[Sparklechick]

Interesting ...

I put through a job advertisement to our job advert placing people and they came back to say they needed to change what was written due to the Human Rights Act.

I had put "needs to have at least 10 years experience".

Apparently this is breaking the Human Rights laws.

It now says "we would like someone who ideally has 10 years experience".

How crazy ....

[kall]

They sound like tossers.

From the HRC:

"Discrimination is only unlawful when it occurs in one of the prohibited grounds and in one of the prohibited areas of public life."

Areas of public life

* access to public places, vehicles and facilities
* education
* employment
* industrial and professional associations, qualifying bodies and vocational training bodies
* partnerships
* provision of goods and services
* land, housing and accommodation

So yes, it is in the Employment area, but it also has to be in one of the prohibited grounds, which are:

* age (from age 16 years)
* colour
* disability
* employment status (unemployed or a recipient of benefit/compensation)
* ethical belief (lack of religious belief)
* ethnic or national origins (includes nationality and citizenship)
* family status (having dependants, not having dependants, being in a marriage or a relationship in the nature of a marriage with a particular person or being a relative of a particular person)
* marital status (single, married, separated, a party to a marriage now dissolved, widowed, living in a relationship in the nature of marriage)
* political opinion (including having no political opinion)
* race
* religious belief
* sex (includes childbirth and pregnancy)
* sexual orientation (heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, bisexual)

Now, I'm no fancy big city HR consultant *gasp*, but as far as I can see, you aren't saying 'must not be unemployed', but rather 'must have 10 years experience in this role'.

Lack of experience is NOT one of the Prohibited Grounds.

[Sparklechick]

Apparently we could be fined $10,000 if we put the experience discrimination in.

I'm guessing that the people we use would know because that's what they're experts in.

Sometimes you HAVE to discriminate. For instance, we're not allowed to say "we cannot have physically disabled people applying" because that would discriminate against physcially disabled peple but we'd never hired a physically disabled person because how on earth would they be able to climb up cellsite towers?

[kall]

That comes under exemptions.

"General
Unreasonable to provide service
Risk of harm"

So, if the person is at risk of harming themself or others because of a job requirement, then it is okay to discriminate against their disability.

Amusingly, one that applies in almost all cases is "Shared residential accommodation", so it is okay to advertise for 'flatmate wanted, must have both legs, not be a smelly foreigner, not an unemployed bum, and is not a Right-wing political follower.'

[LostinChina]

Originally Posted by Sparklechick

Apparently we could be fined $10,000 if we put the experience discrimination in.

..."experience discrimination", now that's a new term...

...but isn't experience a critical component of the hiring process? a company has to be able to get people with the necessary experience to do the job... otherwise, it would just be bogged down in training costs and the like...

[Sparklechick]

Yeah, I thought it was weird.

I mean, we're not going to interview anyone with less than 10 years experience so why can't we put that?

[LostinChina]

... or you can just put in

" needs to have at least 10 years experience * "

and then
" * HRA Exempted #some bogus number# " in fine print

hehehe - just kidding