Was at a suburban Pharmacy and saw this job ad.
I'm pretty sure this is illegal and if so, who do I complain to?
Edit- the section I'm concerned about btw is "junior only, Mature Age need not apply"
What you reckon?
Is This Job Ad illegal?
SupeNintendoChalmers on 09/02/2015 - 15:55
Last edited 09/02/2015 - 16:21
Last edited 09/02/2015 - 16:21
Poll Options
- 101Yes, It'll illegal, complain to relevant authorities.
- 5Yes, It'll illegal, complain to pharmacy
- 133No, none of your business.
Comments
They are going to discriminate whether the job ad says so or not.
If the notice didn't explicitly state that they were looking for 15-16 yos they would just reject any applicant that does not fit that criteria and make up some reason why they didn't like them.
This is how the world works. My preference is that they be upfront about what they are going to do, as they have in this ad.
Exactly.
I agree with you and totally see where you are coming from, but look at it this way…
How far should we allow "being upfront" to go? How upfront should we allow an advertiser to be before it becomes offensive? For example, what is to stop an advertiser from saying:
Female applicants only
Heterosexual applicants only
Applicants weighing under 80kgs only
Fully able applicants onlyEmployers have bias, but we can't allow employers to be blatantly (and insultingly) honest about their preferences.
pretty much putting the world junior there is enough. People get the idea.
Strictly speaking - yes, this is illegal.
Irrelevant discrimination on grounds such as age, gender, race are illegal. The word 'irrelevant' here is important, as the following situations can warrant some degree of discrimination:
- A Chinese Restaurant may require waiters to speak Chinese as this is an important part of the job, which indirectly attract Chinese applicants
- An Intimate Apparel store may only hire female staff, as their clientele may feel uncomfortable with purchasing from male salesperson.
In the case of age, there are some indirect, lawful grounds. For example, a bank who is looking for a new CEO may demand 20 years in Financial Services. The experience is critical to the success of the job, and this critereon virtually rules out anyone under the age of 40.
However, in this case, the success of cleaning a pharmacy is clearly unaffected if an applicant is mature age - this is direct age discrimination and is illegal.
what's the offence here? is displaying "junior only, mature age need not apply" an offence or does an applicant need to be rejected based on their age before it's an offence?
Displaying it is an offence.
Yes, it is not legal under discrimination laws to state an intent to illegally discriminate.
Also, one can argue that the presence of those words on the ad itself turn away otherwise hopeful applicants, so illegal discrimination has already occurred.
ok so most of you can google, thats great!!
But it is none of your business and you should just get over it
They are creating jobs for kids who need extra cash or to support their end need
What exactly is your problem?@mcp2kpro, the more I'm reading your comments, the more I'm starting to think that you are one of those discriminatory employers or that you are friend with one. May I suggest that you go through these fact sheets It is important that you know your rights and responsibilities as an employer.
well you're wrong, im just another employee, like you.
Not every employer will go through google and search for "how to advertise a job without discrimination and all that jungle". So they might make an honest mistake by listing what they want (junior roles) so others (like yourself, senior) dont waste their time apply.
I dont see anything wrong with that personally.
So does half of the people voting here
So that makes half of the people discussing on here is discriminatory employers or friend with one right? according to you.
Its more of a social thing. I'm sure OP could of taken other steps before posting on OZB.
I thought if a senior were to work they would get paid a higher rate?
Generally, the minimum number of hours a casual is required to work is three hours. However, if you are in High School and employed under the General Retail Industry Award 2010 from 1 July 2011 you will be able to work ninety minute shifts from 3-6:30pm on school days, provided that you agree to work and your parents give you permission to work shifts that are shorter than three hours. You should check your award to find out if this applies to your job.
That is probably the reason they want a junior age, not role. They would have to pay an adult 3 hours of wages. It also means it is not illegal.
I haven't voted because their needs to be option "d) Legal due to the award they're using" :)
THANK YOU! Was trying to find this info but couldn't find it anywhere. This is why we used to hire school kids for the afternoon shifts (previous job).
How does one go about offering casual/part time work to high school kids while remaining compliant with the law and not wasting the time of mature age job seekers? Seems like a convoluted way of doing business
There are more subtle ways of doing so. If you put up an ad and you want to attract young teens to work, you just say experience not neccessary. That automatically attracts the younger portion of the job seeker market. And nobody is the wiser if you turn away the older workers, if you were really tightass and can only afford to pay a youth wage, you could just toss the resumes of those who are more experienced and only look at the ones that are obviously written by schoolkids.
Also, if you look on seek, there are many examples of subtle wording that is being used by recruiters to show that they're only interested in younger people which is just borderline ageist.
This ad for instance, titled
Wait Staff - fun, young, energetic is basically a giant middle finger to any oldies trying to applyand this one. Not so subtle. We're looking to build a fun, young dynamic team. No older and tired boring people please.
We want you to be young and inexperienced well these guys aren't even trying to be subtle.
This one is a bit more subtle. See if you can spot the type of person they are looking for.
And there are also graduate roles, if you're a big company you can specify legally that the applicant must have graduated from university in the last 2 years. But you are not allowed to specify an age bracket, although most of the grad roles I appplied for have required me to fill in a personal details form where the DOB is a mandatory field.
For the examples above, were they: Ageist? Definitely. Illegal? Probably nope. This is why EEO laws don't do much to curb selection bias.
That's how you're supposed to do it, but the sign they put up does seem clearer. :-)
I'm in the process of applying for jobs (not quite the same area though… hem), and I WISH employers would just tell me straight up who they're looking for. There's no point I waste my time applying if they won't even look at my application.
Whether or not they write it, employers have a specific person in mind. They're just saving people who won't make it through according to their criteria the time and trouble.Pretty laughable, must have 3 years MINIMUM of Pharmacy experience. Hmmm ok….. Job is for a 15-16 year old. Sooooo, to apply I would have had to start working in a Pharmacy at the age of 12-13? Yeah right.
Positions Vacant.
It looks like there's two different jobs they're advertising for on the same sign.
and you neg'd me… oh you are a true queen of sarcasm!
I didn't neg you. You can even click the votes button to see that I've given you a positive vote… it was somebody else who negged you.
I presume it's you that negged me though, since the only thing I said in my post was clarifying your error. How petty of you.
Over 18 you have to pay superannuation and much higher wages, in my small business that could be the whole nights earnings….
I wish some people would understand these things.
@AMLagonda, no offence but what do you suggest 18 year old should do? Go on the dole?
So we need slave labour because your business can't make money? Maybe you shouldn't be open in the evenings? Maybe you need to rethink your business model.
I guess I was missing important info which might explain myself and my business.
The job I was refering to is more suited to a junior in highschool for a bit of pocket money not something suited to an adult needing something to live on.
I dont really want to explain further on this.It really depends on the job, if its something that a junior can do safely, then yes fair enough. If its something that an adult should be doing, but you don't want to pay, then no go.
I'm sure 7-11 would love to shove a 15 year old in behind the counter, same goes for service stations etc, but there are reasons they don't.
They should remove the mature age part. Junior shop assistant with job description should convey they want someone cheap. Then everyone is happy.
Oh yer this ad is for two different jobs, as clear as mud…
This ad is illegal because he is specifying an age group (14-15) and excluding another ( mature age applicants). Employers need to be careful when wording a job ad.
In this case, there are 2 things that can be done :
1.do you civic duty by either having a chat with the employer or reporting him to the Commission. Please note that if you report him ,he might get fined.
2.sue him and make some sweet cash.If your complaint of discrimination is upheld, VCAT may order the respondent to:
stop the discrimination by giving you the job
pay you financial compensation for what has happened. This could be a sizable amount
make various other orders to remedy the damage caused.
However if VCAT dismisses your application .. unlikely, but if it did, you may be ordered to pay the other party’s legal costs. I would therefore suggest that you seek legal advice if you decide to go with option 2.
I will end my comment with a powerful message from Bob Marley
Get up, stand up, stand up for your right
Get up, stand up, don't give up the fight :)So you know for sure that VCAT will UNLIKELY dismiss the application?
What right exactly are you standing up? The right to apply for job and will never hear back because you're not what they looking for and they been upfront about it? or the right to sue anyone and anything to make some sweet cash?
There are some sad nuts who go around looking for loophole and other's mistake and then sue them for your own benefit. You may be it.There are some sad nuts who go around looking for loophole and other's mistake and then sue them for your own benefit. You may be it.
Personally, I would have spoken to the employer.
What right exactly are you standing up?
The rights to not be discriminated against because of a characteristic that I have or that someone assumes I have such as:
age
carer and parental status
disability (including physical, sensory and intellectual disability, work related injury, medical conditions, and mental, psychological and learning disabilities)
gender identity, lawful sexual activity and sexual orientation
marital status
physical features
political belief or activity
pregnancy and breastfeeding
race (including colour, nationality, ethnicity and ethnic origin)
religious belief or activitysex
…etc
There are some sad nuts who go around looking for loophole and other's mistake and then sue them for your own benefit.
I'm sure there are. But there are also some seriously dodgy employers out there. So know your rights and be respectful of other people's rights and you'll be fine.
@mcp2kpro, I wouldn't go around calling people "sad nuts" , they might sue you for defamation or bullying or discrimination… :b
Seriously? Sueing them to make them give you the shitty cleaning job, in which you'll only work for 6hrs per week? With all due respect, but this is the dumbest advice ever. Even if you manage to force them give you the job (by threats), you as a cleaning person is going to go through hell.
I don't believe in telling people what they should do. These are the options they have. Like I've already said, I would personally walk in and talk to the pharmacist.
I'm pretty sure they'll just say "oh ok, cool, get out if you're not buying any thing".
then you contact the Commission and explain the situation. They will send them a letter detailing their obligations as an employer under federal and/or state anti-discrimination legislation.They may also include one of these facts sheets.
Usually once the employer realises that he maybe fined and/or liable to pay compensation, he will amend his ways.
Everyone has the right to work in a workplace that is free from discrimination. Don't you agree?
Edit:well, that's not going to happen if we all turn a blind eye when we see someone being discriminatory.
Just to make things clear, I don't support discrimination.
Everyone has the right to work in a workplace that is free from discrimination. Don't you agree?
Yes, but you won't experience the discrimination at this work place because you won't be hired in the first place anyway.
Discrimination happens everywhere, if don't see it in the job ad, you're going to experience it in the interview ( though you probably won't even know cause they'll use other reasons).
Even if they get fined and remove the requirement, it doesn't mean they'll start hiring mature people. It just means job seekers are going to waste their time applying and will probably get a 2min interview.
Doesn't change the fact that discrimination is there. Open to the public. In print. Discrimination can occur before they officially offer you employment. Just because you won't sue them doesn't mean another won't, just simply pointing out the flaws in their ad. This is basically worse case scenario but it does happen:
Nothing stopping some unemployed guy to come along, bait you into rejecting them and suing you for discrimination. A careful business owner would prevent this before it happens.
Problem is even if the benefit is not financial and you get forced to employ them, a court / tribunal may put out an order on the company that they cannot fire the person for a set period of time (normally a few months). So instead of paying it out, you may end up having to pay a deadweight 9 hrs a week (see above minimum engagement is 3 hrs per shift instead of the 2 on the ad) at their relevant wage depending on age, and who will refuse to follow your instruction. If dismissed, they can enforce the previous decision and have a court fine you and offer them compensation for dismissing them.
Many times better just getting a mediator to settle and pay them off rather than deal with the headache. Or you can be stubborn like Woolworths as previously mentioned, get sued and pay $5000 compensation.
I will end my comment with a powerful message from Bob Marley
We're German.
We're German.
I hope you like Germans too.lol the german/ jamming thing :)
Employment laws need to be reviewed. All employers have their own biases, it's just that with current laws they're not allowed to write them down for fear of prosecution.
For example, an employer I know stated verbally he prefers female workers but only if they're under 30 and are not likely to become pregnant soon. He's not allowed to write that down, but he's using that criteria anyway to knock out prospective employees. Quite how he determines whether an applicant is likely to become pregnant soon and thus mess up his scheduling is something of a mystery, as he's not allowed (by law) to ask. So he makes assumptions anyway.
stated verbally he prefers female workers but only if they're under 30 and are not likely to become pregnant soon
and you're saying the problem is with the current laws?o.O
It sounds like the problem is that
1. Your employer is an asshole
2. Your employer is doing something illegalThe current law is NOT that they are not allowed to write down their biases. The current law is that while acting as an employer, you are not allowed to have certain biases.
If someone could prove / have evidence of what your employer was doing, he's going to get into trouble… the issue here is not whether it's written down, the issue is that the thing is illegal itself.
That's the problem with the law.
We can legislate all we like around job discrimination based on gender, age, race, etc, but saying someone is not allowed to have certain biases is silly. We all have biases and all have an image of a person we would or would not like to work with. They'll just act upon them without putting them in writing.
At least if employers were allowed to state in ads 'I want 15 to 18 year olds because I'm cheap' would save a lot of time. People would know A) the employer is someone they would rather not work for, and B) don't waste your time sending in a resume and CV.
It is a problem with the law, however your original post had an untrue statement:
"it's just that with current laws they're not allowed to write them down for fear of prosecution."
that I am correcting you on. The issue is not just that with current laws, they're not allowed to write them down for fear of prosecution. The issue is that with the current laws, employers are not supposed to act on such biases in the first place. These are very different things.
Now regarding the law itself, if you think employers should be free to be racist, sexist, discriminate against gay people, old people, jews, etc. then I think you're a terrible person. You are, however, entirely entitled to your opinion.
The pharmacy should be congratulated for being upfront and not wasting applicant time.
Much better than taking the "PC" approach and culling the pile of CVs based on age before you start reading them.
If the minimum wage for a mature age adult was the same as minimum wage for a kid you would have better grounds to complain.
What is legal and what is reality are not necessarily the same. If you don't believe me walk down Swanston Street in Melbourne and buy a coffee from a small business. Ask the barrista how much they are getting paid per hour. You would be suprised.
I imagine the default response will be "get stuffed" and "none of your business".
If the minimum wage for a mature age adult was the same as minimum wage for a kid you would have better grounds to complain.
Would you work for $6.25 per hour? Should anyone really be working for as little as $6.25 an hour and no employee super contributions?
Would you work for $6.25 per hour?
No.Should anyone really be working for as little as $6.25 an hour and no employee super contributions?
No adult should….but wages for junior staff <16 are not much higher. Hence the job ad.
Lots of comments here but has anyone lodged a formal complaint yet?
Not really much point tbh, if you were looking for financial gain you'd take them to court. The way they worded things on paper gives you a few options of wringing money out of them.
It is illegal because of the blatant ageism but are you really going to waste your time making a big deal out of something so small? How many non high school students do you think would apply for this job that would pay probably $10 an hour?
Just tell them to edit the ad to High School students preferred for this position.
Actually now that Awards are mentioned, this business is really badly managed…
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/documents/modern_awards/awa…
PHARMACY INDUSTRY AWARD 2010 [MA000012]
13. Casual employment
13.4 The minimum daily engagement of a casual is three hoursPart time is same:
12.5 An employer is required to roster a part-time employee for a minimum of three consecutive hours on any shift.The defined shifts are only 2 hours duration… If someone actually worked this they can claim 1 extra hours pay per day. Limitation of Acts in VIC (assuming VIC since OP based in Melbourne) gives you 6 years from when it occurred to do the claim.
They REALLY didn't do their research…
Would the cleaner be covered under the pharmacy award or the cleaning services award services Award? If its the second one, 2 hours is the minimum depending on the surface area to be cleaned.
Cleaning services award:
Coverage:
4.2 The contract cleaning services industry means the business of providing cleaning services under a contract and includes:(a) cleaning (including event cleaning,trolley collection and hygiene and pollution control but excluding trolley collection covered by the General Retail Industry Award 2010);and
(b) minor property maintenance which is incidental or peripheral to cleaning.
Person employed directly by a pharmacy does not fit the description as they are not a contract cleaner, they would be classified as a pharmacy assistant under the Pharmacy Award :)
***Correction to original comment above, its the LIMITATION OF ACTIONS ACT 1958 (VIC)
Cheers :-)
Since we have already ascertained that the ad is discriminatory in nature , thought I'd share the options available to anyone who witnesses such an event:
Dis-Witnessing - When we dis-witness a discriminatory event, we fail to identify it as discrimination and ignore or support the discriminatory actions.
Passive Witnessing - As a passive witness, we identify the actions, as discriminatory but take no external action, as we are unsure of how to intervene, do not feel safe to intervene or do not feel confident to act.
Active Witnessing - An active witness not only identifies the discrimination internally, but also actively addresses the discrimination in a visible way.
Ethical Witnessing - An ethical witness not only intervenes in the moment but also becomes an active ally in seeking equity and respect for the group experiencing discrimination.
Which category do you fall in ?
Aren't these categories pigeon-holing people?
What about the passive witness who takes no external action not because they are unsure/not confident/do not feel safe to intervene? I guess I'm a passive witness who cbf intervening, especially given I have no idea where this pharmacy is, whether the ad is still up (maybe the next person after the OP who walked past, went in and talked to the staff, who have responded by replacing the ad with a less discriminatory one), or even whether the photo is legit (sorry OP, this is the internet). I suspect many others here are in the same category.
@saintmagician0,IMHO, every one who has contributed to this discussion by pointing out why the ad is discriminatory, what would have been the correct way of phrasing it, explained or clarified anti-discrimination laws, provided links to where to seek help if you are being discriminated against…etc, and all those who have upvoted these comments, have in some way help address discrimination.
Don't be fooled by the poll results. Most people, if not all, would have voted before reading the comments. A lot of those choosing option 3 are de-witnessing the event because they were either not aware of their rights or duties under anti-discrimination legislation. They know better now …and its thanks to all those I've mentioned above. That makes all of you active witnesses :) You should be proud of yourself. There aren't that many active witnesses out there in the real world.
I love you, wicket. But I think you're (sadly) wasting your breath 'round here.
Few people are true 'protectors'. It's quite clear that you're one of them, though. Any slight injustice, even if it doesn't affect you directly, cannot simply be walked past or forgotten by you. It's in your nature to protect those who sometimes or often don't have a voice.
Never change. (I've grown too tired of debating with people, myself.. most will find logic and practicality in whatever they deem is 'right' or harmless, without being able to empathise with a range of different people out there and take their needs into consideration too. It saddens me to see how yours and JJB's posts have been negged simply for advising that people be aware of their rights. Baffles me, actually).
I don't really know how or why the 'calling out of discrimination' became so uncool, and taboo almost. Like it's akin to nanny-stating.
Isn't it really just about looking out for one another? Human for human. Equal for equal.
Ah well. The world continues to be a mystery to me.
@ turnip, thanks but hmmm….. its kind of my job :b
We love you too… and I don't just mean JJB and I. You were the most popular commentor on Ozbargain in 2014 and I've noticed that very few of your 2223 comments were bargain-related. I'd say that you are doing more than your fair share in making this world a better place. You need to give yourself more credit :) We all love you for a reason and its not because of your high water content :b
Passive Witnessing - However neither of those options. I'm not allowed to intervene for reasons I'm not allowed to disclose. However can give non-legally binding advice which is general in nature, is not to be taken as legal advice and relied upon.
Correct category?
Given that the job is only 6 hours a week and the pay would probably be minimum wage, that's why they're looking for a junior because a mature aged person would probably be looking for a job with more hours and reasonable pay.
I mean you could argue its age discrimination, but I feel as if there is enough reasoning behind it to justify it was a junior only role.
Different story if it was full time with reasonable wage though.
This is the problem with strictly following the letter of the law.
The principal of the law is so that no one should be discriminated against simply because they are old even though they are capable of performing.
In this case it is more of finding the right fit for both employer and employee:
Job is short hours and menial task.
Employer wants to only pay up to junior rates.There is no malicious intend or prejudice behind it.
The right person for the job would be a youngn looking formsome wprk experience.JUst pointing out that junior wages can mean as little as $6.50 per hour. So for $6.50, that person would be required to clean,empty bins , vacuum , clean toilets…etc
If a dodgy employer could get away with paying an adult the same amount, they would…they do. Hence the cash in hand jobs or so called 'contractors'.This is my point exactly.
You said it better.
There are jobs that only allow indigenous applicants only. Is that discrimination?
Affirmative action. I can understand why you would do it, but I don't agree with putting it in practice - especially when minimum quotas are in place.
I've had a job since I was 14 and 9 months in Victoria and I'm all for kids getting a job. No one here is denying it. What I'm seeing is ads like this are making it harder for older people to find jobs. Unlike some of you，my parents still had to find and work entry level jobs after 50. Of course, after reading these comments it does look like the award system doesn't benefit employers hiring older people as they have to pay them a higher rate.
Stopping wasting your time on this dribble, and go and solve some real problems. Get over it.
the simple, balanced and correct answer:
It is illegal. Especially the part about mature age need not apply. Enough people have cited the law.
"Get over it" responses are at first instance not helpful because discrimination is an important issue. The mature age person desperately seeking any work should not be discriminated against, and he/she deserves equal opportunity. <— that's what it is all about.
But counter that with sentiment that it's good for young people to be working AND whilst discrimination needs to be guarded against, there is such thing as over protection, over enforcing. This is afterall a local, assuming independent small business. More (profanity) should be given if it was a chain pharmacy or a senior role.
A ozb post on whether its illegal is about enough action to keep people alert. Complaining to any authority would seem overboard in the circumstances.
@ humdogg, it would appear that is a chain pharmacy.
i dont see anything wrong with this. Half the listings on Seek ask for Junior, Mid or Senior positions. Stops kids from saying companies don't give them a chance to work so they get no experience in the workforce. Age discrimination has no place in our country, but being the hours required, i dont think anybody with dependants or with mortgages/bills would work them anyway.
As the ad stands, it's illegal. But remove both references to age (15-16 and mature age need not apply) and the ad is fine.
They can tell an adult attempting to submit an application that it is a junior position with junior wages and that it is against the law to pay junior wages to an adult.
blah blah blah…. we live in a society where businesses can't even hire what they want without someone getting on some political correctness anti discriminatory bandwagon. Their money, their business their call. Funny thing is that they can still hire whomever they want as long as they don't explicitly state it. Mind boggles…
Pointless laws that only give the appearance of 'fairness' (box ticked) without actually being effective.
Australia: where attempting to "Je Suis Charlie" is illegal! >.< D'oh
@ wally, hate speech, that is speech that disparages a person based on an immutable characteristic (colour, race, origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and age), or marital status, and religion or lack of religion, is not free speech .
It is in France and USA .. but I did see lots of Australian politicians (of all sides) supporting the ["Je Suis Charlie"] meme
fwiw I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy not advocating for bigotry
@Wally: I don't know about the US but France has laws that bans discrimination, bans promoting racial or religious hatred, as well as inciting or defending terrorism or crimes against humanity. So hate speech is just as illegal in France as it is Australia.
The only difference is that blasphemy, is not illegal in France.Hence why Charlie Hebdo's mockery of religion is regarded differently than it is here.
As for politicians… I'm pretty sure they are the same everywhere :(
Faaaarrr more complex than banning it just to target Islam. The French have historically kept state and religion separate due to their struggles (16 May 1877 crisis for example)to the point where it is enshrined by law under the famous Separation of Churches and State Act 1905. This rule applies to ALL religions. Public expression of religion is frowned upon, and goes against their republican principles.
Just a shame the burqa incident drew so much negative criticism from groups who knew so little about the history of French secularism and their customs.
Better off sticking to the principle of: 'When in Rome do as the Romans do…'
Might want to learn more before commenting on an issue next time.
Readings:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La%C3%AFcit%C3%A9 <—— Underlying principles
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/07/ec… <—— summarised explanation
http://www.law.mq.edu.au/public/download.jsp?id=67394. <—- this journal article covers it in great detail
http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/essays/france-the-third-…
no argument or discussion necessary, the advertisement is illegal. It clearly states "mature AGE need not apply". It's irrelevant whether the position is for a junior, or what the definition of junior is, or peoples' opinion on the matter. The law is the law and here it is;
https://www.humanrights.gov.au/complaints/complaint-guides/m…
you can not discriminate on the grounds of age, simple as that.
If the OP want to report it they can, whether action will be take is doubtful however. We have many laws to protect decent hard working people, but most are ignored by authorities unless they generate revenue eg. speeding fines
Apart from the above, it's Funny… "must have minimum of 3 years pharmacy experience"… "No experience necessary"! Both on the same ad.
would have been funny if the 3 years minimum requirement was part of it.
kid - "yeah, I've been cleaning since 12, my mama taught me how to do it"
Heres a link to a major job website www.seek.com.au
If u have a look at it theres a million and one ads that say 'Junior', so I dont think it's illegal. They just want a junior
I find more offensive those job ads that state along the lines of 'must have Christian values / must be Christian' etc.
So a "Christian value" is to be discriminatory eh?
This would be more along the line of experience and the right person for the role. Similar to how you must be female to work in DJ bra department.
Some people are politically correct extremists.
The ad states a prerequisite - junior.
The ad states another prerequisite - non junior need not apply.
Bit weird to state 3yrs experience needed, but then state no experience necessary.
that 3 yrs experience is for another role within same ad. Junior cleaner role needs no experience.
But yeah, some people are just political correct extremists.
OP needs to get a bloody life
Here's what my 5 year olds had to say about something that happened today:
"But Da, unless someone like us care a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. Its not."
They would have read that from one of their Dr. Seuss books… and they are right. There is nothing worse than bystander apathy
I appreciate your enthusiasm, but you really think that the employer can't and won't discriminate just because "mature age need not apply" is no longer on the ad?
Anyone could be discriminating you right now in their heads and sadly there's nothing you, the government or law can do about it. You can't change people and their morals/beleifs/what ever you call it .
The law just prevents people from publicly displaying discrimnation.
@JLove, JJB's busy tonight. He's on a hot date with a spunky chick :)
So I'm going to reply on his behalf.
JJB was born in south africa during apartheid. His father is black and his mother is caucasian. They were not allowed to get married. He was considered a crime. Literally. His father would get arrested every time he was seen in public with him.
As a toddler, he was sent to Australia to be raised by his maternal grandparents. They were not racists but they had never seen a black person before they met him. This was in the mid-80s.
I'm not of mixed descent but people find it hard to tell where I'm from. I often get Brazilian, sometime Indian .I'm neither. Technically, I'm African. But then I have a french accent… When we started dating 11 years ago, we would often have people staring at us, especially on public transport. It never felt racist but it did make us feel like were an 'oddity'.
Fast forward a couple of years later, when we had the twins. People would often stop us on the streets or at supermarket to comment on how exotic looking they are. We even received a few modelling offers. Every single interactions they've had based on their ethnicity has been positive.
When we try to explain what apartheid was to our kids, they can't grasp the concept that not so long ago black and white people were not allowed to be together, they were not allowed to go to the same school, they were not allowed to sit next to each other on the bus, they were not allowed to use the same toilets…How could they, when almost every second child in their class is of mixed descent? :)
So you're wrong when you say:
You can't change people and their morals/beleifs(…)
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Ever heard of Martin Luther King? Gandhi? Nelson Mandela? The suffragettes? The Dalai Lama ? Aung San Suu Kyi? :)
Hey if you want to apply, and get paid those lower rates, by all means go talk to the manager and ask for that pay. Stop complaining and move on.
Doesn't bother me.
They know what they're looking for, even if they don't explicitly say it. They're not going to pay an adult wage for something a 14 year old can do. Them spelling it out just saves me wasting the time of applying and wondering if I'll hear back.
One time I was in a shop that had a sign near the counter that specifically said 'HIRING. No women please.'
Even that didn't bother me at all. Either they need someone who can do lots of heavy lifting in which case I don't want the job (I'm not going to f up my back for $20 an hour), or they're a sexist workplace, in which case I don't want the job.
They'll still be discriminatory if they get told to take the sign down. They just won't own up to it, thus wasting people's time.