Asked age again during interview!

skallywag

partyguinness wrote: »

I will put my head above the parapet here and say that we do not entertain CVs from woman for senior roles. Junior or admin roles, yes. We are looking for a candidate for a specific role at the moment.

I get this point completely, and it is unfortunately the reality in many smaller sized businesses in particular, who will genuinely struggle to finance mat leave, etc.

It can also swing the other way though depending on circumstance. We are currently recruiting for a senior role where being female will be a clear advantage, due to a huge D & I push which we have running at the moment. We find ourselves always having to constantly justify why we have no women in very senior positions, despite the fact that we have been actively looking to either promote or to hire women into such a position for years now. It has come to the point where I feel that we will no longer be able to keep a neutral perspective, and will sway towards hiring at woman at all costs at a certain point.

Esse85

partyguinness wrote: »

That sounds great in theory but in reality if you are looking for a new role quite a few applicants will not be in a position or even want to get lippy with a prospective employer.


An employer will have several canddiates to interview and it is up to the employee to 'sell themselves' and stand out. Getting ratty is not the best way to stand out. I am not saying that certain questions are correct but but getting high and mighty and indignant about certain questions is fine if you have that luxury

Nobody suggested getting ratty or lippy, that's what your assuming here.

Anyone selling anything, be it themselves or a product/service should be finding out whats the motivation behind asking that question.

The employer needs to sell themselves too, they usually want the best candidate, the best candidates will spot red flags like that straight away and disqualify this role as not being a good fit for them.

Pawwed Rig

crossman47 wrote: »

Ten years work can't be irrelevant. Leaving a gap like that will lead (rightly) to questions about what you did for those ten years. Interviewers have to probe background - you could have been in prison.

Of course it can. It is not relevant to the job I am applying for so better to put relevant experience in rather than a couple of years stacking shelves in Superquinn or other. Also the LC is not relevant as it is never one of the criteria for the jobs I seek. They all ask for a certain level 9 qualification which I have. What I got in Irish when I was 18 is, again, irrelevant. My CV is to the point and reflects the position I am applying for.
Unless your CV is like a diary with a list of dates then I don't see how they can probe things that they don't know about.
Noone wants a 4 page CV that goes into excruciating detail about the times you served breakfast in a B&B or the deli counter you worked at one summer in Boston.

partyguinness

Esse85 wrote: »

Nobody suggested getting ratty or lippy, that's what your assuming here.

Anyone selling anything, be it themselves or a product/service should be finding out whats the motivation behind asking that question.

The employer needs to sell themselves too, they usually want the best candidate, the best candidates will spot red flags like that straight away and disqualify this role as not being a good fit for them.

It was I that said that nobody else. Personally I would not ask that question but if a candidate did retort essentially "It's none of your business or it is irrelevant" then it may not be taken well by the employer.

I mean how many times do we fill in our DOB or confirm our age when using the internet? Everyday it seems but yet when an employer asks we freak out and tell them to piss off.

Personally I have been asked my DOB in interviews in the past. Didn't bother me remotely and in fact it is usually a good sign. As far as I was concerned I have nothing to hide. My DOB ties in with the dates in my CV so no big deal.

If it is an employee's market then sure pick and choose but it is generally not an employee's market. If a candidate is that perfect or essential for the role then the employer won't even bother with such questions but will stick to a set of pre prepared questions as a box ticking exercise for HR. Basically offer the job on the spot.

Rotting Carrot

Esse85 wrote: »

The employer needs to sell themselves too, they usually want the best candidate, the best candidates will spot red flags like that straight away and disqualify this role as not being a good fit for them.

Won't the employer will often assume, that even the best candidate, can not afford to be so picky.

hots

partyguinness wrote: »

I will put my head above the parapet here and say that we do not entertain CVs from woman for senior roles. Junior or admin roles, yes. We are looking for a candidate for a specific role at the moment.

We seem to get quite a few cvs from woman who want part time work so they can juggle childcare e.g. want to leave at 2.30pm/3pm etc or say 2-3 days a week. No chance. It is not a part time role but yet they are still blasting in cvs- which leads us to think that they do not appreciate the task at hand and are just blindly emailing off cvs to everyone and anyone.

The rest of us are fully committed 10-12 hours a day 5-6-7 days a week. It will only breed resentment if the rest of us are here until 7-8pm most nights running the show and 'she' is fecking off at 3pm. Guaranteed there will be late mornings because of the school run delays, school holidays, and all manner of morning text messages to say little Johnny has a high temperature and she can't make it in. Then everyone else has to pick up the slack. I have seen it countless times before- it just pisses everyone else off. Funnily enough it tends to be other women that are the most vocal. The men tend to stay well clear for fear of being branded sexist etc etc.

Not pc and a bit sad really but the reality is that this is a consideration for small employers. Grand if you are with Apple or Dell but for small employers is just not cost effective. And yes, we also have our own children. Call us horrible human beings all you want.

There's a big difference between not offering shorter working weeks or flexitime and writing off all female applicants at the CV stage, no wonder you can't find anyone! :rolleyes:

If someone comes to you who's qualified and can demonstrate the experience needed to perform at your management level it's pretty obvious they're not clocking off at 3 (or if they are they're super human workers anyway).

Esse85

Rotting Carrot wrote: »

Won't the employer will often assume, that even the best candidate, can not afford to be so picky.

What are you trying to say here?

Esse85

partyguinness wrote: »

It was I that said that nobody else. Personally I would not ask that question but if a candidate did retort essentially "It's none of your business or it is irrelevant" then it may not be taken well by the employer.

I mean how many times do we fill in our DOB or confirm our age when using the internet? Everyday it seems but yet when an employer asks we freak out and tell them to piss off.

Personally I have been asked my DOB in interviews in the past. Didn't bother me remotely and in fact it is usually a good sign. As far as I was concerned I have nothing to hide. My DOB ties in with the dates in my CV so no big deal.

If it is an employee's market then sure pick and choose but it is generally not an employee's market. If a candidate is that perfect or essential for the role then the employer won't even bother with such questions but will stick to a set of pre prepared questions as a box ticking exercise for HR. Basically offer the job on the spot.

Filling in what age we are on Internet forms online is completety different to being asked how old we are during an interview.

Pathetic comparison to make.

Nobody had told anyone to "piss off", there's you jumping to conclusions and making assumptions again.

And finally the reason employers don't offer employees jobs on the spot is because all might match up well on paper on a cv, there's a lot more to it than that, depending on the role. People's skills, attitude etc.

Not surprised you overlooked that part.

bucketybuck

partyguinness wrote: »

That sounds great in theory but in reality if you are looking for a new role quite a few applicants will not be in a position or even want to get lippy with a prospective employer.

I do find it a bit amusing when I see comments about putting the interviewer in their place, or giving a smart answer if you don't like the question.

I know my place, its the place where I decide who gets the job or not, and being a smartarse to me is a damn good way to rule yourself out of the running.

Its common sense, we are looking for an employee who will integrate well with the company, somebody getting the hump during an interview is a red flag I'm not ignoring.

Jafin

partyguinness wrote: »

I will put my head above the parapet here and say that we do not entertain CVs from woman for senior roles. Junior or admin roles, yes. We are looking for a candidate for a specific role at the moment.

We seem to get quite a few cvs from woman who want part time work so they can juggle childcare e.g. want to leave at 2.30pm/3pm etc or say 2-3 days a week. No chance. It is not a part time role but yet they are still blasting in cvs- which leads us to think that they do not appreciate the task at hand and are just blindly emailing off cvs to everyone and anyone.

The rest of us are fully committed 10-12 hours a day 5-6-7 days a week. It will only breed resentment if the rest of us are here until 7-8pm most nights running the show and 'she' is fecking off at 3pm. Guaranteed there will be late mornings because of the school run delays, school holidays, and all manner of morning text messages to say little Johnny has a high temperature and she can't make it in. Then everyone else has to pick up the slack. I have seen it countless times before- it just pisses everyone else off. Funnily enough it tends to be other women that are the most vocal. The men tend to stay well clear for fear of being branded sexist etc etc.

Not pc and a bit sad really but the reality is that this is a consideration for small employers. Grand if you are with Apple or Dell but for small employers is just not cost effective. And yes, we also have our own children. Call us horrible human beings all you want.

I really just had to comment and say how wrong this is. By all means write off the people who are looking for part time work, but you can't possibly think that every single woman who applies even has children. Even if they do have children that doesn't mean they can't work full time. Their partner could be looking after the children or they could have full time childcare in place for all you know. I'm an only child who was raised by a single mother and she worked full time when I was growing up with no issues. She had a childminder for me up until I was about 11/12 and old enough to look after myself for the few hours after school.

I just feel like it's very wrong that you are writing off women like that based on an assumption and/or experiences you've had in the past. These are the types of questions you can ask in an interview to ascertain if they can work full time. Make it clear that the role is demanding and that the successful candidate could often have to work hours outside their shift. If they can't do it then at worst you've wasted 20-30 minutes of interview time. You could even make it clear that those would be the demands of the role ahead of the interview so that if people can't do it they don't come for the interview. I know people will sometimes embellish/lie a bit to try and get the job, but the point still stands. If you lay it all out at the beginning and they get the job but can't do the required work then you can still let them go while they're on their probationary period.

I dunno, maybe I live in cloud cuckoo land and see the world through rose tinted glasses, but that's just my view on it. You could have missed out on some really good workers by imposing this ideal.

ednwireland

partyguinness wrote: »

And yeah, we cannot find anyone.

not surprised sounds toxic (dont get me wrong if people ring me on a weekend and its an emergency or im working fine but dont make a habit of it !)
im normally out at 6pm after a 9am start they dont pay me enough to sit there for 12 hours.

anyway back to the point ii never know you weren't supposed to ask peoples age, i wonder how many people who are interviewing have had any formal guidance, our company has moved form small owner to large sme to multinational through acquisitions in the last 12 months and its a very different process for everything now than it was.

Rotting Carrot

Esse85 wrote: »

What are you trying to say here?

I thought I made myself clear. Generally speaking, the person being interviewed needs the company more than the company needs them. But you're right, a good candidate is more likely to spot a red flag. But I don't think it's too common that the interviewer will deliberately test the person just to see if the person won't stand for their sh1t and then reveal to them "oh don't worry, that was only a test... and you passed"!

partyguinness

partyguinness wrote: »

I will put my head above the parapet here and say that we do not entertain CVs from woman for senior roles. Junior or admin roles, yes. We are looking for a candidate for a specific role at the moment.

We seem to get quite a few cvs from woman who want part time work so they can juggle childcare e.g. want to leave at 2.30pm/3pm etc or say 2-3 days a week. No chance. It is not a part time role but yet they are still blasting in cvs- which leads us to think that they do not appreciate the task at hand and are just blindly emailing off cvs to everyone and anyone.

The rest of us are fully committed 10-12 hours a day 5-6-7 days a week. It will only breed resentment if the rest of us are here until 7-8pm most nights running the show and 'she' is fecking off at 3pm. Guaranteed there will be late mornings because of the school run delays, school holidays, and all manner of morning text messages to say little Johnny has a high temperature and she can't make it in. Then everyone else has to pick up the slack. I have seen it countless times before- it just pisses everyone else off. Funnily enough it tends to be other women that are the most vocal. The men tend to stay well clear for fear of being branded sexist etc etc.

Not pc and a bit sad really but the reality is that this is a consideration for small employers. Grand if you are with Apple or Dell but for small employers is just not cost effective. And yes, we also have our own children. Call us horrible human beings all you want.

Putting my head above the water and saying this is all made up. Don't believe a word of it. Surprised so many fell for it.

The OP is getting good responses from others though.

Wildly Boaring

partyguinness wrote: »

If I had a CV in front of me with no LC then I will assume that you do not have a LC.

My CV would not include my LC.
I've a degree and chartered in my profession.
Putting in LC seems very civil/public service to me.
Pointless really

partyguinness

hots wrote: »

There's a big difference between not offering shorter working weeks or flexitime and writing off all female applicants at the CV stage, no wonder you can't find anyone! :rolleyes:

I am afraid the role is not compatible with shorter working weeks or flexitime. But yet we still get cvs from women wanting shorter working weeks and flexitime so they can juggle childcare.

If we had a cv from a man who wanted to juggle childcare with flexitime/shorter week it would be the exact same response.

hots wrote: »

If someone comes to you who's qualified and can demonstrate the experience needed to perform at your management level it's pretty obvious they're not clocking off at 3 (or if they are they're super human workers anyway).

They will expressly state in the covering letter or the Recruitment Agent will say it in their covering note that they wish to finish at 2.30/3.00pm. That is a not compatible with the role and essentially defeats the entire purpose. If we want someone just to clock in and clock out at 2.30/3pm 3-4 days a week- no problem. We already have 2 women here on 3 days a week so they can manage childcare (junior/admin roles).

As I said, they are probably just emailing off cvs to everyone hoping something will stick...better suited to a larger employer who has the resources to handle flexitime.

secondrowgal

partyguinness wrote: »

I will put my head above the parapet here and say that we do not entertain CVs from woman for senior roles. Junior or admin roles, yes. We are looking for a candidate for a specific role at the moment.

We seem to get quite a few cvs from woman who want part time work so they can juggle childcare e.g. want to leave at 2.30pm/3pm etc or say 2-3 days a week. No chance. It is not a part time role but yet they are still blasting in cvs- which leads us to think that they do not appreciate the task at hand and are just blindly emailing off cvs to everyone and anyone.

The rest of us are fully committed 10-12 hours a day 5-6-7 days a week. It will only breed resentment if the rest of us are here until 7-8pm most nights running the show and 'she' is fecking off at 3pm. Guaranteed there will be late mornings because of the school run delays, school holidays, and all manner of morning text messages to say little Johnny has a high temperature and she can't make it in. Then everyone else has to pick up the slack. I have seen it countless times before- it just pisses everyone else off. Funnily enough it tends to be other women that are the most vocal. The men tend to stay well clear for fear of being branded sexist etc etc.

Not pc and a bit sad really but the reality is that this is a consideration for small employers. Grand if you are with Apple or Dell but for small employers is just not cost effective. And yes, we also have our own children. Call us horrible human beings all you want.

Complete opposite experience here.

Have been in my area for more than 30 years and it's predominantly female, STEM by the way. Have also run my own small business for 20 years, again predominately female staff as that's just the area. More than 50% of my staff are on part-time/flexible hours, and I can honestly say (and have metrics to prove it) that their productivity is above all the full-time staff. And they pay back the company's flexibility with dedication and loyalty. I don't allow or encourage out of hours working and the only person to ever have worked weekends in all that time is me.

So, it all depends on the company and the staff and it should always be the right person for the team and the role (in that order IMO), and that's the way to keep everything running smoothly with low staff turnover, in my experience.

College yes, work experience yes. Leaving cert, if you want, but it doesn't matter unless it's for a non skilled job perhaps, or a very junior role.

shesty

partyguinness wrote: »

I am afraid the role is not compatible with shorter working weeks or flexitime. But yet we still get cvs from women wanting shorter working weeks and flexitime so they can juggle childcare.

If we had a cv from a man who wanted to juggle childcare with flexitime/shorter week it would be the exact same response.



They will expressly state in the covering letter or the Recruitment Agent will say it in their covering note that they wish to finish at 2.30/3.00pm. That is a not compatible with the role and essentially defeats the entire purpose. If we want someone just to clock in and clock out at 2.30/3pm 3-4 days a week- no problem. We already have 2 women here on 3 days a week so they can manage childcare (junior/admin roles).

As I said, they are probably just emailing off cvs to everyone hoping something will stick...better suited to a larger employer who has the resources to handle flexitime.

Or maybe they are hoping to get a job with a good employer who might give them part time hours for a few years and then let them move to full time after that....

I actually think you are the one with the problem.10-12 hour days??you probably need to have a look at your work/life balance there.How many of the people in your firm with young kids have a partner at home not working to facilitate their other half's 10-12 hour days??I wonder how many of those at home might like to get out and work again but can't.Or how many are on reduced hours at another firm, where their value can be seen and accepted, even if they walk off at 2.30/3pm - to accommodate those in your firm?

Your attitude speaks volumes about your company to be honest.

partyguinness

Wildly Boaring wrote: »

My CV would not include my LC.
I've a degree and chartered in my profession.
Putting in LC seems very civil/public service to me.
Pointless really

I agree. My cv would just have the year and school. I am not talking about listing out your results...who gives a crap about your D2 in pass French. But I would at least expect to see at a minimum say:

"Education
- 1998 Leaving Certificate- St ABC, ABCTown
- 2002 UCD BA

etc etc"

That is a one liner. Also helpful to know where that person may be from. I have to admit I have never seen a cv that did not list year of LC. We are not even that interested in the third level- purely the professional qualifications post third level and work experience. Probably because you are not likely to have the professional qualifications with the specific third level degree in the first place and it follows that you did well in your LC.

partyguinness

shesty wrote: »

Or maybe they are hoping to get a job with a good employer who might give them part time hours for a few years and then let them move to full time after that....

As I said they are better off in a larger firm that have the resources and man power to offer more flexible arrangements.

shesty wrote: »

I actually think you are the one with the problem.10-12 hour days??you probably need to have a look at your work/life balance there.How many of the people in your firm with young kids have a partner at home not working to facilitate their other half's 10-12 hour days??I wonder how many of those at home might like to get out and work again but can't.Or how many are on reduced hours at another firm, where their value can be seen and accepted, even if they walk off at 2.30/3pm - to accommodate those in your firm?

Your attitude speaks volumes about your company to be honest.

Tell me something I don't know..

There are no employees here working 10-12 hours a day. It is the people running the place.

"attitude" do you think we like working 10-12 hours a day or 7 days a week? Nobody lies on their deathbed wishing they spent more time at the office. It is very normal in my line of work unfortunately.

Staff get 26 days holiday every year. Myself and another business partner did not take a single week's holiday last year between us. I had 2 days off in 2020 and even those days were spent in an airport.

When C19 hit the fan last March and we furloughed all the staff we just said to ourselves that our goal now is to make sure the staff have a job to come back to. We are both in here every single day 8.30 to 5.30. Staff paid in full rather than the 80% the Gov was offering and no redundancies and all brought back, Christmas bonus and they will get a pay rise next month. I will actually take a heavy pay cut (I am bracing for a 40% cut) due to a dip in profits but at least there is a profit.

We have had staff here since 1991, 2003 and 2011 (all women who have had children). We are a good employer and staff stay with us and we bend over backwards to keep them. Good employees are very hard to find and keep.

How many employees reading this would accept 2 days off in the entire year, a 60-70 hours week and then topped off with a 40% pay cut? Certainly not looking for sympathy as everyone has a choice but it is a reality. There are far worse positions to be in.

Sure, you can sneer at our "attitude" but another way to look at it is that our hard work and diligence is why we are able to keep our employees in a job. Many other employers in the same boat.

Sounds like a chaotic place to work. Incredibly non efficient.

Strumms

partyguinness wrote: »

I will put my head above the parapet here and say that we do not entertain CVs from woman for senior roles. Junior or admin roles, yes. We are looking for a candidate for a specific role at the moment.

We seem to get quite a few cvs from woman who want part time work so they can juggle childcare e.g. want to leave at 2.30pm/3pm etc or say 2-3 days a week. No chance. It is not a part time role but yet they are still blasting in cvs- which leads us to think that they do not appreciate the task at hand and are just blindly emailing off cvs to everyone and anyone.

The rest of us are fully committed 10-12 hours a day 5-6-7 days a week. It will only breed resentment if the rest of us are here until 7-8pm most nights running the show and 'she' is fecking off at 3pm. Guaranteed there will be late mornings because of the school run delays, school holidays, and all manner of morning text messages to say little Johnny has a high temperature and she can't make it in. Then everyone else has to pick up the slack. I have seen it countless times before- it just pisses everyone else off. Funnily enough it tends to be other women that are the most vocal. The men tend to stay well clear for fear of being branded sexist etc etc.

Not pc and a bit sad really but the reality is that this is a consideration for small employers. Grand if you are with Apple or Dell but for small employers is just not cost effective. And yes, we also have our own children. Call us horrible human beings all you want.

That’s a bit mad, you’d want to be a bit soft in the skull to send in CVs applying for a full time job but only willing to work part time.

CV would find its way in the direction of the bin.

I witnessed the HIGKB (hey, I got kids brigade) in full flight in a previous job... not one fûck did any of them give about the business, customers, colleagues or whatever... they expected their colleagues, managers and vendors to dance attendance on every whim of theirs, swop shifts at a moments notice, them to miss shifts and hours because of xyz...

crossman47

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Of course it can. It is not relevant to the job I am applying for so better to put relevant experience in rather than a couple of years stacking shelves in Superquinn or other. Also the LC is not relevant as it is never one of the criteria for the jobs I seek. They all ask for a certain level 9 qualification which I have. What I got in Irish when I was 18 is, again, irrelevant. My CV is to the point and reflects the position I am applying for.
Unless your CV is like a diary with a list of dates then I don't see how they can probe things that they don't know about.
Noone wants a 4 page CV that goes into excruciating detail about the times you served breakfast in a B&B or the deli counter you worked at one summer in Boston.

Nobody wants excruciating detail but they do want work history. Serving on a deli counter can show you can deal with people. I have done interviewing and, if there was an obvious gap, I would ask what you did for, say, your five years after college. Every work experience is relevant - for good or bad.

partyguinness

QUOTE=6;116729067]Sounds like a chaotic place to work. Incredibly non efficient.[/QUOTE]


Inefficient absolutely yes but not chaotic. It was far worse when I joined in 2014- Jesus Christ don't get me started. Some of the older staff are very inefficienct. They do not know any better and then we are too preoccupied with the overall running of the place to really deal with it head on. Some of the older staff are scaling back with a view to retirement so that will help with introducing new practices but then we have the problem of recruitment.

We are always looking for more efficient ways. It is a vicious circle. We know where efficiencies need to be made but we can't find the time or staff to do it. In this climate it is just a case of surviving.

johnmcdnl

partyguinness wrote: »

Well, there is more to it than that. The employees just do their 9-5 shift. It is management and us running the firm that will be putting in the longer hours- we are essentially self employed without the luxury of clocking off at 5pm Monday to Friday.

And yeah, we cannot find anyone.

I wonder why ye can't find anyone to jump in and do huge amounts of overtime 5-6 days a week on a regular basis.

Maybe if ye cut your predjuices and hired some of those women on a 20-30 hour week instead of binning their CVs it'll take that extra bit of load off. If everyone knows the new person is on a shorter hours contract well then no one is expecting them to be there until all hours in the first place so where or why would there be resentment. But perhaps your reason is more that you don't want your staff who do work stupid long hours getting notions that perhaps they too should consider going home at 5pm or actually trying it balance work and life.

Have you considered what you and your managers constantly working all this overtime does to staff moral? Maybe we're all different but I know that I personally would feel guilt tripped into working a little longer if my manager was constantly working overtime. Now I'm suddenly working overtime for no reason and no benefit to myself other than because I don't want my manager thinking I'm lazy for going home on time. That for me is far more discouraging and would make me far more resentful than someone popping out to collect a sick kid. But that's maybe just me, and I'm alone with this opinion. Just food for thought.

partyguinness

Strumms wrote: »

That’s a bit mad, you’d want to be a bit soft in the skull to send in CVs applying for a full time job but only willing to work part time.

CV would find its way in the direction of the bin.

I witnessed the HIGKB (hey, I got kids brigade) in full flight in a previous job... not one fûck did any of them give about the business, customers, colleagues or whatever... they expected their colleagues, managers and vendors to dance attendance on every whim of theirs, swop shifts at a moments notice, them to miss shifts and hours because of xyz...

We have a particularly member of staff who has two kids (6 and 11) and she completely pulls the piss. She turns up (let' s call her Mary) for a few hours a week because of kid related issues. She must have the sickest kids in the world. Even when she does bother to show up she never shuts up about her kids....the other women she works with hate her.

In fact it has been a bone of friction between us running the place. One of the lads is too soft and even in the face of the most blatant cast iron evidence that she does absolutlely eff all he doesnt want to hear it.

Even her secretary wanted to leave last year and she specifically cited the Mary's lack of attendance and how she dumps everything on her. But still he ignores it. "Mary" claims to be working from home...bull effing ****...she never takes home files, arrives with no files and I checked her Teamviewer log and nothing for two whole weeks at one stage. Never mind the rubbish billing. We have had blazing rows over her.

Despite all of this...he just won't hear of it...she must have some right dirt on him is the only explanation.

PoisonIvyBelle

nuckeythompson wrote: »

It is a big thing in recruitment, I had clients in the past who blatantly refused to consider female clients due to maternity leave etc.
I also had a candidate once and while prepping her I did suggest she remove the giant engagement rock on her finger. A few days pass and pulled in by my manager who was pretty cool about it. She had lodged a complaint about me suggesting she remove the ring. She was not be forward for any more positions

Yeah recruitment is ruthless. I did a brief stint in it many years ago and firstly, the actual company I worked for only wanted women employess wearing heels and you HAD to wear makeup. Seriously, I was pulled in for wearing flat shoes on one occasion. I look like fcuking Bambi walking in heels so god knows why they thought that was the better presentable option for me. And I went in one time with very minimal makeup (a bit of concealer) and was told it wasn't acceptable and was told to at least put on a lipstick before meeting clients that day. The women working there were always dolled up to the nines which is fine except it was an actual job requirement.

Anyone with visible tattoos was ruled out right away (ironic given how many I have now). I interviewed an excellent guy with a tongue piercing and they wanted to take him out of the running for it, I pushed on his behalf but I actually had to ask him to take it out for them to keep working with him. To be fair to him, he could see a visible piercing I had to take out daily to work there so he knew I wasn't happy to have to ask him, and he did take it out.

partyguinness

PoisonIvyBelle wrote: »

Yeah recruitment is ruthless. I did a brief stint in it many years ago and firstly, the actual company I worked for only wanted women employess wearing heels and you HAD to wear makeup. Seriously, I was pulled in for wearing flat shoes on one occasion. I look like fcuking Bambi walking in heels so god knows why they thought that was the better presentable option for me. And I went in one time with very minimal makeup (a bit of concealer) and was told it wasn't acceptable and was told to at least put on a lipstick before meeting clients that day. The women working there were always dolled up to the nines which is fine except it was an actual job requirement.

Anyone with visible tattoos was ruled out right away (ironic given how many I have now). I interviewed an excellent guy with a tongue piercing and they wanted to take him out of the running for it, I pushed on his behalf but I actually had to ask him to take it out for them to keep working with him.

That sounds like a friend of my wife who worked in a car showroom for a well known high end German car manufacturer.

She said they had cameras everywhere keeping on eye on the staff and you always had to look busy, act in a certain manner, and do x, y and z in a certain manner. Needless to say the staff all looked like runway models.

It sounded horrendous.

nuckeythompson

For what its worth in my experience I have found that when I have been asked intrusive questions such as marital status etc ( Im male by the way) in the past I have found these the more difficult to work with so when asked nowadays thats a red flag to me - move the F on

hots

partyguinness wrote: »

I am afraid the role is not compatible with shorter working weeks or flexitime. But yet we still get cvs from women wanting shorter working weeks and flexitime so they can juggle childcare.

If we had a cv from a man who wanted to juggle childcare with flexitime/shorter week it would be the exact same response.



They will expressly state in the covering letter or the Recruitment Agent will say it in their covering note that they wish to finish at 2.30/3.00pm. That is a not compatible with the role and essentially defeats the entire purpose. If we want someone just to clock in and clock out at 2.30/3pm 3-4 days a week- no problem. We already have 2 women here on 3 days a week so they can manage childcare (junior/admin roles).

As I said, they are probably just emailing off cvs to everyone hoping something will stick...better suited to a larger employer who has the resources to handle flexitime.

Oh lashing those sorts of sh/te applications straight in the bin is grand, no problem with that, it's so easy to apply for jobs now people chuck in any old stuff.

Earlier you said you don't consider women for mgmt positions at all though, that's stupid.

hots

nuckeythompson wrote: »

For what its worth in my experience I have found that when I have been asked intrusive questions such as marital status etc ( Im male by the way) in the past I have found these the more difficult to work with so when asked nowadays thats a red flag to me - move the F on

yeah even if it's not a huge red flag it shows it's someone who hasn't bothered to become a competent interviewer, at the very least a shoddy first impression.

Pawwed Rig

crossman47 wrote: »

Nobody wants excruciating detail but they do want work history. Serving on a deli counter can show you can deal with people. I have done interviewing and, if there was an obvious gap, I would ask what you did for, say, your five years after college. Every work experience is relevant - for good or bad.

We will agree to disagree

hots

crossman47 wrote: »

Nobody wants excruciating detail but they do want work history. Serving on a deli counter can show you can deal with people. I have done interviewing and, if there was an obvious gap, I would ask what you did for, say, your five years after college. Every work experience is relevant - for good or bad.

Depends on the stage of your career surely? 20 years deep I'm not including my college work experience, fresh out of college and I'm including anything and everything I can call "experience". I'd find it strange to review someone really senior's CV with anything irrelevant to their story (ie worked in the fields for a year after college is a waste of space on a CV when you've got 20 years of cool stuff to be talking about)

Augme

partyguinness wrote: »

We have a particularly member of staff who has two kids (6 and 11) and she completely pulls the piss. She turns up (let' s call her Mary) for a few hours a week because of kid related issues. She must have the sickest kids in the world. Even when she does bother to show up she never shuts up about her kids....the other women she works with hate her.

In fact it has been a bone of friction between us running the place. One of the lads is too soft and even in the face of the most blatant cast iron evidence that she does absolutlely eff all he doesnt want to hear it.

Even her secretary wanted to leave last year and she specifically cited the Mary's lack of attendance and how she dumps everything on her. But still he ignores it. "Mary" claims to be working from home...bull effing ****...she never takes home files, arrives with no files and I checked her Teamviewer log and nothing for two whole weeks at one stage. Never mind the rubbish billing. We have had blazing rows over her.

Despite all of this...he just won't hear of it...she must have some right dirt on him is the only explanation.

Sounds like mary is the only smart one in the organisation! Seems she has just realised that breaking your back working for an organisation that is managed really badly just isn't a very sensible thing to do.

Organisations are badly run because they are allowed to be badly run. If everyone took Mary's attitude things then would actually change and you might get some competent management in place.

partyguinness

Augme wrote: »

Sounds like mary is the only smart one in the organisation! Seems she has just realised that breaking your back working for an organisation that is managed really badly just isn't a very sensible thing to do.

Organisations are badly run because they are allowed to be badly run. If everyone took Mary's attitude things then would actually change and you might get some competent management in place.

Mary has made herself an irrelevance and is going to find herself unemployed soon enough. Mary's attitude? What..doing eff all and dispised by her workmates. Fine if that floats your boat.

You seem to equate very busy with "badly run". Strange.

AndrewJRenko

Wildly Boaring wrote: »

My CV would not include my LC.
I've a degree and chartered in my profession.
Putting in LC seems very civil/public service to me.
Pointless really

Civil/public service generally does recruitment right, far better than the various examples presented on this thread. You won't get asked about your age or your marriage or your children.

partyguinness wrote: »

I agree. My cv would just have the year and school. I am not talking about listing out your results...who gives a crap about your D2 in pass French. But I would at least expect to see at a minimum say:

"Education
- 1998 Leaving Certificate- St ABC, ABCTown
- 2002 UCD BA

Why would the year of qualification be relevant?

partyguinness wrote: »

Mary has made herself an irrelevance and is going to find herself unemployed soon enough. Mary's attitude? What..doing eff all and dispised by her workmates. Fine if that floats your boat.

You seem to equate very busy with "badly run". Strange.

If Mary gets away with what you say she gets away with, it is indeed badly run.

OMM 0000

The interviewer already knows if you're old, so let's not freak out about bit this.

But asking about marriage and kids really is a problem, as I would interpret this as they want to hire a single person as there won't be home life causing people to leave at 6.

Augme

partyguinness wrote: »

Mary has made herself an irrelevance and is going to find herself unemployed soon enough. Mary's attitude? What..doing eff all and dispised by her workmates. Fine if that floats your boat.

You seem to equate very busy with "badly run". Strange.

No, I'd equate the following with badly run

- can't implement change until people retire
- staff can do **** all and get away with it
- senior management have to work 12 hour days and 5-7 days a week and can't take holidays.

Mrs OBumble

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Civil/public service generally does recruitment right, far better than the various examples presented on this thread. You won't get asked about your age or your marriage or your children.



Why would the year of qualification be relevant?

And they are one of the few which genuinely don't discriminate based on age.

But they do ask for the year of your leaving cert, and a full no gaps employment history.

Pawwed Rig

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

And they are one of the few which genuinely don't discriminate based on age.

But they do ask for the year of your leaving cert, and a full no gaps employment history.

And discriminate where they think it is justified

AndrewJRenko

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

And discriminate where they think it is justified

Such as?

Aceandstuff

Strumms wrote: »

I wouldn’t see the point in asking, unless it was that the candidate was obviously late teens or early to mid 60’s...

This sort of thing can be a problem. I look "obviously early teens" and I'm pushing 30.

I find I'm not taken seriously in interviews and would be more inclined to drop hints that I'm much older than I look, e.g. "I started working at [X] in [YEAR], two years before I went to college."

Pawwed Rig

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Such as?

If they think there is a certain demographic under represented at certain levels then that demographic will be prioritised in a hiring process.

AndrewJRenko

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

If they think there is a certain demographic under represented at certain levels then that demographic will be prioritised in a hiring process.

Where and when did this happen?

Pawwed Rig

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Where and when did this happen?

In the public sector per the posts above

AndrewJRenko

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

In the public sector per the posts above

Can you be more specific please? What organisation and campaign are you talking about?

doc22

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Can you be more specific, please? What organisation and campaign are you talking about?

I'm going to say the disabled; the PS try to hire a certain percentage target. Even gender balance SEEMS to play its part in promotions too

AndrewJRenko

doc22 wrote: »

I'm going to say the disabled; the PS try to hire a certain percentage target. Even gender balance SEEMS to play its part in promotions too

Again,can you be more specific please? What organisation and campaign are you talking about?

Making sure that there is a level playing field for all candidates is not "discrimination".

partyguinness

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why would the year of qualification be relevant?

You can put that question to any aspect of a cv. Why would it not be relevant? If someone says they have a BComm...big difference between graduating in say, 1998 or 2016.

Not sure about anyone else but I have never seen a cv without dates etc highlighting year of qualifications and I am pretty sure everyone here has the relevant dates on their cv. It gives a good picture of how experienced a candidate is.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If Mary gets away with what you say she gets away with, it is indeed badly run.

Having Mary here is bad. Tell me something I don't know...it's the whole reason I brought it up. But she has two kids, a husband out of work, she has had health issues and here part time since 2003 so there is a sense of not having the balls the dump her and feeling sorry for her. I want her gone. Ultimately she has turned herself into an irrelevance.

You talk about the civil service...plenty of freeloaders stuck there backed to the hilt by Unions in all sorts of obscure paper shuffling "clerical roles". The sheer number of Local Authorities (public sector) for example up and down the country is a testament to inefficiency. Divided along county lines for no apparent reason. Ireland a small island of 4m+ people does not need 31 city and county councils all duplicating the same work. It's a farce...but I digress.

Pawwed Rig

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Again,can you be more specific please? What organisation and campaign are you talking about?

Making sure that there is a level playing field for all candidates is not "discrimination".

It is discrimination when people are promoted with a weighting for their gender/ethnicity/disability etc. Now you might argue that it is a good thing but positive discrimination is still discrimination.