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!

She has every right to include her maternity leave in her experience. I’m appalled to be honest.

FGS I never said that she couldn't include maternity leave in her employment dates BUT was making the point that actually when someone is not at work for a year they have not gained 1 year's work experience in that year. Employment dates, yes. But calculating it as work experience?

Or are you happy for her to say that she gained skills and knowledge in her job in a year when she wasn't at work?

Length of work doesn’t mean better quality of service. Why would it? It solely counts on the individual. Maybe your not the best person to take interviews if you can’t even recognise that fundamental aspect.

Yup it's always the oldies who are doing a shit job, just sitting around in companies taking space! Of course I realize this but for more junior roles there really is a difference between 2 years and 3 years experience.

You seem obsessed with ‘years of experience’ over actually competency at the job. Either your a terrible manager/recruiter or you just really dislike this woman. She’ll have a lucky escape if she doesn’t get the job

You’re

Windy - I’ll try and ask again - how much maternity have you taken over the years?

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.

Out of curiosity what would your feedback be to this lady for not giving her a chance to interview? As you personally feel 2 years is not enough experience? Would you specifically tell her that 2 years isn’t enough experience? Despite the advert / job description specifically stating “significant” or would you leave this for HR to deal with?

I think you seriously need to review your shortlisting process, it’s complete tunnel vision to be so obsessed with a years difference of experience. You will miss out out on good candidates because of this unreliable way to determine a candidates suitability

How much difference, really, does it make - two years or three years? Very, very little really. I'd rather have someone who did a job brilliantly and had only been doing it for 2 years than someone who was so-so at it but had been there for 3.

The fact is, men aren't likely to have that particular gap on their CV, so they would be advantaged in a world where such minor differences in levels of experience were counted. It is a kind of structural discrimination, really.

What about if you had someone brilliant who had been doing it for 2 years and someone else brilliant who had been doing it for 3 years. Do you think experience counts for nothing?

windy there isn’t any need to be quite so passive aggressive. I don’t think you’re a misogynist or an awful manager or recruiter but I do think you’re barking up the wrong tree with this one. Also you haven’t explained what the tangible difference in terms of capability for the role based on 2 v 3 years’ experience is?

Just ignore the years issue and ascertain whether she is actually competent or not.

The best hire I have ever made was a relatively inexperienced woman who was clearly extremely able, very dedicated and supremely ambitious.

She then went on to have a baby. I had left myself then but if had been asked re her experience would have not dwelled on her mat leave affecting her experience. Why? Because for one, it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of a thirty year career. Two, the entire system is still stacked against women who have children, in my industry at least, hence horrific gender pay gap and massive over representation at senior management level despite 70% workforce being female. Three, it is illegal and what you are asking for is a complete contradiction. You say she doesn't have to declare mat leave, but then you seem to want her to 'confess' to not being wholly present for a project that you've admitted she was partially involved in at some stage.

NB the woman I hired is now reaching stellar heights, that I, quite stellar myself, could not have managed. I took a chance on her based on ability and performance, and I was right to.

I really hope you get someone with three years' experience who turns out to be a complete coaster who just gives good CV/interview.

That's a lovely post Harumph. Nice to see someone praising a talented colleague, but in a way that recognises their own worth and ability too.

Your reasoning would discriminate against part timers as well

How much difference, really, does it make - two years or three years? Very, very little really.

You're right it is a bit splitting hairs but come on - if you've only been working for 3 years, it is 1/3 of your working life and experience.

So many people on this thread are suggesting that experience counts for very little which, when you draw this out, actually preferences young people to older, more experienced people. It's true - competency is the most important thing and of course I would look at this at interview - but when you've been working for 25 years it can be galling to constantly hear that length of experience doesn't matter and it's all about attitude.

I'm also interested in how much mat leave you've taken

Even if this woman is perfect for the role you were never going to give it her was you?

I really hope you get someone with three years' experience who turns out to be a complete coaster who just gives good CV/interview

This

You have a different problem if she is taking credit for work she hasn't done or taking credit for projects completed in her absence.

I recently changed jobs as an internal applicant, on my application I put the from and to dates I was in each team without taking off mat leave e.g. September 2013 - March 2016 although I was off for a year in the middle. It was easier then putting it on in bits and I was aware first impressions would read like I'd randomly left a team and returned to it. However I mentioned in interview that I'd had mat leave. My new manager still sent out an email saying I had 5 years experience in x team, 3 years in x team etc when I feel painfully aware that's not technically right. I also feel being back part time doesn't count as the same as full time.

So no I don't think it's unreasonable for her to put the chronological order of jobs including mat leave but it's weird to think that year off 'counts' - I'd be saying I was in the team 5 years but had 10 months mat leave in X year.

Windy you are like a broken record and missing the point repeatedly.

Nobody is saying length of experience is irrelevant. They are saying that you have to assess all candidates on an equal footing. Internal and external. It’s highly likely other candidates have not mentioned maternity either. YOU ADMIT YOU DON’T MENTION IT YOURSELF ON YOUR CV!

Don’t try and shift this into a rant about ageism fgs.

Why won’t you answer the simple question - how much maternity did you take?

Well, if you're a good interviewer you'll be about to tease out the gaps in her knowledge/skills as compared to a - - man-- person with no mat leave in their cv. It's not a reason not to interview.

I certainly count my Mat leave in with experience because I was still having KIT days and having to answer emails regarding my projects. I had to ensure that they were suitably covered and easily transferred when I left, remain on hand to throughout Mat leave to answer any questions and also had very long KIT days plus I returned only after 5 months.

I think it is certainly an experience being able to balance work and mat leave for me!

They are saying that you have to assess all candidates on an equal footing. Internal and external. It’s highly likely other candidates have not mentioned maternity either. YOU ADMIT YOU DON’T MENTION IT YOURSELF ON YOUR CV! Don’t try and shift this into a rant about ageism fgs. Why won’t you answer the simple question - how much maternity did you take?

I noted previously that I took mat leave 2x (for 9 months each) and I included those periods in my length of employment. But as I noted below I round down my years of experience as I'm older since when employers see 25 years of experience they're like 'ack, old!' So I don't think I'm guilty of saying I gained x years of skills when I wasn't at work.

but when you've been working for 25 years it can be galling to constantly hear that length of experience doesn't matter and it's all about attitude

But you haven’t been working for 25 years, not when you factor in your mat leaves. Which, of course, you aren’t doing because you want people to think you’re younger than you are.

I worked in a role once which required a certification to operate the software. If you had a break of more than 6 months, you had to recomplete the course to get the certification again. There was one colleague who took 2 maternity leaves back to back, so was off for 2 years. She did not need to be re trained. there are special protections which apply for maternity leave, and I think it’s right that that exist. The pay gap would be way worse without them.

YABU and to be honest it's clear you already have an issue with this woman.

It is completely reasonable to write her CV and cover letter the way she has, I'm sure external applicants have done the same. The difference is in their case you have know way of knowing.

Instead of obsessing over numbers (which is really not a good indicator of compitence), you need to determine exactly what kind of experience you expect the candidate to have, and probe for examples during the interview.

I've seen people coast along for 10 years in a job and be outperformed by someone who is there a fraction of the time. You need to look at the person, not just the numbers.