Being interviewed by young people

Plans_all_plans

fengirl wrote: »

My coment on childcare was just an example of the sexist questions which may not be asked at interview - it was only an example of the type of questions which can get an employer into trouble. The fact remains that if someone is tunred down for a job, they can decide that it was because they were the wrong sex, the wrong colour, the wrong religion, disabled, etc and take the employer to an ET for discrimination. I dont think its right to expose people who are not the actual employer to this type of risk.

If the employer puts together the panel of young people to interview me and they ask inappropriate questions, I'm sure it wouldn't be the individual child that got into trouble. I would think the organisation would still be held responsible. In any case, if I was asked questions about chilcare, do I intend to have more children etc, I would just tell the young person that they're not supposed to ask candidates questions like that and refuse to answer.

bristol_pilot

So 8 year-olds are allowed to influence decisions affecting the livelihood of adult professionals...jeez...no wonder there is no discipline in schools and kids feel they can do as they please with impunity.

Plans_all_plans

Well I'm only guessing at their ages!! I think they're more likely to be teenagers, however I used to work in a primary school and children there would ask questions of teaching candidates, so that's why I came up with a minimum age of 8. Will let you all know what happens on interview day!

fengirl_2

You are missing the point. You dont have to be asked inappropriate questions in order to feel that you have been discriminated against. If a 30 yr old gets the job and you are in your 50's, you might well feel there has been age discrimination and you have the right to go to an ET. The discrimination does not have to be in the questions, but in the discussion which the panel has and in their final decision. Everyone on the panel is answerable for their decision if the candidate feels there has been some element of discrimination. I would never advise clients to involve anyone but people from the organisation to be involved in recruitment.

Emmzi

I will be astonished if the kids are involved in the final decision.

But seeing how you interact with the orgs clients is totally fine IMHO.

It's up to the (hopefully trained!) assessors to interpret the interaction with the young people.

I personally think it is forward thinking and the sign of a good employer that they are centered on their key client group at every stage of recruitment. Well done them!

hellokitty08

Right, its nothing to be scared of, I have been through it many times. Usually they are given some questions to ask by HR, sometimes they are allowed to ask their own questions, but these have to be checked by HR. I once got asked if I thought Canabis should be legalised!!!! I was a bit shocked by that, so I went with the if it can be proven to help paitents with certain medical conditions then maybe it should be considered on a prescription basis, otherwise no. I think I covered all my bases, although I mentioned I wasnt aware of the details of any research so I didnt really think it was a judgement I could make. Other questions included things like "if a young person came up to you and asked you if you would keep a secret for them, what would you say?" Child protection here, I replied no, I would explain that there were certain things that I would have to share with other people and that I would never promise them to keep a secret. Even though your applying for a admin role, youd be surprised at some young peoples inability to know the difference, they might blurt anything out to you. Good luck

bristol_pilot

fengirl wrote: »

If a 30 yr old gets the job and you are in your 50's, you might well feel there has been age discrimination and you have the right to go to an ET.

I quite agree. I'm pretty sure a panel of young people would tend to select people who are most like themselves and consequently prefer the younger candidates. I once worked somewhere where candidates' CVs and photographs were passed around the office and the mainly young (18-21ish), white, workforce asked for their views. Guess what - the young, white, candidates all got hearty recommendations. Comments like 'looks gay' and 'God squad' were made.

Employers cannot have it both ways. Either the young people's views are taken into account or they are not. If they are, then the employer is wide open to discrimination claims. If they are not, then the employer is not being 'all inclusive' as another poster put it.

SueC_2

Where was it stated that the panel of young people would be doing the selecting?

A person applying for a job on a farm may well be asked to demonstrate their abilities with cattle. It wouldn't mean the cow would be deciding who got the job!

elsien

I'm with Emmzi - you can include people in the interview process even if they aren't able to ask questions/judge the answers in a fair way. I work with people with learning disabilities and although they aren't able to interview in a non-discriminatory way, we don't go on their questions and answers, we observe and assess the general level of interaction between the service users and the candidate against set criteria. So we can show exactly what we were looking for and how it was met in a quantifiable way. Couldn't it be a similar sort of thing for the OP?

mikey72

fengirl wrote: »

My coment on childcare was just an example of the sexist questions which may not be asked at interview - it was only an example of the type of questions which can get an employer into trouble. The fact remains that if someone is tunred down for a job, they can decide that it was because they were the wrong sex, the wrong colour, the wrong religion, disabled, etc and take the employer to an ET for discrimination. I dont think its right to expose people who are not the actual employer to this type of risk.

What on earth are you on about. I'm proud that as I dad I look after my children. Childcare is very relevant to both sexes, not just one. Maybe you should look closer to home for sexism.