TFL age and other discrimination?

[becon-t]

Whilst looking for an FOI request came across this. It does seem to prove from their own data?
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/last_full_time_train_operator_ca#outgoing-727969

 

[TheEdge]

I don't understand what this person is asking or expecting.

The closest I can seem to get is that they are working on the basis that every person applying for a job has a statistically equal chance to get that job. Mathematically and taken it total isolation I guess that should be the case but in reality takes no account for the actual real life abilities of each candidate.

 

[becon-t]

Well they are saying that the 16-30 age group that made up 35% of the ages applied got 53% of the jobs, and that if you applied later in the campaign you had a much lower chance of being successful, I think the differences they are highlighting do seem to be significant.

 

[GingerRH]

Well they are saying that the 16-30 age group that made up 35% of the ages applied got 53% of the jobs, and that if you applied later in the campaign you had a much lower chance of being successful, I think the differences they are highlighting do seem to be significant.

Whoever this J Peeter person is, sounds like they are just butt hurt they didn’t get a position and are looking for a way to jusitfy why they were unsuccessful.

There are many reasons why younger generations are more successful at interview and assessment level.

One being that education has improved significantly in the past 10-15 years and assessments are in place to only recruit the best applicants who score above a benchmark. The reason for this is that if they don’t show signs they are able to work to a certain level, there is a strong chance they won’t be able to cope with the training and assessments further down the path.

It’s proven that younger minds are better at taking up new information and learning new skills whereas the older minds are slower to learn new skills. This coupled with improving education standards leads to there being a significant gap in the knowledge level between the older and the younger generations.

 

[ComUtoR]

Well they are saying that the 16-30 age group that made up 35% of the ages applied got 53% of the jobs, and that if you applied later in the campaign you had a much lower chance of being successful, I think the differences they are highlighting do seem to be significant.

Significant yes but it doesn't prove or show any form of discrimination. If anything it shows the opposite.

The age range 16-20 can be instantly discounted. There is no chance of success. 3.4% of candidates didn't supply any age data.

The other age brackets show an interesting but explainable trend. It's interesting to see if the peak for applicants are are similar for all TOCs.

J Peeter looks to have misinterpreted the data provided.

 

[becon-t]

Whoever this J Peeter person is, sounds like they are just butt hurt they didn’t get a position and are looking for a way to jusitfy why they were unsuccessful.

There are many reasons why younger generations are more successful at interview and assessment level.

One being that education has improved significantly in the past 10-15 years and assessments are in place to only recruit the best applicants who score above a benchmark. The reason for this is that if they don’t show signs they are able to work to a certain level, there is a strong chance they won’t be able to cope with the training and assessments further down the path.

It’s proven that younger minds are better at taking up new information and learning new skills whereas the older minds are slower to learn new skills. This coupled with improving education standards leads to there being a significant gap in the knowledge level between the older and the younger generations.

Please you can't be serious. Younger people better educated and educational standards have improved over the last 15 years! What utter rubbish.

 

[GingerRH]

Please you can't be serious. Younger people better educated and educational standards have improved over the last 15 years! What utter rubbish.

You’re entitled to an opinion as am I.

Assuming you don’t work on the railway and are of the older generation trying to get in?

Are you this J Peeter guy?

 

[baz962]

You’re entitled to an opinion as am I.

Assuming you don’t work on the railway and are of the older generation trying to get in?

Are you this J Peeter guy?

Seperate to all the opinions on here I took my psychometrics at age 47, and while I do not know my exact score's I was reliably informed by the opc, that I am in fact in the top 2%, and am now a trainee driver.

 

[GingerRH]

Seperate to all the opinions on here I took my psychometrics at age 47, and while I do not know my exact score's I was reliably informed by the opc, that I am in fact in the top 2%, and am now a trainee driver.

Well done for getting a position

I’m not saying there’s no one over the age of 30 that can’t pass the test

 

[becon-t]

You’re entitled to an opinion as am I.

Assuming you don’t work on the railway and are of the older generation trying to get in?

Are you this J Peeter guy?

No lol. Yes I am older but already work in the industry and I'm perfectly happy with my current role, but I've had a suspicion that they choose younger people for certain roles which this FOI seems to collaborate. The whole older people aren't as good at tests etc doesn't hold water with me.

 

[baz962]

Well done for getting a position

I’m not saying there’s no one over the age of 30 that can’t pass the test

Of course not, just my input, although I do not dispute any data, as I don't know any, I have never found test's or indeed learning hard at all, not when I was young, and upto now, not as an oldie.

 

[GingerRH]

No lol. Yes I am older but already work in the industry and I'm perfectly happy with my current role, but I've had a suspicion that they choose younger people for certain roles which this FOI seems to collaborate. The whole older people aren't as good at tests etc doesn't hold water with me.

Well, business thinking, I would support the suggestion it’s not worth it money wise for training as you wouldn’t get long out of the person for the money invested in them. However, you’re not allowed to do that as it would be unfair and discriminate against older people. Older people do apply for roles and are still successful in applications.

What is your current role?

 

[baz962]

Well, business thinking, I would support the suggestion it’s not worth it money wise for training as you wouldn’t get long out of the person for the money invested in them. However, you’re not allowed to do that as it would be unfair and discriminate against older people. Older people do apply for roles and are still successful in applications.

What is your current role?

I have heard that, toc's do not think in that way. They are happy if they can get the length of the franchise out of you, so do not require 30,40 or 50 year's, not withstanding that some young driver's just jump ship anyway.

 

[GingerRH]

I have heard that, toc's do not think in that way. They are happy if they can get the length of the franchise out of you, so do not require 30,40 or 50 year's, not withstanding that some young driver's just jump ship anyway.

Very true that. Money hungry drivers not young drivers

 

[ComUtoR]

but I've had a suspicion that they choose younger people for certain roles which this FOI seems to collaborate.

How does the data support that ?

 

[Llanigraham]

You’re entitled to an opinion as am I.

Assuming you don’t work on the railway and are of the older generation trying to get in?

Are you this J Peeter guy?

Not sure where you are trying to head with this, but I joined the railway as a signaller at 55+, and there are many people of the same age doing the same thing.

 

[MostlyHarmless]

Of course not, just my input, although I do not dispute any data, as I don't know any, I have never found test's or indeed learning hard at all, not when I was young, and upto now, not as an oldie.

Same here actually... The thing with learning something new is that if you're really interested in something then you absorb the information much quicker and retain it for longer. I can remember tons of useless historical facts but absolutely nothing about quadratic equations!

 

[baz962]

Same here actually... The thing with learning something new is that if you're really interested in something then you absorb the information much quicker and retain it for longer. I can remember tons of useless historical facts but absolutely nothing about quadratic equations!

Aha , the old quadratic equations, never heard of them till now. I agree with the sentiment entirely, and it is just repeating info that learns. We all do it, such as driving to work, or a relatives, we do it without thinking.

 

[6Gman]

Whilst looking for an FOI request came across this. It does seem to prove from their own data?
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/last_full_time_train_operator_ca#outgoing-727969

Not sure the data proves anything. It suggests an apparent anomaly but doesn't of itself prove anything. Without knowing the sample sizes or the "job requirements" involved in the selection process it's unwise to draw any conclusions.

 

[Emmsie]

It could also be that interviews have changed in the last few years and younger people are more au fait with the current techniques. I'm not sure how much interviews have changed in the railway industry but you just need to look at a lot of job adverts to see the days of showing up, looking presentable and stringing 3 words together are gone although my interview with Southern was much more old school with very little competency based questions. Thank god I didn't get the 'if you were a biscuit what biscuit would you be' one that seems to be quite common in some industries.

 

[mmh]

This sort of data is routinely collected and analysed for other protected characteristics e.g. sex, disability, race, sexuality. Why is it wrong to comment on it when it concerns age?

 

[6Gman]

This sort of data is routinely collected and analysed for other protected characteristics e.g. sex, disability, race, sexuality. Why is it wrong to comment on it when it concerns age?

Nothing wrong in commenting on it. But the guy pursuing the matter seems to be alleging impropriety.

 

[MrPIC]

Correlation does not imply causation.
That is all.

 

[deltic]

It could also be that interviews have changed in the last few years and younger people are more au fait with the current techniques. I'm not sure how much interviews have changed in the railway industry but you just need to look at a lot of job adverts to see the days of showing up, looking presentable and stringing 3 words together are gone although my interview with Southern was much more old school with very little competency based questions. Thank god I didn't get the 'if you were a biscuit what biscuit would you be' one that seems to be quite common in some industries.

My answer would be to raise my eyebrows and ask what do you want to be when you grow up!

The Ex-Chairman of Co-op bank who appeared to know nothing about banking and was fired for drug taking was the best performing at the job interview because it was a competency based interview which didn't actually cover the technical skills required.

 

[mmh]

Correlation does not imply causation.
That is all.

Absolutely it doesn't, but unfortunately trying to remove prejudices from recruitment is very difficult.

I'm very much on the fence when it comes to some approaches. As an example, I used to interview people for a public sector body, no longer due to an initiative to increase the diversity of interviewers from the predictable middle aged white man.

Perhaps laudable, a candidate can see I'm a middle aged white man, but they can't see I'm also disabled and homosexual. It's a really awkward area, and I sometimes veer towards thinking the only way to truly be fair is to make the whole process anonymous. How on earth you could, I've no idea though

 

[RJ]

Thank god I didn't get the 'if you were a biscuit what biscuit would you be' one that seems to be quite common in some industries.

Why, out of interest? There's a way to answer those questions. Once you understand why they're asked and what they're trying to achieve, it becomes easy to handle them. Those that don't prepare filter themselves out of the competition!

 

[6Gman]

Correlation does not imply causation.
That is all.

That's the phrase I was searching for!

 

[MostlyHarmless]

Absolutely it doesn't, but unfortunately trying to remove prejudices from recruitment is very difficult.

I'm very much on the fence when it comes to some approaches. As an example, I used to interview people for a public sector body, no longer due to an initiative to increase the diversity of interviewers from the predictable middle aged white man.

Perhaps laudable, a candidate can see I'm a middle aged white man, but they can't see I'm also disabled and homosexual. It's a really awkward area, and I sometimes veer towards thinking the only way to truly be fair is to make the whole process anonymous. How on earth you could, I've no idea though

I agree - add in the whole area of unconscious bias and you can see why it is almost impossible to make interviews completely prejudice free. Its humans dealing with other humans after all

 

[185]

Seen an interesting one this morning. An external candidate was refused on their sick record, which was asked about at interview. The candidate can substantiate the sickness being caused entirely by their disability. As the candidate declared the disability the employer has done a swift U-turn and created an additional position.

 

[RussellFM]

Seen an interesting one this morning. An external candidate was refused on their sick record, which was asked about at interview. The candidate can substantiate the sickness being caused entirely by their disability. As the candidate declared the disability the employer has done a swift U-turn and created an additional position.

Is there a certain number of positions that need to be provided for individuals with disabilities?