Welcometo this week’s Discuss HR, the blog written by members of Human Resources UK.
AsI’ve written today’s article I shall make this week’s introduction brief toavoid droning on for too long! When Istarted this blog I wanted it to reflect experience not theory and today Ireflect upon some of my darker experiences with employment legislation.
The Equality Elephant
 |
| You're just a figment of my imagination... |
BeforeI start I just want to clarify a few points. For the bulk of my recruitment career I have recruited for HR professionals. For the vast majority of assignments I havehandled the hiring manager has been another HR professional. I like to behave as a recruitment partnerakin to an employee of the organisation, which tends to mean I have relativelyfrank conversations with my clients (thisisn’t a sales pitch!). As a resultof this approach I have had numerous clients provide brutally honest feedbackon an applicant which are intended for my ears only. Feedback, which if provided directly to theapplicant would be seen as unlawful (thanksto another Discuss HR writer I understand the difference to being unlawful and illegaland you can find a full definition below). Clearly these HR professionals know employment law, however, they feelthey are able to express their true feelings to me. This feedback is often preceded with thewords “I know I can’t say this but...”The following are just a select few examples of comments I have received:
· They’re too old
· They’re not theyoung, rising star I want
· I want a man
· Is sheconsidering having children?
· Her children willtake up too much time
Iam sure some of these will shock you, whilst others will come as nosurprise. In all of these instances theclient is aware such comments cannot be fed back, so provide further detail. But is this not just masking the truth? So for all those times you’ve heard “you’re over-qualified” or “there were other candidates who were acloser match” is the truth that you’re too old and female? Feedback is meant to be a learning process toallow you to develop how you present yourself. For this to be effective you need to know the true reasons behind yourrejection. Would you rather know thatyou’re too old or receive a generic response?
Throughoutmy career such unlawful comments have been solely focused on either sexual orage discrimination. Clearly a number oforganisations have a hiring agenda. Theywant someone who has the energy of youth or is not going to create extra costwith maternity pay. No organisation isgoing to openly admit this, yet if they are going to recruit with this in mind,would it not just be better for all parties if they could be open andhonest?
Ifeven HR fails to comply, is it not time we relax age and sexual discriminationlegislation? Whilst I draw my ownconclusions at the end, I am going to play Devil’s advocate and look at theargument to loosen the straps.
 |
| Will we see this on job adverts? |
Anorganisation which covertly flaunts current legislation to find their idealemployee will see productivity decrease as they are required to pay lip serviceto those applications they do not want, yet have to welcome. Furthermore, productivity would be affectedeven more if they are forced to hire the wrong type of person to fit theculture of the organisation. In tougheconomic times organisations cannot afford to waste resources needlessly. If they feel a 25 year old woman would be thebest fit for their business, should they not be allowed to hire such a person?
Aperfect example of this was an FMCG company I dealt with a number of yearsago. Their packing was predominantly byhand rather mechanised. Due to thenature of the product they required people who were “nimble fingered”. The whole packing team were women. Therefore, whenever they recruited they knewthey required another woman to add to the dynamic of the team, yet they werenever allowed to publicise this fact. Itwould have been far more effective if the employer could have simply statedwhat they needed and it would have saved a number of men the time and effort ofapplying if they knew they should focus their efforts elsewhere, as they werenot part of the required demographic.
Allbusinesses are struggling in the current economic situation and no more thanSMEs. Many simply cannot afford tostretch their costs any further. Onenotable cost is the cost of maternity, which will soon affect both male andfemale employees. Whilst the take up ofthe paternity leave clearly won’t be as high as maternity, it does mean abusiness is liable to cover the cost should either require leave. Inflation is increasing and growth isslowing, would an SME not benefit hugely by only hiring those, be it men orwoman, who are not of an age to have children?
Therewould also be scope to loosen such legislation without increasingdiscrimination. We all know and have metpeople whose “young at heart” outlook on life belies their true age. An organisation could welcome applications fromall, but be able to reject on the basis that someone does not have the youthfuloutlook required.
Itis interesting that these shocking and even callous remarks I have receivedhave come from HR professionals. Thisdoes show in general HR is focusing on the business and not compliance, even ifsuch examples are misguided (which isprobably the only positive to draw from it!). It would certainly make my job so much easierif I knew exactly what a hiring manager wanted. Instead of an experienced HR Business Partner, they could tell me anexperienced Business Partner who is young enough to dedicate their time to workand not family.
Lookingat this side of the argument, is it time we reduced or scrapped legislation?
BeforeI draw my conclusion, I will add an addendum of sorts. This is my fourth re-write as it was apparentthat I was in danger of damaging my reputation in a Gerald Ratner moment. The early reviews of the article resulted incomments which implied I condone and collude in such practices. All of which was rather stern considering I neithercondoned nor colluded in these decisions, but simply expressed the truth of thesituation. This has clearly touched avery sore point.
Mypersonal opinion on this matter is that I believe the vast bulk of employmentlegislation was introduced for very good reason to protect those that are in aposition to be discriminated against. Myinitial conclusion for the first, second and third re-write was that thecurrent system works if we ignore the little lies expressed about being “too experienced”. However, on my fourth (and hopefully last) re-write the reality of the situation hit me,the current system is clearly not working. Is it a case of educating these organisations in the benefits offlexible working that provides a viable alternative? Unfortunately, I feel that is a ratheridealistic view. The comments listedwere all made by HR professionals who surely must be in a position tounderstand the benefits of the alternatives, yet choose to ignore them infavour of what they feel would be best for their business. I do not believe scrapping legislation is theanswer either, as I would strongly oppose any action that increaseddiscrimination.
Ifeel it is time we stopped denying the situation and sweeping these statementsunder the carpet. The current system maypublically protect, but it certainly isn’t providing that protection frombehind closed doors. It is also notworking for the employer and surely any such legislation must work for bothparties – so the simple question is what is the solution?
Illegalvs Unlawful
Illegal means against the law. Anillegal act can land you in a criminal court, and with a conviction, a fine,and even a spell in prison. An unlawful act is something that breachesthe rules that apply in a particular context. If the matter is pursued incourt, it will be a 'civil' court, not a criminal one, and the consequence willusually be that you have to pay compensation to the person who was been'wronged' by you.
Definitionkindly provided by Irenicon
About the author
Ed is an HRrecruitment specialist and social media trainer. He holds over 8 yearsindustry specific experience recruiting mainly for middle and senior HRmanagement positions. He stumbled upon social media a few years ago and hassince become passionate about the subject. He now trains job seekers andindependent consultants in social media techniques. He is the Group Manager ofHuman Resources UK and Editor of Discuss HR and occasionally his humour willcreep into articles!
*****
Discuss HR is the blog for Human Resources UK, the leadingLinkedIn group for those involved with HR in the UK. Next week’s Discuss HR will be published onThursday 21st September and will be written by Training Consultant Jill Hart-Sanderson.
No comments:
Post a Comment