Is this age discrimination...?

Ariousig

Yes it is. You have satisfied all the criteria only because of your age how can they reject you. Seriously this is not fair.

General_Grant

Ariousig wrote: »

Yes it is. You have satisfied all the criteria only because of your age how can they reject you. Seriously this is not fair.

How is it unfair age discrimination as far as the OP is concerned?

Their age is not the factor which prevents their having the qualification needed nor for having the amount of experience. They are 28 so could have gained experience since being 23 (ie past minimum age for the requested degree). They don't have the degree because they chose a different course.

However, in my opinion, they should still apply.

shortcrust

Dox wrote: »

It certainly could be classed as age discrimination if the employer can't justify the need for five years of experience. Quoting from ACAS's guide:

Avoid references, however oblique, to age in both the job description and the person specification. For example, avoid asking for ‘so many years’ experience. This may rule out younger people who have the skills required but have not had the opportunity to demonstrate them over an extended period. A jobseeker could challenge any time requirement and you may have to justify it in objective terms.

As you say, you don't want to make things difficult, so claiming unlawful discrimination isn't the way to go! I'd try a quiet word with the correct person (line manager, recruiter, HR or whoever), stressing how keen you are to do the job and giving clear, concrete examples of how you have demonstrated this in your current role.

Exactly! I said as much in the second post. The answer to the OP’s question is maybe. Didn’t stop a load of confident “yes it is!” and “no it isn’t!” replies.:D Still, I suppose it is difficult to see how a tribunal would judge the five year minimum to be unjustified so those saying “no it isn’t!” are probably, but not definitely, right.

Blatchford

shortcrust wrote: »

Exactly! I said as much in the second post. The answer to the OP’s question is maybe. Didn’t stop a load of confident “yes it is!” and “no it isn’t!” replies.:D Still, I suppose it is difficult to see how a tribunal would judge the five year minimum to be unjustified so those saying “no it isn’t!” are probably, but not definitely, right.

A tribunal judge not only wouldn't but couldn't. That would be them substituting their opinion on what experience and skills are required for a job in places of the employers and they aren't allowed to do that. But in any case that is irrelevant - this isn't age discrimination. The OP is 28 years old. The criteria is either a relevant degree or five years experience. The OP could have taken a relevant degree. They didn't, so that's tough. They have had time to get five years experience. The reason they don't have five years experience is that they spent six years at university studying a different degree path. So no discrimination there, just the wrong choices. The OP can certainly ask the employer if they would consider their application, but there is no discrimination.

bartelbe

The "best and the brightest" would know that HR do not write job descriptions in the first place - managers write them. At best HR might advise on aspects of fact or policy or principle, but they did not write job descriptions. You might find your advice more useful if you find somebody who works in HR and ask them what their job is. Because it isn't writing job descriptions.

There is a fairly good bet to be had that you have no knowledge of what it takes to work in HR, because if you did you would know that properly functional HR is a highly skilled and qualified role with a strong component of ongoing professional development

In general I have found most companies farm this out to HR or someone in charge of recruitment. Generally using brainless copy/paste method for job specs.

Even if managers don't farm it out completely, most won't have a clue about the more technical roles in their company.

Medical staff are skilled, Physists/Chemists/Biologists are skilled, Engineers are skilled. These are jobs that require a great deal of ability and years of study/training to master.

95% of the population could work in HR, it is not a skilled job.

Blatchford

bartelbe wrote: »

In general I have found most companies farm this out to HR or someone in charge of recruitment. Generally using brainless copy/paste method for job specs.

Even if managers don't farm it out completely, most won't have a clue about the more technical roles in their company.

Medical staff are skilled, Physists/Chemists/Biologists are skilled, Engineers are skilled. These are jobs that require a great deal of ability and years of study/training to master.

95% of the population could work in HR, it is not a skilled job.

Hr is a highly skilled and qualified job. 95% of the population couldn't do it and you are simply showing a complete lack of awareness of what HR is. I am not sure what qualifies you to assume that most companies "farm out" writing job descriptions to HR, who wouldn't know anything about the specific skills required for technical roles - which is exactly what any HR professional would tell you. Is this the same sort of "most companies" claim as the oft repeated "most companies" don't give references other than starting and finishing dates? Because there's always a lot of claims, completely unsubstantiated, about what "most companies" do.

Perhaps you should sign up for some of these courses if you are so good that you could be one of the 95% of the population who could work in HR. CIPD qualified HR professionals are always in demand https://www.cipd.co.uk/learn/training/professional-qualifications

Undervalued

Blatchford wrote: »

Hr is a highly skilled and qualified job. 95% of the population couldn't do it and you are simply showing a complete lack of awareness of what HR is. I am not sure what qualifies you to assume that most companies "farm out" writing job descriptions to HR, who wouldn't know anything about the specific skills required for technical roles - which is exactly what any HR professional would tell you. Is this the same sort of "most companies" claim as the oft repeated "most companies" don't give references other than starting and finishing dates? Because there's always a lot of claims, completely unsubstantiated, about what "most companies" do.

Perhaps you should sign up for some of these courses if you are so good that you could be one of the 95% of the population who could work in HR. CIPD qualified HR professionals are always in demand https://www.cipd.co.uk/learn/training/professional-qualifications

Obviously you meet good and bad people in most fields and HR is no exception. It is not a regulated profession and there are still significant numbers of HR "professionals" doing the job with no particular qualifications or training.

What is or isn't a "profession" is an endless source of debate but HR is not high on most people's list. How many talented school children have it in mind as a career as they might wish to be a doctor, dentist, solicitor etc?

I've met many excellent HR people but I have to say I have met some right muppets too!

Blatchford

Undervalued wrote: »

Obviously you meet good and bad people in most fields and HR is no exception. It is not a regulated profession and there are still significant numbers of HR "professionals" doing the job with no particular qualifications or training.

What is or isn't a "profession" is an endless source of debate but HR is not high on most people's list. How many talented school children have it in mind as a career as they might wish to be a doctor, dentist, solicitor etc?

I've met many excellent HR people but I have to say I have met some right muppets too!

I wouldn't disagree. In fact some of them are highly qualified muppets. But that doesn't change what I said - 95% of the population couldn't do it. It isn't a regulated role, but an employer plays with fire if they don't have appropriately trained HR.

That said I've met some right muppets doctors, dentists and solicitors....

sportsarb

bartelbe wrote: »

You have to remember that the best and brightest in this country do not go into HR. They will have copied and pasted a standard job spec, with no thought to whether it is appropriate.

This is even worse when it comes to technical posts. Most HR staff would struggle to wire a plug, so getting them to put together specs for technical roles is a joke. The worse I saw was one which required 5 years experience using a piece of software that didn't exist 5 years ago.

So I would find someone who actually understands the role and ask them if the 5 years experience is really needed. Especially considering you have been doing that part of the job for a years.

I'd imagine most people in HR would know the difference between worst and worse, though.

lincroft1710

sportsarb wrote: »

I'd imagine most people in HR would know the difference between worst and worse, though.

I wouldn't put any money on that if I were you. I think it was a typo rather than using the wrong word.