Insulted at an Interview

skallywag

I'm not saying anything at all concerning legality, I'm merely stating that it's very easy (to the point of being obvious) to tell someone's age without having to ask them directly.

What the recruiter then does with this information is another matter. It's possible to own a gun without shooting people.

Gerry T

Calina wrote:

It is illegal to filter on age.

Well I for one want late 50's women to be employed as firemen, or is it fireperson.

givyjoe

Gerry T wrote: »

Well I for one want late 50's women to be employed as firemen, or is it fireperson.

Silly example. Retirement age is 55! Plus I'm pretty sure you can make exceptions and not hire due to age for reasonable, justifiable reasons. E.g. over 25 for insurance.

givyjoe

Gerry T wrote: »

The interviewer didn't want to know the OPs age. They wanted to know about their career and the perceived lack of advancement. This legal nonsense is clouding the question, which the OP couldn't answer, possibly explaining the lack of progress.
people shouldn't be so quick to jump on the "I'm going to sue" bandwagon, in work you will have to deal with far harder questions, if you can't handle this one I give up.

Mate, go back and read the first post will you. For the love of god, the interviewer specifically asked the OP's age.. then said they were 'always concerned by people of such age who hadn't made it yet'. As for legal nonsense, at this point it's fairly clear you have literally no knowledge on the matter, you are literally spouting inaccurate nonsense, post after post.

I've made multiple posts, specifically outlining precisely how this company has potentially opened themselves up to legal action, regardless of whether you think it's a bandwagon or not.

If you can't get your head around some basic legal concepts, seemingly directly related to the job you do.. perhaps you should give up and move into a different role. You're a legal time-bomb for your employer waiting to go off.

davo10

givyjoe wrote: »

Mate, go back and read the first post will you. For the love of god, the interviewer specifically asked the OP's age.. then said they were 'always concerned by people of such age who hadn't made it yet'. As for legal nonsense, at this point it's fairly clear you have literally no knowledge on the matter, you are literally spouting inaccurate nonsense, post after post.

I've made multiple posts, specifically outlining precisely how this company has potentially opened themselves up to legal action, regardless of whether you think it's a bandwagon or not.

If you can't get your head around some basic legal concepts, seemingly directly related to the job you do.. perhaps you should give up and move into a different role. You're a legal time-bomb for your employer waiting to go off.

I think what Gerry T is saying is that the interviewer wasn't necessarily concerned about age, more about the lack of career progression for someone of that age. If the ops career had progressed more, age would not be an issue. The time period from qualification to interview is being used to quantify ability, which lets be honest, typically leads to advancement.

I don't wish to defend the interviewer, the question was extremely badly put and it's inference leaves the company open to an accusation of discrimination. But at the same time, it was a valid question, badly put. The interviewer should have come straight out and said, "how come you weren't promoted, is it because of lack of ability or are their other reasons?"

givyjoe

davo10 wrote: »

I think what Gerry T is saying is that the interviewer wasn't necessarily concerned about age, more about the lack of career progression for someone of that age. If the ops career had progressed more, age would not be an issue. The time period from qualification to interview is being used to quantify ability, which lets be honest, typically leads to advancement.

I don't wish to defend the interviewer, the question was extremely badly put and it's inference leaves the company open to an accusation of discrimination. But at the same time, it was a valid question, badly put. The interviewer should have come straight out and said, "how come you weren't promoted, is it because of lack of ability or are their other reasons?"

My point is, it doesn't matter if they intended to ask a valid question. The interviewer left their company open to the OP taking a case for discrimination.

Regardless of the point above, it was not a question, merely a statement of concern in follow up to asking the OP's age.

Gerry T

givyjoe wrote:

Mate, go back and read the first post will you. For the love of god, the interviewer specifically asked the OP's age.. then said they were 'always concerned by people of such age who hadn't made it yet'. As for legal nonsense, at this point it's fairly clear you have literally no knowledge on the matter, you are literally spouting inaccurate nonsense, post after post.

I've always said asking someone's age is something I wouldn't do. Also, technically you can ask a candidate their age, no law against that. The danger is it implies you may discriminate.
So wheres the inaccurate nonsense in that?
My take on "not making it" is not saying that your too old for the position. To me that's saying why haven't you been promoted before now.
There's the letter of the law and the spirit of the law, in my opinion the interviewer was asking about the OPs seemingly lack of progress. Yes you could pull up the interviewer on the poor choice of words, but I don't see how you think the interviewer is going to rule out the OP because of age.
Put it this way, if the OP had progressed in her career with glowing reports she could have got that job. The barrier was stagnation not age.

davo10

givyjoe wrote: »

My point is, it doesn't matter if they intended to ask a valid question. The interviewer left their company open to the OP taking a case for discrimination.

Regardless of the point above, it was not a question, merely a statement of concern in follow up to asking the OP's age.

I don't think any single poster has argued the first point with you. Yes the question was badly put and could be an expensive mistake for the employer.

Yes it was a statement of concern, that the op lacks ability or ambition, as evidenced by the lack of advancement. It gave the op the opportunity to address this concern, twice, but the op let it pass by.

givyjoe

Gerry T wrote: »

I've always said asking someone's age is something I wouldn't do. Also, technically you can ask a candidate their age, no law against that. The danger is it implies you may discriminate.
So wheres the inaccurate nonsense in that?
My take on "not making it" is not saying that your too old for the position. To me that's saying why haven't you been promoted before now.
There's the letter of the law and the spirit of the law, in my opinion the interviewer was asking about the OPs seemingly lack of progress. Yes you could pull up the interviewer on the poor choice of words, but I don't see how you think the interviewer is going to rule out the OP because of age.
Put it this way, if the OP had progressed in her career with glowing reports she could have got that job. The barrier was stagnation not age.

Literally none of this matters. They interviewer made a balls of whatever question they intended to ask, which has quite simply left them open to a discrimination case. It simply does not matter what the intention was. I didn't say you couldn't ask a candidates age, I even said earlier there can be justifiable reasons for doing it, however it most cases it's incredibly stupid and akin to asking.. 'have you any kids', 'are you pregnant' , 'are you gay'.. because it should have literally no bearing on the employers decision to hire someone.

Gerry T

givyjoe wrote:

Silly example. Retirement age is 55! Plus I'm pretty sure you can make exceptions and not hire due to age for reasonable, justifiable reasons. E.g. over 25 for insurance.

Is it silly, it was an example. The facts are, (I can't link on ph but) Irish times Oct 9 2017, of the approx 2000 fire fighters in IRL only 27 are women. Most are from Dublin.
So discrimination is no problem, but say the word "age" and let's get the Lynch mob.

server down

Gerry T wrote: »

I've always said asking someone's age is something I wouldn't do. Also, technically you can ask a candidate their age, no law against that. The danger is it implies you may discriminate.
So wheres the inaccurate nonsense in that?
My take on "not making it" is not saying that your too old for the position. To me that's saying why haven't you been promoted before now.

That’s a mere semantic difference anyway. If you expect all nurses to be head nurses by 35, and you ask an interviewee applying for a nursing position why she isn’t a head nurse yet, you would have expected her to be at her age - it’s saying that you prefer younger candidates for the nursing role and older candidates for the head nursing role.

There's the letter of the law and the spirit of the law, in my opinion the interviewer was asking about the OPs seemingly lack of progress. Yes you could pull up the interviewer on the poor choice of words, but I don't see how you think the interviewer is going to rule out the OP because of age.

I don’t see how you could read the op and think anything else. She is violation of the letter and spirit of the law.

Put it this way, if the OP had progressed in her career with glowing reports she could have got that job. The barrier was stagnation not age.

If she had progressed she wouldn’t be going for the same job.

givyjoe

Gerry T wrote: »

Is it silly, it was an example. The facts are, (I can't link on ph but) Irish times Oct 9 2017, of the approx 2000 fire fighters in IRL only 27 are women. Most are from Dublin.
So discrimination is no problem, but say the word "age" and let's get the Lynch mob.

Eh, is that what you intended to say? It doesn't make much sense. Regardless of the low figure of women in there, there is of course a possibility of discrimination against women in a massively male dominated force at all levels. Have you anything relevant to add on whether there is or is not discrimination there, e.g. someone's interview experience?

I don't see what your example has to do with anything in this thread? The OP has been potentially discriminated against on the grounds of age. You seem to want to keep disputing this point, despite others with more knowledge on the subject pointing out that this is wrong. Hardly a lynch mob.

Mr. Incognito

The interviewer asked me my age.

That's unlawful.

She then said " I am always concerned about people who are later in life and haven't had it happen for them yet"

The simple answer is to tease out that. Why would you be concerned and had what happend.

At the end of the interview she reiterated again her concern about my age..and asked me "why hasn't it happened for you yet?"

This was a great opportunity for you to sell yourself. You didnt. In fairness after the unlawful comment my answer would be to point it out and ask her did she know she was asking unlawful questions and ask her when do I start.

Gerry T

server down wrote:

That’s a mere semantic difference anyway. If you expect all nurses to be head nurses by 35, and you ask an interviewee applying for a nursing position why she isn’t a head nurse yet, you would have expected her to be at her age - it’s saying that you prefer younger candidates for the nursing role and older candidates for the head nursing role.

I don't expect anything. Some people don't want to progress, their priorities may be family, sport or they just don't want the stress or really like working at the job they have. The OP never said what job she was applying for, if it was at a simular level or promotion. The point being it was a question that could have been easily answered.
While the interviewer lacked the knowledge in phrasing the questions correctly at least they were affording the OP the opportunity to explain. Other interviewers may just say nothing, discriminate and move on.

circadian

OP that was a highly unprofessional line of questioning to be honest and you probably dodged a bullet if this is how senior staff conduct themselves with a potential candidate.

In my opinion someone should be hired on merit, regardless of age and perceived progression in their career. I started out a bit later than others in my choice of career, it took me a bit of time to get to where I am.

There are a multitude of reasons why someone may not have "made it" within some sort of predetermined time period. This shouldn't really be of concern to a recruiter if they feel that you have the skills and personality for the job.

You could have fired back with an answer to settle it but to be honest it's none of their business, especially if life events meant that you didn't push for promotions or whatever.

Gerry T

givyjoe wrote:

Eh, is that what you intended to say? It doesn't make much sense. Regardless of the low figure of women in there, there is of course a possibility of discrimination against women in a massively male dominated force at all levels. Have you anything relevant to add on whether there is or is not discrimination there, e.g. someone's interview experience?

That was sarcasm. In that's it's ok to discriminate once you don't use the word age. Example been the fire service discriminate to a high degree. Lots of industries do, high fashion retail outlets, good luck getting a job there if your ugly.

givyjoe wrote:

I don't see what your example has to do with anything in this thread? The OP has been potentially discriminated against on the grounds of age. You seem to want to keep disputing this point, despite others with more knowledge on the subject pointing out that this is wrong. Hardly a lynch mob.

I do dispute the point, I believe the intent of the question was to do with the OPs lack of progress.
You seem to not be able to move away from the wording of the interviewers question which no one disputes, and look at what the intent of the question was.

givyjoe

Gerry T wrote: »

That was sarcasm. In that's it's ok to discriminate once you don't use the word age. Example been the fire service discriminate to a high degree. Lots of industries do, high fashion retail outlets, good luck getting a job there if your ugly.



I do dispute the point, I believe the intent of the question was to do with the OPs lack of progress.
You seem to not be able to move away from the wording of the interviewers question which no one disputes, and look at what the intent of the question was.

Sorry... what?? So many wtf's to be asked in that post. I'm not even going to open the can of worms on the fire service so I'll just go with .. How is not being hired for being too ugly, discrimination?


I'm giving up after this.. It doesn't matter what the intent was at this point, they opened the door to a discrimination case with the words used. The situation as described by the OP is a prima facie case of discrimination on the grounds of age.

I fully understand the point you're making, that MAYBE the intent wasn't to discriminate (there isn't really any evidence to support this though). You however still seem to be unable to grasp the implications of the poorly worded question. Do you understand why the way the question (sorry statement) was worded, leaves the company open to a case for discrimination?

Gerry T

givyjoe wrote:

I fully understand the point you're making, that MAYBE the intent wasn't to discriminate (there isn't really any evidence to support this though). You however still seem to be unable to grasp the implications of the poorly worded question. Do you understand why the way the question (sorry statement) was worded, leaves the company open to a case for discrimination?

I do and have always said I do.
The point I was making is the OP couldn't see the question for what it was, and she could have explained her career choices.

Gerry T

givyjoe wrote:

Sorry... what?? So many wtf's to be asked in that post. I'm not even going to open the can of worms on the fire service so I'll just go with .. How is not being hired for being too ugly, discrimination?

No do open the fire service, why is there only 27 of 2000?
And now that you say it's ok to drop a candidate because of looks. Swap ugly for young and that's discrimination. Why is it OK to not hire because of looks but it's not ok with age

professore

Gerry T wrote: »

No do open the fire service, why is there only 27 of 2000?
And now that you say it's ok to drop a candidate because of looks. Swap ugly for young and that's discrimination. Why is it OK to not hire because of looks but it's not ok with age

Because that's the law. Some forms of discrimination are fine, others are not. For example it's fine to require secondary school teachers in Ireland pass an Irish exam which is effective discrimination against non Irish teachers - even in the ridiculous cases like languages where a suitably qualified native speaker would be far superior.

Whether it's right or wrong is another matter. IMO it does little to tackle actual discrimination and a lot to give people excuses as to why they didn't get a job and the ability to sue, leading to a toxic workplace where no one can actually say what they mean for fear of offending someone. People will still discriminate, but just do it in a way you can't pin a law on them - so the sneaky dishonest real bigots will do as they want, while somebody using an awkward form of words will get punished.

Personally I wouldn't want to work somewhere where they used any discrimination other than ability to do the job but that's never going to happen. If someone doesn't want to hire you because you are too old, gay, female, male, black, muslim or whatever the hell it is then go work somewhere else!

I once lost out at an interview in the UK many years ago because my degree wasn't from Oxbridge. I aced all the assessments. Was told privately by one of the other interviewers who gave me a lift back to the train station. No other reason. Well I wouldn't want to work with a w**ker like that anyway.

I'd actually like to know what kind of discrimination and bigotry a company has ... that way I can decide whether to work with them or buy their products or not.

I think these kind of laws are far too invasive and nanny state. But I don't make the law more's the pity.

givyjoe

Gerry T wrote: »

No do open the fire service, why is there only 27 of 2000?
And now that you say it's ok to drop a candidate because of looks. Swap ugly for young and that's discrimination. Why is it OK to not hire because of looks but it's not ok with age

Because it's against the law, fairly simple. It's against the law to discriminate on the grounds of gender. civil status. family status, sexual orientation. religion, age disability or Race (including being a member of travelling community).

Now, which one of those applies to being fugly? It may not be particularly nice, but that's the reality. Just think about how utterly stupid and unworkable it would be to include not being allowed to 'discriminate' specifically on the grounds of attractiveness? How on earth could you even consider, deciding such cases? Stop digging mate.

I'm not getting into the FS, not least because all you have to offer is 27 out 2000 = discrimination. The teaching profession is skewed towards women, is teaching as a profession discriminating against men? Provide something meaningful and I'll comment.. actually don't. It's got nothing to do with this thread.

Gerry T

professore wrote:

Because that's the law. Some forms of discrimination are fine, others are not. For example it's fine to require secondary school teachers in Ireland pass an Irish exam which is effective discrimination against non Irish teachers - even in the ridiculous cases like languages where a suitably qualified native speaker would be far superior.

Good post, but as far as I know there is no derogation for the fire service to exclude female firefighters. If a woman can do the job why not. I'm guessing alot of women wouldn't go for that job but 1.35 per hundred is a very low take-up.

Gerry T

givyjoe wrote:

Because it's against the law, fairly simple. It's against the law to discriminate on the grounds of gender. civil status. family status, sexual orientation. religion, age disability or Race (including being a member of travelling community).

If looks were listed you would prove it the same way you prove an age discrimination case, But they both are discrimination in the true sense of the word.
I certainly hope you don't interview people, you tone is very aggressive and using "mate" the way you do is dismissive.

givyjoe

Gerry T wrote: »

If looks were listed you would prove it the same way you prove an age discrimination case, But they both are discrimination in the true sense of the word.
I certainly hope you don't interview people, you tone is very aggressive and using "mate" the way you do is dismissive.

I think up now until I've been extraordinarily patient in responding to your posts. At this point however, I've completely lost patience with your ignorance of the law and how it works.

Why can you not just admit you're wrong?! Seriously, it's embarrassing at this point. One is literally covered under the law, the other isn't.. We are specifically talking about employment and the law here, not general principles.

Well done for catching the intent of 'mate'.

As for the suitability for interviewing, only one of us is likely to land our company's in court and it isn't me.

Gerry T

givyjoe wrote:

I think up now until I've been extraordinarily patient in responding to your posts. At this point however, I've completely lost patience with your ignorance of the law and how it works.

There you go again, aggressive and insulting.
You don't ack that I have always said that a) bringing up age is not wise and I wouldnt do that.
There is more than one topic in the tread, the legal aspect that your locked into and the other, that you ignore, concerning the inability of the OP to answer a fairly straight forward question on her career.

givyjoe

Gerry T wrote: »

There you go again, aggressive and insulting.
You don't ack that I have always said that a) bringing up age is not wise and I wouldnt do that.
There is more than one topic in the tread, the legal aspect that your locked into and the other, that you ignore, concerning the inability of the OP to answer a fairly straight forward question on her career.

I'm done engaging with you on this, you're consistently missing the point and keep going with 'but this, but this but this..'

I'm tired of this as I'm sure is everyone else. For your own sake and your company, do some research on the topic.

Danzy

The question was phrased badly by the interviewer which gives rise to 20 pages of argument about the legality of it, it was stupidly put.

Yet it could have been phrased better and still asked, the gist behind it is a legitimate concern, might not be a big one for them, the candidate may have made more of it than was actually intended.

Gerry T is correct that the OP couldn't answer a basic enough question that they should have prepared for and treated like any other question. It could readily have been resolved to the interviewer's satisfaction.

It is illegal to not hire on the grounds of age etc etc but look at some household names in the IT industry and the candidates that they select for interview. Companies that will have all their HR team briefed and educated inside out on the need to be inclusive.

.......

This post has been deleted.

server down

Gerry T wrote: »

Good post, but as far as I know there is no derogation for the fire service to exclude female firefighters. If a woman can do the job why not. I'm guessing alot of women wouldn't go for that job but 1.35 per hundred is a very low take-up.

It might be, but it might be that they are not applying. You can discriminate on age in some physical jobs as it happens.

server down

Danzy wrote: »

The question was phrased badly by the interviewer which gives rise to 20 pages of argument about the legality of it, it was stupidly put.

Stupid and illegal.

Yet it could have been phrased better and still asked, the gist behind it is a legitimate concern, might not be a big one for them, the candidate may have made more of it than was actually intended.

As written I cant think how she made any more or less of it than she did. One ilegal question, one statement about age and making it, one question which was a re-iteration of the statement.

Gerry T is correct that the OP couldn't answer a basic enough question that they should have prepared for and treated like any other question. It could readily have been resolved to the interviewer's satisfaction.

She was supposed to prepare for an agressive and illegal question?

It is illegal to not hire on the grounds of age etc etc but look at some household names in the IT industry and the candidates that they select for interview. Companies that will have all their HR team briefed and educated inside out on the need to be inclusive.

I don't fully understand your use of but there... are you saying they silently discriminate on age? If so then to have an interviewer expose the discrimination would be even worse from an HR point of view.

When I saw HR act on this in the US, they were in fact protecting the company, which is why all interviewers should get training, and if they continue to interview illegally the company has recourse to internal disciplinary measures.