Aibu mat leave shouldn’t count as a year of work on cv?

[windygallows]

I’m currently Interviewing candidates including an internal colleague who claims to have 3 yrs experience In a particular skill/role. However over 1 yr of those 3yrs she was off on mat leave.

I think it’s okay for her to say she was employed in the role for 3 yrs but she can’t really say she has 3 yrs experience doing it, can she? Really she’s only been doing the tasks involved in her role for 2 years. This fact is important since the role requires significant experience and I think 2 years is not enough.

I’ve been on mat leave twice and not trying to discrimate, just trying to be logical about it. Would welcome thoughts on whether I’m BU or not I’m thinking 3 yrs employed does not equal 3 yrs experience.

I haven’t checked with HR but pretty sure they wouldn’t agree with me!

You don't know if someone has 3 years experience whilst coasting along being mediocre, or 2 years and a mat leave whilst being amazing and dedicated to the job. So how in your hiring process will you establish which is which? That's what matters. Having an arbitrary condition of an absolute minimum of 3 years total experience isn't actually helpful to you. Plus you have no idea how much time any other candidate has had off within their stated experience.

I think it's completely normal to gloss over parenthood in your CV, we all know employers discriminate against mothers. Has she been interviewed or is this just from her CV

I wouldn't mention mat leave on a CV and wouldn't expect anyone else to. Surely with an internal candidate you know whether she's capable of the job or not even with a year's mat leave?

Like others I can't think of many roles where 3 Vs 2 years experience is critical. If it were 6 months Vs 18 months then yes

If she truly is taking credit for things done on her leave then that suggests an odd attitude and a valid reason to consider others - but honestly it sounds like you're teaching for reasons to count her out.

And no, 2 years is not the same as 3 years experience if the person is good at their job and conscientious.

Depends on the person. If you're looking for someone with around the 3-yr mark of experience (ie someone fairly junior), it's unlikely to make a big difference if you choose someone with 2 or 3 years. Same as it's unlikely to make a big difference choosing someone with 7 or someone with 8 years. I have about 7 years experience in my current career and could easily have done the job I have now with about 4 years experience. Also, a gap mid-career means that you already have a base to work from, so it's not quite the same as just having 2 years.

How do you know if she was or wasn't doing any work during her maternity leave? She might have used all her keep in touch days in order to contribute to the projects you're worried about. The only way to know is to ask questions about her specific experience in the interview.

I agree it depends on the role. But I do think a good worker will be perfectly competent in the role after 2 years, but subsequent years will increase their skills well beyond competence. But of course that is assuming that the delivery of the role can be constantly improved.

Why would you put ML on your CV?? I have been employed in the same place (public sector) for 14 years. Almost two and a half years of that was ML but I’m not going to break that down for future employers - why should I? I have been continually employed by the same organisation. You are being biased because she is internal and you know her history therefore YABU

I work in an administrative role in a university. We are not allowed to advertise jobs requiring x years experience as this can result in age discrimination. You are allowed to specify "substantial experience in a similar role" This allows the candidate to demonstrate how they are expeeienced in the competencies needed for the role.

Not interested in employing people with short bursts of work who only dipped into projects half way though.

The most experienced people are those who are best at this, able to pick up a project, determine where the issues are and get up and running quickly. We have people at work whose role is to do precisely that, to jump in and provide support to the team when a project gets hairy.

I think you're getting a tough time on here OP but given this is MN, the majority of posters will be biased about the maternity leave question - yet somewhat ironically accuse you the OP of bias.

It sounds like you have 2 concerns:

1. She doesn't have full project lifecycle experience
2. She is trying to take credit for work that happened while she was on maternity leave so her integrity may be questionable.

The only way to tackle this without all the shouting about discrimination is to drill down into her experience with some competency questions focussing on the areas of the project lifecycle that you have concerns about her experience in. Then it gives her a fair chance but will reveal any holes in her experience that will prevent her doing the role at the level you require.

The most experienced people are those who are best at this, able to pick up a project, determine where the issues are and get up and running quickly. We have people at work whose role is to do precisely that, to jump in and provide support to the team when a project gets hairy.

This is very true. I have led teams who do exactly this. We used to call it the "flying squad" and a couple of our most experienced people (of which I was usually one) would go in to remediate a struggling/failing project or programme. However, the OP's problem is that with 2/3 years experience, the job candidate isn't one of these "most experienced people".

Ah, love it when pointing out possible discrimination is described as showing a bias...

OP, what exactly do you mean by trying to take credit for work done when she was on mat leave?

I agree with others who say you can't use inside knowledge. If experience is critical then your interview questions or tests should be designed to test that. If she is successful but her inexperience means she is not up to the job, use the probation period to remove her from the job. If she excels in the job then there's no problem.

I'm sure the op isn't recruiting for example a surgeon but if she was would you say that if a particular operation occurs once a quarter there would be no difference between the candidate who has done 8 ops and one who has done 12?

Sometimes years experience is a perfectly valid requirement for a job and someone who is absent for whatever reason won't have the necessary skills.

I’m not biased it’s a genuine question. I am however getting tired of hearing that people with many years experience might not mean good experience. I hear it all the time and if you say it enough it really is a reason to discrimate against older applicants in favour of bright young things with 12 months of cool, ‘quality’ experience!

Did she directly try to take credit? Cite projects that were done that she would have not done any work towards? Or are you just saying she is taking credit because she hasn't said about mat leave? Two very different things and if she's taken credit the way of the former then she's a liar and I'd not employ her on that basis.

Assassinated - her cv says she worked on a team project that took place primarily, but not completely, when she was on mat leave.

You’re not being unreasonable. If she wasn’t there for a year then she has 2 years experience.

So did she actually work on it even if not for the whole project?

I agree windygallows. Older applicants are discriminated against already, this just does it more.
Of course you want someone who is good at their job, but someone enthusiastic and good at their job will get better with more experience. Because in most jobs, there is always something to learn to improve what you are doing.

I made an application based on 18 months experience. I put my end date and start date and would have said about the 10 months off for maternity but it never came up so I didn't...

Estella and others. I’m not using mat leave as a reason to not give someone the job but on her supporting letter she clearly writes that she has 3 yrs experience doing procurement and sorry she doesn’t. So that narrative has irked me a bit. Does she get to count the year she wasn’t working as time spent garnering skills? Again would you be okay if a man said he had 3 yes experience when one of those was on sabbatical not doing work related to his role.

Let’s not create double standards here.

I think logically this makes sense but quite frankly, it is not fair.

If you're going to balance experience on times spent working, we should take into account everybody's annual leave, and sickness, any emergency leave. Also, and log exactly how much time you spend working for the company. So, you might have worked somewhere for 10 years but if you've had cumulatively 3 years off you can only claim 7?

No, we have to apply fairness and reasonableness.

If the person comes back to work after a period of leave, then that leave period counts to continuity of employment.

I mean that's the law but I think it should be from a balanced point of view.

I think it's personal with her, you don't like her. l could be wrong but that's how it comes across.

If you have a legitimate reason for doubting her skills, you haven't said it.

Bored. There is a difference between how long you are employed and how long you have done the job.