A recruiter's point of view

Personally, being 46 and unemployed for 7 months with 22 years IT experience - I don't think this act will make a blind bit of difference.

If recruiters want to discriminate against you they will.
The real issue here is the competence and bigotry of the people doing the recruiting.

Technical acumen which used to be an essential skill in the IT industry is totally ignored these days.

Older more mature professionals have a lot to offer especially in the IT industry. But it is here they are the most penalised.

Matt - August 30, 2006 10:20 AM

Hello Jo

All work and no play...you know what that means.

With regard to the new Age Discrimination Act, come on now. Regardless of what the legislation actually requires organisations to comply with, they will always look to circumvent it. For example, there are cases in the Public Sector where employment law is being abused by dishonest and incompetent employees to circumvent due process, whilst in the Private Sector, it is often used to discrimate against ordinary, hardworking employees, whose only fault is to be in the wrong place at the wrong time; or perhaps have an opinion or perspective which may be at odds with their employer. Sadly, I have no more more faith in this new legislation than I have in the current legislation, because people will always find a way around it.

A cynical assessment, perhaps, although maybe it reflects more on the day-to-day pragmatism which we all have to live with.

Charlie - August 30, 2006 11:20 AM

I totally agree with the comments from Matt & Charlie.

At 50 and having been unemployed since last year, I waste my time registering with so called agency "Recruitment Consultants", all of which are in their early 20's, asking me to provide proof to work in this country, which of course shows my D.O.B.

The age discrimination within the Recruitment industry is all too clear and I too, have no faith in the "Consultants" I am dealing with or any new legislation that they are supposed to be goverened by.

Mike - August 30, 2006 2:50 PM

This act will make no difference at all. All employers have a pre-set idea of who they wish to employ. So how can I prove that I have been discriminated if I do notget selected for an interview.

If I 'adjust' my CV to exclude my age and then get an interview, I am then informed that I have been rejected because I possess 'Too much experience'.

As with all legislation - it will be ignored by employers who wish to. I look forward to the first case in court - I bet it will be a large organisation - internal application!!

Eddie - August 30, 2006 8:55 PM

Yes I agree with Eddie but from the other end of the spectrum - it seems that I am too young to work in jobs with more experience (even though I have 5 years experience) and too old for a graduate role (even though I have a degree)?

I wish employers would just be upfront on their adverts because applying to these jobs WASTES MY TIME!

Mimi - August 31, 2006 9:30 AM

It will be interesting to see how the Act can and will be enforced. Can we really expect potential employers to admit discriminating against candidates because of age, or candidates proving that is the case? There are plenty of other ways to discriminate against candidates if they do not meet the perceived criteria of the recruiter

Interesting that a number of comments highlight the disillusioned with the recruitment processes of agencies. Perhaps Joanna and Charlie could look at that aspect of recruitment on one of their next blogs

Martin - August 31, 2006 5:01 PM

Re: Mikes comment.
Not all recruiters are in their early twenties.
We actively want to recruit more older people and try and push benefits of employing people with more experience as we want to make more placements and earn more money. Ultimately we don't make the hiring decisions.

Secondly many clients (illegally) specify the age of the person they want to hire and if a recruiter sends them a CV for someone who is outside this range the client is likely to be annoyed and this could negatively effect a business relationship.

Personnally I refuse to work with such clients and understand your frustration.

Mark - September 1, 2006 9:46 AM

I think the legislation will make a difference as it comes from the EU. How would a company explain a workforce with nobody over 30 ? My last company actually pre-empted this legislation by offering early retirement to everybody over 50 which I took. I think getting a job is always difficult and it also affects young people. As the demographics of the workforce change employers reluctantly will have to change

mike - September 1, 2006 10:52 AM

You all seem to tarnish recruitment consultants with the same brush which isn't necessarily fair. The company I work for welcomes age legislation coming into force because we consistently see employers discriminating on the grounds of age. I am intrigued to see what effect this will have in 2007 as I'm sure it will take a while to kick in and be recognised as seriously as sex or race discrimination.

We are constantly reminding employers that you don't get to 50 and give up on life, if anything you have more to offer, more interests and more opinions to share or offer and you're usually doing a job because you enjoy it.

This discrimination usually comes down to a inexperienced manager who is not given guidance or support from their company about managing someone with more years than themselves. kathryn

Kathryn - September 1, 2006 12:04 PM

I am pleased to see legislation which rules out being barred from applying based upon age. Whether it makes a blind bit of difference we shall have to wait and see. However, let's assume from past experience that it might.

In my lifetime I've seen the introduction of legislation designed to prevent racial and sexual discrimination, and it seems to me that it has worked.

What I am more concerned about is the opening of floodgates to export work to far off places, and import of cheap labour. It would be nice to think our government will tackle those problems, but I dare say I won't live long enough for that to see the light of day.

Andrew - September 1, 2006 7:25 PM

When it comes to think about age discrimination I do not only see the one related to your work experience but also your age. I am 42yo and being presently unemployed I find recruiters very reluctant to submit my application to their clients.

I do also agree with the previous comments; no matter how there will be always a way to circumnavigate the new regulation, a kind of unspoken and unwritten agreement between recruiters and employers. Being an Italian national, therefore an EC citizen I am fully entitled to work in UK, but no recruiter will ever introduce me to his clients all tho they should consider my application as the same of an UK national one.

Valter - September 2, 2006 10:29 AM

I'm 53, 4 years ago I wanted a secure job to take me up to retirement, with regular pay. I had done contract work and part-time prior, for many years, but loads of experience from life's university. I am wise and sharp and no-one in my current position belieives I am over 40. However when applying for jobs it took a year to get my current positon. I applied constantly, through ads and agencies and finally got where I am. I now want to move on as I have no work/life balance and am in a job that I have grown to hate. I absolutely fear looking for something else as I know the age discrimination is for real. I dread the thought of having to end my working years doing dreadful shift work with uncaring managers. I have no specialist skills other than what I wanted to move away from. I feel very dispondant.

Sylvia - September 2, 2006 2:06 PM

Wow, as a 44 year old with 18 years experience in the telecomms industry and about to leave my current employer, reading the comments above now makes the prospect of leave a bit fearful. I have got a job to go to but I was planning on using that as an intermediate step with a view to securing a more senior position in another blue chip. I'm hoping that the new Act does make some difference and also the comment about having more recruiters above the age of 25 makes a lot of sense. I for one know that the experience I have now and my approach to my profession makes me light years more effective than I was 15 years ago. Lets hpoe for the best! Phil

Phil - September 2, 2006 2:22 PM

I am recently turned 59rs young and look forward to working for at least another 6 yrs but I wonder how many employers want to employ somebody who has a "Use by" date attached? Interim and part time work beckons perhaps, despite my many skills.

Keith Ireland - September 2, 2006 2:31 PM

No amount of legislation will prevent age discrimination. Employers will always find some excuse to turn down a jobseeker. Many employers prefer younger people because they are generally easier to manipulate in the workplace. I heard a comment some time ago that older people are too wise and know their worth whereas younger people are less aware of their value to the company and so they will be prepared to work harder than older people for less money. Experience doesn't count any more. Cheap labour with staffing levels at the bare minimum is all that matters. I would also suggest that companies are less keen to train older people. Company pensions must also play some part when age is considered.

Terry

Terry - September 2, 2006 8:23 PM

When looking for work in the US, which already has age discrimination law, that I should not put my age or birth-date on a resume. The rule there is that any resume that includes any reference to the candidates age is automatically rejected, HR departments will not allow them to be considered. Should the same apply here?

Bernard Peek - September 2, 2006 11:31 PM

My question is how can this piece of legislation be enforced?

How do you prove that a company has rejected your because of your age? They are not going to state the reason that they have rejected you was because you were over 50! The usually reasons are that they feel that your have far too much experience and may not be satisfied with the post on offer. Or unfortunately other candidates meet their criteria more than you do. Then a few months later you see the same job advertised?

This government wants us to work till we are at least 70 - that is okay if you already have a job, but for those of us who are 50+ and out of work what do we do? After all there are only so many jobs that B & Q can offer!

Jean - September 3, 2006 10:09 AM

Forget the law just look back at your cv with the dates employed from it is easy to work out how old you are. The main complaint about recruiters is they never take calls and they never responde to e-mail. Only two people out of over fifty that I have applied for have taken the time to call me and talk.
Please talk to us that will help you get your commision after all that is all that you realy care about?

Ian - September 3, 2006 4:43 PM

I wish I could believe the legislation will make a difference. Like several others above, I am in my mid 40s & have been unemployed for over five months despite having a good degree over 20 years experience in IT (software development). Amusingly when I applied for a job last week I was asked for my 'A Level' grades to add up points. The recruiter laughed and agreed with me when I said that I took mine when they still meant something!

Arthur - September 4, 2006 11:18 AM

I too would like to believe the new regulations will make a difference, but cannot see how they can be enforced. Even if a statistical comparision of the relationship between applications received and those put forward to the prospective employer were made, it would be difficult to prove discrimination conclusively.
I don't think anything will change until some real steps are made to enforce proper professional standards on recruitment consultants.

John Holburt - September 4, 2006 11:45 AM

Any regulatory action is positive - it shows a recognition of the importance of not discriminating based on age. When I left my job 9 months ago at the age of 41 I did not believe that age would be a problem but now I'm not sure. In Spain for example, many employers state no applicants over age of 35 !!! - what is the world coming to? I feel more motivated and capable than I have ever felt - I hope that in an interview that will counter the philosophy of hire them while they are cheap ! ....

Mark Howard - September 4, 2006 2:08 PM

I think recruitment as an industry is a joke I was penalised by an agency for being not of graduate age (I am 32 with over tive years of relevant experience for a position!).

anon - September 4, 2006 3:21 PM

I agree with Terry, as all employers have their own "profile" in mind of the candidate they want to employ and it is very difficult the get them to change their views - after all they are the customer of the recruitment agencies and "the customer is always right" so the agencies will not and do not attempt to do so.
I was made redundant at the age of 53, went to uni and completed a PhD only to find that employers wanted younger, new post grads to fill their books and not those with management experience! No way will they consider anyone over 50 for a position that we could successfully fill, because of their mind-set. Changing the law will make no difference as employers will always find some excuse to reject the older candidate - be it ascendancy planning, not enough experience, too much experience, or too highly qualified. I have reluctantly realised this after looking for permanent employment since the middle of 2003! My solution? - to go self-employed, not in the industry or sector in which I have vast experience (product development), but in a new area in which my skills and experience can be used, i.e. training. Its not what I expected to be doing, but I make a reasonable income.

Mike - September 4, 2006 5:51 PM

I agree with all the negative comments here because I'm in another minority group. All employers who want to discriminate based on age will find a way to. All they need to do is get the person to interview, take one look at them and make up some legally plausable reason why they cannot employ that person. The candidate will have a hell of experience trying to prove that it was discrimination as the onus is on them to get the information and take action within a time frame of 3 months.

anon1 - September 5, 2006 6:49 AM

There seems to be a lot of anger directed towards recruitment consultants about this age issue, and I can understand how frustrating it might be for people. However, it's worth remembering that recruitment is the business of finding the right candidate for the right employer and vice versa. If employers do not want to interview someone based on the CVs which recruitment people send them then isn't that the employers themselves which are discriminating. I will send over any CV I think matched the job spec regardless of personal considerations. If the employer doesn't want to pursue it, then there's not a lot I can do.

James Chatterley - September 5, 2006 11:49 AM

I retired at 65 last January and using JobSite over the past 3 months I have yet to get an interview for part time or contract post in the capacity of M& E Procurement Officer, Building Services/Rail Industry. Experience at its best is Dormant.
Irvine Lauder

Irvine Lauder - September 5, 2006 2:25 PM

I am 57 and back at work in a good job which I got through personal recommendation. Like most people I look younger than I actually am also luckily I am very agile but I do know that I have been refused jobs because of my age. I asked someone why do they bother to interview you when they know from your CV that you are well in your 50's, the answer I got was that they wat to appear that they are not discriminating on the grounds of age. Anyway I don't think this new law will make any difference, also I don't blame the recruting firms, they do what their clients tell them to do.

HA - September 5, 2006 3:42 PM

Oh come on James; you're sounding too much like an estate agent. Surely your fees and commissions are as much based on your skill at sifting through the candidates as is the advice you give your clients on the suitability of those you submit for interview? Isn't your opinion valued or worth anything to the clients who commission you?

Charlie - September 5, 2006 6:11 PM

Fair point Charlie, but in my area at least, age is not really an issue except in terms of seniority and salary expectations. If someone with 30 years experience was happy to be considered for a junior team position then I'd happily get them across to the client. More often than not the "seniority pyramid" means people with more experience are not considered for these roles by the companies themselves.

Granted: I don't want to send CVs to a client if I know they won't be of interest, but similarly I won't tell the candidate that there will be interest form the client. If they are looking for specific experience in a technical area, or a certain level of seniority I will only send them CVs which fit the bill.

My point was, that it is not Recruitment Consultants who are being discriminatory in this regard but the companies who expect specific people to fill their roles. I would never advise against a good candidate based on their age! What would be the point?

James Chatterley - September 6, 2006 12:54 PM

I'm surprised by some of the comments "looking younger than I am" when it comes to job seeking. Surely how one looks i.e. younger or older than their years should have little or no bearing on their worth in securing a job for which they are qualified/experienced. Once again it would seem that the perception of some people on how they look is all important.

I agree with many of the other comments regarding recruitment agencies. I have been to sign on with countless agencies, mostly staffed by youngsters, never to hear from them ever again despite the fact that I have over 30 years experience of secretarial work. Usually when asked if I am prepared to do temporary work and say no I am looking for a permanent job, their eyes glaze over and they can't get you out of the door quick enough. I have never yet (despite three years of trying) been offered a permanent job, despite the fact that I have applied for countless such positions. More often than not, I am told that such jobs have just been taken. Do these jobs exist or is there some hidden agenda at work which states that only young looking dolly bird types fit the bill as a secretary these days?

This new piece of legislation has about as much chance of succeeding as any other that has been brought in by this government.

Fiona Rivett

Fiona Rivett - September 7, 2006 10:08 AM

I have been out of work for nearly 18 months, applied through various agencies for work that suits my criteria, applied for other employment through the job centres, had numerous non - responsive employers (nowt in the post) quite a few of interviews, all giving the same answer (thanks but no thanks) went to an interview for a new retail company, all went well till I filled in the medical questionaire. I mentioned a few ailments, the interviewee said that as I had sciatica there was no way I would be employed by her company. I told the truth throughout and its still got me nowhere. Question? What do I do now?

Adrienne

Adrienne Jobborn - September 8, 2006 12:57 PM

A few comments.

Candidates - Why the reliance on recruitment agencies? They are only one route to a job. If they are not providing the service that employers and candidates require, then try something else. Most jobs are filled through word-of-mouth, networking or direct application so although agencies can be very good (and very poor), don't rely solely on them.

To Fiona, who does not want temp work - why not? It's another great route to a permanent job; there are plenty of people who have been offered permanent places once they have proved their ability. In the meantime, it keeps your skills up-to-date.

Age discrimination - this is going to be tough to crack, but I suggest that your CV does not include date of birth, that you keep work history relevant to the job and recent (who cares that you worked in Woolworths on Saturdays in 1977) and that you tailor it to the vacancy. Call the recruiter / company before sending the application and discuss your ability to do the job - again, don't mention age or number of years experience if you feel that this might set you at a disadvantage; just be specific to the job. E.g. if the job involves managing 10 people, say that you have successfully managed teams of 5 -20 (or whatever) rather than 'I have 20 years experience of managing teams'

Steve - September 11, 2006 2:27 PM

Frankly, in my recent experience, employers have the ultimate power to instigate removal of employees who are openly critical of bad management. I was sacked from my job on 11'8'06 for what was termed "gross misconduct" I'd left my key in the ignition of my fork truck. I had had many discussions and confrontations with my employer about the overloaded nature of the job I did. Finally my manager admitted that the job I was doing was a "young man's job" !!!!!

I was not going to be supported by the Work's Doctor beyond March 2007 because of a recurring knee complaint ( never had it until I did the job) Constant mounting and dismounting a fork truck and running a strapping/pallet line.

When I was VICTIMISED I put it to the two senior managers that this was purely as a result of my complaining about the job and the knee complaint. They didn't have to sack me but they were determined to IMHO to do exactly that. I'm 51 in 3 weeks. THAT'S the reality of the situation. I'm in the process of talking with my union's legal dept to get them to fight this diabolical sacking at an industrial tribunal BUT that won't get me a job. I've now got an employment record that describes me as having committed an act of "GROSS MISCONDUCT"
Health and safety is a priority in industry now and rightly so but it's also a wonderful tool for employers to sack employees they regard as past their sell by date.

Billy

Billy - September 11, 2006 2:33 PM

The Age Discrimination Act sounds great in theory, but it won't work in practice.

How indeed does one prove that one has been discriminated against due to their advancing age?

As for those who think the Race Discrimination Act works, think again. How many black people are employed in high street banks, and in higher positions in blue chip companies?

I don't believe in positive discrimination; I believe in getting a job purely on merit.

I know so many black graduates in dead-end jobs, because they don't get the jobs they've been trained to do.

I'm speaking from personal experience; I have a good Masters degree, from a good UK university. Both my first degree and my Masters were paid for by the British taxpayer, at nearly 42 I'm without a job and this is not for lack of trying.

Try walking into a job interview and seeing the interviewers doing a double take, as though we didn't realise you were black ( I refuse to complete the so-called equal opportunities monitoring form usually attached to job application forms. If they have no relevance to their decision to shortlist suitable candiddates
and the selectors doing the shortlisting don't
get to see them, why do they attach them to the job application forms in the first place?).

I'm currently languishing on social security benefits feeling frustrated everyday, yet I have so much to contribute to society through my job. All I need is a chance to prove myself.

Troy

Troy - September 13, 2006 9:54 AM

I quite agree with Matt, I am 40 years old with 18 years of trench-like experience, and currently employed. I've had series of interviews where I suspect the ultimate reason for being dropped is that I am too old to be trained! Can u imagine that .......

Bigboy - September 13, 2006 9:04 PM

I don't think the new Act would work. Not putting your DOB on your job application won't make you any easier getting an interview. Many job application forms ask for your schooling and educational background with dates and qualifications attained - even for a very senior qualified accountant job where what 'O' levels you attained has no relevance - to gauge your age.

Wong - September 14, 2006 11:54 AM

This legislation is long overdue and I am sure that had it been in place three months ago I would not be still looking for my next job. I have noticed that over the last three weeks the interviews are now comming in at the rate of at least one a week.

nick - September 15, 2006 2:18 PM

I think I have to comment on all the negativity regarding Recruitment Consultants. I certainly only look to the standard of candidate when sending CVs accross to a client but sadly there are cases when a client will express prejudiced views. Of course I will try to explain the benefits of the particular candidate's experience, but at the end of the day I cannot force them. And as much as I would love to take the moral high ground, I do have to put food on the table! It's only when an employer will look beyond age and agree to view a CV on merit that things will change. Even then I have to question the difference the legislation will make - colleagues have told me many times that they are removing candidate names from CVs to prevent what could be perceived as racist exclusions by employers.............

Andy - September 19, 2006 5:37 PM

I was a successful recruitment manager (not in his twenties) who has decided to quit the industry to regain my work life balance.

Many employers recognise the value of ultilising the services of recruitment agencies, even if only to save time and money on repeat advertising and HR administration costs. As the employer is paying a substantial commission payment, they will quite rightly expect from an agency only candidate profiles that tick all the boxes on their wish list specification - relying on an agency pre-selected short list for final interview.

In the ideal world, an employer will only use one agency for all its recruitment (sigh!), but even preferred agencies may have only a few days grace before the job specification is passed on to other agencies. Competition is therefore very fierce and it is possible that consultants could be unsympathetic to certain candidate profiles (skill level, age, experience) especially as the employer dictates the pace and profile ideal. Not forgetting, a valued long term customer if they received unmatched profiles could accuse the consultant of not listening to their requirements and future business is lost. Even though business is business, blatant discrimination however, as with any other bad employment practices is not tolerated by reputable recruitment agencies.

The new age discrimination legislation due in October is therefore a welcome, and will help in changing the mindset and negative attitudes when assessing CV’s by all parties.

Candidates could also help themselves by being more selective on the number and type of agencies approached. Just to blanket all high street and internet agencies with a general CV and without even a covering letter is not that effective, leading to further rejection. Do your research into your local recruitment agencies (not just national chains), find out who specialises in your industry and ideally already deals with your target companies. Ask around for any personnel recommendations, get in front of a consultant who knows the local job market, be prepared to be flexible and sell yourself!

Reputable consultants in local areas do work hard for many years on business to business relationships and therefore often profit on prior knowledge of vacancies, and first hand knowledge of the employers working conditions etc. Candidates should use this knowledge and be prepared to work with the consultant providing all the information needed to compile a winning profile. I have seen so often a consultant tipping the balance by recommending a candidate personally and the employer making a decision based on this hard won trust.

Agreeing with Steve’s comments (reliance on agencies), it is not always necessary to use agencies if you do your homework and research your local job sector. Unless employers have, strict polices/contractual agreements and will only take CV's from contracted agencies, most HR departments will accept CV's direct from a suitable candidate.

A good tip is to become your own recruitment consultant, do your research/network and find the vacancies in your area. Routinely check your target employer’s website for hot off the press vacancies. Speculate by sending in your CV complete with covering letter explaining why you would like to join their company and the skills you will bring them at least you will be on file. Follow up with a telephone call speak to the HR department and ask for any feedback - you never know there maybe a vacancy in their in-tray waiting to be actioned. I gained a lot of agency business just by cold calling on the right day right time.

Try some detective work, even if an employer is using selective agencies to advertise positions, search the internet jobsites or local papers and see if you can identify the company that the vacancy spec is referring too and approach the company direct. Some of the job spec’s are thinly disguised specifications direct from the employer so you do not have to be a genius to work out the source if you know your choice of job market. Most employers would be happy to save on an agency fee – Good Luck in your search.

Mike - September 19, 2006 5:40 PM

While it is true that a number of firms still use ways of discriminating upon the basis of a candidate's age, it does appear to be changing. Companies are starting to realise that the recruitment world is becoming a candidate - driven market place and that hiring someone a little older than their perceived 'ideal' will do them no harm! After all, older candidates are more mature, far more experienced and far more capable of handling the pressures or modern working life. I am another 'dreaded' Recruitment Consultant and am pleased to say that I have three candidates in for final interviews this week, all of whom are in their early sixties! Our clients appreciate the more mature candidates!!

Helen - September 19, 2006 6:51 PM

Hmm, at 46 unemployed for 10 months with 22 years IT experience and a Business & IT degree I'm increasingly sceptical about recruitment consultants. I even had one say 'You don't need to know about IT to work in IT recruitment' and yet they are judging me about what I know about IT. I dropped my age off my CV ages ago, but even a complete idiot can get an idea just by adding up the years of education and experience. In a wierd way it's nice to know I'm not alone in my frustration with the system. Good luck to you all.

Roy - September 21, 2006 11:55 AM

In more than one occasion, I've been greeted with barely restrained mockery when I omitted my DoB on the basis of its lack of relevance to how much relevant experience I had. I was told in no uncertain terms that all consultants had to do was to find out when you had your O or A levels and they could work out the rest if they wanted (and this is what they predicted would happen once October came). Omitting DoB would apparently draw more attention as if there were something to hide! I've also been told by one agency that they needed my DoB as that is what they 'indexed candidates records' by... 'What nonsese' I said, "Why not index by Surname and Forename instead like everyone else...?". "Well that's just the way we all do it.", I was told. The law is well intended, but I think for the forseeable future it will just make recruiters and employers work around it, and age-ism will be forced underground.

Rod - September 26, 2006 8:09 PM

'Skill set doesn't match' 'You don't meet our clients exacting criteria' etc. Different ways of saying you are too old. Legislation will make no difference to the recriotment industry

Gordon Skelly - September 28, 2006 2:22 PM

Lets face it, if your over the hill in the social stigma, and don't have the working intelligence after all those years in the workplace- to still be working for somebody else-instead of working smarter not harder for yourself, then you have created your own dillema of being unemployable.

Unfortunately, todays status quo being ignorant of their own ignorance assume a curriculum qauntified with a degree ensures competence and ability. The evidence of companies falling from grace due to this plus lack of experience, knowledge, wisdom and forsight continues to
build the statistical pyramid of failures.

Is it not true that all beings have equal rights in property and law, however they don't in terms of value and worth!

I find it truly amusing that individuals concieve they can usurp the title of "consultant" given that respect is earnt not assumed. In Greece one is not respected to have accumulated their strips until at least the grey sideburns appear.

All this farce of "they are too old" has been wiped up to appear as the truth when clearly those in the know, know it isnt!

Food for thought? or an ideas time that came and went, It has proved it self to be the cause of the problems, and high time it became the ideas time that came again and returned the children to their apprenticeships.

Stuart Russell Cocks - September 29, 2006 8:58 PM

I know you cannot tarnish all recruitment companies and their consultants the same, but I have found that majority of them have very bad manners with regards to applicants applying for positions, I have found that they are only bothered about a sale, I have on numerous times had consultants tell me they would ring me back at a certain time and never bother , I even had one ask me to ring her back in a hour and when I did she had left her office for the weekend, and this happens all the time to me, I was brought up that good manners cost nothing, but I have found this certainly does not apply to ninety percent of the recruitment companies in this country, if you look at Recruit rank the average score for the top ten recruitment companies is sixty one percent, so I dread to think what the average is for all of the recruitment companies, if this does not tell the recruitment companies something is wrong with their attitude then they should not be in business

jimmy - October 1, 2006 1:27 PM

I totally agree with Fiona Rivett. I am 37 and stuck in a dead-end job. I have been working very hard for the past two years getting legal secretarial qualifications. I was one of the oldest on the course. It really frustrated me to see lots of these dolly bird types on the course already in nice secretarial jobs doing this course which their bosses had paid for. I worked very hard to pay for mine. One was even a legal P.A before she'd started the certificate! I found this really annoying and sexist. Why do bosses want pretty, young ornaments and not conscientous people who work hard? I'm not 40 for 3 years and already on the verge of giving up!

TP - October 16, 2006 12:53 PM

My girlfriends employer has asked for comments and ideas on the age discrimiation act. Now he has banned birthday cards being sent from the company and also banned cards that are signed by all of their workforce, as it implies the company has sent it, as advised by his solicitor. Yes people need protection, but some of these acts can be taken in the wrong context.

JP - October 17, 2006 4:15 PM

When I was looking for my first role after graduating, I always found it frustrating when companies stated a requirement for "10 years experience" or "a mature candidate" (etc, etc).

Likewise I'm aware that older applicants need to be protected from age discrimination whereby an application could be rejected on the basis of someone's date of birth.

However, I don't think the new laws will actually prevent discrimination: people who want to discriminate (on any basis) will always find a way around legislation.

I can understand the reasoning behind the new rules, but I'm not sure whether they'll be effective in preventing age discrimination...

D - October 19, 2006 11:21 AM

Never mind the recruiters practicing age discrimination....how about the companies themselves? Here in the States we've got the legislation but what good is that when it's impossible to prove discrimination? I'm 55, look 45 and thought I'd go in the "back door" temping as an assistant through an agency at a huge corporation. I've proven myself for 8 months, gotten kudos from co-workers, but still can't get hired. They tell me they have to give internal candidates preference first - until they make exceptions for other, younger candidates. The rules seem lax for everyone else, but strict for me. The words "they say you want a revolution" really hit home now!

Bea - November 16, 2006 3:59 AM