Home Articles Downloads Forum Products Services EBME Expo Contact
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rating: 5
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 32
Visionary
Offline
Visionary
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 32
To be honest, the employer doesn't need to put any experience on the job advert, and just sift through the CVs, seems like a ridiculous thing to put on an advert. In my time as an electronic engineer, some people have just blagged it for years, yes they can say they've worked in the industry for 5+ years, but good god they are crap. That's why any job advert should include, prospective candidates will be required to take a trade test. That will sort out the talent from the bs regardless of experience.

Last edited by Maczx636; 20/10/12 2:04 AM. Reason: Typo
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 14,654
Likes: 60
Super Hero
Offline
Super Hero
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 14,654
Likes: 60

Sorry to prolong this nebulous debate, but it seems that you may have missed a couple of the main points here, Glyn.

The employer needs to include his requirements in order to:-

1) Finally get what he wants (hopefully)
2) To be able to whittle down the applications
3) To be able to point to a particular lack if (when) challenged by a disgruntled failed applicant

No 3) being the Main Point, of course!

Also, in our lovely PC society everyone must be a winner (even the abject failures), so having a trade test could be a non-starter, I'm afraid. What if the applicant feels humiliated by the mess s/he makes of it? Surely that would be a serious breach of his (her/its ... whatever) Human Rights, the Poor Dear? frown

Meanwhile, dare I say that your comments about "blaggers" tend to support my own earlier comments about the difficulty of getting rid of such handy folk (in Public Sector positions, that is). As you may discover, all this stuff (and more in similar vein) sometimes results in employers taking on short-term contractors (or agency staff on "zero notice") - and who can blame them? think

Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 362
Likes: 3
Sage
OP Offline
Sage
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 362
Likes: 3
The vast majority of the adults would see the benefit of having a workforce representative of society as a whole. The days of only employing white Anglo Saxon Protestants who are "English" by whatever definition you choose are long past. Though people of that viewpoint, do still exist in the margins of society, (unfortunately).

The rights enshrined in UK Law, have been hard fought for by generations of trade unionist and politicians. Some people (usually with an agenda of their own) consider this to be politically correct rubbish. The following laws represent the result of reasoned debate in Parliament, and employment legislature.

Laws, the system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties:

It is against the law to treat someone less favourably than someone else because of a personal characteristic, eg religion or age. There are different kinds of discrimination.

It can include, for example, not hiring someone,selecting a particular person for redundancy, paying someone less than another worker without good reason.
Discrimination does not have to be deliberate and intentional. You can discriminate indirectly with working conditions or rules that disadvantage one group of people more than another.

When it comes to job advertising, you must not state or imply in a job advert that you will discriminate against anyone. This includes saying you won’t make reasonable adjustments for workers with a disability.

Only use phrases like “recent graduate” or “highly experienced” when these are actual requirements of the job. This could discriminate against younger or older people who might not have had the opportunity to get certain qualifications.

When you can discriminate
If it’s a requirement of the job you can specify that the successful applicant will be from a particular group. For example, people under 18 cannot legally sell alcohol.

Questions you can’t ask when recruiting
You must not ask candidates about protected characteristics and their health,if they’re married, single or in a civil partnership. If they have children or plan to have children

You can ask about about health or disability if there are necessary requirements of the job that can’t be met with reasonable adjustments, you’re finding out if someone needs help to take part in a selection test or interview, you’re using ‘positive action’ to recruit a disabled person.

You can choose a job candidate who has a protected characteristic over one who doesn’t if they’re as suitable for the job and you think that people with that characteristic are underrepresented in the workforce, profession or industry suffer a disadvantage connected to that characteristic (eg people from a certain ethnic group are not often given jobs in your sector)

You can only do this if you’re trying to address the under-representation or disadvantage for that particular person. You must make decisions on a case by case basis and not because of a certain policy.

You can’t choose a candidate who isn’t as suitable for the job just because they have a protected characteristic
When recruiting you can treat a disabled person more favourably than a non-disabled person because of their disability.

Sean's personal view
These rules or safeguards are there for a reason,and because they are enshrined in the law of this country, UK Employers who choose to ignore them can be sued. Alternatively, you can ignore them as other viewpoints expressed may propose, and take the risk of being exposed to litigation.

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 14,654
Likes: 60
Super Hero
Offline
Super Hero
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 14,654
Likes: 60

Why are you telling us all this, Sean? think

"Laws, the system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties".

Yes. With the words "imposed" and "enforced" being the operative words ... whether the "community" recognises them, or not. That is, in a liberal democracy the community (its citizens, in other words) do not have to agree with that imposition, but are simply required (or, if you like, forced) to comply. frown

Meanwhile, although it may be under attack almost every day, we still have the Right of Free Speech in this country (in theory, at least), which means that everyone is entitled to their opinions, whether that suits those with "agendas" or not. And believe it or not, there are still some folk about who prefer to make up their own minds about things (rather than simply following the herd).

Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 362
Likes: 3
Sage
OP Offline
Sage
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 362
Likes: 3
I apologise for the off topic post

Freedom of Speech? Let me see....

Most people would agree that in an open, democratic society, free speech is essential. The press, the broadcast media and political opponents must have the freedom to criticise those in power. It is one of the ways that people in such a society hold their leaders accountable and express their individuality as free citizens.

So no matter how vulgar, profane or distasteful a particular form of expression may be, a person has the right to advance it (and others have the right to express their reaction to it).

I think that covers it

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 14,654
Likes: 60
Super Hero
Offline
Super Hero
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 14,654
Likes: 60

Almost there, Sean.

What one person may regard as vulgar etc. may also be viewed by another as insightful, measured, reflective etc., etc. whistle

Not only Free Speech, but Debate, is essential in a truly healthy society. smile

Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 362
Likes: 3
Sage
OP Offline
Sage
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 362
Likes: 3
I would think that on "rights and wrongs" of Employment legislation, we will remain polarised in our opinions.

I have no problem with debate, so long as it's reasoned and based on fact or legislation, rather than on personally held views, which are ten a penny, (everyone's got one). Though, in a Court of Law, I would dare to suggest that the former carries more weight.

Like it or not, in today's society, the recognition of potential litigation should not be dismissed lightly. The prudent and insightful employer will be proactive in ensuring that they comply with legislation, rather than rely on outmoded and discredited recruitment practices which discriminate, and ultimately adversely affect successful operation of the business.

Page 2 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  DaveC in Oz, RoJo 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
3 members (J Darby, daisizhou, 1 invisible), 334 guests, and 15 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
MDevins, EmsR16, Fergusben1, Guilherme Gomes, Salvatore
10,173 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums25
Topics11,055
Posts73,704
Members10,173
Most Online5,980
Jan 29th, 2020
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5