Parents And Childcarers: Please Read

[A-chan]

I am writing to inform or perhaps remind many of the law against discrimination. The Equality Act of 2010 outlawed discrimination based on protected characteristics:

age

being or becoming a transsexual person

being married or in a civil partnership

being?pregnant?or having a child

disability

race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin

religion, belief or lack of religion/belief

sex

sexual orientation.

People are protected from these forms of discrimination in the following situations:

at work

in education

as a consumer

when using public services

when buying or renting property

as a member or guest of a private club or association.

You may think that these are not surprising and will likely be aware of this law. I wonder if you were also aware of how widespread and common such discrimination is and where it most often occurs.

Being discriminated against at work or when applying for a job, including during an interview, is illegal. You may not advertise that you discriminate against people with protected characteristics such as those written above. Of course, there are exceptions. For example, if you specify that only those over 18 may apply for a position working in a bar. This is because under 18 year olds may not legally serve alcohol. However, writing that only nannies over 25 may apply is unlawful. There is no law stating people under 25 may not be nannies. The parents or agency would have a hard time proving that being over 25 is essential to the job, especially if they did not specify qualifications in the advert. The law also protects against inappropriate interview questions such as: 'how old are you?'. You may also not ask: 'do you plan to get pregnant?'. Those are just two of the illegal questions an interviewer may not ask. Were you aware of that? I was not until very recently.

The Gov UK website outlines how one may or may not be discriminated against: https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights/types-of-discrimination.

This explains how employers can avoid unlawful discrimination: https://www.gov.uk/employer-preventing-discrimination/what-discrimination-is.

This page explains how discriminatory job adverts can be unlawful: https://www.gov.uk/employer-preventing-discrimination/recruitment.

I have been discriminated against because of my young age and appearance countless times. I thought that this was something I would have to live with; I can't alter my face. However, I now realise that this discrimination was and is unlawful. I hope to educate both (prospective) employees and employers about the law so they may not be discriminated against or possibly face a court case. You may have an ideal age in mind of an employee (whether you would admit it or not),? however, you should realise that discriminating against someone based on age is illegal. Obviously, there are other forms of unlawful discrimination. I am merely focusing on the particular discrimination I face; age.

This is an example of a rejection email I received recently:

'It was great to meet you on Friday ? thanks so much for coming. I met with a much older nanny on Saturday morning and I thought she might be good for handling my crazy three year old so I took the hard decision to go with her. But it was great to meet you and if its OK with you I?ll keep in touch, in case you are ever available to come and babysit?'

I will add that I was asked my age at the interview and the woman was surprised (?). Yes, I was at least offered the opportunity to babysit, however, I was also discriminated against because of my age. I have received numerous similar emails where they wrote that they went with an older candidate or a much older woman with children. Remember it would still have been unlawful to write such stipulations in the adverts; it's illegal discrimination.

This is a Work Smart article explaining age discrimination: http://www.worksmart.org.uk/rights/viewsubsection.php?sun=90. There is also a list of other forms of unlawful discrimination that you could experience or unknowingly commit.

This is another helpful Which? article further explaining your rights to fair treatment: http://legalservice.which.co.uk/employment/discrimination.aspx?expanddiv=subpane3.

This BBC report explains that illegal questions are still being asked at interviews and the article lists prohibited questions: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7187032.stm.

The Guardian also reported on inappropriate interview questions: http://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2012/mar/30/what-can-ask-job-interview.

Essential Personnel also lists banned questions: http://www.essentialpersonnel.co.uk/blog/10-illegal-interview-questions-that-you-should-not-ask-candidates/.

Know How Non Profit lists questions to avoid asking as well as giving useful alternatives. They do note that not all the questions are illegal per se, however, they could lead to litigation: http://knowhownonprofit.org/how-to/how-to-avoid-illegal-or-innapropriate-interview-questions.

As you can see, there is a wealth of information regarding unlawful discrimination. So why is it still happening? Some people are simply unaware that you may not discriminate against potential candidates based on age, for example. I acknowledge that I do not think the Government does a sufficient job of notifying people of the laws, though there are many. However, surely people realise that age discrimination is unfair?

Some people may think that these laws do not necessarily apply to a 'private sector' job such as being a nanny or housekeeper for example. There is no exemption in the law for such positions. It is hypocritical to think that unlawful discrimination only applies in the office but not at home; you as the employer must also obey the law.

I have been asked whether I have a boyfriend or I plan to conceive. Naively, I answered. I am almost always asked my age during interviews. I answered because I did not know better. However, it would not be so easy to deflect, dodge, or simply refuse to answer such a direct question without potentially ruining the chance of being hired. I do appear younger than my age and that is why I am asked my age so often I believe.

A simple search revealed a number of illegal job adverts posted on the nannyjob and Gumtree websites, two websites I know East Dulwich residents and forum users have posted job adverts on. Some of the examples are from nanny agencies, the rest are from parents.

Gumtree: http://www.gumtree.com/p/jobs/an-english-nanny-needed-moscow-area-russia-800-per-week/1052214345.

I am unsure if they are allowed to specify an 'English nanny' as opposed to an 'English speaking nanny' or 'fluent (native) speaking nanny'. Remember, though this may seem pedantic, these laws are to stop persons knowingly or unknowingly discriminating against people based on age, nationality or ethnicity etc. That is outlined in the Equality Act of 2010. Welsh, Scottish, Irish, American, Canadian, South African, Australian and New Zealanders could be discriminated against because they are also from countries where the main language is English. Similarly, adverts specifically requesting 'Kiwi or Oz' applicants would also therefore be prohibited because it gives an unfair advantage to non Australian or New Zealander people. I believe they would have a hard time justifying a need for such persons simply because the family would prefer an employee from their own country. We all speak English... (Whilst I recognise that the advert is for a position in Russia, the advert was posted on a website in the United Kingdom, so the law would apply I believe. I am also informed that such adverts do sometimes turn out to be fake when they offer to pay higher than the usual live in rate, though that is a different issue).

On nannyjob these are two agency adverts: http://www.nannyjob.co.uk/job/350405/Nanny-Greater_London and http://www.nannyjob.co.uk/job/348720/Nanny-Greater_London.

I called both agencies yesterday morning and I enquired about the wording of their adverts. I informed them that specifying an age in their adverts was unlawful under the Equality Act of 2010.

I wrote some notes on my phone calls:

Nanny Agency Telephone Enquiries??????????????????

Fulham Nannies - Attempted to backtrack and claim age was about the calculated amount of experience. However, the advert does not include any specific qualifications because qualifications are 'not essential'. The woman seemed to not comprehend the Equality Act 2010 and that advertising a specific age for a job is unlawful.

?????????????????????????????????

Nannies of St. James - Told me it was "not a 22 year old's job basically'" and seemed surprised when I said that was an example of age discrimination and advertising a specific age was in violation of the law. The woman asked for my name twice, on the second occasion she said it was because I was 'obviously passionate about this'. That may be true, however, I believe she wanted to know if I was connected to law enforcement in any way.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Both women said the adverts would be amended. They were informed that parents would be liable not them. However, I believe they do have a responsibility to be aware of the law and ensure they follow it as well as the parents.

You might notice that both adverts have since been amended. The first advert read '...will at least be 27+'. The second advert previously read after the ten years of experience 'Preferred age 28 yrs+'. I captured a screenshot of each advert which I will include below. The women I spoke to did say they would change the adverts and indeed they have. Regarding the Nannies of St. James' advert (the second advert), do bear in mind that I first asked her (before telling her it was discriminatory) why the advert read that the preferred age was 28 years and over. She went on to explain that the mother was anxious, the baby will be 15 months when the job starts, she is a first time mother etc. Let us not forget her "it's not a 22 year old's job basically"...

These nannyjob adverts were posted by parents:

http://www.nannyjob.co.uk/job/350094/Nanny-Housekeeper-Europe_(non_UK)

http://www.nannyjob.co.uk/job/350026/Nanny-Europe_(non_UK)

http://www.nannyjob.co.uk/job/349928/Temporary_Positions-Greater_London.

These adverts are all examples of unlawful age discrimination. Asking for specific qualifications is one thing, requiring applicants be between 30 and 40 years is another; it is unfair and unlawful.

The following are prohibited questions that interviewers may not ask:

How old are you?

Are you married?

Are you gay?

What are your childcare arrangements?

Are you planning to start a family soon?

Are you a member of a trade union?

What political party do you support?

Source: Which?

Parents interviewing prospective nannies, childminders or housekeepers etc. are not exempt from this. You would not like it if your boss asked you these questions at an interview. Why should you therefore ask someone else? I acknowledge that some or even many may not have been asked such questions and parents may simply be unware of the law, as was I. Now I know and I hope you do too. I have provided a plethora of websites and links for you to research, should you wish to. My aim is to make nannies and other domestic staff aware of their rights as well as helping parents to avoid illegal behaviour. The Know How Non Profit link I pasted above lists avoidable questions and more useful alternatives.

My point is that a person?s suitability for a job ought not be based on age nor any of the other protected characteristics. (Remember jobs like police, military, government or bars, clubs etc. may discriminate based on age lawfully).

I believe that the discrimination I have experienced is based partly on the age of the interviewers. I do realise that many mothers of very young children are in their thirties nowadays. That does not mean people in their twenties are less capable of caring for children. They should realise this. The woman who wrote 'I met with a much older nanny on Saturday morning and I thought she might be good for handling my crazy three year old'. So only 'much older' nannies can handle 'crazy' three year olds? I and my referees would beg to differ. Remember her offer to have me babysit? Apparently I am only capable of handling the crazy three year when she is asleep. Charming.

Parents, please stop discriminating against younger applicants. Nannies, childminders, babysitters, housekeepers, cleaners, everyone; know your rights, especially in this day and age. I appreciate my post is long. My intent was to make others aware of what I was until very recently, unaware of. I hope that this will help open people's minds.

I will add, that I am currently employed by a woman nearly twice my age. Incidentally, she did not ask for my age during the interview. She based her decision on my experience, what I would bring to the job and my references. (We are both Leos though, perhaps it was written in the stars? Semi serious).

I should note that I fully realise that age discrimination happens to older people also. I am sure there are domestic staff or childcarers who have experienced this. It is equally unfair. It seems today we're too young, too old, too big, too small, too this and too that... When are we ever just right or fine as we are?

I will also write that I am not claiming I am always discriminated against because of my age. Of course, there are times when I did not secure a position because a more experienced, qualified or suitable applicant was chosen. However, I do know that in some cases my age played in part. I have gotten jobs even after I was asked my age and the interviewer was surprised. They did say that they were impressed that a young person seemed so mature... Perhaps I proved their misconceptions wrong. I still like to think that in most cases I will get a fair chance, however, I do truly doubt that when the vast majority of rejections I received specified my youth was a factor against me and their preference for an older candidate. I see their surprised looks when they see me; I'm not what they expected. Again, I cannot change my facial features. I am who I am. Please, open your minds and your hearts.

Be more open minded. Try it, you'll like it (?).

[A-chan]

I have attached the second screenshot I captured of the advert because combined they were too large to be included in my above text.

After reading some of the comments I decided to seek independent help and clarification on the law and it's interpretation. I called the Equality Advisory & Support Service. http://www.equalityadvisoryservice.com.

I spoke to a knowledgeable man who I explained my situation to. I said that I had recently learnt and read about the Equality Act. I told him that I wanted to know if I am protected by it in my specific case. I said I work as a nanny and I feel I have been discriminated against because of my age. I told him of the innapropriate interview questions I am asked and what I have been told when I did not get some positions. He explained to me a number of things and the notes I took are below:

If a nanny is being employed in the home, it would be the work place and therefore not exempt from the Equality Act.

Age is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act.

The age discrimination section is quite fluid.

Employers may not discriminate during the recruitment process unless they can justify the discrimination was a necessary part of the job.

Specifying a minimum age, age range or age limit within an advert would discriminate against those not of or within the specified age/age range.

There are exceptions in certain jobs such as within bars/clubs, the police, military, government etc. where a minimum age is lawful.

Even specifying a number of years of experience should be justified as anyone without for example ten years of experience would be discriminated against. They might not have had the time to gain such experience.??

Someone newly qualified could have more relevant skills than an applicant with many years of experience.

Employers should be able to justify any specified characteristic or they could be open to legal action over possible discrimination.

Employees would have to prove that the treatment they received was discriminatory.

There is a (4 stage?) process to show/prove or ascertain whether conduct was?discriminatory.

During the interview, employers may not ask for an applicant's age/date of birth.??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Employers should not ask for date of birth on application forms and if for *internal review* purposes then it should be on a separate sheet.?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Prospective employers should treat applicants fairly by asking the same questions.

Suitability for a role should not be based on age.*

There are guidelines available for employers on codes of conduct.

(The * indicates when I was unable to remember his phrasing of the sentence).

After the phone call I went onto the website and downloaded some useful Citizens Advice and government documents regarding the Equality Act and discrimination. On the Resources page I found many informative articles: http://www.equalityadvisoryservice.com/app/answers/list.

I then went onto the Government Equalities Office website and I found numerous documents available for download on the Publications page after searching for words such as 'discrimination' and 'Equality Act'. Unfortunately many of the documents are too large for me to attach to this message. Here is the page with documents available on the website relating to the Equality Act: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications?keywords=Equality+Act&publication_filter_option=all&topics%5B%5D=all&departments%5B%5D=all&official_document_status=all&world_locations%5B%5D=all&from_date=&to_date=.

***If you think or feel you have been discriminated against, this informs you how to complain: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/process-for-complaints-under-the-equality-act-2010. ***

On the HMRC website, I found this definition of workplace: "A place at which an employee works is a permanent workplace if he or she attends it?regularly?for the performance of the duties of the employment."

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/eimanual/eim32065.htm

Whilst I recognise a house is not a workplace in the conventional sense of the word, that does not mean it is not a workplace if you are a nanny or a childminder. If you do not consider your home to be the place of work of your childcarer, where is it that they work? Perhaps you are suggesting that childcare unless in a conventional setting like a nursery is not actually work? If that is the case, what on Earth are you paying for? (My meaning here was not offend. Obviously you would see childcare is work. Parents raising children work most of all, no doubt). I think it is therefore safe to conclude that for a nanny or childminder, a house is a workplace. A workplace is not exempt from the ban on age discrimination, as well as all other forms of discrimination, as written in the Equality Act.

I agree that SBot made a good point about information written on your CV revealing much information about you. I am rather careful about what I include on my CV. I think it is not wise to post your CV onto job websites for example, you have no guarantee that your personal details are safe. I would caution against doing so as well as posting your CV onto this forum, even in a private message. Those seeking applicants for a position should consider setting up a specific email address for applicants to send their CVs to.

Perhaps I was not clear above. I am well aware parents will still ask inappropriate questions, especially if they do not realise they leave themselves open to discrimination claims by doing so. I did provide the link to the Know How Non Profit website's list of inappropriate questions, which explains why they are inappropriate/illegal and better alternatives. Please bear in mind what the man I spoke to said about the interviews:

"Prospective employers should treat applicants fairly by asking the same questions."

I am unable to prove that the parents who interviewed me asked completely different questions to different applicants, clearly. However, I do recall numerous occasions of parents simply asking questions off the top of their heads, apparently; they had no sheet of paper with notes or any questions. Therefore it is entirely possible for them to have asked slightly different questions to applicants if they did not have a set list of questions. I honestly can count on one hand the number of parents who had a printed list of questions to ask me. I have had to suggest good questions to ask.

Would you not want to do some research on the right questions to ask?

My point is that parents should endeavour to be prepared by having a set of questions to ask each applicant and therefore make a decision more fairly based on the answers and of course, how they feel about them. It should not be a matter of nannies having to dodge or deflect inappropriate, personal questions, it should be parents' responsibility to ask the appropriate, pertinent questions that will help ensure they select the right carer for them and their child. I would do so if it were about my child(ren). Please consider this parents.

I have looked at a number of websites that have lists of nanny interview questions and I found some that I think are appropriate.

The Care.com website has a list of good questions to ask during an interview with a nanny. http://blog.uk.care.com/how-to-interview-a-childcarer-questions-checklist/.

The page also lists inappropriate topics you may not ask according to prohibitions in the UK.

Hello Bee lists useful questions: http://www.hellobee.com/2011/12/15/nanny-interview-questions/.

Being the Best Dad lists some good questions: http://www.beingthebestdad.com/2012/02/08/19-interview-questions-you-should-ask-any-nannycaregiver-before-hiring-herhim/.

Any American website questions can easily be adapted from 'US' to 'UK' for example.

The Nannyjob website also has a list of inappropriate questions and it explains why they are so. It provides alternatives.

Here is the list (with some ammendments):

'Interviewing can be a nerve wracking process and it?s understandable that families want to find out as m

?Are you married/in a relationship??

Why it?s bad: Questions about marital status can be seen as discrimatory, or trying to find out about sexual preferences.

Why you might want to know: If you?re hiring a live in nanny you might want to know whether they?re going to move their partner in too, or whether you?ll be waking up to a string of different ?houseguests?[.]

What you can say: ?Would you expect to have guests to stay??

?Do you have children??

Why it?s bad: A nanny could claim that you discriminated against them if you didn?t give them the job and gave it to someone who didn?t have children.

Why you might want to know: A whole host of reasons, including whether the nanny is likely to want to bring their children to work regularly or occasionally or whether they have their own children to pick up from childcare, thus reducing their flexibility.

What you can say: ?Do you have any obligations at home which may interfere with your attendance or ability to do this job and how do you plan to minimise the [effect] of those?

?Are you planning to have children soon??

Why it?s bad: This is definitely discriminatory ? although you are trying to reduce the [effect] of an employee going on maternity or paternity leave it?s illegal to ask this question.

Why you might want to know: A nanny planning to start a family will mean you need to find alternative childcare to cover the leave they are entitled to.

What you can say: Nothing. This is a risk you need to be prepared to take.

?Do you have a disability??

Why it?s bad: Asking someone whether they have a disability contravenes legislation on equality.

Why you might want to know: Some disabilities may impair a nanny?s ability to do their job.

What you can say: You can focus on whether the applicant is able to do the job e.g. ?Are you able to lift and carry my toddler??. You can also ask whether you need to make reasonable adjustments once a job offer has been made. As an employer it is up to you to decide what is ?reasonable? in terms of your requirements. You may not be able to adjust working hours, for example, but you may be able to accommodate time off for treatment on a regular basis. If you are in any doubt we suggest you seek specialist advice.

?How old are you??

Why it?s bad: Knowing someone?s age could lead to a claim of age discrimination. You must focus on someone?s ability to do the job, whether old or young.

Why you might want to know: Nosiness!

What you can say: Nothing. [Are you over 18? <--- You may ask this question if you feel it is necessary.]

?Where do you come from??

Why it?s bad: Nationality and ethnicity should have no bearing on someone?s suitability as a nanny.

Why you might want to know: If you require your nanny to travel or if you have concerns about their right to work in the UK (which you should verify in any case) you may feel reassured by knowing their nationality. You may also think this is a friendly question inviting the nanny to talk about themselves. In rare cases it may be a genuine occupational requirement that a nanny holds a particular passport.

What you can say: ?Are you able to travel within the EU without restrictions/to X with the appropriate visa?? ?Can you provide evidence of your right to work in the UK??

?What religion are you??

Why it?s bad: This question is grounds for claiming discrimination.

Why you might want to know: If you want your nanny to support your religious practices you might think the simplest way is if they belong to your religion.

What you can say: ?We are Jewish/Hindu/Catholic and would like you to respect our traditions and support our children in their [religious] development. Do you feel comfortable doing that??'

http://www.nannyjob.co.uk/blog/parents/questions-not-to-ask-at-interview/.

The irony of this list being written on the Nannyjob website is twofold. This is the very same website with the discriminatory adverts and it is a website I know East Dulwich residents/forum users have advertised on. If they found the time to list an advert on the website, why did they not find the time to read this guide? I have been asked some of the inappropriate questions in interviews by East Dulwich parents who had advertised on the Nannyjob website.

I have spent some time reading, researching and writing about this topic. If you feel so strongly that it is unreasonable for me to politely request that you do not ask inappropriate interview questions and or not treat applicants unfairly or if you think that a house is not a workplace and therefore not included in the Equality Act 2010 then what I have written thus far is unlikely to convince you.

My aim was to make others aware of the law; age discrimination in particular, how to avoid possible accusations of unfair treatment, share my experience of discrimination and help others; both carers and parents. I did not mean to accuse or offend, merely to highlight an issue. I have provided numerous links and further resources to support my writing.

I do hope that both childcarers and parents will read the links. I have found them helpful and informative. Perhaps you will too. I do think that parents seeking childcare should make the effort to learn about employment law and ensure they are being as fair as possible.

(I do acknowledge that my post is long. Is that wrong? Please do not be put off by it. I am genuinely trying to help spread awareness. Unless indicated by ' or " or a website link, I wrote every word. I did not simply copy and paste. It was a shame to read that one seemed to think that's what I did. I know not everyone will read what I wrote. That would not only be due to the length, I believe. I thought this was an open forum. It's looking quite narrow from my viewpoint).

If anyone is wondering what I will do in possible future interviews, I will write that I have considered simply sending parents links to websites with interview questions, such as those above. My aim will be to help them be prepared as much as myself. I think it is important to be prepared for an interview, don't you?

This will be my last post on this thread. I feel I have achieved my aim. Thank you for the supportive messages. If there is anyone (nanny or parent) that would like to send me a message about this, I am happy to help if I can or try and offer support.

[Saffron]

Being discriminated against is indeed a terrible thing to feel. It's a shame that in the childcare sector, potential employers likely confuse the use of 'age' with the use of 'experience' as descriptors when hiring a nanny. However, are you not falling into your own pit by judging potential employers based on their age?

I believe that the discrimination I have experienced is based partly on the age of the interviewers. I do realise that many mothers of very young children are in their thirties nowadays.

I actually think the Equality Act as regards personal employees in private homes hired by individuals (not as applies to agencies) is a very poorly written piece of legislation, as there is neither the provision to police it nor the scope to enforce it.

If families have a particular style of person in mind that will suit their needs and personalities, it's a waste of their time and applicants' time to interview non-suitable candidates.

And personally I think families should be able to specify and hire whomever they want and the government (except for lawful collection of taxes) should stay the hell out of it.

Btw, the Equality Act does not appear to define the term "occupational requirement", under which employers may claim personal exemptions if sufficiently justified. In which case, my understanding is that the burden of proof would be with the claimant.

[Yuuna]

Saffron I believe you took the quote out of context. I think it is true. I'm not sure A-chan wrote that she asked for the age of the potential employers... They knew her age, because they asked for it. I actually agree with what was written wholeheartedly.

It's a shame the first comment from another forum user was less than supportive. The point of the post was try and open people's minds. I disagree that families should be exempt from the law in regards to employment. Age isn't the only form of discrimination potential as well as current employees face. Obviously, the complainant would have to prove the discrimination. I actually think the Equality Act is a good thing and more people should be aware of it. If parents want to employ staff, abide by the law.

If anyone else disagrees with the Equality Act 2010 or thinks parents should be made exempt, you can act now: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk. I am great believer in actions speak louder than words.

I believe A-chan was trying to turn her experiences into a positive by educating others and being supportive of those experiencing similar situations. That is how I read it. I have experienced discrimination based on my age, gender, skin colour/ethnicity so I do empathise with people who are discriminated against.

[A-chan]

Saffron I'm falling into no such pit. I based my view on what I was told by some older interviewers and what they wrote to me. I did not look at them, see they were older and decide they would not hire a younger person. Perhaps you didn't read ''it's not a 22 year old's job''? (I am not 22, though I am told I look younger than that). I also mentioned older employers that did hire me... It seems you think the discrimination was acceptable. Thank you for your support. I do not think it is simply 'confusing age with experience', some people do have an age in mind there is little to confuse in that. (I will add that I did not mention I was considering legal action my point was to inform people).

People are free to abhorently or oppositionally read what I wrote as is their right. People are also free to take on board what I wrote about being more open minded if they so wish to. I just want people to know their rights and know what they're protected against.

I agree with Yuuna, if anyone disagrees with the Equality Act, you can do something about it. Write to your local MP or follow the above link and start a petition. I'm not being facetious; I have written to members of Parliament and I received replies. We as individuals and especially collectively are not powerless. I realise that now more than ever. Whilst I directed my above post to families seeking to employ domestic staff, my situation is far from unique as the links I provided show.

After reading Saffron's post, I did consider removing my post (I can be easily disheartened by perceived negativity) however I am still glad I wrote what I did. I received a message congratulating me on what I wrote. If what I wrote helps even just one person, I will be happy.

Ippee nifee deebiru Yuuna.

[standswithfist]

its a tricky one as I have had child carers looking after my children of all ages and I would prefer older carers now BECAUSE they have more experience and would suit me much more.

And this is in my experience.

[Yuuna]

I do suspect some will read what you wrote as they wish to, possibly abhorrently/oppositionally which is a shame. That's people for you. You wrote a thorough, yet long post, people were bound to read what they wanted and skip the rest which I am sure you knew. I think the negative perception was spot on. I'm glad you got a positive message, despite the message deflection above, I hope people do become more aware.

Karii (good health),

Yuuna

[A-chan]

standswithfist Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> its a tricky one as I have had child carers

> looking after my children of all ages and I would

> prefer older carers now BECAUSE they have more

> experience and would suit me much more.

>

> And this is in my experience.

I appreciate your opinion and I do understand to a degree. Naturally if a person has cared for children for many years, then it is likely they are older. However, how old is 'older' and how much experience is necessary? That will vary from parent to parent so it is subjective. My point is age ought not be the determinant of suitability for the position. I am not suggesting an 18 year old care for a baby, it is unlikely they will have much experience, however, a 25 year old is quite different.

When parents specify qualifications, which not all do, are they are aware of how long it takes to attain them? Does being 30 years and over mean they are better at looking after children? I believe certain jobs are like vocations. Experience does matter, I agree. Many turned down for jobs are not always due to lack of experience.

You may prefer an older candidate due to your experiences, which is understandable. I'm sure there are others with your preference who have not had a range of childcarers of different ages work for them which could make them less open minded to younger applicants. Remember when I write 'younger' I do not mean 'less experienced'. Many adverts I see specify

at least two years of experience not ten. Age isn't everything.

I am also making the point that part of the problem is my perceived age, due to my appearance, something I could not change if even I had ten years of experience.

[SBot]

And you've "removed" all of your old posts regarding nanny jobs because.........

Being a nanny is a very personal job for both sides so interviews are generally more relaxed and your personal information gets discussed.

Age will obviously show years of experience, a 23 year old will only have had 4/5 years experience, possibly only working for 1 or 2 families.

I don't think it's discrimination, it's more their preference of a nanny.

You have a job so well done, the nanny market is not what it used to be, we can't be choosy these days.

[A-chan]

My previous posts are not part of the discussion. I am not answering to you.

Personal information such as marital status, or whether I intend to get pregnant are not relevant to the job either. They are not permitted for obvious reasons. Perhaps you would like to asked them in an interview? Interviewers do not have a right to my personal information any more than you do. The law is merely confirming that. The years of experience will be evident by how long one has worked in a particular job, not the years they have been alive. Not employing someone because of their age is discrimination, whether you think it is right or wrong is another matter.

Was your comment regarding my employment status meant to be an insult? What was the intent of your post?

When I wrote my post I did nor expect to be insulted or have attempts made to discredit me. I merely meant to inform people, NOT justify myself, unfair discrimination or the law prohibiting. It's interesting to read so many opposed to it.

[Yuuna]

SBot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And you've "removed" all of your old posts

> regarding nanny jobs because.........

> Being a nanny is a very personal job for both

> sides so interviews are generally more relaxed and

> your personal information gets discussed.

> Age will obviously show years of experience, a 23

> year old will only have had 4/5 years experience,

> possibly only working for 1 or 2 families.

>

> I don't think it's discrimination, it's more their

> preference of a nanny.

> You have a job so well done, the nanny market is

> not what it used to be, we can't be choosy these

> days.

And A-chan's previous nanny job posts are relevant because...... Are you looking for a nanny? Would you like to be turned down for a job because of your age? Do you have a sensitivity chip, SBot...? You might be fine with your personal information being discussed but that doesn't mean others will or should be.

Who is 'we', parents? I really hope not. Don't include others in your snide comment. It shows lack of maturity and reveals your true intent (deflection of the thread). For some people someone 23 years old is sufficient, because they are looking for the right person for them and their children. I had my first child then. Age is not a designation. I don't get why you felt you had to post and be insulting as well. Is it too much for people to put across their opinions WITHOUT putting another down?

I think it's a real shame that this thread has been turned negative by a few. That's why I don't much like this forum. A person can share their experiences and genuinely want to make others aware to help and what do people do? Try to discredit them and practically knock them...

[James Barber]

You make a very good points.

Just to re enforce your point. A newly qualified teacher could start work at 21 full-time and have been on teaching practice earlier. They'll be in charge of classes of 30 children.

[SBot]

It's my opinion within this discussion, no intent to discredit. So if at an interview you we're asked "how old are you?", what do you say??

[Yuuna]

SBot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's my opinion within this discussion, no intent

> to discredit. So if at an interview you we're

> asked "how old are you?", what do you say??

Are you serious? What exactly are you discussing? Trying to find out her age? Will you please stop ruining this thread?

Your comment shows you did not read the post. You're not even trying to understand you're just causing a distraction from points raised in the first post.

[A-chan]

It's okay Yuuna, I think the intention is clear.

Thank you James, I had not thought of that. I have a friend who started teaching at 21. I appreciate being a nanny is different to being a teacher. I do think the responsibilty of 30 children is much greater. I would like to teach in future and I don't think caring for 2 or 3 children quite compares.

[Yuuna]

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You make a very good points.

>

> Just to re enforce your point. A newly qualified

> teacher could start work at 21 full-time and have

> been on teaching practice earlier. They'll be in

> charge of classes of 30 children.

That's a good example.

[James Barber]

Hi A-chan,

I beg to differ.

Teaching 30 children in the context of a school is different to taking care of a few children out of a school environment. This is why school trips don't have a teacher pupil ratio of 30:1. The rhythm of the day is different. It's a tough job being a teacher but unlikely to stretch from 8am to 6pm in front of a class. A nanny would need that different stamina.

Clearly the original poster has highlighted ageism. It should be about peoples ability to do the job not peoples assumption based on discrimination.

I've found this a really useful prod to think about my actions and the actions of others.

[Saffron]

Yuuna Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Saffron I believe you took the quote out of

> context.

Not at all. My comment was phrased in the form of a question, in order to pursue critical analysis.

> I think it is true. I'm not sure A-chan

> wrote that she asked for the age of the potential

> employers... They knew her age, because they asked

> for it. I actually agree with what was written

> wholeheartedly.

>

> It's a shame the first comment from another forum

> user was less than supportive.

Actually my opening comment was supportive:

Being discriminated against is indeed a terrible thing to feel.

> The point of the

> post was try and open people's minds. I disagree

> that families should be exempt from the law in

> regards to employment. Age isn't the only form of

> discrimination potential as well as current

> employees face. Obviously, the complainant would

> have to prove the discrimination. I actually think

> the Equality Act is a good thing and more people

> should be aware of it. If parents want to employ

> staff, abide by the law.

I think Equality is a good thing. I never said I didn't think so. However, I do think that the Equality Act is not the best piece of written legislation. And actually, because of the manner in which it is written, it is currently not clear what whether or not individual families (not agencies) can advertise for certain characteristics. Until such time as this issue comes up to be tested in court, or the law is otherwise amended, it remains unclear.

>

> I believe A-chan was trying to turn her

> experiences into a positive by educating others

> and being supportive of those experiencing similar

> situations. That is how I read it. I have

> experienced discrimination based on my age,

> gender, skin colour/ethnicity so I do empathise

> with people who are discriminated against.

I have also experienced discrimination, but I don't think you have to experience it to understand it. And, I agree that the OP appears to be trying to educate others. BUT, that is HER interpretation of the law. I have offered a different view point. That is all.

[SBot]

When I was job hunting in 1999, the nanny agency application asked for my dress size! " we find it hard to place fat nannies"!!!! I doubt they ask that these days!

[Saffron]

Yuuna Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> SBot Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > It's my opinion within this discussion, no

> intent

> > to discredit. So if at an interview you we're

> > asked "how old are you?", what do you say??

>

>

> Are you serious? What exactly are you discussing?

> Trying to find out her age? Will you please stop

> ruining this thread?

SBot's question seems legit. And, in fact, if the OP's goal was to educate and inform both parents and carers, it would be helpful for prospective nannies to know how other prospective nannies are dealing with these questions, which can be awkward for both parties. That's not ruining the thread in anyway. It's simply adding to the discussion, IMHO.

[standswithfist]

agree with you Saffron. its an interesting thread and great to see it from a nannies point of view.And like James B said has made me think about the way I look at things.

[Yuuna]

Saffron Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yuuna Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > SBot Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > It's my opinion within this discussion, no

> > intent

> > > to discredit. So if at an interview you we're

> > > asked "how old are you?", what do you say??

> >

> >

> > Are you serious? What exactly are you

> discussing?

> > Trying to find out her age? Will you please

> stop

> > ruining this thread?

>

> SBot's question seems legit. And, in fact, if the

> OP's goal was to educate and inform both parents

> and carers, it would be helpful for prospective

> nannies to know how other prospective nannies are

> dealing with these questions, which can be awkward

> for both parties. That's not ruining the thread

> in anyway. It's simply adding to the discussion,

> IMHO.

SBot's question 'seems legit'... (and her others)?

A-chan wrote (in her first post): "I am almost always asked my age during interviews. I answered because I did not know better."

Yet, apparently, SBot (short for SuperBot?) wrote: "So if at an interview you we're asked "how old are you?", what do you say??" and it is supposedly a 'legit' question.

This is from the same user who wrote: "And you've "removed" all of your old posts regarding nanny jobs because........." Please explain how that is both 'legit' and relevant to this 'discussion'.

SBot also wrote: "You have a job so well done, the nanny market is not what it used to be, we can't be choosy these days." Patronising and sarcastic much? Of course, none of that was in any way intentional (?).

SBot is a mother and I think a nanny also. Her opinion is that personal sujects will be discussed, which is fair enough. I disagree that it is appropriate to ask such questions, as written above, during an interview or not hire someone for any of the characteristics above. It is also illegal.

However, why does SBot feel the need to ask about unrelated subjects, like previous posts being deleted. Did she think by reading them she would gain an understanding of A-chan's discrimination? Perhaps she thought she would find justification? Or perhaps by asking about them she would cause people to wonder 'oh yeah, why did she remove her previous posts, hmm...' therefore invalidating her post? Did it not occur to SBot that she removed her posts because she was no longer seeking employment, her commitments changed, or she didn't want personal details like her phone number or email address still being on the forum? I mean, I'm just thinking aloud... I too have removed previous posts (suspicious activity?). Also, why should A-chan have to explain this to SBot? Is it her business? A-chan could ignore her, SBot could also not have asked...

That's why I maintain that SBot was providing a distraction by not so slyly putting the focus on A-chan's character. The way I wrote was intentional to highlight another way of looking at what 'seems legit'. Please focus on the points she wrote not what you want to know about her personally, that is inappropriate.

Apart from the SBot comment, Saffron, I agree. Unfortunately other nannies have not offered such nor have parents. You may have tried to pursue critical analysis, however, it didn't come across that way. It looked like nitpicking and trying to find fault.

When my family move I will be seeking childcare. I don't think I have asked any inappropriate questions at interviews but I am and I will be more mindful about how I view people. I think I am quite open minded. I am still a young mum and I have sympathy for others who are discriminated against for being young. I also sympathise with older people who are discriminated against, something A-chan also pointed out. She also wrote about national/ethnic discrimination something I have experienced. Whilst the focus was undoubtedly on age, the point was also to highlight all forms of discrimination. I agree it is good to have a nanny's point of view, though I don't think some are attempting to see it from her point of view. The legislation is not so poorly written in my view; the exceptions are clear. The childcare sector be it domestic or not, is simply not one of them. That's the point. I think the piece is meant to be empowering also: know your rights (to fair treatment).

Thank you A-chan for writing what you did. I know there are many who will appreciate the time and energy it took for you to write it (whether they agree with the law or not). I like your writing too.

[SBot]

Ok so when I go for my next nanny position and I get asked the following questions.....

How old are you?

Are you married?

So you have any of your own children?

What do I answer??

Anyhow this information is on my CV, my marriage is mentioned in a reference from a previous employer!

I doubt I would get the job if I started bleating on about how it's illegal for you to ask me those questions!!!

Is it wrong then for me at interview to ask a potential employer any personal questions? I have asked "do you plan to have anymore children?"

The basics is it's not discrimination, it's personal preference!!

[A-chan]

Saffron, I in no way find SBot's comment 'legit'. If she read my post, she would have known the answer. Also, my previous posts being brought up did not add to the discussion. That was an attempt to deflect my message, forcing me to have to explain myself.

I did not think it is simply 'my' interpretation of the law. I have spoken to lawyers who agree that parents are not exempt from the law; the Equality Act applies to all jobs unless it a job like I wrote above (police, military, government, club etc.) otherwise employers would have to justify the discrimination. I doubt they could - that is my interpretation.

The Equality Act is from 2010.

James, I meant that teaching in a formal setting is different to working in a home. I also do think it does depend on the hours you work.

Some people seem to have taken what I wrote in a way I had not imagined. I'm not sure 'critical analysis' was necessary if you wanted to read my message and not read into me as a person. I thought you were nitpicking. My point was not to start a discussion (that's not to write I wasn't open to it) but to inform people and cause them to see things differently. I originally thought ageism only really happened to older people.

Please stop focussing on me and what I say and what I don't say in an interview. This isn't a question and answer. This was my experience and what I learnt and how I am making others aware. Unfortunately, I now think people will focus on me and not my message due to certain comments.

[Yuuna]

SBot if it is on your CV do they need to ask...? If you read the first post, you would have seen the link to the Know How Non Profit website with inappropriate and suggested questions. http://knowhownonprofit.org/how-to/how-to-avoid-illegal-or-innapropriate-interview-questions Prospective employers can read it also.

Employers do discriminate based on what details are written on a CV. You have raised a fair point. You aren't obligated to provide that on your CV it may be standard practice however it can be used against you.

A-chan wrote: "However, it would not be so easy to deflect, dodge, or simply refuse to answer such a direct question without potentially ruining the chance of being hired." Obviously it isn't easy to avoid the questions. Did you read that or anything she wrote...

A-chan copied this in her first post:

The following are prohibited questions that interviewers may not ask:

How old are you?

Are you married?

Are you gay?

What are your childcare arrangements?

Are you planning to start a family soon?

Are you a member of a trade union?

What political party do you support?

Source: Which?

Which of those questions is appropriate, (forget the legality part for now), and if only some are why and why are the others inappropriate?

Do you understand how a person can be given favourable or unfavourable treatment based on the answers to any of the questions?

Do you understand the point of the Equality Act 2010?

It's not wrong to ask an employer that if you have the job already. I would not think it appropriate to ask at the interview - if they didn't specify they plan to have more children, why should you ask during the interview? I would be surprised if I was asked at such an early stage. Should my prospective employee ask for my sexual orientation or my age?

Your questions are:

How old are you?

Are you married?

So you have any of your own children?

What do I answer??

Are you regularly asked them? If they are on your CV why would they? Anyway, you could attempt to deflect from say the age question by mentioning experience counts for more. I'm not asked my age, my date of birth is not on my CV. If an employer asked me if I have children I would ask if it relevant to the job. My marital status is my business, I wear a ring... What you call 'basics' I say is unnecessary.

Discrimination literally is:

The term discriminate appeared in the early 17th century in the English language. It is from the Latin discriminat- 'distinguished between', from the verb discriminare, from discrimen 'distinction', from the verb discernere.[3] Since the American Civil War the term "discrimination" generally evolved in American English usage as an understanding of prejudicial treatment of an individual based solely on their race, later generalized as membership in a certain socially undesirable group or social category.[4] "Discrimination" derives from Latin, where the verb discrimire means "to separate, to distinguish, to make a distinction". This is from Wikipedia.

So making a distinction is discrimination. However we are discussing inappropriate, and unlawful discrimination. You think it is fine, others don't.

The above link, is meant to help parents avoid such questions. Is A-chan clicking her fingers to make the situation instantly better? Or is she trying to inform people and providing links to back up her points?

Did you honestly read only what you wanted to? I know it was long, but it wasn't that taxing. I mean she even gave a link with suggested questions. I wanted to post them but I am unsure if the page is copyright or I may do so.

Did you do any research? I actually read the law here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents.