Recruitment flawed?

[RJ]

Recruitment is quite a formulaic process I find. Tick as many of the boxes as possible and you'll get through the initial sift. Visualise exactly which boxes assessors and interviewers are looking to tick in person and if you can meet their requirements, you stand a good chance of getting to the next stage.

Some people are galled by having to fill out an application form and thus exclude themselves from the competition. Often, applicants filter themselves out by submitting poor quality applications. If an application is strewn with spelling errors, poorly punctuated and sentences are barely strung together then it's likely to get binned. If the application completely ignores what is stated in the job advert then it's going to get binned. Many people don't seem to realise these things and because of this, the actual competition is between only a tiny fraction of the number of people of apply.

Favouritism and nepotism does happen in some TOCs for certain roles. If you can build a reputation as a competent, reliable and amiable person then you increase your chances of getting that role you're after. Whether you like it or not, networking is a necessary to better your chances of reaching your career goals. Compulsory once a certain level is reached.

As for encouraging applications from under-represented demographics, what's wrong with that? Surely those outside of this group are not excluded from applying? Due diligence should still be excised to ensure every individual possesses the competencies to do the role applied for.

From what I've experienced, & it's only my experiences, over the last 6 years or so the recruiting process at what's now GWR is a joke & possibly flawed. I say this because I've done over 70 applications with them over that time & most of them have been for revenue, ticket examiner & gate line along with a few for on board staff. From what I know, on several occasions, the job's been offered to someone who at the last minute doesn't like the shifts or whatever & the job gets re-advertised. Because you got overlooked at that assessment day you can't apply for that position for 6 months even though you were probably sat next to the person who didn't suddenly want it !! Now may be a good time to mention that I did nearly 10yrs as a revenue inspector based at Milton Keynes with initially Silverlink then the rubbish that was London Midland.
GWR sometimes take away your on line application if you apply for more than one position but don't ask you if you have any preferences ?
They hold assessment days which, from my own experiences, are always recruiting females who at that time are working for the likes of Tesco or Asda & are in their 20's ! They don't like anyone around the 50 mark & experience frightens them as you already know to much & presumably you may question something from your own experiences on the railway especially where unions are concerned.
There's nothing wrong with females on the railway & god knows there's a few of them that would scare the c**p out of any bloke if they were confronted in any way & that inc's my mrs !! GWR's recruitment for the last say 5yrs has been heavily female orientated except for maybe drivers & TM's although rightly so there are a lot of female TM's.
Now I know a lot of you may say you obviously weren't good enough but to be fair if that was the case I'd hold my hands up & stop wasting GWR's time, the railway is based upon lots of rules & safety yet 10yrs experience counts for nothing with them & they've even said it's not important !!
So why can I stand near the barriers at Temple Meads, even now, when waiting for my mrs & suss out straight away who's going to double shuffle the barriers & who doesn't actually have a ticket before they get asked to pay & then come out with a story from a false starting point yet all the time the gate-line staff are talking to each other, eating, playing on a phone or looking elsewhere ? Yet experience counts for nothing, baffles me ?

There's no easy way to say this, but the problem isn't First's recruitment process - it's the way you are choosing to do things.

From your post, you come across as someone who;

• Slags off former and prospective employers
• Knows it all already and has no interest in doing things the way First have established
• Displays tendencies of being entrenched and difficult
• Doesn't get the purpose of the roles applied for

Given these things, I don't think age discrimination comes into play at all.

In my opinion a fair few people on the railways have been radicalised by the sometimes outdated way things are done. Recruiters can sniff this a mile off and probably aren't interested in taking someone on who makes it clear to them they have no intention of doing things the way their company wants things done.

If First want someone who is going to question their policies and be one of those nightmare employees who uses the union to get away with doing their own thing, they'd state that in their job adverts. I've been working on stations for years now and seen people come and go, failing their probation for thinking they can get away with that. Going on in assessments about how another TOC did things is a very good way to get sent home early, because it completely misses the point of the exercise.

Next time you apply, try reading the job advert, thoroughly. They can see from your CV that you've worked on the railways. Let that speak for itself and focus on meeting their requirements when at any assessment centres.

I worked for London Midland and they were alright as an employer. I parted on good terms with a decent reference. Not sure why you'd call them rubbish.

In my job I overlook a gateline. To be honest, stopping people who want to jump the gates or double through is not what being a gateline assistant is about. They're there for customer service and to provide compulsory supervision of the gates. People who are too keen on stopping fare evasion, against company policy dramatically increase the risk of assault, using up police resources and spending time off work.

 

[Cyclist]

Worth pointing out that when Virgin ran their driver apprentice scheme this year they didn't even bother to ask for a CV or previous work details etc. They just put people through increasingly difficult tests and the ones who made the end were recruited. The only possible bias was the DMI. They may have positively discriminated at the end of the process because they definitely had too many people who passed everything but up to that point there was no bias based on gender, race etc.

 

[theironroad]

Hi all,

What are your thoughts on recruitment, not solely on the Railway, but certainly largely on the railway? I've read so much recently of a push for female applicants in to certain industries, as well as the usual push for minority groups. It seems to me that 'positive discrimination' as I believe its known, used in most industries, and it seems unfair. It seems as a white, heterosexual male, I'm at a disadvantage before I even submit an application for a job.

Don't get me wrong, I fully appreciate that we need a diverse workforce, but equally feel that a lot of the time (more so now than ever before) staff are being recruited not on merit, but on their specific profile. Again, I've got no issue with people being recruited of any background or sex over anybody else, as long as they meet the criteria for the job, however I've seen through experience that people are often recruited over others who probably shouldn't have been, or indeed wouldn't have been, had they been of a different ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation.

Then there's the whole "It's not what you know..." state of affairs, which is another subject probably

My bold highlighting.

While I'm not a great fan of positive discrimination and it should be best candidate for the job, that discrimination you perceive as a white straight male is exactly what women, openly gay people and racial and ethnic minorities have openly experienced for decades and while slowly getting better, there's a long way to go. 'No blacks, No Irish, No Dogs' was the reality for many in various walk of life, but typified in the signs that landlords posted.

The railway doesn't have great form on this as the unions opposed having black train crew at Euston in the 60s

 

[Bromley boy]

My bold highlighting.

While I'm not a great fan of positive discrimination and it should be best candidate for the job, that discrimination you perceive as a white straight male is exactly what women, openly gay people and racial and ethnic minorities have openly experienced for decades and while slowly getting better, there's a long way to go. 'No blacks, No Irish, No Dogs' was the reality for many in various walk of life, but typified in the signs that landlords posted.

The railway doesn't have great form on this as the unions opposed having black train crew at Euston in the 60s

I think we need to distinguish between:

(1) encouraging applications from groups who are under represented;

(2) true “discrimination” in the sense of having two equal applicants and choosing one based on their race/sex.

I have no problem with (1) and (2) is, quite rightly, illegal in a railway context and TOCs these days have pretty good systems in place to ensure recruitment is done on a level playing field.

Certainly in my experience (in the London area) the TOC workforce draws from a pretty good cross section of ethnicities, as you would expect given the diversity of potential applicants down here.

On the other hand, particularly looking at the driver population, we are never going to get depots of 50% female train drivers, simply because relatively few women want to drive trains for a living.

In just the same way, very few men want to work as primary school teachers or nursery nurses.

 

[uww11x]

I am starting to think the same about the discrimination going on. As soon as you fill in an application you get the diversity rubbish at the bottom.

Straight, White, British = Bin

I have no problem with people better than me getting jobs. I just don't think people should get them because it makes for a good social media post etc...

 

[Stigy]

Hello, my post was about GWR - you encapsulate perfectly bitterness at not getting a job. You weren't good enough. It is NOT female oriented in any way. How do you know why they were re advertised? There are mnay numbers of reasons people cannot take a job for whatever reason.

Get over yourself. Recruitment is not flawed. We have people capable of doing the jobs they were hired to do. In my opinion, that is quite the opposite of flawed recruitment.

Flawed recruitment processes aren't just about gender/ethnic etc equality, although that plays a massive part in my experience. I also think people need to get away from the parent mindset that this is all about train driving jobs, it isn't. I appreciate there are set standards which are auditable. The railway is vast, and much more than just driving trains. I have been involved in recruitment with the TOC I've worked at for several years, and it's the only TOC I have worked for. Admittedly my knowledge on recruitment only stretches a certain distance, in that I have sifted applications and interviewed candidates only, and not got involved in what goes on behind the scenes. This has however opened my eyes. I agree with what 43185 says to an extent, and agree experience is important in specialist roles, however, there is also such a thing as to much experience of similar roles (for example, a Police Officer with 35-years experience in BTP looks great on paper, but would he or she be good as an RPI? - Been there, done that attitude?). I have experienced first hand, how it works. Admittedly going off topic a wee bit here, but it's the same scenario with graduate entrants. I have seen a graduate get a job they have no knowledge of, which is a specialist role within the TOC as there are no others like it, over experienced candidates with passion and drive to move the particular grade forward. I agree one doesn't necessarily need experience to manage people, but when that person got the job simply because their job at the time was disappearing, beggars belief (I heard this from a reliable source).

 

[whhistle]

Some argue that you need to positively discriminate so that the workforce becomes diverse or it will never happen.

So you need to discriminate to diversify?
But discrinimation is against the law

It's a tough one.
But then we need to accept that in this country, white people is the heritage we have.
There will always be more white people in this country and that's okay. Why isn't it okay? That's like saying China should recruit only people who aren't Chinese - and that's a hell of a lot of people!

But I agree, as a white male, I feel increasingly discriminated against.
But I have no problem if a black person were to get a job over me, if they scored higher than me. But if a female gets more points for being female, that's not right.

You can't see the news without hearing about the Gender pay gap and the problems Women face in the workforce.

It's the whole "choose your own salary" that has created this though.
It seems recruiters are banking on someone saying they'll accept a lower salary than what the job is in the hope they'll get the job.
Perhaps some women feel less confident so will suggest a salary that is lower than a male counterpart.
Would be solved if you didn't have this "salary between £24,000 and £30,000" or "Competitive" thing in some adverts.

...that discrimination you perceive as a white straight male is exactly what women, openly gay people and racial and ethnic minorities have openly experienced for decades...

That doesn't mean we should subject white straight males to the same treatment.
I can't answer for what people did in the 50s. Just like German kids now are sick of having to say "sorry" for World War II. They didn't do it, had nothing to do with it. It's important to remember, but you can't blame many people in Germany about it now.


I suppose as a test, you could tick boxes that aren't you on the "what are you" bit of applications. If anyone questions you, just say that's what you identify as. We're allowed to do that these days :P

 

[RJ]

Admittedly going off topic a wee bit here, but it's the same scenario with graduate entrants. I have seen a graduate get a job they have no knowledge of, which is a specialist role within the TOC as there are no others like it, over experienced candidates with passion and drive to move the particular grade forward. I agree one doesn't necessarily need experience to manage people, but when that person got the job simply because their job at the time was disappearing, beggars belief (I heard this from a reliable source).

What's to stop time served employees going on the graduate scheme to get access to the same fast tracking opportunities?

 

[talltim]

None of those saying that they don't get the jobs because they are white and male seem to have any proof that this is the reason. Anecdote does not equal data.

(1) encouraging applications from groups who are under represented;

(

This is what needs to be done. In an ideal world you would be getting applications from a representative cross section of the population, ie, about 50/50 men women, and whatever proportions of ethnicities/religion/sexualities matches that of your geographical area. Or to put it another way, no-one who is interested in the job should be put off applying because of the the social groupings they are in.

 

[Bromley boy]

That doesn't mean we should subject white straight males to the same treatment.

I would certainly agree with this - direct discrimination against white males based on their race would be just as bad (and just as illegal) as discrimination against minorities.

But I simply don’t think there’s any evidence that is happening based on postings on this thread. Some of the previous posters seem a little bitter and are perhaps looking around for a scape goat for their own failure to get the job they want. I’d suggest they look a little closer to home if they want someone to blame.

The idea *should* be to create a level playing field where applicants are treated according to their individual merits, regardless of skin colour, sex etc.

 

[theironroad]

So you need to discriminate to diversify?
But discrinimation is against the law

It's a tough one.
But then we need to accept that in this country, white people is the heritage we have.
There will always be more white people in this country and that's okay. Why isn't it okay? That's like saying China should recruit only people who aren't Chinese - and that's a hell of a lot of people!

But I agree, as a white male, I feel increasingly discriminated against.
But I have no problem if a black person were to get a job over me, if they scored higher than me. But if a female gets more points for being female, that's not right.



It's the whole "choose your own salary" that has created this though.
It seems recruiters are banking on someone saying they'll accept a lower salary than what the job is in the hope they'll get the job.
Perhaps some women feel less confident so will suggest a salary that is lower than a male counterpart.
Would be solved if you didn't have this "salary between £24,000 and £30,000" or "Competitive" thing in some adverts.



That doesn't mean we should subject white straight males to the same treatment.
I can't answer for what people did in the 50s. Just like German kids now are sick of having to say "sorry" for World War II. They didn't do it, had nothing to do with it. It's important to remember, but you can't blame many people in Germany about it now.


I suppose as a test, you could tick boxes that aren't you on the "what are you" bit of applications. If anyone questions you, just say that's what you identify as. We're allowed to do that these days :P

I'm not suggesting that anyone should be discriminated against , two wrongs certainly don't make a right. However, if certain white, british straight men perceive they are being discriminated against, I'm simply suggesting that that has been the reality for women, who arent a numeric minority and other groups who are minorities.

 

[theironroad]

What's to stop time served employees going on the graduate scheme to get access to the same fast tracking opportunities?

Partly that may depend on when they graduated. There are people with degrees on the railway in non degree jobs who've become 'time served' but are not recent graduates. Although I've not noticed it in the railway , but some job ads now ask for 'recent graduates' or ' if you graduated in the last X years'. Obviously, someone can do a degree part time now while still working which is I believe what the IRO aim at in a railway context.

 

[Stigy]

What's to stop time served employees going on the graduate scheme to get access to the same fast tracking opportunities?

It depends on the TOC, but where I am admittedly anybody from within the company can now apply to join the graduate scheme, which is of course fair enough, they don't even have to be graduates. The thing is, a lot of time served staff (me included) joined the railway as a career and have worked our way up to where we are to an extent, and don't want to join a scheme to take a salary drop (in a lot of cases), and move to other areas of the business as it would be like starting again. Not only that, but certain requirements such as GCSE results being taken in to account when applying could put people off.

 

[UniAnchor]

Alot of crap on this thread. There is no such thing as "positive discrimination", the two words don't go together. What we do have however is a realisation by big companies that the workforce in big cities doesn't represent the demographics of those cities. This only leads to DM's being more open minded at interviews and nothing more, applications, sifts, and assesments are totally non biased.

 

[baz962]

Alot of crap on this thread. There is no such thing as "positive discrimination", the two words don't go together. What we do have however is a realisation by big companies that the workforce in big cities doesn't represent the demographics of those cities. This only leads to DM's being more open minded at interviews and nothing more, applications, sifts, and assesments are totally non biased.

Been reading this thread now and trying not to input, as there are alway's arguments. I firmly believe that some toc's are age bias although not concrete

 

[Bellbell]

It's a tough one.
But then we need to accept that in this country, white people is the heritage we have.
There will always be more white people in this country and that's okay. Why isn't it okay? That's like saying China should recruit only people who aren't Chinese - and that's a hell of a lot of people!

No one said we should only recruit non whites. Or women. But when an industry or a particular role is so far away from being representative of the wider demographic as the railway then questions ought to be asked about why. The same way they're asked about teaching, particularly primary teaching. It's a complex issue and it's not going to be resolved easily. It will never be fully resolved in some industries (teaching probably being one of them) but that's no reason not to make an attempt.

But I agree, as a white male, I feel increasingly discriminated against.
But I have no problem if a black person were to get a job over me, if they scored higher than me. But if a female gets more points for being female, that's not right.

Why? What exactly is it that makes you feel you are being subject to discrimination? Is it that jobs are no longer going overwhelmingly to white British men?

 

[Stigy]

Alot of crap on this thread. There is no such thing as "positive discrimination", the two words don't go together. What we do have however is a realisation by big companies that the workforce in big cities doesn't represent the demographics of those cities. This only leads to DM's being more open minded at interviews and nothing more, applications, sifts, and assesments are totally non biased.

What are you basing that on? Just because you've never witnessed it experienced this, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There is such a thing as positive discrimination, although I agree the two words don't exactly go together and are at odds with each other.

 

[deltic]

Its long been apparent that interviewers tend to recruit people in their own likeness which is why certain professions have long entrenched gender or ethnic biases. To overcome this companies have moved to blind sifting and competency based selection processes which work to some extent. It is noticeable that the section of the business I work in we have a female boss and a majority female workforce. The area I'm responsible for we ensure that the recruitment process involves a man and women at all stages and from different ethnic backgrounds and we have a completely balanced male/female team and a very diverse one ethnically. Another section which does the same work as we do has a male boss and a majority male workforce. We all recruit people with the same skills/competencies but we have all ended up with differently balanced workforces.

 

[Bennski]

I personally believe people jump on the band wagon of "The recruitment is rigged" "Its flawed" when they get rejected. You go and apply to any other job with similar safety critical responsibilities and I can imagine they would use the same recruitment methods and processes. Airlines for example. The vast majority of people who post on these forums are people who are upset of being rejected or frustrated after applying for so long. I understand everyone's opinions in this discussion but believe this is common amongst these forums.

 

[whhistle]

Why? What exactly is it that makes you feel you are being subject to discrimination? Is it that jobs are no longer going overwhelmingly to white British men?

No.
But I feel that companies would rather recruit a woman or a non-white person than me.
So much so, if I scored 20 points, but a woman scored 17, I bet she would be recruited into a position rather than me.
To be fair though, it's just a feeling I have based on no real evidence.

There is no such thing as "positive discrimination", the two words don't go together.

Like the words "wrong-side failure" don't really go together either? :P

I'm not suggesting that anyone should be discriminated against , two wrongs certainly don't make a right. However, if certain white, british straight men perceive they are being discriminated against, I'm simply suggesting that that has been the reality for women, who arent a numeric minority and other groups who are minorities.

Yeah, I agree.
The difference is, and I realise this isn't everyone, is that men have nothing else to do. While women take time off having babies. Don't read this the wrong way, I'm not saying all women are out there having babies all the time. But taking about a year off... - and some women never go back.
I know of two women that have recently had babies and who have decided, despite their husbands not earning a great deal, they don't want to go back to work.
But this is where we'll never be equal.
It's disappointing that men aren't entitled to longer time off than the pittance of two weeks at £140 a week. If we're supposed to be equal, this should change to the same as what women are entitled to.

 

[Lem]

No.
But I feel that companies would rather recruit a woman or a non-white person than me.
So much so, if I scored 20 points, but a woman scored 17, I bet she would be recruited into a position rather than me.
To be fair though, it's just a feeling I have based on no real evidence.

Yeah, I agree.
The difference is, and I realise this isn't everyone, is that men have nothing else to do. While women take time off having babies. Don't read this the wrong way, I'm not saying all women are out there having babies all the time. But taking about a year off... - and some women never go back.
I know of two women that have recently had babies and who have decided, despite their husbands not earning a great deal, they don't want to go back to work.
But this is where we'll never be equal.
It's disappointing that men aren't entitled to longer time off than the pittance of two weeks at £140 a week. If we're supposed to be equal, this should change to the same as what women are entitled to.

I am female...I have been rejected by 2 TOCs in recent months despite already holding a train driving licence with a clean record. So no, I have not been recruited based on my gender. I could swing it the other way and say they’ve discriminated against me as in both applications I stated I am currently on maternity leave...is this the reason? Because in the eyes of the employer they probably think I will be hassle down the line in regards to working hours, potential childcare issues etc. Which unfortunately will pose a problem for me. I fully intend to go back to work, I want to drive trains and its never been about the salary for me...whether my TOC will allow me back into the driving grade is another thing, if I put in a flexi working req they may see that the hours I need don’t fit ‘the needs of the business’ and place me somewhere else until I can go back FT

 

[ComUtoR]

Alot of crap on this thread. There is no such thing as "positive discrimination"

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/positive-discrimination

uncountable noun
Positive discrimination means making sure that people such as women, members of smaller racial groups, and people with disabilities get a fair share of the opportunities available.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/positive-discrimination

noun [ U ] uk /ˌpɒz.ə.tɪv dɪ.skrɪm.ɪˈneɪ.ʃən/ us /ˌpɑː.zə.t̬ɪv dɪ.skrɪm.ɪˈneɪ.ʃən/ UK

act of giving advantage to those groups in society that are often treated unfairly because of their race, sex, etc.

https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreut...ontextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&bhcp=1

Treating one person more favourably than another because they have a protected characteristic. It is generally prohibited under the Equality Act 2010, unless an occupational requirement applies. Positive discrimination because of a person's disability is allowed, and may sometimes be required if there is a duty to make reasonable adjustments.
For more information on lawful positive action, see Practice note, Discrimination in employment: exceptions (EqA 2010): Positive action.

https://realbusiness.co.uk/law/2016...n-the-workplace-the-case-for-gender-equality/

Positive discrimination in the workplace – The case for gender equality
A topical debate in recent years has been the issue of female representation on boards. Company boards around the world are predominantly made up of male executives, with a very small proportion being female.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/why-i-now-believe-in-positive-discrimination/

And Toby’s argument is prefaced by a shrewd piece of bomb-proofing. Toby says he his talking about BME (black and minority ethnic) students. He then goes on to demonstrate that Indian, Chinese and other minority ethnic groups whose origin is east of Suez, are not a problem. But the PM was not focussing on these. The problem is black students. Despite the race industry’s attempts to conflate all non-whites, black means black: people of African and Caribbean origin. There is a problem here and Toby does not suggest otherwise. His urgent purpose is to add white working-class boys to the list, and he certainly makes that case, but it’s a different – if important – argument.

So what can be done for black applicants? I have become a firm believer in positive discrimination – in questions not of race alone, but of background and of gender more generally. And I should add that systematically overlooked issue for us British: class

Nope. Positive discrimination doesn't exist.

The premise of the OP is that there is still 'Positive Discrimination' going on and that regardless of this now being 'Positive Action' There is a section of society that is being deliberately discriminated against because recruitment will now deliberately target and actively recruit those with protected characteristics, specific race, believe colour or gender etc.

If you saw a job go to a woman over you. Does that mean they have been recruited because she is a woman ? Is it Positive Discrimination or Action ? One is legal, the other is not.

If you go back to where positive discrimination was being used to deliberately used to change the workforce because of how it used to be you can fully understand how the term came to be. The problem is... It WORKED and DID change the workforce !

 

[MostlyHarmless]

Surely with modern computer systems, it would be acceptable and entirely possible for the sifters to see only "Candidate 2864", and block out name/age/ethnicity/gender/sexuality (Why sexuality matters is beyond me), and just read the pertinent information re qualifications, history and job experience. That would make the job entirely on merit.
I would, under their rules, be technically classed as disabled, if I wished to pursue that route. But I don't, because it is a disability I have lived with my entire life, and do not wish to be defined by. If I were to get the job, I would want to get it because I am Good Enough, not because I happen to tick a box....

I actually think much of this happens already and certainly a recent application I made asked about gender/age/ethnicity at the end but they weren't mandatory and just used for auditing purposes. I suppose someone's given name might give clues to these but they would only be a guess. Of course at the interview stage they will become more obvious.

 

[185]

Whilst I am for equality for all across the global workforce I give some examples of where this went too far at several operators.....

1) A candidate who had a set of (too) reasonable adjustments made for their assessment day. Cannot add up or read due to disability. Unable to do the job they were successful for. Job involves examining tickets, completing TIR reports, cashing up. Often money missing and TIRs rejected by prosecutions. Permanently requires assistance from others to oversee their work. Company unwilling to address future, fearful of compo claim.

2) Candidate with prior, 'within two years' convictions for violence including a multi-year asbo excluding them from an area where that operator's service calls at. Already involved in several incidents of violence with passengers. Recognised by a number of their victims whilst working. Later revealed to be related to a manager who pushed for the convictions rules to be relaxed, similar to what Virgin trains did last summer actively recruiting convicted criminals.

3) Candidates from one firm's contract security team applied for jobs, and all bar one were rejected. All were good candidates with many years experience practically doing the job they were applying for, thoroughly unsuitable candidates hired instead. Existing staff now dedicating much of their resources limiting the damage the new staff cause and, the fights they end up in. After six months in the role, they aren't improving.

I am all for a diverse workforce, mess-rooms can be utterly dull with the only discussion being how next years design of Arsenal shirt is a travesty - but that should never mean that the best candidates are turned away. Some of my most diligent colleagues are female, disabled, gay, ridiculously tall, even one-eyed - but all got through on their ability passing or exceeding a reasonable basic standard. To lower that bar to hire unsuitable candidates is where the positive discrimination argument falls apart.

 

[irish_rail]

It is a shame that young white males today are having to pay for the mistakes of the past. There is no doubt they are at a disadvantage if applying for say a train driving job. When many adverts state they paticularly welcome applications from women and ethnic minorities. Imagine a job asking paticularly for white male applications! There'd be an outcry.

Many moons ago I applied for a qualified driving job but was beaten too it by a female within my company who had a terrible sickness record and SPADs on her record compared to my completely squeaky clean application. Needless to say I wouldn't bother applying for similar jobs again...

 

[bramling]

I think we need to distinguish between:

(1) encouraging applications from groups who are under represented;

(2) true “discrimination” in the sense of having two equal applicants and choosing one based on their race/sex.

I have no problem with (1) and (2) is, quite rightly, illegal in a railway context and TOCs these days have pretty good systems in place to ensure recruitment is done on a level playing field.

Certainly in my experience (in the London area) the TOC workforce draws from a pretty good cross section of ethnicities, as you would expect given the diversity of potential applicants down here.

On the other hand, particularly looking at the driver population, we are never going to get depots of 50% female train drivers, simply because relatively few women want to drive trains for a living.

In just the same way, very few men want to work as primary school teachers or nursery nurses.

I must admit I simply won’t provide diversity information when asked, and if there’s no “not saying” box then I’ll just tick random boxes. As far as I’m concerned it’s none of their business.

There are some people who have got through recruitment processes where one wonders how on earth it happened - surely it was obvious the person would be trouble - to the point where one does wonder if diversity does count for more.

One such person subsequently ended up in my office being shown CCTV of her train sailing past a red signal mid-way down a platform and after stopping the cab door opening and her clearly emerging - yet on the interview notes she was adamant the signal wasn’t red, it wasn’t her train and it wasn’t her. After a few minutes with a union rep it then became a signaller conspiracy.

 

[Bromley boy]

One such person subsequently ended up in my office being shown CCTV of her train sailing past a red signal mid-way down a platform and after stopping the cab door opening and her clearly emerging - yet on the interview notes she was adamant the signal wasn’t red, it wasn’t her train and it wasn’t her. After a few minutes with a union rep it then became a signaller conspiracy.

That’s pretty bad.

I must admit, despite my previous postings on this thread, I can think of a similar example. There was a female on my rules course who was shockingly bad. Clearly had no interest in the course or the job (apart from the the £££ of course), turned up late a few times, turned up to a depot visit without her PTS card, and performed extremely badly on the exams. She ended up (quite rightly) being given the boot after getting a truly dreadful mark on the final rules exam.

We did all wonder if her presence on the course was down to the fact the company are desperate to increase female driver numbers. Of course none of us had any proof of this, but it was difficult to see any other explanation as to how someone like that slipped through the net given what we all know about how popular trainee driver vacancies are...

 

[bramling]

That’s pretty bad.

I must admit, despite my previous postings on this thread, I can think of a similar example. There was a female on my rules course who was shockingly bad. Clearly had no interest in the course or the job (apart from the the £££ of course), turned up late a few times, turned up to a depot visit without her PTS card, and performed extremely badly on the exams. She ended up (quite rightly) being given the boot after getting a truly dreadful mark on the final rules exam.

We did all wonder if her presence on the course was down to the fact the company are desperate to increase female driver numbers. Of course none of us had any proof of this, but it was difficult to see any other explanation as to how someone like that slipped through the net given what we all know about how popular trainee driver vacancies are...

I can think of a fair few more examples, and in management roles too - in fact probably more so. I should add in the original example I gave at the end of the process I was told I was a “sinner” and that “God will never take you into heaven”!

 

[Bromley boy]

I can think of a fair few more examples, and in management roles too - in fact probably more so. I should add in the original example I gave at the end of the process I was told I was a “sinner” and that “God will never take you into heaven”!

Good grief.

“Tell it to the job centre, love”.

 

[Bellbell]

.....