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

Asked age again during interview!

Rotting Carrot

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

ednwireland

partyguinness wrote: »

And yeah, we cannot find anyone.

not surprised sounds toxic (dont get me wrong if people ring me on a weekend and its an emergency or im working fine but dont make a habit of it !)
im normally out at 6pm after a 9am start they dont pay me enough to sit there for 12 hours.

anyway back to the point ii never know you weren't supposed to ask peoples age, i wonder how many people who are interviewing have had any formal guidance, our company has moved form small owner to large sme to multinational through acquisitions in the last 12 months and its a very different process for everything now than it was.

Rotting Carrot

Esse85 wrote: »

What are you trying to say here?

I thought I made myself clear. Generally speaking, the person being interviewed needs the company more than the company needs them. But you're right, a good candidate is more likely to spot a red flag. But I don't think it's too common that the interviewer will deliberately test the person just to see if the person won't stand for their sh1t and then reveal to them "oh don't worry, that was only a test... and you passed"!

[Deleted User]

partyguinness wrote: »

I will put my head above the parapet here and say that we do not entertain CVs from woman for senior roles. Junior or admin roles, yes. We are looking for a candidate for a specific role at the moment.

We seem to get quite a few cvs from woman who want part time work so they can juggle childcare e.g. want to leave at 2.30pm/3pm etc or say 2-3 days a week. No chance. It is not a part time role but yet they are still blasting in cvs- which leads us to think that they do not appreciate the task at hand and are just blindly emailing off cvs to everyone and anyone.

The rest of us are fully committed 10-12 hours a day 5-6-7 days a week. It will only breed resentment if the rest of us are here until 7-8pm most nights running the show and 'she' is fecking off at 3pm. Guaranteed there will be late mornings because of the school run delays, school holidays, and all manner of morning text messages to say little Johnny has a high temperature and she can't make it in. Then everyone else has to pick up the slack. I have seen it countless times before- it just pisses everyone else off. Funnily enough it tends to be other women that are the most vocal. The men tend to stay well clear for fear of being branded sexist etc etc.

Not pc and a bit sad really but the reality is that this is a consideration for small employers. Grand if you are with Apple or Dell but for small employers is just not cost effective. And yes, we also have our own children. Call us horrible human beings all you want.

Putting my head above the water and saying this is all made up. Don't believe a word of it. Surprised so many fell for it.

The OP is getting good responses from others though.

Wildly Boaring

partyguinness wrote: »

If I had a CV in front of me with no LC then I will assume that you do not have a LC.

My CV would not include my LC.
I've a degree and chartered in my profession.
Putting in LC seems very civil/public service to me.
Pointless really

partyguinness

hots wrote: »

There's a big difference between not offering shorter working weeks or flexitime and writing off all female applicants at the CV stage, no wonder you can't find anyone! :rolleyes:

I am afraid the role is not compatible with shorter working weeks or flexitime. But yet we still get cvs from women wanting shorter working weeks and flexitime so they can juggle childcare.

If we had a cv from a man who wanted to juggle childcare with flexitime/shorter week it would be the exact same response.

hots wrote: »

If someone comes to you who's qualified and can demonstrate the experience needed to perform at your management level it's pretty obvious they're not clocking off at 3 (or if they are they're super human workers anyway).

They will expressly state in the covering letter or the Recruitment Agent will say it in their covering note that they wish to finish at 2.30/3.00pm. That is a not compatible with the role and essentially defeats the entire purpose. If we want someone just to clock in and clock out at 2.30/3pm 3-4 days a week- no problem. We already have 2 women here on 3 days a week so they can manage childcare (junior/admin roles).

As I said, they are probably just emailing off cvs to everyone hoping something will stick...better suited to a larger employer who has the resources to handle flexitime.

secondrowgal

partyguinness wrote: »

I will put my head above the parapet here and say that we do not entertain CVs from woman for senior roles. Junior or admin roles, yes. We are looking for a candidate for a specific role at the moment.

We seem to get quite a few cvs from woman who want part time work so they can juggle childcare e.g. want to leave at 2.30pm/3pm etc or say 2-3 days a week. No chance. It is not a part time role but yet they are still blasting in cvs- which leads us to think that they do not appreciate the task at hand and are just blindly emailing off cvs to everyone and anyone.

The rest of us are fully committed 10-12 hours a day 5-6-7 days a week. It will only breed resentment if the rest of us are here until 7-8pm most nights running the show and 'she' is fecking off at 3pm. Guaranteed there will be late mornings because of the school run delays, school holidays, and all manner of morning text messages to say little Johnny has a high temperature and she can't make it in. Then everyone else has to pick up the slack. I have seen it countless times before- it just pisses everyone else off. Funnily enough it tends to be other women that are the most vocal. The men tend to stay well clear for fear of being branded sexist etc etc.

Not pc and a bit sad really but the reality is that this is a consideration for small employers. Grand if you are with Apple or Dell but for small employers is just not cost effective. And yes, we also have our own children. Call us horrible human beings all you want.

Complete opposite experience here.

Have been in my area for more than 30 years and it's predominantly female, STEM by the way. Have also run my own small business for 20 years, again predominately female staff as that's just the area. More than 50% of my staff are on part-time/flexible hours, and I can honestly say (and have metrics to prove it) that their productivity is above all the full-time staff. And they pay back the company's flexibility with dedication and loyalty. I don't allow or encourage out of hours working and the only person to ever have worked weekends in all that time is me.

So, it all depends on the company and the staff and it should always be the right person for the team and the role (in that order IMO), and that's the way to keep everything running smoothly with low staff turnover, in my experience.

[Deleted User]

College yes, work experience yes. Leaving cert, if you want, but it doesn't matter unless it's for a non skilled job perhaps, or a very junior role.

shesty

partyguinness wrote: »

I am afraid the role is not compatible with shorter working weeks or flexitime. But yet we still get cvs from women wanting shorter working weeks and flexitime so they can juggle childcare.

If we had a cv from a man who wanted to juggle childcare with flexitime/shorter week it would be the exact same response.

They will expressly state in the covering letter or the Recruitment Agent will say it in their covering note that they wish to finish at 2.30/3.00pm. That is a not compatible with the role and essentially defeats the entire purpose. If we want someone just to clock in and clock out at 2.30/3pm 3-4 days a week- no problem. We already have 2 women here on 3 days a week so they can manage childcare (junior/admin roles).

As I said, they are probably just emailing off cvs to everyone hoping something will stick...better suited to a larger employer who has the resources to handle flexitime.

Or maybe they are hoping to get a job with a good employer who might give them part time hours for a few years and then let them move to full time after that....

I actually think you are the one with the problem.10-12 hour days??you probably need to have a look at your work/life balance there.How many of the people in your firm with young kids have a partner at home not working to facilitate their other half's 10-12 hour days??I wonder how many of those at home might like to get out and work again but can't.Or how many are on reduced hours at another firm, where their value can be seen and accepted, even if they walk off at 2.30/3pm - to accommodate those in your firm?

Your attitude speaks volumes about your company to be honest.

partyguinness

Wildly Boaring wrote: »

My CV would not include my LC.
I've a degree and chartered in my profession.
Putting in LC seems very civil/public service to me.
Pointless really

I agree. My cv would just have the year and school. I am not talking about listing out your results...who gives a crap about your D2 in pass French. But I would at least expect to see at a minimum say:

"Education
- 1998 Leaving Certificate- St ABC, ABCTown
- 2002 UCD BA

etc etc"

That is a one liner. Also helpful to know where that person may be from. I have to admit I have never seen a cv that did not list year of LC. We are not even that interested in the third level- purely the professional qualifications post third level and work experience. Probably because you are not likely to have the professional qualifications with the specific third level degree in the first place and it follows that you did well in your LC.

partyguinness

shesty wrote: »

Or maybe they are hoping to get a job with a good employer who might give them part time hours for a few years and then let them move to full time after that....

As I said they are better off in a larger firm that have the resources and man power to offer more flexible arrangements.

shesty wrote: »

I actually think you are the one with the problem.10-12 hour days??you probably need to have a look at your work/life balance there.How many of the people in your firm with young kids have a partner at home not working to facilitate their other half's 10-12 hour days??I wonder how many of those at home might like to get out and work again but can't.Or how many are on reduced hours at another firm, where their value can be seen and accepted, even if they walk off at 2.30/3pm - to accommodate those in your firm?

Your attitude speaks volumes about your company to be honest.

Tell me something I don't know..

There are no employees here working 10-12 hours a day. It is the people running the place.

"attitude" do you think we like working 10-12 hours a day or 7 days a week? Nobody lies on their deathbed wishing they spent more time at the office. It is very normal in my line of work unfortunately.

Staff get 26 days holiday every year. Myself and another business partner did not take a single week's holiday last year between us. I had 2 days off in 2020 and even those days were spent in an airport.

When C19 hit the fan last March and we furloughed all the staff we just said to ourselves that our goal now is to make sure the staff have a job to come back to. We are both in here every single day 8.30 to 5.30. Staff paid in full rather than the 80% the Gov was offering and no redundancies and all brought back, Christmas bonus and they will get a pay rise next month. I will actually take a heavy pay cut (I am bracing for a 40% cut) due to a dip in profits but at least there is a profit.

We have had staff here since 1991, 2003 and 2011 (all women who have had children). We are a good employer and staff stay with us and we bend over backwards to keep them. Good employees are very hard to find and keep.

How many employees reading this would accept 2 days off in the entire year, a 60-70 hours week and then topped off with a 40% pay cut? Certainly not looking for sympathy as everyone has a choice but it is a reality. There are far worse positions to be in.

Sure, you can sneer at our "attitude" but another way to look at it is that our hard work and diligence is why we are able to keep our employees in a job. Many other employers in the same boat.

[Deleted User]

Sounds like a chaotic place to work. Incredibly non efficient.

Strumms

partyguinness wrote: »

I will put my head above the parapet here and say that we do not entertain CVs from woman for senior roles. Junior or admin roles, yes. We are looking for a candidate for a specific role at the moment.

We seem to get quite a few cvs from woman who want part time work so they can juggle childcare e.g. want to leave at 2.30pm/3pm etc or say 2-3 days a week. No chance. It is not a part time role but yet they are still blasting in cvs- which leads us to think that they do not appreciate the task at hand and are just blindly emailing off cvs to everyone and anyone.

The rest of us are fully committed 10-12 hours a day 5-6-7 days a week. It will only breed resentment if the rest of us are here until 7-8pm most nights running the show and 'she' is fecking off at 3pm. Guaranteed there will be late mornings because of the school run delays, school holidays, and all manner of morning text messages to say little Johnny has a high temperature and she can't make it in. Then everyone else has to pick up the slack. I have seen it countless times before- it just pisses everyone else off. Funnily enough it tends to be other women that are the most vocal. The men tend to stay well clear for fear of being branded sexist etc etc.

Not pc and a bit sad really but the reality is that this is a consideration for small employers. Grand if you are with Apple or Dell but for small employers is just not cost effective. And yes, we also have our own children. Call us horrible human beings all you want.

That’s a bit mad, you’d want to be a bit soft in the skull to send in CVs applying for a full time job but only willing to work part time.

CV would find its way in the direction of the bin.

I witnessed the HIGKB (hey, I got kids brigade) in full flight in a previous job... not one fûck did any of them give about the business, customers, colleagues or whatever... they expected their colleagues, managers and vendors to dance attendance on every whim of theirs, swop shifts at a moments notice, them to miss shifts and hours because of xyz...

crossman47

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Of course it can. It is not relevant to the job I am applying for so better to put relevant experience in rather than a couple of years stacking shelves in Superquinn or other. Also the LC is not relevant as it is never one of the criteria for the jobs I seek. They all ask for a certain level 9 qualification which I have. What I got in Irish when I was 18 is, again, irrelevant. My CV is to the point and reflects the position I am applying for.
Unless your CV is like a diary with a list of dates then I don't see how they can probe things that they don't know about.
Noone wants a 4 page CV that goes into excruciating detail about the times you served breakfast in a B&B or the deli counter you worked at one summer in Boston.

Nobody wants excruciating detail but they do want work history. Serving on a deli counter can show you can deal with people. I have done interviewing and, if there was an obvious gap, I would ask what you did for, say, your five years after college. Every work experience is relevant - for good or bad.

partyguinness

QUOTE=6;116729067]Sounds like a chaotic place to work. Incredibly non efficient.[/QUOTE]

Inefficient absolutely yes but not chaotic. It was far worse when I joined in 2014- Jesus Christ don't get me started. Some of the older staff are very inefficienct. They do not know any better and then we are too preoccupied with the overall running of the place to really deal with it head on. Some of the older staff are scaling back with a view to retirement so that will help with introducing new practices but then we have the problem of recruitment.

We are always looking for more efficient ways. It is a vicious circle. We know where efficiencies need to be made but we can't find the time or staff to do it. In this climate it is just a case of surviving.

johnmcdnl

partyguinness wrote: »

Well, there is more to it than that. The employees just do their 9-5 shift. It is management and us running the firm that will be putting in the longer hours- we are essentially self employed without the luxury of clocking off at 5pm Monday to Friday.

And yeah, we cannot find anyone.

I wonder why ye can't find anyone to jump in and do huge amounts of overtime 5-6 days a week on a regular basis.

Maybe if ye cut your predjuices and hired some of those women on a 20-30 hour week instead of binning their CVs it'll take that extra bit of load off. If everyone knows the new person is on a shorter hours contract well then no one is expecting them to be there until all hours in the first place so where or why would there be resentment. But perhaps your reason is more that you don't want your staff who do work stupid long hours getting notions that perhaps they too should consider going home at 5pm or actually trying it balance work and life.

Have you considered what you and your managers constantly working all this overtime does to staff moral? Maybe we're all different but I know that I personally would feel guilt tripped into working a little longer if my manager was constantly working overtime. Now I'm suddenly working overtime for no reason and no benefit to myself other than because I don't want my manager thinking I'm lazy for going home on time. That for me is far more discouraging and would make me far more resentful than someone popping out to collect a sick kid. But that's maybe just me, and I'm alone with this opinion. Just food for thought.

partyguinness

Strumms wrote: »

That’s a bit mad, you’d want to be a bit soft in the skull to send in CVs applying for a full time job but only willing to work part time.

CV would find its way in the direction of the bin.

I witnessed the HIGKB (hey, I got kids brigade) in full flight in a previous job... not one fûck did any of them give about the business, customers, colleagues or whatever... they expected their colleagues, managers and vendors to dance attendance on every whim of theirs, swop shifts at a moments notice, them to miss shifts and hours because of xyz...

We have a particularly member of staff who has two kids (6 and 11) and she completely pulls the piss. She turns up (let' s call her Mary) for a few hours a week because of kid related issues. She must have the sickest kids in the world. Even when she does bother to show up she never shuts up about her kids....the other women she works with hate her.

In fact it has been a bone of friction between us running the place. One of the lads is too soft and even in the face of the most blatant cast iron evidence that she does absolutlely eff all he doesnt want to hear it.

Even her secretary wanted to leave last year and she specifically cited the Mary's lack of attendance and how she dumps everything on her. But still he ignores it. "Mary" claims to be working from home...bull effing ****...she never takes home files, arrives with no files and I checked her Teamviewer log and nothing for two whole weeks at one stage. Never mind the rubbish billing. We have had blazing rows over her.

Despite all of this...he just won't hear of it...she must have some right dirt on him is the only explanation.

PoisonIvyBelle

nuckeythompson wrote: »

It is a big thing in recruitment, I had clients in the past who blatantly refused to consider female clients due to maternity leave etc.
I also had a candidate once and while prepping her I did suggest she remove the giant engagement rock on her finger. A few days pass and pulled in by my manager who was pretty cool about it. She had lodged a complaint about me suggesting she remove the ring. She was not be forward for any more positions

Yeah recruitment is ruthless. I did a brief stint in it many years ago and firstly, the actual company I worked for only wanted women employess wearing heels and you HAD to wear makeup. Seriously, I was pulled in for wearing flat shoes on one occasion. I look like fcuking Bambi walking in heels so god knows why they thought that was the better presentable option for me. And I went in one time with very minimal makeup (a bit of concealer) and was told it wasn't acceptable and was told to at least put on a lipstick before meeting clients that day. The women working there were always dolled up to the nines which is fine except it was an actual job requirement.

Anyone with visible tattoos was ruled out right away (ironic given how many I have now). I interviewed an excellent guy with a tongue piercing and they wanted to take him out of the running for it, I pushed on his behalf but I actually had to ask him to take it out for them to keep working with him. To be fair to him, he could see a visible piercing I had to take out daily to work there so he knew I wasn't happy to have to ask him, and he did take it out.

partyguinness

PoisonIvyBelle wrote: »

Yeah recruitment is ruthless. I did a brief stint in it many years ago and firstly, the actual company I worked for only wanted women employess wearing heels and you HAD to wear makeup. Seriously, I was pulled in for wearing flat shoes on one occasion. I look like fcuking Bambi walking in heels so god knows why they thought that was the better presentable option for me. And I went in one time with very minimal makeup (a bit of concealer) and was told it wasn't acceptable and was told to at least put on a lipstick before meeting clients that day. The women working there were always dolled up to the nines which is fine except it was an actual job requirement.

Anyone with visible tattoos was ruled out right away (ironic given how many I have now). I interviewed an excellent guy with a tongue piercing and they wanted to take him out of the running for it, I pushed on his behalf but I actually had to ask him to take it out for them to keep working with him.

That sounds like a friend of my wife who worked in a car showroom for a well known high end German car manufacturer.

She said they had cameras everywhere keeping on eye on the staff and you always had to look busy, act in a certain manner, and do x, y and z in a certain manner. Needless to say the staff all looked like runway models.

It sounded horrendous.

nuckeythompson

For what its worth in my experience I have found that when I have been asked intrusive questions such as marital status etc ( Im male by the way) in the past I have found these the more difficult to work with so when asked nowadays thats a red flag to me - move the F on

hots

partyguinness wrote: »

I am afraid the role is not compatible with shorter working weeks or flexitime. But yet we still get cvs from women wanting shorter working weeks and flexitime so they can juggle childcare.

If we had a cv from a man who wanted to juggle childcare with flexitime/shorter week it would be the exact same response.

They will expressly state in the covering letter or the Recruitment Agent will say it in their covering note that they wish to finish at 2.30/3.00pm. That is a not compatible with the role and essentially defeats the entire purpose. If we want someone just to clock in and clock out at 2.30/3pm 3-4 days a week- no problem. We already have 2 women here on 3 days a week so they can manage childcare (junior/admin roles).

As I said, they are probably just emailing off cvs to everyone hoping something will stick...better suited to a larger employer who has the resources to handle flexitime.

Oh lashing those sorts of sh/te applications straight in the bin is grand, no problem with that, it's so easy to apply for jobs now people chuck in any old stuff.

Earlier you said you don't consider women for mgmt positions at all though, that's stupid.

hots

nuckeythompson wrote: »

For what its worth in my experience I have found that when I have been asked intrusive questions such as marital status etc ( Im male by the way) in the past I have found these the more difficult to work with so when asked nowadays thats a red flag to me - move the F on

yeah even if it's not a huge red flag it shows it's someone who hasn't bothered to become a competent interviewer, at the very least a shoddy first impression.

Pawwed Rig

crossman47 wrote: »

Nobody wants excruciating detail but they do want work history. Serving on a deli counter can show you can deal with people. I have done interviewing and, if there was an obvious gap, I would ask what you did for, say, your five years after college. Every work experience is relevant - for good or bad.

We will agree to disagree

hots

crossman47 wrote: »

Nobody wants excruciating detail but they do want work history. Serving on a deli counter can show you can deal with people. I have done interviewing and, if there was an obvious gap, I would ask what you did for, say, your five years after college. Every work experience is relevant - for good or bad.

Depends on the stage of your career surely? 20 years deep I'm not including my college work experience, fresh out of college and I'm including anything and everything I can call "experience". I'd find it strange to review someone really senior's CV with anything irrelevant to their story (ie worked in the fields for a year after college is a waste of space on a CV when you've got 20 years of cool stuff to be talking about)

Augme

partyguinness wrote: »

We have a particularly member of staff who has two kids (6 and 11) and she completely pulls the piss. She turns up (let' s call her Mary) for a few hours a week because of kid related issues. She must have the sickest kids in the world. Even when she does bother to show up she never shuts up about her kids....the other women she works with hate her.

In fact it has been a bone of friction between us running the place. One of the lads is too soft and even in the face of the most blatant cast iron evidence that she does absolutlely eff all he doesnt want to hear it.

Even her secretary wanted to leave last year and she specifically cited the Mary's lack of attendance and how she dumps everything on her. But still he ignores it. "Mary" claims to be working from home...bull effing ****...she never takes home files, arrives with no files and I checked her Teamviewer log and nothing for two whole weeks at one stage. Never mind the rubbish billing. We have had blazing rows over her.

Despite all of this...he just won't hear of it...she must have some right dirt on him is the only explanation.

Sounds like mary is the only smart one in the organisation! Seems she has just realised that breaking your back working for an organisation that is managed really badly just isn't a very sensible thing to do.

Organisations are badly run because they are allowed to be badly run. If everyone took Mary's attitude things then would actually change and you might get some competent management in place.

partyguinness

Augme wrote: »

Sounds like mary is the only smart one in the organisation! Seems she has just realised that breaking your back working for an organisation that is managed really badly just isn't a very sensible thing to do.

Organisations are badly run because they are allowed to be badly run. If everyone took Mary's attitude things then would actually change and you might get some competent management in place.

Mary has made herself an irrelevance and is going to find herself unemployed soon enough. Mary's attitude? What..doing eff all and dispised by her workmates. Fine if that floats your boat.

You seem to equate very busy with "badly run". Strange.

[Deleted User]

Wildly Boaring wrote: »

My CV would not include my LC.
I've a degree and chartered in my profession.
Putting in LC seems very civil/public service to me.
Pointless really

Civil/public service generally does recruitment right, far better than the various examples presented on this thread. You won't get asked about your age or your marriage or your children.

partyguinness wrote: »

I agree. My cv would just have the year and school. I am not talking about listing out your results...who gives a crap about your D2 in pass French. But I would at least expect to see at a minimum say:

"Education
- 1998 Leaving Certificate- St ABC, ABCTown
- 2002 UCD BA

Why would the year of qualification be relevant?

partyguinness wrote: »

Mary has made herself an irrelevance and is going to find herself unemployed soon enough. Mary's attitude? What..doing eff all and dispised by her workmates. Fine if that floats your boat.

You seem to equate very busy with "badly run". Strange.

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

OMM 0000

The interviewer already knows if you're old, so let's not freak out about bit this.

But asking about marriage and kids really is a problem, as I would interpret this as they want to hire a single person as there won't be home life causing people to leave at 6.

Augme

partyguinness wrote: »

Mary has made herself an irrelevance and is going to find herself unemployed soon enough. Mary's attitude? What..doing eff all and dispised by her workmates. Fine if that floats your boat.

You seem to equate very busy with "badly run". Strange.

No, I'd equate the following with badly run

- can't implement change until people retire
- staff can do **** all and get away with it
- senior management have to work 12 hour days and 5-7 days a week and can't take holidays.

Mrs OBumble

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Civil/public service generally does recruitment right, far better than the various examples presented on this thread. You won't get asked about your age or your marriage or your children.

Why would the year of qualification be relevant?

And they are one of the few which genuinely don't discriminate based on age.

But they do ask for the year of your leaving cert, and a full no gaps employment history.

Pawwed Rig

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

And they are one of the few which genuinely don't discriminate based on age.

But they do ask for the year of your leaving cert, and a full no gaps employment history.

And discriminate where they think it is justified