Am I in danger of being Ageist?

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.
Fitness test as part of the interview process and then a three month probation period.
 
Older guys can leave younger guys for dead sometimes, but it is normal for people to hire who they see as being best suited to a position.
I worked with Window fitters and that was harder than it looks, many of the young lads were not man enough to do it quickly and get a house done and dusted fast
 
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...
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.
I don't disagree.

It's your business to employ who you choose. But given the question of whether it is age discrimination then yes it is discrimination. Would the candidate find out? Very unlikely. Could the candidate claim compensation if they did? Probably.
 
I don't disagree.

It's your business to employ who you choose. But given the question of whether it is age discrimination then yes it is discrimination. Would the candidate find out? Very unlikely. Could the candidate claim compensation if they did? Probably.

The point is that I'm not saying no because of their age. I'm saying no because of the physical degradation associated with their age.
Something that is an immutable fact of life.
 
The point is that I'm not saying no because of their age. I'm saying no because of the physical degradation associated with their age.
Something that is an immutable fact of life.
I'm sorry you don't like the answer. You also don't need to convince me, a random person on the internet, who would be better for your business. Employ who you want or feel most suitable for the job. Just don't tell the candidate that it's in any way related to age otherwise it could backfire because, if that is the only reason, then is is illegal. But that's your decision to take.

https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights

Types of discrimination ('protected characteristics')
It is against the law to discriminate against anyone because of:

  • age
  • gender reassignment
  • being married or in a civil partnership
  • being pregnant or on maternity leave
  • disability
  • race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin
  • religion or belief
  • sex
  • sexual orientation
 
I'm sorry you don't like the answer. You also don't need to convince me, a random person on the internet, who would be better for your business. Employ who you want or feel most suitable for the job. Just don't tell the candidate that it's in any way related to age otherwise it could backfire because, if that is the only reason, then is is illegal. But that's your decision to take.

https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights

It's not a question of liking the answer. What's protected is a single quality. I'm not saying that quality is a problem, I'm saying a characteristic associated with that is the problem.

In the same way a male underwear model wouldn't be very useful if they were a woman.
 
It's not a question of liking the answer. What's protected is a single quality. I'm not saying that quality is a problem, I'm saying a characteristic associated with that is the problem.

In the same way a male underwear model wouldn't be very useful if they were a woman.
OK then, re-advertise the job exactly as you have done but add "Only candidates under 40 years old (or whatever you decide) will be considered for the role". Have a guess what will happen?
 
But that's not what we're saying. People under 40 could be physically incapable of it.
Yes, which is why I said earlier in the thread:
Which is ageist.

As I said before, employing someone on the basis of fitness is not discriminatory but employing them on age certainly is.
If the older candidate is as fit as the other candidates then deciding against him purely on age is discrimination. If the older candidate is not as physically fit as the others then deciding against him on fitness levels is not discrimination.

Ultimately this happens all the time when employing people. The usual response is to simply choose who you feel is the better candidate but not to let them know the deciding factor was one of the protected characteristics.

I'll step out of this thread now as I've made it clear that in my opinion it is discrimination (and that this sort of discrimination happens all the time).
 
Is it ageist if its based on a balance of probability though?

Well you’d get a better idea of those probabilities if you tested them. Suppose the younger guy turns up and is a fat lad or regularly has issues with asthma etc… and didn’t declare that.

I mean if you test them an all goes well the younger guy should perform better then you can hire on the basis of the test, it might however turn out the younger guy is unfit and one of the older guys is in prime physical health still. My dad’s in his 70s for example, only recently retired but easily fitter than the average British male 30 years younger than him. Average adult in the UK is fat and barely exercises.
 
Well you’d get a better idea of those probabilities if you tested them. Suppose the younger guy turns up and is a fat lad or regularly has issues with asthma etc… and didn’t declare that.

I mean if you test them an all goes well the younger guy should perform better then you can hire on the basis of the test, it might however turn out the younger guy is unfit and one of the older guys is in prime physical health still. My dad’s in his 70s for example, only recently retired but easily fitter than the average British male 30 years younger than him. Average adult in the UK is fat and barely exercises.

That's the point, we also wouldn't choose someone who is obviously unfit.
 
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.

How odd, my post was nearly 2 years ago. But anyway, I never mentioned disability specifically. And it was in relation to the fact it's relatively easy to fire anyone within the first 2 years except in certain circumstances (and even in those circumstances you probably can if the employer is sneaky about what they say and document).
 
Is that £700 based on a 60hr week or would be prorata'd up to about £1k?
I guess it could appeal to fit people who maybe lack other skills but it seems a surprisingly low rate.

As for the topic at hand, I don't envy people trying to hire in this position. I guess you need some sort of assessment process baked into the hiring.
 
Back
Top Bottom