To encourage parents to be involved in their teenagers job applications?!

[sirmione16]

I'm hiring for a part time weekend staff, ideal for a young person. However in the past week I've had multiple CVs with embarrassing opening paragraphs, awful spelling and grammar, people not answering the phone then texting "who is this" when they applied the day before (I use a work mobile and leave a message) Now, I've just had a girl reply that she can't do a phone interview because she has anxiety but would like a trial shift opportunity. When I replied very politely thanking her for her application and for being honest, and that anxiety would not be an issue in some positions however the role wouldn't suit her if she finds a telephone interview hard - her literal reply was "wow OK, that'll teach me for being honest with anyone" that's the whole email. I'm godsmacked. Fortunately I have had some successful interviews and trials, but this attitude is awful - aren't schools teaching CV writing any more? Aren't parents guiding teenagers on professionalism and conduct?! What is going on?!

I could be wrong but wouldnt the girl have to prove she had medically documented anxiety disorder for it to be considered discrimination? Everyone i know claims anxiety when they dont want to do something. Im medically diagnosed with ocd and GAD and ive not used it as a reason not to do something as ive never found it to be favourable with employers.

I don't think her attitude or reply was appropriate and that ruined it for me, not the anxiety issue

People tend not to be overly polite when they’re being discriminated against.

Honestly OP, I deal with these cases all the time (I’m an adjudicator for a commission that deals with equality), so really am giving you friendly and helpful (and free!) advice. You need to be very, very careful if a similar situation crops up in the future.

Anxiety is also a perfectly normal emotion, not necessarily a disorder. If someone used the word 'nervous' in the same context, people would be like 'duh.'But the word' anxiety'is automatically associated with being mentally ill.

Agree.

Out of curiosity, what sort of adjustments would an employer have to make to accommodate someone who said they had anxiety, when applying for a job that involved being confident and chatty in a pressured customer facing role?

I'm sorry, but as a human being I think it would actually be downright cruel to hire someone for that position, and an actual waste of everyones time to put them through the process.

Is it not basically setting them up to fail? How could you possibly accommodate and ensure their emotional wellbeing. Imagine if they became even more unwell as a result of the pressure. How can you win?

Agree there virgin. Wouldnt a job involving people and communication on various platforms be pointless for someone with anxiety disorder?

And also wouldnt it be discrimination to treat someone differently to other candidates? Its not the same as making adjustments say, making access better for someone with mobility or letting someone have mondays off for therapy appointments is it? Its literally asking someone to change the normal interview process because they dont like it and thats not going to work for any business. Everyone hates interviews and gets anxious and nervous doesnt mean they should be exempt from attending them if they want the job.

How can you have “discriminated against” someone who’s too anxious to do an interview? Genuine question. It’s unfortunate for the potential candidate, of course, but honestly!

Out of curiosity, what sort of adjustments would an employer have to make to accommodate someone who said they had anxiety, when applying for a job that involved being confident and chatty in a pressured customer facing role?

Define “confident” and “chatty” from a competency perspective. It’s objective.

For example, in a sales role, someone may not be confident but may be able to cover that up through technical knowledge. Same for chatty- you can be a good communicator without being chatty. If someone who works in a supermarket is able to process a sale while being able to make relevant conversation “that’ll be £10 please. And there’s your change, thanks very much”, they don’t need to be chatty.

In this instance, the OP made an instant judgement that the applicant was going to be incompetent on the role based solely on the fact that the applicant mentioned anxiety.
She didn’t even consider a request for an accommodation that many would seem to be reasonable, based on one piece of information. She didn’t establish if the applicant could be given access to employment with accommodations in place- that would be an occupational health undertaking, or agreed with the applicant.

You, me, or the OP don’t have the type of medical information on the applicant that we would need to make a determination on what the applicant was or wasn’t capable of doing.

The applicant wasn’t insisting that she was given a job she couldn’t do because of a disability, she was asked that an accommodation was made for her during interview to give her a chance to demonstrate whether or not she was a good fit.

I'm sorry, but as a human being I think it would actually be downright cruel to hire someone for that position

To a certain extent, I agree with you, but we’re not talking opinion, we’re talking about equality legislation.

My sister uses a wheelchair and gets severe back pain because of it if she’s has to remain in the same position for a long time. If I’m hiring for a job and someone who has a CV that meets the criteria then tells me when I’m ringing them to arrange an interview that they’re using a wheelchair, I don’t get to say “it’d be unfair to make you do an 8 hour shift because I don’t want to be cruel and give you back pain”. That’s not for me to decide.

How could you possibly accommodate and ensure their emotional wellbeing

You can’t, and you’re not being asked to. You’re just being asked to give them the opportunity to be considered for a job which they’re interested in, and feel capable of performing, just like all the other applicants are.

In this case, the OP could have made the decision to get this girl in for a trial, and find a really good employee.

Anyway, with my work hat on, based on what the OP said in her original post, if I was adjudicating on this and the OP’s response was
“Her CV was a fit for the role but I didn’t interview her because she told me she has anxiety”, I’d consider that a prima facie case of discrimination.

Its literally asking someone to change the normal interview process because they dont like it and thats not going to work for any business

It works for businesses day in and day out. Most are a) considerate enough and b) aware of legislative requirements, to make accommodations. Some I’ve seen recently include someone with a prosthetic arm being given longer in computer-based psychometric assessments, and someone with a hearing impediment being accommodated in a different interview location with a hearing loop system.

Would you suggest that these weren’t facilitated?

Anyway, with my work hat on, based on what the OP said in her original post, if I was adjudicating on this and the OP’s response was “Her CV was a fit for the role but I didn’t interview her because she told me she has anxiety”, I’d consider that a prima facie case of discrimination.

Aaaaand that is what is wrong with modern society 🙄

That’s not what the OP said. The girl stated she couldn’t do the set interview because she was anxious on the phone. THAT is why she wasn’t given the post. It’s a job which doesn’t really allow for anxiety when talking to new people in different situations.

Because of people with attitudes like you, excusing the girl’s rudeness and insisting she’s a victim, instead of her thinking ‘right I need to tackle this’ and thinking of how she can best act to improve her personal interactions and therefore job prospects, we must insist that she is a victim of discrimination and the OP’s company (and the world) must instead change to accommodate her wish to not speak on the phone.

🙄

@wellerrr, I hope you’re an employer because people like you keep me very well employed.

The OP did not progress an applicant based on being told she had anxiety.

Paperback you are very facetious aren't you? Why did you deliberatly miss out the entire part of my post that said i understand the importance of adjustments for people such as mobility issues getting easier access to buildings and say someone with mental problems being given regular days off to attend therapy as well as obviously other disabilities being catered for within reason. So why deliberatly leave all that out and pretend i said something different?

Also i think you arent bejng truthful. You suggest loads of businesses willing accomodate throwing away all their guidelines and interview processes because of potentially fake awkward people who simply dont want to do something inconvenient for them. Thats bullshit. No big companies do that.

Those accommodations are completely different from refusing to do an interview at all because it makes you feel too anxious, Paperback
They’re not even in the same bloody ballpark, ffs!
I’d be utterly amazed if anyone was able to circumvent the interview process in it’s entirety and win a discrimination case.
It’s absurd.

No, the op did not progress an applicant based on said applicant claiming she couldn’t do an interview.

Exactly 74newstreet. Imagine trying to take that to court and say what? I wanna sue because they offered me an interview and i said no so they said i couldnt come in to trial the job ive not been interviewed for? Bullshit.

The day anyone wins a discrimination case like this the entire corporate world will be turned upside down.
Nobody will ever have to interview for any position again; just demand their right to show up at the firm for a trial.
Can you imagine the carnage when all 50,000 applicants show up at once?
And recruitment agencies will no longer be required, as the first line of defence will apparently be “discrimination”. No weeding out of unsuitable candidates until they’ve been given the opportunity cause mayhem at your business, and you won’t be able to stop them.
Give me a break...

The OP did not progress an applicant based on being told she had anxiety.

Nope. Based on refusing to interview.

I might give it a go one day not only claim i cant do an interview but claim i cant do a trial shift because of my anxiety and i dont want to, so they will have to just employ me straight away.

I’m keeping an eye on the CEO of ICI. First rumour of that position opening up and I’m in there like a rat up a drainpipe.
Dare them to discriminate against me. I’ll just get Paperback on the case.

Thats bullshit. No big companies do that

Big companies certainly can and do make adjustments to the interview process and are legally obliged to do so. The applicant in this case requested a trial shift as an alternative to a telephone interview.

It's exactly the kind of reasonable adjustment that can and has been granted where someone's disability means they would be unfairly disadvantaged by a phone interview. Obviously the word is reasonable so if it would be 'unreasonable' in some way then that's different. (I think you would still have to allow them the opportunity to do the phone interview if they wanted to, you couldn't just remove them from the process)

In this case no one actually knows whether the girl was just a bit anxious or had a diagnosed disability so it's not clear if discrimination act applies

However if she did then you can't assume she's unable to serve customers face to face because her disability negatively impacts a telephone interview. They're not the same thing and if you start making assumptions about what someone can and can't do based on their disability then that is discrimination

But the applicant didn’t ask to circumnavigate a selection process entirely. The girl asked for an alternative (a trial shift) and was turned down on the basis that the OP feels “the role wouldn't suit her” because of her anxiety.

Look, it’s literally no skin off my nose but I am trying to give the OP some useful
advice that could hopefully help her avoid any claims of discrimination in the future. The fee for a complainant taking a case to tribunal was removed a few years ago, and the amount of claims has risen so there isn’t a barrier to this girl making a claim If she feels she has been treated unfairly after making a request to facilitate her access to employment.

The usual host of MN “experts” coming on to say “I don’t think that’s how it should be done” doesn’t negate the legislative view.

The onus is on the complainant to prove discrimination but, depending on what was in that email, that might not be difficult.

Anyway, it looks like the OP isn’t coming back (she seemed happy to engage when people were agreeing with her main point, but seems to have left the thread when people starting discussing the discrimination aspect) but it would be interesting to see if the applicant did take this further.

Dare them to discriminate against me

Being an idiot isn’t a protected characteristic, @74NewStreet so don’t quit the day job just yet

Small companies have to waste hours and hours of time interviewing people they know haven't got the right attributes for the job in ASD they fall foul of disability discrimination. It's bonkers. And I say that as a parent of a disabled child. I wouldn't expect him to get an interview for a job he's be shit at because of his disability. There would be no reasonable adjustments that could be made for him to do some roles. And that's okay.

A reasonable adjustment is exactly that. A reasonable adjustment to maks the process easier. It doesnt mean changing their entire way of recruiting just because someone simply doesnt want an interview. Again. No company does that and no company is at all obligated to get rid of their interview process for one applicant because they dont want to.

In asd = in case of

I had someone apply for a job in a builders merchants, around 25 years ago. I kid you not - the application / cv was written on toilet paper. It not a new phenomena.