I believe my point has been emphasised by the Liecester job that has been posted today. Minimum 3 years experience? Should be a Band 6 surely?
The Leicester job description should equate to at MOST a band 4 it is actually quite well written but the person spec still uses "3 years experience" without qualifying it and the basic education requirement is a B-tec - good enough for background theory but just about worthless on it's own for AFC matching purposes.
"3 years experience" is meaningless unless you expand on what the person is supposed to have learnt in that time, and I'm sure we all know people that can pick up skills in a fraction of the normal time, (as well as those that couldn't learn if they had 1 to 1 training till they retired), which is why age discrimination legislation frowns on using this type of time serving requirement in job descriptions.
I am surprised that JD made it through job matching panels; although it does have "revised" in the title so it's possible management have made some daft changes and not submitted the revised JD for rematching
PS B-tec equates to level 3 in the knowledge and skills AFC factor [Although a matching panel would be generous and say the skills required raise the B-tec up the scale by a point.]and there is a rule of thumb that the knowledge and skills factor will equal the band level of the post (plus or minus one level at most)
Apologies for all the bracket use but that's how I think
