G
Geoff Lane
Guest
I'm fuming.
<rant mode on>
Someone I know applied for a job with a local employer who's looking to
start several new employees. It's office work with no need to travel to
visit customers etc. and the office is only five miles from his home.
Parking is a nightmare around the office. I can cycle between his home and
that office faster than I can drive it at peak times.
At interview, he thought that he'd "ticked all the boxes" and got plenty of
positive response. Yet he didn't get the job. When he rang to ask for
feedback so that he could better understand where he went wrong, they told
him that they were worried about his use of public transport. They thought
that he might not be able to get to or from work should they want him to
come in early or stay on late. Mindful of the parking issues around the
area, he'd said that he intended to use public transport or cycle and
they'd (wrongly) inferred that he didn't have a car or driving licence. As
soon as he told them he had a full licence, a car, and full NCD they
relented and he starts work in a couple of weeks.
I'm frothing because, despite the employer's obvious prejudice, a car isn't
necessary for that job. Cycle-commuting makes much more sense than driving:
It's cheaper, quicker, healthier, and doesn't add to the parking issues. So
why should do they seemingly assume that only those who travel by car can
be relied upon?
<rant mode off>
To me, this almost defies belief, but are such prejudices common?
Geoff
<rant mode on>
Someone I know applied for a job with a local employer who's looking to
start several new employees. It's office work with no need to travel to
visit customers etc. and the office is only five miles from his home.
Parking is a nightmare around the office. I can cycle between his home and
that office faster than I can drive it at peak times.
At interview, he thought that he'd "ticked all the boxes" and got plenty of
positive response. Yet he didn't get the job. When he rang to ask for
feedback so that he could better understand where he went wrong, they told
him that they were worried about his use of public transport. They thought
that he might not be able to get to or from work should they want him to
come in early or stay on late. Mindful of the parking issues around the
area, he'd said that he intended to use public transport or cycle and
they'd (wrongly) inferred that he didn't have a car or driving licence. As
soon as he told them he had a full licence, a car, and full NCD they
relented and he starts work in a couple of weeks.
I'm frothing because, despite the employer's obvious prejudice, a car isn't
necessary for that job. Cycle-commuting makes much more sense than driving:
It's cheaper, quicker, healthier, and doesn't add to the parking issues. So
why should do they seemingly assume that only those who travel by car can
be relied upon?
<rant mode off>
To me, this almost defies belief, but are such prejudices common?
Geoff