Disability interview guarantee

If you think the scheme is unfair on the applicants, think that otherwise they would nor even be getting those interviews to begin with. What fails is not a scheme, but companies who can't be bothered putting any effort in employing and supporting disabled candidates.

You complained an appicant with a much lower score was offered and interview and already decided they won't get the job- but rather than looking at yourself and how you and people areound you COULD make the job accessible and help them improve to get to the desirable level, you already know they won't get it and feel sorry for them because they waste theirs (and as a result your precious) time.
I once read only under 20% of autistic adults are in full-time employment (and presume for other disabilities the figure is similar and equally low), you are part of the problem and maybe you could be one of the people who could change that? An idea.

@Thelnebriati Was there really such a requirement? I can't find any formal records of it.
The job market in the 1960's was very different, people could get jobs after leaving school and earn enough to buy a family home in their 20's. Police officers etc got offered accommodation with the job. The whole climate of work is very different these days.

But also in 2023 there are just soooo many more disabilities. Not only neurodiversity but things like anxiety, depression etc.

Also the statistic are skewed. For example 80% of people with autism are unemployed until the last few years it was very difficult to get diagnosed unless you had massive, massive issues, which would prevent employment. Recently there has been lots of awareness and many people who just 'struggled' without knowing why have gone and gotten themselves diagnosed... many employed so that figure's going to get diluted. They will be mixed in with those who need lots more help and muddy the waters.

Husband and I are both ND but in ways that don't massively impact job performance and are easy to manage. There's no point in us ticking the box. Similarly people with long-term health conditions who can get the job on their own steam don't benefit from disclosing.

Furthermore you can also ask for adjustments without ticking the box, on forms I have seen one box for 'Guaranteed Interview/Disability Confident' and the other reasonable adjusment,

It seems to me that those who actually tick the box are signalling they they would otherwise not get an interview and are hence written off.

Btw your condition wouldn't be a problem for my employer you'd simply be offered fully remote working, many others do as well as a reasonable adjustment... the Civil Service (a former employer) are quite good with these things I have found.

There are some agencies who do brilliatn training and help companies to hire disabled people, you may want to have a look and attend one of those or speak to them and educate yourself a little bit, OP.

My last company I got an interview and they are positive disability employer etc.

Not sure if it was ability etc.

The problem is, it should nto be pointless, you should be able to train people so they can aqchieve the 80/90 and pent more time for them. It's sort of disgusting that you think that someone is a waste of your time, and that as a company you are not prepared to meet the eneds of prospective candidates even if it means further training them. It also shows how unprepared workplaces are for disabled candidates, expecting them to be 100% the same as everyone else, despite, you know, a disability.

So has anyone ever got the job after being given an interview having ticked this box? Or is it just to make the company look good and equal etc

We have that in Denmark - if you tick the box you come to interview, and the employer has to send a written explanation of why they chose another candidate. Unless they can show that you don't meet the criteria. I work at a jobcenter and one of my lovely clients has been using this. She said during our last meeting that she was going to stop as she was having a hard time dealing with the rejections.

Yes, I thought it always worked like this! Certainly does in my org.
And it relies on the CV, not the assessments as certain disabilities' make automated assessments harder but have no bearing on job performance.

Yes.

Does "disabled" include autism, adhd, mental health issues in the context of these tick boxes on applications?

I always found that ticking the box to say you wanted your application to be treated as a Two Ticks application only guaranteed that I would 'fail to reach the requirements of the job specification', even with direct, specific experience of the role in question. I have never been offered an interview under the system. Not once. Had loads of interviews where I haven't ticked the box, though, and never had any problem getting or keeping a job - as long as I only declared after appointment.

So they've done brilliantly to get past the gatekeeping in the first place.

But it sounds like you've already decided they're wasting their time attending interview, so it's still fulfilled its purpose in weeding out those pesky disabled people daring to apply for a job.

Personally I don't think you as the interviewer/decision maker should see the scores ideally, instead someone should shirt list and you should be given a list of candidates and interview to reduce bias. Excellent employee s could struggle with a test. I've been offered nearly every job I interview for yet if there's a pre test I never get a look in, I'm rubbish at multiple choice and short answer tests (give me an essay and I'd nail it!)

Have they told you who is scoring 50%

@MereDintofPandiculation you are living in a majority white country. You are most likely to have a stem professional who is south Asian, East Asian or black African..... background.

And does it matter?

You don't need a tick box of perceived race to have a fair society.

I have experience of this when hiring. It's to level the playing field for candidates who might be at a disadvantage - essentially they are benchmarked against the role requirements when deciding who to interview rather than against other candidates.

It matters when a white male is the store manager and the Asian and black people are stacking shelves. And the same in ASDA, ALDI, Morrisons, Waitrose, any supermarket you visit.

As a woman who grew up 70odd years ago, it did have an effect that doctors were male, so were clergymen, so were solicitors, bank managers (in the old days when decisions were made by bank managers not algorithms) -even if you didn’t imbibe the message that women were unsuited to these jobs, it told you that it’d be a difficult workplace.

I worked in male dominated workplaces. Systems and practices designed by men work well for men, for example, without prior warning calling a meeting for 6.15pm when my child has to be collected from childminder before 6pm, discussing important stuff standing around the bar, where the conversation is literally a foot above my head. Not so important when it’s just affecting the careers of female staff members, far ranging effects when it’s systems affecting the general public.

I’ve definitely had experience of candidates who scored highly on applications being a disappointment in person, so I would say give it a try and see if you’re surprised. The point is that it widens the pool of people you see, and increased the chances of you picking someone who on paper you might not have done.

No one is arguing that, the question is about value of interviewing people have have done much worse in the application process. The relatively poor showing in the application process so far may be a result of the disability. The guaranteed interview scheme gives someone the opportunity to demonstrate their merits even though the rest of the process has seen them placed at a disadvantage

Why does it matter that an Asian, white and black person is scanning your shopping at Tesco? Or stacking shelves? Or an electrician?

Can you not work from Home?