Manpower/reed/Hayes - my various employment woes

[Sidewinder]

Hi Stuart - I think we understood that bit, and to an extent I can see the point, but I can see no mention in the OP or in subsequent posts where it was mentioned that the OP has an African or Asian sounding name - indeed the OP could equally have been written by a white person questioning why a local shop employs predominately white people.

 

 

....there is also nothing in the OP to suggest that this person is female

 

Very dangerous to assume!

[stuart_coogh]

lets wait for the OP to tell us then, i thought the OP name sounded from either africa or an asian/arabic name

[andydd]

you should apply for every single vacancy in your chosen area, under both a english woman’s name and your own Asian/african name. Now if the english name is given an interview and your own african/asian name is not, albeit that the CVs demonste similar experience and qualifications. this would show clearly you being discriminated against and you should claim for compensation, because this happens each and every day up and down the country, deny it what they may, it happens, sad but true, so try this method to apply for jobs and then claim against the companies if the english sounding name is invited for interview and your genuine name is not - clear discrimination if both cvs are virtually identical - the discrimination is then not on skills/experience but on your race/name

 

I very much doubt this would prove anything and certainly wouldnt show 'clearly you being discrimnated against' , Im white and have an 'english' sounding name yet in my job search last year, the majority of companies didnt reply, and yes my CV is good, and I have the relevant IT qualifications/experience. The company may just say we recieved 100 CV's and chucked half in the bin, nothing wrong with that.

 

Proving the discrimination point in your scenario would be very difficult, not to mention costly, whilst it MAY be an exercise someone like the Equalities Commission might carry out, I wouldnt recommend it to an individual, and the 'double' CV may be noticed and ruin your job prospects.

 

Andy

[rambo]

PC rubbish.

[stuart_coogh]

These cases are almost always some sort of discrimination cases, for example because they have been rejected in a job application or to prove the employers are discrimanting against foreign sounding names, the OP can send in 2 cvs with similar experience using the real name and in the 2nd cv use a different white sounding name both with different addresses - that way the company will not link the 2 cvs together.

 

if the op is refused or does not hear back from the company in her application, but the english sounding white name on the 2nd application receives a response, be it only for an interview, that is clear discrimination because (both cvs have similar experience, the only difference is one has an ethnic sounding name and the 2nd has a normal english sounding name)

 

so if the company replies to the english shounding name cv application, but ignore the ethnic sounding name - thats clear discrimination, which the op can then start ET proceedings against

 

I very much doubt this would prove anything and certainly wouldnt show 'clearly you being discrimnated against' , Im white and have an 'english' sounding name yet in my job search last year, the majority of companies didnt reply, and yes my CV is good, and I have the relevant IT qualifications/experience. The company may just say we recieved 100 CV's and chucked half in the bin, nothing wrong with that.

 

Proving the discrimination point in your scenario would be very difficult, not to mention costly, whilst it MAY be an exercise someone like the Equalities Commission might carry out, I wouldnt recommend it to an individual, and the 'double' CV may be noticed and ruin your job prospects.

 

Andy

[dannysport]

in work we would have to give tests to people to keep the PC lot happy we had some people turning up for job interview with a interpreter

just to keep people happy now if they cant talk or under stand english how are they going to do a Job with out the interpreter

 

its about finding the person for the job White or Black short or small ect ect

you find the person thats best at the job

Edited January 25, 2012 by dannysport

[andydd]

These cases are almost always some sort of discrimination cases, for example because they have been rejected in a job application or to prove the employers are discrimanting against foreign sounding names, the OP can send in 2 cvs with similar experience using the real name and in the 2nd cv use a different white sounding name both with different addresses - that way the company will not link the 2 cvs together.

 

if the op is refused or does not hear back from the company in her application, but the english sounding white name on the 2nd application receives a response, be it only for an interview, that is clear discrimination because (both cvs have similar experience, the only difference is one has an ethnic sounding name and the 2nd has a normal english sounding name)

 

so if the company replies to the english shounding name cv application, but ignore the ethnic sounding name - thats clear discrimination, which the op can then start ET proceedings against

 

Well..no..because as I pointed out, the company may not read every CV, they may just pick ones at random and happen to read the white candidates CV and not the ethnic one, many companies simply do not have the time to read every CV received and use all sorts of methods to reduce them down, whether they do this is on racial grounds would be extremely hard to prove, especially on the basis that a company invited Mr A to an interview but not Mr B...and would not be 'clear; like you claim at all..it would be a very brave person to spend time and money on bringing such a claim.

 

Andy

[rambo]

Ive eaten in indian restaurants all over the country, ive never been served by a white english waiter, does that make the restaurants racist?.........................

Thought not..................

[becky2585]

That's an entirely different point of law, incidentally.

 

Hiring employees of a particular ethnic origin is acceptable in law if there is a genuine requirement for that specific group - e.g. homosexual employees in a gay nightclub, or ethnic minority employees in a restaurant, or actors needed for a specific role.

[Purpleflowers 2]

update........i've sent my cv and cover letter last week to the company in question - no reply as suspected.

 

i'm now going to change the layout of the cv and make it look slightly different, but essentially with the same qualifications and experience and email that with a cover letter, using a english sounding name and a different address.

 

if i get a reply to the english sound name application, that would show clear discrimination based on race/racial grounds of hiring of staff - the company is located in a ethnic area and does not have any ethnic staff which adds further weight to the discrimination claim.

 

lots of company discard foreign sounding names and and short list english sounding names, it happens and is fact and is therefore hiring staff based on race/religion which is wrong

 

certain companies employ over 95% white employees even though the companies themself are situated in an ethnic area majority, but they have white employees travelling to work from over 40 miles away, instead of hiring local employees with foreign sounding names who are more than capable of doing the same job.

 

its like in [Company Name Removed] in ethnic areas where you have ethnic staff working the tills or shelf stacking but hardly ever see a ethnic store mananger or people higher up in the system

[electricsilver]

 

And I shall do the same mirror exercise (as per my earlier reply) and see what happens. Oooh - this is going to be interesting.

[grahamengineering]

That's an entirely different point of law, incidentally.

 

Hiring employees of a particular ethnic origin is acceptable in law if there is a genuine requirement for that specific group - e.g. homosexual employees in a gay nightclub, or ethnic minority employees in a restaurant, or actors needed for a specific role.

 

Not sure how you could really argue that need as true in a lot of cases. Using the Indian restaraunt as example, what ethnic qualifications do you need to carry a plate from the kitchen to a table? Equally, Could you call the Indian restaraunteur racist for not employing and training a white commis chef? Even in the gay nightclub scenareo, wouldn't it be reverse homophobia if a straight person was refused due to his sexual orientation?

 

Sadly to my mind it seems to be one rule for the alleged minorities and another for the rest of us.

[grahamengineering]

lots of company discard foreign sounding names and and short list english sounding names, it happens and is fact and is therefore hiring staff based on race/religion which is wrong

 

certain companies employ over 95% white employees even though the companies themself are situated in an ethnic area majority, but they have white employees travelling to work from over 40 miles away, instead of hiring local employees with foreign sounding names who are more than capable of doing the same job.

 

its like in [Deleted] in ethnic areas where you have ethnic staff working the tills or shelf stacking but hardly ever see a ethnic store mananger or people higher up in the system

 

Layla, to research your theory properly, you also have to take into account what the average schooling and university grades achieved by the demographic you alledge are being discriminated against. [deleted ] may well not have as many black senior staff in that area. But what proportion of the local population have got the required literacy or maths skills required to do that job? Thats not racism.

 

Just as a quick experiment I used Tower Hamlets in London. It has a large non british background population. Using a large secondary school in the area, Only 17% of pupils at that school went on to do A-Levels. I think the national average is above 50%.

 

Just using that quick look at it, then if the same ratio of the local polulation where you speak of dont go onto A-level then higher education. You cannot blame a company for not employing them.

Edited January 29, 2012 by citizenB
Company name removed in quoted text - defamatory statement

[Sidewinder]

Not sure how you could really argue that need as true in a lot of cases. Using the Indian restaraunt as example, what ethnic qualifications do you need to carry a plate from the kitchen to a table? Equally, Could you call the Indian restaraunteur racist for not employing and training a white commis chef? Even in the gay nightclub scenareo, wouldn't it be reverse homophobia if a straight person was refused due to his sexual orientation?

 

Sadly to my mind it seems to be one rule for the alleged minorities and another for the rest of us.

 

As always these things are open to interpretation and ultimately only the Law can decide, but the principal of Genuine Occupational Requirement is a matter of fact. A restaurant specialising in an authentic experience for the clientele could probably argue quite legitimately that they only employ those with the requisite culture, language or appearance for the establishment concerned - and to use your extension could probably equally argue that a white commis chef MIGHT affect the authenticity. In the gay nightclub it might be argued that those dealing with the clientele should have a certain empathy with them, but this would be harder to justify for staff not coming into direct contact with the customers.

 

One sees similar requirements placed on applicants for certain positions with religious organisations - Catholic schools for example, but inevitably the positions are advertised with an extremely loosely worded requirement for applicants to be able to empathise with the aims and doctrine of the school.

 

As I said, it would have to be justified on a case by case basis, but for the OP in this thread, whilst I fully agree that any concerns over discrimination need to be addressed, please be very careful when casting assertions about, or naming particular organisations without proof. The company whom you named in Post #23 I know for a fact do employ and promote many people of ethnic origin, and whilst you may have doubts over that I cannot allow you to use their name in that respect in this Forum. Please keep allegations to what you can prove, not merely what you perceive or you may find that you are yourself becoming guilty of that which you accuse others of - racism can be looked at from more than one perspective and your comment could easily be viewed as defamation!

[grahamengineering]

Apologies sidewinder. The reason I used that particular company as example was to respond to laylas previous use of it.

 

Not sure I can agree with the restaraunt example though. After all an Indian dish is just a recipe. In the same way as anything else. If you train a white chef to follow the same instructions he will make exactly the same dish. By using the racial sterotype that using a non Indian waiter in said restaraunt would take away from the Indian ambience is like saying only Americans should work in Kentucky fried chicken.

 

The problem I see with any of these cases, is that accusations racism are cried. But it can only be racism on the minorities terms.

[LaughingGirl]

update........i've sent my cv and cover letter last week to the company in question - no reply as suspected.

 

i'm now going to change the layout of the cv and make it look slightly different, but essentially with the same qualifications and experience and email that with a cover letter, using a english sounding name and a different address.

 

if i get a reply to the english sound name application, that would show clear discrimination based on race/racial grounds of hiring of staff - the company is located in a ethnic area and does not have any ethnic staff which adds further weight to the discrimination claim.

 

I don't know Layla. I've been applying for jobs for the last 5 months, and I've been quite shocked at the number of companies (I'm talking EASILY 90% of my applications) who don't even acknowledge the application, let alone trouble themselves with feedback on applications, CV's or interviews. I've got a steady, 10 year plus check-able work history with no gaps up until now, excellent references from Doctors and Senior Management, clean CRB check, loads of cross-sector experience including management and training. My CV apparently isn't the problem - I've had it checked several times by former HR colleagues, and by the staff at my local job club, and barring a couple of minor changes, everyone seemed to think it was spot-on. I'm not punching out of my weight range with the applications, either - all of them are in my sector and I make sure I fulfill the person specification for each post. I'm white, mid-thirties - there's nothing about me to discriminate against.

 

Having chatted at length with the staff at my local Job Centre (who are extremely helpful), they seem to think the same as I do - which is that because application volumes are at such a high volume at present, employers can afford to be super-selective when short-listing candidates. There are thousands of unemployed graduates at the minute who are clamoring for jobs that they wouldn't have touched with a barge pole 5 years ago. Essentially, employers can pick up a graduate calibre employee for the cost of an office junior now-a-days.

 

One of the job sites that I use shows the number of applications that have been submitted for each post - I haven't applied for anything that has had less than 70 applications by the closing date yet. Most are 100+. In a couple of places I've worked, the person doing the recruiting wouldn't even think of reading 100 C.V's - half of them would go in the bin, unread.

 

If you were to get a response to the C.V with an English sounding name, what do you plan on doing?

[Sidewinder]

Absolutely spot on - in most cases at present it is the sheer number of applications involved. With many of our vacancies we currently receive around 200-300 applications for each post and it simply isn't possible to respond to each of them, or to grant an interview to many candidates who in normal circumstances would be at the head of the list.

 

It isn't always a good thing to be presenting with a degree either, for if the degree is not relevant to the position being applied for then it suggests that the applicant may only want the work as a stop gap until something in their chosen field comes up. That used to be one of the criteria we used when sifting applications as being a graduate calibre applicant means very little unless the degree suggests that the person would be better at the job than somebody with no special qualifications but bags of relevant experience. The main criteria in sifting applicants is inevitably experience, ideally evidence of progression, reason for leaving previous job and only then the level of qualifications where relevant. Sadly this tends to exclude many first time job applicants or graduates (unless as stated the position desires such a person), and whilst this may also discriminate to a certain extent against the younger applicants, it is justifiable for the employer to want to select staff more likely to be able to do the job as early as possible. The labour market nowadays is desperately unfair for those without experience particularly, but also for anybody who in the past would have been snapped up for their dream job.

[LaughingGirl]

I totally agree with the degree needing to be relevant - unfortunately, I work in admin (specifically, I'm a P.A) and people with degrees in Business and Business Administration AND experience seem to be ten a penny at the minute.

 

I also totally agree with it being incredibly difficult for people just starting out (although I am seeing a huge increase in 'Office Apprentice' roles aimed at 18-24 year old's). I would hate to be an 18 year old trying to get work in this climate - it must be virtually impossible.

 

I think, all round, the job market has changed drastically. 10 years ago, only notifying the successful candidate would have been seen as incredibly rude - today it seems to be the norm. Also, try asking for feedback on an interview! Doesn't happen, to the extent that I've given up asking.

 

I think what Layla is experiencing is less to do with discrimination and more to do with the fact that it's a 'buyers' market, so to speak. I shudder to think how many applications I've put in that haven't been acknowledged. That's just how it is now. That being said, if it is discrimination and is proven to be so, I hope they get the book thrown at them. I just don't think it's going to be as easy to prove as sending in two C.V's to see which one gets a response, especially if it's a large employer who is likely to have hundreds of applications. It could be as simple as the first C.V has been filed in the bin, unread, while the second made it into the 'lucky' pile.

[dannysport]

last year in work we has 100jobs to fill

and over 8500 people send in cv's and less then 400 was asked to come in for the test's and only 100 went on to training

[LaughingGirl]

Perfect case in point, really. I find it really hard to believe anyone actually read 8,500 C.V's, unless you have a HR department the size of Belarus.

[citizenB]

layla, I noticed you had raised this issue in another thread a while ago. Whilst it may possibly be different companies, I think it is all to do with the same emotive issue. Your threads have therefore been merged.

[Purpleflowers 2]

i signed up with manpower, they have managed to get me a job at RBS call centre, we have 4 weeks of training, with 1hr for lunch (i asked the manager at manpower before i got the job)............me and others have had our 1st week of training and have been told that we must take two 30mins lunches of 2 days next week (instead of the usual 1hr lunch) - no explanantion as to why has been given.

 

they have told us that we can finish at 4pm next friday as a result

 

question - can they do this or not (asking us to take 30 mins lunch on 2 days and then send us home 1hr early on friday)

 

also manpower have told us we have to give 2 weeks notice if we want a holiday - this is impossible if anyone gets a letter for any job interview outside of manpower- these are not sent 2 weeks early, so where do we stand?

 

we are on temp contracts so can get sacked anytime, this does not stop us from applying for permament jobs elsewhere, if we get a interview that is within say next week - how can we get time off to attend the interview - as manpower wont give us time off, if we book a holiday within 14 days - they need 14 days notice

 

we are all temp workers employed by manpower and working at rbs

Edited February 18, 2012 by Purpleflowers 2

[my-spirit-soars-free]

The company can ask you to change your lunch break. Whether you have to agree depends on your contract - and, for a temporary worker, whether you want to keep the job.

 

As for the interview question - that sort of stupid policy is guaranteed to cause 24 hour tummy bugs, at least, it has at my previous places of employment. In fact, I have even been asked when the interview was when I handed in my notice, so the employer concerned obviously knew it was an issue.

[theghost]

You do not have any power here, they can let you go at any time. So you will have to play by their rules.

 

If you want to interview elsewhere you will have to pus hit back 2 weeks or get time off.....

 

If the 1 hour lunch is something you MUST have then just quit and work elsewhere.

[Batfink]

Do you still fill in timesheets and send them to Manpower, or is this done automatically by the client? (I worked in recruitment back in the Dark Ages and have experienced both, particularly with larger clients).

 

If you are still submitting your own timesheets, just make sure they reflect the times you actually worked. That way, you're pretty much assured (SNAFUs excepted) to be paid the right amount. I'm sure Manpower don't care that you're working half an hour for lunch and finishing earlier on the Friday - all they care about is that you turn up, do what you're being paid for, and that the client pays them.