Stating "number of years experience" in job adverts
Discussion
So, I find out today that I can't specify a minimum number of years experience in job adverts (or job specs going to agencies).
Apparently, I might be discriminating against people who don't have the experience I need.
Madness.
I thought I was doing a good thing - saving everyone time and money.
Oh well, I'll just stick to the guidelines ... and then bin all the CVs that don't meet the criteria I've already set but am prevented from communicating.
Apparently, I might be discriminating against people who don't have the experience I need.
Madness.
I thought I was doing a good thing - saving everyone time and money.
Oh well, I'll just stick to the guidelines ... and then bin all the CVs that don't meet the criteria I've already set but am prevented from communicating.
I know several companies that combine the years of employees experience to quote a very misleading total.
For example two qualified electricians with 10 years experience each also employ and apprentice and newly a qualified electrician fresh from college - a very young company.
Company logo on vans etc with "over 20 years experience"
I think its akin to using generic photos of projects/installations on websites.
For example a local company has a photo of a large industrial boiler room on their website that is clearly not their work.
Thoughts on this? Am I being a pedant or is this misleading/dishonest?
For example two qualified electricians with 10 years experience each also employ and apprentice and newly a qualified electrician fresh from college - a very young company.
Company logo on vans etc with "over 20 years experience"
I think its akin to using generic photos of projects/installations on websites.
For example a local company has a photo of a large industrial boiler room on their website that is clearly not their work.
Thoughts on this? Am I being a pedant or is this misleading/dishonest?
astroarcadia said:
I know several companies that combine the years of employees experience to quote a very misleading total.
For example two qualified electricians with 10 years experience each also employ and apprentice and newly a qualified electrician fresh from college - a very young company.
Company logo on vans etc with "over 20 years experience"
Off topic but The company has the experience collectively so nowt wrong with that. The people with experience are probably responsible for the real work or overseeing/guiding the juniors, so the job is still done with the benefit of the experience regardless of who is on site with toolsFor example two qualified electricians with 10 years experience each also employ and apprentice and newly a qualified electrician fresh from college - a very young company.
Company logo on vans etc with "over 20 years experience"
Yes but if one of the experienced guys leaves the company, will they rebrand everything so as not to mislead, doubt it.
To answer the op, it's madness that even though you know the requirements for the job, you cannot state them. It's not fair on you or the applicants that won't meet your requirements. Who dreams this stuff up?
To answer the op, it's madness that even though you know the requirements for the job, you cannot state them. It's not fair on you or the applicants that won't meet your requirements. Who dreams this stuff up?
spikeyhead said:
Why can't you state years of experience on the ad?
I was directed to ...ACAS said:
2.indirect discrimination: can occur where there is a policy, practice or procedure which applies to all workers, but particularly disadvantages people of a particular age. For example, a requirement for job applicants to have worked in a particular industry for ten years may disadvantage younger people. Indirect discrimination can only be justified if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
When I look at the age bit of the Equality Act 2010, I'm not seeing anything so clear.I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has had experience of or advice on this.
Kiltie said:
When I look at the age bit of the Equality Act 2010, I'm not seeing anything so clear.
I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has had experience of or advice on this.
It won't be in the statute, but rather in case law that has interpreted the statute. You'll need an employment lawyer to give you the particular cases but I'd be surprised if ACAS have not got it right. I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has had experience of or advice on this.
It's not unduly perverse - I have known of people who have been doing the same job for twenty, even thirty years, and are absolutely terrible at it. Hiring on the basis of capability rather than experience is probably a good thing.
couple of points , leaving aside the arguments over the Equality Act
1. Just because you have working in a role / industry for N years it doesn;t mean you have N years experience , i'm sure we've all met people who seem to have 1 years experience N times over in a role .
2. it's lazy recruitment practice especially if you include it in your person spec and use it as a shortlisting criteria
as an example of it being 'lazy'
If you specified 5 years industry experience for a first line supervior / manager role whould you then bin the application from someone who has 5 years first line management experience in a different industry because they have only had 2 years experience in sector ? perhaps not if the appointing manager was screening the Applications but what if it's the dizzy bint in HR who has been told to shortlist by applying the Essential criteria in the person spec ?
it's also been used to deliberately exclude people from the candidate pool in some settings - although this is more common in volunteer roles (e.g. the old practice of requiring a number of periodic recertification of your First Aid and 'Home Nursing' before being put forward for ambulance crew or Ops Management training in the Voluntary Aid Societies- regardless of what you did in 'real life' (unless you were a 'real ambulance man' didn't matter if you were a Doctor (or Med Student), Nurse (or student) , Firefighter or other rescue person) or the amount of hours on duty you'd done... )
1. Just because you have working in a role / industry for N years it doesn;t mean you have N years experience , i'm sure we've all met people who seem to have 1 years experience N times over in a role .
2. it's lazy recruitment practice especially if you include it in your person spec and use it as a shortlisting criteria
as an example of it being 'lazy'
If you specified 5 years industry experience for a first line supervior / manager role whould you then bin the application from someone who has 5 years first line management experience in a different industry because they have only had 2 years experience in sector ? perhaps not if the appointing manager was screening the Applications but what if it's the dizzy bint in HR who has been told to shortlist by applying the Essential criteria in the person spec ?
it's also been used to deliberately exclude people from the candidate pool in some settings - although this is more common in volunteer roles (e.g. the old practice of requiring a number of periodic recertification of your First Aid and 'Home Nursing' before being put forward for ambulance crew or Ops Management training in the Voluntary Aid Societies- regardless of what you did in 'real life' (unless you were a 'real ambulance man' didn't matter if you were a Doctor (or Med Student), Nurse (or student) , Firefighter or other rescue person) or the amount of hours on duty you'd done... )
Edited by mph1977 on Monday 21st April 17:54
I don't want to do it to cut corners or be lazy.
Our business is providing a specialist engineering consultancy over a number of narrow yet related disciplines.
Previous experience in a very different engineering sector isn't good unless the individual is prepared to go to a graduate or junior type salary or day rate.
The reason is that our business essentially sells manhours. Our clients have to approve the people we propose and their related charge grades. Our clients look at the CVs we propose and their agreement or otherwise is based on length of the individual's relevant experience.
Our clients often look for ways of saving money and not agree to accept an individual on the proposed grade. The easiest way is for them to knock back based on years of experience. We then either have to swallow a reduction in margin (or a loss) or else find the engineer another project as well as finding a replacement which suits the client's criteria.
I need approximately twenty seven new starts over the next couple of months. There will be two or three job specs that can be duplicated but it'll be over twenty unique job specs.
In complying with the ACAS advice, I'm going to have to be vague on the job specs and, without doubt, waste some people's time.
On a side note. we don't have any "dizzy bints" in our organisation.
Our business is providing a specialist engineering consultancy over a number of narrow yet related disciplines.
Previous experience in a very different engineering sector isn't good unless the individual is prepared to go to a graduate or junior type salary or day rate.
The reason is that our business essentially sells manhours. Our clients have to approve the people we propose and their related charge grades. Our clients look at the CVs we propose and their agreement or otherwise is based on length of the individual's relevant experience.
Our clients often look for ways of saving money and not agree to accept an individual on the proposed grade. The easiest way is for them to knock back based on years of experience. We then either have to swallow a reduction in margin (or a loss) or else find the engineer another project as well as finding a replacement which suits the client's criteria.
I need approximately twenty seven new starts over the next couple of months. There will be two or three job specs that can be duplicated but it'll be over twenty unique job specs.
In complying with the ACAS advice, I'm going to have to be vague on the job specs and, without doubt, waste some people's time.
On a side note. we don't have any "dizzy bints" in our organisation.
Edited by Kiltie on Saturday 19th April 16:48
instead of stating how many years expereince the applicant should have, how about requiring that they have worked at a certain level?
In the restaurant industry, where some jobs require a few years experience, an ad would read
CDP wanted, must have worked at senior commis level in fine dining, ideally with Michelin experience.
At no point does this ad require a certain number or years, but anyone who had worked at that level would automatically have the required number of years.
HTH
In the restaurant industry, where some jobs require a few years experience, an ad would read
CDP wanted, must have worked at senior commis level in fine dining, ideally with Michelin experience.
At no point does this ad require a certain number or years, but anyone who had worked at that level would automatically have the required number of years.
HTH
As outlined in a number of posts above, asking for experienced hires in terms of years served is not the best route.
You face a common problem and that is not knowing exactly what you want by capability and anticipated outcome. Writing job and people specifications is a real, and time consuming, skill if you hope to attract exactly what it is you are looking for. Very few organisations in my experience put the necessary effort in to this and then are surprised by the end result; inappropriate applicants or making a poor hire.
Good luck!
You face a common problem and that is not knowing exactly what you want by capability and anticipated outcome. Writing job and people specifications is a real, and time consuming, skill if you hope to attract exactly what it is you are looking for. Very few organisations in my experience put the necessary effort in to this and then are surprised by the end result; inappropriate applicants or making a poor hire.
Good luck!
Kiltie said:
Apparently, I might be discriminating against people who don't have the experience I need.
The discrimination would be indirect against people based on their age because they are not old enough to have however many years of experience you are looking for.There is nothing stopping you asking for "extensive experience dealing with director-level customers on X types of projects".
Fotic said:
mondeoman said:
Dont put it in the ad, you're asking for all kinds of trouble down the line.
But, there is no reason for you not to use it when you are culling CVs...
True but I don't think there's any potential trouble down the line. But, there is no reason for you not to use it when you are culling CVs...
Eric, why bother using a recruitment agency? Stick the job on Indeed for free or get the guys on here to share it https://www.facebook.com/pages/Offshore-Jobs/11706... You can pretty much stick what you like on there. I'm presuming you are O&G 
Other posters have already nailed this.
You need to advertise the job in terms of the skills and comptencies the candidates need to have, NOT the number of years experience.
After all - I am sure there are people with 15 years experience of whatever, that you won't hire.
Suitable candidates for the role will have in depth expertise in ......
Might be better than "Must have ten years experience " Which could be seen as discriminatory, since it implies that it is the only or most important selection criteria.
I note again the automatic assumption by engineers that anyone in HR is dizzy, female and a bit useless.
This is why you have HR, you can't be trusted on your own not to f
k it up and land the company in court by being discriminatory.... 
You need to advertise the job in terms of the skills and comptencies the candidates need to have, NOT the number of years experience.
After all - I am sure there are people with 15 years experience of whatever, that you won't hire.
Suitable candidates for the role will have in depth expertise in ......
Might be better than "Must have ten years experience " Which could be seen as discriminatory, since it implies that it is the only or most important selection criteria.
I note again the automatic assumption by engineers that anyone in HR is dizzy, female and a bit useless.
This is why you have HR, you can't be trusted on your own not to f
k it up and land the company in court by being discriminatory.... Edited by Gargamel on Tuesday 22 April 16:18
Gargamel said:
<snip>
I note again the automatic assumption by engineers that anyone in HR is dizzy, female and a bit useless.
This is why you have HR, you can't be trusted on your own not to fk it up and land the company in court by being discriminatory....
it was me that made reference to ' the dizzy bint in HR' compiling the short list - my point wasn't more about who was doing the shortlisting - the fact that in may organisations the Appointing Manager won't see all the applications - if (s)he is lucky they'll seethe 'long list' and may just see the shortlist after it has been compiled by someone in HR - using the 'essential' criteria in the person spec ...I note again the automatic assumption by engineers that anyone in HR is dizzy, female and a bit useless.
This is why you have HR, you can't be trusted on your own not to f
k it up and land the company in court by being discriminatory.... Edited by Gargamel on Tuesday 22 April 16:18
Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff