Am I in danger of being Ageist?

[Dis86]

Basically advertising for a new position at the minute. The work is very physically intensive, it involves a lot of climbing ladders, walking a fair distance each day, manual labour.

I've had a number of applicants for the position. One is pretty much bob-on and I've already interviewed him but he lacks experience due to his age.
Three of the others are late 50's and another two are early 60's. They're all perfectly qualified and obviously very experienced. The thing is the role is being created because the supervisor who currently does the job is in his late 50's and it's too physically demanding for him (fit, healthy, strong). Am I wrong to discount these other older gents because I don't believe they'll either physically be able to do the job at all, or at least not for any duration?
The work is pretty unique and so they won't have any prior experience therefore the first year at least will essentially be on the job training. I can't afford to have someone start and then leave because they can't hack it, especially as it will mean turning away the first guy who I know can but isn't as experienced.

 

[Dis86]

Considering they're all going to need 1 year on the job training, surely just hire the younger guy.

Yes, that's the logic but the others are more experienced. So on paper I should be hiring them, however the only reason not to is essentially because they're likely to be old and knackered!

 

[Dis86]

And therefore not fit for the job. Don’t forget this is England, firing someone is a massive PITA. Go for the least chance to get stuck with a floppy old man.

Tell me about it. Got 2 old duffers I can't get rid of, more expensive to make them redundant than to pay them until they retire.

 

[Dis86]

no offence your being ageist there old duffers don't discount the older worker my old man was climbing ladders well into in his 70's doing decorating jobs he only packed it in because of his failing eyesight and because my mother put her foot down.

how hard is the graft are we talking non stop heavy lifting hod carrier type work ? or something less strenuous

Being out in all weather conditions on vessels and onshore. Working at height in cherry pickers. Carrying loads in excess of 30kg. Manual electrical cable pull-in of 3+ phase commercial cables. Working at the top of cranes which have to be manually accessed via ladder. Some over 30m high.
Shifts are 10 to 12 hours. Often 60 hour weeks.

 

[Dis86]

But surely there will be a trial period for the job ..and surely you cant just not hire someone because they are 40, 50 or whatever

So I hire a 61 year old bloke. We find out in a week he can't do the job because of the physical aspects. I've wasted a week of my time. My supervisors time. A week of his time. I've also put his life at risk and the lives of his colleagues in that time.
Yes, the same could happen with a 25 year old, 30 year old etc. But I'm looking at the probability. Your average 60 year old just isn't as physically capable as your average 30 year old.

 

[Dis86]

Why not have a hiring process which actually tests suitability rather than just guessing off age?

Maybe ask about their physical activities. Is the 25 year old playing football 3 times a week and going to the gym etc?

How does one test how someone can do a job every day of every week without employing them?

There's a difference between having someone carry out a fitness test and have them carrying out a fitness test 8+ hours a day, every day of their working life. If I did what you're suggesting I don't think I'd ever have a successful applicant as they'd all tell me to do one.

 

[Dis86]

By test I mean actually tries to find out if they are suitable be whatever appropriate means. Might be nothing more than a questionnaire.

The trouble is responses are completely subjective. If I ask 'are you physically fit' they might all say yes, because they all genuinely believe they are. I'm physically fit but I wouldn't want do that job day in day out, it would absolutely knacker me! And that's the thing. It's having a person who you can completely destroy physically one day and then have them get out of bed ready to go at it again the next morning. I just struggle to see that it's something someone of late middle age can reliably do.

@AhhBisto my storesmen are both 60!

 

[Dis86]

I wasnt making a dig at you Dis, I was just saying as an employer you have to give the same opportunity to anyone should they apply for the job ?

And that's my point with this thread. Seemingly I do but it's just not logical to always do that - this to my eyes being one of those instances. Its also worth pointing out it's a year to two before the gents will be experienced in this particular role which means with one of the blokes I'm basically looking at him retiring before he's fully experienced! However, legally, it almost seems as if I have to hire him provided all else is equal as he's the most experienced in a similar role.

 

[Dis86]

But you don't ask "are you physically fit".

You ask questions which you can't lie about. You ask a person to demonstrate they are physically active and capable through questions and examples. Then you have an objective hiring process which actually determines their suitability.

It is no different to competency questions that are asked in many hiring processes. It might even allow you to see if the 25 year old is actually suitable.

Again that's the point though, most people could do what I require them to do for a day. It's having them be able to do it every day.
Can you climb a ladder - sure. Can you climb a 30m ladder whilst in a gale with the ship rolling beneath you? Maybe. Can you do that repeatedly after already being on shift for 8 hours? Who knows? Fancy doing it tomorrow from 6am? No ta.

I don't think anyone I interview can specifically say that they can do it as it's just so unique a set of circumstances which again is my problem, a 25 year old might not be able to but I reckon they're more likely to be able to than a 60 year old whom, not counting exceptions, I think will struggle.

Last thing I want is one of them dropping a cable to the deck with people working below or injuring themselves trying to pull it in.

@AhhBisto knowing the gents, not a chance. They're both in stores because they're after the easy life and have a great level of knowledge. 1 is a former carpenter who just can't do it anymore (hands aren't dextrous enough), the other a former stevedor who likes the 9-5.

 

[Dis86]

You know the job, you know the requirements. What’s the need for this post, is it to somehow justify your decision? And I don’t mean that to sound arsey, even though it comes across that way. Employ who you think is the best suited to the job. If you think the candidate is potentially not physically up to the job don’t employ them. You don’t need to consider their age, the justification for your decision is based on their physical capabilities.

The problem is that their physical capabilities will purely have to be an assumption on my part. The only way I know if they can physically hack it is to employ them for an extended period. I don't want to do that and risk them, others or waste time. I also don't want to lose a guy who is a very good candidate but just doesn't have the same length and breadth of experience as these older gents by virtue of his age.

 

[Dis86]

Interesting job, I could never do it, too many heights, but simply out of curiosity what is the pay for an average week if you don't mind saying?

About £700

 

[Dis86]

@Diddums Electrical tech. Nothing majorly juicy I'm afraid.

 

[Dis86]

If that is a possibility then maybe you need to minimise that risk no matter who you employ

Risk is minimised to the extent it can be without significant impact to the requirements of the work or cost. Physical ability of the techs is actually one of the risks highlighted.

 

[Dis86]

Our onsite techs would have to stop the job if their was any such risk and a safe practice put in place before resuming, most of the time these risks are recognised before work commences and the extra costs incorporated into the job, most of our big customers will only give work to companies who have an excellent safety record and culture, they will often perform audits to ensure we actually do work safely and not to give the appearance we do.

Hence why we risk asses...and one of the categories is physical ability of the tech.

 

[Dis86]

Will candidates be required to pass the offshore survival/firefighting course (BOSIET?) It’s been 30 years since I passed mine, but I remember needing a thorough medical before attending the course. Passing the course was mandatory before I started working offshore.

No. Not a requirement. All are MIST qualified though.

 

[Dis86]

If BOSIET isn't a requirement then it's worth pointing out that MIST is literally a death-by-powerpoint certificate, that's all, it's not exactly an accomplishment or something worked for. No reason why a medical couldn't be part of the selection process though, many companies do this as standard for those that get through to interview stages.

Mist was a happy coincidence. Not a requirement.

 

[Dis86]

Fitness test as part of the interview process and then a three month probation period.

The problem with that is, when they fail the probation, or leave then I'm back to square one.

 

[Dis86]

...which is a risk whoever you employ.

But one that is greatly magnified by employing older individuals to do highly physical jobs.

 

[Dis86]

Which is ageist.

As I said before, employing someone on the basis of fitness is not discriminatory but employing them on age certainly is.

Is it ageist if its based on a balance of probability though?

I mean there's a reason I don't play football for England...

 

[Dis86]

Let's frame that question a slightly different way and see if is sounds like discrimination... "Is it sexual discrimination if you don't emply a female because on the balance of probability she might want maternity leave at some point?"

It's prudent financial planning.