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?!

Whatever, Paperback. Show me you’ve won a case like this and I’ll accept the idiot jibe. Gladly.

I agree with you OP. My teenage son was applying for jobs and I asked him to show me the applications before he sent them. Conversational English, no titles ie Mr, lack of capital letters and no proof reading. I think he has now learnt to be slightly more professional a year later.

It’s like if the job was running around in circles and straight lines, so for the interview the applicants had to run about in a field for a bit to show their running.

Then one applicant says they can’t run in fields because of anxiety but they’re sure they’ll be fine just running in circles. So can they not do the interview but just go straight to a trial shift?

And the employer thinks no; this is a running job. I need someone who is comfortable to just run whenever.
It’s not discrimination to turn them down. They can apply for something that better suits their skills.

Like everyone else forever has had to.

I agree with you, but some employers do seem to make it very difficult for people to apply for jobs. I've helped my DC apply for supermarket jobs and I've struggled with some of the questions they ask in these online tests.

It must be very tough for young people who don't have parents to support them.

My DM got me my first job at 14. I was really shy but worked part time throughout high school and university at that job.

I think we need to cut our DC some slack. It's an entry level job, you need to guide them also.

It’s like if the job was running around in circles and straight lines, so for the interview the applicants had to run about in a field for a bit to show their running

Then one applicant says they can’t run in fields because of anxiety but they’re sure they’ll be fine just running in circles. So can they not do the interview but just go straight to a trial shift?

And the employer thinks no; this is a running job. I need someone who is comfortable to just run whenever.

It’s not discrimination to turn them down. They can apply for something that better suits their skills

You’re being quite ridiculous now but anyway...

What capability is required here? Is it running, or being able to move from one place on a field to another at speed?

If there’s an objective reason that the running had to occur on a field, you would argue that running on concrete would be a fundamental change to the role, and it wouldn’t be reasonable to accommodate someone who can’t do that.

If the purpose of the role is to travel across a field from one point to another and an applicant says “I have one foot so can’t run, but I want to come in and show you that I can perform the job perfectly by walking across the field at speed on my hands”, that would be pretty reasonable.

At the end of the day, only the OP and the girl know what’s really happened here. We’ve heard OP’s take on it, and that has raised eyebrows as to what she has left herself open to.

Fundamentally, we’re talking about a teenage girl with a potential mental health condition not being given a chance because she’s asked to be allowed to do something a little differently to prove herself.

@PaperbackBlighter is absolutely right, however much other posters want to get worked up about it.

The applicant asked for an adjustment to be made at interview (she even suggested what that reasonable adjustment might be). The important thing is that the OP didn't consider whether or not that adjustment was reasonable - she decided, on the basis of that request, that the applicant was not suitable for the role. That is discrimination.

She could have denied the request (after properly considering whether or not it was reasonable) and the applicant could have decided she would still attempt a telephone interview, or they could have found a compromise. But that didn't happen, because the OP made a decision about the candidate's suitability for the role, based on a request for a reasonable adjustment to be made.

Thats bullshit. No big companies do that

Big companies do this kind of thing ALL the time. It's literally built into recruitment processes - generally a section of the application form that asks whether candidates have any reason that may affect their participation in the selection process and offering the opportunity to discuss reasonable adjustments. They're not always granted, but they don't dismiss candidates on the basis of asking.

www.intowork.org.uk/reasonable-adjustments/

"Some of our clients would also benefit from a work trial or a task instead of a face to face interview."

www.pwc.co.uk/careers/applying-with-a-disability1.html

"...we welcome the opportunity to discuss our recruitment process and any potential reasonable adjustments so we can appropriately adapt our process for you."

www.gov.uk/government/publications/employing-disabled-people-and-people-with-health-conditions/employing-disabled-people-and-people-with-health-conditions

"Reasonable adjustments include changing the recruitment process so a candidate can be considered for a job"

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/856107/disability-confident-list-of-employers.csv/preview

You’re being quite ridiculous now but anyway...

People in glass houses...

she decided, on the basis of that request, that the applicant was not suitable for the role. That is discrimination.

And why can’t she decide that, in this instance? Where IS the line?

If someone applied for a job as a foot model, but had no legs, would it be discrimination to refuse them an interview on the very basis of their disability?
Yes, technically.
Would it be unfair?
Well yes, generally having no legs would be incredibly unfair.

But that’s life isn’t it!?

I have my own physical and mental limitations, as does everyone. But we have to be sensible, don’t we?

I wouldn't expect him to get an interview for a job he's be shit at because of his disability

How about a job he’d be well able for, if he could get past a barrier for interview, @Clymene?

I sat on a public sector interview panel recently and we had a candidate with autism who requested accommodation for his disability. Instead of a three-person interview panel, we had two people on the panel as the candidate said he would find trying to interact with three people too difficult.

There are enough barriers out there for people with disabilities, but lots of companies have ways to help them in to employment if they’re aware of the situation.

People in glass houses

Please tell me where you think I’ve been ridiculous.

I have literally told you that I hear these cases for a living (for about half of my week, the rest of it is spent managing HR and Change projects, lots of them around recruitment for big companies and designing their processes to manage situations like this) and make determinations on them based on equality legislation. None of what I’ve said is opinion.
You, on the other hand, seem to be creating more absurd hypothetical situations as the night goes on.

You seem incapable of understanding that disabled people are protected to ensure they are given access to employment. They’re not guaranteed jobs, they’re not given carte blanche to swan into any company and demand any job, they’re literally given an opportunity to make a request for an interview process to work slightly differently for them.

And why can’t she decide that, in this instance?

Because it’s illegal for her to make a decision around what a disabled person is or isn’t capable of.

Where IS the line?

The Equality Act 2010.
Literally.

Because a trial shift comes after a successful interview not instead of. Someone cant just decide they get to skip the interview process and get a trial shift. That would give them an unfair advantage over every other applicant.

@WellErrr

OK, I'll bite at your false analogy. In your example of a foot model, it's very unlikely to be classed as discrimination because it could very easily be argued that it isn't reasonable. (Although, wouldn't it be nice to see more people with prosthetic limbs working as models, and not just to model things related to disability?) If one of the key criteria of the role is possessing feet, then the candidate isn't able to demonstrate that. That's a pretty absolute position. Just as, if one of the key criteria of a role is having significant experience of working at CEO-level, then someone who doesn't have that experience can't claim discrimination if not taken to interview stage.

But, the OP has presumably decided, on the basis of this candidate's CV, that the candidate does meet the minimum criteria for the role, which is why she was invited to interview. The candidate has expressed that she would be uncomfortable taking part in a telephone interview due to anxiety. This is all the information the OP has about the candidate's mental health but has extrapolated from this that the candidate is no longer suitable for the role. She has decided that someone with anxiety about a telephone interview must lack the ability to "build rapport with strangers and be forthcoming, chatty and confident", based on no evidence. This is not the same as saying that someone with no feet lacks the ability be a foot model (as you well know).

Its not teenagers. A shocking % of jib applications I see are really badly done, even for senior positions.

You should see some of the ones we get from teachers! Unfortunately sometimes were so desperate we have to take them...

Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant really. @PaperbackBlighter is 100% correct in terms of the Equality Act. You must make accommodation for any disability or any of the other protected characteristics if required to avoid the person being disadvantaged due to their protected characteristic.

Whether or not you agree about the type of disability is also irrelevant. There is a legal definition of a disability which includes both mental and physical health.

So again, whether you agree or not, if any of the naysayers are involved in recruiting staff, I strongly suggest you read up on the Equality Act before you end up in court.

Because a trial shift comes after a successful interview not instead of

You do know that every company has a different interview process, don’t you? I take it you work in retail or hospitality where an interview then trial shift is (controversially) often the MO, but they’re not all that common outside of those industries (and are increasingly being done away with in retail and hospitality due to challenges in terms of levels of payment etc. other can of worms)

In this case, we don’t know if the girl was told a trial came after interview, or if she proposed it herself as an alternative. Either way, it could very well be a reasonable request.

Interview: tell me how you’d go about stacking a shelf
Trial: show me how you stack a shelf

Pretty much the same outcome.

Trials can be fine for retail/hospitality, other areas not so much. If OP was hiring for a brain surgeon who said “I can’t attend an interview but I’ll do a free lobotomy on Monday”, it’d be a different matter.

In the case of this girl, if she offered to do an unpaid trial as an alternative to a phone, I’d be really impressed with her. But we don’t have enough info from the OP to establish if that was the proposal.

All we have from the OP is-
“Your CV/skills look good for this job I’d like to phone interview you”
“I have anxiety over phone interviews but can do a trial instead”
“That doesn’t suit because I’ve determined that you won’t be able to do the job based on one thing you’ve told me is impacted by your anxiety issue”.

If the OP came back to say the job was telesales, you could argue that she had a point but if it’s retail/hospitality (which I assume it is given she’s looking for a teenager for part-time hours at weekends) it’s be very difficult to argue that anxiety in a very specific situation (phone interview) would mean the girl is wholly incapable of stacking shelves/serving sandwiches/cleaning hotel rooms.

Show me you’ve won a case like this

You seem to be hard of reading, as well as comprehension.

I don’t win or lose these cases, I adjudicate on them. I hear all the information, ask questions, and then see what the law says about what’s happened. This is then used to determine if a breach has taken place or not.

and I’ll accept the idiot jibe

I’m glad you’re willing to accept some facts on this thread.

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?

It completely depends on triggers. I don't have social anxiety - I can't cope with the feeling of not being able to escape/use the toilet. If I'm in a meeting or an interview I need to know where the exits are and that I can leave the room if I need to without repercussions.
If I'm somewhere new I need to know where the toilets are.
I can't do traffic jams or waiting for public transport.

I wouldn't ever ask for anyone to make interview adjustments for me as I personally feel it's a bit taboo but an interview in an open space would be a massive help for me.

I can, and have, excelled in customer facing job roles. Anxiety is so specific to each person. To suggest that it's 'setting someone up to fail' by giving them a job they believe they're capable on is absurd.

How is an employer to know who actually has a diagnosed anxiety disorder from those who claim to have anxiety when they want to avoid situations that make them feel nervous or uncomfortable. This is an epidemic in schools right now, so many kids cannot do everyday things and need to be accommodated by leaving lessons, having time out or special conditions for exams. They then think employers should treat them in the same way but the real world just is not always like this.

Exactly @BackInTime. This is the issue. People use the words 'anxiety' and 'depression' far too often when they're feeling sad or nervous. It means that those with genuine issues aren't taken so seriously, or find it harder to get the help they need.

@GiveHerHellFromUs - if you 'can't do traffic jams or public transport', how do you eve leave the house? Genuine question. How on earth do you manage?

I really rarely use public transport but if I have to I'll arrive at the station/bus stop etc as the bus/train/whatever is due (so I'm not having to wait around for long).

I can sit on a relatively empty bus or train and be fine. I can't do packed ones at rush hour or whatever. I'll get on and then if I feel a panic attack coming on I'll get off at the next stop and wait for the next one.

I can do traffic if I'm driving on my own because I can do whatever I need to do (it sounds gross but panic attacks cause me bad wind - this is quite normal apparently) so commuting, for example, is ok.
I really struggle if I'm sat in a car with someone else.
Sometimes I'll ask them to pull over so I can get air. It depends on the circumstances and it does affect me but you learn to deal with it.

God I'm so sorry, it sounds utterly exhausting

I'm not surprised by this. I have been talking to Ds1 and his peers about part time jobs and some of their views were quite shocking!

I think you have discriminated. Some people with anxiety find telephone conversations difficult but manage perfectly well face to face. She effectively asked for a reasonable adjustment (a trial shift rather than a phone interview) which you failed to accommodate. I can't see how you could argue that her request was unreasonable and you would easily have been able to assess whether she could do the role with or without adjustments. The way you describe the role it does not seem to require talking on the phone. As you have responded in writing you have opened yourself up to employment tribunal action. Think you need to get some HR advice in place for you to access or some additional training.