AIBU to think this frustrating new work policy is age discriminatory?

[windygallows]

A few years ago a new HR policy at work decreed that job descriptions can no longer note years of experience and instead one can only ask for 'significant or relevant experience in...'. The reason for this is that apparently requiring years of experience discriminates against younger people who haven't done the time but may have relevant experience in their role.

One could also make a case that someone may have gained a great deal of experience in a short 2 years whereas someone else could have spent 10 years coasting, learning nothing at all. So fair point.

The problem is that in action this has become a tool for discriminating against older candidates. Across many business areas where I work almost all staff recruited have been in their 20s/early 30s and I have been on numerous group panels where we end up having to interview candidates with a huge variety of experience and the glossy, enthusiastic young people win over. (I don't always vote in their favour but in a large group tend to be overruled).

I could despair. It is very hard to find work as you get older (especially for women) and stupid policies like this demonstrate that there is no value in wisdom gained through length of time on the job. I really think that learning to manage, to deal with people, to lead projects and deal with problems comes with time and experience.

AIBU to find this frustrating and wrong?

There's a reason you never see a CEO above the age of 30, if they were good enough they'd be there straight off without experience

The alternative question is “would a 30 year old CEO be any worse than than one of 60?” Gates, Jobs and Zuckerberg did a pretty decent job. Larry Ellison was CEO of Oracle by 30 too, I think. Would those companies have done better with an “more experienced” CEO? WHo knows?

Karren Brady was an MD at 23 !

And having seen her on The Apprentice it makes me wonder how on earth she managed that!

In tech, experience is seriously undervalued, and this leads directly to many well-funded companies pissing money up the wall. If your bank, for example, had a several day outage in the last few years, then that is directly related to business fashions for saying "fuck yeah, experience/deep understanding of the systems we run out business on is overrated - let's fuck them off and get some fucking outsourced grads in! Profit!"

If you are even slightly competent at tech (or... maybe you have prior experience of seeing it all go tits up a few times?) - then you'll try to put together a mixed team, some with experience, some without, some in the middle. But, sadly, a large number of tech companies are not at all competent and are merely very good at ~having a founder who looks like Zuckerberg~

I just think there are some roles that really demand the wisdom that comes with age.

The OP writes this.
I find this viewpoint for someone working in recruitment / HR concerning.

Wisdoms does not necessarily come with age. A daft short sighted opinion.

Recauient should be on a case by case basis

Would you hire an 18 year old social worker though? If they'd started their degree at 15, that'd make them extra bright so a superb social worker right? No life experience needed.

Before becoming a social worker allowed out on your own. - there is an extensive training process beyond a social work degree.
So that example doesn’t work.

Fair enough. There are roles though where experience does help - I agree that you should decide that on a case by case basis by analysing the role and identifying specific areas that you can assess in interview that might benefit from greater experience. E.g. "Tell us about a time you dealt with [scenario]" type questions, where you're looking for evidence of good judgment, ability to learn from failures, etc.

cucumbergin not just experience of it all going wrong but also experience of working with a new system for a while post go live once all the project team have rolled off onto the next project.

Implementation projects (not just IT) can often fall foul of 'the operation was a great success but unfortunately the patient died'.

Experience, if used, can help organisations to avoid tripping over the same brick time and again.

Experience gained over time is especially valuable where work is cyclical. I work in finance and have done so for around 30 years. This means that my experience is limited to a maximum of around 30 year ends. Things have changed but they also come back round.

Younger people are cheaper. Money talks.

If your bank, for example, had a several day outage in the last few years, then that is directly related to business fashions for saying "fuck yeah, experience/deep understanding of the systems we run out business on is overrated - let's fuck them off and get some fucking outsourced grads in!

That's not an age issue. When I was building big IT systems in telecoms in my 20s I agonised over resilience and business continuity, because that was the priority my business set. Now they prioritise time to market, because that's the priority the business sets. The people at TSB who got excited about being fast moving and dynamic weren't young: the CEO, and the Spanish holding company's CEO, were both very experienced. The "outsourced grads" just did what they were told. If they'd been told to build resilient, tested systems ready when they were ready, and been bonused on that, they probably could have done. They were told to ship now and worry about the bugs later, and bonused on that, so they did.

It's very rare that junior developers get to set the architectural and structural priorities of major IT projects. From what I heard from acquaintances who have been around that particular disaster, the developers on the ground knew it was a shit show, and said so, but were pushed by senior management to ship anyway. I'd challenge you to name a large IT disaster where the young staff at the codeface had the power to alter the trajectory.

My personal experience has been that women of the age you are talking about (late 20s/early 30s) often get passed over for roles despite their experience as the employer is worried about them getting pregnant and taking time off.

@ReflectentMonatomism
You speak a lot of sense and 100% correct re TSB (my best friend’s husband very senior at TSB)

@Magicmonster. Presumably that is your interpretation of events?

I was actually thinking about RBS Reflectent! Lots of rumours there about outsourcing/cutting the grey heads who actually understood the tech (but I don't have connections to know for certain). Have seen enough botched outsourcing to find it plausible though (and one example of a twenty something year old man raising a problem and being listened to - that might be utterly unique in the history of tech though.)

I agree it's not an age issue, per se, because you can experience stuff many times and still not have the ability to learn from it. Tech often has the problem of C level staff setting direction but not listening to those at the coalface saying it's just not working - outsourcing exacerbates that because no outsourcing manager wants to tell a client they can't deliver.

Which is why I keep saying: it's the judgement that you need to be looking for. Like GnomeDePlume points out, learning from the maintenance phase of a number of projects really helps. Ideally, you want a mix on every project of people who have varying levels of domain knowledge, experience, roles.

But having every single person on a major IT project have that be their very first project ever? How often does that happen?

RBS Reflectent! Lots of rumours there about outsourcing/cutting the grey heads who actually understood the tech

I'm not making an argument against knowledge. If you get rid of people who understand how stuff works, you're fucked. A lot of old-school systems were never properly documented and even if they had been, the documentation relied on an understanding of the landscape of the era. Telecoms people will hear the words "System X" and start to shudder.

But that's not the same as assuming that the old bloke who can do wizardly things with MVS JCL or the slightly less old bloke who can turn a VMS system on a dime will be equally useful when your Active Directory falls over or you need to design a shiny new app for the latest iPhone.

Yes, there are transferrable skills, and yes, they might (might) be able to abstract from things they did with OS/370 and turn it into insights into node.js; it's certainly true that there's not a lot new under the sun. But whether that's worth paying a lot of money for is another question.

Tech often has the problem of C level staff setting direction but not listening to those at the coalface saying it's just not working

This. And then they blame the codeface by saying "well, I'm just a manager, I rely on experts and they let me down".

Kikipost - It's what I've had people who own or run companies tell me in the past. That they would not hire a women of childbearing age if there was another suitable candidate as they don't want the cost and disruption of maternity leave / people wanting flexible working afterwards. I know it is an unlawful and out of date view - but it is one that some still hold I believe.

Magic. That’s my experience too from friends who run small businesses. Whilst it’s not a view I personally share in any way, I have to say there’s a part of me that understands why they might be reluctant to hire a young woman over a male as the cost to a small business of maternity leave, interims etc can be huge.

Not sure how you change that though...

Well, more of those young men taking parental leave might help?

I think it is only discriminatory in weither direction if the spec says x years experience, It should be permitted on a CV which surely shows a chronological history of employment. What skills candidates have gained from their experience is up to them to demonstrate. Shortlistling is only about interviewing all who have passed the criteria. It should not be the selection process

YABU

You should have blind recruitment scored on applications alone, all explaining how they fit the same list of criteria. Then you cannot argue at all that older people would be discriminated against. I say this as a woman in her 50s.

Only someone very foolish would consider that years spent on the job = wisdom and ability. It could be they have just been good at brown nosing or keeping their heads under the parapet, doing very little to challenge anyone.

When I interview people I only find out when they turn up how old they are. I choose the person who seems the best fit for the job. I have a 75 year old and a 24 year old doing the same job.

Cucumber. Yes, although that’s not happening is it? I’m in a network with around 30-40 other organisations and not one of us has ever had a single enquiry about SPL let along someone actually take it, usually because the male is the higher wage earner.....and so it goes on.

www.aviva.com/newsroom/news-releases/2018/11/avivas-paid-parental-leave-shows-men-are-eager-to-share-childcare-duties/

Once Aviva eliminated financial loss as a problem by offering 6 months full pay without cutting into the mother's allowance, they got 2/3rds of dads taking 6 months, and 95% took some amount over 2 weeks. So if financially viable, and if it's popular, the majority of men will take it up. 6 months full pay is generous for maternity pay, but not totally unheard of (I've worked for two companies who offered it. Of course I only managed to get pregnant when I was working for a company who offered only stat minimum ) - so what's happening here is a company levelling the playing field (and getting a shitload of publicity out of it).

YABU. The value of your experience isn’t proportional to the time you put in. And if they haven’t managed to maintain the glossy enthusiasm then clearly that reflects poorly on their value as an employee. No one wants someone who comes across like they don’t care.

It is nothing to do with enthusiasm and everything to do with discrimination against older women