Employers might not be able to advertise "graduate" jobs

[lazystudent]

More PC nonsense or something that's been crying out to happen for ages?
Link here

The Telegraph said:

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said an older employee was indirectly discriminated against on the grounds of age when he was denied access to a new top salary band at work, because he did not have a law degree.

The judgment ruled that Terence Homer, an ex-police officer who worked as an adviser on the Policy National Legal Database, was at a disadvantage in comparison with younger workers because he did not have time to complete a law degree before his retirement date, meaning he could never achieve the promotion.

Employment lawyers said the ruling would have wide implications for private sector workers and how companies went about recruiting and promoting staff in future.

"Employers will have to be cautious approach to requiring job applicants to have a degree, or failing to promote employees without a degree," said Chris Wellham, employment lawyer at Hogan Lovells law firm.

"It will question whether high levels of experience is an acceptable substitute to having a degree," Mr Wellham said.

Many employers advertise jobs for candidates with degrees, with some industries, such as engineering, manufacturing and law, requiring degrees as a minimum. It is often harder for older workers with comparable experience to compete for jobs as a result.

The Homer case could revolutionise job adverts by outlawing the terms "graduate" or "degree-qualified", in much the same way that "enthusiastic" and "energetic" are words that are rarely used by employers for fear of being accused of looking for only younger staff.

Since 2006, age discrimination rules have prevented employers from specifying the number of years' experience required for roles because it could discriminate against younger workers.

The Homer judgment was made alongside the long-awaited Seldon case at the Supreme Court on Wednesday, which ruled it would be possible for employers to justify forced retirement of older workers so long as they could prove it was in the "public interest".

[lazystudent]

This reminds me of the ruling that says that women can't pay less for car insurance "because its discrimination against men"-ffs, its a simple fact that, on average, young men crash more and cause more damage. Grr.

[lazystudent]

CBR JGWRR said:

Not that a degree is worth anything these days...

Disagree with you there fella!

If you went back 30 years and got a degree, it would be worth a lot.

Fast forward 30 years, those same degree courses from the same universities are still worth the same, and those graduates will have much the same reaction upon presenting the same piece of paper. There is now also a lot of "froth" surrounding them that isn't worth as much. Unfortunately, the government over the last 10years seems to have adopted a target driven "let's throw money at it and get everyone to go to university for the sake of it" approach without thinking about the consequences!

IMHO

[lazystudent]

Dr Jekyll said:

martin84 said:

I believe theres laws against unqualified doctors in this country.

Not really. Unqualified vets yes. But you can set up as a medical expert and treat people without being a qualified MD.

EG
Homeopaths
Chiropracters
Gillian Mckeith

They're not doctors though are they! I suspect if you look closely, most of them will be selling "placebo" or "unproven" remedies or treatments. I know for a fact that the only thing that an osteopath can legally advertise a cure is for lower back pain. Everything else is 'unproven' and relies on people's sterotypes, misinformation etc. Clever marketing

Obviously people like Gillian McKeith are successful, but I'd argue that that's because of their entrepeneurial and marketing skills rather than being any sort of health expert...