Parents And Childcarers: Please Read

[Yuuna]

SBot please also read this on the Equality Act Guidance: https://www.gov.uk/equality-act-2010-guidance. If you look under the Age discrimination: exceptions section you can see whom is exempt. It reads: "There are no specific exceptions to the ban on age discrimination for health or social care services." I believe childcare is part of social care. If you click on the government response you can read the full document on the consultation on exceptions. Whilst it doesn't specify household workers that does not mean the law does not apply to those jobs. It is merely unspecifed.

I actually think the page is worth reading and I'm glad I looked.

[Saffron]

A-chan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Please stop focussing on me and what I say and

> what I don't say in an interview. This isn't a

> question and answer. This was my experience and

> what I learnt and how I am making others aware.

> Unfortunately, I now think people will focus on me

> and not my message due to certain comments.

When you post a comment on a public forum, you open yourself up for public debate.

Particularly, but not limited to the fact that you've made the post specifically about *your* experience:

> I am also making the point that part of the problem is my perceived age, due to my appearance, something I could not change if even I had ten years of experience.

[Saffron]

A lawyer's opinion is just that: an opinion. It does not define or codify the law.

[Saffron]

Forcing a private family to undertake interviews with private individual candidates to work in the home of that family with the private members of that family, when the family deems the candidate unsuitable according to their "occupation requirements" could be seen as in direct contravention of Article 8 on the European Convention on Humans Rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights

http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/the-human-rights-act/the-convention-rights/article-8-right-to-respect-for-private-and-family-life.html

This is in no way a personal comment on the OP's experience, which remains his/her own. This is a question of the interpretation of the legislation. Therefore there is nothing inherently abhorrent or oppositional in pursuing this line of enquiry. It is merely opening another avenue of critical reflection, albeit one that some people will find difficult to process. It nevertheless persists.

[Yuuna]

Saffron Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> A-chan Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > Please stop focussing on me and what I say and

> > what I don't say in an interview. This isn't a

> > question and answer. This was my experience and

> > what I learnt and how I am making others aware.

> > Unfortunately, I now think people will focus on

> me

> > and not my message due to certain comments.

>

> When you post a comment on a public forum, you

> open yourself up for public debate.

> Particularly, but not limited to the fact that

> you've made the post specifically about *your*

> experience:

>

> > I am also making the point that part of the

> problem is my perceived age, due to my appearance,

> something I could not change if even I had ten

> years of experience.

I'm not sure she opened herself up for public debate. That is so broad as practically to be a non statement. She mentioned her personal experience. She is not on trial here. 'Public forum' or not does not mean wishes cannot be respected. People use that flimsy explanation all too easily.

They have to prove the 'occupation requirements' are justified, as was written above if challenged. Your last paragraph makes little sense to me. I see no critical reflection, only deflection and noise. You've created a barrier that 'some people will find difficult to process.' It could be seen as you write however it's highly unlikely to stand up in court.

Obviously, we're going to go round and round on this one. You disagree, I get it. Your attempts to appear objective are just that, attempts. You already expressed "And personally I think families should be able to specify and hire whomever they want and the government (except for lawful collection of taxes) should stay the hell out of it." So you set out to prove that. That was your agenda: to prove A-chan wrong not give an alternative way at seeing it.

The post was about the Equality Act not the European Convention on Human Rights. Under the Rights to Receive Equal Treatment: http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/right-to-receive-equal-treatment/index.html it reads:

'The United Kingdom (UK) has specific legislation on equality that outlaws discrimination and provides a mechanism for individuals to lodge complaints with the courts when they experience unlawful discrimination.

The UK now has legislation prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of race, religion and belief, sex, sexual orientation and transgender status, disability and age.'

Under Exceptions it is written:

'A second exemption which applies to recruitment and dismissal is that an employer can refuse to employ you where possessing a characteristic which is related to age is a genuine and determining occupational requirement and it is proportionate to apply the requirement in your particular case. If you do not meet the requirement or the employer reasonably does not believe that you satisfy the requirement then the employer is not obliged to employ you and the employer may dismiss you if you are already employed. However, these genuine occupational requirements are exceptionally rare and if your employer suggests that he can rely on one of these you should immediately seek legal advice.'

Whilst I agree that's about as clear as mud (what is the characteristic related to age and does ut apply to all ages?), it does show employers would have to prove the supposed 'occupational requirement' were indeed genuine and not simply discriminatory. Only wanting older and more 'experienced' applicants doesn't seem like a genuine occupational requirement. That's just discrimination.

There are many laws I don't like however, the Equality Act isn't one of them. The lawyer has an opinion, as do you. Unlike you, I believe the lawyer knows the law better so I think their opinion counts for more.

The main focus of the original post was about the interview/recruitment process which is also covered under the law not just once you are employed. I think it is important people know that.

[buggie]

Find the nature of the posts from A-Chan and Yuuna very chippy - have you both been slighted by *everyone* on this forum previously?!

It's very nice that as her former employer (looking at your past posts) Yuuna, your defending A-Chan, but your both disliking that others are debating what you are writing and - shock horror given it's a public forum -not completely agreeing with everything you are saying.

By making such long posts of what appear to be cut & pasted chunks of legislation, I think many of us have found difficult & pretty boring to plough through, more succinct posts talking of the problems you'd had/how unfair you've find the experience if trying to find a job with local families (I'm guessing, although in your first post I noticed the jobs you linked to weren't local) you might have found more response/discussion.

Instead, you've both been really defensive to the posters who have ploughed through & been kind enough to respond & try to help forward the debate adding more chunky posts & killing off further conversation.

I can empathise with you regarding age/experience being questioned - as a paediatric nurse I would sometimes have parents ask I had children myself (any that point I didn't), and deride my years of experience over the fact I hadn't at that point met "the one" and been able to start my much longed for family - I can guarantee that all of my colleagues were asked the same question by parents at one point or another.

It is unfair, it shouldn't happen, but your manner of posting is meaning the important issues are being lost on most of us.

[sunbob]

Thanks for saying so eloquently what I was thinking Buggie. People being cut off and told not to post different views feels very uncomfortable to me, in what, for me, is usually a warm, familiar and interesting place to chat and debate.

[standswithfist]

Thanks buggie for posting that. You wrote what i wanted to say but could not formulate the words!

[treehugger]

I agree with Buggie. This thread was making me feel very uncomfortable.

Just to add, the first and only nanny I hired was 23 when she first came to us; she was excellent and stayed with us for four years. I cried when she left.

[A-chan]

buggie Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Find the nature of the posts from A-Chan and Yuuna

> very chippy - have you both been slighted by

> *everyone* on this forum previously?!

>

> It's very nice that as her former employer

> (looking at your past posts) Yuuna, your defending

> A-Chan, but your both disliking that others are

> debating what you are writing and - shock horror

> given it's a public forum -not completely agreeing

> with everything you are saying.

>

> By making such long posts of what appear to be cut

> & pasted chunks of legislation, I think many of us

> have found difficult & pretty boring to plough

> through, more succinct posts talking of the

> problems you'd had/how unfair you've find the

> experience if trying to find a job with local

> families (I'm guessing, although in your first

> post I noticed the jobs you linked to weren't

> local) you might have found more

> response/discussion.

>

> Instead, you've both been really defensive to the

> posters who have ploughed through & been kind

> enough to respond & try to help forward the debate

> adding more chunky posts & killing off further

> conversation.

>

> I can empathise with you regarding age/experience

> being questioned - as a paediatric nurse I would

> sometimes have parents ask I had children myself

> (any that point I didn't), and deride my years of

> experience over the fact I hadn't at that point

> met "the one" and been able to start my much

> longed for family - I can guarantee that all of my

> colleagues were asked the same question by parents

> at one point or another.

>

> It is unfair, it shouldn't happen, but your manner

> of posting is meaning the important issues are

> being lost on most of us.

I want to first make it clear that the vast majority of what I wrote in my first post was my own writing. I copied very little. The links were to support my writing and to be a resource for anyone wishing to look into it. The adverts were merely examples, as I wrote. I think the discussion never really happened and it turned into a debate.

I don't often post on the forum, however I do read posts on it from time to time. I have seen how people get attacked on here. Everyone has not slighted me. I feel only one has, rightly or wrongly, so far. I felt offended if I am honest. Whilst it may not seem like much to you, please try to see that another can view it differently if it is directed at them.

I think you may not have got where I was coming from. Looking back on my posts, I can see where I could have responded differently. Am I alone? Yuuna may have hammered her points home but I have to agree to an extent on what she wrote about SBot. She called her out on what she wrote. After all, it is a public forum. I did try to see where Saffron was coming from. I just didn't agree. So I am in the wrong for doing so? Why is it me that's killed off the discussion? People often don't apply what they write the other way. I too, felt uncomfortable. Perhaps that was not clear? Maybe my writing was boring then too? I am not happy with the way this thread turned out. I am also not happy that people are not being balanced about how the thread did turn out. Some people are only willing to be open about the side they agree with and not the alternate view. It's funny because I posted this on another forum and the responses were quite varied. Perhaps because it is more diverse. I received responses about the length of my writing too. "tl;dr" to quote one. (Meaning too long; didn't read). I actually laughed. The person was joking. I mean I knew some people would be put off by the length. That's their decision. I wanted to be thorough for a reason. I believe that was clear. I also had countless people relating their discrimination stories and were glad to know about the law and even felt empowered to learn more. Of course there were parents who were unaware of some information and others who didn?t appreciate being told what to do.

Anyway, I read through my writing before I post it. I aim to be polite, respectful, balanced and clear. I don't always achieve that, but I try. I am also willing to admit when I am wrong.

[Saffron]

A-chan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Saffron, I in no way find SBot's comment 'legit'.

> If she read my post, she would have known the

> answer.

Well, that's your opinion of SBot's post, and that's fine. Other opinions will differ. However, Yunna's criticism of SBot's post might also have been seen as non-legit and in no way adding to the thread.

And, actually, the answer to SBot's question is NOT stated directly in your original post. SBot is not necessarily asking how YOU answered about YOUR specific age at a PRECISE interview, but how these questions are handled in general. So if you've changed your approach due to your personal understanding of the law, how has that affected your answers? Feel free not to answer. There's no obligation on this forum. What's the point in rubbishing other people's questions simply because one's own point of view differs, without offering any logical, rhetorical underpinning?

> Also, my previous posts being brought up

> did not add to the discussion. That was an attempt

> to deflect my message, forcing me to have to

> explain myself.

Well, again, that's your opinion of SBot's intent. But quite frankly, on a public forum I think everyone should have to explain themselves! I totally agree with SBot that the fact that you have removed so many of your previous posts indeed limits your credibility. On public forums such as this, individual posters are anonymised by the veil of social media. Therefore, your credibility on serious topics is frequently judged by your reputation to post in a logical, rhetorically meticulous, and open fashion.

>

> I did not think it is simply 'my' interpretation

> of the law. I have spoken to lawyers who agree

> that parents are not exempt from the law; the

> Equality Act applies to all jobs unless it a job

> like I wrote above (police, military, government,

> club etc.) otherwise employers would have to

> justify the discrimination. I doubt they could -

> that is my interpretation.

Well, of course some lawyers agree with you. That's their job. And other lawyers will disagree. That's how litigation works. And in this scenario, as stated previously, the burden of proof rests with the claimant. The defendant would not have to justify his/her choice, merely he/she would have to define "occupational requirement" in such a way as to include age.

Incidentally, those profession which you mention as excluded from equality legislation are NOT excluded entirely. They are only excluded by the minimum age, and are subject internally to the same scrutiny. For example, although you must be of a minimum age to serve alcohol in a pub/club, once hired two individual of differing ages but with the same occupational skills must be treated equally.

> Some people seem to have taken what I wrote in a

> way I had not imagined. I'm not sure 'critical

> analysis' was necessary if you wanted to read my

> message and not read into me as a person. I

> thought you were nitpicking. My point was not to

> start a discussion (that's not to write I wasn't

> open to it) but to inform people and cause them to

> see things differently. I originally thought

> ageism only really happened to older people.

>

> Please stop focussing on me and what I say and

> what I don't say in an interview. This isn't a

> question and answer. This was my experience and

> what I learnt and how I am making others aware.

> Unfortunately, I now think people will focus on me

> and not my message due to certain comments.

That is the discourse to which you open yourself by posting about yourself on a public forum.

You say your point was to inform people, and to cause them to see things differently. Well, that is also what I have done. It just happens that my point of view is different, and is supported by a different piece of legislation as I stated previously. The law is not black and white on this topic.

[Saffron]

-------------------------------------------------------

> I based my

> view on what I was told by some older interviewers

> and what they wrote to me. I did not look at them,

> see they were older and decide they would not hire

> a younger person. Perhaps you didn't read ''it's

> not a 22 year old's job''? (I am not 22, though I

> am told I look younger than that). I also

> mentioned older employers that did hire me... It

> seems you think the discrimination was acceptable.

> Thank you for your support. I do not think it is

> simply 'confusing age with experience', some

> people do have an age in mind there is little to

> confuse in that.

I'd like to revisit this, but take the personal angle out of it. I think it's fair to say that we can discuss attitudes without discussing individuals.

The attitude that older interviews will prefer older applicants is most definitely a sweeping generalisation,

I believe that the discrimination I have experienced is based partly on the age of the interviewers. I do realise that many mothers of very young children are in their thirties nowadays.

Indeed the very definition of a prejudice is that which is a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.

So it appears the prejudice can run either way. Potential employees have opinions about the effect of potential employers' ages on their attitudes towards others and vice versa. Is that not because a private individual/family, inviting another private individual into their own home is a very personal process on both accounts? This is an important point to consider, in relevance to the overall understanding of the actions between private individuals within a family setting.

In which case, let us look at age from another perspective, and return to the question of "not a 22 year old's job", leaving aside the fact that some individuals may confuse age with experience. Let's explore the reasons why a family might specify a particular age (or any other 'cohort' characteristic) for an applicant.

Keeping age as the main example for simplicity, age confers a necessary and exclusive membership to the cohort of age-related peers, whose experience of the zeitgeist of their time relative to age will have shaped their life experience and their perceptions of the world around them.

Now, if a nanny can be understood by many common definitions as having the role of a stand-in parent, or as an adjunct mother/father within a family, then some families may wish to employ an individual of a similar age-related cohort to improve cohesion within the family unit. Thus the occupational requirement is defined by age.

Interestingly, this definition of age-related occupational requirement can also be flipped on its head. Families may seek nannies older or younger than the parents in order to provide complementary points of view within the family dynamic.

Defining the age-related occupational requirement in this fashion thus gives to each family the potential to define whatever cohort-relevant occupational requirements that family sees as necessary and appropriate to its functioning when seeking to employ an individual with those occupational attributes, as being both necessary and sufficient to the functioning of the nanny within the family dynamic.