Insulted at an Interview

Danzy

server down wrote: »

Stupid and illegal.



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.



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



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.

The question was stupid and illegal but it could have been put so that it was not stupid and illegal, the gist of it was a reasonable grounds for exploration, the candidate fluffed it by not preparing for it.

The interviewer made a ham fisted attempt and left himself wide open to further action.

Ageism is certainly endemic and just because the company has a reputation globally for HR initiatives and diverse employment practice does not mean that they do not engage in it. I hope that that changes but it will be along time yet.

BrianBoru00

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.

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.

Ahm this is the third time I think I've had to argue against this point on boards - the part in bold is horse ****. It is not true. No such rule exists.

givyjoe

BrianBoru00 wrote: »

Ahm this is the third time I think I've had to argue against this point on boards - the part in bold is horse ****. It is not true. No such rule exists.

There might not be a specific rule in that case (I'm guessing you mean no such test exists?) but something like that could be considered indirect discrimination if the language isn't really required for the job and it's just used as a means to help ensure only Irish folks meet the requirements for getting a job.

I.e. Substitute Irish Language skills for any 'arbitrary' skill, or qualification which isn't actually required for the job and you get the idea.

And by arbitrary, I really do mean something thatis not required for the job at all, if it means that someone from one of the 9 grounds is potentially excluded from a role due to this completely arbitrary requirement.

AndrewJRenko

server down wrote: »

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

No, you can't discriminate on age. You can discriminate on physical ability, like the strenuous physical tests that firefighters need to do as part of recruitment - but not age, as age is not an indicator of physical ability.

davo10

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

No, you can't discriminate on age. You can discriminate on physical ability, like the strenuous physical tests that firefighters need to do as part of recruitment - but not age, as age is not an indicator of physical ability.

The Gardai are fecked so.

AndrewJRenko

davo10 wrote: »

The Gardai are fecked so.

Good point - I wonder if they have a special legal exemption?

CramCycle

They have a physical fitness test for entry that you are required to pass. regrettably, unlike almost every other major police force, there is no further testing and there is also no time given over to members to keep in shape. Since the requirements were not there when the majority joined, it would never clear now but it is something they should bring in for new recruits but it is also something that they should have more time for as well.