacant open position, the pressure is to do so is intense. I would more than gladly see a woman in the position, as the vast bulk of my colleagues also sincerely would. It is proving very difficult though to find someone suitable, and before too long we will have to fill the position. This will inevitably lead to the same questions again during the next All-hands or Townhall as to why it is still the case that we are not hiring women into senior roles.

If it's that difficult to find suitable women to promote, there certainly should be questions asked at your next town hall meeting.

Pawwed Rig

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Where and when has this happened please?

Answered already

AndrewJRenko

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Answered already

You gave no answer before, and you're continuing to make allegations without backing them up with any detail, which suggests that you're making stuff up.

PCeeeee

skallywag wrote: »

I agree fully that it is discrimination, but that said it is an undeniable fact in many firms at the moment. As I mentioned in a previous post we are currently hunting high and low for a woman to either promote or to hire into a vacant open position, the pressure is to do so is intense. I would more than gladly see a woman in the position, as the vast bulk of my colleagues also sincerely would. It is proving very difficult though to find someone suitable, and before too long we will have to fill the position. This will inevitably lead to the same questions again during the next All-hands or Townhall as to why it is still the case that we are not hiring women into senior roles.

D'ont take this the wrong way but why isn't the answer to those questions precisely the reasons you have outlined here?

It's the truth. It doesn't fit the narrative but why should you pander to a narrative that is plainly untrue.

skallywag

PCeeeee wrote: »

D'ont take this the wrong way but why isn't the answer to those questions precisely the reasons you have outlined here?

It's the truth. It doesn't fit the narrative but why should you pander to a narrative that is plainly untrue.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If it's that difficult to find suitable women to promote, there certainly should be questions asked at your next town hall meeting.

Both are very fair points.

The truth is certainly that we are doing everything which we possibly can to either promote a woman into the role, or to fill it with a new hire. From experience though it is very difficult to try to rationalize that same point to both those within and external to the company. If I was to be completely honest I would stand up and openly say that we are going our darn best but we simply cannot find someone suitable. That is in itself then going to lead to the inevitable 'well you are clearly not trying hard enough' etc., which is a response which I can understand to a degree. It is also going to lead to 'well what is wrong with x from dept y, why is she not good enough, etc.'.

We do however go out of our way to make sure that we get to interview as many women as possible. If you apply for said position, and you are female, then you stand a much much better chance of making it past the initial screening. You will always be hoping at the back of you mind 'well perhaps she interviews a lot better than she comes across on this CV' etc.

When we take such questions from staff during such meetings you get the feeling that the general perception is that there is a touch of 'the old boys club' in play, which could not be further from the truth. As I mentioned earlier our lives would be a whole lot easier if we could indeed hire women into such roles. That said we take great care that we do not give in to the temptation which may be there to give someone a whirl even if we still harbour serious doubts that they will make a go of the role.

Concerning promotion, the landscape is equally complex. We approached one lady about the possibility and she had no interest, she was not interested in the extra responsibility / commitment it would entail. We have a less experienced woman who would be interested, but she simply does not have the necessary experience under her belt to pull it off right now, perhaps in 5-10 years. It could be argued that we should take a punt on her, but if we did so then there is a major risk that the team who she would be managing would come to the conclusion that she only got promoted because she was female, and to be frank they would be correct, as we would not take a punt on a male of the same experience.

All in all it is a very difficult topic to handle at the moment.

PCeeeee

skallywag wrote: »

Both are very fair points.

The truth is certainly that we are doing everything which we possibly can to either promote a woman into the role, or to fill it with a new hire. From experience though it is very difficult to try to rationalize that same point to both those within and external to the company. If I was to be completely honest I would stand up and openly say that we are going our darn best but we simply cannot find someone suitable. That is in itself then going to lead to the inevitable 'well you are clearly not trying hard enough' etc., which is a response which I can understand to a degree. It is also going to lead to 'well what is wrong with x from dept y, why is she not good enough, etc.'.

We do however go out of our way to make sure that we get to interview as many women as possible. If you apply for said position, and you are female, then you stand a much much better chance of making it past the initial screening. You will always be hoping at the back of you mind 'well perhaps she interviews a lot better than she comes across on this CV' etc.

When we take such questions from staff during such meetings you get the feeling that the general perception is that there is a touch of 'the old boys club' in play, which could not be further from the truth. As I mentioned earlier our lives would be a whole lot easier if we could indeed hire women into such roles. That said we take great care that we do not give in to the temptation which may be there to give someone a whirl even if we still harbour serious doubts that they will make a go of the role.

Concerning promotion, the landscape is equally complex. We approached one lady about the possibility and she had no interest, she was not interested in the extra responsibility / commitment it would entail. We have a less experienced woman who would be interested, but she simply does not have the necessary experience under her belt to pull it off right now, perhaps in 5-10 years. It could be argued that we should take a punt on her, but if we did so then there is a major risk that the team who she would be managing would come to the conclusion that she only got promoted because she was female, and to be frank they would be correct, as we would not take a punt on a male of the same experience.

All in all it is a very difficult topic to handle at the moment.

Thank you for a very considered responce and I can understand the politics.

Pawwed Rig

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You gave no answer before, and you're continuing to make allegations without backing them up with any detail, which suggests that you're making stuff up.

Google is your friend

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/education/positive-discrimination-fears-surround-women-only-academic-posts-1.3764525%3fmode=amp

AndrewJRenko

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Google is your friend

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/education/positive-discrimination-fears-surround-women-only-academic-posts-1.3764525%3fmode=amp

This refers to a tiny number of very senior academic posts, 15 to be recruited each year. I can't find any record that they have actually completed recruitment to any of these posts, but perhaps they did.

So that's one very particular, very small scale programme in one sector - not exactly the picture that you spun earlier, and certainly no mention of disability and ethnicity as you claimed.

Pawwed Rig

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

This refers to a tiny number of very senior academic posts, 15 to be recruited each year. I can't find any record that they have actually completed recruitment to any of these posts, but perhaps they did.

So that's one very particular, very small scale programme in one sector - not exactly the picture that you spun earlier, and certainly no mention of disability and ethnicity as you claimed.

Google is your friend

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thejournal.ie/gender-balance-civil-service-3188442-Jan2017/%3famp=1

AndrewJRenko

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Google is your friend

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thejournal.ie/gender-balance-civil-service-3188442-Jan2017/%3famp=1

In such cases, where candidates who compete for Top Level Appointments Committee positions are of equal merit, then priority would be given to the female candidate where they are under-represented on the management board of the department or office in question

Again, a long way off the picture you painted, and still no mention of ethnicity and disability as you claimed.

Pawwed Rig

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Again, a long way off the picture you painted, and still no mention of ethnicity and disability as you claimed.

Google is your friend

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/garda-internship-scheme-will-aim-to-drive-recruitment-of-minorities-1.4424862%3fmode=amp

I can keep finding links backing up my point. How many do you want?

Pawwed Rig

More

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thejournal.ie/recruitment-targets-civil-service-leo-varadkar-5120369-Jun2020/%3famp=1

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/poor-showing-for-women-in-seanad-elections-as-varadkar-s-plea-ignored-1.4218343%3fmode=amp

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40044575.html%3ftype=amp

Seriously man Google is your friend :pac:

HotMama89

I think the problem is that it can be hard for alot of women to get senior positions due to various biases and lack of mentorship/sponsorship support so they dont get recommended for jobs and promotions that get them into senior positions.

AndrewJRenko

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

More

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thejournal.ie/recruitment-targets-civil-service-leo-varadkar-5120369-Jun2020/%3famp=1

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/poor-showing-for-women-in-seanad-elections-as-varadkar-s-plea-ignored-1.4218343%3fmode=amp

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40044575.html%3ftype=amp

Seriously man Google is your friend :pac:

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Google is your friend

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/garda-internship-scheme-will-aim-to-drive-recruitment-of-minorities-1.4424862%3fmode=amp

I can keep finding links backing up my point. How many do you want?

If that's your best, you're going to be spending a lot more time on Google.

For the Garda scheme, it is exactly the opposite of what you claimed. It is about creating a level playing field for all candidates, not giving any extra weighting to some groups. It's also about internship only, not actual Garda recruitment.

Your other articles are just comments from various people at various times - no actual schemes that give weighting based on gender/ethnicity/disability as you claimed.

So yes, there are the two schemes that you mentioned prioritising women for senior posts in academia and in civil service.

And that's it - no schemes giving extra weightings for women for the vast majority of recruitment, and no schemes giving extra weighting for disability/ethnicity as you claimed.

Pawwed Rig

Sigh. I guessed at the start that you wouldn't budge even with overwhelming evidence. I was right

Let's leave it there. I am not spending my day giving more and more evidence to someone who refuses to see what is in front of them

AndrewJRenko

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Sigh. I guessed at the start that you wouldn't budge even with overwhelming evidence. I was right

Let's leave it there. I am not spending my day giving more and more evidence to someone who refuses to see what is in front of them

You haven't presented ANY evidence of additional weighting for ethnicity or disability. The cases you presented for gender relate to a tiny number of very senior positions, for very specific reasons.

ThumbTaxed

JustAThought wrote: »

I’ve decided that the next company that asks me - or what year I did my leaving cert in another favourite - and didn’t give me the job will be rewarded by me finally complaining and taking a case to the workplace relations commission. They really should be running ads on it now - it happens so often - its totally disheartening - and illegal.

Welcome to litigation Ireland.

Rotting Carrot

Strazdas wrote: »

As far as I know, an interviewer is not supposed to ask your age (unless there was some highly specific reason related to the vacancy). If it's the type of job that could be done by a wide spectrum of ages, then that question is bang out of order (no more than he could ask you about your marital status, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity etc).

He said it was because there was a certain vehicle on site that one needs to be over 25 to be able to drive. I didn't really mind that, but the follow up question bothered me.

Other than that though he seemed like an alright guy, and the place seems like an okay place to work.

Rotting Carrot

Rotting Carrot wrote: »

This has happened before during an interview a while back, in which I declined to answer. I think the result made the interview awkward.

It happened again the other day. I felt comfortable enough with the guy interviewing me and it was quite a bit into the interview. He said it as "Would you mind telling me how old you are?". Because of the way he asked, I decided to answer, and I then joked saying "seeing as you said 'if you don't mind'? He then said he didn't like to offend people, but straight after that he said "married? kids?". With my guard down, I answered. As I do have a thing about this I felt quite bothered by it, as well as the fact that I answered. I made sure this didn't show for the rest of the interview. As it happens the answer probably worked well for me, but that's not the point.

What's the point in this being against the law if they're no way of complaining it. Are the career coaches who say "oh they'll never ask you that because that's illegal" as naive as I think they are? It might sound like I'm complaining about nothing as I've since been offered the position, but when I think back to the moment he said "married? kids?" it makes me feel violated. He didn't even phrase it as a proper sentence. He did not seem like the sort who doesn't know that he's not supposed to be asking these things. I mean, what if it was a woman of child bearing age being asked that question.

Funily enough I think I'm about to be offered an almost identical position elsewhere, and right now it feels like this will be a factor in my decision between the two.

If you don't mind me asking - how old are you? Are you married? Do you have kids?

I am me123

Came across this thread.

I was literally just asked my age at a job interview. Unprofessional much!

Strazdas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121030288#Comment_121030288

You'd be perfectly entitled to ask in return "Is that relevant to the job role?". Clearly, they have a specific reason for asking (which they are not supposed to have).

Atlantic Dawn

If the job involves driving company vehicles it's possible the group insurance policy only covers drivers 25 and over, otherwise can't see any valid need to ask someone's age.

amacca

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/116724901#Comment_116724901

That's the thing imo....why bother asking when you can probably work it out +or- 3yrs from education history on CV or application form in most cases....its pretty much unenforceable imo....

amacca

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/116725935#Comment_116725935

I have never applied for a job that didn't require your education history ..and what's the point of lying when they can just ask for certified copies (which will just have the details on them anyway) or contact the colleges directly (which they do from time to time)....unless you like forging stuff and are good at it?

DownByTheGarden

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121030438#Comment_121030438

Way to get the job though :)

DownByTheGarden

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121030493#Comment_121030493

At my last company between interview one and interview two you would have to give a copy of your degree among other things and if you were missing anything by the time interview two came about you wouldnt be passing that interview. They also used to have a professional outfit get everything available about you on the internet. Linked is is a total gateway to finding out everything there is to know about someone, it just leads to opening up all other details on the web about someone.

And 95% of the time people can tell roughly within 5 years or so what age you are. If someone ever got your age wrong by more than that they were just flattering you. Easier to know 5 or 10 years off when someone says to you "guess my age, i wont be offended." Of course you will be and the person asking knows this. So dont ever think someone actually thought you were much younger than you really are.

I am me123

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121030438#Comment_121030438

Thank you. As well as that I was asked my marital status, and whether or not I had kids!

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121035489#Comment_121035489

I didnt think that was allowed..

Jim2007

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121030288#Comment_121030288

It entirely depends on what context the question came up and the follow up questions. If you were in an interview with me, back in the day (now retired) and you asked about benefits, then age, marital status and if you have children would come up as we paid very significant benefits in such cases - 2.5k child allowance per child p.a., additional holiday entitlements and about 20k per child pa until the completes education should you be incapacitated or die in service, additional holidays entitlements, pension and incapacity pension are all based on age.

I'm very doubtful about the perceived value of these anti discrimination laws versus it's practical usefulness. Over a 40 year period I expect I was involved in recruiting around 150 people, often as a head hunter or external consultant and I can't every remember any decision maker taking on someone they did not want to employ. And as a job seeker, it takes a couple of hours effort to submit a good application, plus say attendance at at least one interview before the employer filters you out because they don't like you face. If you do that a couple of times a week that is lot your time wasted on applying for jobs you'll never get.

I am me123

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121035661#Comment_121035661

Me neither! I was most surprised to be asked such personal questions.

28064212

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121035661#Comment_121035661

It's certainly allowed, it's just really stupid unless the interviewer can 100% explain a legitimate reason for asking. An example legitimate scenario might be where a company wants to capture statistics on interviews in order to ensure that they're not discriminating. This can be the case in some large corporate multinationals, where the company may want to protect itself from either spurious claims, or the possibility that a hiring manager actually is discriminating and they can identify it early.

However, in that case, the interview procedure will be written down, cleared at all levels, and created in consultation with the legal department. The interviewer will be able to stand up in court and produce the documentation that says they're supposed to ask this question, and the company will be able to say "we ask it for this specific X reason, and we ask it equally of every applicant, and we store it here using this data protection policy, and only this Y group of people are allowed access to it".

Another example of a legitimate reason might be that you can be required to by law. I imagine a lot of people in Ireland might be surprised to be asked in an interview what religion their background is. In Northern Ireland, employers are legally required to capture that information

If the interviewer is asked in court why they asked a question like that, and their response is anything like "just asking" or "no reason", they're about to get their ass handed to them