'would suit a school leaver'

Caroline73_2

looby75 wrote: »

I saw a job ad today that said you must be at least 5ft 7 tall....I didn't think that was allowed either these days.

It depends if it's a relevant requirement to the job.

7891368

That's a Health and Safety requirement though probably, a bit different.

looby75

Caroline73 wrote: »

It depends if it's a relevant requirement to the job.

7891368 wrote: »

That's a Health and Safety requirement though probably, a bit different.

it was for "authenticity reasons" apparently lol It was for a children's entertainer.

Bamber19

hob wrote: »

if it said would suit mothers coimng back in to work whould that be wrong aswell?

Possibly, if you interpret the age comment to be or imply age discrimination then you'd likely also take the above to be or imply sex discrimination.

looby75 wrote: »

it was for "authenticity reasons" apparently lol It was for a children's entertainer.

Questionable whether authenticity could really be an issue (not sure why a childrens entertainer would need to be a certain height) but in any event I don't believe the small are protected from discrimination, although perhaps the advert could fall foul of disability discrimination being that someone with dwarfism or another height related disability would be excluded.

It's funny what you can and can't get away with, putting on a play you can discriminate racially in casting if the race of character is specifically important in the story or even traditionally of a certain race (Othello for example)

In contrast a lingerie shop owner for example might assume they can discriminate and only employ women when this is generally not the case.

Then outwith employment I still see venues every so often advertising a ladies night (free entry for girls whilst men pay) which is discriminatory and not allowed, albeit arguably not something many consider to be a major breach (especially as the paying blokes see an increase in the number of ladies going that night which of course really ends up being negated by the increase in men going because of the potential aforementioned increase in ladies)

emilyteach1

I'd take it as a euphemism for being suitable for applicants with a relatively low level of qualifications and/or experience.

I'd also take it as a polite notice that it'll be a dirty [not in the literal sense...] job, but somebody's got to do it! Low-level admin or office work would spring to mind.

I'd also assume positive connotations in that the candidate could potentially 'grow' with the company, receive training that they lack, etc.

The age implications wouldn't occur to me.

Like someone else said, if I was interested, I'd still apply.

MrChandlerBing

I dont understand why people complain about this. If they want someone who recently left school, they will hire someone who recently left school. All it does is save you time by stopping you from applying

surreysaver

busiscoming2 wrote: »

I dont think it implys an age range, merely that is suits someone with no experience in that line of work and a minimum wage.

If thats the case, then thats what it should say!

Sammyantha

prosaver wrote: »

Phone him up and tell him you have left school

LMAO!!

They want a school leaver so they have low paid slave labour