Advice needed - discrimination in job application?

browneyedbazzi

JReacher1 wrote: »

I would say White dark haired women are most associated with bad roots.

But not all white women have roots and not all people with roots showing are white (or women) - I can't see how a racial discrimination claim could succeed on the basis that they didn't hire someone because of bad roots.

JReacher1

browneyedbazzi wrote: »

But not all white women have roots and not all people with roots showing are white (or women) - I can't see how a racial discrimination claim could succeed on the basis that they didn't hire someone because of bad roots.

I was just answering your question about bad roots and what race it tends to be.

I don't agree that not hiring someone due to bad roots is a racial discrimination claim!

browneyedbazzi

JReacher1 wrote: »

I was just answering your question about bad roots and what race it tends to be.

I don't agree that not hiring someone due to bad roots is a racial discrimination claim!

I know - the question and my comments about a claim were aimed at daytona who seems to think that not hiring someone because of bad roots could be racial discrimination....which is absurd.

photome

Oooi wrote: »

Well I hope noone here ever finds themselves out of work, it's easy to !!!! all over the unemployed just because you think you're the dogs bollox.

If you're all so successful, why are you even on a money saving website? losers.

Admit it, you are out of work, you dont really want a job and you only came on here to vent your anger at how hard employers make it to get one in your opinion

If you really wanted a job you would fill in a CV online which is much more secure than a CV in a waste bin

Oooi

photome wrote: »

Admit it, you are out of work, you dont really want a job and you only came on here to vent your anger at how hard employers make it to get one in your opinion

If you really wanted a job you would fill in a CV online which is much more secure than a CV in a waste bin

This discussion isn't about me, it is about my friend.

I still believe it is discrimination and all my friends agree. Also, what right does an employer even have to make demands of someone that doesn't even work there?

It all seems very wrong.

lincroft1710

Oooi wrote: »

I still believe it is discrimination and all my friends agree. Also, what right does an employer even have to make demands of someone that doesn't even work there?

You and your friends may believe it is discrimination but most posters here seem to agree it is a non discriminatory fact of employment life.

Employers can use whatever selection method they choose and ask candidates to perform certain tasks, providing these tasks are not illegal nor discriminate against protected characteristics.

Not being able to use a computer is not a protected characteristic!

At the age of 44 my job became computer based and two years later, I had to learn to how to type my own letters on the computer and send them to the printer. I had minimal training but soon picked it up. I started using the internet at age 58 and again minimal training, but very, very soon picked it up.

It is your friend who will have to change. Potential employers hold all the aces and you have to dance to their tune not vice-versa.

George_Michael

Oooi wrote: »

Also, what right does an employer even have to make demands of someone that doesn't even work there?.

They are not making a demand they are simply stating one of their conditions should someone wish to apply for employment and this is in no way discrimination as every applicant has to follow the same procedure.

I don't work in a shop but if they have a "no eating or drinking inside the store" sign outside their premises, they are stating a requirement that I should follow if I wish to enter.
I suppose that you and your friends consider these signs illegal as well.
How about shops that won't take cheque payments? surely that is discriminatory as well and should be reported to the authorities.

TonyMMM

Oooi wrote: »

I still believe it is discrimination and all my friends agree. Also, what right does an employer even have to make demands of someone that doesn't even work there?

It is discrimination - all recruitment is a process of discrimination i.e. choosing one person to employ out of lots of applicants.

In doing that the employer has every right to use any criteria they wish (other than those legally defined) to help them choose the person they want.

I've seen recruiters who use Google, Facebook and other social media sites all the time to sift out people to interview (or not) - people, especially young graduates, should be very aware these days of what their on-line presence really says about them and the impression it might give.

I've seen some who just randomly select every second/third CV in a pile to read and throw the rest away. I even saw one who used to throw a big pile of CV's up in the air - those that landed on the desk got read, those that fell on the floor got binned.

At least you can hope an on-line application is likely to automatically get into the assessment system, and not go straight into the bin.

Money-Saving-King

Oooi wrote: »

Also, what right does an employer even have to make demands of someone that doesn't even work there?.

If someone is being problematic before they've even got the job you then have to wonder what sort of employee they'd be like once employed.

Takeaway_Addict

Oooi wrote: »

This discussion isn't about me, it is about my friend.

I still believe it is discrimination and all my friends agree. Also, what right does an employer even have to make demands of someone that doesn't even work there?

It all seems very wrong.

If an employer cannot make demands on someone applying for a job then why not write it in a slate board in chalk, or use blood as the ink? Stop being stupid and just realise that times move on, maybe your friend should learn to use a computer, there are plenty of free access ones in Libraries I believe.

Yes its discriminatory, not sure anyone has disagreed with this but its not illegal and as I said last time prove it is. Because if you want things to change this is what you would have to do through the courts.