Recruitment flawed?

[whhistle]

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.

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

Yeah, I agree, this is where I feel bad for parents.

Despite them saying this isn't the reason, I bet it will play a part. Although it's good to show that just because you already hold a train driving licence, doesn't mean the job is automatically yours.

I always thought the head of Social Media at Virgin was a bit strange.
He took on three people - one who was going through the adoption process, one who was just about to get married and another who was only weeks away from becoming a parent. That's three people (out of a core team of four) who could all be off for a long time, right at the start of the new department. Not ideal. I don't think they were the best for the job but I wonder if there was pressure to have an equal male/female split.

 

[Warwick]

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 ?

You were tested and found wanting. get over it.

 

[43185]

Let me clear up a couple of points that have been made since my original posting.
Firstly when I had my interview for the gate-line at Bristol in all honesty it was probably the most pleasureable interview I've ever had where myself & the two managers were comparing railway stories & experiences which in turn led to the "Give us an example where you've" questions. A lot of this had the two managers & myself laughing & joking & it was so relaxed it was unbelievable. Now I know some of you will say that's a good interviewing technique by the manager but I myself have never had an interview that chilled before at any of the TOC's including my revenue one at Silverlink ?
I wonder how big a part someone at the GWR offices in Swindon actually plays in making the decisions as to the yes or no decision as this seems to be the most inconsistent part of the process ?
Many a time i'll apply for what ever position, & to the previous poster I do read & understand the job advert etc, yet lots of times immediately after the closing date I get an email saying sorry...... Now this could of course be one of things where there are hundreds of applicants for a few positions, god knows most of the 250 people I work with now have got GWR job alerts !!
I personally found the revenue job easy & totally loved it but by the end of the Silverlink franchise & all the time with London Midland we were actually doing what GWR has as three separate positions eg. revenue, gate line & ticket examiner positions all in one & progressively it became more & more gate line rather than revenue ? To another previous poster I to get a good reference from LM but that doesn't take away the fact they never wanted the Northampton to Euston part of the franchise & frequently made sure the trains were ok in the B'ham area but left hundreds waiting at Euston waiting to get to Milton Keynes or Northampton on a fairly regular basis & vice versa in the morning or the fact they played "Dirty Games" with staff, myself included, where you'd be accused of something on a whim & supposedly have to accept it ? I didn't & after a totally false allegation kicked their backsides at an employment tribunal & got my job back for another 5 - 6yrs so don't tell me LM are a good company because they weren't.
Different TOCs will have slightly different ways of doing various jobs & I'm aware of this so to the poster who indicated I didn't want to change is wrong but in all honesty there are times Stevie Wonder could do a better job at the Bristol gate line ?
Getting back to Swindon's part in the applications i'll give you examples of my partners experiences right up until yesterday & she is a female.
Interviewed at Swindon for a TM job about three yrs ago now, managers apparently recommended her & put her name forward ( she bumped into one of those managers a few months back who asked her what happened etc) GWR said no yet she'd been recommended ?
Yesterday she was refused a conductor position at Exeter simply after the on line application, GWR have told her she needs to be living in Exeter to apply for the job even though we have relatives down there & will readily relocate. The job she's got at Bristol now she got whilst living in Northampton !!!! So far GWR haven't replied to her email asking when the rules changed & why doesn't it state this in the advert ?
We are aware it says you need to live within an hours commute etc but relocating isn't a problem, seems to be in all this that Swindon love to move the goalposts all the time?

 

[tiptoptaff]

So, all you've done, is rather than clarify anything, continue to moan? You're bitter. You weren't good enough. Time to move on. Your posts are anonymous, but I showed them to several Bristol TM staff and they all have a pretty good idea of who you are. You're known, and not for a good reason. These things follow you, and slagging the company off for your own failings is clearly doing you no favours.

Also, ref you wife, no change in rules. IT's always been within an hour's commute for Safety Critical work. And if you think that's not in the job advert, you both need to consider reading it better.

 

[MostlyHarmless]

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



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


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


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


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


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 !

I think the concept of positive discrimination is laudable to some degree, in that it tries to redress a perceived imbalance in the workforce. However in reality it is just plain old discrimination- i.e giving someone a job based on some physical characteristic rather than their ability to do it better than another applicant and of course that is why it is illegal.

The other danger is (and I remember reading an article some years back about this happening in the US) is that positive discrimination can actually make the person getting the benefit feel that their co workers think they only got the job because they were black or female rather than their ability. I would imagine this could also happen with positive action and certainly some of the comments on here would indicate that that is the perception of some people.

It's a complex topic!

 

[43185]

So, all you've done, is rather than clarify anything, continue to moan? You're bitter. You weren't good enough. Time to move on. Your posts are anonymous, but I showed them to several BRI staff and they all have a pretty good idea of who you are. You're known, and not for a good reason. These things follow you, and slagging the company off for your own failings is clearly doing you no favours.

Also, ref you wife, no change in rules. IT's always been within an hour's commute for Safety Critical work. And if you think that's not in the job advert, you both need to consider reading it better.

If you read that part of the post again, but better this time, relating to any change in the rules then you'll see I clearly state that we're aware of the part that says you must be within an hours commute & quite right they are to. The point was that as before when my MRS got her present job she was living approx. 2.5hrs away but clearly stated about relocating etc & this was obviously accepted as she's still there, as well you apparently know ?
Therefore if GWR yesterday refused her application based on similar similarities then don't you think it's different ?
As for moaning I thought I made it very clear that the interview etc was actually very enjoyable, & you can't always say that, & I also simply asked how much Swindon get involved bearing in mind that they themselves don't interview but presumably go on the recommendations of the interviewing manager/s ?

 

[tiptoptaff]

If you read that part of the post again, but better this time, relating to any change in the rules then you'll see I clearly state that we're aware of the part that says you must be within an hours commute & quite right they are to. The point was that as before when my MRS got her present job she was living approx. 2.5hrs away but clearly stated about relocating etc & this was obviously accepted as she's still there, as well you apparently know ?
Therefore if GWR yesterday refused her application based on similar similarities then don't you think it's different ?
As for moaning I thought I made it very clear that the interview etc was actually very enjoyable, & you can't always say that, & I also simply asked how much Swindon get involved bearing in mind that they themselves don't interview but presumably go on the recommendations of the interviewing manager/s ?

They recruit who the interviewing manager tells them to. IT's as simple as that. Whatever you were told about being "recommended" doesn't make a difference. If they were told to recruit other people ahead of her, they're who get recruited. Unless there's a serious issue with medical or references, Swindon don't tend to overrule the hiring manager.

 

[ComUtoR]

It's a complex topic!

I agree with everything you said

Discriminating against someone, for whatever reason, is wrong. Hence it being illegal. I think that the move to 'Positive Action' is still pretty much the same thing. They are totally allowed to choose a woman over a man if they are both equally qualified. Where you get two equal candidates how do you split them ? I am still divided on this issue; as it is still creating diversity in the workplace. We do have more female candidates and certainly many more female Drivers since I first started. Positive Action is working.

What the new problem appears to be is that because this form of discrimination is happening, there is a section of society (single white males) who are blaming their personal failure on the colour of their skin or gender. What they fail to realize is that the single white male is still the dominate position as discrimination against women etc (as Lem highlighted) is still rife.

In the driving grade we have the OPC assessments to act as a divider. We also have a situation where you are now specifically asked a generic set of questions in the interview stage. People still see the DMI and even the MMI as being biassed against them. The next stage of recruitment will end up removing the human stage altogether.

It's 2018 and we are still less than 5% women. Is recruitment flawed ? Yep, its still very racist and sexist :/

 

[ComUtoR]

Getting back to Swindon's part in the applications i'll give you examples of my partners experiences right up until yesterday & she is a female.
Interviewed at Swindon for a TM job about three yrs ago now, managers apparently recommended her & put her name forward ( she bumped into one of those managers a few months back who asked her what happened etc) GWR said no yet she'd been recommended ?

I do hope you see the irony here.

 

[Bromley boy]

Discriminating against someone, for whatever reason, is wrong. Hence it being illegal. I think that the move to 'Positive Action' is still pretty much the same thing. They are totally allowed to choose a woman over a man if they are both equally qualified. Where you get two equal candidates how do you split them ? I am still divided on this issue; as it is still creating diversity in the workplace. We do have more female candidates and certainly many more female Drivers since I first started. Positive Action is working.

Nope. Direct discrimination (choosing a person based on their sex/race which, are protected characteristics) is categorically illegal* under the Equality Act. Employers cannot choose equally qualified women over men, based on sex alone.

Positive action is doing things like targeting recruitment towards minority groups, holding recruitment workshops aimed at woman/minorities, advertising jobs in magazines read by women etc. Positive action is intended to increase applications from under represented groups. Once those applications are received they must be assessed fairly with all the rest, without reference to protected characteristics.

*there are some common sense exceptions to this. If you were casting for a theatre role which required a black male actor you could refuse to take on a white male or a black female, for example. Battered womens’ refugees can employ an all female staff etc.

 

[ComUtoR]

Nope. Direct discrimination (choosing a person based on their sex/race which, are protected characteristics) is categorically illegal* under the Equality Act. Employers cannot choose equally qualified women over men, based on sex alone.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/w...-work/discrimination-at-work-positive-action/

Postive action in recruitment
An employer can take your protected characteristic into account when deciding who to appoint to a job, if:

• people with your characteristic are at a disadvantage or under-represented in the employer's workforce, and
• you and the others candidates are equally qualified.

For example, if an employer has several equally qualified candidates for a job, it wouldn't be unlawful discrimination to give preferential treatment to a woman if women are under-represented in the employer's workforce. But the employer would have to take the comparative merits of the other candidates into consideration before making the appointment

With our grade. You pass a psycometric test. If you scored the same as another candidate; they could choose a female because they are very under represented.

 

[Bromley boy]

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/w...-work/discrimination-at-work-positive-action/

With our grade. You pass a psycometric test. If you scored the same as another candidate; they could choose a female because they are very under represented.

That’s interesting, thanks. It shows my knowledge up as being out of date (make the most of it, I’m never usually wrong about anything ) - I must admit “positive action” can include things which are a lot closer to discrimination that I thought.

159Positive action: recruitment and promotion
(1)This section applies if a person (P) reasonably thinks that—

(a)persons who share a protected characteristic suffer a disadvantage connected to the characteristic, or

(b)participation in an activity by persons who share a protected characteristic is disproportionately low.

(2)Part 5 (work) does not prohibit P from taking action within subsection (3) with the aim of enabling or encouraging persons who share the protected characteristic to—

(a)overcome or minimise that disadvantage, or

(b)participate in that activity.

(3)That action is treating a person (A) more favourably in connection with recruitment or promotion than another person (B) because A has the protected characteristic but B does not.

(4)But subsection (2) applies only if—

(a)A is as qualified as B to be recruited or promoted,

(b)P does not have a policy of treating persons who share the protected characteristic more favourably in connection with recruitment or promotion than persons who do not share it, and

(c)taking the action in question is a proportionate means of achieving the aim referred to in subsection (2).

So you’re right, it seems that employers can favour employees based on a protected characteristic where:

- that person is as qualified;
- the employer doesn’t have a general policy of favouring people sharing that protected characteristic;
- it is proportionate to do so to achieve the aim of increasing participation.

This strikes me as a real minefield and a pretty tortured (“neither one thing nor the other”) exception to the general position which remains that direct discrimination based on protected characteristics is unlawful in almost all circumstances. A recruiter can choose between equally qualified applicants, but not based on that characteristic alone, and not as part of a wider policy to do so.

In practice I wonder how often HR departments allow these kinds of decisions to be made, since even determining who is equally qualified is difficult. In our industry two applicants might share the same psychometric score, but what about work experience and other factors? Very rare that they will be identical in both cases.

 

[Bromley boy]

This article gives an interesting commentary and shows that determining what “equally qualified” actually means is a minefield, as I expected:

https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/legal-qa-positive-action-under-the-equality-act-2010/

Determining whether or not candidates are “as qualified as” each other will be difficult if the relevant recruitment (or promotion) factors are mainly subjective. Few positions will be solely determined on objective criteria such as relevant qualifications; employers generally give greater weight to a candidate’s experience or other subjective qualities. Guidance on positive action published by the Government Equalities Officesupports a wider interpretation of the phrase “as qualified as” because it says that candidates must be of “equal merit”, taking into account their overall ability, competence, professional experience and “any other qualities” required for the job.

 

[baz962]

This article gives an interesting commentary and shows that determining what “equally qualified” actually means is a minefield, as I expected:

https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/legal-qa-positive-action-under-the-equality-act-2010/

As with everything in life, open to abuse I guess