Insulted at an Interview

Danzy

server down wrote: »

Thats stretching it. You are now assuming that you know both what the interviewer wanted to say but didnt ( i.e. ask a question about experience, not age) and what everybody else in the interview was thinking.

I was maybe fleshing out possible logic based on what I have seen from selecting CVs and candidates and some concerns that were brought up, often in a blunt way and often put in a very positive, respectful way but which equate to the same thing.

I focusing on the part where the OP got stuck on the answer whether the interviewer was a dick or on dodgy ground is not where I am looking at, in the next interview it is a an area that they should have considered a response for.

server down

Gerry T wrote: »

You keep saying I need to check my company rules...news flash company rules don't matter, it's the legal aspect that matters.
I also keep saying I wouldn't phrase a question the way it was so you needn't keep suggesting I would.

I have never said anything about how you would phrase anything. I am asking you to read the rules as they do matter.

I mean of course your company rules matter. If you break them at interview you are in trouble. I suggested the OP email HR in Dublin and HQ. I have seen people fired for this. (Admittedly in the US where they have easier routes to fire people. After that I made sure I knew the rules.)

When some one says how come you haven't made it by now is talking about the lack of progress. How can that be about the age of the OP, or an indication that they wouldn't get the job based on their age. For all we know the OP could be 30!

For the umpteenth time, it is about age because the interviewer mentioned age.

server down

Danzy wrote: »

I was maybe fleshing out possible logic based on what I have seen from selecting CVs and candidates and some concerns that were brought up, often in a blunt way and often put in a very positive, respectful way but which equate to the same thing.

I focusing on the part where the OP got stuck on the answer whether the interviewer was a dick or on dodgy ground is not where I am looking at, in the next interview it is a an area that they should have considered a response for.

The OP's response is not the issue we are discussing, really. It is the legality or otherwise of the actual question, as asked.

Danzy

server down wrote: »

I have never said anything about how you would phrase anything. I am asking you to read the rules as they do matter.

I mean of course your company rules matter. If you break them at interview you are in trouble. I suggested the OP email HR in Dublin and HQ. I have seen people fired for this. (Admittedly in the US where they have easier routes to fire people. After that I made sure I knew the rules.)



For the umpteenth time, it is about age because the interviewer mentioned age.

Legally you are correct but if the interviewer had not mentioned age and asked the same question in a different way it would have still been a problem for the candidate as they seem to have a concern about it themselves.

Getting comfortable with explaining that piece will be of more help to them than feeling aggrieved.

It isn't much good to them how it is asked if they do not re-assure the interviewer.

Gerry T

server down wrote:

For the umpteenth time, it is about age because the interviewer mentioned age.

Mentioning age alone is not grounds for discrimination, it's foolish as it implies your asking and the answer will be used in the decision process. The context of the question was how come the OP hadn't progressed by now. So there's no clear cut case to take. We would need alot more info from the OP before making that decision.

server down wrote:

The OP's response is not the issue we are discussing, really. It is the legality or otherwise of the actual question, as asked.

The OPs response is what I commented on, the fact that she was thrown by a question. One that she should have considered would come up.

Gerry T

server down wrote:

I mean of course your company rules matter. If you break them at interview you are in trouble. I suggested the OP email HR in Dublin and HQ. I have seen people fired for this. (Admittedly in the US where they have easier routes to fire people. After that I made sure I knew the rules.)

Suggesting someone should try get another person fired because of how a question was phrased is nasty. I'm guessing there were a number of people on the interview panel, especially in a large IT company. If the OP was the best candidate she would have got a call back.

server down

Gerry T wrote: »

Suggesting someone should try get another person fired because of how a question was phrased is nasty. I'm guessing there were a number of people on the interview panel, especially in a large IT company. If the OP was the best candidate she would have got a call back.

I didnt suggest it. You seem to be deliberately engaging in deliberate misrepresentation as well as ad hominems.

I said it happened. That I have seen it happen.

server down

Gerry T wrote: »

Mentioning age alone is not grounds for discrimination, it's foolish as it implies your asking and the answer will be used in the decision process. The context of the question was how come the OP hadn't progressed by now. So there's no clear cut case to take. We would need alot more info from the OP before making that decision.

You are clinging to this idea that it is not grounds for discrimination. Mentioning age is in fact opening up your company to litigation and puts the onus on the company to prove the opposite in any case brought against it (for the umpteenth and 1 time). For that reason most company guidelines would prohibit the use of it.

The OPs response is what I commented on, the fact that she was thrown by a question. One that she should have considered would come up.

She should have considered that an ageist question would come up?

And once again you are assuming that the question was about the Op's failure to meet some totally undefined criteria. The only criteria the interviewer asked was "it". Why she hadnt reached "it" by her age. Thats not a reasonable question even age isnt involved, since "it" is not defined.

And if the inteviewer meant "Why are you applying for a high level role when you have been in a low level role for so long" thats what she should have asked. But its not clear at all that the OP was interviewing for a higher level position.

Gerry T

server down wrote:

I didnt suggest it. You seem to be deliberately engaging in deliberate misrepresentation as well as ad hominems.

You said you've seen people fired for this, then you said you advised OP to call HR in Dublin and HQ. You know this course of action leads to people being fired.....

server down wrote:

I mean of course your company rules matter. If you break them at interview you are in trouble. I suggested the OP email HR in Dublin and HQ. I have seen people fired for this. (Admittedly in the US where they have easier routes to fire people. After that I made sure I knew the rules.)

server down

Gerry T wrote: »

You said you've seen people fired for this, then you said you advised OP to call HR in Dublin and HQ. You know this course of action leads to people being fired.....

In the US. And I was on that interview panel and was in fact deposed for a suit as a witness ( which was presumably settled as there was no case). Since then I am a stickler for the rules in any country.

A complaint to HR doesnt necessarily lead to a termination in Ireland.

However of course the OP should, if she feels insulted, talk to HR.

CalamariFritti

I can't understand why this thread keeps going in circles and why people are so 'precious' about this question. And of all things this silly 'ageism' card is being pulled out of the hat. Yes you cannot discriminate, but age is a fact of life and is of course relevant if nothing else in the context of progression.

I followed the thread at the beginning, but haven't caught up on all of it yet. Has the OP come back and given any insights into their CV? For all I know we don't know what triggered that question, we don't know that CV.

Anyway.
When you look at CVs you look at experience and progression or lack thereof. Clearly something stood out to the interviewer. Like maybe a string of short to midterm employments with interruptions and positions not in line with qualification and never any advancement from entry level positions.

Like say I interviewed someone in their late thirties with an IT degree and maybe a masters later on and all I'd see was this person doing 1 or 2 year stints in help desk roles. It would be of course worth a question as to why the interviewed thinks this is the case, would it not? I am not automatically implying this person is useless or not career focused enough and I am not automatically applying some cold heartless corporate yardstick.
After all the interviewed is sitting there in front of me when others do not. I didn't invite them to belittle them. i am interested, but there is a question or two to be asked and if I didn't think there was a satisfactory answer to them I wouldn't have invited them in the first place.

To think that this is an insult is being overly defensive in my opinion and I find the attitude on thread here very pampered and sheltered tbh. And I would not consider myself a 'corporate person', quite the opposite probably.

HandsomeBob

Then ask a direct question about your concern on someone's cv about how they seem to be only having 1 or 2 year stints in each job with no sign of advancement. That is a fair question and one that can be made without even referencing age.

Teyla Emmagan

CalamariFritti wrote:

To think that this is an insult is being overly defensive in my opinion and I find the attitude on thread here very pampered and sheltered tbh.

Of course it is a insult. There are million different reasons why people are at different stages in their career, many of which wouldn't show up on your CV. You could have been ill, or a carer, or struggling with a learning disability, or playing for your country team, or dealing with terrible personal circumstances, or addiction. You can't tell what any person has come through. And here's some smug little twit of a HR person asking you why you haven't "made it" yet. Maybe you don't want to "make it", maybe you just want to pay the bills and get on with your life. This idiot is there to assess your ability to do a job not question your life trajectory.

She deserves a swift kick up the hole at the least.

CalamariFritti

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

Of course it is a insult. There are million different reasons why people are at different stages in their career, many of which wouldn't show up on your CV. You could have been ill, or a carer, or struggling with a learning disability, or playing for your country team, or dealing with terrible personal circumstances, or addiction. You can't tell what any person has come through. And here's some smug little twit of a HR person asking you why you haven't "made it" yet. Maybe you don't want to "make it", maybe you just want to pay the bills and get on with your life. This idiot is there to assess your ability to do a job not question your life trajectory.

She deserves a swift kick up the hole at the least.

The above would include some of those vary satisfactory answers. So, whats wrong with it? This is recruitment and it does of course include judgement. If you were hiring yourself, would you rather take someone with break due to illness, county team etc or someone who simply couldn't be bothered? So you're trying to find out what is it.

Tbh your reply comes across very prejudiced, defensive and full of attitude. I would wonder when was the last time you have been in an interview yourself and would you show that kind of attitude in an interview? I dare say you would not.

HandsomeBob

People should not have to go that much in depth on their personal life in an interview just to satisfy someone. Most people would have a prepared answer if the question came up, one that was firm that didn't go into too much detail but at the same time tells the interviewer in a subtle manner not to go there.

If the interviewer wishes to further push for answers that's their prerogative. In that case I'll happily decide there and then that your company ain't for me.

davo10

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

There are million different reasons why people are at different stages in their career, many of which wouldn't show up on your CV.

You could have been ill, or a carer, or struggling with a learning disability, or playing for your country team, or dealing with terrible personal circumstances, or addiction.

You can't tell what any person has come through. And here's some smug little twit of a HR person asking you why you haven't "made it" yet.

Maybe you don't want to "make it", maybe you just want to pay the bills and get on with your life. This idiot is there to assess your ability to do a job not question your life trajectory.
.

All good reasons for asking the question I would have thought. If this was a management position, they will hardly be looking for someone who lacks ambition.

givyjoe

CalamariFritti wrote: »

I can't understand why this thread keeps going in circles and why people are so 'precious' about this question. And of all things this silly 'ageism' card is being pulled out of the hat. Yes you cannot discriminate, but age is a fact of life and is of course relevant if nothing else in the context of progression.

I followed the thread at the beginning, but haven't caught up on all of it yet. Has the OP come back and given any insights into their CV? For all I know we don't know what triggered that question, we don't know that CV.

Anyway.
When you look at CVs you look at experience and progression or lack thereof. Clearly something stood out to the interviewer. Like maybe a string of short to midterm employments with interruptions and positions not in line with qualification and never any advancement from entry level positions.

Like say I interviewed someone in their late thirties with an IT degree and maybe a masters later on and all I'd see was this person doing 1 or 2 year stints in help desk roles. It would be of course worth a question as to why the interviewed thinks this is the case, would it not? I am not automatically implying this person is useless or not career focused enough and I am not automatically applying some cold heartless corporate yardstick.
After all the interviewed is sitting there in front of me when others do not. I didn't invite them to belittle them. i am interested, but there is a question or two to be asked and if I didn't think there was a satisfactory answer to them I wouldn't have invited them in the first place.

To think that this is an insult is being overly defensive in my opinion and I find the attitude on thread here very pampered and sheltered tbh. And I would not consider myself a 'corporate person', quite the opposite probably.

I'm equally bemused by folks who think that this was an appropriate question to ask and with the words that were used, despite numerous posters giving clear reasons as to the legal issues that would arise from it.

It's one thing wondering why someone 'hasn't made it' but its another to specifically state 'Im always concerned by people at your age who haven't made it yet'.

Do you understand how this leaves the company wide open to a claim of discrimination on the grounds of age? Hint, read back a few pages.

server down

I too am amazed that you can provide (as pilly has) evidence that asking about age is actionable or that the expertise of givyjoe is ignored. The real issue is the word used.

Defenders of the interviewer keep coming back to argue that the interviewer asked a reasonable question about expertise and the op’s progression , as if the op had to interpret a question about age as a question about experience.

Neyite

"What age are you?" swiftly followed by the statement "I am always concerned about people who are later in life and haven't had it happen for them yet" shows fairly clearly where the interviewer's thought process was going and it was leading the company into a dodgy legal minefield.

I'd assume that it was some team leader or supervisor with no interview training or experience drafted in to make it look like a panel or take notes and got notions they were one of the judges on X factor. I'd be willing to bet that the fellow interviewers were absolutely cringing inside, and they got a bollocking when you left.

I know someone who's supervisor tried to engineer that their maternity replacement stay in the persons's position and the one returning to work was given more junior tasks and told her old tasks would stay with X. There was also an attempt at forced job share too. But it wasn't someone who had the backing of the company - quite the opposite and when the returnee mentioned it to someone more senior, they were horrified and it got shut down ridiculously fast. The person who caused all the chaos didn't last much longer in the job after that.

The way that you approach this though, could really show your maturity and professionalism. Before you get a job offer or pfo, I would email their HR and explain factually what was said in the interview. Frame it as important and necessary feedback for them. Keep your emotions out of it - for example, don't say you were offended or insulted, but rather that you were taken aback by the question/statement as it's meaning was clear and was potentially discriminatory and you felt it was a poor reflection on the company. Thank them for their time etc. I wouldn't post a review or tweet them. Give them a chance to set things right.

Teyla Emmagan

CalamariFritti wrote:

Tbh your reply comes across very prejudiced, defensive and full of attitude. I would wonder when was the last time you have been in an interview yourself and would you show that kind of attitude in an interview? I dare say you would not.

If this had happened to me would have smiled politely at the interviewer, brushed off the question and reported them after as requiring further training. And I would have told the agency who sent me to interview that I had no interest in working for such an unprofessional company.

I've had 3 interviews in the last year and a half, all of which were completely successful. But that doesn't mean I think any interviewer has the right to be in anyway demeaning towards an applicant who is giving up their time to come in and meet them.

HR is full of idiots who think they're gods.

CalamariFritti

CalamariFritti wrote: »

I understand how it might be upsetting but it's not really an insult, no?

You mean like along the lines of "well you have been obviously useless up to now, why is that?"

davo10

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You mean like along the lines of "well you have been obviously useless up to now, why is that?"

The interviewer needs to find out if you are in fact useless, what employer would want to employ a useless employee.

The question was poorly put, the the interviewer should try to find out why an applicant hasn't progressed after a long period of time.

davo10

davo10 wrote: »

The interviewer needs to find out if you are in fact useless, what employer would want to employ a useless employee.

The question was poorly put, the the interviewer should try to find out why an applicant hasn't progressed after a long period of time.

Nonsense, absolute nonsense.
They have the OPs CV, references, and asked them to interview. Why bother if that's the attitude of the interview

davo10

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Nonsense, absolute nonsense.
They have the OPs CV, references, and asked them to interview. Why bother if that's the attitude of the interview

To meet the person of course. CVs and references are useful, but meeting/talking to the applicant is invaluable. You are asked to interview, along with many others, to assess you. There could have been many valid reasons for the ops failure to progress in his/her job, it may have been by choice, but the employer would like to know why.

The question was badly put, no one can dispute that. But it shouldn't be that hard to answer.

givyjoe

davo10 wrote: »

To meet the person of course. CVs and references are useful, but meeting/talking to the applicant is invaluable. You are asked to interview, along with many others, to assess you. There could have been many valid reasons for the ops failure to progress in his/her job, it may have been by choice, but the employer would like to know why.

The question was badly put, no one can dispute that. But it shouldn't be that hard to answer.

Really, you really think it shouldn't be that hard to answer..?! You haven't 'made it'... as other's have mentioned.. what exactly is it..? What constitutes making it? The interviewer clearly stated they were concerned by the OP's lack of progress and their age. The approximate age could have been worked out from the CV and if such a concern existed, no interview should have taken place. Rightly or wrongly.

davo10

givyjoe wrote: »

Really, you really think it shouldn't be that hard to answer..?! You haven't 'made it'... as other's have mentioned.. what exactly is it..? What constitutes making it? The interviewer clearly stated they were concerned by the OP's lack of progress and their age. The approximate age could have been worked out from the CV and if such a concern existed, no interview should have taken place. Rightly or wrongly.

To be honest I haven't read the whole thread, it's repetitive, some saying it's not that bad, most calling for the interviewer to be taken out and shot at noon. I don't know the industry, or the position applied for, but I'd suspect it is relevant. If the op has been working in IT for 20 years and hasn't risen above an entry level position, then if the interview was for a management position, "it" could be management level experience. If the op hasn't risen above an entry level position during that period, it would be remiss of the interviewer to find out why. Who would employ an applicant who doesn't know their arse from their elbow? There may well be valid reasons why the op hasn't made the progression that would usually go hand in hand with that level of experience, but unless the op informs the interviewer of those reasons, the interviewer is left to draw her own conclusions and the op doesn't get the job.

Now you can shout this down and tut tut about the injustice of the system which makes questions like this seem acceptable to some, or you can just see it for what it was, a clumsy question by an insensitive interviewer. Big deal, answer it and move on.

AndrewJRenko

davo10 wrote: »

To meet the person of course. CVs and references are useful, but meeting/talking to the applicant is invaluable. You are asked to interview, along with many others, to assess you. There could have been many valid reasons for the ops failure to progress in his/her job, it may have been by choice, but the employer would like to know why.

This would only be relevant if a requirement for 'progression' was put on the job spec. If they want somebody who has 'progressed' or 'made it', then they need to ask for that.

davo10

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

This would only be relevant if a requirement for 'progression' was put on the job spec. If they want somebody who has 'progressed' or 'made it', then they need to ask for that.

Not many people applying for management level jobs go to interviews unless there is scope for progression. No right minded company wants to employ people at management level unless they want to progress in their job. Application, ambition, advancement, if you don't want it, someone else does.

Not many jobs are advertised: "job available, management level, apply if you don't want progression or to "make it"". That would be silly wouldn't it?

AndrewJRenko

davo10 wrote: »

Not many people applying for management level jobs go to interviews unless there is scope for progression. No right minded company wants to employ people at management level unless they want to progress in their job. Application, ambition, advancement, if you don't want it, someone else does.

Not many jobs are advertised: "job available, management level, apply if you don't want progression or to "make it"". That would be silly wouldn't it?

What's so special about 'management level' that people want progression? Why would a right-minded company not want people at sub-management level to want to progress in their jobs?

And what's the problem if someone else wants it? If I'm quite happy to continue to do the job I'm doing, and do it really, really well, why would you be pushing to move me to a different job that I will ultimately screw up?

Check out the Peter Principle and tell me how it benefits an organisation to require 'progression' at certain levels?

And tell me again why it would be silly for a job advert to be clear about the job requirements?

Gerry T

givyjoe wrote:

Really, you really think it shouldn't be that hard to answer..?! You haven't 'made it'... as other's have mentioned.. what exactly is it..? What constitutes making it? The interviewer clearly stated they were concerned by the OP's lack of progress and their age. The approximate age could have been worked out from the CV and if such a concern existed, no interview should have taken place. Rightly or wrongly.

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.