Asked age again during interview!

AndrewJRenko

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

And discriminate where they think it is justified

Such as?

Aceandstuff

Strumms wrote: »

I wouldn’t see the point in asking, unless it was that the candidate was obviously late teens or early to mid 60’s...

This sort of thing can be a problem. I look "obviously early teens" and I'm pushing 30.

I find I'm not taken seriously in interviews and would be more inclined to drop hints that I'm much older than I look, e.g. "I started working at [X] in [YEAR], two years before I went to college."

Pawwed Rig

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Such as?

If they think there is a certain demographic under represented at certain levels then that demographic will be prioritised in a hiring process.

AndrewJRenko

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

If they think there is a certain demographic under represented at certain levels then that demographic will be prioritised in a hiring process.

Where and when did this happen?

Pawwed Rig

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Where and when did this happen?

In the public sector per the posts above

AndrewJRenko

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

In the public sector per the posts above

Can you be more specific please? What organisation and campaign are you talking about?

doc22

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Can you be more specific, please? What organisation and campaign are you talking about?

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

AndrewJRenko

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

Again,can you be more specific please? What organisation and campaign are you talking about?

Making sure that there is a level playing field for all candidates is not "discrimination".

partyguinness

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why would the year of qualification be relevant?

You can put that question to any aspect of a cv. Why would it not be relevant? If someone says they have a BComm...big difference between graduating in say, 1998 or 2016.

Not sure about anyone else but I have never seen a cv without dates etc highlighting year of qualifications and I am pretty sure everyone here has the relevant dates on their cv. It gives a good picture of how experienced a candidate is.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If Mary gets away with what you say she gets away with, it is indeed badly run.

Having Mary here is bad. Tell me something I don't know...it's the whole reason I brought it up. But she has two kids, a husband out of work, she has had health issues and here part time since 2003 so there is a sense of not having the balls the dump her and feeling sorry for her. I want her gone. Ultimately she has turned herself into an irrelevance.

You talk about the civil service...plenty of freeloaders stuck there backed to the hilt by Unions in all sorts of obscure paper shuffling "clerical roles". The sheer number of Local Authorities (public sector) for example up and down the country is a testament to inefficiency. Divided along county lines for no apparent reason. Ireland a small island of 4m+ people does not need 31 city and county councils all duplicating the same work. It's a farce...but I digress.

Pawwed Rig

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Again,can you be more specific please? What organisation and campaign are you talking about?

Making sure that there is a level playing field for all candidates is not "discrimination".

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.

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.