Being interviewed by young people

fengirl_2

Sue, you have missed the point as well. IF a panel did ask the question you have suggested, its not about it counting against the candidate, its about the candidate having a case for an ET because the question was asked. But see my post above, that wasn't the reason for my original post (which I now wish I hadn't made).

SueC_2

fengirl wrote: »

Sue, you have missed the point as well. IF a panel did ask the question you have suggested, its not about it counting against the candidate, its about the candidate having a case for an ET because the question was asked. But see my post above, that wasn't the reason for my original post (which I now wish I hadn't made).

No, I think you missed my point.

So long as the same question is asked of all candidates then the question itself isn't discriminatory.

If the question isn't answered there isn't any information available with which to discriminate.

To move away from the childcare example:

If the employer asks the candidate (and all other candidates) if they are gay, but the candidate doesn't answer, the employer can't then be accused of discriminating against the candidate because they are gay, purely and simply because the employer doesn't know they are gay.

That doesn't read particularly well, but hopefully makes sense anyway.

Zazen999

You are all missing the point.

It's not about the questions at all. It's about the interaction.

lynzpower

If the employer asks the candidate (and all other candidates) if they are gay, but the candidate doesn't answer, the employer can't then be accused of discriminating against the candidate because they are gay, purely and simply because the employer doesn't know they are gay.

i was actually reading about the cases that fengirl refers to, on some personnel law websites the other day

The problem is that children and opther "service users" have got that ability to ask seriously inappropriate questions. They arnt employed like eg the team mamager or the HR staff who interview, they have nothing to lose ( ie thier job/ reputation) for being racist/ sexist/ inappropriate in a way they may knot have the knowlsdg/ skills/ experience to know that some things that can be said in an interview setting are just wrong.

If I was in an interview and some child or other service user asked me if I was gay- im sorry but I wouldnt care a jot whether other candidates had also been asked or not. It would be to seek discrimination. ( pro gay or anti- some would win. some lose)

The point is the quesiton is posed to ascertain something about your personal life that is simply not relevant to the workplace. I agree wholly with fengirl - looks like a liability to me and if I were an employer there is no chance I would consider this particularly notif I work in the state sector as any payout has to come from the taxpayer.

I too have worked in "engagement" with some vulernable young people, children, people with poor MH prognoses etc there are scores of ways to engage service users, this seems to be the most bonkers to me as any which way you look at it is loaded with risk.

SueC_2

Zazen999 wrote: »

You are all missing the point.

It's not about the questions at all. It's about the interaction.

Couldn't agree more! Which is where we all came in, but then decided to wander wa-a-a-a-ay off topic for a bit of a philisophical debate!

The OP's probably had the interview and completed their induction period by now!

SueC_2

lynzpower wrote: »

I too have worked in "engagement" with some vulernable young people, children, people with poor MH prognoses etc there are scores of ways to engage service users, this seems to be the most bonkers to me as any which way you look at it is loaded with risk.

But surely there has to be some element of reason?

If someone is going to cry "discrimination" on the basis of something that is said by a person in one of these groups of people (ie. vulernable young people, children, people with poor MH prognoses etc) then surely they are not particularly well suited to working with those user groups? No?

foreign_correspondent

As well as being interviewed by young people, I have put together and supported young people's panels in the interview process... one thing I will say is that in general, the young people I have worked with have been incredibly sensible and grown up in their approach.

It is a big thing for them as well as you, and they are generally flattered to be asked, and keen to impress and to be seen as mature.

I have never known a young person set out to embarrass or upset a candidate in any way - in fact, quite the opposite - they generally are very empathetic as to how it might feel to be interviewed for a job, and keen to learn about the process for when they start working.

I am trying to remember the sort of questions young people have put together - the old standards often come up 'why do you want this job?' or 'what particularly makes you want to work here?' - I think some included things like 'what was your ambition when you were a teenager?' or 'what did you worry about when you were a teenager?' - some also wanted to ask about things about how you perceive teenagers - they may want to know whether you can empathise with young people and whether you are passionate about the aims of the organisation.

Generally, I have found that young people are not overly swayed by youth, or fashion, but want the adults who work with them to be warm, confident, caring, competant and genuine. Do not try to be anything other than yourself - kids have a sixth sense for detecting this!

lynzpower

SueC wrote: »

But surely there has to be some element of reason?

If someone is going to cry "discrimination" on the basis of something that is said by a person in one of these groups of people (ie. vulernable young people, children, people with poor MH prognoses etc) then surely they are not particularly well suited to working with those user groups? No?

No, your missing the point.

I am resiliant to the Nth. what my client would say to me in a one-to-one - anyone who works with vulnerable people expects them to be aggressive, insulting, nasty etc.

However, I wouldnt expect those things in an interview, or anything that is based on "selection"

This is not about resiliance its about fairness and ADP.

Engaging for the sake of it is nowhere near as important as fairness.

Edited to say, I think its great for people to see how interviews work. I also think it is useful for them to present questions then someone who is skilled can reject the questions and say why we cant ask those question but free for all when they can ask offensive unchecked questions in an interview setting is not right.

PS I hope the OP didnt get asked something like "why are you so fat" "why are your clothes so sad"

foreign_correspondent

lynzpower wrote: »

PS I hope the OP didnt get asked something like "why are you so fat" "why are your clothes so sad"

Why assume the worst of young people? Just because they are young does not mean they are idiots!

When I have included young people in the nterview process, I have found them very good at putting together excellent questions which I may not have thought of, and which have, without exception, been appropriate, insightful and useful.

lynzpower

foreign_correspondent wrote: »

Why assume the worst of young people? Just because they are young does not mean they are idiots!

When I have included young people in the nterview process, I have found them very good at putting together excellent questions which I may not have thought of, and which have, without exception, been appropriate, insightful and useful.

Because these are the cases that were well publicised and Fengirl was referring to?