Insulted at an Interview

brooke 2

sheroman01 wrote: »

I find this grossly unprofessional. This is blatant ageism, blatant prejudice. A company and their employers should be at their best to be professional and friendly during interviews. Imagine what they will be like when you have to work for them! I would 100% complain to them about this, directly or indirectly. Even if you do it anonymously. I wouldn't like to work there after those comments so you would have nothing to lose by complaining. You could go one better and tweet about it publicly, this would certainly get their attention and get their PR people scrambling.

Totally agree. Looks like far too many find this treatment acceptable. Does a person who simply goes for an interview have to be prepared for humiliation and disrespect? Do normal rules of decorum have to fly out the window because one comes to you seeking a job? A properly professionally trained interviewer should be able to do his/her job without resorting to denigrating comments/questions. In other words, does an interviewer have to be a prick
in order to employ the most suitable person?

blindsider

Ref post #17 which is factually correct.

You could:

Make a contemporaneous note of the meeting with as much factual detail as possible. Email this to yourself - time and date stamp.

Report the incident to the HR Director of the company and explain your grievance and that you are considering a formal complaint to the WRC. (I'd record any phonecalls BTW - again, this is legal in Ireland.)

Wait for a response - if you get an apology and they demonstrate a willingness to avoid a repeat...let it go.

If not, make the complaint - the onus will be on the company to prove that the employee didn't make the remark.

Your contemporaneous note may be useful here, BUT it MUST be factually accurate.

You're entitled to anonymity in the WRC - so don't worry about that.

Creol1

blindsider wrote: »

Ref post #17 which is factually correct.

You could:

Make a contemporaneous note of the meeting with as much factual detail as possible. Email this to yourself - time and date stamp.

Report the incident to the HR Director of the company and explain your grievance and that you are considering a formal complaint to the WRC. (I'd record any phonecalls BTW - again, this is legal in Ireland.)

Wait for a response - if you get an apology and they demonstrate a willingness to avoid a repeat...let it go.

If not, make the complaint - the onus will be on the company to prove that the employee didn't make the remark.

Your contemporaneous note may be useful here, BUT it MUST be factually accurate.

You're entitled to anonymity in the WRC - so don't worry about that.

I think that's a very helpful post, but just regarding the last bit, Equality complaints are often anonymised, but it seems this is not guaranteed the way it is with other WRC complaints: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/employers-who-discriminate-should-be-identified-1.3047969

messrs

Understand how you feel OP, its hard when comments are passed in an interview, i know some say just pass them off but not always that easy! I recently had an interview where i was called a liar & un-educated! Was very hard to keep my cool in there!

Water John

Seems like the interviewer has really bought into the, corporate spiel.

CalamariFritti

We don't know what the OP's cv looks like. I would read it as 'it' being some progress in whatever career path the job was for. A degree was mentioned. Maybe there was a string of short employments with breaks or so. We don't know.

It's not a great question to ask maybe and I'm not defending it. But I'm saying insult is a bit strong I think. Context is important.

joe40

I can't believe the amount of people that think this is a fair question. It was awful, it wasn't even a question just a derogatory comment. We don't know was she talking in a professional sense or regarding the interviewee's personal life. How you expect to get the best candidate by insulting people. Really hope you have better luck with the job hunting and are interviewed by reasonable human beings

worded

joe40 wrote: »

I can't believe the amount of people that think this is a fair question. It was awful, it wasn't even a question just a derogatory comment. We don't know was she talking in a professional sense or regarding the interviewee's personal life. How you expect to get the best candidate by insulting people. Really hope you have better luck with the job hunting and are interviewed by reasonable human beings

+1

That's a question from the famin era. Would you give us a start boss ?
This is 2017 Ireland

The person needs training on how to be a human being

bullpost

brooke 2 wrote: »

What struck me was that the interviewer could do with some training. I know for a fact that people who are totally unsuited for/unwilling to do
the job are put in that position by some companies. This particular company reeks of such. What disturbs me is the number of people on here
who think this type of questioning is acceptable. With proper training an interviewer should be able to elicit the necessary information without
being so offensive.

Totally agree.

Companies dont provide enough training for this sensitive role.

It is possible to ask the hard questions without using provocative or demeaning language.

It was once suggested to me in an interview that because I was over 30 and not a member of a golf club I needed to take stock of my life

pauliebdub

Sometimes challenging questions are asked at interviews and they many seem insulting but are often used to evaluate a candidates temperament, getting offended or overly defensive is a fail. For example if someone spent a few years in a previous job without any obvious signs of promotion, I'd question why it hadn't happened, totally reasonable.

danmanw8

Rubberchikken wrote: »

personally i would have found the interviewer obnoxious and would question whether i'd want to work in a company that felt it had to belittle someone to 'get the best from them'.
plus, poor sould may feel she has to be just like the big boys to get ahead nowadays.

op, i'm sorry you experienced this crap. i really wouldn't care whether its being used to weed out the tough from the less tough/whatever, i would still label it unprofessional. chalk it up to experience and best of luck with the job search.

Agreed, I totally get that interviewers ask tough questions but that was very belittling. I'd spend the next week thinking about what I should have said to them

La_Gordy

I think you should complain to the company, or the recruiter, and let them know this was asked. I see why it's insulting and not one you could easily pass off because it's directly implying you are an unsuccessful person (which I'm sure is not the case). This interviewer sounds awful and should not be on a panel.

Sounds like someone who watched too much x factor and thought she was simon cowell. What a bizarre thing to say

LegacyUser

pauliebdub wrote: »

Sometimes challenging questions are asked at interviews and they many seem insulting but are often used to evaluate a candidates temperament, getting offended or overly defensive is a fail. For example if someone spent a few years in a previous job without any obvious signs of promotion, I'd question why it hadn't happened, totally reasonable.

Actually this question is illegal and wasn’t designed to extract information. You can’t ask somebody their age in an interview if they haven’t supplied it. Its an open and shut case.

The op should write to HR (including the US hr email as they take this stuff seriously). Write what age has written here. Then take a case to the WRC

davo10

Whether we like it or not, certain companies prefer certain age profiles for their employees. Some companies prefer experienced, mature personnel who are able to deal with challenges because they have seen it all before, others look for young firebrands fresh out of college with new ideas and ambition. Op it sounds like you encountered one looking for the latter. I don't know what job it is or what level it is at, but maybe she looked at your cv and your experience and wondered why you were applying for that particular job and why you aren't further along in your career. She may have, albeit mistakenly, associated that with a lack of ambition or worse, a lack of ability. The key for you was having a rapid fire answer ready to knock that on the head and assure the interviewer that you have both ability and ambition, you just decided to further your education.

HandsomeBob

OP you clearly had what "it" took for the job on paper at least otherwise you wouldn't have gotten the interview.

Sounds like your one was trying to be clever and weed out the "weaker" candidates but made an absolute fist of it. Very unprofessional how she approached it but I imagine taking or further won't go far.

heroics

I wouldn't have a problem with the question. Sounds to me like the OP is just easily offended or maybe it struck a nerve for some reason. As some other posters have said above you need to be able to deal with questions like this.

Most professions would have stages that they expect people to reach within certain time frames. If a potential employee varies from this it will be questioned. This is not an issue if they can explain the difference.

davo10

heroics wrote: »

I wouldn't have a problem with the question. Sounds to me like the OP is just easily offended or maybe it struck a nerve for some reason. As some other posters have said above you need to be able to deal with questions like this.

Most professions would have stages that they expect people to reach within certain time frames. If a potential employee varies from this it will be questioned. This is not an issue if they can explain the difference.

Have to agree with this, for some it would be seen as an opportunity to explain why you are applying for a job at that level. Better to be given that opportunity to explain rather than the interviewer commenting after you've walked out the door about the lack of career progression.

Maybe it was a question to see what your made of and check the level of your ambition. "I know I might be more mature than other candidates, but I can assure you my ambition and drive is higher than theirs" etc

georgewickstaff

It would seem to me that the type of people who think that question from the person on the interview panel is acceptable are the types who usually trot out the following on boards..

A) Believe earning a salary means working extra hours for free.
Believe their HR department are shrewd and cutting edge superhumans capable of weeding out the chaff with these incredibly clever questions. As opposed to just being surly snobbish dickheads
C) The type who regularly post on here saying all employees should bend over and take whatever their beloved company throws at them.

I would have gently called a halt to the interview. Asked to speak to the HR person privately and asked them if they thought it was acceptable to mention age and demean a candidate. You've had your fun now it's my turn..

Who would want to work there after that?

heroics

georgewickstaff wrote: »

It would seem to me that the type of people who think that question from the person on the interview panel is acceptable are the types who usually trot out the following on boards..

A) Believe earning a salary means working extra hours for free.
Believe their HR department are shrewd and cutting edge superhumans capable of weeding out the chaff with these incredibly clever questions. As opposed to just being surly snobbish dickheads
C) The type who regularly post on here saying all employees should bend over and take whatever their beloved company throws at them.


I would have gently called a halt to the interview. Asked to speak to the HR person privately and asked them if they thought it was acceptable to mention age and demean a candidate. You've had your fun now it's my turn..

Who would want to work there after that?

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: I believe the exact opposite fo all of your generalizations. Nice try though.

davo10

georgewickstaff wrote: »

It would seem to me that the type of people who think that question from the person on the interview panel is acceptable are the types who usually trot out the following on boards..

A) Believe earning a salary means working extra hours for free.
Believe their HR department are shrewd and cutting edge superhumans capable of weeding out the chaff with these incredibly clever questions. As opposed to just being surly snobbish dickheads
C) The type who regularly post on here saying all employees should bend over and take whatever their beloved company throws at them.

I would have gently called a halt to the interview. Asked to speak to the HR person privately and asked them if they thought it was acceptable to mention age and demean a candidate. You've had your fun now it's my turn..

Who would want to work there after that?

Sweeping generalisation there, don't you think?

I suspect you'd be shown the door the second you called a halt to the interview and HR would view you as a disaffected applicant who didn't get a job.

Though you could take umbridge at the question, it's worth baring in mind that others would not and would answer that question without batting and eyelid. I'd agree it wasn't the most tactful question, but interviews can be challenging and interviewers will not always ask you the questions you want to hear. The interview is about getting a job.

.......

This post has been deleted.

tomwaits48

georgewickstaff wrote: »

It would seem to me that the type of people who think that question from the person on the interview panel is acceptable are the types who usually trot out the following on boards..

A) Believe earning a salary means working extra hours for free.
Believe their HR department are shrewd and cutting edge superhumans capable of weeding out the chaff with these incredibly clever questions. As opposed to just being surly snobbish dickheads
C) The type who regularly post on here saying all employees should bend over and take whatever their beloved company throws at them.

I would have gently called a halt to the interview. Asked to speak to the HR person privately and asked them if they thought it was acceptable to mention age and demean a candidate. You've had your fun now it's my turn..

Who would want to work there after that?

This is nonsense of the highest order.

Gerry T

....... wrote:

This post has been deleted.

It's not putting her down because of her age. It's asking why she's not risen in the workplace after so many yrs working. It's a legitimate question. In other words why should I give you this job when it looks like your previous employers haven't.
It gives the candidate an opportunity to explain and I'm sure there's many candidates that would shine in that situation

.......

This post has been deleted.

gct

I think the question was ageist. Also, the interviewers statement was very vague, "I am always concerned about people who are later in life and haven't had it happen for them yet"
What does "later in life" have to do with anything?
What exactly is "it"? Surely the interviewer should have clarified exactly what she meant. Why did she feel the need to bring a personal comment like that into the interview? Its bad enough being out of work and going through the struggles of interviews without having to put up with with being belittled.
Seems to me the OP has a lot to be proud of having gained a Masters Degree. Should that be classed as "it"?
I don't know if I would want to work there. This idea that some companies have of making belittling comments to get the best out of a candidate is wrong.
I'm fine with a bit of constructive criticism but there was nothing constructive about what the interviewer said. I'd say it to HR and then move on.

Jim2007

insultedatinterview wrote: »

I am exhausted from dealing with these kinds of people at interviews.

This sentence resonates with me and here is why, I'm in a similar situation. I'm a 54 year old software engineer and have been unemployed for eight months now. I'm aware that such an experience can distort your perception of the situation and consequently have a negative impact on your performance at the interview.

I'm not the typical candidate and so I have to expect odd or random questions as people try to understand me and see if I might fit in their organization. If asked a similar question, I would start by asking for clarification as to they expected to have happened - in my case that is a manager position. At which point I'd point out that I have no interest in such a position. That what I'm looking for is an interesting technical job with a reasonable salary that plugs the whole until I retire at 60.

At phone interviews I usually point out my age if not asked, I have no desire to was my time going for interviews for positions that I will not get. Most months I get into the last round for one or two positions, but no luck yet.

davo10

gct wrote: »

I think the question was ageist. Also, the interviewers statement was very vague, "I am always concerned about people who are later in life and haven't had it happen for them yet"
What does "later in life" have to do with anything?
What exactly is "it"? Surely the interviewer should have clarified exactly what she meant. Why did she feel the need to bring a personal comment like that into the interview? Its bad enough being out of work and going through the struggles of interviews without having to put up with with being belittled.
Seems to me the OP has a lot to be proud of having gained a Masters Degree. Should that be classed as "it"?
I don't know if I would want to work there. This idea that some companies have of making belittling comments to get the best out of a candidate is wrong.
I'm fine with a bit of constructive criticism but there was nothing constructive about what the interviewer said. I'd say it to HR and then move on.

To be fair, the interviewer didn't say "you are too old for the job", she said she had concerns that the ops career is not what it should be at her age. Lacking tact, yes, but a legitimate question/statement nonetheless and one the op was twice given the opportunity to address. I don't know what industry this is, but if someone has been in an industry for 20 years and never risen above a junior level, interviewers can draw assumptions from this, it is up to the applicant to explain the lack of progression and to assure the interviewer they are the one for this job.

Gerry T

I disagree, an ageist question would question if the candidate was capable of doing the job because of their age. That's not the intent of the interviewers question. And your right the CV may have been poor and the OP might have said they spent 10yrs working in Cambodia with a charity or that they stepped out to raise a family. There's lots of plausable reasons and some that would enhance the chance of getting the job. If the candidate told me they turned down 2 such promotions due to looking after a sick parent but they are now available for the role I'd think very highly of their decision making process.
If you think it's ageist because it has the word age in it, that's wrong.

.......

This post has been deleted.