Equal opportunities monitoring

[maswera]

Not strictly AIBU, but am interested in what people think is reasonable....

I am applying for a job and the equal opportunities monitoring form asks for my ethnicity, disability, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, marital status and number of dependants. The last four have an option of 'prefer not to say', which I have ticked as I can't for the life of me imagine why they are relevant. I do get that an employer has to make sure its adverts are seen by a proportional cross-section of the population and can see how this applies to ethnicity and disability - but why do they want to monitor how many atheists/co-habiters/mums/lesbians are applying for their jobs?! Am I being and old curmdugeon by ticking the 'none of your fecking business' box or is there a good reason to answer these?

I wouldn't tick the 'prefer not to say' box. I would take that as you have something to hide. Probably just me but as companies are getting hundreds of applications, I would do everything I could to appear personable.

Am I right in thinking the first four are directly covered by legislation? I really don't see what marital status has to do with anything. And I'm not sure that number of dependents does either (unless it's something to do with indirect discrimination, in which case in combination with the previous category) might give information about barriers to the workplace and effectiveness of recruitment outreach.

But I'm not sure whether I'd be happy for a potential employer to have at data ahead of the selection process (which should be blind to such factors), but that raises the logistic difficulty of when else it could be collected from unsuccessful candidates.

it's because of all this equality legislation.

you have to be seen to be ensuring that you don't discriminate.

and the way to do this is to ask everyone a load of questions that if we truly had equality - wouldn't need to be asked because nobody would give a shit.

you should read my equal ops statement! we don't discriminate on the grounds of age, gender, marital status, disability, parental status or potential parental staus, sexual orientation, hiv status, gender reassignment and a hundred other things.

We'll have equality when we don't need such statements because it never crosses anyone's bloody mind!

I am ok with answering ethnicity but that is about it - everything else can be potentially prejudicial. Disability is a deeply iffy one too when it comes to hidden disabilities and health issues.
It does seem excessive snooping.
YANBU

disability is important because your employer can get into trouble if they don't make reasonable adaptations. there is specific legislation about that.

it isn't snooping, it's that if you can't prove that you haven't discriminated - you can get your arse sued off.

I always thought Equal Opps monitoring forms were to make sure adverts were attractive to a proportionate cross-section of the population - so if they show you're not getting applications from certain sections then you have to look at why your adverts aren't attractive to these groups. Which I get with disability and ethnicity but not with marital status/sexuality/religion/etc.

Surely it's more difficult to prove you haven't discriminated when you've asked for and got the information? Then you know someone is gay or whatever so could be accused of discriminating based on that?

Hecate
As a cancer patient I can assure you that disability information also prevents people from employing you.

I know, lubber. There will always be employers who will avoid employing people with disabilities - or gay people - or women, etc, etc. However, they know how vulnerable they are and they cover their arses with their procedures and they make sure they have legal reasons to offer if asked to explain why they haven't employed someone. They'll have all the bits of paper that 'prove' you weren't the right person for the job, or someone else fitted the team better etc.

However, for an employer, not asking - or rather, not being seen to be asking, not being seen to be doing all the right things, not to be seen to be following the law to the letter - means people can sue. And that's the truth of why employers do all this.

And if you have your form and you have your equality policy and you have all the bits of paper to show that you are following it, and you have other reasons why you didn't employ someone, then you've covered yourself, haven't you?

I know I am cynical, but I have been in business and I know how you have to be seen to be doing all this and how you have to cover yourself.

equal ops forms are not just about adverts - it's about monitoring your entire recruitment procedure, maswera.

Am I wrong in thinking that the Equal opps monitoring form does not actually go to the people who read the applications and determine who gets interviewed? I thought it got separated from the application and dealt with by someone else so that your responses on it can't affect your job prospects. Am I being naive?

you are correct. that is exactly how it is supposed to work. that is exactly what the procedures will say.

how do you stop someone actually looking though? and how do you know that they don't look?

all that you know is that the procedure says that they are detached and not looked at.

That is how it is supposed to happen. But I have known several occasions when information disclosed on an Eq Ops form (and not application form) was then discussed at interview.

I try and avoid completing them when possible, I think they're too intrusive. I don't agree with disclosing sexual orientation, what the F does that have to do with a job. I disagree with employing someone just because someone of their gender/race etc is under represented in that particular department/area. The job should go to the person most capable of doing it regardless.

There is another side to it, though.

In some professions, public sector etc, the data has to be passed to a governing body or monitoring organisation. They can then assess overall trends and decide whether some action is needed to broaden intake or prevent discrimination.

It's easy to sneer, but when I attended a conference and saw some of the statistics for my profession, I was horrified (and I'm not naive-mixed race women like me in my long established part of the profession are STILL in the low single figures).

You won't get people to change their practices unless you show its necessary (and most people doing ok out of the status quo will tend to defend it robustly). And you won't be able to show it is necessary unless you've done your monitoring.

So I don't think it is just about cynical arse-covering, or shouldn't be. Sometimes, if people will not act fairly, it has to be forced on them, and these forms, however tiresome, are a tool for doing that.

But I do also think that we have to be very careful not to blame employers or institutions for unfairness that is ingrained in society.

I've had to fill out two of these forms today. Never know what to say about disability (I have 3, invisible). I don't need adjustments at interview stage unless asked to do an assessment, then I need extra time (learning difficulties but no-one ever believes me because I have a degree from a Russell Group Uni and apparently that means I can't have a 'problem' )

I'd much rather disclose once I've got the job and can suggest practical adaptions I'd need (nothing major, just to be allowed to make lists, be given written instructions, not have to do too much writing, access to supportive furniture, foot rest for my rolling ankles etc). The last think I'd want is an employer googling my conditions, seeing the worst they can be and deciding I'm unsuitable - I'd rather explain how they affect me when I want to.

OK, from other side of fence...

For smaller organisations I would be wary about these forms because they can end up going hand in hand with application and you don't want your private life bandied about. But with larger organisations I would be very comfortable giving this out because I have seen how it is used.

I have been working for a large organisation looking at diversity. I was allowed access to this data and was able to look at what stage people (all of them anonymous) joined the firm, when they left, and how quickly they were (or weren't promoted). I was able to find statistical significance at certain points of promotion and could map out when the diversity agenda was going awry by department. I could see some quarters were being very diverse in promoting people and encouraging part time work and I could see some departments that became progressively whiter and more hetero the further up the chain you were. It is very easy to say that you recruit equally, but when (giving a random and not accurate example) 15% of your graduates are Jewish but after 5 years only 1% is Jewish, then you know something is odd and needs fixing. Likewise it is easy for a manager to say that he supports part time working but then you find that all the people with dependants in his team work full-time whereas in other departments the majority with dependants work part-time, then you know you have something to look at in more detail. Do they work full time because they are so engaged they can't bear going part time, or because their manager is a tosser and won't let them? You don't know the answers but you do find the questions to ask. It is easy for directors to assume that women don't get to the board because they choose to leave when they have children, but the questioning for them gets much more awkward when you are able to say: well, even when adjusted for this, I found that it still takes 4 years longer for a woman without kids to get promoted than for a man, so why is that?

Most of the really large organisations monitor this information in miniscule detail and it is never at identifyable individual level. The data in the firm I was involved with was being used to implement diversity policies, to track them, and to check what was happening when departments consistently fell outside the bell-curve. In the org I looked at they have decided to investigate every single senior promotion which is statistically significant. So if 15% of staff are Jewish at one level then they expect the people to be promoted to include 15% Jewish representation, and if it doesn't then they will ask why and make sure the answer makes sense, and it would only be at those points (where you are actively trying to get minorities up) that you would start investigating the team, the management, and the promotion process and potential issues.

And to be honest, one of the most frustrating things in doing all of this was that you never worked with a full pack of cards because often up to 35% of people hadn't ticked the boxes and therefore couldn't be tracked. It was like trying to moinitor the success of eliminating a disease when loads of people hadn't been vaccinated - it just messed up what could have been very clear black and white information.

Very interestng Squiffy - you may have persuaded me to answer the questions

I dont like the forms and I believe that they have the adverse affect that it is meant to have.

For example I applied for the fireservice & police service after I had left the forces. You are always asked to fill in these forms (Male, Straight, Married, White) but on some of the forms / applications I have had have said that we have too many White, Male, Straigh men and we are trying to promote the interest of minority groups.

Also Cheshire Fire Service had an open day and it said it was just for women as they had a lack of women in thier force.

NO WAY would I disclose number of children or marital status on a job application. Come back to me when I have the job, fine, but I wouldn't want to tell them eg I was a single mother with three children pre job offer. If it comes down to two candidates do you want to give them an excuse not to pick you?

They are also used to ensure that an employer can make adjustments for the interview process.

I have worked in a number of organisations and more often than not the information is not separated (that is because to be truly separated it should be completely anonymised).

They are so a company can ensure that they have some statistics on the people they attract to the company.

I've always been very careful about them and made sure no one in the hiring process had access to them other than me (and a team member who did the filing) but I was the only person in the companies that I worked with who took that level of care with them. This also meant that I personally assured applicants of what I did with their data and it meant I got a 100% success rate in completion (StillSquiffy - I thought you would be interested in that).

And actually when I joined my last organisation I did have a few managers grumble that they didn't have the full application, they liked to know if applicants had a family and so on...and were peeved when I wouldn't give the information out. Needless to say I organised some diversity training pronto.

I never answer these forms. My gender / ethnicity / which religion I follow / whether I lust after Robert Pattinson or Kristen Stewart has no bearing on my job performance.

Unless I was applying for the Chief Executive of the 'White British Christians Robert Pattinson Appreciation Society.'

I do tend to agree that Rhinestone. Obviously knowing beforehand about a disability means you can make adjustments, but people do discriminate, even if they do so on a subconscious level - and in many cases the EEO information is not separated out form an application form.

lubberlich - got to say I am glad companies can not ask Pre-employment health questionnaires anymore.

Anna - as I lost my last job due to ill health (can't really lie about why I left as that would backfire and I know ex manager has already told one firm how much 'sick leave' [he didn't believe I was ill] I had) I've had loads of questions at interview about what percentage I would say I was now better by - 90%? 100%? What's wrong with me, what meds I take etc etc. Why exactly I needed the time off etc.

I had to fill in one of those diversity things today for a recruitment agency and I had to put my name on it too. Loads of job ones I've had have been on the same page as the references, work history etc so not easily seperated.

I can see how they work in a large organisation when done properly, as Still Squiffy said, if you can show from the stats that it takes women without children on average 4 years longer to be promoted than men you can prove that attitudes need changing. Which is a good thing.

But on the whole I don't trust them. I've applied for loads of two ticks companies over the past 18 months stating I have a disability/disabilities and not had a single interview with one. Not once and I've had interviews with non two ticks firms.

MintyMoo Can I suggest you get a written reference from your last firm and ask that that reference is used. That way you know what is being said about you and you also put on notice people like the manager.

I can fully imagine you get a hard time, recruitment agencies can be pretty poor in my experience - so I'd save your best interviews for direct employers.

I hope the interviewing goes well, keep at it it is hard work looking for a job. Don't let it get you down.

Maybe at interview you could, when you get a wrong type of questioning say:

I've applied for this role because I believe that I can do this job, I'd like to focus on how I could successfully meet the role requirements and demonstrate my skill set to you. If I didn't think I could do the role I would not have applied. What do you think are the key requirements of the role?

Anna - that's a good idea actually, I might see if someone there who actually has a shred of humanity (I was bullied for my disability, lots of jokes about my medication, excluded from social events, treated to hilarious impressions of disabled people with a particular condition and how those people are 'ss without a brain. I was also accused of hypochrondria and told I listened to my Drs advice too much) will give me a written reference. I've been advised by the job centre to offer to do a free work trial if I do get a bad reference to prove I can do the job despite my disability.

Hopefully most companies will go through HR for the standard 'minty worked here for X months as an X'. Unfortunately the hiring manager of one job was my old boss' best mate and I know from people who still work there that my old boss told everyone that I'd tried to get a job at that firm and that he'd told his mate how much time I'd had off. I never heard from the hiring manager again :( - annoying thing is I can't prove it so I can't do anything about it!

I might just say what you suggested, maybe add in 'I am better now and have been advised by my Dr there is no reason I can't work full time again... and then say what you said. Luckily the last few interviews haven't asked, I'm clearly finding more professional firms now :)