Basically told too old for a job

Hi

I applied for a job on jobs.ie and I received a call from a uk number today. I called the gentleman back and he advised me it was in connection with my application.

The job was in shopping centres selling/promoting cosmetics and hair care products. I work part time at the moment and have over the years kept my hand in promotions or exhibitions when they come up here and there. However this would have been more long term and maybe something I would have given up my part time role for - who knows?

Anyway after Ali introduced himself and explained why he had called he asked me how old I am and I answered truthfully 46!! I was surprised he asked and immediately I could hear the hesitation in his voice. He had asked also where I lived in relation to Liffey Valley and we figured 30 minutes! He then went on to say that he didnt have a problem with my age HOWEVER his boss wanted to employ people under 30. I tell you now - my heart sank first of all and then I flipped. I told him he was out of order legally and he had no right. He tried to get out of it saying they liked people to live 20 minutes from the workplace but I told him he was backtracking and if I was under thirty with all the right attributes and abilities he would not refuse me for living an extra ten minutes away.! He then said that the reason they wanted under 30s was because of long days worked!!! Did you ever???? I mean a lot of forty somethings are far fitter than twenty somethings - who is he to make that decision.? I look fine for 46 and in fact I am lucky that I do look younger - it was a case when I was in my twenties I always needed to carry id because I looked young even then which was a pain. But I have to say I felt 100 years old today after the conversation with this man!!!

Their loss. Don't let it get you down.

You could make a case (if you have evidence) and haul them before an equality tribunal, but to what end? (especially if it's a UK company)

Yes I am trying to view it that way indeed! I did call jobs.ie and spoke with their account manager to make a complaint and I have also sent an email to the company itself in their Contact section of the website. They seem to have an Irish branch of the company and no I wouldnt be taking it as far as a tribunal but I do want to give them a fright! The seem to have a concession for stand in quite a few Debenham here in Ireland, so I informed them this evening in my email that I would be contacting Debenhams to make them aware of this company's policies on age!! Might get them thinking!

You want to give them a 'fright' only. This is a great country for sacred cows. Either take them to the cleaners or back off.

Personally, I'd take them to the cleaners . . . Wonder how long Ali will last in the job.

Well you seem to have caught this company red-handed engaging in ageism. Is age a valid reason for denying someone a job? Not in my view. Apart from assuming that older people cannot perform as well ( a completely inaccurate assumption, and probably contrary to most people's experience) it is a rights issue. I would take em to a tribunal on it. The more people who do that, the less it's likely to happen. Altho it's probably true that some employers do use age as a criteria whilst not admitting to it.

As it happens I was in both Woodies, the local garden centre and B&Q during the week. All three employ older people, and without fail I find them the most helpful, knowledgeable, informative and obliging. I also heard a report a few years ago, that on average older people perform better, take less sick leave etc than their younger counterparts. If there was a case for ageism it should really be the other way round!.

Your problem will be proving this point. Did you record the call or did they state that they record them ? I would do as you have already and make their customers aware of their policy. Do you really want to work for a company as shabby as ringing you up and making such a basic mistake ?

It's not quite as black and white in my opinion.

For example, if a Club 30 type holiday outfit wants representitives.. can they require younger poeple? I'd suggest that they can, and then it's a requirement that applicants are under 30. This is a requirement of the job, not discrimination.

The same applies to mature models... if you want to sell your clothes aimed at the 50+ market, then you need appropriate models.. i.e 50+. Is it age discrimination to list that as a requirement?


The same pplies to 'larger' clothes sizes... clearly you need larger models. Is this discrimination?


It could be a requirement of the promotional job that promoters are young, for whatever reason. Perhaps they're promoting a young persons product. This isn't cut and dried discrimination in my view.


I'm sorry OP for being a devils advocate.. I did feel very sad when you relayed the story, and I understood your frustration and dissapointment when you said that your heart sank. I think you just have to keep your head up and it is the companys loss.. you'll be alright in the end.

Do other people still think that ageism is always an offence, for all types of jobs,.. including childrens schoolwear for example? Clearly adults can't do that job, and that's not ageism.

There are 9 grounds on which discrimination is unlawful, age being one of these.

Maybe contact the Equality Authority to see if you have a case

JoeBallantin said:

Do other people still think that ageism is always an offence, for all types of jobs,.. including childrens schoolwear for example? Clearly adults can't do that job, and that's not ageism.

Click to expand...

Under the Equality Act 2004, an employer may set a minimum age, not exceeding 18 years, for recruitment to a post.

Thank you for all your responses. I found out that they do have an Irish branch - I checked solocheck.ie and they formed an Irish branch end of last year. I was on to the Equality Authority and they have urged me to call the tribunal and fill out a complaint form. Incidentally I did tell Ali that often older people are found to be more reliable but he just stayed silent. Regarding proof, no Im afraid I dont have any proof of the conversation. My two boys were in the car with me at the time and heard my responses only. However, it is my word against his and with all the support I have gotten from people like yourselves, I will take it a step further.

And Woodies and places like that are fantastic for seeing the person and not the age. And another shop I have seen this in is Supervalu and it is a pleasure to see. Thanks again guys for all your support and please continue with your comments I really appreciate it.

JoeB and Boaber, some great points there. And the law seems clear enough, and the OP was talking about a job selling hair products and cosmetics, not a job that requires an age limit imo. Sometimes these silly rules need to be challenged. I don't think the OP or anyone here is into a fight for the sake of it, or being unreasonable or anything. But the company's position as jamieb describes it is denying her the right to compte with others and earn a living based on a spurious and wrong view of age.

If we said that all male hairdressers had to have hair the silliness of the case is obvious by analogy. Hair and age aren't relevant to ability or capacity in either case.

BTW I agree JobB that some discrimination might be reasonable in certain cases, but at least this should be made clear at the outset, and the rationle behind it open to challenge and capable of rational explanation.

A few months back on a telephone interview, I was asked not only how old I was I but if I was married as well

needless to say the call came to a very abrupt end.

I know I'm going to get shot down very quickly for this, but I think companies are perfectly entitled to select whoever they want and whatever age groups they choose.

At the end of the day, the business is the one paying the wage and they should be able to hire anyone they want. If they want to hire only 20 yo's with pink hairspikes, fine it's their business and their money.

As for the claim that the company are denying her the right to earn a living... well that's just rubbish. Just because the job exists doesn't mean anyone has a right to it.

Well Thunder 99 - My skills are perfect for this role - absolutely perfect. Infact I did some demonstrations of a similar range of this cosmetic last year!! So without them even seeing me or discussing my abilities which are perfectly matched to the role they have decided I'm too old. So rather than me having a right to the job -I certainly have a right to be considered. A very able skilled forty something as opposed to an under thirty something who isnt equipped with the correct skills. So yes I would love to shoot you down, bad comment!!!!

thunder99 said:

I know I'm going to get shot down very quickly for this, but I think companies are perfectly entitled to select whoever they want and whatever age groups they choose.

Click to expand...

Afraid that Thunder99 is right. (Actually you are both right). I sympathise with you as I have been in your position (jamieb) many times and this the way it is.

We are very ageist in Ireland which is wrong. But on the other side,
If for example, a college wants to sell college places to a certain demographic (age bracket/student) at an education fair then the employer would need people on the stand at the education fair that potential students could relate to. (He may have a different desk for adult/ return to education courses.)

Is is ageist, yes, unfair yes seems so, but is it really? So its life, the guy is trying to do his job, you would probably do the same in the same position, if you can come up with a better reason for him to hire you that makes sense, then great.

Years ago (30) , a business owner in Dublin said to me, to sell in Cork you need a Cork man and he was not being biased against Dublin or the rest of Ireland.

It important not to DWELL on it or get depressed by it, its not personal or biased (most of the time) so just keep going. (look forward, not back)

I appreciate what you're saying Monagt, if this job is about selling cosmetics then is it about looking the part? I have looked after myself and as cosmetics is about the face a lot of the time - I have looked after my skin and therefore being a sales person I know how to overcome objections and very quickly so to speak. And if I am selling cosmetics I can use my age to my advantage BECAUSE I have looked after myself (not buying expensive items - I certainly cannot afford them) but just having a routine from a YOUNG age. I myself commented on the lovely complexion of a sales assistant selling a product back in February. She told me she used the product but used to have bad eczema until she used this product!!! These are situations that arise when you are selling stuff and one needs to learn to use them in a positive way. So yes I have years of experience of overcoming objections. The job is effectively a sales job selling make up, I have done it (last year) I can do it but I have been denied the right of AN INTERVIEW based on my age! Anyway, I rang the Department store today and advised them and they were horrified and the equality authority weren't too impressed either, so I have in my hand a complaint form that I shall fill out and send away. I am looking forward.

thunder99 said:

I know I'm going to get shot down very quickly for this, but I think companies are perfectly entitled to select whoever they want and whatever age groups they choose.

At the end of the day, the business is the one paying the wage and they should be able to hire anyone they want. If they want to hire only 20 yo's with pink hairspikes, fine it's their business and their money.

As for the claim that the company are denying her the right to earn a living... well that's just rubbish. Just because the job exists doesn't mean anyone has a right to it.

Click to expand...

Yer right,you will get shot down, and rightly so. We live in a fair society and business's cannot choose who they want without fair practice. Your comment would justify racsim,homophobia, and any other type of discrimination that you care to mention. Imagine a reverse scenario using your logic: The gov.t decides that as they are the majority purchaser of goods and services in the state, they can demand business's charge what the gov't decides is fair, and pick any supplier they like. The screams of injustice from IBEC would raise the roof.

No one said that just because a job exists anyone has a right to it. The point is, that it's unfair to disciminate using criteria that have no bearing on the applicants ability to do the job. No one has the right to it, but everyone has equality of opportunity based on fair assessments.

Fairness is at the heart of democratic society, and it cuts everyway. Your arguments dont stand up just because they miss this point.

horusd,

"Your comment would justify racsim,homophobia, and any other type of discrimination that you care to mention."
This a tad dramatic but you are correct. Unfortunately we live in an unfair world.

We discriminate all over the place, age of voting, age for applying for jobs, religious schools, gender based schools, age of retirement in some occupations, religion of police, minority education places when it suits, perhaps this is GOOD discrimination - but it depends on your position.

B&Q hire senior workers to assist DIY customers for their trade experience and how they relate to their major customers, do they discriminate in their selection process, I wonder?

If they want a person for stores/heavy lifting, do they hire a Senior? Probably not.

Probably they screen & shortlist for the job, position, duties required, etc.

It does not make them a discriminatory employer, just practical.

Monagt, discrimination requires fair grounds. I haven't any problem with discrimination in insurance for instance. If discrimination is rational then it will stand up to scrutiny.

Voting age is based on the reasonable assumption of adulthood. Is it always correct? No. But we attempt to make it fair, and that's the point in an equal, fair society. We are attempting to level the playing field. Some discrimination is contenious,ie positive discimination on race grounds etc. I'm not sure I agree with it.

I dont hold with gender or religious based schools. In an egalitarian society there
should be minimum values that apply regardless, and to all. So Church's shouldn't be allowed to opt out of equality legislation at all when they are employers.

Discimination on the grounds of age in the OP's case is arbitary and unjust, it cannot stand up to challenge. It has no bearing on ability.

Those who oppose equality (not saying you're one) say that equality isn't practical. I would like to see anyone defend this argument in the OP 's cited case.

horusd, can't argue with you but life ain't fair. I think the OP should let it go and move on with a positive attitude.
Best of luck, OP.

Life ain't fair, but JamieB has been handed a golden opportunity to sue on grounds of ageism. Opportunity knocks! Go for it. Nothing like seeing men in expensive dark suits cringing at the pay-out. Furthermore, an ageist company rep like Ali can get the boot too.

Can I have a ringside seat?