Arborist vacancy

[Steve Bullman]

1 hour ago, Joe Newton said:

I imagine the replies in this thread is a reason a lot of people don't bother posting any more. 

Perhaps I should turn off relies in the employment section again 

[daltontrees]

I could cope with that, but then, I'm one of those fools who thinks an arborist forum should be about... emmm ... arboristing, arborising... emm...

I can't be doing with people who's only raison d'etre seems to be starting arguments.

 

Anyway, back to the facts. The Equality Act says that

"(1) A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others.

(2) If the protected characteristic is age, A does not discriminate against B if A can show A's treatment of B to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim."

In tree work, the legitimate aim is surely to get the tree down and away quickly and safely. Actually not a lot of scope in there for taking on someone marginally faster. Experience and attitude trump youthfulness most of the time.

I don't see how it is OK to discriminate in favour of a young employee if there are candidates out there who can work as hard and smart as youngsters. Which in my experience is not very hard at all. Nor can I see anyone in this business applying for a job, losing out to a younger person and then actually reporting alleged discrimination to the police.

Personally I might have a slight bias towards not employing young people. I will turn myself in the next time I am passing the cop shop.

[Joe Newton]

41 minutes ago, daltontrees said:

I could cope with that, but then, I'm one of those fools who thinks an arborist forum should be about... emmm ... arboristing, arborising... emm...

I can't be doing with people who's only raison d'etre seems to be starting arguments.

 

Anyway, back to the facts. The Equality Act says that

"(1) A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others.

(2) If the protected characteristic is age, A does not discriminate against B if A can show A's treatment of B to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim."

In tree work, the legitimate aim is surely to get the tree down and away quickly and safely. Actually not a lot of scope in there for taking on someone marginally faster. Experience and attitude trump youthfulness most of the time.

I don't see how it is OK to discriminate in favour of a young employee if there are candidates out there who can work as hard and smart as youngsters. Which in my experience is not very hard at all. Nor can I see anyone in this business applying for a job, losing out to a younger person and then actually reporting alleged discrimination to the police.

Personally I might have a slight bias towards not employing young people. I will turn myself in the next time I am passing the cop shop.

Another potential reason for wanting to employ someone younger could be that they're perceived to be cheaper. Not saying this is necessarily the case for the OP.

[Mick Dempsey]

1 hour ago, Steve Bullman said:

Perhaps I should turn off relies in the employment section again 

Would make sense.

I try to adhere to the rule whereby if you’re not applying or have a relevant question then don’t comment.

I did break it recently when an employer put up a derisory wage so I cracked and joined in.

[daltontrees]

4 hours ago, Joe Newton said:

Another potential reason for wanting to employ someone younger could be that they're perceived to be cheaper. Not saying this is necessarily the case for the OP.

Fair point. But why are they cheaper? Less useful? No hungry mouths and mortgages to feed that are setting the earnings requirement?

[Mick Dempsey]

17 minutes ago, daltontrees said:

Fair point. But why are they cheaper? Less useful? No hungry mouths and mortgages to feed that are setting the earnings requirement?

 Well, yes.

[Conor Wright]

2 minutes ago, Mick Dempsey said:

 Well, yes.

Or no? An older applicant may have their mortgage paid and kids could be grown up and be paying their own way in life?

[Mick Dempsey]

4 minutes ago, Conor Wright said:

Or no? An older applicant may have their mortgage paid and kids could be grown up and be paying their own way in life?

Are you talking about an older applicant (45 plus) with no experience in the industry?

[Joe Newton]

52 minutes ago, daltontrees said:

Fair point. But why are they cheaper? Less useful? No hungry mouths and mortgages to feed that are setting the earnings requirement?

Or simply because often a younger person with fewer financial commitments will work for less?

[daltontrees]

15 hours ago, Joe Newton said:

Or simply because often a younger person with fewer financial commitments will work for less?

Would make more sense then to state the offered pay and let applicants decide?