New Equality Act

Guys, you make some important obsevations. My original question was relating to people who have to drive as part of thier work. It is therefore really important for an organisation to know whether a person holds all the required capabilities, this includes eyesight,sleep apenoa, Driving licence etc to name a few . Thinking about the Corprate Manslaughter legislation companies now need to know more about their people in order to reduce any potential risks. I think not asking these basic questions could potentally put people at risk and in danger of hurting someone else.

Ruth, That is an interesting take up on an important issue.

I suffered a seizure last year, and had to wait 2 months for the results (I am clear of epilepsy), but was banned from driving for a year.

It really made me stop and think how it can impact so heavily on how, when and where I work. I had to take time to adjust, so really do appreciate the effects it can have on anyone that has a condition that most employers do not understand, let alone how to manage or adapt to it.

You are right, the whole emphasise should be on ability to be mobile (albeit this is also open to interpretation as there are many forms of mobility).

Only a job that requires you to drive in the capacity of your work should the job application ask you for your driving license and detail what this will involve.

My question is does the employer HAVE to drive for the job? Obviously if they are doing a driving job they do, but there are a lot of jobs which are advertised as 'driving licence and access to a car essential' when what the employer wants is someone who is mobile. Unfortunately, I lost my driving licence due to epilepsy before the DDA, so I was unfairly treated with no recourse to the law for a number of years, by people recruiting to office jobs but stipulating that driving licences were required. What was required was mobility - something which I could have achieved through taxis, buses, trains - paid for by Access to Work! Not surprisingly I ended up being self employed for a long time... working all over the country (from Clackmanackshire to Cambridge and every place in between) with only a disabled person's rail card to keep me mobile.
So is it a driving job or do you want to say 'prepared to travel' to cover people who choose to use pushbikes or are visually impaired etc.

The only additionaI question I might make is if they have had any driving offenses (drink driving or driving whilst under the influence of drugs).

I'd be interested to hear others thoughts on this question?

Thanks guys . The question over the eyesight is that it is a lawful requirement under Road Traffic legislation nothing to do with the licence aspect. You can tell I'm an ex Traffic cop ! . The organisation has a duty of care to both its drivers and other people affected by that driver . Without checking or asking about eyesight how can the company be statisfied without either having proof of carrying out a suitable test . i.e reading a number plate at either 20.5m or 20m dependant on the number plate.

Dave.

You mention the eyesight test, not too sure on that, it sounds like good practice but...
The Driving Licence forms a type of contract, and part of that contract is to ensure that you fulfil certain criteria, one part of that is that you are fit and healthy to hold a licence to drive, and that would certainly include eyesight.
In other words by them holding a licence they have already declared their eyesight to be good enough to drive with. Maybe you should be asking how long since they had their eyes checked by an optician?

Also Andy is right, but be careful of the "Hire and Reward" part. There is an anomaly with regard to that, Everyone that drives passengers for profit will need the correct licence to do so.
This means if you drive a Taxi you need a Hackney Carriage licence, or a Private Hire car, you need a Private Hire Licence (there are some exclusions to this, but not many) both of which are issued by Local Authorities (Except in London where the MET Police issue them), that covers vehicles that take up to 8 passengers.
Above 8 passengers, and for "Hire and Reward" you will need to have a PCV D1 & DCPC to drive the vehicle.
This is for ANY vehicle that carries more than 8 passengers where the driver is paid , and the company charges for it, Even if the charges are built into other costs. The exceptions to this are registered charities and Local Authority transport, but they would still need, what I believe is called a "Community driving certificate" where a simplified test/exam is taken.

An example would be Private Schools that don't have registered charity status (yep, lots still do), all minibus drivers are required by law to have a PCV D1 & DCPC, and the buses should have an Operators licence displayed; You would be astonished at how many schools don't know that, and put their drivers on the road illegally.

Dave

You are allowed to ask questions, before an offer of employment, concerning capabilities that are an intrinsic requirement of the job. Once you have made a conditional offer subject to confirmation of medical fitness you or your medical adviser can ask whatever questions are needed to confirm that fitness. If driving is a requirement of the job, the obvious question before the conditional offer of a job is "do you have a driver's licence?" If the requirement is to drive PCV or LGV "do you have a group 2 driver's licence?". If driving a minibus not for hire or reward "does your licence include D1?". Why would you want to ask anything more than that?

Morning eveyone,
A lot of my clients are asking about what questions should be asked if a potential employee has to drive for work . My response has been, that it is right and proper an eyesight question, test or proof within the last two years is covered as well as any other question were driving could be a risk for both the employee or any other person affected by that driving . Your thoughts?
Dave

Thank You Kevin!

Or, to put it succinctly, no-one is saying you can't discriminate, only that you mustn't discriminate unfairly on grounds which aren't material to the case.

Chris, what you are not saying is rather different than what you were saying before. perhaps you are just explaining yourself more clearly, I dont know.....

The point is, you advertise your position, people answer the ad, you interview the candidates having short listed those you think have the best skill set against the criteria you have set. If there is no one that you like you do not hire anyone. No one is forcing you to hire if the candidates do not turn out to be suitable or you feel will not fit into your organisation. This is very different than saying I am not hiring them because they are too old, or disabled or the colour of their skin is wrong etc.....you get my drift.

As long as you can show good reason why those people were not suitable and have a robust hiring policy, you will not have a problem if one of the interviewees does turn round and accuse you of anything. The Equality Act is not trying to force anyone to do anything that is not good for a company providing employers are sensible about the way they go about things. So I don't think you should have anything to fear.

Chris, You are correct, as that ultimately is the reality of working life. I have served in the armed forces and some employers love someone with that background, but conversely if the employer is of a strong pacifist nature I would not stand a chance in employment. I have come across both types in fact in my working life.

I've never claimed discrimination or unfair treatment, but it can leave a sour taste in your mouth, and unfortunately if you are rejected sufficient amounts of time it will impair your own judgement when interviewing people for jobs in the future.

I am sure there are many interviewers out there that have taken out their frustration of rejection of potential candidates. This is the real world, whether we like it or not it does go on. This forum has already shown some strong opinions, which don't take much to transform into decision taking actions.

Returning to my earlier post for a minute...

The general point I was trying to make is that emplying or not employing a person will always be, up to a point, reliant on ther personal judgement of the people doing the interviewing. Dictating on what basis I might, or might not believe a particular applicant to be the best person for the job is, in my opinion, misguided.

There are some circumstances where a certain inverse bias is, in my opinion, very valid. A retired police officer, for example, usually carries with him a great many skills that would benefit many businesses. However I am not permitted to write "would suit a retired police officer", as part of an advert, even though I am not necessarily saying that anyone who is not such would be rejected.

I maintain that in small businesses, it is important to employ people with whom you believe you will be able to work efficiently. To tell me that I am not allowed to do this can only act as a deterrant to businesses who are at the point of expanding rather than encouraging them to provide much needed employment in the current financial circumstances.

One would be incorrect to assume, from this, that I am advocating a complete withdrawal from employing certain groups. I do think, however, that there is a balance to be made. Should I be forced to employ a well qualified programmer who does not speak fluent english? What about when the proposed role calls for meetings and colaboration with english speaking people? The initial reaction to this sort of question usually gives rise to accusations of racism, however this is not the case... it is a decision based on the abilities of the applicant.

Excessive use of this kind of legislation has the effect of diminishing the effectiveness of our indistry by preventing the employer from hiring the best person for the job, if there is an alternative applicant who falls into a category that will allow then to shout "discrimination"

Martin - thank you very much for your comments. No the Trustees have NOT made the decision. The manager is paid by another charity whose funding comes through local authority funding......very complicated! The Trustees are actually against this and feel it should be a paid position.

Unfortunately we think there has been some cajoling going on with a person they have in mind and that person probably has been brain washed into thinking that the kudos outweighs everything and not thought of the possible legal implications that could result.

I think its going to mean putting a lot of pressure on the other side of this organisation. Thanks again.

Carole, I am assuming the board of trustees have unanimously made this decision?

I have worked in the charitable sector and like you with adults who have learning disabilities. The law states that the controlling mind will be responsible for the decision of an organisation, that can either be a person or a group.

If the decision compromises anyones safety, due to no direct fault of an individual, but as a result of a management decision then the controlling mind will be held liable.

All said and done, It is an obvious error to make such a decision, and those agreeing to it are clearly not competent to perform their duties properly.

However, if the person selected opts to take on the role (even unpaid), they could also be held accountable. The selection process must be very robust and the objectives and responsiblities clearly defined in all areas of business.

I couldn't agree more with Gwendoline's assessment of this situation. The person selected better make sure they have all the qualifications and experience to do the job (regardless of their age, although the younger they are this may well compromise the experience element).

Neither can I, Gareth - that is outrageous!

To a degree I understand and appreciate that a 19 yr old will communicate on a similar level to someone of 16 (Martin excluded ;o)), however, there is no way that someone of 19 will be remotely qualified to work in HR at a level that requires serious expertise. I have two friends who are snr HR staff - they are both FCIPD, have a Masters in HR, a qualification in Contract Employment Law together with a qualification in Psychology. Incidentally, they are both over 50!!

I am not saying that at every level in HR the above qualifications are required but certainly, without question, years of exerience in this field will be necessary and there is no doubt that someone of 50 will have gained that experience as opposed to someone very much younger.

gwendoline - I was not suggesting that anyone was being "let go" for their age (although nothing would surprise me). What I meant and I apologise if it did not come across very well, was if they were already out of work, the likelihood of them getting back was zilch.

Now I apologise if what I am about to say should be in another thread but I think it comes under the Equality Act. Changes the subject a bit on age however so feel free to boot me off.

I have a situation where i am a Trustee for a disabled advice shop which is run by volunteer disabled for the disabled. The volunteers are supervised by a paid area manager who also looks after another branch. There is now a plan to bring in an unpaid shift leader role who will supervise the volunteers and take responsibility for the shop on the days the manager cant be there.

As a Trustee this rings alarm bells for me on two fronts. First is on principle. I have a big problem in expecting somebody to do a job for free on three days a week (or how ever many shifts it turns out to be) which we are paying somebody to do the rest of the time. So my preference would be to have a paid shift leader.

Secondly and more importantly, the responsibility that this shift leader would have in their job description would be, Key holder, H & S, Reporting Accidents, Liaising with the Police on incidents in an emergency, emergency evacuation and roll call with fire officer, security, data protection. etc. As a Trustee I am concerned about our legal responsibilities about having an unpaid, uncontracted person with those sorts of responsibilities who may feel they are not obliged to turn up when they feel like it.

I would love to know if we have any responsibilities under any H & S laws in particular and would welcome any feed back on this whole situation.

Gwendoline, I do work in HR, and the company I was mentioning is in the telecommunications industry. Their feeling is that they apparently want a young workforce, and where as I can understand to a certain extent that 16 year old customers may have more in common with a 19 year old sales advisor in a shop, I can’t see the issue with the HR Officer being 50, who would never be involved with face to face customer service.
I to am a young 52 year old who keeps fit at the gym, snowboards, mountain bikes, and did a 6500 foot paraglide off a mountain this year on holiday.

Carole - I have worked in the City for many years in banking, accountancy and law practices - I have also worked in the media and public sector. From my own experience and, may be it is just my profession (FM), together with HR and H & S, I have not experienced staff being 'let go' due to their age, in fact, it has been the reverse. In the three professions I mention above there is no question that experience counts for more when companies are looking for someone to take control of these areas. In addition, I have noticed a growing trend recently of companies taking on older staff.

I agree with you 100% re the knowledge and integrity that comes with age and, in particular, ppl in their 40's/50's. It is a nonsense that any organisation should even consider parting with such valuable members of staff due to their age. Obviously, there will always be exceptions.

Gwendoline you might like to know that in banking in particular, 40 is considered to be "past it". Most people "let go" over that age in the city would have a difficult time getting back in and I would hazard a guess that it may well have dropped even below that age now.

The most ridiculous fact is that anyone in their 50's or even older has so much knowledge and worked in a era with scruples and integrity which had they been allowed to be around in the past five years would probably not got our banking system into the mess it did. You can ask most ex city people who held responsible positions and most will tell you that they could have told you they saw all this coming but no one was prepared to listen or do anything.

Unfortunately everyone always thinks they know better until it happens to them. Progress is good but knowledge can always be put to good use no matter how old it is.

Martin, love your comment on mindset...... this is what I meant when I said that Gareth was wrong....... Like I've said earlier... all of the staff in my company including my line manager are all young enough to be my children. It is because of my mindset and attitude I am able to work with colleagues so young and that I have no problems in applying for employment knowing that staff there as so young.

Martin - I believe I may not have come across as I intended in my last post.

I agree with you totally regarding the age issue. I also am a very young individual at heart and extremely fit, rowing several times per week. The point I was trying to get across to Gareth was that I do not believe that in most professions being older is an issue, to the contrary. I believe that more and more organisations are taking on older members of staff where experience counts for more. My reference to a trendy media environment was merely to highlight that if you are going to chase this type of role then the chances are they will prefer young trendy types believing, rightly or wrongly, that they will fit in to the environment better regardless of how young you feel inside as an individual. Some of the youngest ppI I have worked with have had the oldest mentality and vice versa! I agree it is a state of mind.

Martin, thanks for the information on BD2466

This post has been removed because it contravened our guidelines.

Gwendoline, I am afraid that you have missed the point on this forum.

I'm over 50, so that makes me too old to have anything in common with young trendy types according to your evaluation.

You couldn't be further from the truth. I was young once (in fact my wife thinks I act like a big kid) and my children are in their early teens to mid-twenties. I still love the varied music and clothes (in fact my step son buys clothes I would wear and sometimes do). But I know when it isn't quite right for me.

Age is not just a physical or mental condition but a mindset. if you think you are old - then you are. Simples (as they say in the 'Inbetweeners' and yes I do watch it with great enjoyment).

The point being because you get older, you don't have to lose touch with what keeps people happy and in what they enjoy doing. This is what keeps people younger in mind and in views.

My friends have aged considerably in appearance and in mindset. Their humour has waned and life has taken on a too serious viewpoint. But not everone who is old is like this, my concern is that actually some young people are far less tolerant than some older people.