6 ms·

Don't specify X years of experience required - You're breaking the law

55 points by Peroni 14y ago

wuest 14y ago
A good portfolio can be created well before one goes into--let alone graduates--college. I understand the graphic design industry to be largely portfolio-driven, and it continues to confuse me that the IT industry isn't the same way.
- Peroni 14y ago
  Things are starting to shift. More and more employers are looking to see code repo's prior to even looking at your CV in detail. On our blog we do a series of interviews called Hacker Jobs Meets... where we pose ten questions to CTO's, Tech Directors and start up founders across the UK and almost all place a significant amount of emphasis on the importance of having visible code prior to an interview.
  - walshemj 14y ago
    Which in the UK would belong to your employer in most cases any major piece of work is 95% likely to have been done at work. You need to talk to a HR professional and understand how the master and servants act (as amended ) apply and who owns what. Startups could be opening up them selves to legal attack by competitors if they are found to be looking at a competitors code.
    - Peroni 14y ago
      I'm starting to wonder if you're actually being serious. The vast majority of employers (at least the better ones) like to review developers github/bitbucket repo's in advance. Everything in there is open-source. Your master and servants act has literally zero relevance to my point.
      - walshemj 14y ago
        Yes I am being deadly serious In the UK if its at all related to your work - your employer owns your work if its at all "related" even if you do it outside work on your own equipment. This is direct from a very senior hr/ir Guy (our GC at the time) when we where discussing the implications of this for a colleague who had come up with some advanced algos for improving big iron systems - IBM used to get him in to consult for them as he was a Mainframe rockstar And you don't know much about UK and US employment laws as most of it descends from the original M&S act as both countrys share the same roots for their legal systems.
edent 14y ago
...And yet two of the adverts on the front page specify years of experience. "5-7 years of development experience in a working environment" http://hackerjobs.co.uk/jobs/2013/3/25/the-amazings-lead-rails-engineer http://hackerjobs.co.uk/jobs/2013/3/25/the-amazings-lead-rai... "a PHP Developer, with at least 2 years commercial experience." http://hackerjobs.co.uk/jobs/2013/3/25/dxi-limited-php-developer-position http://hackerjobs.co.uk/jobs/2013/3/25/dxi-limited-php-devel... FWIW, I agree with the legislation. I want someone with a track record of success - not a set number of years grinding away.
- Peroni 14y ago
  You're absolutely right. We don't tell employers how to word their adverts but we do try and provide guidance. The majority of roles on our site (and pretty much every other IT job board in the UK) have that stipulation somewhere in the job spec.
- devopstom 14y ago
  Instead of asking for 2 years of commercial experience, it'd be better to ask for demonstrable proof of experience with the kinds of situations you'd find after 2 years of working commercially. Knowing how to rebase in git would spring to mind as a useful skill. Or knowing how to run a code review session. It's an entirely valid point. I know some devs who are 10 years younger than me, and far better in terms of their rails skills.
jiggy2011 14y ago
The article doesn't cite the particular statute that is believed to make this unlawful. I didn't have time to read the entire equality act, but based on the linked FAQ this was the closest I could find. "Indirect discrimination occurs where the employer applies a provision, criterion or practice - such as imposing a requirement for a minimum number of years' experience for a particular job - that places persons of the claimant's age group at a disadvantage, is to the claimant's disadvantage and is not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. For example, it may be indirect discrimination against a young person to impose a requirement for employees to have held a driving licence for 10 years. The employer would be able to justify this only if it could show objectively that it was a genuine requirement of the job and not based on stereotypes of what makes a "reliable" and "safe" driver." So in other words it doesn't look like it is unlawful to ask for X years of experience as long as it is a "genuine requirement of the job". I don't think that would be too difficult to argue, if you are hiring somebody to be the lead developer of your critical java application, you don't want somebody who's only experience with Java is reading a Java 101 book over the weekend.
- Peroni 14y ago
  So in other words it doesn't look like it is unlawful to ask for X years of experience as long as it is a "genuine requirement of the job". That's correct. The issue is that it is incredibly difficult to justify legally and the UK employment law courts side primarily with the employee. There are plenty of examples of cases where potential employees have claimed indirect discrimination due to their age. I'll dig out some examples and update later.
- hmottestad 14y ago
  How about: - Ability to lead a group of experienced java developers Unless you can prove that X year is a lot better than X/2 or X/4 years and someone with X/2 years couldn't possibly do the job. And if you want to wean out those that only read Java 101. Simply state that you require "work experience with java", or "leadership experience with java developers" or "java certification".
  - jiggy2011 14y ago
shanelja 14y ago
A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if A applies to B a provision, criterion or practice which is discriminatory in relation to a relevant protected characteristic of B’s. [1] I don't think that this is actually illegal, it is only indirect discrimination if it is based on a certain subset of criteria, of which the following list makes up: age - disability - gender reassignment - marriage and civil partnership - pregnancy and maternity - race - religion or belief - sex - sexual orientation And while you may consider age to be valid criteria, it isn't discriminating directly or indirectly against age, only against the amount of experience someone has in a particular field - the person could be 60 and only have started their career the year before. Personally, I think that the law is left up to interpretation, but in practice, if someone tried to use this law in court against this practice, I doubt there would be a positive outcome. [1] http://www.employmentlawsolutionsuk.com/Employment%20Law%20A-Z/Equality%20Act%202010.php http://www.employmentlawsolutionsuk.com/Employment%20Law%20A...
- Peroni 14y ago
  it isn't discriminating directly or indirectly against age... That's just it, it clearly discriminates against junior applicants who may have only a year or two of professional experience as a direct result of their age.
  - shanelja 14y ago
    But unfortunately it's for a "good" [1] reason, most companies use recruitment agencies to find their employees, and most recruitment agencies are about as technically capable as my nan. They don't know how to judge the capabilities of an applicant, that is the real issue here, if recruiters were able to competently tell the difference between someone who was capable of doing the job, but had no proven track record, and someone with a proven and documented history in that position, then this wouldn't even be a requirement. Rather than using legislation to attack the companies, it's about time someone started a decent technology literate recruitment agency. [1] In their eyes
    - Peroni 14y ago
rgbrenner 14y ago
This is probably different in the UK... but here in the US, it most definitely is not illegal. "The reality is, it isn't an attempt to discriminate against the young, which in most cases is perfectly legal, as you are only in a protected class after you turn 40." [0] [0] http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162-44942857/are-years-of-experience-requirements-fair-to-younger-workers/ http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162-44942857/are-years-of...
bcrecworks 14y ago
Interesting post Steve. Do you know of any examples in which charges have been bought against people doing this? As you say: "The majority of roles on our site (and pretty much every other IT job board in the UK) have that stipulation somewhere in the job spec." I'd certainly be interested to read more about any cases in this area if you know of any.
- Peroni 14y ago
  The ACAS report makes good reading. I'll dig out some case examples. http://www.acas.org.uk/media/pdf/i/1/Age-and-the-Workplace-a-guide-accessible-version-July-2011.pdf http://www.acas.org.uk/media/pdf/i/1/Age-and-the-Workplace-a... Excerpt: Avoid references, however oblique, to age in both the job description and the person specification. For example, avoid asking for ‘so many years’ experience. This may rule out younger people who have the skills required but have not had the opportunity to demonstrate them over an extended period. A jobseeker could challenge any time requirement and you may have to justify it in objective terms.
arethuza 14y ago
Ironically, job adverts for lawyers often specify PQE (Post-Qualified Experience) - I think this is less to do with actual legal requirements for certain roles [although there are some things where this is true] and more to do with the very strong "up or out" culture that exists in many law firms. http://www.ten-percent.co.uk/what-does-pqe-stand-for-and-how-important-is-it-to-law-firms http://www.ten-percent.co.uk/what-does-pqe-stand-for-and-how...
michaelochurch 14y ago
I'm pretty sure that, in the U.S., this is unambiguously legal. Perhaps mandating 30 years of experience with Java would qualify as age discrimination, but you almost never see that (at any rate, Java's only 18 years old). In fact, in the U.S., it's legal (but never done) to specify ranges on educational matriculation. A company could "back-door age discriminate" by setting a policy of "must be no more than 5 years out of school". When one attended school is a legal question, although age is not. The major effect of it is to discourage people who take HR requirements seriously, who haven't figured out that "5 years experience" means "intermediate competence" and can be achieved in 1 really good year, or not achieved in an endless number of mediocre years. I've been analyzing the MacLeod hierarchy (Losers, Clueless, Sociopaths) over the past month: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/gervais-principle-questioned-macleods-hierarchy-the-technocrat-and-vc-startups/ http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/gervais-princ... MacLeod Sociopaths aren't actually bad people. I'm a MacLeod Sociopath and don't think I'm a real sociopath. They're a mix of chaotic-good rebellious rulebreakers, chaotic-neutral people who enjoy problem solving for its own thrill (and will be very helpful and altruistic if given appropriate challenges challenges, and destructive if let to rot), lawful- and neutral-evil liars, cheats, and psychopaths. (Chaotic evil is severely socially dysfunctional and not much of a presence.) MacLeod Sociopaths break rules and often live on the margins, and will either rise fast or get fired. There are "good Sociopaths", but even for the good kind, most companies would prefer to hire only a few. These HR walls favor the MacLeod Sociopaths who have no qualms about applying to a job requiring 5 years of experience when they have 6 very good months. It's not that "rules were meant to be broken" (that's false and insane). It's that rigid rules keep so many people out that the only people breaking through are the ones who disregard rules or find back doors. Of course, there are good rule-breakers out there, but you have to be careful with even them. The same problem exists around reference checks. For executive hires, larger and risk-averse companies require 10-20 references. At ten references, you're selecting for sociopaths. Only a colossal fuckup can't get 2-3 good references, but most people don't have 10 glowing ones. Ten glowing references is a sure sign that someone not only coached, but quite possibly extorted, a few people. It's not a guarantee that you'll get a bad person, but you will get a rule-breaker if your HR wall is that impenetrable.
- EvilLook 14y ago
gambiting 14y ago
Funny how UK has laws against "age discrimination" yet nothing stops stupid insurance companies from slapping car insurance premiums 10x as big as normal for people under 25, even if they never had an accident and have multiple categories. It's one of those things which infuriate me the most about living in the UK.
- Sulfolobus 14y ago
  I was helping a friend move, unfortunately couldn't get insurance on the rental car without a huge excess due to being narrowly under 25. She had no issues. I've had a licence and been accident-free for 7 years longer... I had to physically grab the steering wheel 4 times in the 500 mile journey to prevent us crashing.
  - pflats 14y ago
    Statistically, someone in her age category is significantly less likely to require the insurance than someone in yours. Car rental shops don't want to do big background checks on every single customer every day, so their economic incentive is to have an easy over-under. It seems like you two are outliers. That's what the insurance is for.
    - gambiting 14y ago
      No, I wholeheartedly disagree. There's nothing wrong with being over or under 25 - it's the UK insurance system that is broken. I come from a country where you buy insurance per car,not per person. So you buy a single insurance which is determined by the age and power of the car, and anyone with a valid licence can drive it. The amount you are insured against is the same as in the UK, so why is it that if I wanted to insure myself on a 1.2 Corsa I would have to pay above 2000 pounds/year, a car which I could get fully comp+assistance for myself in my country for 300 quid per year? If I wanted to get insurance just for myself(not shared) on my dad's 4.4L V8 Land Rover, I would pay 800 quid for full comp. In the UK insuring the same car would cost me in excess of 6 thousand pounds. I have had my driver's licence for 4 years and never had an accident, driven probably more than 150k+ miles now yet my insurance is an order of magnitude higher because some idiots want to street race without insurance? Talk about fairness.
jsvaughan 14y ago
This is absolute nonsense. You cannot infer someone's age from their years of experience (unless you are stipulating a figure which is a material fraction of a lifespan, say 20+, which never happens) * I have 5 years of java experience. How old am I? (55 - I have spent most of my life as a c dev but have done some java over the recent years) * I have 16 years of java experience. How old am I? (34 - I graduated in 97 and have been working in it since) I don't understand the whining. Are you upset that someone wouldn't look at you for a job because you haven't got X years of experience? Have you considered that actually experience is valuable to a company, and why do you think they would be interested in training you and being the proving ground for all the mistakes you'll make as you learn?
- alanctgardner2 14y ago
  It sets a minimum level; if you require 10 years of UNIX experience, you're saying you don't want anyone in their twenties (unless faffing about in Linux as a pre-teen counts as work experience). In your Java example I would be screwed, even if I knew Java inside and out, because I'm only 21. I know it's hard to imagine, with the '30 is fossilized' viewpoint many people have around here, but a lot of companies want to pay young people less money, and so give them less 'senior' positions. There is value in hiring the right person for a position, regardless of age. At my current employer we have some very experienced, knowledgeable staff in their late 40's and 50's. We also have knowledgeable staff who are in their 20's. In my observation they tend to have different strengths, but both bring a lot of value, and it would be foolish to say that the 50-year old deserves more money for having been around longer ( and yes, having a longer track record with the technologies in question ).
- fecak 14y ago
  In the two examples you gave, one could safely infer that you are at least 27 and 38 respectively, assuming you listed a degree. If a company wants only to hire young engineers, this is a way to discriminate. But I assume the 55 year old would probably include some prior experience on a résumé or application as well.
fecak 14y ago
Interesting post. I think the most important change that needs to happen is the rigid mindset of the gatekeepers (initial reviewers of applicants) that are often given very specific criteria relative to number of years and the key buzzwords to look for. I have had clients seeking 5 years of x who refused to speak to candidates with 4.5 years. These are companies that will never have good teams, because their basis for hiring is primarily based on time. I do see this trend changing a bit even in larger companies in the software world. Part of that may be due to the amount of tech choices available, and there are more candidates moving between languages more frequently than say 10 years ago when Java and .Net were the two big camps. Legality aside (in the US), experience in a role (leadership particularly) should have merit in hiring but number of years needs to be devalued in many cases.
largesse 14y ago
I'm finding myself more and more irritated with this sort of submission to Hacker News. It makes a bold assertion and does nothing whatsoever to back it up. Then, half the comments here attempt to do the digging needed to back the point and typically we find that the point is overstated or false. The most galling thing is the usually the tone of the original submission. It's all: "This is the way it is, kids! Run off and use this information because I'm giving you a scoop on the truth!" The worst thing is, I don't think there is anything we can do about it. It's just the way things have devolved.
- Peroni 14y ago
  It makes a bold assertion and does nothing whatsoever to back it up. I posted direct citation in the original post. ACAS is an official organisation assigned to preventing and resolving employment disputes in the UK. Their take on the matter: Avoid references, however oblique, to age in both the job description and the person specification. For example, avoid asking for ‘so many years’ experience. This may rule out younger people who have the skills required but have not had the opportunity to demonstrate them over an extended period. A jobseeker could challenge any time requirement and you may have to justify it in objective terms.
- polymatter 14y ago
  I'd agree with you, were it not explicit that this is UK employment law here. And is probably a UK-only issue. ACAS (crudely speaking, the body responsible for UK employment law) have explicitly said so. "Avoid references, however oblique, to age in both the job description and the person specification. For example, avoid asking for ‘so many years’ experience. This may rule out younger people who have the skills required but have not had the opportunity to demonstrate them over an extended period. A jobseeker could challenge any time requirement and you may have to justify it in objective terms." (stolen from Peroni at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5442441 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5442441)
  - eli 14y ago
    "should avoid" is a bit of a leap from "you're breaking the law." There are lots of things you should avoid doing when hiring, but few of them are -- on their own -- illegal.
marksg 14y ago
This is simply wrong in the context of UK law. A requirement for experience only becomes indirect discrimination on grounds of age if the level of experience required is unreasonable in the context of the job. http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/advice-and-guidance/your-rights/age/what-is-age-discrimination/ http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/advice-and-guidance/your-... gives a good set of examples of what does and does not constitute age discrimination.
Nodex 14y ago
This has been law since 2007 and is not new news
- Peroni 14y ago
  Yet every single day hundreds of UK companies flout the law.
josephlord 14y ago
I think that the issue is less clear cut than the OP says even in the UK BUT you do need to think carefully about the requirement AND the impact. Asking for 10 years experience you would need a VERY good reason why that was necessary for the role. Asking for a year or two probably would be unlikely to cause issues especially if the experience could be gained outside of employment (e.g. open source or personal projects). I think you would be at very high risk of problems if you specified something like: "PhD or Masters and 3 year commercial experience or Undergraduate degree and 4 years commercial experience" as you would be basically saying you want someone over 25. On the other hand there might be issues if you specified recent graduates for a Graduate Training scheme as it may be seen to discriminate against older people.
anupj 14y ago
IANAL, and I maybe wrong here, but if you follow the logic in the article, any job advert requesting c++ only experience is discriminating against java developers(or puts them at a disadvantage), and is therefore illegal (?!?), which doesn't make sense.
- anupj 14y ago
  IANAL => I am not a lawyer

55 points by Peroni 14y ago

wuest 14y ago

A good portfolio can be created well before one goes into--let alone graduates--college. I understand the graphic design industry to be largely portfolio-driven, and it continues to confuse me that the IT industry isn't the same way.

Peroni 14y ago
Things are starting to shift. More and more employers are looking to see code repo's prior to even looking at your CV in detail. On our blog we do a series of interviews called Hacker Jobs Meets... where we pose ten questions to CTO's, Tech Directors and start up founders across the UK and almost all place a significant amount of emphasis on the importance of having visible code prior to an interview.
- walshemj 14y ago
  Which in the UK would belong to your employer in most cases any major piece of work is 95% likely to have been done at work. You need to talk to a HR professional and understand how the master and servants act (as amended ) apply and who owns what. Startups could be opening up them selves to legal attack by competitors if they are found to be looking at a competitors code.
  - Peroni 14y ago
    I'm starting to wonder if you're actually being serious. The vast majority of employers (at least the better ones) like to review developers github/bitbucket repo's in advance. Everything in there is open-source. Your master and servants act has literally zero relevance to my point.
    - walshemj 14y ago
      Yes I am being deadly serious In the UK if its at all related to your work - your employer owns your work if its at all "related" even if you do it outside work on your own equipment. This is direct from a very senior hr/ir Guy (our GC at the time) when we where discussing the implications of this for a colleague who had come up with some advanced algos for improving big iron systems - IBM used to get him in to consult for them as he was a Mainframe rockstar And you don't know much about UK and US employment laws as most of it descends from the original M&S act as both countrys share the same roots for their legal systems.

edent 14y ago

...And yet two of the adverts on the front page specify years of experience. "5-7 years of development experience in a working environment" http://hackerjobs.co.uk/jobs/2013/3/25/the-amazings-lead-rails-engineer http://hackerjobs.co.uk/jobs/2013/3/25/the-amazings-lead-rai... "a PHP Developer, with at least 2 years commercial experience." http://hackerjobs.co.uk/jobs/2013/3/25/dxi-limited-php-developer-position http://hackerjobs.co.uk/jobs/2013/3/25/dxi-limited-php-devel... FWIW, I agree with the legislation. I want someone with a track record of success - not a set number of years grinding away.

Peroni 14y ago
You're absolutely right. We don't tell employers how to word their adverts but we do try and provide guidance. The majority of roles on our site (and pretty much every other IT job board in the UK) have that stipulation somewhere in the job spec.
devopstom 14y ago
Instead of asking for 2 years of commercial experience, it'd be better to ask for demonstrable proof of experience with the kinds of situations you'd find after 2 years of working commercially. Knowing how to rebase in git would spring to mind as a useful skill. Or knowing how to run a code review session. It's an entirely valid point. I know some devs who are 10 years younger than me, and far better in terms of their rails skills.

jiggy2011 14y ago

The article doesn't cite the particular statute that is believed to make this unlawful. I didn't have time to read the entire equality act, but based on the linked FAQ this was the closest I could find. "Indirect discrimination occurs where the employer applies a provision, criterion or practice - such as imposing a requirement for a minimum number of years' experience for a particular job - that places persons of the claimant's age group at a disadvantage, is to the claimant's disadvantage and is not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. For example, it may be indirect discrimination against a young person to impose a requirement for employees to have held a driving licence for 10 years. The employer would be able to justify this only if it could show objectively that it was a genuine requirement of the job and not based on stereotypes of what makes a "reliable" and "safe" driver." So in other words it doesn't look like it is unlawful to ask for X years of experience as long as it is a "genuine requirement of the job". I don't think that would be too difficult to argue, if you are hiring somebody to be the lead developer of your critical java application, you don't want somebody who's only experience with Java is reading a Java 101 book over the weekend.

Peroni 14y ago
So in other words it doesn't look like it is unlawful to ask for X years of experience as long as it is a "genuine requirement of the job". That's correct. The issue is that it is incredibly difficult to justify legally and the UK employment law courts side primarily with the employee. There are plenty of examples of cases where potential employees have claimed indirect discrimination due to their age. I'll dig out some examples and update later.
hmottestad 14y ago
How about: - Ability to lead a group of experienced java developers Unless you can prove that X year is a lot better than X/2 or X/4 years and someone with X/2 years couldn't possibly do the job. And if you want to wean out those that only read Java 101. Simply state that you require "work experience with java", or "leadership experience with java developers" or "java certification".
- jiggy2011 14y ago

shanelja 14y ago

A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if A applies to B a provision, criterion or practice which is discriminatory in relation to a relevant protected characteristic of B’s. [1] I don't think that this is actually illegal, it is only indirect discrimination if it is based on a certain subset of criteria, of which the following list makes up: age - disability - gender reassignment - marriage and civil partnership - pregnancy and maternity - race - religion or belief - sex - sexual orientation And while you may consider age to be valid criteria, it isn't discriminating directly or indirectly against age, only against the amount of experience someone has in a particular field - the person could be 60 and only have started their career the year before. Personally, I think that the law is left up to interpretation, but in practice, if someone tried to use this law in court against this practice, I doubt there would be a positive outcome. [1] http://www.employmentlawsolutionsuk.com/Employment%20Law%20A-Z/Equality%20Act%202010.php http://www.employmentlawsolutionsuk.com/Employment%20Law%20A...

Peroni 14y ago
it isn't discriminating directly or indirectly against age... That's just it, it clearly discriminates against junior applicants who may have only a year or two of professional experience as a direct result of their age.
- shanelja 14y ago
  But unfortunately it's for a "good" [1] reason, most companies use recruitment agencies to find their employees, and most recruitment agencies are about as technically capable as my nan. They don't know how to judge the capabilities of an applicant, that is the real issue here, if recruiters were able to competently tell the difference between someone who was capable of doing the job, but had no proven track record, and someone with a proven and documented history in that position, then this wouldn't even be a requirement. Rather than using legislation to attack the companies, it's about time someone started a decent technology literate recruitment agency. [1] In their eyes
  - Peroni 14y ago

rgbrenner 14y ago

This is probably different in the UK... but here in the US, it most definitely is not illegal. "The reality is, it isn't an attempt to discriminate against the young, which in most cases is perfectly legal, as you are only in a protected class after you turn 40." [0] [0] http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162-44942857/are-years-of-experience-requirements-fair-to-younger-workers/ http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162-44942857/are-years-of...

bcrecworks 14y ago

Interesting post Steve. Do you know of any examples in which charges have been bought against people doing this? As you say: "The majority of roles on our site (and pretty much every other IT job board in the UK) have that stipulation somewhere in the job spec." I'd certainly be interested to read more about any cases in this area if you know of any.

Peroni 14y ago
The ACAS report makes good reading. I'll dig out some case examples. http://www.acas.org.uk/media/pdf/i/1/Age-and-the-Workplace-a-guide-accessible-version-July-2011.pdf http://www.acas.org.uk/media/pdf/i/1/Age-and-the-Workplace-a... Excerpt: Avoid references, however oblique, to age in both the job description and the person specification. For example, avoid asking for ‘so many years’ experience. This may rule out younger people who have the skills required but have not had the opportunity to demonstrate them over an extended period. A jobseeker could challenge any time requirement and you may have to justify it in objective terms.

arethuza 14y ago

Ironically, job adverts for lawyers often specify PQE (Post-Qualified Experience) - I think this is less to do with actual legal requirements for certain roles [although there are some things where this is true] and more to do with the very strong "up or out" culture that exists in many law firms. http://www.ten-percent.co.uk/what-does-pqe-stand-for-and-how-important-is-it-to-law-firms http://www.ten-percent.co.uk/what-does-pqe-stand-for-and-how...

michaelochurch 14y ago

I'm pretty sure that, in the U.S., this is unambiguously legal. Perhaps mandating 30 years of experience with Java would qualify as age discrimination, but you almost never see that (at any rate, Java's only 18 years old). In fact, in the U.S., it's legal (but never done) to specify ranges on educational matriculation. A company could "back-door age discriminate" by setting a policy of "must be no more than 5 years out of school". When one attended school is a legal question, although age is not. The major effect of it is to discourage people who take HR requirements seriously, who haven't figured out that "5 years experience" means "intermediate competence" and can be achieved in 1 really good year, or not achieved in an endless number of mediocre years. I've been analyzing the MacLeod hierarchy (Losers, Clueless, Sociopaths) over the past month: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/gervais-principle-questioned-macleods-hierarchy-the-technocrat-and-vc-startups/ http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/gervais-princ... MacLeod Sociopaths aren't actually bad people. I'm a MacLeod Sociopath and don't think I'm a real sociopath. They're a mix of chaotic-good rebellious rulebreakers, chaotic-neutral people who enjoy problem solving for its own thrill (and will be very helpful and altruistic if given appropriate challenges challenges, and destructive if let to rot), lawful- and neutral-evil liars, cheats, and psychopaths. (Chaotic evil is severely socially dysfunctional and not much of a presence.) MacLeod Sociopaths break rules and often live on the margins, and will either rise fast or get fired. There are "good Sociopaths", but even for the good kind, most companies would prefer to hire only a few. These HR walls favor the MacLeod Sociopaths who have no qualms about applying to a job requiring 5 years of experience when they have 6 very good months. It's not that "rules were meant to be broken" (that's false and insane). It's that rigid rules keep so many people out that the only people breaking through are the ones who disregard rules or find back doors. Of course, there are good rule-breakers out there, but you have to be careful with even them. The same problem exists around reference checks. For executive hires, larger and risk-averse companies require 10-20 references. At ten references, you're selecting for sociopaths. Only a colossal fuckup can't get 2-3 good references, but most people don't have 10 glowing ones. Ten glowing references is a sure sign that someone not only coached, but quite possibly extorted, a few people. It's not a guarantee that you'll get a bad person, but you will get a rule-breaker if your HR wall is that impenetrable.

EvilLook 14y ago

gambiting 14y ago

Funny how UK has laws against "age discrimination" yet nothing stops stupid insurance companies from slapping car insurance premiums 10x as big as normal for people under 25, even if they never had an accident and have multiple categories. It's one of those things which infuriate me the most about living in the UK.

Sulfolobus 14y ago
I was helping a friend move, unfortunately couldn't get insurance on the rental car without a huge excess due to being narrowly under 25. She had no issues. I've had a licence and been accident-free for 7 years longer... I had to physically grab the steering wheel 4 times in the 500 mile journey to prevent us crashing.
- pflats 14y ago
  Statistically, someone in her age category is significantly less likely to require the insurance than someone in yours. Car rental shops don't want to do big background checks on every single customer every day, so their economic incentive is to have an easy over-under. It seems like you two are outliers. That's what the insurance is for.
  - gambiting 14y ago
    No, I wholeheartedly disagree. There's nothing wrong with being over or under 25 - it's the UK insurance system that is broken. I come from a country where you buy insurance per car,not per person. So you buy a single insurance which is determined by the age and power of the car, and anyone with a valid licence can drive it. The amount you are insured against is the same as in the UK, so why is it that if I wanted to insure myself on a 1.2 Corsa I would have to pay above 2000 pounds/year, a car which I could get fully comp+assistance for myself in my country for 300 quid per year? If I wanted to get insurance just for myself(not shared) on my dad's 4.4L V8 Land Rover, I would pay 800 quid for full comp. In the UK insuring the same car would cost me in excess of 6 thousand pounds. I have had my driver's licence for 4 years and never had an accident, driven probably more than 150k+ miles now yet my insurance is an order of magnitude higher because some idiots want to street race without insurance? Talk about fairness.

jsvaughan 14y ago

This is absolute nonsense. You cannot infer someone's age from their years of experience (unless you are stipulating a figure which is a material fraction of a lifespan, say 20+, which never happens) * I have 5 years of java experience. How old am I? (55 - I have spent most of my life as a c dev but have done some java over the recent years) * I have 16 years of java experience. How old am I? (34 - I graduated in 97 and have been working in it since) I don't understand the whining. Are you upset that someone wouldn't look at you for a job because you haven't got X years of experience? Have you considered that actually experience is valuable to a company, and why do you think they would be interested in training you and being the proving ground for all the mistakes you'll make as you learn?

alanctgardner2 14y ago
It sets a minimum level; if you require 10 years of UNIX experience, you're saying you don't want anyone in their twenties (unless faffing about in Linux as a pre-teen counts as work experience). In your Java example I would be screwed, even if I knew Java inside and out, because I'm only 21. I know it's hard to imagine, with the '30 is fossilized' viewpoint many people have around here, but a lot of companies want to pay young people less money, and so give them less 'senior' positions. There is value in hiring the right person for a position, regardless of age. At my current employer we have some very experienced, knowledgeable staff in their late 40's and 50's. We also have knowledgeable staff who are in their 20's. In my observation they tend to have different strengths, but both bring a lot of value, and it would be foolish to say that the 50-year old deserves more money for having been around longer ( and yes, having a longer track record with the technologies in question ).
fecak 14y ago
In the two examples you gave, one could safely infer that you are at least 27 and 38 respectively, assuming you listed a degree. If a company wants only to hire young engineers, this is a way to discriminate. But I assume the 55 year old would probably include some prior experience on a résumé or application as well.

fecak 14y ago

Interesting post. I think the most important change that needs to happen is the rigid mindset of the gatekeepers (initial reviewers of applicants) that are often given very specific criteria relative to number of years and the key buzzwords to look for. I have had clients seeking 5 years of x who refused to speak to candidates with 4.5 years. These are companies that will never have good teams, because their basis for hiring is primarily based on time. I do see this trend changing a bit even in larger companies in the software world. Part of that may be due to the amount of tech choices available, and there are more candidates moving between languages more frequently than say 10 years ago when Java and .Net were the two big camps. Legality aside (in the US), experience in a role (leadership particularly) should have merit in hiring but number of years needs to be devalued in many cases.

largesse 14y ago

I'm finding myself more and more irritated with this sort of submission to Hacker News. It makes a bold assertion and does nothing whatsoever to back it up. Then, half the comments here attempt to do the digging needed to back the point and typically we find that the point is overstated or false. The most galling thing is the usually the tone of the original submission. It's all: "This is the way it is, kids! Run off and use this information because I'm giving you a scoop on the truth!" The worst thing is, I don't think there is anything we can do about it. It's just the way things have devolved.

Peroni 14y ago
It makes a bold assertion and does nothing whatsoever to back it up. I posted direct citation in the original post. ACAS is an official organisation assigned to preventing and resolving employment disputes in the UK. Their take on the matter: Avoid references, however oblique, to age in both the job description and the person specification. For example, avoid asking for ‘so many years’ experience. This may rule out younger people who have the skills required but have not had the opportunity to demonstrate them over an extended period. A jobseeker could challenge any time requirement and you may have to justify it in objective terms.
polymatter 14y ago
I'd agree with you, were it not explicit that this is UK employment law here. And is probably a UK-only issue. ACAS (crudely speaking, the body responsible for UK employment law) have explicitly said so. "Avoid references, however oblique, to age in both the job description and the person specification. For example, avoid asking for ‘so many years’ experience. This may rule out younger people who have the skills required but have not had the opportunity to demonstrate them over an extended period. A jobseeker could challenge any time requirement and you may have to justify it in objective terms." (stolen from Peroni at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5442441 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5442441)
- eli 14y ago
  "should avoid" is a bit of a leap from "you're breaking the law." There are lots of things you should avoid doing when hiring, but few of them are -- on their own -- illegal.

marksg 14y ago

This is simply wrong in the context of UK law. A requirement for experience only becomes indirect discrimination on grounds of age if the level of experience required is unreasonable in the context of the job. http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/advice-and-guidance/your-rights/age/what-is-age-discrimination/ http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/advice-and-guidance/your-... gives a good set of examples of what does and does not constitute age discrimination.

Nodex 14y ago

This has been law since 2007 and is not new news

Peroni 14y ago
Yet every single day hundreds of UK companies flout the law.

josephlord 14y ago

I think that the issue is less clear cut than the OP says even in the UK BUT you do need to think carefully about the requirement AND the impact. Asking for 10 years experience you would need a VERY good reason why that was necessary for the role. Asking for a year or two probably would be unlikely to cause issues especially if the experience could be gained outside of employment (e.g. open source or personal projects). I think you would be at very high risk of problems if you specified something like: "PhD or Masters and 3 year commercial experience or Undergraduate degree and 4 years commercial experience" as you would be basically saying you want someone over 25. On the other hand there might be issues if you specified recent graduates for a Graduate Training scheme as it may be seen to discriminate against older people.

anupj 14y ago

IANAL, and I maybe wrong here, but if you follow the logic in the article, any job advert requesting c++ only experience is discriminating against java developers(or puts them at a disadvantage), and is therefore illegal (?!?), which doesn't make sense.

anupj 14y ago
IANAL => I am not a lawyer