Train Driver Jobs - very exact age requirement

SusieT

maisie_cat said:

JCS1 said:

MalMonroe said:

And also, why wouldn't they invest in training someone of 50? (I can understand that they'd not want to invest in training a 50yo (even though it's only a 16 week training programme), but why not someone who is 21?)

They could have at least 16 - soon to be 17 and maybe more - good years of work in front of them. To deny them a job WOULD be discriminatory.

Train drivers have to be able to see, hear and distinguish between colours but those characteristics are asked of  everyone who applies and are not age-based but are for safety reasons.

What is this based on @MalMonroe?

Age discrimination legislation?

But if you read the actual link above it explains why they want someone over 20 1/2 years old, the word over has been missed in the FAQ

Dakta

It really is a simple case of a mistake in wording and anyone with reasonable interpretational skills can know without digging deeper what the correct meaning is.

You need to be >=21 to drive a train, hence the rule. Nothing more to read into it

Malthusian

MikeJXE said:

Thanks for the clarification 

I hope they don't miss out how to use emergency stop 

It's a deliberate typo. It weeds out applicants who will see an obstruction on the line, put their hand over the big button marked "STOP", and then do nothing and let the train crash.
"But I was just doing what the sign said..."
In fairness, although it's obviously a typo, it does render the meaning ambiguous. Unless you know that this is about the minimum age to drive a train and not a scheme targeting recent school leavers, the missing word could just as easily be "under". 

JCS1

maisie_cat said:

JCS1 said:

MalMonroe said:

And also, why wouldn't they invest in training someone of 50? (I can understand that they'd not want to invest in training a 50yo (even though it's only a 16 week training programme), but why not someone who is 21?)

They could have at least 16 - soon to be 17 and maybe more - good years of work in front of them. To deny them a job WOULD be discriminatory.

Train drivers have to be able to see, hear and distinguish between colours but those characteristics are asked of  everyone who applies and are not age-based but are for safety reasons.

What is this based on @MalMonroe?

Age discrimination legislation?

I meant the comments as nothing in any posts or the link to state over 50s could not apply

Jude57

JCS1 said:

maisie_cat said:

JCS1 said:

MalMonroe said:

And also, why wouldn't they invest in training someone of 50? (I can understand that they'd not want to invest in training a 50yo (even though it's only a 16 week training programme), but why not someone who is 21?)

They could have at least 16 - soon to be 17 and maybe more - good years of work in front of them. To deny them a job WOULD be discriminatory.

Train drivers have to be able to see, hear and distinguish between colours but those characteristics are asked of  everyone who applies and are not age-based but are for safety reasons.

What is this based on @MalMonroe?

Age discrimination legislation?

I meant the comments as nothing in any posts or the link to state over 50s could not apply

I think it's a response to the OP, whose first post ends:

'I can understand that they'd not want to invest in training a 50yo (even though it's only a 16 week training programme), but why not someone who is 21?'

Undervalued

maisie_cat said:

JCS1 said:

MalMonroe said:

And also, why wouldn't they invest in training someone of 50? (I can understand that they'd not want to invest in training a 50yo (even though it's only a 16 week training programme), but why not someone who is 21?)

They could have at least 16 - soon to be 17 and maybe more - good years of work in front of them. To deny them a job WOULD be discriminatory.

Train drivers have to be able to see, hear and distinguish between colours but those characteristics are asked of  everyone who applies and are not age-based but are for safety reasons.

What is this based on @MalMonroe?

Age discrimination legislation?

From the Age UK website......

The exception
While the Equality Act 2010 protects you from age discrimination at work or when applying for a job, there is an exception in the law which applies to age discrimination only.
An employer can make a decision based on someone's age if they can show that it is objectively justified and proportionate. This should only be a defence in a limited number of circumstances and doesn't mean that employers have 'free reign' to discriminate against older workers. Aside from very specific circumstances, employers can't force employees to retire. The default retirement age was scrapped in 2011.

However, this is a moot point as I am not aware of any suggestion that Avanti (or any other train company) have set a defined maximum age to start training.

MalMonroe (who seems to have an agenda with most employers and a very limited grasp of employment law) was reacting to the OP saying they could understand if there were a maximum age of perhaps 50.

As I understand it, train driving courses are demanding and a significant number of people don't make the grade. If train companies could show that the failure rate is significantly higher over a certain age that may give them lawful grounds to set a maximum age or more stringent pre-screening of older applicants.