Equal Opportunities Questionnaires

[Economist]

I've recently been considering a change of employer as a qualified train driver and one thing which always appears as part of the application process is an equal opportunities questionnaire. Personally, I tend not to fill them in these days because I don't see what relevance they have to my ability to do the job, is this likely to lead to my application being disregarded/given a lower score?

On one hand I know that HR are not supposed to discriminate based on the information which is/isn't provided in the questionnaire, however there's plenty of anecdotal evidence I've heard in the depot messrooms from people who think that isn't strictly the case. Can I please have opinions on this particular dilemma?

 

[Signal_Box]

HR definitely DO see and assess your app via the EO form.

Quotes to fill and targets to meet, unfortunately those of us who are bloody good at our jobs are hit with the same hammer as those who are useless and employed to meet a target.

 

[YingYing]

As there's no way of knowing whether a particular answer goes in favour or against you I tended to put "prefer not to say" for any questions that had that as an option, when I was trying to get my foot in the door.

 

[daveo]

Did it work?

 

[Horizon22]

HR definitely DO see and assess your app via the EO form.

Quotes to fill and targets to meet, unfortunately those of us who are bloody good at our jobs are hit with the same hammer as those who are useless and employed to meet a target.

Absoloute nonsense. Yes HR do see the form but it is for data and monitoring purposes only. It helps provide statistics on the type of people applying and the overall characteristics of the company should they be employed. This may identify an area whereby they want to do more work to encourage certain groups to apply for the job. Once applications are in, it should be purely on merit (excluding some corrupt or nepotistic hiring manager).

As for the original post, anedoctal evidence (messroom gossip), does not make for fact. Yes more diverse candidates are coming through, but only because more there are more diverse candidates applying.

 

[kevconnor]

HR definitely DO see and assess your app via the EO form.

Quotes to fill and targets to meet, unfortunately those of us who are bloody good at our jobs are hit with the same hammer as those who are useless and employed to meet a target.

I cannot speak for work in railways as I currently work in NHS but having previously worked in Facility Services I can say with confidence your statement is uninformed, baseless and incorrect for a few reasons.

Firstly, in large organisations HR don't make recruitment decision managers do. there will be a recruitment team who will administer the process and maintain oversight but

Secondly, from what I have seen of recruitment in railways they all use Talent Management Software (also known as Applicant Tracking Systems) all of these will separate EDI data from an application and this is not visible to recruiting manager, shortlisted or interview panel. The more advanced software will have blind applications which don't provide the personal details of the applicants until they are shortlisted for an interview and even then won't show EDI data.

Thirdly, Positive discrimination is illegal within the UK. Howevre, even if they did have quota's as you say then they aren't really doing a good job of it given the gender pay gap and lack of female representation amongst many roles within the industry.

 

[PupCuff]

So, what I want to be able to say, is yes, you should fill these types of thing in - from an EDI perspective it's key to know who is trying to join your organisation, who is being successful etc, so that it's possible to take a good look at the reasons certain demographics aren't applying; or are applying and being unsuccessful; to try and bring about longer term change to reduce indirect discrimination within the organisation.

However, I've myself been on the receiving end of that supposedly 'for monitoring purposes' data ending up on the recruiting manager's desk during an application with an Arriva group TOC; I know this as the interviewing manager had a hard copy of the application pack which he was referring to during the interview and indeed asking me questions on the information provided. Now, whilst I was a little cheesed off, and long term it's done my career no harm, the more pressing point was that if it's slipped through on this occasion, would it also slip through on all the other applications to the other group companies which use the same application system? One bad experience has the ability to negatively influence a candidate from applying again to that organisation despite their ability to do the role.

I suppose one way I'd look at it is, if a recruiting manager has a problem with me being gay before they even interview me, then it's a bullet dodged if I ended up actually having to work for them and certainly no need to waste my time having me in for an interview. But I get that, particularly for new people coming into the industry, or people who are early on in their career and aren't yet really "known", would they want to risk this information landing on the desk of a recruiting manager who had underlying homophobic/racist/transphobic/ableist/sexist tendancies, especially at a stage in the application where there is little transparency on why they are not progressing your application for a given role?

So unfortunately, with much regret, I would probably say answering "prefer not to answer" is the safest thing to do.

 

[YingYing]

Did it work?

Yes

So, what I want to be able to say, is yes, you should fill these types of thing in - from an EDI perspective it's key to know who is trying to join your organisation, who is being successful etc, so that it's possible to take a good look at the reasons certain demographics aren't applying; or are applying and being unsuccessful; to try and bring about longer term change to reduce indirect discrimination within the organisation.

However, I've myself been on the receiving end of that supposedly 'for monitoring purposes' data ending up on the recruiting manager's desk during an application with an Arriva group TOC; I know this as the interviewing manager had a hard copy of the application pack which he was referring to during the interview and indeed asking me questions on the information provided. Now, whilst I was a little cheesed off, and long term it's done my career no harm, the more pressing point was that if it's slipped through on this occasion, would it also slip through on all the other applications to the other group companies which use the same application system? One bad experience has the ability to negatively influence a candidate from applying again to that organisation despite their ability to do the role.

I suppose one way I'd look at it is, if a recruiting manager has a problem with me being gay before they even interview me, then it's a bullet dodged if I ended up actually having to work for them and certainly no need to waste my time having me in for an interview. But I get that, particularly for new people coming into the industry, or people who are early on in their career and aren't yet really "known", would they want to risk this information landing on the desk of a recruiting manager who had underlying homophobic/racist/transphobic/ableist/sexist tendancies, especially at a stage in the application where there is little transparency on why they are not progressing your application for a given role?

So unfortunately, with much regret, I would probably say answering "prefer not to answer" is the safest thing to do.

I'd tend to agree with this outlook.

 

[MostlyHarmless]

I've recently been considering a change of employer as a qualified train driver and one thing which always appears as part of the application process is an equal opportunities questionnaire. Personally, I tend not to fill them in these days because I don't see what relevance they have to my ability to do the job, is this likely to lead to my application being disregarded/given a lower score?

On one hand I know that HR are not supposed to discriminate based on the information which is/isn't provided in the questionnaire, however there's plenty of anecdotal evidence I've heard in the depot messrooms from people who think that isn't strictly the case. Can I please have opinions on this particular dilemma?

I've never filled them in as I don't see that they are relevant other so that the company can compile stats of dubious value, and don't affect my ability to do the job. It always amazes me when some companies still ask religion you are!

Like you I've always used 'Prefer not so say..' and it didn't affect my chance of getting the jobs (in the railway)

 

[Economist]

Thank you all for the opinions on this, I know that these forms are supposed to be only used for monitoring, however when I see certain TOCs setting up quotas, Southern being an example, it does make me question how much pressure HR are under to advance certain candidates to the assessment/interview stage. Additionally, I wonder if individual Ops Managers have diversity targets they are supposed to meet?

Historically, I believe a driver's SOL record was one of the first things which was looked at when recruiting, along with sickness rates, has this changed much?

 

[klkl]

I answered the questions openly and honestly. Didn’t give too much thought about potential prejudice or discrimination.

Though I tend to agree with @PupCuff position. If *phobia was going to be an issue I’d rather it happened upfront rather than invest in a company only for problems to come later.

 

[Horizon22]

Thank you all for the opinions on this, I know that these forms are supposed to be only used for monitoring, however when I see certain TOCs setting up quotas, Southern being an example, it does make me question how much pressure HR are under to advance certain candidates to the assessment/interview stage. Additionally, I wonder if individual Ops Managers have diversity targets they are supposed to meet?

Historically, I believe a driver's SOL record was one of the first things which was looked at when recruiting, along with sickness rates, has this changed much?

Any evidence to Southern's "quotas"? Whilst Southern may have an aim to achieve xx% of drivers from Y background (and indeed many TOCs do) it is still an overall aim - if a candidate isn't good enough, they won't make it.

 

[ATTB]

Mine was a prefer not to say application and didn’t have any effect on me.

I’m extremely suspicious of these things. In my previous role when recruiting I’d be guided by HR on what interview prep to give candidates for the technical assessments - some would get just an invite and general overview and some would get revision material and the ability to discuss the interview over the phone ahead of time. I’d never see the candidate’s profile on equality but I did notice that the only people who got just the invite and interview were of one race and gender, whereas the ones with additional support were the opposite race and/or not that gender. Being an old fashioned believer in talent, experience and qualification I’d get quite strong opposition from the unqualified, untalented and inexperienced HR department if I didn’t pick certain candidates - they were almost salesmen for certain people that definitely weren’t good enough for the job, telling me things like maybe they’re better as they live closer or they’ve got vast experience with 14 employers in the last 12 months.

Upon discussing this with friends I found out this was similar practise to a certain police force.

Dodgy tactics, you never know who is doing the same!

 

[SeanW90]

The amount of hoops you have to jump through for a driving job does make you wonder how certain people are offered within a few weeks of passing whereas others are kept waiting for months/years in talent pools. I really hope it is to do with individual assessment scores rather than a candidate’s background.

 

[ComUtoR]

Nobody should be worried. It's still a 'straight white male' dominated industry. Nothing to fear here.

 

[Twotwo]

Nobody should be worried. It's still a 'straight white male' dominated industry. Nothing to fear here.

Excatly! The messroom very much reflects this. Nothing to worry about. This question has been brought up numerous times and it's frustrating to see as an ethnic woman.

 

[ratbag]

I've recently been considering a change of employer as a qualified train driver and one thing which always appears as part of the application process is an equal opportunities questionnaire. Personally, I tend not to fill them in these days because I don't see what relevance they have to my ability to do the job, is this likely to lead to my application being disregarded/given a lower score?

On one hand I know that HR are not supposed to discriminate based on the information which is/isn't provided in the questionnaire, however there's plenty of anecdotal evidence I've heard in the depot messrooms from people who think that isn't strictly the case. Can I please have opinions on this particular dilemma?

My dad was a train driver, and 2 of my brother's are currently train drivers. Despite what some people wish to believe, there is no quota system, and the idea white men like myself, and you I presume, are disadvantaged in the employment process to become a train driver, is merely the inverted form of wokeness, and an ism.

Have you genuinely had a real look at the demographics of train drivers? Trust me, we are not being discriminated against. A good case could be argued for the opposite. Do TOC's actively seek out and encourage Women, and people of colour to apply? Yes, without a doubt, but they don't actively discriminate against whites, nor is there some lower standard to be attained. Is train driving under-represented with women and people of colour? Just look around. I'm currently in a talent pool, and when I took my psychometrics, there was not one woman, or person of colour on the day, and here's the catch. I did not feel women, and ethnic minorities were disadvantaged with me being chosen. I believe whole-heartedly I was chosen on merit. Having to answer an equal opportunities questionnaire did not disadvantage me. I answered white heterosexual male, and got through.

If somebody accused me of only being chosen due to my colour, or sex, I would tell them where to #### off. I've known a couple of train driver managers over the years, and not once I have heard they had a quota to accept. If they did, then they are not following through.

 

[Revilo]

Nobody should be worried. It's still a 'straight white male' dominated industry. Nothing to fear here.

Probably because the vast majority of people who want to be train drivers are straight white males. And there’s nothing wrong with that, as long as there’s equality of opportunity.

 

[43066]

Nobody should be worried. It's still a 'straight white male' dominated industry. Nothing to fear here.

That reflects historical recruitment, though, often dating back 30 + years, given how slow turnover in the industry is. Prospective entrants to the industry today who are “straight white male” might well be concerned that they are no longer wanted given TOCs’ obsession with attracting applicants from different backgrounds to theirs.

Excatly! The messroom very much reflects this. Nothing to worry about. This question has been brought up numerous times and it's frustrating to see as an ethnic woman.

Interesting you feel the need to tell us you’re an “ethnic woman”. Do you think that somehow means your opinion should carry more weight than that of a “straight white male”?

Any evidence to Southern's "quotas"? Whilst Southern may have an aim to achieve xx% of drivers from Y background (and indeed many TOCs do) it is still an overall aim - if a candidate isn't good enough, they won't make it.

On this point, I’m pretty sure GTR have said they want 50% females in their trainee driver intakes. It only, say, 10%* of applicants are female, how do you achieve that without favouring female applicants based on their gender?

*which might increase, but will realistically never be 50%

 

[ATTB]

That reflects historical recruitment, though.

I was literally just typing this when I saw there was a new reply.

My TOC’s mess rooms would make you think all drivers are old, white men. However our recent groups of newly qualified and trainee drivers show that our TOC is now an extremely diverse employer. Looks like the groups are averaging 40-50% female, 30-40% non-white and/or non-British born and a good proportion of LGBT+ people coming through.

So looking in a mess room, as you say, is not indicative of “who this job is for”, so that isn’t a very valid argument against the issue of potential positive discrimination.

 

[Twotwo]

Interesting you feel the need to tell us you’re an “ethnic woman”. Do you think that somehow means your opinion should carry more weight than that of a “straight white male”? If not, why mention it?

Erm no, its frustrating to keep revisiting this topic because it's sad to see people's general opinion on how I got this job - 'to fill a quota' without actually knowing anything about me. Not sure how you've twisted this into something else entirely.

 

[43066]

Erm no, its frustrating to keep revisiting this topic

Frustrating for whom? If it concerns people they are perfectly entitled to raise it. Who are you to tell them otherwise?

because it's sad to see people's general opinion on how I got this job

Nobody has directed anything at you personally, as far as I can see?

Not sure how you've twisted this into something else entirely.

I haven’t twisted anything. I’ve simply asked why you feel the need to bring up your ethnicity and gender up? I can only think you must believe that somehow adds weight to your arguments - otherwise why mention it?

If so I profoundly disagree because that logically implies that you think the views of those who are male and white carry less weight than yours. That strikes me as rather sexist and racist…

 

[Twotwo]

Please where have I said my views are more important? Please do not put words in my mouth. And if your going to call me racist please provide evidence.

No one has said anything personal to me buts it's quite clear a lot of people share the same views that ethnic and women are being progressed for these jobs more then white man, so it's obviously questioning my credientials as to how and why I got this role, 'just a mere tick box'. It's probably what a lot of people are thinking. Hence why as a woman and as a ethnic I find this question upsetting to frequently see but I guess I've got to get used to it. Not sure how this portrayed as racism but I guess you have a better idea of racism more then me!

I do not wish to engage any more because your obviously reading what you want to read.

 

[43066]

Please where have I said my views are more important? Please do not put words in my mouth.

Well you said:

This question has been brought up numerous times and it's frustrating to see as an ethnic woman.

Which rather speaks for itself.

I do not wish to engage any more because your obviously reading what you want to read.

I’ll also quite happily leave it there and others can make up their own minds .

Looks like the groups are averaging 40-50% female, 30-40% non-white and/or non-British born and a good proportion of LGBT+ people coming through.

This matches my experience and is good to see. Given the restrictions around travel time, depots will naturally recruit from their local populations, hence depots in London especially will tend to have a wider variety of ethnic backgrounds represented than those in (say) east Anglia.

The insoluble problem re. male/female ratios is that there simply aren’t that many women who are attracted to being train drivers. Obviously there are societal factors behind that but those can’t be addressed at the recruitment stage where the focus *must* be on selecting those best able to do the job.

Nepotism is another issue on the railway that needs to be stamped out… Perhaps that’s for a different thread!

 

[Horizon22]

This matches my experience and is good to see. Given the restrictions around travel time, depots will naturally recruit from their local populations, hence depots in London especially will tend to have a wider variety of ethnic backgrounds represented than those in (say) east Anglia.

The insoluble problem re. male/female ratios is that there simply aren’t that many women who are attracted to being train drivers. Obviously there are societal factors behind that but those can’t be addressed at the recruitment stage where the focus *must* be on selecting those best able to do the job.

Nepotism is another issue on the railway that needs to be stamped out… Perhaps that’s for a different thread!

This is again an assumption that women don't want to be train drivers and why; yes there are some societal pressures, but these are becoming increasingly less pronounced. I see it not as why more females and diverse groups are joining now, but more why so few were recruited in the past as being the anomaly. And of course the railway is not the only occupation in which this skewed gender bias occurs, nor is the only one to have an issue with progression (plenty of females in lower grades, for instance) and indeed nor is it just female disproportionality (why so few male nurses for example).

To increase the numbers to more reasonable (with may TOCs being way below 10% female which is obviously not representative of society), then the aim is to encourage more diverse groups to apply. The fact is that there are probably excellent candidates coming through from more diverse groups, simply because these people never even applied in the past.