nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Job Interviews stifled by the PC brigade

Balanadan

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?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

bfa1509

Duane Dibbley wrote: »

Isn’t Gender quotas a form of discrimination

But that's positive discrimination

I work for a large multinational and this is what we're indoctrined with over many training sessions (you'd be amazed how many of my colleagues gobble this tripe)

Rubberchikken

employers can still hire whoever they actually want.
they just sont advertise it.

after all what company would willingly hire a woman who is just about to give birth? is that practical?
if they really thought a man would be a better fit, then theyll hire a man.
its not very complicated it just cant be spoken openly.

HappyAsLarE

There’s no way I’m hiring anybody that went to some far flung college that doesn’t exist on google maps, I guess that’s discrimination.

[Deleted User]

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

There’s no way I’m hiring anybody that went to some far flung college that doesn’t exist on google maps, I guess that’s discrimination.

That's not discrimination. I'm really amazed by the fact that you're seemingly in a position to hire people, and you don't seem clear on the basics of what constitutes discrimination.

HappyAsLarE

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

That's not discrimination. I'm really amazed by the fact that you're seemingly in a position to hire people, and you don't seem clear on the basics of what constitutes discrimination.

I doubt I could advertise a position as “no third world graduates”.

[Deleted User]

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

I doubt I could advertise a position as “no third world graduates”.

Obviously, because apart from being discriminatory, that would make you a right cnut, which I'm sure you're not.

You suggested it might be discriminatory to reject a candidate whose college isn't online, even on Google maps. That's clearly not discriminatory.

Do you really hire anyone?

Franz Von Peppercorn II

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

That's not discrimination. I'm really amazed by the fact that you're seemingly in a position to hire people, and you don't seem clear on the basics of what constitutes discrimination.

Well, in a general sense it’s discriminatory.

batgoat

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

I doubt I could advertise a position as “no third world graduates”.

I know plenty of people from poorer countries that have degrees from good universities from all over the world.... So to discriminate based on nationality would be rather foolish..

[Deleted User]

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Well, in a general sense it’s discriminatory.

Not legally though. Anyone who is involved in hiring people knows the basic limits when it comes to discrimination and the law. If their college doesn't exist online, it's OK to reject them. If you reject them because they're from Outer Mongolia, that implies a prejudice, and is obviously discrimination

ILoveYourVibes

Couldn't you just say hire fairly and wisely?

NIMAN

ArnoldJRimmer wrote: »

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

They could get Grammarly.

suicide_circus

who, running their own business, would happily employ Person A who statistically is going to be off sick more and entitled to more paid leave than Person B if they are both equally qualified and likeable?

HappyAsLarE

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Obviously, because apart from being discriminatory, that would make you a right cnut, which I'm sure you're not.

You suggested it might be discriminatory to reject a candidate whose college isn't online, even on Google maps. That's clearly not discriminatory.

Do you really hire anyone?

I was joking about the google maps bit. I discriminate if they have foreign degrees or don’t live in Ireland.

Take the following criteria as important for my field:
Writing technical manuals
Local regulations (and European directives)
Contacts with local suppliers

If you have a foreign degree and/or aren’t working here for at least a year then it’s not worth it to me to bother. That’s a long way of explaining “no recent immigrants need apply”. But I can’t say that.

Mad_maxx

kneemos wrote: »

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

Political correctness is about sounding good, doing something good is an optional afterthought

Twenty Grand

kneemos wrote: »

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

Who's time is being wasted?

If you had to put age, sex, marital status, religion, ethnicity on a CV, there would be plenty of people not getting interviews at all.

Gimme A Pound

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?

No I don't remember the days when recruiters asked people if they were married.

Why the need for such transparency anyway? They can choose who they want from the applicants and don't have to explain why. Nobody can prove whether they have breached the nine grounds for discrimination (which recruiters of course do all the time, understandably - they just don't say it, and all they need to say is the best person for the job got it, which is the truth).

Not everything undesirable to more traditional folk is down to the "PC brigade".

OneArt

jmayo wrote: »

Do you mind me asking where the hell was that ?

It sounds like 1970s Ireland.

Sounds like Germany, actually. Wouldn't be surprised if it were the Netherlands or one of the Scandinavian countries, either. Incredibly progressive in many ways but also weirdly backward in many others.

My ex told me that once upon a time German employers also wanted to see the parents' occupations. I really thought she was having a laugh.

The general advice here is still to include a picture and marital status (to be filled out for tax reasons). I never bother and still get interviews. I think the laws have laxed.

ILoveYourVibes

OneArt wrote: »

Sounds like Germany, actually. Wouldn't be surprised if it were the Netherlands or one of the Scandinavian countries, either. Incredibly progressive in many ways but also weirdly backward in many others.

My ex told me that once upon a time German employers also wanted to see the parents' occupations. I really thought she was having a laugh.

The general advice here is still to include a picture and marital status (to be filled out for tax reasons). I never bother and still get interviews. I think the laws have laxed.

Your background has always been important in Germany.

kyote00

I 'feel' the interview process discriminates against dumb people all the time....:D

Guy:Incognito

LirW wrote: »

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?

You'd be doing well anywhere to hide the fact youre a woman until you actually start the job in fairness.

ILoveYourVibes

kyote00 wrote: »

I 'feel' the interview process discriminates against dumb people all the time....:D

I feel its so unfair on my people!