Am I in danger of being Ageist?

In the recruitment I do which is office work and not comparable in that respect, any application form we get is what enables the candidate to get the interview then the interview determines who gets the job. The interviews are scored and the best score wins. Now if someone challenges the process as to why they didn't get the job the stock first response it that "someone else interviewed better on the day" as you cant really have that disproved.

In this case your 25 year old "interviewed better on the day" and therefore scored highest in each category and got the job on that basis. How you tailor the questions to make that more likely or whether it actually happened at all is a matter for your own conscience.
 
Are they unfit? Or is that an assumption due to their age?

I know plenty of 50+ year olds who are just as fit and healthy as people a lot younger than them

Personally I would interview them all and ask about their fitness ,emphasising how demanding the position is


It does sound to me you would be discriminating if their experience makes them more suitable for the role but you have doubts because of their age although I fully understand the predicament you’re in
 
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.

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.
Click to expand...

If that is a possibility then maybe you need to minimise that risk no matter who you employ
 
Dis86 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
JBuk said:
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.
Click to expand...

:confused: Hence why we risk asses...and one of the categories is physical ability of the tech.
 
Dis86 said:
Being out in all weather conditions on vessels and onshore.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Terminal_Boy said:
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.
Click to expand...

No. Not a requirement. All are MIST qualified though.
 
Dis86 said:
No. Not a requirement. All are MIST qualified though.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

During the interview phase, were the physical requirements of the role made very clear to the candidates? Are the older candidates currently engaged in work of a similarly physically demanding nature?

I once got a grilling by HR for discounting a candidate due to age. I countered by pointing out that I was 5 years younger than the candidate, had been doing the job for 7-8 years and I found it physically draining.

In the end, I had to change my feedback to “lack of experience in X” in place of “too bloody old”. Not that this helps you.

Of course, you could stress that the added experience of the other candidates will make them less responsive to your wanted to shape them to fit your very specialised role. The less experienced candidate is likely to be more malleable, doubly so if they see the role as a long-term career.
 
Dis86 said:
:confused: Hence why we risk asses...and one of the categories is physical ability of the tech.
Click to expand...

You said there was a possibility of something being dropped onto a deck where people are working below , and it sounds like you’re relying to an extent on somebody’s physical ability to prevent such an occurrence, but even fit and healthy people make mistakes. In any case I’m not judging, I’m just putting across how my employer reacts to considerable risks. Ie going the far end of a fart to ensure there’s no risk at all.
 
Dis86 said:
No. Not a requirement. All are MIST qualified though.
Click to expand...
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.
 
bJN said:
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.
Click to expand...

Mist was a happy coincidence. Not a requirement.
 
It does sound a better plan would be to find ways of making the role less physically demanding, be that through better equipment, better procedures or even reducing the shift length and/or increasing rest breaks. Maybe it's actually a role for 1.5 people?
 
I have got my PTS Sentinel card for the railway industry, covering track maintenance jobs but I had to get it for my current position cleaning trains overnight because it sometimes means crossing the track at level crossing. On or near the line it's called.
Before you can do this course you have to do a medical from an acceptable place to Network Rail , it asks medical history, any ongoing medication, your GP details, plus check for Drug and alcohol in urine , eyesight, hearing, colour blindness, blood pressure, even BMI , Body Mass Index if you fail you are not allowed to retake for 5 years so no work in that Industry. That would weed out your over 60s until state pension age.
I'm sure your industry has similar requirements if it's safety critical
Hope you sorted it out
 
Pudney said:
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.
Click to expand...

Such disability discrimination cases are usually only possible if the employer lists themselves as a positive about disability employer.

Also you could offer a probationary / temporary contract first to assess productivity, then only keep them on if they meet your criteria.
 
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.

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.
Click to expand...

I agree with a lot of others in this thread that there should be some physical assessment and I don't mean asking someone to lift 30kg. I would want them to demonstrate how much their capable of lifting as an indication of overall strength and endurance. There are pros and cons with both age groups, many of which being completely different to each other.

The 30 ft up whilst dealing with turbulence well, at any age that could be a big problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom