Word on the 'Street' is that recruiters are running scared of the anti-age discrimination legislation which became law in the UK last month. Notwithstanding all this stuff about taking dates of birth off cvs and proscribing certain words on job ads, recruiters are now worried about biffing off candidates who send in cvs which just don't fit a job profile.
As the first port of call for many candidate cvs, it is a recruitment consultant who will make a decision about whether to forward a cv to a client for a job. Too many inappropriate cvs, and the client will complain (the recruiter will also begin to get a bad reputation, and, after a while, could be taken off the PSL). But concerns are growing that, unless the majority of cvs are forwarded on, recruiters could be on the wrong end of an age claim. The problem now is in rejecting a cv in the first place - in the 'old' days, a candidate was simply told that they did not make the shortlist, or that there were others who suited the job profile more closely. To do this now could lay a recruiter open to a claim that age was the real factor for the decision - bad publicity and a whole lot of wasted time (and money) could result.
With recruiters in the frontline on this issue and exposed to potential claims, how have they responded ? Well, some are said to have simply decided not to respond to candidates at all unless they have a cv which ticks all the boxes. And who can blame them ? Why take the risk and acknowledge an application, when you could find that you end up in court ? Better to do nothing, and hope for the best!
If you have a comment to make on this article, please e-mail us using the link immediately below: