Ageism in employment advertisments

cephidThu 26/06/08 14:13

This is an off-shoot of a topic I started today regarding a new Bill which would outlaw ageism in the wider world and encourage 'positive discrimination' for minorities.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/harman-defends-positive-discrimination-plans-854475.html

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2008/06/26/108666/harriet-harman-equality-bill-will-ban-ageism-in-services.htmlorum

Well, ageism has been outlawed in the workplace and applies to job advertisments as well. Today I found this advertisment on 'Totaljobs': http://www.totaljobs.com/JobSearch/JobDetails.aspx?JobId=38672058&Keywords=junior+analyst&LTxt=London%2c+South+East&Radius=0&LIds2=ZV

Leading London market broker has several junior-analysts openings for graduate second-jobbers to develop career further. You should have solid academic and practical experience in FS industry. Analytical minded, strong communication and IT skills are required. This role leads to future market leaders

Although graduates could be of any age and so looking for their second job at any age (up to or near to retirement age) why do the authors of the advert write that this position is suitable for 'second jobbers'? Why not third-jobbers, fourth jobbers,...?

Now I am going to make a few assumptions here without any support. First, most graduates have their degrees confered before the age of 23 and secondly, typically, a graduates first job will last less than 7 years. Therefore most second jobber graduates are around 30 or less which, given our current retirement age would imply possible indirect age discrimination.

Although I have made broad sweeping approximations where the numbers might not be quite true, the logic is valid.

So, in spite of the new ageism laws to be introduced, indirect ageism although outlawed in 2006 is alive and well.

Making these laws is one thing, enforcing them is another matter!

chutzpahThu 26/06/08 14:38

quoting > "Although graduates could be of any age and so looking for their second job at any age (up to or near to retirement age) why do the authors of the advert write that this position is suitable for 'second jobbers'? Why not third-jobbers, fourth jobbers,...?"

In relation to this point, it could imply they want some experience in the workplace, as opposed to someone straight out of university. As the role is a 'junior analyst' the organisation may not consider it likely that a third or fourth jobber would be likely to apply - given that by that point they may have already developed skills and experience above and beyond those required by this job, therefore the salary may not be competitive, or the work not challenging enough, etc etc.

It may be indirect ageism - but that's far from clear from my reading of it.

cephidThu 26/06/08 14:50

ChutzpahAs the role is a 'junior analyst' the organisation may not consider it likely that a third or fourth jobber would be likely to apply - given that by that point they may have already developed skills and experience above and beyond those required by this job, therefore the salary may not be competitive, or the work not challenging enough, etc etc.

But that is discriminatory!

chutzpahThu 26/06/08 15:06

quoting > "But that is discriminatory!"

How is it discriminatory, to assume that a junior role will not appeal to some with more experience than the job would require for example? It's taking a step down. Now admittedly it happens - but it's a perfectly reasonable assumption to make that someone who's already spent a considerable amount of time in a similar role may not want to make a sideways step, and would be seeking advancement instead.

There are reasons why someone would want to move sideways or down - less stress, better company, better working conditions, different location, closer to home, etc etc. But based upon job spec, that's a perfectly reasonable advert.

I should perhaps point out my primary experience of employment law is as a trade union rep - not as an HR advisor. I just have the habit of being pragmatic about such things....

cephidThu 26/06/08 15:21

Re discriminatory: You are making assumptions about why a person wants to apply for a particular job. Maybe their health requires a less challenging role, maybe they just want a less demanding role, who knows? Does the recruiter apossess soothsayer abilities?

Saying that the post is aimed at a second jobber is potentially indirectly discriminatory because of the underlying averages regarding graduating age and time of service in first position. Maybe it is legal, but why not just lay out the job specs and see whether the applicant thinks they meet the specs of the advertisment and aim their CV accordingly?

Unfortunately, as I am in the process of changing careers, I have a personal vested interest, but I don't have knowledge or HR.

chutzpahThu 26/06/08 15:28

quoting > "Re discriminatory: You are making assumptions about why a person wants to apply for a particular job. Maybe their health requires a less challenging role, maybe they just want a less demanding role, who knows? Does the recruiter apossess soothsayer abilities?"

It's a description. It places the job in the context of seniority / experience in terms of past employment. As I've pointed out there are numerous reasons why someone with more experience may want to reduce their role. But then they wouldn't be put off by seeing a job described as such, since it would then give the description of the level of the job (bearing in mind I'm a 'junior' despite being a manager).

quoting > "Saying that the post is aimed at a second jobber is potentially indirectly discriminatory because of the underlying averages regarding graduating age and time of service in first position. Maybe it is legal, but why not just lay out the job specs and see whether the applicant thinks they meet the specs of the advertisment and aim their CV accordingly?"

Because in an advert that's just not practical? My job spec (abbreviated version) runs to three pages, because it's full of lovely legal guff. The advert for my job was condensed to two paragraphs, and I hazarded a guess I may be suitable based upon the salary. But it wasn't until I got the (16 page) job description and person specification that I then had to look a little deeper.