Welcome to this week’s Discuss HR, the blog written by members of Human Resources UK.
As I’ve written today’s article I shall make this week’s introduction brief to avoid droning on for too long! When I started this blog I wanted it to reflect experience not theory and today I reflect upon some of my darker experiences with employment legislation.
The Equality Elephant
 |
| You're just a figment of my imagination... |
Before I 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 have handled the hiring manager has been another HR professional. I like to behave as a recruitment partner akin to an employee of the organisation, which tends to mean I have relatively frank conversations with my clients (this isn’t a sales pitch!). As a result of this approach I have had numerous clients provide brutally honest feedback on an applicant which are intended for my ears only. Feedback, which if provided directly to the applicant would be seen as unlawful (thanks to another Discuss HR writer I understand the difference to being unlawful and illegal and you can find a full definition below). Clearly these HR professionals know employment law, however, they feel they are able to express their true feelings to me. This feedback is often preceded with the words “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 the young, rising star I want
· I want a man
· Is she considering having children?
· Her children will take up too much time
I am sure some of these will shock you, whilst others will come as no surprise. In all of these instances the client 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 a closer match” is the truth that you’re too old and female? Feedback is meant to be a learning process to allow you to develop how you present yourself. For this to be effective you need to know the true reasons behind your rejection. Would you rather know that you’re too old or receive a generic response?
Throughout my career such unlawful comments have been solely focused on either sexual or age discrimination. Clearly a number of organisations have a hiring agenda. They want someone who has the energy of youth or is not going to create extra cost with maternity pay. No organisation is going 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 and honest?
If even HR fails to comply, is it not time we relax age and sexual discrimination legislation? Whilst I draw my own conclusions at the end, I am going to play Devil’s advocate and look at the argument to loosen the straps.
 |
| Will we see this on job adverts? |
An organisation which covertly flaunts current legislation to find their ideal employee will see productivity decrease as they are required to pay lip service to those applications they do not want, yet have to welcome. Furthermore, productivity would be affected even more if they are forced to hire the wrong type of person to fit the culture of the organisation. In tough economic times organisations cannot afford to waste resources needlessly. If they feel a 25 year old woman would be the best fit for their business, should they not be allowed to hire such a person?
A perfect example of this was an FMCG company I dealt with a number of years ago. Their packing was predominantly by hand rather mechanised. Due to the nature of the product they required people who were “nimble fingered”. The whole packing team were women. Therefore, whenever they recruited they knew they required another woman to add to the dynamic of the team, yet they were never allowed to publicise this fact. It would have been far more effective if the employer could have simply stated what they needed and it would have saved a number of men the time and effort of applying if they knew they should focus their efforts elsewhere, as they were not part of the required demographic.
All businesses are struggling in the current economic situation and no more than SMEs. Many simply cannot afford to stretch their costs any further. One notable cost is the cost of maternity, which will soon affect both male and female employees. Whilst the take up of the paternity leave clearly won’t be as high as maternity, it does mean a business is liable to cover the cost should either require leave. Inflation is increasing and growth is slowing, would an SME not benefit hugely by only hiring those, be it men or woman, who are not of an age to have children?
There would also be scope to loosen such legislation without increasing discrimination. We all know and have met people whose “young at heart” outlook on life belies their true age. An organisation could welcome applications from all, but be able to reject on the basis that someone does not have the youthful outlook required.
It is interesting that these shocking and even callous remarks I have received have come from HR professionals. This does show in general HR is focusing on the business and not compliance, even if such examples are misguided (which is probably the only positive to draw from it!). It would certainly make my job so much easier if I knew exactly what a hiring manager wanted. Instead of an experienced HR Business Partner, they could tell me an experienced Business Partner who is young enough to dedicate their time to work and not family.
Looking at this side of the argument, is it time we reduced or scrapped legislation?
Before I draw my conclusion, I will add an addendum of sorts. This is my fourth re-write as it was apparent that I was in danger of damaging my reputation in a Gerald Ratner moment. The early reviews of the article resulted in comments which implied I condone and collude in such practices. All of which was rather stern considering I neither condoned nor colluded in these decisions, but simply expressed the truth of the situation. This has clearly touched a very sore point.
My personal opinion on this matter is that I believe the vast bulk of employment legislation was introduced for very good reason to protect those that are in a position to be discriminated against. My initial conclusion for the first, second and third re-write was that the current 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 of flexible working that provides a viable alternative? Unfortunately, I feel that is a rather idealistic view. The comments listed were all made by HR professionals who surely must be in a position to understand the benefits of the alternatives, yet choose to ignore them in favour of what they feel would be best for their business. I do not believe scrapping legislation is the answer either, as I would strongly oppose any action that increased discrimination.
I feel it is time we stopped denying the situation and sweeping these statements under the carpet. The current system may publically protect, but it certainly isn’t providing that protection from behind closed doors. It is also not working for the employer and surely any such legislation must work for both parties – so the simple question is what is the solution?
Illegal vs Unlawful
Illegal means against the law. An illegal 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 breaches the rules that apply in a particular context. If the matter is pursued in court, it will be a 'civil' court, not a criminal one, and the consequence will usually be that you have to pay compensation to the person who was been 'wronged' by you.
Definition kindly provided by Irenicon
About the author
Ed is an HR recruitment specialist and social media trainer. He holds over 8 years industry specific experience recruiting mainly for middle and senior HR management positions. He stumbled upon social media a few years ago and has since become passionate about the subject. He now trains job seekers and independent consultants in social media techniques. He is the Group Manager of Human Resources UK and Editor of Discuss HR and occasionally his humour will creep into articles!
*****
Discuss HR is the blog for Human Resources UK, the leading LinkedIn group for those involved with HR in the UK. Next week’s Discuss HR will be published on Thursday 21st September and will be written by Training Consultant Jill Hart-Sanderson.
Any source
No comments:
Post a Comment