is this sexism?

terra_ferma

Fridge3 wrote: »

The application forms should not go to the recruiting/shortlistng panel in the first instance, but to HR. HR then remove the equality/diversity monitoring form and forward the rest. Check any Govt or LG vacancies [or many large companies] and you'll see they have this covered.

We want to make sure that our equal opportunities policy is working so we need you to fill in the equal opportunities monitoring section of the application form. We hope you don’t mind us asking for this personal information but we have a legal duty to monitor information on equal opportunities. Please note that the short listing and interview panel do not see this information.
Please tell us if you consider yourself to be disabled. We recognise and welcome our responsibility to remove any barriers in our recruitment process for disabled applicants.

If the employer lets slip they have seen the equality/diversity monitoring they are leaving themselves vulnerable to a claim.

What you say does not make any sense as you are contradicting yourself in your posts.

On one hand managers who shortlist candidates don't have access to the monitoring forms and don't know the dis/ability or race of candidates, but on the other somehow someone makes sure minorities are shortlisted to avoid ET cases :think:

Fridge3

terra_ferma wrote: »

What you say does not make any sense as you are contradicting yourself in your posts.

On one hand managers who shortlist candidates don't have access to the monitoring forms and don't know the dis/ability or race of candidates, but on the other somehow someone makes sure minorities are shortlisted to avoid ET cases :think:

Check it out for yoursel on any Govt/LG website...here's a random job application form from one - click on the form and see the last couple of pages - this one says:

"In order that we can effectively monitor recruitment, we would ask you to complete this section which will then be separated from the application form for shortlisting."

Here's how it should work:

1. Application packs returned to HR who collate against the job ref until the closing date has passed.
2. HR separate and retain equality monitoring section and forward the rest of the applications to recruiting officer/panel.
3. Panel assess applications against JD, identifying the level each criteria is met, not met or exceeded.
4. Results from panel are sent to HR who invite candidates for interview as advised by the recruiting panel.
5. HR then check to see if any candidates not selected by the recruiting panel meet the minimum criteria and if so would invite them for interview also.

So for example, out of 10 applicants, 2 may greatly exceed criteria, 2 exceed, 4 meet and 2 not meet. Out of those the panel may decide to interview the highest 4 candidates (2 greatly exceeds and 2 exceeds). HR lateradvise that another 3 candidates ticked the DDA box, 2 who met the criteria and one who was below. The two DDA candidates who met the minimum criteria would subsequently be added to the interview candidate.

terra_ferma

I can see what you were trying to say now, but you are still confusing different issues.
First of all this procedure only applies to organisations who have the two ticks, and specifically to disability, nothing to do with race.

And also it has nothing to do with avoiding ET cases, first of all because all the other potential reasons for discrimination are not covered (race, gender, religion, sexuality etc), and also because it does not matter who gets shortlisted, but only who is offered the job.

However it would be interesting to hear from anyone who works for an organisations with the two ticks and can say if it works like that in practice.

Finally, the interviewing panel would know very well who's been picked by HR i.e. anyone who as not been shortlisted by those among them who did the shortlisting.

Fridge3

terra_ferma wrote: »

I can see what you were trying to say now, but you are still confusing different issues.
First of all this procedure only applies to organisations who have the two ticks, and specifically to disability, nothing to do with race.

And also it has nothing to do with avoiding ET cases, first of all because all the other potential reasons for discrimination are not covered (race, gender, religion, sexuality etc), and also because it does not matter who gets shortlisted, but only who is offered the job.

However it would be interesting to hear from anyone who works for an organisations with the two ticks and can say if it works like that in practice.

Finally, the interviewing panel would know very well who's been picked by HR i.e. anyone who as not been shortlisted by those among them who did the shortlisting.

Yes, I referred to two ticks here.

The point I make is that the equality monitoring form is not supposed to be seen by recruiting staff. I used DDA as an example and noted minimum criteria for selection because that is an area where two ticks employers are vulnerable to discrimination claims and can't claim the reason for non selection is because the other candidates were exceptional. The same vulnerabilities also apply to race, gender, religion, sexuality etc, all of which are on the equalities monitoring form. And it is those vulnerabilities that some use to engineer claims, knowing they have a powerful tool at their disposal.

Employers do not have to have appointed someone to fall foul of discrimination. They can end up in court for discriminating during the selection process; ie non selection of an applicant for interview because of disability, race, sex etc. See the link from this post for info on how this works.

Savvy_Sue

When I prepare applications for shortlisting, I number all the forms before removing the personal information and drawing up the shortlisting 'grid'. I then note if someone has included a 'Disclosure' or statement of additional needs. The actual details are left in the sealed envelope supplied by the candidate, and would only be opened if the applicant was shortlisted.

We don't have two ticks, and we don't have an HR person.

Adamb_3

I don't think that the company is sexist. Maybe they have ulterior reasons for hiring an all-female staff. For instance, if a company is grounded on selling make-up and beauty products, then they must hire a staff that is mostly composed of women. The same can be said if the company is in need of man-power. Just don't think about it too much because there are a lot of jobs up for grabs in the world today.

Savvy_Sue

Adamb wrote: »

I don't think that the company is sexist. Maybe they have ulterior reasons for hiring an all-female staff. For instance, if a company is grounded on selling make-up and beauty products, then they must hire a staff that is mostly composed of women. The same can be said if the company is in need of man-power. Just don't think about it too much because there are a lot of jobs up for grabs in the world today.

Tosh! Granted, you don't see many men on beauty counters, but there's no earthly reason why a man can't advise women on make up, and frankly I'd rather talk to a well-groomed man about suitable products than to a woman who gets her face out of a jar each morning ...

And precisely what kind of jobs requiring 'manpower' could not be done by a fit and healthy woman?

the example previously given of staff working with victims of domestic violence is, as far as I know, the ONLY kind of exemption which can legally be made from the sexual discrimation legislation. I work for a woman's charity, and we have that exemption - but only for SOME of our roles.

You can't hire a female workforce just because you think women should know their place, nor can you insist on a male workforce just because you think women shouldn't exert themselves. You WILL still find that some workforces tend to be biased in one direction, but that's a historic situation rather than the future.

FWIW, the BEST nurse I had when I was in hospital was a chap. He seemed to care ...

Fridge3

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

When I prepare applications for shortlisting, I number all the forms before removing the personal information and drawing up the shortlisting 'grid'. I then note if someone has included a 'Disclosure' or statement of additional needs. The actual details are left in the sealed envelope supplied by the candidate, and would only be opened if the applicant was shortlisted.

We don't have two ticks, and we don't have an HR person.

I've assumed from your wording that you do not shortlist yourself? But your company has provision for removing personal info so that those completing the shortlisting grid are not aware?

Fridge3

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

the example previously given of staff working with victims of domestic violence is, as far as I know, the ONLY kind of exemption which can legally be made from the sexual discrimation legislation. I work for a woman's charity, and we have that exemption - but only for SOME of our roles.

Tosh..... attendants in female changing rooms can be male?

poet123

There are 3 types of exemption

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=31033623&postcount=109