Insulted at an Interview

optogirl

tayto lover wrote: »

That's not an insult.

I do think it's a bit insulting 'why it hasn't happened for you yet?'. What's 'it'? As if we all have to measure our progress/success in life by the same yardstick.

hots

Gerry T wrote: »

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.

You're not allowed to discriminate on hiring someone because of their age, it shouldn't have been asked.

AndrewJRenko

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.

Are there really people out there small-minded enough to measure success by 'obvious signs of promotion'? Have you ever heard of the Peter Principle?

CalamariFritti

optogirl wrote: »

I do think it's a bit insulting 'why it hasn't happened for you yet?'. What's 'it'? As if we all have to measure our progress/success in life by the same yardstick.

Well but the things is in that recruitment game which has a load if bollixology in it anyway we kinda do.
We don’t like it but for jobs that are considered career jobs (rightly or wrongly) as opposed to ‘just a job’ jobs we’re being measured like that.
It doesn’t mean we have to have this blemish free race up the ladder cv. But at the same you wouldn’t go and say ah ye I took a three year break there smoking weed and playing the playstation a lot.
It’s shallow and a bit ruthless and very modern corporate but it’s a game we all play to some extent. And in that game it’s maybe a tough question but not an insult in my book.

Gerry T

....... wrote:

This post has been deleted.

My reading of it was the amount of yrs the person had worked and not that the person was old.
I do agree it was a poorly phrased question, but then I'm guessing the OP has plenty of work experience and would have the skill set to first deal with the question and second not find offence.
Your example isn't really the same thing as being gay is either 1 thing or another where as age is linear. The question in my opinion was about the linear aspect of the age (number of yrs Working) and not really about their age. So a question like
So are you confident a person of your age can successfully do this job
Would Def be ageism, but one that talks about being around for so many yrs.

Anyway the OP could be 35 for all we know!!

Deep Thought

hots wrote: »

You're not allowed to discriminate on hiring someone because of their age, it shouldn't have been asked.

Exactly and to re-iterate, they cannot not give you the job due to your Age.

davo10

hots wrote: »

You're not allowed to discriminate on hiring someone because of their age, it shouldn't have been asked.

You are allowed to decline on hiring them based on a lack of ability. I still don't think this was specifically an age related question, I think it is more of a question as to why the op's career hasn't progressed. There may be a multitude of answers to this, but the one they are most concerned with would be a lack of ability. The op could have addressed this, but didn't.

hots

davo10 wrote: »

You are allowed to decline on hiring them based on a lack of ability. I still don't think this was specifically an age related question, I think it is more of a question as to why the op's career hasn't progressed. There may be a multitude of answers to this, but the one they are most concerned with would be a lack of ability. The op could have addressed this, but didn't.

"The interviewer asked me my age."

This is the bit that's wrong. The rest is open to interpretation.

.......

This post has been deleted.

davo10

hots wrote: »

"The interviewer asked me my age."

This is the bit that's wrong. The rest is open to interpretation.

I'll say this first of all, the interviewer could be an agist dimwit who set out to offend the op, so I cannot be sure of her intentions, but then neither can you, so we can only give opinions.

Asking someone their age isn't discrimination, as long as you don't base your decision not to hire them on the answer given. Trying to gauge why an applicant who is a certain age, has experience and high qualifications isn't at a more senior level is acceptable, this is an interview after all and it gives the applicant an opportunity to explain the lack of progression. The fact is that the applicant (not talking about op here) could have 20 years experience but never went about the level of competency, that might not be what the interviewer is looking for.

davo10

....... wrote: »

Then why did the interviewer ask the OP what age she was?

She could have asked how many years work experience she had or how many relevant years experience she had etc...

But she specifically asked the OP what age she was then made 2 disparaging comments about it.

Im a bit baffled at the apologists tbh.

It's subjective, some might be baffled about how easily offended people are. Both could be right or wrong.

.......

This post has been deleted.

hots

davo10 wrote: »

I'll say this first of all, the interviewer could be an agist dimwit who set out to offend the op, so I cannot be sure of her intentions, but then neither can you, so we can only give opinions.

Asking someone their age isn't discrimination, as long as you don't base your decision not to hire them on the answer given. Trying to gauge why an applicant who is a certain age, has experience and high qualifications isn't at a more senior level is acceptable, this is an interview after all and it gives the applicant an opportunity to explain the lack of progression. The fact is that the applicant (not talking about op here) could have 20 years experience but never went about the level of competency, that might not be what the interviewer is looking for.

True, by the letter of the law asking the question isn't discriminating, it's veering close to the line.

I agree with you by the way, it's perfectly acceptable to want to understand why someone has taken X amount of time to get to a certain level, if it's because they're incompetent or because the person took a career break or lacks motivation to reach a higher level, it would lead to very different outcomes.

DeanAustin

Creol1 wrote: »

The way you were treated could be seen as a breach of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2015, which prohibit age-based discrimination. Accordingly, you could file a complaint with the Workplace Relations Commission. However, if the interviewer denies what you said she said and there was no-one else present, you could wind up in a situation where it's your word against hers. (I remember once watching a film where the same group of candidates find themselves being interviewed for the same entry-level jobs. One of them is getting on in years and a particularly arrogant employer asks him rudely what someone as old as he is is possibly hoping for; "just someone stupid enough to say they won't employ me because of my age" he replies; cue horror from the employer.)


At risk of stating the obvious, you might want to focus on employers who advertise themselves as "equal opportunity employers". While all employers should be "equal opportunities employers", it's rare for someone to be as blatantly discriminated against as you were, so it can help you distinguish employers who are genuine in their commitment.

How did the interviewer discriminate based on age? He asked a reasonable, fact based question. Tough maybe but hardly insulting or discriminatory. Society is going ridiculously soft.

AndrewJRenko

DeanAustin wrote: »

How did the interviewer discriminate based on age? He asked a reasonable, fact based question.

Why is it reasonable to ask age? How does it impact on the ability to do the job?

cbreeze

The OP is right to be concerned. At any interviews I have attended there is usually a HR person who keeps interviewers on track as what we can and can not discuss. If we have a team of interviewers working we each take a different aspect of the requirements of the role and ask questions and then score the responses. Scores are tallied and the person who scores highest is offered the job, subject to taking up references later. For non-HR interviewers the organisation provides mandatory training in conducting interviews. The nine grounds for discrimination to be alert for are:

Gender
Civil status
Family status
Sexual orientation
Religion
Age
Disability
Race
Membership of the Travelling Community

I just can't believe the behaviour of the interviewer in the OP's case. It is fair enough to ask tough questions at an interview, but only in relation to the interviewee's qualifications and experience to establish their suitability for the role, not to needle them with snide remarks about something they have no control over.

storker

optogirl wrote: »

I do think it's a bit insulting 'why it hasn't happened for you yet?'. What's 'it'? As if we all have to measure our progress/success in life by the same yardstick.

In her case, "it" appears to be having the ability to form a grammatically correct question in clear English. Maybe she'll get there before she's "later in life".

listermint

The person who asked that question was wrong,

Anyone who would ask that question in an interview or thinks that question is to an acceptable standard for any role least of all an IT role in a multinational is not suited to be interviewing people.

I would not have that sort of person in an interview panel and frankly if i was in the interview i would have put the brakes on and eased the interviewee out of it.

I would then have had a word with the person who asked it after the interview. This is unprofessional and offers nothing. And yes i would expect that to be on Glass door by the end of the day.

Any IT HR team worth their salt would be all over that.

georgewickstaff

Absolutely extraordinary that some people are not only defending the question but heralding it as a cutting edge interview technique!

Hand in your pride and dignity at the door and take whatever the interview panel throw at you to secure the job. Eh yeah. I'm out.

worded

georgewickstaff wrote: »

Absolutely extraordinary that some people are not only defending the question but heralding it as a cutting edge interview technique!

Hand in your pride and dignity at the door and take whatever the interview panel throw at you to secure the job. Eh yeah. I'm out.

+1

Any chance of a start there boss ? Wife and childer to feed ....

interview techniques for a job building a famine wall for soup

Tony EH

I know it's easy for me to say here (and I probably wouldn't have thought of it in an interview situation TBH), but I'd like to think I would have said

A. Worrying/asking about my age isn't remotely appropriate.

B. that "it", means many different things to many different people, which is a wisdom that only a bit of age and real life experience can yield.

I then would have said that I think we'll leave it there, get up and say to her that you'll think about making a formal complaint to her HR manager about the age comment.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, we simply cannot interview people in this country (assuming your from Ireland OP). It's a litany of dumb questions that often have bugger all to do with the actual role.

DeanAustin

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why is it reasonable to ask age? How does it impact on the ability to do the job?

It doesn't and that wasn't what was asked or inferred.

The interviewer asked why "it" hadn't happened to the interviewee yet. It's basically saying "you've been working a long time and you've yet to reach this level. Why?"

That's very different from saying "I think you're too old to do this job."

There's a major difference there. It's like my boss saying in a performance review "you've been here x years and haven't achieved x, y and z. Why?" Perfectly reasonable.

The interviewer phrased the question badly and if I was their HR person I'd probably have a word because the bluntness of the question could cause a complaint. That said, the actual premise of the question is reasonable and people are far too quick to get offended these days.

pilly

DeanAustin wrote:

It doesn't and that wasn't what was asked or inferred.

The interviewer asked the OP their age. Doesn't matter how the question was phrased after that.

DeanAustin

pilly wrote: »

The interviewer asked the OP their age. Doesn't matter how the question was phrased after that.

Sorry missed that bit. You're absolutely right. Interviewer is an idiot.

Jim2007

Tony EH wrote: »

I then would have said that I think we'll leave it there, get up and say to her that you'll think about making a formal complaint to her HR manager about the age comment.

And apart from the feel good factor, what would that actually achieve? Absolutely nothing! You'd still be unemployed and on top of that you'd have one less multinational to apply to in the future. And yes of course we know you would not work from them in any case.... but you'd still be the looser.

Jim2007

cbreeze wrote: »

The nine grounds for discrimination to be alert for are:

Gender
Civil status
Family status
Sexual orientation
Religion
Age
Disability
Race
Membership of the Travelling Community

If a manager has decided to employ a thirtysomethibng female programmer, what do you think it will take to change his mind and bring him around to employing a middle aged man???

Once someone gets to the interview stage it is a reasonable assumption that they have the basic skills for the job. Interviews are all about discrimination, it is personality, about likes, dislikes and at least some of the above. They might not be able to talk about it, but you can't control the way they think.

Gerry T

....... wrote:

This post has been deleted.

So what if she asked her age, what's wrong with that.
The interviewer was getting at the fact that the OP is working a long time and hadn't got a promotion, and asked why. That's not offensive, ageist, it's actually a very simple reasonable question. The interviewer could have assumed the OP was just not seen by previous employers as having the ability to take the managers role, now that wouldn't be fair.
I agree the comments could have been phrased better but I don't agree it's ageist.
Point out to me where the OP says the interviewer said that she wouldn't or might not be suitable for the role because of her age.
Look at it another way, it's easy to guess an applicants age looking at a CV, if the interviewer was someone that discriminated over age why did the call the OP to interview. I would suggest the interviewer liked the OPs experience at ground level but had a niggle as to why other employers hadn't advanced her.

Gerry T

hots wrote:

You're not allowed to discriminate on hiring someone because of their age, it shouldn't have been asked.

I totally agree....age discrimination shouldn't be tolerated.
How is asking someone's age discrimination.

Claude Wilton

Its pretty simple. I fit the profile of the OP and if that was fired at me in an interview at this stage of my life, I'd up and go. Consider that horsemanure to be an avatar of how you'd be treated if you were foolish enough to accept a position. Or rather, in that case, assuming the position. :rolleyes:

DeanAustin

Gerry T wrote: »

I totally agree....age discrimination shouldn't be tolerated.
How is asking someone's age discrimination.

It probably isn't but it leaves the interviewer open to the accusation. It was a stupid, heavy handed thing to ask.