Insulted at an Interview

davo10

Claude Wilton wrote: »

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:

Some might think that if you are so easily offended, it would be a huge risk employing you.

Claude Wilton

davo10 wrote: »

Some might think that if you are so easily offended, it would be a huge risk employing you.

Not offended, but if an interviewer shows their hand like that it, it doesnt bode well for the place being any kind of workplace I'd want to be in. Think of it as a sorting tool for people who would fit the culture, if the culture is one of antagonism and blame.

davo10

Claude Wilton wrote: »

Not offended, but if an interviewer shows their hand like that it, it doesnt bode well for the place being any kind of workplace I'd want to be in. Think of it as a sorting tool for people who would fit the culture, if the culture is one of antagonism and blame.

Jeez. One question in an interview and it's a breeding school for cage fighters.

ShaShaBear

Obviously without seeing the OP's CV, it's impossible to gather the full context of the question. Is there a lot of previous employment of varying short lengths? Is there a huge blank space between getting a masters and now? That would help determine what is meant by "it".

As for asking why she hasn't made "it" by now, that is not only ageist, but a pry into deeply private matters that are of no concern to the workplace, employed or not.
Perhaps the OP couldn't afford to go to college and worked for a few years to save the fees.
Perhaps the OP lost a loved one early in college and suffered academically and slowed their progress for it.
Perhaps the OP took an intentional career break to start and raise a family before committing to a job path.
Perhaps the OP simply made a decision "later in life" to take this career path and ploughed through it!

If it were me, I simply would have said "With all due respect, my offering to you as a prospective employee is purely professional. My personal matters are not the concern of this company at present and you have a document there that clearly piqued your interest, or else I would not be here. Let's focus on that, shall we?"

davo10

ShaShaBear wrote: »

Obviously without seeing the OP's CV, it's impossible to gather the full context of the question. Is there a lot of previous employment of varying short lengths? Is there a huge blank space between getting a masters and now? That would help determine what is meant by "it".

As for asking why she hasn't made "it" by now, that is not only ageist, but a pry into deeply private matters that are of no concern to the workplace, employed or not.
Perhaps the OP couldn't afford to go to college and worked for a few years to save the fees.
Perhaps the OP lost a loved one early in college and suffered academically and slowed their progress for it.
Perhaps the OP took an intentional career break to start and raise a family before committing to a job path.
Perhaps the OP simply made a decision "later in life" to take this career path and ploughed through it!

If it were me, I simply would have said "With all due respect, my offering to you as a prospective employee is purely professional. My personal matters are not the concern of this company at present and you have a document there that clearly piqued your interest, or else I would not be here. Let's focus on that, shall we?"

That's nice, but I doubt you'd get the job. Previous employment and reasons for lack of advancement are pertinent during an interview, they want to know what you are going to bring to their company. If you're just treading water, then if they are looking for someone with a view to promotion, you are not that person in their eyes. If you are so easily offended, they may see that as a risk in a high octane working environment. These are of course all "ifs", no one knows for sure.

DeanAustin

ShaShaBear wrote: »

Obviously without seeing the OP's CV, it's impossible to gather the full context of the question. Is there a lot of previous employment of varying short lengths? Is there a huge blank space between getting a masters and now? That would help determine what is meant by "it".

As for asking why she hasn't made "it" by now, that is not only ageist, but a pry into deeply private matters that are of no concern to the workplace, employed or not.
Perhaps the OP couldn't afford to go to college and worked for a few years to save the fees.
Perhaps the OP lost a loved one early in college and suffered academically and slowed their progress for it.
Perhaps the OP took an intentional career break to start and raise a family before committing to a job path.
Perhaps the OP simply made a decision "later in life" to take this career path and ploughed through it!

If it were me, I simply would have said "With all due respect, my offering to you as a prospective employee is purely professional. My personal matters are not the concern of this company at present and you have a document there that clearly piqued your interest, or else I would not be here. Let's focus on that, shall we?"

If they'd responded like that they may as well get up and walk out of the interview because they're never getting the job.

A response like that might sound clever in your head but it'd bury you.

Claude Wilton

davo10 wrote: »

Jeez. One question in an interview and it's a breeding school for cage fighters.

Masked wrestlers. Oil optional.

ShaShaBear

davo10 wrote: »

That's nice, but I doubt you'd get the job. Previous employment and reasons for lack of advancement are pertinent during an interview, they want to know what you are going to bring to their company. If you're just treading water, then if they are looking for someone with a view to promotion, you are not that person in their eyes.

Yes, but the OP wasn't asked for a reason for her lack of advancement. That, at least, would have made sense.
They were asked why they haven't "made it" later in life. If they were asked to give a reason why they feel they have not made significant advancement in their previous positions, that would be an acceptable and presumably simple question to answer.

ShaShaBear

DeanAustin wrote: »

If they'd responded like that they may as well get up and walk out of the interview because they're never getting the job.

A response like that might sound clever in your head but it'd bury you.

You're not getting the job anyway if the interviewer doesn't trust people that haven't "made it" in later life anyway. Might as well make them aware that the style of questioning is not appropriate, you can and will defend yourself and that you can remain above personal jibes in a professional manner.

DeanAustin

ShaShaBear wrote: »

You're not getting the job anyway if the interviewer doesn't trust people that haven't "made it" in later life anyway. Might as well make them aware that the style of questioning is not appropriate, you can and will defend yourself and that you can remain above personal jibes in a professional manner.

Fair point but some of the dopes doing interviews fancy themselves as amateur psychologists so might ask those sorts of questions to see how the person reacts. The OP still may have been in with a shout depending on how they answered the question.

Answer it like you propose and you're 100% out of the running.

davo10

ShaShaBear wrote: »

You're not getting the job anyway if the interviewer doesn't trust people that haven't "made it" in later life anyway. Might as well make them aware that the style of questioning is not appropriate, you can and will defend yourself and that you can remain above personal jibes in a professional manner.

I wouldn't say you are not getting the job, I would say you are not getting it if you respond in the way you describe. Instead of taking offence, you explain why it is that you are applying for this particular job at this time in your career, you may still be considered. The best approach at interview is to put your best foot forward, if you get offered the job you may have the luxury of telling them to shove it where the sun doesn't shine, but if you are up against others who don't get phased by such questions, then you are at a disadvantage.

ShaShaBear

DeanAustin wrote: »

Fair point but some of the dopes doing interviews fancy themselves as amateur psychologists so might ask those sorts of questions to see how the person reacts. The OP still may have been in with a shout depending on how they answered the question.

Answer it like you propose and you're 100% out of the running.

To be honest, I'd have far more respect for the potential employee that called out my rudeness and stood up for themselves in a direct but polite manner than the one who fumbled, mumbled and then left upset without answering the question. It wasn't an appropriate question for sure. Poorly phrased at best. Understandable the OP got upset, but like you say people can get power trippy and ask all sorts of questions, but I certainly wouldn't be allowing it!

Radio5

Sounds like that interviewer watched too many episodes of Dragon's Den or some such show and thinks that talking down people is the way to go. The age question was out of order as has been said unecessary as it's fairly easy to work that out from a CV.

jimmycrackcorm

Gerry T wrote:

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

It is discrimination. Why does the interviewer need to know the persons age? You can be pretty sure that the same question wasn't asked of other interviewees.

Unless it's a relevant such as making sure they're old enough to serve alcohol, it will be viewed as discriminatory.

davo10

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

It is discrimination. Why does the interviewer need to know the persons age? You can be pretty sure that the same question wasn't asked of other interviewees.

Unless it's a relevant such as making sure they're old enough to serve alcohol, it will be viewed as discriminatory.

You are certainly right on the first part, she shouldn't have asked, it was amateurish and she could have garnered the required info far more tactfully by saying that with the ops experience and qualifications, I'm surprised you are not at a higher level, why do you think that is not the case.

But you are wrong about the second part. It is only discrimination if the op was not employed because of her age. Unless I missed something on this thread, the op was not told that she was not being employed because of her age.

LegacyUser

davo10 wrote: »

You are certainly right on the first part, she shouldn't have asked, it was amateurish and she could have garnered the required info far more tactfully by saying that with the ops experience and qualifications, I'm surprised you are not at a higher level, why do you think that is not the case.

It was beyond amateurish. She has a good chance of getting fired, and the OP should pursue that.

But you are wrong about the second part. It is only discrimination if the op was not employed because of her age. Unless I missed something on this thread, the op was not told that she was not being employed because of her age.

She actually kind of was, in fact told exactly that. The burden of proof when you mention age, race, or marital status is on the employer to prove that wasn't the reason for not hiring someone.

I mean the law would be an ass if it only worked when people were told in a letter that "we are not hiring you because of your age"

DeanAustin

davo10 wrote: »

You are certainly right on the first part, she shouldn't have asked, it was amateurish and she could have garnered the required info far more tactfully by saying that with the ops experience and qualifications, I'm surprised you are not at a higher level, why do you think that is not the case.

But you are wrong about the second part. It is only discrimination if the op was not employed because of her age. Unless I missed something on this thread, the op was not told that she was not being employed because of her age.

100% agreed but by asking the OP's age, the interviewer has left themselves open to accusations that the OP didn't get the job because the interviewer is ageist.

There is no justifiable reason to ask someone their age and the fact that age is one of the stated grounds you can't discriminate on means you should never ask the question particularly if you go down the line of questioning the interviewer subsequently went down.

Like so much in business, your interntions don't matter. It's how what you say can be construed that you have to be mindful of.

AryaStark

I was at an interview a few months ago and when I walked in the interviewer and I shook hands. Who?e he was holding g my hand he leaned in and said 'wow you smell gorgeous.... What is the perfume you are wearing?'

It really put me off my stride. A minute later the hr person came in and joined us... I didn't get the job and think it was because of this comment!

server down

AryaStark wrote: »

I was at an interview a few months ago and when I walked in the interviewer and I shook hands. Who?e he was holding g my hand he leaned in and said 'wow you smell gorgeous.... What is the perfume you are wearing?'

It really put me off my stride. A minute later the hr person came in and joined us... I didn't get the job and think it was because of this comment!

Jesus. The level of amateurism in Irish interviewing in a joke.

waferthinboy

Sounds like that interviewer has been watching too much X Factor - the judges always ask the ones in their 30s to explain "why it hasn't happened for you yet". I don't think it's a very kind question at all.

Hope you're okay after reading the responses you've received on here so far, many of them very offhand and rude.

server down

I actually joined up ( as a long time lurker, one time poster a while back) to respond to this thread.

Either the people defending the interviewer are thick, or not conversant with the laws. Or both.

I am a middle manager with an multinational US based IT company of renown. Quite simply, whatever the actual practices of any of these companies, their stated company laws and ordinances are clear. You don't discriminate on grounds of race, age, marital status, disability etc. And you will get training about this. They will say don't ask about those topics. Don't mention those words. I will explain the reason for the training after. It isn't necessarily to stop all discrimination, it is to give the appearance of it and to cover butts.

Some examples of what you can't say.

whatever the genuine reason for not hiring a black man, saying "Sorry, are you black - you look rather tan" will leave you open to discriminatory lawsuits. The only reason to ask that question is to work out the persons race. Why would you need to know? Except to discriminate. The courts will assume the latter if he is not hired.

Whatever the reason for not hiring a disabled person saying "Sorry, are you disabled. You hobbled in, but I don't see a wheelchair?". There is no reason to ask except ( courts will generally assume) to discriminate.

Whatever the reason for not hiring a pregnant woman, saying "Sorry, are you pregnant. You look up the bubble". There is no reason to ask that question except ( courts will generally assume) to discriminate.

ill leave how you deal with age as an exercise to the user, but -- since this isnt a very bright thread -- let me explain how you would word a question about over experience.

"You seem over experienced for this role? Have you ever thought of getting promoted in any previous job". You will note the missing word there. Rhymes with cage.


People get training in these things not to stop all discrimination, which is impossible ( you can go back to your desk and whisper "Too old" all you like or do it in a locked room -- but do not send an email). The training is so that the company can deny charges of systematic discrimination, that a single suit doesn't become a class action suit.

The company wants to say "Sure, this woman was ageist but -- look she did the training. She signed off on the training. This is a once off"

( I've never had interview training where you haven't had to sign off and I do that training every year).

Advice to OP. Send an email to corporate HR in the US. HR in Ireland is glorified receptionists. Over there they have legal training. Take a case to the WRC. I can't see you losing. They will almost certainly settle before that. The interviewer is toast. HR Dublin may be toast if they didn't enforce the training.

Tony EH

Jim2007 wrote: »

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.

Anyone asking questions like the op got probably wasn't interested in giving her the job anyway.

server down

Tony EH wrote: »

Anyone asking questions like the op got probably wasn't interested in giving her the job anyway.

One of the things the company might have to do is actually give her the job. After they fire the liability.

Tony EH

davo10 wrote: »

Jeez. One question in an interview and it's a breeding school for cage fighters.

This is just dopey.

It's the inference that's STRONGLY inherent with the interviewers statements that's the issue here.

She was "worried" that someone of the OP's "age" hadn't "made it yet". :rolleyes:

Absolutely nothing like that should be entertained in a job interview by anyone. It's a stupid, snide, remark that has no place in that type of meeting. In fact, it wouldn't have any place anywhere.

If that doesn't throw up any red flags, then I don't what to say to you.

Tony EH

Gerry T wrote: »

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

Unless the interviewer is "worrying" about the "age" of every person see sees for the job and whether every interviewee has "made it yet", then it's a discriminatory question.

Stheno

davo10 wrote: »

But you are wrong about the second part. It is only discrimination if the op was not employed because of her age. Unless I missed something on this thread, the op was not told that she was not being employed because of her age.

I'd not be so sure about that.

I once had an interview (back in 2006) for a job in Dublin CC. At the time I was in my early thirties, married (wore a wedding ring, didn't mention it on my c.v.) and commuted each day. I'm female.

I arrived for my interview and met my interviewer who was a man.

His first comment after greeting me was "You're female, married, and obviously have children (no idea why he thought so as I'm fairly slim) and live a considerable away from where this role is based (all my previous roles were in Dublin). How will you manage to balance your home duties with the demands of this role"?

I politely informed him I'd no children and on we went.

I was then offered the job by the (female) director of HR in the company and declined on the basis that my interview experience was not that which enamoured me to work for a company with such an approach.

Two months later at an industry event I met the interviewer who was jobseeking.

It was rather unpleasant sitting beside him for two hours.

AndrewJRenko

DeanAustin wrote: »

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.

Except she didn't reference anything specific - she referenced 'not making it' which is just a vague concept in her head.

Gerry T wrote: »

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

How is it relevant to the job? Why would any interviewer need to know the candidate's age?

davo10 wrote: »

That's nice, but I doubt you'd get the job. Previous employment and reasons for lack of advancement are pertinent during an interview, they want to know what you are going to bring to their company. If you're just treading water, then if they are looking for someone with a view to promotion, you are not that person in their eyes. If you are so easily offended, they may see that as a risk in a high octane working environment. These are of course all "ifs", no one knows for sure.

DeanAustin wrote: »

If they'd responded like that they may as well get up and walk out of the interview because they're never getting the job.

A response like that might sound clever in your head but it'd bury you.

I did an interview in the late 90s for a role in a multi-national. I'm a guy, and towards the end of the interview with a 4th person, he asked me 'do you have kids'. I told him that you shouldn't really ask those questions, and we batted it back and forward at bit. I was offered the job, took it, and about a year later, yer man was moved to be head of recruitment!

davo10 wrote: »

But you are wrong about the second part. It is only discrimination if the op was not employed because of her age. Unless I missed something on this thread, the op was not told that she was not being employed because of her age.

You don't necessarily need to be told the reason for discrimination to have happened. In a tribunal, the deciding officer will make a ruling as to whether discrimination happened or not.

waferthinboy wrote: »

Sounds like that interviewer has been watching too much X Factor - the judges always ask the ones in their 30s to explain "why it hasn't happened for you yet". I don't think it's a very kind question at all.

I think you're on to something. I've seen the X-Factor judges also ask grown adults in the 30s or 40s or more the 'how old are you' question. It always grated on me, and I always hoped for one of them to say 'mind your own feckin business'.

ligerdub

It's a poor question.

There will be a subset of people who think it's ok or that there was a hidden method to the questioning. The reality is that these are just convenient excuses for people like the interviewer to get away with acting the arsehole. It's a power grab plain and simple, they are in the position of control there..."I'm the buyer, you're the seller....got that?". There are some people who only just love that situation, and revel in the opportunity to see people squirm.

I wonder to what level of "it" this person has achieved too? I mean relatively speaking there is always somebody out there who can pull the exact same trick on you? It to one person is a 6 figure salary (or the reality of about half this) and a tidy bonus every year, but a multi-millionaire could look down their nose at that. The lesson there is stay humble.....because there's always someone out there who would gladly pop that bubble. I'd venture a guess that this person was also fairly young.

I don't really understand this recent idea of "testing" a candidate by being abrasive or challenging, or the likes of the stupid "if you were a biscuit what kind of biscuit would you be?" questions?

I think that attitudes around corporate culture and the "if you don't come in Saturday, don't bother coming in Sunday" schtick are starting to turn. That's morphed partially into a growth in the likes of "wellness" roles, but overall it's a broadly positive change I would say.

FirstTimeMom

Was it confirmed that you wern't offered the position?

I would look for written feedback on your interview first.

Then, send in a data request to obtain any interview notes.

Whether there is any notes say would determine whether there is discrimation based on age.

It would also be helpful to identify who was offered the position and their age profile/experience.

TrustedApple

With regards to age.

Happened to me before in work where my manager asked me how is my deslexa today is it any better ?.

The eye rolling I gave to him was shocking I wonted go get up and slap him.

So OP I understand how you fell about your age the same happened to me with my disbilty.

Considering OP I am in my 20s and I would consider must my age to be extremely lazy and won t everything yesterday
. So when I will be hireing someone else for my team in the next few months I don't care about age and if I think you won t be lazy and do your job I am happy out.