Another Unsuccessful Application!

[Journeyman]

I know they will (can) never admit it....but do you think some times some personal prejudices come into play? I guess that is human nature.

Personal prejudices always come into it. Imagine one of the interviewers has just gone through a horrendous breakup, and you happen to look just like her ex. There really isn't much you can do about completely random stuff like that, unfortunately.

 

[Jonfun]

wow...

I'm not sure they're wrong, though...

 

[Trainguy90]

There are so many reasons we can blame but ultimately I still put it down to number of positions to applicantions and just luck of the draw.

People don’t seem to accept they might just have been unlucky and will always try to find an excuse for why they didn’t get the position. Companies like east mids have started having blind applications where you take all your personal information of your CV to prevent any bias towards age, race, sex or orientation, But you’ll still have people telling you they didn’t get it because EMT have a culture of needing to know someone in management.

The only time diversity is considered is where two people are equally matched, so if a man and a woman went for the same role and they were both equally qualified, The woman would most likely get it, however if the man was slightly better, the man would still get it

Just keep applying and don’t lose faith

 

[DarloRich]

I suspect that SWR at least use sensible recruitment policies, unlike the "wacky, crazy, look how much fun we're having!!!!!111!!!1!" nonsense you get subjected to with Virgin.

When an escape room is seen as a legitimate part of the interview process, there's something seriously wrong. I pulled out of an application I had with them because of that - what is this, a stag night?!?

that is just a variation on group selection exercises that are commonly used to filter out large numbres of people. They are designed to show who has leadership, critical thinking, team working, problem solving, behaviours etc.

Personal prejudices always come into it. Imagine one of the interviewers has just gone through a horrendous breakup, and you happen to look just like her ex. There really isn't much you can do about completely random stuff like that, unfortunately.

You describe unconscious bias - we all have it in some way - there are training resources available to help identify and change this.

The sort of people they look for in customer facing roles do exist in a sense. Dizzy, garrulous extroverts usually female or gay blokes with all the attendant gelled up hair and trimmed beards are shoe in's for what VT want on their platforms, trains or ticket offices, the sort of people who act out their lives as if they're in a lead role in a film or a video blog, usually fished from the hotel and hospitality industry.

yeah - that describes the Virgin staff at Milton Keynes. Jesus.

As for Driving I think nowadays it's ex-armed forces/emergency services and token selection from BAME and LGBT communities in order to meet diversity quota's,

I am a manager. Did I miss the email about "diversity quotas"? Can you let me have a copy? Christ I might not have met my quota! Do I get a bonus if i have over achieved? In all of my career ( god i sound old now) I have only ever recruited the best person for the job.

PS how do i know if someone fits into a certain criteria? Is there some secret code I don't know about?

in your interview you're expected to tell them how you were head boy at grammar school followed by how you single-handedly dealt with a mass casualty terrorist attack or the like, it's almost like people who state they want to be Driver's because it's what they've always wanted to do or display some level of knowledge of the industry are binned off, this as well as the former is emblematic of the neoliberal style-over-substance and atomised workforce individualism that these TOC's want.

you expect to turn up to an interview, say you always wanted to be a driver and know a bit about trains and expect them to simply offer you the gig there and then? I wonder if there might be something wrong with this approach?

What they want, as in an interview for any professional job, is for you to answer a number of competency based questions ( on fairly obvious topics) in such a way that demonstrate you have some experience to call on, have dealt with varied situations and people, display the kind of attitude and behaviours required of the recruiting company and come across as a credible candidate able to tell their story in a realistic way.

If you are struggling with the style required there are loads of on line resources to help you. It took me a while to grasp the required style and substance but once you get it you are away.

Personally the face to face interview part of the process to become a train driver is the least worrying for me. There is no way I would get through some of the filtering tests or a mechanical aptitude test! The interview would be a doddle in comparison!

 

[bionic]

Let me guess, you're in a role that you're happy with? And it wasn't too hard to get?
And you can't imagine what it would be like if they told you that you were being made redundant to make way for more women? Bet ya chuckled at that.
Reminds me of someone else here who wrote some horrible things because they were all happy in their driving role, yet said similar things to what you did. Easy to say when you don't have any vested interest.

I went through the normal selection process the same as everyone else. You know, the one supposedly geared up to discriminate against straight white males. And here's the thing... they didn't give the job to a minority applicant, they gave it to me.

Imagine what it's like to be made redundant so a woman can have my job?
What are you on about!!! Can you give me one example of that happening? That's very different to someone failing an interview and then blaming it on "political correctness" rather than taking personal responsibility and looking at where they might have gone wrong.

I've got news for some people on here: Ethnic minorities, women, LGBT people and so on can drive trains too. If you didn't get a job with a company and then see some women driving their trains consider maybe, just maybe, those women did better than you on the application. Maybe, just maybe, they are bloody good at their job and their gender is nothing to do with it. Consider that maybe they didn't get the job because they are a woman, they got it because they were better than you in the application process.

There are so many reasons we can blame but ultimately I still put it down to number of positions to applicantions and just luck of the draw.

People don’t seem to accept they might just have been unlucky and will always try to find an excuse for why they didn’t get the position. Companies like east mids have started having blind applications where you take all your personal information of your CV to prevent any bias towards age, race, sex or orientation, But you’ll still have people telling you they didn’t get it because EMT have a culture of needing to know someone in management.

The only time diversity is considered is where two people are equally matched, so if a man and a woman went for the same role and they were both equally qualified, The woman would most likely get it, however if the man was slightly better, the man would still get it

Just keep applying and don’t lose faith

A sensible post on this. Totally agree.

 

[baz962]

There is almost certainly some discrimination going on.

 

[Journeyman]

There is almost certainly some discrimination going on.

Prove it.

Honestly, there's no point in getting too angry about it. I've had lots of disappointments and setbacks in getting rejected from loads of railway jobs I know I could do. You could spend your life railing against the PC brigade and their determination not to employ straight middle-aged men, or you could think "how can I do better next time?" and keep trying.

I'm a straight middle-aged man.

 

[baz962]

Prove it.

Honestly, there's no point in getting too angry about it. I've had lots of disappointments and setbacks in getting rejected from loads of railway jobs I know I could do. You could spend your life railing against the PC brigade and their determination not to employ straight middle-aged men, or you could think "how can I do better next time?" and keep trying.

I'm a straight middle-aged man.

I cannot prove it which is why I said almost certainly and not definitely, and no I'm not a bitter , jealous person. I'm a qualified driver at a TOC that looks after me , however I failed a few first sifts - no problem . Eventually put through the psychometric's and passed and since found out from opc that my scores are among top two percent. Was not taken on at dmi . Had a good interview , it was better than the one I passed and I have hired and fired as a supervisor and manager in previous career's , so I know a bit about interviews. I am a white 49 year old male, Failed that dmi at 47 . I had a feeling about that interview after but obviously no proof. About a year ago I was travelling to work , using services of said TOC and got speaking to a driver , and mentioned my process . He asked why I didn't get the job and I replied I don't know. During the conversation he told me his age and I told him mine ( I'm usually mistaken for 36-40). He turned to me and said was it Mr X and Mr y that interviewed you and I said yes. Without hesitation he said it was your age , I said na surely not , he replied I know them two and 100% it was your age , absolutely no doubt. Good job my current TOC are not so short sighted and are very diverse.

 

[Stigy]

Prove it.

Honestly, there's no point in getting too angry about it. I've had lots of disappointments and setbacks in getting rejected from loads of railway jobs I know I could do. You could spend your life railing against the PC brigade and their determination not to employ straight middle-aged men, or you could think "how can I do better next time?" and keep trying.

I'm a straight middle-aged man.

That’s the thing, it cannot be proved. It’s on a par with nepotism. Everyone knows it happens, but you’ll never be able to prove it. And let’s face it, would anyone bother trying? As long as all the boxes are ticked and everything appears fair, it’s impossible throwing your weight around and blacklisting yourself.

 

[MrPIC]

I've seen a few threads in the careers section on this forum recently, where it appears slightly older people apply for jobs on the railway, assuming they'll be a shoe in because of their perceived experience (life or other), and then are completely shocked and disturbed when they don't get said job, and assume its nothing to do with them and their potential deficiencies, instead its down to them being a straight white man and all those women/gays/BAME or other minorities taking the jobs. Which they clearly aren't. As the older generations seem to enjoy saying to the younger these days; "suck it up buttercup", if Virgin want to hire outgoing, extrovert, over the top customer loving people, and you want a job with Virgin, then you know how to act at your interview.

 

[whhistle]

I went through the normal selection process the same as everyone else. You know, the one supposedly geared up to discriminate against straight white males. And here's the thing... they didn't give the job to a minority applicant, they gave it to me.

*Yawn* - You didn't go through the same process as me, as I would hazard a guess you and me have never met, nor applied for the same role.
Even the same role for the same company will give different experiences of recruitment because we're human, not machines, so outcomes will be different every time.

Attempting to help you understand what it might be like to not get a job because you are a white man clearly was a mistake as it's something you didn't seem to understand (hence the redundant statement). Fact is, if you had a black female and a white male that scored the same during recruitment events, I'd bet the remainder of my mortgage on which one the company would choose, despite both candidates scoring the same.

There is almost certainly some discrimination going on.

Prove it.

Can you prove there isn't?
With the big push to get minorities into roles (especially women into higher management), there is a slight push there towards discrimination.


There seems to be a number of people who seem to think the people who feel like they are being discriminated against believe that is the sole reason they didn't get the job. That isn't right. Of course the candidate wasn't good enough at some stage.
But to go around suggesting there is no positive discrimination during recruitment is simply being blind - usually because the person saying it isn't affected as they have the job they want and don't really give a stuff about anyone else.

 

[Topcat999]

I cannot prove it which is why I said almost certainly and not definitely, and no I'm not a bitter , jealous person. I'm a qualified driver at a TOC that looks after me , however I failed a few first sifts - no problem . Eventually put through the psychometric's and passed and since found out from opc that my scores are among top two percent. Was not taken on at dmi . Had a good interview , it was better than the one I passed and I have hired and fired as a supervisor and manager in previous career's , so I know a bit about interviews. I am a white 49 year old male, Failed that dmi at 47 . I had a feeling about that interview after but obviously no proof. About a year ago I was travelling to work , using services of said TOC and got speaking to a driver , and mentioned my process . He asked why I didn't get the job and I replied I don't know. During the conversation he told me his age and I told him mine ( I'm usually mistaken for 36-40). He turned to me and said was it Mr X and Mr y that interviewed you and I said yes. Without hesitation he said it was your age , I said na surely not , he replied I know them two and 100% it was your age , absolutely no doubt. Good job my current TOC are not so short sighted and are very diverse.

People say age does not matter are not telling the truth are they?

Let's face it they ideally want people in the 26-40 year range.....not a 50 year old+ After 60 the chances of major health problems start increasing enormously.

Now i am not saying 50+ year olds do not get in....but it's not what they really want.

I have been on interviews where they kind of mentioned my age, like it wasn't a huge factor, but in reality it was. I feel i only got the interview so they could say "look we gave this old guy a chance"

It's the old chestnut isn't it? "size doesn't matter" It's nice to say the right thing but in reality we all know the truth.

 

[Topcat999]

Discrimination on some scale is human nature. They know they cannot admit it, will pretend it never came into play. BUT if they do not want a certain type they can look for an excuse elsewhere to get them out of the process. Easy. No-one will ever the be wiser about it.

 

[chumpypup]

Sorry to hear this, Instructor_Guy. Try not to get too disheartened, the key with the railway is to never give up.

To those suggesting that females have a better chance than males, I'm female, it took me four years, 18 applications, 15 of those were straight rejections, and 6 of which were straight rejected after I had passed the psychometrics at enhanced level.

Yes, the railway would like more females in the industry, but we have no advantage over males at getting through the initial application stage, the psychometrics or the DMI. The initial sift seems more to me like picking names out of a hat, given I got through the sift with a TOC who had rejected the exact same application three times previously.
We all go through the same process with the psychometrics and get the same questions in the DMI.

The rejections are hard to take, especially when you can't get feedback on why, and there were times I cried and felt like giving up, but for me, this was my dream career, so giving up was something I just couldn't do.
I know I'm very lucky to be driving trains, I had to battle with hundreds if not, thousands of other applicants to get it and I worked bloody hard for it, but I definitely don't feel I had any advantage getting here just because I have boobs and a fanny.
If I did, it certainly wouldn't have taken as long as it did to get where I am.

 

[Trainguy90]

My course (just over 4 years ago) had 15 people on
- 1 Female
- 2 under 25
- 2 over 50
- 10 were white straight males
- 0 were from an ethnic background

That's the way i judge that there's no bias towards minority groups (not that women are exactly a minority group) like i know the majority of applicants are probably still made up of men but men are hardly being given a disadvantage.

Be interesting to hear the makeup of other peoples courses

 

[Picklebutton]

Be interesting to hear the makeup of other peoples courses

On mine;
7 attendees in total

2 White females
5 White males
Age range 23 to 50
Various backgrounds from; performing arts management, former MOD engineer, and at least two from aviation.
Only one of the group (and not the oldest on the course) was an existing railway employee.

 

[ComUtoR]

Be interesting to hear the makeup of other peoples courses

15+yrs ago

17 on assessment day.
1 Female (white) (over 30) (married)
1 Male (black/Caribbean) (30) (co-habiting)
13 Male (white) (mixture of ages but most around 30) (mostly single)
1 Male (white) (45+) (married)
1 Male (white) (40-45) (married)

Only 3 passed with 1 maybe

Rules Course
1 Male (white) (45+) (married) - Didn't pass (4 attempts)
1 Male (white) (23 ish) (single) - Didn't pass
1 Male (Black/African) (35 ish) - Didn't pass (2 attempts)
1 Male (Indian) (30 ish) - Passed (1st attempt)
1 Male (black/carribean) - Passed (1st attempt)
1 Female (white) (45+) - Didn't pass
1 Male (white) (50) - Passed (2nd attempt)
1 Male (white) (21) - Passed (2nd attempt)

When I passed it was very much White/Male and there was very little ethnic diversity and women were a rarity. There have been a few 'recruitment drives' over the years and the most recent intakes have been leaning towards ethnic diversity and women.

My depot had 2 women when I started and now there are 7 with 3 moved on to higher grades. There is still a lack of diversity and the Management is pretty much a whitewash.

You could have a full course of BAME women and it still wouldn't make a dent. I have seen a change in the average age and we get many more elder statesmen but it is still predominantly white/middle class/male.

 

[OneLowban]

but I definitely don't feel I had any advantage getting here just because I have boobs and a fanny.

..can we just take a moment to appreciate this comment.

 

[keep truckin]

*Yawn* - You didn't go through the same process as me, as I would hazard a guess you and me have never met, nor applied for the same role.
Even the same role for the same company will give different experiences of recruitment because we're human, not machines, so outcomes will be different every time.

Attempting to help you understand what it might be like to not get a job because you are a white man clearly was a mistake as it's something you didn't seem to understand (hence the redundant statement). Fact is, if you had a black female and a white male that scored the same during recruitment events, I'd bet the remainder of my mortgage on which one the company would choose, despite both candidates scoring the same.



Can you prove there isn't?
With the big push to get minorities into roles (especially women into higher management), there is a slight push there towards discrimination.


There seems to be a number of people who seem to think the people who feel like they are being discriminated against believe that is the sole reason they didn't get the job. That isn't right. Of course the candidate wasn't good enough at some stage.
But to go around suggesting there is no positive discrimination during recruitment is simply being blind - usually because the person saying it isn't affected as they have the job they want and don't really give a stuff about anyone else.

You only talk about discrimination to your own demographic. Read the figures given by people above. Please show me the discrimination.

It's lazy assumptions like yours which amount to under represented groups having to put up with workplace gossip that they are only there as a token and not on ability.

Discrimination is possible in a variety of guises, but your posts are very one-sided and therefore lacking in any objectivity and seriousness.

 

[Topcat999]

Has anyone failed to even land an interviews XX times?

They do not have to give a reason why. If you have no obvious reason why you are denied but are done so all the time what would (could) that say?

 

[martin2345uk]

Has anyone failed to even land an interviews XX times?

They do not have to give a reason why. If you have no obvious reason why you are denied but are done so all the time what would (could) that say?

That it’s purely a numbers game and due to the thousands of applications they get often the chance of getting through the initial sift is very small indeed

 

[Topcat999]

That it’s purely a numbers game and due to the thousands of applications they get often the chance of getting through the initial sift is very small indeed

but if it based on a points system..am objective one..how can one fail one time then pass another? Isn't it supposed to eliminate this?

 

[martin2345uk]

One time there were lots of better applications, the next time there were not so many?

 

[martin2345uk]

Incidentally it took me about 8 years to finally get past the initial sift and that was only because the company I got through with did things a different way

 

[Stigy]

but if it based on a points system..am objective one..how can one fail one time then pass another? Isn't it supposed to eliminate this?

If you have thousands of people who score really well, it’s not feasible to interview/assess/recruit everyone?

 

[ComUtoR]

1000 people take a test.
Pass mark set at 80%
900 (90%) all achieve above 80%

Everybody passes but you still need to whittle that number down. You can change the pass mark to a higher % and see how that goes. Personally I would consider that to be a little unfair. What you can also do is to accept that everyone has passed but you can decide to whittle it down by taking the top 3%.

If you split the application process it becomes more complicated.

50 people take the test in the first week. If you have that same 90%/45 pass
200 people take the test in the second week - 90%/180 pass
10 people in the third week - 90%/9 pass

The level of competition changes dynamically with each recruitment drive. So you may or may not have a better chance of success based on it being purely a numbers game.

What has happened over the years is that they are trying their upmost to limit the number of applicants. There is a 'national pass' and an 'enhanced' pass. There are now more TOCs using the enhanced pass to the point in which enhanced is basically the new standard. What will happen is that pass mark will get higher and higher.

They have also whittled down applicants by limiting the time jobs are advertised and they come down just as fast as they go up.

They have moved to online assessments to whittle down the manual sift.

Distance to commute has changed and limits applications.

And now they are looking at requiring certain GCSE/A-Level grades, which personally I'm stunned to see.

Just as much as you now have to be the best of the best, you also need a huge element of pure luck and timing. More and more people are applying and more and more are passing each stage.

 

[387star]

Interesting reading here regarding equality

https://www.mynewsdesk.com/uk/govia...to-increase-diversity-on-the-railways-2842886

 

[whhistle]

You only talk about discrimination to your own demographic. Read the figures given by people above. Please show me the discrimination.

That someone managed to remember the exact numbers of people from 15+ years ago?
Remember, 15+ years ago was a long time ago in society terms Being so diverse wasn't too hot back in those days.

I like to think I'm fairly tollerant in many aspects of life, but to blindly accept there is no discrimination during recruitment events is just wrong in my opinion.
I've seen far too many internal vacancies, for a week, that always seem to recruit the person who has been earmarked for the job. I've never experienced anyone else getting it - and this is perhaps 10 jobs over a period of about 10 years. It's a waste of everyones time.

I'd be interested to hear your response to these three posts that show, to an extent, there is some sort of discrimination going on: Post 1 | Post 2 | Post 3 - feel free to message me if you like.

 

[keep truckin]

You choose to mention an example of a course 15 years back, but what about Train guys example (post No:45): 10 white males, 2 women, 0 ethnic minorities? Also post no: 34, an actual manager who said he never had to work to quotas in his life. Sometimes people take the facts that seem to support their arguments and only use them, this is what I've seen and heard over the years.

I'm from an ethnic minority and it took me years upon years to get my current role to the point of even nearly giving up. Multiple applications etc.

I'm not saying it doesn't go on, but my point is from experience and reading on this forum, people are all to willing to make easy statements like "PC is really taking the mickey now", without really any balance. For example, what about discrimination towards other groups still going on? Predominantly white managers, sometimes having bias towards people that look like them.

I just like to hear more balanced views than people swearing blind that they're being over looked in favour of a female or minority person. But it's human nature I guess.

Anyway, just my views, I'm not trying to have an argument with anyone and I hope we eventually achieve a fairer and more integrated society. Good luck to all.

That someone managed to remember the exact numbers of people from 15+ years ago?
Remember, 15+ years ago was a long time ago in society terms Being so diverse wasn't too hot back in those days.

I like to think I'm fairly tollerant in many aspects of life, but to blindly accept there is no discrimination during recruitment events is just wrong in my opinion.
I've seen far too many internal vacancies, for a week, that always seem to recruit the person who has been earmarked for the job. I've never experienced anyone else getting it - and this is perhaps 10 jobs over a period of about 10 years. It's a waste of everyones time.

I'd be interested to hear your response to these three posts that show, to an extent, there is some sort of discrimination going on: Post 1 | Post 2 | Post 3 - feel free to message me if you like.

 

[Stigy]

That someone managed to remember the exact numbers of people from 15+ years ago?
Remember, 15+ years ago was a long time ago in society terms Being so diverse wasn't too hot back in those days.

I like to think I'm fairly tollerant in many aspects of life, but to blindly accept there is no discrimination during recruitment events is just wrong in my opinion.
I've seen far too many internal vacancies, for a week, that always seem to recruit the person who has been earmarked for the job. I've never experienced anyone else getting it - and this is perhaps 10 jobs over a period of about 10 years. It's a waste of everyones time.

I'd be interested to hear your response to these three posts that show, to an extent, there is some sort of discrimination going on: Post 1 | Post 2 | Post 3 - feel free to message me if you like.

You mentioned the earmarking of people for certain jobs? I agree 100% with you on this (usually for management jobs or where there’s only one or two vacancies available). Nepotism is a big issue on the railway and probably a lot of other industries, but isn’t the same as discrimination.

I’m not saying that the railway always recruits set genders or races as some seem to be blinkered to think is what I and others are saying. What I am saying though, is that with the push for more ‘women in rail’ and the like, and with ‘positive discrimination’ being openly promoted by certain industries, discrimination certainly DOES happen. I don’t seem to see any replies to my comment where I suggested that if it was advertised for only white males to apply for jobs in certain areas because they’re underrepresented, said recruiters may be seen as being racist/sexist etc? Is it not the same as openly only inviting minority groups and women to apply in areas/jobs predominantly represented by white males?