Job Interviews stifled by the PC brigade

Balanadan · 23-07-2019 09:12AM #1

Do you remember the days when companies could be open and honest about what they were looking for in employees? They might have wanted to specifically hire a female employee to balance their workforce and provide different perspectives and experiences. They might have looked for someone who's married and settled down as they have responsibilities in life and would potentially be more stable, responsible and driven. They might have looked for someone who wasn't married or settled down as they would be potentially be more open to traveling for work.

Why do people nowadays fight against transparency and honesty?

Collie D · 23-07-2019 09:17AM

It’s not PC. The legal definition is discrimination

namloc1980 · 23-07-2019 09:21AM

Balanadan wrote: »

Do you remember the days when companies could be open and honest about what they were looking for in employees? They might have wanted to specifically hire a female employee to balance their workforce and provide different perspectives and experiences. They might have looked for someone who's married and settled down as they have responsibilities in life and would potentially be more stable, responsible and driven. They might have looked for someone who wasn't married or settled down as they would be potentially be more open to traveling for work.

Why do people nowadays fight against transparency and honesty?

You mean why can't employers be discriminatory?

sydthebeat · 23-07-2019 09:24AM

Employers can still very much choose to employ the man over the women, or the older married woman over the younger single woman, etc

They just cannot be overt about it in an interview or advertisement for the job.

kneemos · 23-07-2019 09:26AM

sydthebeat wrote: »

Employers can still very much choose to employ the man over the women, or the older married woman over the younger single woman, etc

They just cannot be overt about it in an interview or advertisement for the job.

Might as well be open about it and not be wasting folks time.

Balanadan · 23-07-2019 09:27AM

namloc1980 wrote: »

You mean why can't employers be discriminatory?

How is it discrimination? Employers can still consider all applications, and good employers will hire the best person for the job regardless. There was someone from a large multinational on the radio the other day talking about how they were predominantly hiring people with life experience, mature students and the like. Is that ageist and discriminatory?

_Brian · 23-07-2019 09:27AM

It’s a non problem, during the process they can select whoever they want as long as they aren’t foolish regarding questions and what’s recorded on paperwork.

ligerdub · 23-07-2019 09:30AM

I was sent a job spec recently with "Female preferred" noted on it, seemingly without any problem.

Needless to say I wasn't interviewed.

LirW · 23-07-2019 09:45AM

Ah yeah that sounds grand on paper but let me tell you: I started my working life in another country where you do have to disclose your personal life, family status, if you have children on your CV including a picture of yourself.

While many people there defend this with to the full let me tell you about some of the issues: You're a single mother or father with children? You'll have it exponentially harder finding work because there are many others that have easier situations.
You're a woman of childbearing age? The odds are higher that a man with the same qualifications will get the job because what if she gets pregnant and takes up to 3 years leave that are legally allowed?
While officially it's against the law to seek information about family planning or childcare arrangements, myself and many other young women I know were asked about that in interviews and if you don't want to disclose this information you have no chance of getting the job.
Up until a few years ago it was even normal for young people to put their parents' names and occupation on the CV.

Same goes for photos, there are studies that people with names unusual for the region in combination with their physical appearance are less successful of getting interview calls.
Unattractive people are less likely to get Interview calls.

Thank you very much but I much prefer on how it is done here.

Riskymove · 23-07-2019 10:20AM

any time you choose one person from a group of candidates you are being "discriminating"

no one has to choose a woman or disabled person or gay person etc.
but you cannot just blanket refuse such people from applying or if you have hired or promoted lots of people and they are all able-bodied, white, straight men then you may face a challenge to your choices....

Riskymove · 23-07-2019 10:22AM

kneemos wrote: »

Might as well be open about it and not be wasting folks time.

you mean we should just allow discriminatory hiring practices?
go back to the 1950s?

jmayo · 23-07-2019 10:25AM

LirW wrote: »

Ah yeah that sounds grand on paper but let me tell you: I started my working life in another country where you do have to disclose your personal life, family status, if you have children on your CV including a picture of yourself.

While many people there defend this with to the full let me tell you about some of the issues: You're a single mother or father with children? You'll have it exponentially harder finding work because there are many others that have easier situations.
You're a woman of childbearing age? The odds are higher that a man with the same qualifications will get the job because what if she gets pregnant and takes up to 3 years leave that are legally allowed?
While officially it's against the law to seek information about family planning or childcare arrangements, myself and many other young women I know were asked about that in interviews and if you don't want to disclose this information you have no chance of getting the job.
Up until a few years ago it was even normal for young people to put their parents' names and occupation on the CV.

Same goes for photos, there are studies that people with names unusual for the region in combination with their physical appearance are less successful of getting interview calls.
Unattractive people are less likely to get Interview calls.

Thank you very much but I much prefer on how it is done here.

Do you mind me asking where the hell was that ?

It sounds like 1970s Ireland.

kikilarue2 · 23-07-2019 10:27AM

When I was in college, a girl called Shama came over on study abroad.

I remember her talking about how hard she found it in the US to get a new job in a bar even though she had loads of experience - no one was even calling her despite a strong CV.

One day, she shortened her first name to Sam on her CV, which meant it could be male or female and decidedly less ethnic. She got a job in no time, as once employers actually met her they could see she was likable, competent and experienced.

Stark · 23-07-2019 10:28AM

Balanadan wrote: »

How is it discrimination? Employers can still consider all applications, and good employers will hire the best person for the job regardless. There was someone from a large multinational on the radio the other day talking about how they were predominantly hiring people with life experience, mature students and the like. Is that ageist and discriminatory?

Yes

If you have two candidates who are equally qualified and you make your decision based on their age, then that is discriminatory.

Age is specifically mentioned as one of the nine grounds where it is illegal to discriminate in Ireland.

Now if the older candidate had more years of relevant experience/education/qualifications whatever then that's a different story.

sbsquarepants · 23-07-2019 10:32AM

namloc1980 wrote: »

You mean why can't employers be discriminatory?

Yes.

If you are going to pay someone good money to do something should you not be free to choose who that person is based on whatever the hell criteria you deem to be important.

Stark · 23-07-2019 10:32AM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Yes.

If you are going to pay someone good money to do something should you not be free to choose who that person is based on whatever the hell criteria you deem to be important.

As long is it's not one of the nine grounds https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/equality_in_work/equality_in_the_workplace.html

spakman · 23-07-2019 10:34AM

namloc1980 wrote: »

Balanadan wrote: »

Do you remember the days when companies could be open and honest about what they were looking for in employees? They might have wanted to specifically hire a female employee to balance their workforce and provide different perspectives and experiences. They might have looked for someone who's married and settled down as they have responsibilities in life and would potentially be more stable, responsible and driven. They might have looked for someone who wasn't married or settled down as they would be potentially be more open to traveling for work.

Why do people nowadays fight against transparency and honesty?

You mean why can't employers be discriminatory?

Sure you have to discriminate on some criteria, be it intelligence, experience, communication skills etc

kikilarue2 · 23-07-2019 10:37AM

spakman wrote: »

Sure you have to discriminate on some criteria, be it intelligence, experience, communication skills etc

Yes, and that's why those criteria are not protected while sex, religion etc are.

sbsquarepants · 23-07-2019 10:38AM

Stark wrote: »

As long is it's not one of the nine grounds https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/equality_in_work/equality_in_the_workplace.html

All sounds great and inclusive and whatnot, but in reality it's largely bollox.

If i'm hiring someone to guard my copper cables and Paddy the sham rocks up for an interview, he's not getting the job end of story.

Similarly if i'm hiring a nightclub bouncer and someone comes in in a wheelchair, i don't think so. Or a 9 stone 5 foot woman.

You could sit here all day giving examples of "illegal discrimination" which make perfect real world sense. In reality all that happens is they are turned down and told it's for some other reason to avoid the lawsuit.

Edgware · 23-07-2019 11:59AM

Stark wrote: »

As long is it's not one of the nine grounds https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/equality_in_work/equality_in_the_workplace.html

They should add " wearing white socks" to that list

the.red.baron · 23-07-2019 06:09PM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

All sounds great and inclusive and whatnot, but in reality it's largely bollox.

If i'm hiring someone to guard my copper cables and Paddy the sham rocks up for an interview, he's not getting the job end of story.

Similarly if i'm hiring a nightclub bouncer and someone comes in in a wheelchair, i don't think so. Or a 9 stone 5 foot woman.

You could sit here all day giving examples of "illegal discrimination" which make perfect real world sense. In reality all that happens is they are turned down and told it's for some other reason to avoid the lawsuit.

They are fine, last two examples aren't suitable for the job, it's not discrimination

like hiring someone with no legs as a shoe model

The first one, could be borderline, depending who the sham is

but if the woman was a well built 6 foot tall woman, then would you hire her?

Its hardly that complex

Arghus · 23-07-2019 06:13PM

OP is on a hot take rampage.

branie2 · 23-07-2019 06:14PM

Travellers spring to mind

Richard Hillman · 23-07-2019 06:14PM

I was on publicjobs.ie last week and they asked in a questionaire what my sexual orientation was. I entered "rather not say" because entering that I am straight could possibly harm my chances. I didn't think this was legal.

bfa1509 · 23-07-2019 06:42PM

Collie D wrote: »

It’s not PC. The legal definition is discrimination

This pretty much makes every employer discriminatory as I would be shocked if the things mentioned in the OP weren't considered, all be it covertly.

bfa1509 · 23-07-2019 06:44PM

Edgware wrote: »

They should add " wearing white socks" to that list

Not as bad as no socks! You'd be amazed! Although admittedly it has been only a few isolated cases with interns thankfully and I usually let them off as they may just not be able to afford them.

sydthebeat · 23-07-2019 09:15PM

bfa1509 wrote: »

This pretty much makes every employer discriminatory as I would be shocked if the things mentioned in the OP weren't considered, all be it covertly.

Of course they are considered, the employer ultimately is the one who makes the decision.

However obviously any advertising of the job, questions during the interview or feedback after, cannot contain any suggestion of discrimination.

23-07-2019 09:20PM

branie2 wrote: »

Travellers spring to mind

Yeah, but lets not forget to get ruddy-faced and demand "why don't they just get a job?"

Duane Dibbley · 23-07-2019 09:23PM

Isn’t Gender quotas a form of discrimination

Capt'n Midnight · 23-07-2019 09:25PM

You can still discard half the CVs at random.

Even though it discriminates against unlucky people.

ArnoldJRimmer · 23-07-2019 09:41PM

My boss was on a HR training course a few weeks ago and was told that they can't discard a CV based on spelling mistakes or bad grammar as its discriminatory

Now I completely understand that people may have dyslexia, or English may not be their first language, and it should not prohibit them from interviewing. However, if someone is not bothered to have their CV proof read, or even just use the spell check function within Word before applying for a job, then I don't think they deserve an interview

Job Interviews stifled by the PC brigade

Comments