Am I in danger of being Ageist?

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.

I haven't hired previously for physically demanding jobs, but I have for jobs which tend to attract younger people in their careers, who probability wise are the best suited. However, that probability is because you know what the average competency is for certain groups. So why not take those prior beliefs and make them explicit in the hiring process? Then you aren't hiring based on biases.
 
Last edited:
foster grant said:
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 ?
Click to expand...

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 said:
I just struggle to see that it's something someone of late middle age can reliably do.
Click to expand...
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.
 
muon said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Thekwango said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Diddums said:
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.
Click to expand...

In England it's incredibly easy to fire someone within the first 2 years of employment. Plenty time to work out whether someone is suitable for the job.

Dis86 said:
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.
Click to expand...

There's nothing stopping you from asking this though, especially if you can use specific past examples to find out how they think they'd react and handle the situation.
 
Dis86 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't think asking questions about physical hobbies they have etc.. is unreasonable. Some sort of physical test/assessment is fairly reasonable too for a physical job.

You can still compare their results relative to each other, the fitness test doesn't have to be equivalent to the 8 hours a day of work but rather just give an indication of which candidate has better strength/fitness etc... IANAL though, I guess stuff like this needs to be checked with a HR/legal person to make sure that the test itself doesn't constitute age discrimination and is appropriate in terms of health and safety. Though view you've mentioned potentially issues if this goes wrong being putting other people's lives in danger and also that hiring the wrong person could lead to someone who ins't just a sub optimal hire but can't physically cope with the job then it would indicate that investing a bit more time/money in the recruitment process would be appropriate.
 
The problem actually raises an interesting debate - I'll be checking by to see how this pans out.

One things for sure though, I certainly don't want the job.
 
Dis86 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Don't get caught up in the 'experience' thing - you should only be considering relevant experience and you've said in post #1 "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.". As far as i'd be concerned, that means they're all on a level playing field for relevant experience - zero.
 
If the experience the older guys have will benefit you and your company I would seriously consider them if it it is negligible then I would just go for the younger guy.
 
Dis86 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Go on, what's the job? I want more deets!

Pudney said:
In England it's incredibly easy to fire someone within the first 2 years of employment. Plenty time to work out whether someone is suitable for the job.
Click to expand...

Can you elaborate on this? Back in my union days I was always told that it was almost impossible to sack me, a point my colleague revelled in as he was constantly in battles with HR, so I'm rather intrigued by this.
 
Diddums said:
Can you elaborate on this? Back in my union days I was always told that it was almost impossible to sack me, a point my colleague revelled in as he was constantly in battles with HR, so I'm rather intrigued by this.
Click to expand...

Until you hit 2 years employment, it's hard to bring a case for unfair dismissal, so in effect in your first 2 years of employment your employer could sack you simply for turning up in a tie they didn't like.

Edit - in reality there's a bit more to it than that but the point remains that you have very few rights as an employee when it comes to dismissal until the 2 year mark.
 
Kenai said:
Until you hit 2 years employment, it's hard to bring a case for unfair dismissal, so in effect in your first 2 years of employment your employer could sack you simply for turning up in a tie they didn't like.
Click to expand...

Interesting, thanks. Never knew that! Every day's a school day and all that.
 
Diddums said:
Can you elaborate on this? Back in my union days I was always told that it was almost impossible to sack me, a point my colleague revelled in as he was constantly in battles with HR, so I'm rather intrigued by this.
Click to expand...

Essentially several years ago the minimum length of service in which an employee can make a tribunal claim was extended to 2 years except in certain circumstances (e.g. if the reason is due to a protected characteristic). Basically an employer can fire someone for poor performance in the first 2 years and there's no actual route for an employee to challenge it in most cases.

Edit: should have read the other posts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom