Completion of Equal Ops Forms

[Multi-meter]

Eveing Members

 

As we all know these days Job Application Forms come with an Equal Ops Form, to be completed & returned with application. This, again as we already know, is so the company can tick government required forms to say

“Yes we have received applicants from a range of Ethnic backgrounds” and so the Government can release statistical figures to the public showing this information.

We all read the text stating (and this is by no means an accurate quote);

“This form will be dethatched and not submitted as part of your application process, only kept for our records”.

 

A conversation I overheard was discussing this subject:

“……. If an Equal Ops Form is not part of the application process and potential interviewees are picked only by their experience & qualifications shown, should the Equal Ops Form be returned at the same time? Why not request an interviewee to bring the completed form at the time of interview? This way the selection criteria are purely by application only.”

 

There were pros and cons discussed about returning the form and points of note were:-

Is it a Government Law requirement?

Would companies be told off for not recieving these?

Would applicants be told off for not returning these?

 

but no overall conclusion was reached.

 

I admit in the past I’ve sometimes wondered if I needed to return the form at the same time & would I get “told off” by the company for not doing so?

 

What are Blue Room members’ thoughts:-

Would you / Do you return the form or leave until invited for an interview?

 

 

 

Yours

 

Ollie

[ChrisD]

Just to clarify, these forms shouldn't just cover Ethnic backgrounds, it should also cover Gender, Sexual Orientation, Disability, Age and Religion.

 

I have been told by a company before that they were hesitant to put me on certain jobs because I 'look too young'. As many people in the industry are freelance, a company's equal ops policy can easily be ignored. It's a free market and providing a company never explicitly states they don't like employing gay people for instance, they can probably get away with it (especially if they only have a small number of employees/freelancers anyway).

 

I try to avoid these forms but if they're required of me I tend to be evasive in my answers, specifying 'Rather Not Say' wherever possible.

 

Just my 2p

[Cooper]

Just to clarify, these forms shouldn't just cover Ethnic backgrounds, it should also cover Gender, Sexual Orientation, Disability, Age and Religion.

 

I have been told be many sources not to include this sort of information in my c.v. to prevent potential discrimination, but I have wondered if some companies would use the information in there selection process.

[pisquee]

I have heard that it can be in your interest in filling in these forms if you are in one of the groups seen as a minority in the above catergories, especially for larger organizations, as some use positive discrimination to make sure they've employed enough people of certain types to tick the right amount of boxes.

[Dmills]

Our local council is more then a bit fond of these silly things, and has one that always feels like it is about 4 pages long.

I always answer the race question with : Human, and make up nonsense answers for the rest, never been called on it yet.

 

Far as I am concerned it isn't any of their dammed business which way I swing.

 

Regards, Dan.

[Grum]

I have heard that it can be in your interest in filling in these forms if you are in one of the groups seen as a minority in the above catergories, especially for larger organizations, as some use positive discrimination to make sure they've employed enough people of certain types to tick the right amount of boxes.

 

I'm sorry but that's rubbish.

 

When I was 24 I lost my left leg above the knee and after I got out of hospital and started looking for work I traveled all over the country applying for jobs that were well below my experience level (prior to the accident I was earning £30k and the jobs I was applying for were advertised as "experience preferred but not essential" and paid around £8k) yet I was repeatedly told that "the standard of applicants was extraordinarily high" or that they "did not feel I had suitable experience". I'm not suggesting that I'm amazing at my job but prior to my accident I'd only been unsuccessful at two job interviews, post accident I got turned down over 30 times.

 

The only stage where positive discrimination exists is at the interviews where most employers state that all disabled/minority applicants are guaranteed and interview, which in my experience means dragging you half way across the country with no real intention of giving you a job.

[pstewart]

Where I work, the HR department open all the applications, and forward the application forms (without the EO form) on to the selection panel. I don't know what they'd do if your application didn't have the form with it - posibly straight in the reject pile? (They've changed since I was last involved in a recruitment, and all forms are done online now anyway, so the computer probably won't let you submit with out it).

 

I find the whole process a bit daft - application forms that don't ask first name (to avoid revealing gender), then applicant puts their full email address (john.smith@...) so it shows anyway. Also date of birth isn't on the form, but date qualifications are done is....

 

Philip

[Bryson]

Just do whatever the instructions say to. Ability to follow basic instructions is a skill people look for, and is rarer than you think.

[cfmonk]

Correct to what Bryson said! My mother was involved in the "Career Change" programme at Planet 24 (a TV company) which did a big recruitment campaign based on "If you have never worked in television then apply". She said that 50% of people were rejected because they did not include the prerequisite SAE...

[oli]

I have heard that it can be in your interest in filling in these forms if you are in one of the groups seen as a minority in the above catergories, especially for larger organizations, as some use positive discrimination to make sure they've employed enough people of certain types to tick the right amount of boxes.

 

Is there really such a thing as "positive discrimination"?

 

Surely if I went for a job against a transsexual, Asian, 50 yr old (not that I have an issue with any of those) who had the same amount of qualifications and experience as myself and I performed more favorably in the interview and the job was given to the other person then they are discriminating against me...the only difference is I don't have any legal grounds to pursue, I am only young but I believe that the best person gets the job and whether your gay, straight or like animals has nothing to do with it!

 

So surely there can not be "positive discrimination"?

 

On a side note if I was in a "minority" I would hope that I got a job on my own merits and not because someone higher up the food chain thinks the company doesnt have enough of these "minority's".

[MrBoomal]

Well that is positive discrimination. You are better qualified and perform better in the interview. But they pick the

other candidate because they tick the right boxes.

 

Its insidious, and horrible.

 

And you cannot do anything about it.

[pisquee]

Yup, that was supposed to be my point, I certainly wasn't saying that I agree with the practise of "positive discrimination" but it happens, and it may work in your interests to declare who you are if you know that the company/organisation you are applying to use such practises. Although it may work against you, if they don't or they have enough of your demograph - maybe you should apply for jobs more than once with different equal ops forms.

[JimWebber]

I was under the impression that "Positive Discrimination" was illegal.

 

"Positive Action" on the other hand isn't - Specifically encouraging applicants from a minority group is an example of Positive Action

 

However, how do you prove Positive Discrimination???????????????

 

JIm

[charl.ie]

The term "positive discrimination" has always annoyed me. It doesn't matter who you're discriminating against, be it the middle aged white straight middle-class man, or the transsexual Asian young woman, it's still discrimination. But because it's discriminating against a majority, it's apparently suddenly alright and you can call it positive discrimination. Clearly, it's just discrimination :P