Is it discriminatory to put “bonus” video game skills in a job advertisement?
up vote
14
down vote
favorite
My employer (a small company) is hiring an IT person. The person hiring and writing the job ad loves SNES video games and grew up around that time.
The job ad for the IT person has a section for "bonus skills" that includes sentences about the person's skill level about specific SNES video games. I challenged this person and said it could easily be interpreted as age or "geek" discrimination (especially considering that the ad is for an IT person). They say it's meant to be humor fun/wink and I'm overreacting but they've also told me the exact person that they'd hire if we ever had the money (and this person fits this "culture" description exactly).
The rest of the job ad is very normal and what you'd expect. I think these couple of lines taint an otherwise well written job ad.
Am I wrong in thinking this is unnecessary and could be perceived as discriminatory?
recruitment job-description discrimination
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
14
down vote
favorite
My employer (a small company) is hiring an IT person. The person hiring and writing the job ad loves SNES video games and grew up around that time.
The job ad for the IT person has a section for "bonus skills" that includes sentences about the person's skill level about specific SNES video games. I challenged this person and said it could easily be interpreted as age or "geek" discrimination (especially considering that the ad is for an IT person). They say it's meant to be humor fun/wink and I'm overreacting but they've also told me the exact person that they'd hire if we ever had the money (and this person fits this "culture" description exactly).
The rest of the job ad is very normal and what you'd expect. I think these couple of lines taint an otherwise well written job ad.
Am I wrong in thinking this is unnecessary and could be perceived as discriminatory?
recruitment job-description discrimination
New contributor
31
Do you have a working SNES in the office?
– Stefano Palazzo
4 hours ago
5
I'm not sure why all the downvotes - this seems like a perfectly reasonable question.
– David K
4 hours ago
1
@StefanoPalazzo if there is not, how can the applicant prove they have the SNES skills
– SaggingRufus
4 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
14
down vote
favorite
up vote
14
down vote
favorite
My employer (a small company) is hiring an IT person. The person hiring and writing the job ad loves SNES video games and grew up around that time.
The job ad for the IT person has a section for "bonus skills" that includes sentences about the person's skill level about specific SNES video games. I challenged this person and said it could easily be interpreted as age or "geek" discrimination (especially considering that the ad is for an IT person). They say it's meant to be humor fun/wink and I'm overreacting but they've also told me the exact person that they'd hire if we ever had the money (and this person fits this "culture" description exactly).
The rest of the job ad is very normal and what you'd expect. I think these couple of lines taint an otherwise well written job ad.
Am I wrong in thinking this is unnecessary and could be perceived as discriminatory?
recruitment job-description discrimination
New contributor
My employer (a small company) is hiring an IT person. The person hiring and writing the job ad loves SNES video games and grew up around that time.
The job ad for the IT person has a section for "bonus skills" that includes sentences about the person's skill level about specific SNES video games. I challenged this person and said it could easily be interpreted as age or "geek" discrimination (especially considering that the ad is for an IT person). They say it's meant to be humor fun/wink and I'm overreacting but they've also told me the exact person that they'd hire if we ever had the money (and this person fits this "culture" description exactly).
The rest of the job ad is very normal and what you'd expect. I think these couple of lines taint an otherwise well written job ad.
Am I wrong in thinking this is unnecessary and could be perceived as discriminatory?
recruitment job-description discrimination
recruitment job-description discrimination
New contributor
New contributor
edited 4 hours ago
David K
23k1481118
23k1481118
New contributor
asked 5 hours ago
user95595
8913
8913
New contributor
New contributor
31
Do you have a working SNES in the office?
– Stefano Palazzo
4 hours ago
5
I'm not sure why all the downvotes - this seems like a perfectly reasonable question.
– David K
4 hours ago
1
@StefanoPalazzo if there is not, how can the applicant prove they have the SNES skills
– SaggingRufus
4 hours ago
add a comment |
31
Do you have a working SNES in the office?
– Stefano Palazzo
4 hours ago
5
I'm not sure why all the downvotes - this seems like a perfectly reasonable question.
– David K
4 hours ago
1
@StefanoPalazzo if there is not, how can the applicant prove they have the SNES skills
– SaggingRufus
4 hours ago
31
31
Do you have a working SNES in the office?
– Stefano Palazzo
4 hours ago
Do you have a working SNES in the office?
– Stefano Palazzo
4 hours ago
5
5
I'm not sure why all the downvotes - this seems like a perfectly reasonable question.
– David K
4 hours ago
I'm not sure why all the downvotes - this seems like a perfectly reasonable question.
– David K
4 hours ago
1
1
@StefanoPalazzo if there is not, how can the applicant prove they have the SNES skills
– SaggingRufus
4 hours ago
@StefanoPalazzo if there is not, how can the applicant prove they have the SNES skills
– SaggingRufus
4 hours ago
add a comment |
8 Answers
8
active
oldest
votes
up vote
35
down vote
Is this discriminatory? No, probably not. Is it inappropriate to put in a job ad? Yes, most definitely.
First, I'm going to assume that your colleague just wants to include the "bonus" section for flavor and doesn't actually want to judge hiring based on SNES skills, because to do so would just be moronic.
Second, unless you are hiring a video game tester, having a section on video game skills just doesn't make any sense and will only confuse your potential candidates. Most people looking at the ad will spend a minute or two trying to figure out how serious that section is. And if they determine it's not serious, then they'll have to figure out if there's any other parts of the advertisement that weren't meant to be serious. It makes it difficult to figure out what you really want from a candidate, which also makes it hard for recruiters to figure out who to send your way.
Third, it looks unprofessional. If I saw that in a job ad I'd figure the company was a startup made by some college buddies and not someplace I'd really want to depend on a paycheck from. But maybe you have a really laid-back culture like that and you want to put that out there from the beginning. Just know that you'll eliminate a lot of prospects because of it.
Back to your original question though, I wouldn't worry about discrimination. There's no such thing as "geek discrimination," and this wouldn't qualify as age discrimination since someone of any age can be a fan of SNES games.
2
In the US (at a federal level, anyways) it is not illegal to discriminate against young people.
– stannius
3 hours ago
There's no such thing as "geek discrimination"? Do you mean there's no law against geek discrimination?
– Comintern
2 hours ago
3
@Comintern Probably. When people talk about a certain kind of discrimination "not existing", they generally mean that it's not illegal to discriminate based on that particular factor. Either that, or they're using a different definition of "discrimination" (which is reasonable, depending on their field of study; jargon is a pain like that)
– Nic Hartley
2 hours ago
4
@DavidK: I'd expand the second point, from "video game tester" to "for working on a video game". I could see value in e.g. a small retro game studio using a classic game as inspiration, and familiarity with specific games being valuable to speed up the on-boarding process: e.g. if it was a game studio making a "Metroidvania" genre game, it may be worthwhile to look for someone with familiarity with Metroid and Castlevania games which defined (and named) that genre, regardless of whether they will be a tester, developer or designer. "Skill" is then being looked at as a proxy for "familiarity".
– sharur
2 hours ago
1
If you define "discrimination" broadly enough, then all job ads are discriminatory, since they discriminate against people who don't want or are unsuitable for the job.
– BenM
1 hour ago
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
8
down vote
No discrimination.
Yes, you're overreacting.
...and you diminish a very important protection mechanism with banal nonsense !
In fact employers are free to chose their employees' suitable qualifications and personalities as they please and they deem fitting into their company.
Discrimination is to reject because of race, gender, religion, age etc.
Check antidiscrimination laws in your country, you won't find video games in the list...
I do agree though, it is not the smartest decision to include that.
It's not even required for the job, just for the one hiring to have someone like minded to hang out with.
One could argue however it is to build a certain company climate, which is fine to do nonetheless.
EDIT:
I don't see the post age discriminatory either.
A) growing up around the times of SNES is just a BONUS
B) hiring someone for example in a senior capacity with X years experience, thus excluding a certain age group (young), is perfectly legal and not discrimination at all.
Age discrimination would be if a young and old person fit the job description criteria and they hire the young person, "because young".
Please check the following U.S. law for further details:
https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/discrimination/agedisc
Big thanks to Richard U for providing the link!
§623. Prohibition of age discrimination
(a) Employer practices
It shall be unlawful for an employer—
(1) to fail or refuse to hire [...]
any individual[...]because of such individual's age;
(f) Lawful practices; age an occupational qualification;
other reasonable factors; laws of foreign workplace;
seniority system; employee benefit plans;
discharge or discipline for good cause
It shall not be unlawful [...]
(1) to take any action otherwise prohibited[...]
where age is a bona fide occupational qualification
reasonably necessary to the normal operation[...]
or where the differentiation is based on
reasonable factors other than age[...]
or where such practices involve an employee
in a workplace in a foreign country, and compliance
[...]would cause[...]to violate the
laws of the country in which such workplace is located;
Keep in mind, other countries will have different laws...
@JoeStrazzere could requiring ten years of full-time employment be construed as age discrimination, as it rules out anyone under the age of 28 in most states?
– Richard U
3 hours ago
1
@RichardU - no, such job requirements wouldn't be age discrimination.
– Joe Strazzere
3 hours ago
@JoeStrazzere while I was answering you, a similar thought crossed my mind as well. It probably could be argued like that, potentially even won.However a good judge would(should) also consider the INTENT of the law.As a lay person I assume the law is to create equal opportunities and to prevent arbitrary and for the job in question irrelevant discrimination.
– DigitalBlade969
3 hours ago
1
@DigitalBlade969 - well, the intent of the age discrimination laws is to protect discrimination against older workers.
– Joe Strazzere
3 hours ago
@JoeStrazzere in the context of them being disadvantaged SOLELY due to their age, despite having all other qualifications / experience for the work required.If they know Cobol but not java it's the qualification. If they know both and they're still not getting hired just because they're old, it's age discrimination.
– DigitalBlade969
3 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
up vote
7
down vote
Am I wrong in thinking this is unnecessary and could be perceived as
discriminatory?
Anything can be perceived as discriminatory. But only a lawsuit would determine if it is actually discriminatory or not and that's unlikely to happen.
It is completely unnecessary. Not a smart way to advertise for help, IMHO.
It's clear you have a reasonable worry, since ads which are designed to deter older people from applying might be deemed discriminatory: https://www.bizfilings.com/toolkit/research-topics/office-hr/case-studies-of-age-discrimination-in-job-ads
But, practically speaking, it's extremely unlikely to ever get that far. Try not to worry.
Unless you are this person's boss, or unless you are the hiring manager, there's not much you can do. There are a lot of stupid job ads out there. Maybe after a few interviews, they will realize that the ad isn't attracting the right kind of candidate. Maybe not. They may well get a "personality" out of this ad. Hopefully, you get a good worker too.
Thanks. How do I convince this person to exclude it since they're dead set on looking for a "personality"?
– user95595
4 hours ago
1
@user95595 let them do it. No one looking for a serious job will apply. That person can waste their time interviewing people. After that, maybe they will see the light
– SaggingRufus
4 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
No, this is not discrimination, and confronting someone over what amounts to nothing more than an impish rider to a job ad is not going to be well received.
As someone with disabilities who has suffered actual discrimination, I find such trivializing of a real problem in the workplace highly irritating. If I were at your company I would ask people to seriously reconsider what your future with the company would be from that point, and have HR flag you as a potential troublemaker.
I say this not to berate you, but to show you how badly an overreaction could harm YOUR career by triggering a backlash.
Right now, there are articles in the news every single day about someone doing something as an overreaction. The principal disciplined for banning candy canes, among others comes to mind. An accusation of discrimination can ruin someone's career, and as such, the blowback from a false one can have a similar effect.
In short, never confront someone about discrimination unless you're sure, and you've got proof, or it could end badly for you.
That said:
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) protects certain applicants and employees 40 years of age and older from discrimination on the basis of age in hiring, promotion, discharge, compensation, or terms, conditions or privileges of employment. The ADEA is enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
So, no, not by any legal definition is it age discrimination.
For reference:
https://www.bizfilings.com/toolkit/research-topics/office-hr/case-studies-of-age-discrimination-in-job-ads
Thanks to Joe Strazzere for providing that link.
2
"...and have HR flag you as a potential troublemaker" really? You talk about overreacting, but I don't get how me asking my colleague "could be perceived as discriminatory?" is being a troublemaker. It served no purpose to the job ad. I wasn't trying to trivialize discrimination, I just want my company to not post an inappropriate job ad. I was not accusing this person of discrimination.
– user95595
3 hours ago
@user95595 from your post " I challenged this person and said it could easily be interpreted as age or "geek" discrimination " That's an accusation. You didn't say you asked, you said you challenged.
– Richard U
3 hours ago
Ads which are " designed to deter older persons from applying" may also be discriminatory. See: bizfilings.com/toolkit/research-topics/office-hr/…
– Joe Strazzere
3 hours ago
@JoeStrazzere thanks, I'll add that to my answer.
– Richard U
3 hours ago
@user95595 - don't worry. You wouldn't be considered a troublemaker by any reasonable employer.
– Joe Strazzere
3 hours ago
|
show 7 more comments
up vote
3
down vote
Suppose the hiring manager was a woman and she announced that she thought the ideal candidate for the IT role was someone who had worked needlepoint as a hobby. Oh, and scrapbooked. It would fit the "corporate culture" she was trying to create. And she'd done those things herself as a younger person and felt that they contribute greatly to the person she is, and the workplace skills she has.
Discriminatory? She assures you she'd be happy to hire a man who had done these things!
But of course it's discriminatory. Any selection criteria which is not in-and-of itself a bona fide job requirement but which correlates with gender, age or culture is systemically discriminatory.
So if you're hiring a programmer, or accountant, or truck driver, you can't say you want someone who's played college football any more than you can prefer a former cheerleader.
Corporate culture can't be an excuse for discrimination. It can be a form of discrimination, if the the corporate culture is inherently discriminatory--if it can't work with women, or people of different cultures, or different religions.
Your hiring manager has confused a place of employment with a private club. He's welcome to start an SNES society that meets in his man cave at home, but as an employer he's got to play by the rules. Your company needs to do itself a big favour and retain the services of a good HR consultant to vet their hiring process.
I've been struggling to come up with an counter example all day and I think the example you gave is great. Thanks!
– user95595
55 secs ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
1) "Bonus" qualifications are just that, "bonus". If you have those qualifications, then you are looked on as a better candidate. It's like "We want a Java developer, bonus if you also know Angular".
2) Not being familiar with SNES games is not any more age discriminatory than not being familiar with COBOL or FORTRAN or BASIC. Replace SNES with COBOL on the JD and see if it still feels discriminatory. If not, then it's not discriminatory (in the "can I be sued for this" sense, although it may be discriminatory in other ways). IANAL but I feel sufficiently confident saying this.
3) It might not be appropriate to have on a JD though, because it makes the company feel a bit unprofessional. Like, "if I work for this company, am I going to have my salary capped based on how good I am at Mortal Kombat?" It might be something to come up in the interview, if such a conversation can easily be raised without feeling awkward.
tl;dr: You are not wrong in thinking it is unnecessary. You are wrong in thinking it would be perceived as discriminatory by a reasonable applicant (although this is somewhat opinion). If I was the HR manager, I would not want to hire someone who would perceive such a thing as discriminatory; such a person would not be a good culture fit at a company I was in charge of.
1
Not being familiar with SNES games is not any more age discriminatory : especially since they now re-edited the good ol' NES and SNES and that I know some millenials having fun with it ;)
– OldPadawan
4 hours ago
"We want a Java developer, bonus if you also know Angular" Additional bonus points if you can explain in the interview what the two have to do with each other?
– a CVn
2 hours ago
I haven't seen COBOL listed on a job ad unless it was going to be used in the job. (And I never learned COBOL, nobody saw me, and you can't prove anything.)
– David Thornley
37 mins ago
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
It is quite obviously discrimination. It is also quite obviously not illegal discrimination. On the third hand, you will be losing out on some good candidates.
You may reject a candidate who hasn't grown up playing these games (but may be willing to accept candidates who refused to grow up while playing these games). And candidates of all ages will think that your advert is rather childish and ignore you.
Your answer made something click for me. When I was saying "discrimination", I think that I misused the word (or didn't qualify it) correctly. I was feeling that the post was being exclusive rather than inclusive and was not necessarily implying an illegality. Simply put, I felt as though it was going out of it's way to say "it's only a bonus to like the things that we like" which isn't fair.
– user95595
2 hours ago
@user95595 you want to be exclusive. Specifically, you want to exclude anyone who would not fit the corporate or team culture.
– Richard U
2 hours ago
1
@RichardU "culture is not a foosball table" or in my case video games...
– user95595
2 hours ago
1
@user95595 yeah, it is, and far more than you think.
– Richard U
2 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
-1
down vote
The person hiring and writing the job ad loves SNES video games and grew up around that time.
It's hard to tell if this same person is also running your team. From what I gather this person's job is to interview and hire talent.
With that said, can you bring it up to your team's lead? Also, in your day to day job, are you or coworkers playing SNES games? So it's misleading if no one except this person is playing or into SNES.
If the person doing the job ad is also your team's lead, I would bring up that this could lead to potential conflict especially if he's friendly on the ground that the person is into SNES games. I had coworkers in the past who got friendly with the boss by playing online games for hours. Things went south when the boss and coworker had a conflict and discipline had to be done. It caused a fallout.
add a comment |
StackExchange.ready(function () {
$("#show-editor-button input, #show-editor-button button").click(function () {
var showEditor = function() {
$("#show-editor-button").hide();
$("#post-form").removeClass("dno");
StackExchange.editor.finallyInit();
};
var useFancy = $(this).data('confirm-use-fancy');
if(useFancy == 'True') {
var popupTitle = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-title');
var popupBody = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-body');
var popupAccept = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-accept-button');
$(this).loadPopup({
url: '/post/self-answer-popup',
loaded: function(popup) {
var pTitle = $(popup).find('h2');
var pBody = $(popup).find('.popup-body');
var pSubmit = $(popup).find('.popup-submit');
pTitle.text(popupTitle);
pBody.html(popupBody);
pSubmit.val(popupAccept).click(showEditor);
}
})
} else{
var confirmText = $(this).data('confirm-text');
if (confirmText ? confirm(confirmText) : true) {
showEditor();
}
}
});
});
8 Answers
8
active
oldest
votes
8 Answers
8
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
35
down vote
Is this discriminatory? No, probably not. Is it inappropriate to put in a job ad? Yes, most definitely.
First, I'm going to assume that your colleague just wants to include the "bonus" section for flavor and doesn't actually want to judge hiring based on SNES skills, because to do so would just be moronic.
Second, unless you are hiring a video game tester, having a section on video game skills just doesn't make any sense and will only confuse your potential candidates. Most people looking at the ad will spend a minute or two trying to figure out how serious that section is. And if they determine it's not serious, then they'll have to figure out if there's any other parts of the advertisement that weren't meant to be serious. It makes it difficult to figure out what you really want from a candidate, which also makes it hard for recruiters to figure out who to send your way.
Third, it looks unprofessional. If I saw that in a job ad I'd figure the company was a startup made by some college buddies and not someplace I'd really want to depend on a paycheck from. But maybe you have a really laid-back culture like that and you want to put that out there from the beginning. Just know that you'll eliminate a lot of prospects because of it.
Back to your original question though, I wouldn't worry about discrimination. There's no such thing as "geek discrimination," and this wouldn't qualify as age discrimination since someone of any age can be a fan of SNES games.
2
In the US (at a federal level, anyways) it is not illegal to discriminate against young people.
– stannius
3 hours ago
There's no such thing as "geek discrimination"? Do you mean there's no law against geek discrimination?
– Comintern
2 hours ago
3
@Comintern Probably. When people talk about a certain kind of discrimination "not existing", they generally mean that it's not illegal to discriminate based on that particular factor. Either that, or they're using a different definition of "discrimination" (which is reasonable, depending on their field of study; jargon is a pain like that)
– Nic Hartley
2 hours ago
4
@DavidK: I'd expand the second point, from "video game tester" to "for working on a video game". I could see value in e.g. a small retro game studio using a classic game as inspiration, and familiarity with specific games being valuable to speed up the on-boarding process: e.g. if it was a game studio making a "Metroidvania" genre game, it may be worthwhile to look for someone with familiarity with Metroid and Castlevania games which defined (and named) that genre, regardless of whether they will be a tester, developer or designer. "Skill" is then being looked at as a proxy for "familiarity".
– sharur
2 hours ago
1
If you define "discrimination" broadly enough, then all job ads are discriminatory, since they discriminate against people who don't want or are unsuitable for the job.
– BenM
1 hour ago
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
35
down vote
Is this discriminatory? No, probably not. Is it inappropriate to put in a job ad? Yes, most definitely.
First, I'm going to assume that your colleague just wants to include the "bonus" section for flavor and doesn't actually want to judge hiring based on SNES skills, because to do so would just be moronic.
Second, unless you are hiring a video game tester, having a section on video game skills just doesn't make any sense and will only confuse your potential candidates. Most people looking at the ad will spend a minute or two trying to figure out how serious that section is. And if they determine it's not serious, then they'll have to figure out if there's any other parts of the advertisement that weren't meant to be serious. It makes it difficult to figure out what you really want from a candidate, which also makes it hard for recruiters to figure out who to send your way.
Third, it looks unprofessional. If I saw that in a job ad I'd figure the company was a startup made by some college buddies and not someplace I'd really want to depend on a paycheck from. But maybe you have a really laid-back culture like that and you want to put that out there from the beginning. Just know that you'll eliminate a lot of prospects because of it.
Back to your original question though, I wouldn't worry about discrimination. There's no such thing as "geek discrimination," and this wouldn't qualify as age discrimination since someone of any age can be a fan of SNES games.
2
In the US (at a federal level, anyways) it is not illegal to discriminate against young people.
– stannius
3 hours ago
There's no such thing as "geek discrimination"? Do you mean there's no law against geek discrimination?
– Comintern
2 hours ago
3
@Comintern Probably. When people talk about a certain kind of discrimination "not existing", they generally mean that it's not illegal to discriminate based on that particular factor. Either that, or they're using a different definition of "discrimination" (which is reasonable, depending on their field of study; jargon is a pain like that)
– Nic Hartley
2 hours ago
4
@DavidK: I'd expand the second point, from "video game tester" to "for working on a video game". I could see value in e.g. a small retro game studio using a classic game as inspiration, and familiarity with specific games being valuable to speed up the on-boarding process: e.g. if it was a game studio making a "Metroidvania" genre game, it may be worthwhile to look for someone with familiarity with Metroid and Castlevania games which defined (and named) that genre, regardless of whether they will be a tester, developer or designer. "Skill" is then being looked at as a proxy for "familiarity".
– sharur
2 hours ago
1
If you define "discrimination" broadly enough, then all job ads are discriminatory, since they discriminate against people who don't want or are unsuitable for the job.
– BenM
1 hour ago
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
35
down vote
up vote
35
down vote
Is this discriminatory? No, probably not. Is it inappropriate to put in a job ad? Yes, most definitely.
First, I'm going to assume that your colleague just wants to include the "bonus" section for flavor and doesn't actually want to judge hiring based on SNES skills, because to do so would just be moronic.
Second, unless you are hiring a video game tester, having a section on video game skills just doesn't make any sense and will only confuse your potential candidates. Most people looking at the ad will spend a minute or two trying to figure out how serious that section is. And if they determine it's not serious, then they'll have to figure out if there's any other parts of the advertisement that weren't meant to be serious. It makes it difficult to figure out what you really want from a candidate, which also makes it hard for recruiters to figure out who to send your way.
Third, it looks unprofessional. If I saw that in a job ad I'd figure the company was a startup made by some college buddies and not someplace I'd really want to depend on a paycheck from. But maybe you have a really laid-back culture like that and you want to put that out there from the beginning. Just know that you'll eliminate a lot of prospects because of it.
Back to your original question though, I wouldn't worry about discrimination. There's no such thing as "geek discrimination," and this wouldn't qualify as age discrimination since someone of any age can be a fan of SNES games.
Is this discriminatory? No, probably not. Is it inappropriate to put in a job ad? Yes, most definitely.
First, I'm going to assume that your colleague just wants to include the "bonus" section for flavor and doesn't actually want to judge hiring based on SNES skills, because to do so would just be moronic.
Second, unless you are hiring a video game tester, having a section on video game skills just doesn't make any sense and will only confuse your potential candidates. Most people looking at the ad will spend a minute or two trying to figure out how serious that section is. And if they determine it's not serious, then they'll have to figure out if there's any other parts of the advertisement that weren't meant to be serious. It makes it difficult to figure out what you really want from a candidate, which also makes it hard for recruiters to figure out who to send your way.
Third, it looks unprofessional. If I saw that in a job ad I'd figure the company was a startup made by some college buddies and not someplace I'd really want to depend on a paycheck from. But maybe you have a really laid-back culture like that and you want to put that out there from the beginning. Just know that you'll eliminate a lot of prospects because of it.
Back to your original question though, I wouldn't worry about discrimination. There's no such thing as "geek discrimination," and this wouldn't qualify as age discrimination since someone of any age can be a fan of SNES games.
edited 4 hours ago
answered 4 hours ago
David K
23k1481118
23k1481118
2
In the US (at a federal level, anyways) it is not illegal to discriminate against young people.
– stannius
3 hours ago
There's no such thing as "geek discrimination"? Do you mean there's no law against geek discrimination?
– Comintern
2 hours ago
3
@Comintern Probably. When people talk about a certain kind of discrimination "not existing", they generally mean that it's not illegal to discriminate based on that particular factor. Either that, or they're using a different definition of "discrimination" (which is reasonable, depending on their field of study; jargon is a pain like that)
– Nic Hartley
2 hours ago
4
@DavidK: I'd expand the second point, from "video game tester" to "for working on a video game". I could see value in e.g. a small retro game studio using a classic game as inspiration, and familiarity with specific games being valuable to speed up the on-boarding process: e.g. if it was a game studio making a "Metroidvania" genre game, it may be worthwhile to look for someone with familiarity with Metroid and Castlevania games which defined (and named) that genre, regardless of whether they will be a tester, developer or designer. "Skill" is then being looked at as a proxy for "familiarity".
– sharur
2 hours ago
1
If you define "discrimination" broadly enough, then all job ads are discriminatory, since they discriminate against people who don't want or are unsuitable for the job.
– BenM
1 hour ago
|
show 1 more comment
2
In the US (at a federal level, anyways) it is not illegal to discriminate against young people.
– stannius
3 hours ago
There's no such thing as "geek discrimination"? Do you mean there's no law against geek discrimination?
– Comintern
2 hours ago
3
@Comintern Probably. When people talk about a certain kind of discrimination "not existing", they generally mean that it's not illegal to discriminate based on that particular factor. Either that, or they're using a different definition of "discrimination" (which is reasonable, depending on their field of study; jargon is a pain like that)
– Nic Hartley
2 hours ago
4
@DavidK: I'd expand the second point, from "video game tester" to "for working on a video game". I could see value in e.g. a small retro game studio using a classic game as inspiration, and familiarity with specific games being valuable to speed up the on-boarding process: e.g. if it was a game studio making a "Metroidvania" genre game, it may be worthwhile to look for someone with familiarity with Metroid and Castlevania games which defined (and named) that genre, regardless of whether they will be a tester, developer or designer. "Skill" is then being looked at as a proxy for "familiarity".
– sharur
2 hours ago
1
If you define "discrimination" broadly enough, then all job ads are discriminatory, since they discriminate against people who don't want or are unsuitable for the job.
– BenM
1 hour ago
2
2
In the US (at a federal level, anyways) it is not illegal to discriminate against young people.
– stannius
3 hours ago
In the US (at a federal level, anyways) it is not illegal to discriminate against young people.
– stannius
3 hours ago
There's no such thing as "geek discrimination"? Do you mean there's no law against geek discrimination?
– Comintern
2 hours ago
There's no such thing as "geek discrimination"? Do you mean there's no law against geek discrimination?
– Comintern
2 hours ago
3
3
@Comintern Probably. When people talk about a certain kind of discrimination "not existing", they generally mean that it's not illegal to discriminate based on that particular factor. Either that, or they're using a different definition of "discrimination" (which is reasonable, depending on their field of study; jargon is a pain like that)
– Nic Hartley
2 hours ago
@Comintern Probably. When people talk about a certain kind of discrimination "not existing", they generally mean that it's not illegal to discriminate based on that particular factor. Either that, or they're using a different definition of "discrimination" (which is reasonable, depending on their field of study; jargon is a pain like that)
– Nic Hartley
2 hours ago
4
4
@DavidK: I'd expand the second point, from "video game tester" to "for working on a video game". I could see value in e.g. a small retro game studio using a classic game as inspiration, and familiarity with specific games being valuable to speed up the on-boarding process: e.g. if it was a game studio making a "Metroidvania" genre game, it may be worthwhile to look for someone with familiarity with Metroid and Castlevania games which defined (and named) that genre, regardless of whether they will be a tester, developer or designer. "Skill" is then being looked at as a proxy for "familiarity".
– sharur
2 hours ago
@DavidK: I'd expand the second point, from "video game tester" to "for working on a video game". I could see value in e.g. a small retro game studio using a classic game as inspiration, and familiarity with specific games being valuable to speed up the on-boarding process: e.g. if it was a game studio making a "Metroidvania" genre game, it may be worthwhile to look for someone with familiarity with Metroid and Castlevania games which defined (and named) that genre, regardless of whether they will be a tester, developer or designer. "Skill" is then being looked at as a proxy for "familiarity".
– sharur
2 hours ago
1
1
If you define "discrimination" broadly enough, then all job ads are discriminatory, since they discriminate against people who don't want or are unsuitable for the job.
– BenM
1 hour ago
If you define "discrimination" broadly enough, then all job ads are discriminatory, since they discriminate against people who don't want or are unsuitable for the job.
– BenM
1 hour ago
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
8
down vote
No discrimination.
Yes, you're overreacting.
...and you diminish a very important protection mechanism with banal nonsense !
In fact employers are free to chose their employees' suitable qualifications and personalities as they please and they deem fitting into their company.
Discrimination is to reject because of race, gender, religion, age etc.
Check antidiscrimination laws in your country, you won't find video games in the list...
I do agree though, it is not the smartest decision to include that.
It's not even required for the job, just for the one hiring to have someone like minded to hang out with.
One could argue however it is to build a certain company climate, which is fine to do nonetheless.
EDIT:
I don't see the post age discriminatory either.
A) growing up around the times of SNES is just a BONUS
B) hiring someone for example in a senior capacity with X years experience, thus excluding a certain age group (young), is perfectly legal and not discrimination at all.
Age discrimination would be if a young and old person fit the job description criteria and they hire the young person, "because young".
Please check the following U.S. law for further details:
https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/discrimination/agedisc
Big thanks to Richard U for providing the link!
§623. Prohibition of age discrimination
(a) Employer practices
It shall be unlawful for an employer—
(1) to fail or refuse to hire [...]
any individual[...]because of such individual's age;
(f) Lawful practices; age an occupational qualification;
other reasonable factors; laws of foreign workplace;
seniority system; employee benefit plans;
discharge or discipline for good cause
It shall not be unlawful [...]
(1) to take any action otherwise prohibited[...]
where age is a bona fide occupational qualification
reasonably necessary to the normal operation[...]
or where the differentiation is based on
reasonable factors other than age[...]
or where such practices involve an employee
in a workplace in a foreign country, and compliance
[...]would cause[...]to violate the
laws of the country in which such workplace is located;
Keep in mind, other countries will have different laws...
@JoeStrazzere could requiring ten years of full-time employment be construed as age discrimination, as it rules out anyone under the age of 28 in most states?
– Richard U
3 hours ago
1
@RichardU - no, such job requirements wouldn't be age discrimination.
– Joe Strazzere
3 hours ago
@JoeStrazzere while I was answering you, a similar thought crossed my mind as well. It probably could be argued like that, potentially even won.However a good judge would(should) also consider the INTENT of the law.As a lay person I assume the law is to create equal opportunities and to prevent arbitrary and for the job in question irrelevant discrimination.
– DigitalBlade969
3 hours ago
1
@DigitalBlade969 - well, the intent of the age discrimination laws is to protect discrimination against older workers.
– Joe Strazzere
3 hours ago
@JoeStrazzere in the context of them being disadvantaged SOLELY due to their age, despite having all other qualifications / experience for the work required.If they know Cobol but not java it's the qualification. If they know both and they're still not getting hired just because they're old, it's age discrimination.
– DigitalBlade969
3 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
up vote
8
down vote
No discrimination.
Yes, you're overreacting.
...and you diminish a very important protection mechanism with banal nonsense !
In fact employers are free to chose their employees' suitable qualifications and personalities as they please and they deem fitting into their company.
Discrimination is to reject because of race, gender, religion, age etc.
Check antidiscrimination laws in your country, you won't find video games in the list...
I do agree though, it is not the smartest decision to include that.
It's not even required for the job, just for the one hiring to have someone like minded to hang out with.
One could argue however it is to build a certain company climate, which is fine to do nonetheless.
EDIT:
I don't see the post age discriminatory either.
A) growing up around the times of SNES is just a BONUS
B) hiring someone for example in a senior capacity with X years experience, thus excluding a certain age group (young), is perfectly legal and not discrimination at all.
Age discrimination would be if a young and old person fit the job description criteria and they hire the young person, "because young".
Please check the following U.S. law for further details:
https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/discrimination/agedisc
Big thanks to Richard U for providing the link!
§623. Prohibition of age discrimination
(a) Employer practices
It shall be unlawful for an employer—
(1) to fail or refuse to hire [...]
any individual[...]because of such individual's age;
(f) Lawful practices; age an occupational qualification;
other reasonable factors; laws of foreign workplace;
seniority system; employee benefit plans;
discharge or discipline for good cause
It shall not be unlawful [...]
(1) to take any action otherwise prohibited[...]
where age is a bona fide occupational qualification
reasonably necessary to the normal operation[...]
or where the differentiation is based on
reasonable factors other than age[...]
or where such practices involve an employee
in a workplace in a foreign country, and compliance
[...]would cause[...]to violate the
laws of the country in which such workplace is located;
Keep in mind, other countries will have different laws...
@JoeStrazzere could requiring ten years of full-time employment be construed as age discrimination, as it rules out anyone under the age of 28 in most states?
– Richard U
3 hours ago
1
@RichardU - no, such job requirements wouldn't be age discrimination.
– Joe Strazzere
3 hours ago
@JoeStrazzere while I was answering you, a similar thought crossed my mind as well. It probably could be argued like that, potentially even won.However a good judge would(should) also consider the INTENT of the law.As a lay person I assume the law is to create equal opportunities and to prevent arbitrary and for the job in question irrelevant discrimination.
– DigitalBlade969
3 hours ago
1
@DigitalBlade969 - well, the intent of the age discrimination laws is to protect discrimination against older workers.
– Joe Strazzere
3 hours ago
@JoeStrazzere in the context of them being disadvantaged SOLELY due to their age, despite having all other qualifications / experience for the work required.If they know Cobol but not java it's the qualification. If they know both and they're still not getting hired just because they're old, it's age discrimination.
– DigitalBlade969
3 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
up vote
8
down vote
up vote
8
down vote
No discrimination.
Yes, you're overreacting.
...and you diminish a very important protection mechanism with banal nonsense !
In fact employers are free to chose their employees' suitable qualifications and personalities as they please and they deem fitting into their company.
Discrimination is to reject because of race, gender, religion, age etc.
Check antidiscrimination laws in your country, you won't find video games in the list...
I do agree though, it is not the smartest decision to include that.
It's not even required for the job, just for the one hiring to have someone like minded to hang out with.
One could argue however it is to build a certain company climate, which is fine to do nonetheless.
EDIT:
I don't see the post age discriminatory either.
A) growing up around the times of SNES is just a BONUS
B) hiring someone for example in a senior capacity with X years experience, thus excluding a certain age group (young), is perfectly legal and not discrimination at all.
Age discrimination would be if a young and old person fit the job description criteria and they hire the young person, "because young".
Please check the following U.S. law for further details:
https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/discrimination/agedisc
Big thanks to Richard U for providing the link!
§623. Prohibition of age discrimination
(a) Employer practices
It shall be unlawful for an employer—
(1) to fail or refuse to hire [...]
any individual[...]because of such individual's age;
(f) Lawful practices; age an occupational qualification;
other reasonable factors; laws of foreign workplace;
seniority system; employee benefit plans;
discharge or discipline for good cause
It shall not be unlawful [...]
(1) to take any action otherwise prohibited[...]
where age is a bona fide occupational qualification
reasonably necessary to the normal operation[...]
or where the differentiation is based on
reasonable factors other than age[...]
or where such practices involve an employee
in a workplace in a foreign country, and compliance
[...]would cause[...]to violate the
laws of the country in which such workplace is located;
Keep in mind, other countries will have different laws...
No discrimination.
Yes, you're overreacting.
...and you diminish a very important protection mechanism with banal nonsense !
In fact employers are free to chose their employees' suitable qualifications and personalities as they please and they deem fitting into their company.
Discrimination is to reject because of race, gender, religion, age etc.
Check antidiscrimination laws in your country, you won't find video games in the list...
I do agree though, it is not the smartest decision to include that.
It's not even required for the job, just for the one hiring to have someone like minded to hang out with.
One could argue however it is to build a certain company climate, which is fine to do nonetheless.
EDIT:
I don't see the post age discriminatory either.
A) growing up around the times of SNES is just a BONUS
B) hiring someone for example in a senior capacity with X years experience, thus excluding a certain age group (young), is perfectly legal and not discrimination at all.
Age discrimination would be if a young and old person fit the job description criteria and they hire the young person, "because young".
Please check the following U.S. law for further details:
https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/discrimination/agedisc
Big thanks to Richard U for providing the link!
§623. Prohibition of age discrimination
(a) Employer practices
It shall be unlawful for an employer—
(1) to fail or refuse to hire [...]
any individual[...]because of such individual's age;
(f) Lawful practices; age an occupational qualification;
other reasonable factors; laws of foreign workplace;
seniority system; employee benefit plans;
discharge or discipline for good cause
It shall not be unlawful [...]
(1) to take any action otherwise prohibited[...]
where age is a bona fide occupational qualification
reasonably necessary to the normal operation[...]
or where the differentiation is based on
reasonable factors other than age[...]
or where such practices involve an employee
in a workplace in a foreign country, and compliance
[...]would cause[...]to violate the
laws of the country in which such workplace is located;
Keep in mind, other countries will have different laws...
edited 1 hour ago
answered 4 hours ago
DigitalBlade969
3,3601315
3,3601315
@JoeStrazzere could requiring ten years of full-time employment be construed as age discrimination, as it rules out anyone under the age of 28 in most states?
– Richard U
3 hours ago
1
@RichardU - no, such job requirements wouldn't be age discrimination.
– Joe Strazzere
3 hours ago
@JoeStrazzere while I was answering you, a similar thought crossed my mind as well. It probably could be argued like that, potentially even won.However a good judge would(should) also consider the INTENT of the law.As a lay person I assume the law is to create equal opportunities and to prevent arbitrary and for the job in question irrelevant discrimination.
– DigitalBlade969
3 hours ago
1
@DigitalBlade969 - well, the intent of the age discrimination laws is to protect discrimination against older workers.
– Joe Strazzere
3 hours ago
@JoeStrazzere in the context of them being disadvantaged SOLELY due to their age, despite having all other qualifications / experience for the work required.If they know Cobol but not java it's the qualification. If they know both and they're still not getting hired just because they're old, it's age discrimination.
– DigitalBlade969
3 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
@JoeStrazzere could requiring ten years of full-time employment be construed as age discrimination, as it rules out anyone under the age of 28 in most states?
– Richard U
3 hours ago
1
@RichardU - no, such job requirements wouldn't be age discrimination.
– Joe Strazzere
3 hours ago
@JoeStrazzere while I was answering you, a similar thought crossed my mind as well. It probably could be argued like that, potentially even won.However a good judge would(should) also consider the INTENT of the law.As a lay person I assume the law is to create equal opportunities and to prevent arbitrary and for the job in question irrelevant discrimination.
– DigitalBlade969
3 hours ago
1
@DigitalBlade969 - well, the intent of the age discrimination laws is to protect discrimination against older workers.
– Joe Strazzere
3 hours ago
@JoeStrazzere in the context of them being disadvantaged SOLELY due to their age, despite having all other qualifications / experience for the work required.If they know Cobol but not java it's the qualification. If they know both and they're still not getting hired just because they're old, it's age discrimination.
– DigitalBlade969
3 hours ago
@JoeStrazzere could requiring ten years of full-time employment be construed as age discrimination, as it rules out anyone under the age of 28 in most states?
– Richard U
3 hours ago
@JoeStrazzere could requiring ten years of full-time employment be construed as age discrimination, as it rules out anyone under the age of 28 in most states?
– Richard U
3 hours ago
1
1
@RichardU - no, such job requirements wouldn't be age discrimination.
– Joe Strazzere
3 hours ago
@RichardU - no, such job requirements wouldn't be age discrimination.
– Joe Strazzere
3 hours ago
@JoeStrazzere while I was answering you, a similar thought crossed my mind as well. It probably could be argued like that, potentially even won.However a good judge would(should) also consider the INTENT of the law.As a lay person I assume the law is to create equal opportunities and to prevent arbitrary and for the job in question irrelevant discrimination.
– DigitalBlade969
3 hours ago
@JoeStrazzere while I was answering you, a similar thought crossed my mind as well. It probably could be argued like that, potentially even won.However a good judge would(should) also consider the INTENT of the law.As a lay person I assume the law is to create equal opportunities and to prevent arbitrary and for the job in question irrelevant discrimination.
– DigitalBlade969
3 hours ago
1
1
@DigitalBlade969 - well, the intent of the age discrimination laws is to protect discrimination against older workers.
– Joe Strazzere
3 hours ago
@DigitalBlade969 - well, the intent of the age discrimination laws is to protect discrimination against older workers.
– Joe Strazzere
3 hours ago
@JoeStrazzere in the context of them being disadvantaged SOLELY due to their age, despite having all other qualifications / experience for the work required.If they know Cobol but not java it's the qualification. If they know both and they're still not getting hired just because they're old, it's age discrimination.
– DigitalBlade969
3 hours ago
@JoeStrazzere in the context of them being disadvantaged SOLELY due to their age, despite having all other qualifications / experience for the work required.If they know Cobol but not java it's the qualification. If they know both and they're still not getting hired just because they're old, it's age discrimination.
– DigitalBlade969
3 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
up vote
7
down vote
Am I wrong in thinking this is unnecessary and could be perceived as
discriminatory?
Anything can be perceived as discriminatory. But only a lawsuit would determine if it is actually discriminatory or not and that's unlikely to happen.
It is completely unnecessary. Not a smart way to advertise for help, IMHO.
It's clear you have a reasonable worry, since ads which are designed to deter older people from applying might be deemed discriminatory: https://www.bizfilings.com/toolkit/research-topics/office-hr/case-studies-of-age-discrimination-in-job-ads
But, practically speaking, it's extremely unlikely to ever get that far. Try not to worry.
Unless you are this person's boss, or unless you are the hiring manager, there's not much you can do. There are a lot of stupid job ads out there. Maybe after a few interviews, they will realize that the ad isn't attracting the right kind of candidate. Maybe not. They may well get a "personality" out of this ad. Hopefully, you get a good worker too.
Thanks. How do I convince this person to exclude it since they're dead set on looking for a "personality"?
– user95595
4 hours ago
1
@user95595 let them do it. No one looking for a serious job will apply. That person can waste their time interviewing people. After that, maybe they will see the light
– SaggingRufus
4 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
Am I wrong in thinking this is unnecessary and could be perceived as
discriminatory?
Anything can be perceived as discriminatory. But only a lawsuit would determine if it is actually discriminatory or not and that's unlikely to happen.
It is completely unnecessary. Not a smart way to advertise for help, IMHO.
It's clear you have a reasonable worry, since ads which are designed to deter older people from applying might be deemed discriminatory: https://www.bizfilings.com/toolkit/research-topics/office-hr/case-studies-of-age-discrimination-in-job-ads
But, practically speaking, it's extremely unlikely to ever get that far. Try not to worry.
Unless you are this person's boss, or unless you are the hiring manager, there's not much you can do. There are a lot of stupid job ads out there. Maybe after a few interviews, they will realize that the ad isn't attracting the right kind of candidate. Maybe not. They may well get a "personality" out of this ad. Hopefully, you get a good worker too.
Thanks. How do I convince this person to exclude it since they're dead set on looking for a "personality"?
– user95595
4 hours ago
1
@user95595 let them do it. No one looking for a serious job will apply. That person can waste their time interviewing people. After that, maybe they will see the light
– SaggingRufus
4 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
up vote
7
down vote
Am I wrong in thinking this is unnecessary and could be perceived as
discriminatory?
Anything can be perceived as discriminatory. But only a lawsuit would determine if it is actually discriminatory or not and that's unlikely to happen.
It is completely unnecessary. Not a smart way to advertise for help, IMHO.
It's clear you have a reasonable worry, since ads which are designed to deter older people from applying might be deemed discriminatory: https://www.bizfilings.com/toolkit/research-topics/office-hr/case-studies-of-age-discrimination-in-job-ads
But, practically speaking, it's extremely unlikely to ever get that far. Try not to worry.
Unless you are this person's boss, or unless you are the hiring manager, there's not much you can do. There are a lot of stupid job ads out there. Maybe after a few interviews, they will realize that the ad isn't attracting the right kind of candidate. Maybe not. They may well get a "personality" out of this ad. Hopefully, you get a good worker too.
Am I wrong in thinking this is unnecessary and could be perceived as
discriminatory?
Anything can be perceived as discriminatory. But only a lawsuit would determine if it is actually discriminatory or not and that's unlikely to happen.
It is completely unnecessary. Not a smart way to advertise for help, IMHO.
It's clear you have a reasonable worry, since ads which are designed to deter older people from applying might be deemed discriminatory: https://www.bizfilings.com/toolkit/research-topics/office-hr/case-studies-of-age-discrimination-in-job-ads
But, practically speaking, it's extremely unlikely to ever get that far. Try not to worry.
Unless you are this person's boss, or unless you are the hiring manager, there's not much you can do. There are a lot of stupid job ads out there. Maybe after a few interviews, they will realize that the ad isn't attracting the right kind of candidate. Maybe not. They may well get a "personality" out of this ad. Hopefully, you get a good worker too.
edited 3 hours ago
answered 4 hours ago
Joe Strazzere
239k116697994
239k116697994
Thanks. How do I convince this person to exclude it since they're dead set on looking for a "personality"?
– user95595
4 hours ago
1
@user95595 let them do it. No one looking for a serious job will apply. That person can waste their time interviewing people. After that, maybe they will see the light
– SaggingRufus
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks. How do I convince this person to exclude it since they're dead set on looking for a "personality"?
– user95595
4 hours ago
1
@user95595 let them do it. No one looking for a serious job will apply. That person can waste their time interviewing people. After that, maybe they will see the light
– SaggingRufus
4 hours ago
Thanks. How do I convince this person to exclude it since they're dead set on looking for a "personality"?
– user95595
4 hours ago
Thanks. How do I convince this person to exclude it since they're dead set on looking for a "personality"?
– user95595
4 hours ago
1
1
@user95595 let them do it. No one looking for a serious job will apply. That person can waste their time interviewing people. After that, maybe they will see the light
– SaggingRufus
4 hours ago
@user95595 let them do it. No one looking for a serious job will apply. That person can waste their time interviewing people. After that, maybe they will see the light
– SaggingRufus
4 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
No, this is not discrimination, and confronting someone over what amounts to nothing more than an impish rider to a job ad is not going to be well received.
As someone with disabilities who has suffered actual discrimination, I find such trivializing of a real problem in the workplace highly irritating. If I were at your company I would ask people to seriously reconsider what your future with the company would be from that point, and have HR flag you as a potential troublemaker.
I say this not to berate you, but to show you how badly an overreaction could harm YOUR career by triggering a backlash.
Right now, there are articles in the news every single day about someone doing something as an overreaction. The principal disciplined for banning candy canes, among others comes to mind. An accusation of discrimination can ruin someone's career, and as such, the blowback from a false one can have a similar effect.
In short, never confront someone about discrimination unless you're sure, and you've got proof, or it could end badly for you.
That said:
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) protects certain applicants and employees 40 years of age and older from discrimination on the basis of age in hiring, promotion, discharge, compensation, or terms, conditions or privileges of employment. The ADEA is enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
So, no, not by any legal definition is it age discrimination.
For reference:
https://www.bizfilings.com/toolkit/research-topics/office-hr/case-studies-of-age-discrimination-in-job-ads
Thanks to Joe Strazzere for providing that link.
2
"...and have HR flag you as a potential troublemaker" really? You talk about overreacting, but I don't get how me asking my colleague "could be perceived as discriminatory?" is being a troublemaker. It served no purpose to the job ad. I wasn't trying to trivialize discrimination, I just want my company to not post an inappropriate job ad. I was not accusing this person of discrimination.
– user95595
3 hours ago
@user95595 from your post " I challenged this person and said it could easily be interpreted as age or "geek" discrimination " That's an accusation. You didn't say you asked, you said you challenged.
– Richard U
3 hours ago
Ads which are " designed to deter older persons from applying" may also be discriminatory. See: bizfilings.com/toolkit/research-topics/office-hr/…
– Joe Strazzere
3 hours ago
@JoeStrazzere thanks, I'll add that to my answer.
– Richard U
3 hours ago
@user95595 - don't worry. You wouldn't be considered a troublemaker by any reasonable employer.
– Joe Strazzere
3 hours ago
|
show 7 more comments
up vote
3
down vote
No, this is not discrimination, and confronting someone over what amounts to nothing more than an impish rider to a job ad is not going to be well received.
As someone with disabilities who has suffered actual discrimination, I find such trivializing of a real problem in the workplace highly irritating. If I were at your company I would ask people to seriously reconsider what your future with the company would be from that point, and have HR flag you as a potential troublemaker.
I say this not to berate you, but to show you how badly an overreaction could harm YOUR career by triggering a backlash.
Right now, there are articles in the news every single day about someone doing something as an overreaction. The principal disciplined for banning candy canes, among others comes to mind. An accusation of discrimination can ruin someone's career, and as such, the blowback from a false one can have a similar effect.
In short, never confront someone about discrimination unless you're sure, and you've got proof, or it could end badly for you.
That said:
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) protects certain applicants and employees 40 years of age and older from discrimination on the basis of age in hiring, promotion, discharge, compensation, or terms, conditions or privileges of employment. The ADEA is enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
So, no, not by any legal definition is it age discrimination.
For reference:
https://www.bizfilings.com/toolkit/research-topics/office-hr/case-studies-of-age-discrimination-in-job-ads
Thanks to Joe Strazzere for providing that link.
2
"...and have HR flag you as a potential troublemaker" really? You talk about overreacting, but I don't get how me asking my colleague "could be perceived as discriminatory?" is being a troublemaker. It served no purpose to the job ad. I wasn't trying to trivialize discrimination, I just want my company to not post an inappropriate job ad. I was not accusing this person of discrimination.
– user95595
3 hours ago
@user95595 from your post " I challenged this person and said it could easily be interpreted as age or "geek" discrimination " That's an accusation. You didn't say you asked, you said you challenged.
– Richard U
3 hours ago
Ads which are " designed to deter older persons from applying" may also be discriminatory. See: bizfilings.com/toolkit/research-topics/office-hr/…
– Joe Strazzere
3 hours ago
@JoeStrazzere thanks, I'll add that to my answer.
– Richard U
3 hours ago
@user95595 - don't worry. You wouldn't be considered a troublemaker by any reasonable employer.
– Joe Strazzere
3 hours ago
|
show 7 more comments
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
No, this is not discrimination, and confronting someone over what amounts to nothing more than an impish rider to a job ad is not going to be well received.
As someone with disabilities who has suffered actual discrimination, I find such trivializing of a real problem in the workplace highly irritating. If I were at your company I would ask people to seriously reconsider what your future with the company would be from that point, and have HR flag you as a potential troublemaker.
I say this not to berate you, but to show you how badly an overreaction could harm YOUR career by triggering a backlash.
Right now, there are articles in the news every single day about someone doing something as an overreaction. The principal disciplined for banning candy canes, among others comes to mind. An accusation of discrimination can ruin someone's career, and as such, the blowback from a false one can have a similar effect.
In short, never confront someone about discrimination unless you're sure, and you've got proof, or it could end badly for you.
That said:
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) protects certain applicants and employees 40 years of age and older from discrimination on the basis of age in hiring, promotion, discharge, compensation, or terms, conditions or privileges of employment. The ADEA is enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
So, no, not by any legal definition is it age discrimination.
For reference:
https://www.bizfilings.com/toolkit/research-topics/office-hr/case-studies-of-age-discrimination-in-job-ads
Thanks to Joe Strazzere for providing that link.
No, this is not discrimination, and confronting someone over what amounts to nothing more than an impish rider to a job ad is not going to be well received.
As someone with disabilities who has suffered actual discrimination, I find such trivializing of a real problem in the workplace highly irritating. If I were at your company I would ask people to seriously reconsider what your future with the company would be from that point, and have HR flag you as a potential troublemaker.
I say this not to berate you, but to show you how badly an overreaction could harm YOUR career by triggering a backlash.
Right now, there are articles in the news every single day about someone doing something as an overreaction. The principal disciplined for banning candy canes, among others comes to mind. An accusation of discrimination can ruin someone's career, and as such, the blowback from a false one can have a similar effect.
In short, never confront someone about discrimination unless you're sure, and you've got proof, or it could end badly for you.
That said:
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) protects certain applicants and employees 40 years of age and older from discrimination on the basis of age in hiring, promotion, discharge, compensation, or terms, conditions or privileges of employment. The ADEA is enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
So, no, not by any legal definition is it age discrimination.
For reference:
https://www.bizfilings.com/toolkit/research-topics/office-hr/case-studies-of-age-discrimination-in-job-ads
Thanks to Joe Strazzere for providing that link.
edited 3 hours ago
answered 3 hours ago
Richard U
84k62217331
84k62217331
2
"...and have HR flag you as a potential troublemaker" really? You talk about overreacting, but I don't get how me asking my colleague "could be perceived as discriminatory?" is being a troublemaker. It served no purpose to the job ad. I wasn't trying to trivialize discrimination, I just want my company to not post an inappropriate job ad. I was not accusing this person of discrimination.
– user95595
3 hours ago
@user95595 from your post " I challenged this person and said it could easily be interpreted as age or "geek" discrimination " That's an accusation. You didn't say you asked, you said you challenged.
– Richard U
3 hours ago
Ads which are " designed to deter older persons from applying" may also be discriminatory. See: bizfilings.com/toolkit/research-topics/office-hr/…
– Joe Strazzere
3 hours ago
@JoeStrazzere thanks, I'll add that to my answer.
– Richard U
3 hours ago
@user95595 - don't worry. You wouldn't be considered a troublemaker by any reasonable employer.
– Joe Strazzere
3 hours ago
|
show 7 more comments
2
"...and have HR flag you as a potential troublemaker" really? You talk about overreacting, but I don't get how me asking my colleague "could be perceived as discriminatory?" is being a troublemaker. It served no purpose to the job ad. I wasn't trying to trivialize discrimination, I just want my company to not post an inappropriate job ad. I was not accusing this person of discrimination.
– user95595
3 hours ago
@user95595 from your post " I challenged this person and said it could easily be interpreted as age or "geek" discrimination " That's an accusation. You didn't say you asked, you said you challenged.
– Richard U
3 hours ago
Ads which are " designed to deter older persons from applying" may also be discriminatory. See: bizfilings.com/toolkit/research-topics/office-hr/…
– Joe Strazzere
3 hours ago
@JoeStrazzere thanks, I'll add that to my answer.
– Richard U
3 hours ago
@user95595 - don't worry. You wouldn't be considered a troublemaker by any reasonable employer.
– Joe Strazzere
3 hours ago
2
2
"...and have HR flag you as a potential troublemaker" really? You talk about overreacting, but I don't get how me asking my colleague "could be perceived as discriminatory?" is being a troublemaker. It served no purpose to the job ad. I wasn't trying to trivialize discrimination, I just want my company to not post an inappropriate job ad. I was not accusing this person of discrimination.
– user95595
3 hours ago
"...and have HR flag you as a potential troublemaker" really? You talk about overreacting, but I don't get how me asking my colleague "could be perceived as discriminatory?" is being a troublemaker. It served no purpose to the job ad. I wasn't trying to trivialize discrimination, I just want my company to not post an inappropriate job ad. I was not accusing this person of discrimination.
– user95595
3 hours ago
@user95595 from your post " I challenged this person and said it could easily be interpreted as age or "geek" discrimination " That's an accusation. You didn't say you asked, you said you challenged.
– Richard U
3 hours ago
@user95595 from your post " I challenged this person and said it could easily be interpreted as age or "geek" discrimination " That's an accusation. You didn't say you asked, you said you challenged.
– Richard U
3 hours ago
Ads which are " designed to deter older persons from applying" may also be discriminatory. See: bizfilings.com/toolkit/research-topics/office-hr/…
– Joe Strazzere
3 hours ago
Ads which are " designed to deter older persons from applying" may also be discriminatory. See: bizfilings.com/toolkit/research-topics/office-hr/…
– Joe Strazzere
3 hours ago
@JoeStrazzere thanks, I'll add that to my answer.
– Richard U
3 hours ago
@JoeStrazzere thanks, I'll add that to my answer.
– Richard U
3 hours ago
@user95595 - don't worry. You wouldn't be considered a troublemaker by any reasonable employer.
– Joe Strazzere
3 hours ago
@user95595 - don't worry. You wouldn't be considered a troublemaker by any reasonable employer.
– Joe Strazzere
3 hours ago
|
show 7 more comments
up vote
3
down vote
Suppose the hiring manager was a woman and she announced that she thought the ideal candidate for the IT role was someone who had worked needlepoint as a hobby. Oh, and scrapbooked. It would fit the "corporate culture" she was trying to create. And she'd done those things herself as a younger person and felt that they contribute greatly to the person she is, and the workplace skills she has.
Discriminatory? She assures you she'd be happy to hire a man who had done these things!
But of course it's discriminatory. Any selection criteria which is not in-and-of itself a bona fide job requirement but which correlates with gender, age or culture is systemically discriminatory.
So if you're hiring a programmer, or accountant, or truck driver, you can't say you want someone who's played college football any more than you can prefer a former cheerleader.
Corporate culture can't be an excuse for discrimination. It can be a form of discrimination, if the the corporate culture is inherently discriminatory--if it can't work with women, or people of different cultures, or different religions.
Your hiring manager has confused a place of employment with a private club. He's welcome to start an SNES society that meets in his man cave at home, but as an employer he's got to play by the rules. Your company needs to do itself a big favour and retain the services of a good HR consultant to vet their hiring process.
I've been struggling to come up with an counter example all day and I think the example you gave is great. Thanks!
– user95595
55 secs ago
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
Suppose the hiring manager was a woman and she announced that she thought the ideal candidate for the IT role was someone who had worked needlepoint as a hobby. Oh, and scrapbooked. It would fit the "corporate culture" she was trying to create. And she'd done those things herself as a younger person and felt that they contribute greatly to the person she is, and the workplace skills she has.
Discriminatory? She assures you she'd be happy to hire a man who had done these things!
But of course it's discriminatory. Any selection criteria which is not in-and-of itself a bona fide job requirement but which correlates with gender, age or culture is systemically discriminatory.
So if you're hiring a programmer, or accountant, or truck driver, you can't say you want someone who's played college football any more than you can prefer a former cheerleader.
Corporate culture can't be an excuse for discrimination. It can be a form of discrimination, if the the corporate culture is inherently discriminatory--if it can't work with women, or people of different cultures, or different religions.
Your hiring manager has confused a place of employment with a private club. He's welcome to start an SNES society that meets in his man cave at home, but as an employer he's got to play by the rules. Your company needs to do itself a big favour and retain the services of a good HR consultant to vet their hiring process.
I've been struggling to come up with an counter example all day and I think the example you gave is great. Thanks!
– user95595
55 secs ago
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
Suppose the hiring manager was a woman and she announced that she thought the ideal candidate for the IT role was someone who had worked needlepoint as a hobby. Oh, and scrapbooked. It would fit the "corporate culture" she was trying to create. And she'd done those things herself as a younger person and felt that they contribute greatly to the person she is, and the workplace skills she has.
Discriminatory? She assures you she'd be happy to hire a man who had done these things!
But of course it's discriminatory. Any selection criteria which is not in-and-of itself a bona fide job requirement but which correlates with gender, age or culture is systemically discriminatory.
So if you're hiring a programmer, or accountant, or truck driver, you can't say you want someone who's played college football any more than you can prefer a former cheerleader.
Corporate culture can't be an excuse for discrimination. It can be a form of discrimination, if the the corporate culture is inherently discriminatory--if it can't work with women, or people of different cultures, or different religions.
Your hiring manager has confused a place of employment with a private club. He's welcome to start an SNES society that meets in his man cave at home, but as an employer he's got to play by the rules. Your company needs to do itself a big favour and retain the services of a good HR consultant to vet their hiring process.
Suppose the hiring manager was a woman and she announced that she thought the ideal candidate for the IT role was someone who had worked needlepoint as a hobby. Oh, and scrapbooked. It would fit the "corporate culture" she was trying to create. And she'd done those things herself as a younger person and felt that they contribute greatly to the person she is, and the workplace skills she has.
Discriminatory? She assures you she'd be happy to hire a man who had done these things!
But of course it's discriminatory. Any selection criteria which is not in-and-of itself a bona fide job requirement but which correlates with gender, age or culture is systemically discriminatory.
So if you're hiring a programmer, or accountant, or truck driver, you can't say you want someone who's played college football any more than you can prefer a former cheerleader.
Corporate culture can't be an excuse for discrimination. It can be a form of discrimination, if the the corporate culture is inherently discriminatory--if it can't work with women, or people of different cultures, or different religions.
Your hiring manager has confused a place of employment with a private club. He's welcome to start an SNES society that meets in his man cave at home, but as an employer he's got to play by the rules. Your company needs to do itself a big favour and retain the services of a good HR consultant to vet their hiring process.
answered 50 mins ago
CCTO
1,30637
1,30637
I've been struggling to come up with an counter example all day and I think the example you gave is great. Thanks!
– user95595
55 secs ago
add a comment |
I've been struggling to come up with an counter example all day and I think the example you gave is great. Thanks!
– user95595
55 secs ago
I've been struggling to come up with an counter example all day and I think the example you gave is great. Thanks!
– user95595
55 secs ago
I've been struggling to come up with an counter example all day and I think the example you gave is great. Thanks!
– user95595
55 secs ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
1) "Bonus" qualifications are just that, "bonus". If you have those qualifications, then you are looked on as a better candidate. It's like "We want a Java developer, bonus if you also know Angular".
2) Not being familiar with SNES games is not any more age discriminatory than not being familiar with COBOL or FORTRAN or BASIC. Replace SNES with COBOL on the JD and see if it still feels discriminatory. If not, then it's not discriminatory (in the "can I be sued for this" sense, although it may be discriminatory in other ways). IANAL but I feel sufficiently confident saying this.
3) It might not be appropriate to have on a JD though, because it makes the company feel a bit unprofessional. Like, "if I work for this company, am I going to have my salary capped based on how good I am at Mortal Kombat?" It might be something to come up in the interview, if such a conversation can easily be raised without feeling awkward.
tl;dr: You are not wrong in thinking it is unnecessary. You are wrong in thinking it would be perceived as discriminatory by a reasonable applicant (although this is somewhat opinion). If I was the HR manager, I would not want to hire someone who would perceive such a thing as discriminatory; such a person would not be a good culture fit at a company I was in charge of.
1
Not being familiar with SNES games is not any more age discriminatory : especially since they now re-edited the good ol' NES and SNES and that I know some millenials having fun with it ;)
– OldPadawan
4 hours ago
"We want a Java developer, bonus if you also know Angular" Additional bonus points if you can explain in the interview what the two have to do with each other?
– a CVn
2 hours ago
I haven't seen COBOL listed on a job ad unless it was going to be used in the job. (And I never learned COBOL, nobody saw me, and you can't prove anything.)
– David Thornley
37 mins ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
1) "Bonus" qualifications are just that, "bonus". If you have those qualifications, then you are looked on as a better candidate. It's like "We want a Java developer, bonus if you also know Angular".
2) Not being familiar with SNES games is not any more age discriminatory than not being familiar with COBOL or FORTRAN or BASIC. Replace SNES with COBOL on the JD and see if it still feels discriminatory. If not, then it's not discriminatory (in the "can I be sued for this" sense, although it may be discriminatory in other ways). IANAL but I feel sufficiently confident saying this.
3) It might not be appropriate to have on a JD though, because it makes the company feel a bit unprofessional. Like, "if I work for this company, am I going to have my salary capped based on how good I am at Mortal Kombat?" It might be something to come up in the interview, if such a conversation can easily be raised without feeling awkward.
tl;dr: You are not wrong in thinking it is unnecessary. You are wrong in thinking it would be perceived as discriminatory by a reasonable applicant (although this is somewhat opinion). If I was the HR manager, I would not want to hire someone who would perceive such a thing as discriminatory; such a person would not be a good culture fit at a company I was in charge of.
1
Not being familiar with SNES games is not any more age discriminatory : especially since they now re-edited the good ol' NES and SNES and that I know some millenials having fun with it ;)
– OldPadawan
4 hours ago
"We want a Java developer, bonus if you also know Angular" Additional bonus points if you can explain in the interview what the two have to do with each other?
– a CVn
2 hours ago
I haven't seen COBOL listed on a job ad unless it was going to be used in the job. (And I never learned COBOL, nobody saw me, and you can't prove anything.)
– David Thornley
37 mins ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
1) "Bonus" qualifications are just that, "bonus". If you have those qualifications, then you are looked on as a better candidate. It's like "We want a Java developer, bonus if you also know Angular".
2) Not being familiar with SNES games is not any more age discriminatory than not being familiar with COBOL or FORTRAN or BASIC. Replace SNES with COBOL on the JD and see if it still feels discriminatory. If not, then it's not discriminatory (in the "can I be sued for this" sense, although it may be discriminatory in other ways). IANAL but I feel sufficiently confident saying this.
3) It might not be appropriate to have on a JD though, because it makes the company feel a bit unprofessional. Like, "if I work for this company, am I going to have my salary capped based on how good I am at Mortal Kombat?" It might be something to come up in the interview, if such a conversation can easily be raised without feeling awkward.
tl;dr: You are not wrong in thinking it is unnecessary. You are wrong in thinking it would be perceived as discriminatory by a reasonable applicant (although this is somewhat opinion). If I was the HR manager, I would not want to hire someone who would perceive such a thing as discriminatory; such a person would not be a good culture fit at a company I was in charge of.
1) "Bonus" qualifications are just that, "bonus". If you have those qualifications, then you are looked on as a better candidate. It's like "We want a Java developer, bonus if you also know Angular".
2) Not being familiar with SNES games is not any more age discriminatory than not being familiar with COBOL or FORTRAN or BASIC. Replace SNES with COBOL on the JD and see if it still feels discriminatory. If not, then it's not discriminatory (in the "can I be sued for this" sense, although it may be discriminatory in other ways). IANAL but I feel sufficiently confident saying this.
3) It might not be appropriate to have on a JD though, because it makes the company feel a bit unprofessional. Like, "if I work for this company, am I going to have my salary capped based on how good I am at Mortal Kombat?" It might be something to come up in the interview, if such a conversation can easily be raised without feeling awkward.
tl;dr: You are not wrong in thinking it is unnecessary. You are wrong in thinking it would be perceived as discriminatory by a reasonable applicant (although this is somewhat opinion). If I was the HR manager, I would not want to hire someone who would perceive such a thing as discriminatory; such a person would not be a good culture fit at a company I was in charge of.
answered 4 hours ago
Ertai87
6,5021619
6,5021619
1
Not being familiar with SNES games is not any more age discriminatory : especially since they now re-edited the good ol' NES and SNES and that I know some millenials having fun with it ;)
– OldPadawan
4 hours ago
"We want a Java developer, bonus if you also know Angular" Additional bonus points if you can explain in the interview what the two have to do with each other?
– a CVn
2 hours ago
I haven't seen COBOL listed on a job ad unless it was going to be used in the job. (And I never learned COBOL, nobody saw me, and you can't prove anything.)
– David Thornley
37 mins ago
add a comment |
1
Not being familiar with SNES games is not any more age discriminatory : especially since they now re-edited the good ol' NES and SNES and that I know some millenials having fun with it ;)
– OldPadawan
4 hours ago
"We want a Java developer, bonus if you also know Angular" Additional bonus points if you can explain in the interview what the two have to do with each other?
– a CVn
2 hours ago
I haven't seen COBOL listed on a job ad unless it was going to be used in the job. (And I never learned COBOL, nobody saw me, and you can't prove anything.)
– David Thornley
37 mins ago
1
1
Not being familiar with SNES games is not any more age discriminatory : especially since they now re-edited the good ol' NES and SNES and that I know some millenials having fun with it ;)
– OldPadawan
4 hours ago
Not being familiar with SNES games is not any more age discriminatory : especially since they now re-edited the good ol' NES and SNES and that I know some millenials having fun with it ;)
– OldPadawan
4 hours ago
"We want a Java developer, bonus if you also know Angular" Additional bonus points if you can explain in the interview what the two have to do with each other?
– a CVn
2 hours ago
"We want a Java developer, bonus if you also know Angular" Additional bonus points if you can explain in the interview what the two have to do with each other?
– a CVn
2 hours ago
I haven't seen COBOL listed on a job ad unless it was going to be used in the job. (And I never learned COBOL, nobody saw me, and you can't prove anything.)
– David Thornley
37 mins ago
I haven't seen COBOL listed on a job ad unless it was going to be used in the job. (And I never learned COBOL, nobody saw me, and you can't prove anything.)
– David Thornley
37 mins ago
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
It is quite obviously discrimination. It is also quite obviously not illegal discrimination. On the third hand, you will be losing out on some good candidates.
You may reject a candidate who hasn't grown up playing these games (but may be willing to accept candidates who refused to grow up while playing these games). And candidates of all ages will think that your advert is rather childish and ignore you.
Your answer made something click for me. When I was saying "discrimination", I think that I misused the word (or didn't qualify it) correctly. I was feeling that the post was being exclusive rather than inclusive and was not necessarily implying an illegality. Simply put, I felt as though it was going out of it's way to say "it's only a bonus to like the things that we like" which isn't fair.
– user95595
2 hours ago
@user95595 you want to be exclusive. Specifically, you want to exclude anyone who would not fit the corporate or team culture.
– Richard U
2 hours ago
1
@RichardU "culture is not a foosball table" or in my case video games...
– user95595
2 hours ago
1
@user95595 yeah, it is, and far more than you think.
– Richard U
2 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
It is quite obviously discrimination. It is also quite obviously not illegal discrimination. On the third hand, you will be losing out on some good candidates.
You may reject a candidate who hasn't grown up playing these games (but may be willing to accept candidates who refused to grow up while playing these games). And candidates of all ages will think that your advert is rather childish and ignore you.
Your answer made something click for me. When I was saying "discrimination", I think that I misused the word (or didn't qualify it) correctly. I was feeling that the post was being exclusive rather than inclusive and was not necessarily implying an illegality. Simply put, I felt as though it was going out of it's way to say "it's only a bonus to like the things that we like" which isn't fair.
– user95595
2 hours ago
@user95595 you want to be exclusive. Specifically, you want to exclude anyone who would not fit the corporate or team culture.
– Richard U
2 hours ago
1
@RichardU "culture is not a foosball table" or in my case video games...
– user95595
2 hours ago
1
@user95595 yeah, it is, and far more than you think.
– Richard U
2 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
It is quite obviously discrimination. It is also quite obviously not illegal discrimination. On the third hand, you will be losing out on some good candidates.
You may reject a candidate who hasn't grown up playing these games (but may be willing to accept candidates who refused to grow up while playing these games). And candidates of all ages will think that your advert is rather childish and ignore you.
It is quite obviously discrimination. It is also quite obviously not illegal discrimination. On the third hand, you will be losing out on some good candidates.
You may reject a candidate who hasn't grown up playing these games (but may be willing to accept candidates who refused to grow up while playing these games). And candidates of all ages will think that your advert is rather childish and ignore you.
answered 2 hours ago
gnasher729
80.6k34145254
80.6k34145254
Your answer made something click for me. When I was saying "discrimination", I think that I misused the word (or didn't qualify it) correctly. I was feeling that the post was being exclusive rather than inclusive and was not necessarily implying an illegality. Simply put, I felt as though it was going out of it's way to say "it's only a bonus to like the things that we like" which isn't fair.
– user95595
2 hours ago
@user95595 you want to be exclusive. Specifically, you want to exclude anyone who would not fit the corporate or team culture.
– Richard U
2 hours ago
1
@RichardU "culture is not a foosball table" or in my case video games...
– user95595
2 hours ago
1
@user95595 yeah, it is, and far more than you think.
– Richard U
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Your answer made something click for me. When I was saying "discrimination", I think that I misused the word (or didn't qualify it) correctly. I was feeling that the post was being exclusive rather than inclusive and was not necessarily implying an illegality. Simply put, I felt as though it was going out of it's way to say "it's only a bonus to like the things that we like" which isn't fair.
– user95595
2 hours ago
@user95595 you want to be exclusive. Specifically, you want to exclude anyone who would not fit the corporate or team culture.
– Richard U
2 hours ago
1
@RichardU "culture is not a foosball table" or in my case video games...
– user95595
2 hours ago
1
@user95595 yeah, it is, and far more than you think.
– Richard U
2 hours ago
Your answer made something click for me. When I was saying "discrimination", I think that I misused the word (or didn't qualify it) correctly. I was feeling that the post was being exclusive rather than inclusive and was not necessarily implying an illegality. Simply put, I felt as though it was going out of it's way to say "it's only a bonus to like the things that we like" which isn't fair.
– user95595
2 hours ago
Your answer made something click for me. When I was saying "discrimination", I think that I misused the word (or didn't qualify it) correctly. I was feeling that the post was being exclusive rather than inclusive and was not necessarily implying an illegality. Simply put, I felt as though it was going out of it's way to say "it's only a bonus to like the things that we like" which isn't fair.
– user95595
2 hours ago
@user95595 you want to be exclusive. Specifically, you want to exclude anyone who would not fit the corporate or team culture.
– Richard U
2 hours ago
@user95595 you want to be exclusive. Specifically, you want to exclude anyone who would not fit the corporate or team culture.
– Richard U
2 hours ago
1
1
@RichardU "culture is not a foosball table" or in my case video games...
– user95595
2 hours ago
@RichardU "culture is not a foosball table" or in my case video games...
– user95595
2 hours ago
1
1
@user95595 yeah, it is, and far more than you think.
– Richard U
2 hours ago
@user95595 yeah, it is, and far more than you think.
– Richard U
2 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
-1
down vote
The person hiring and writing the job ad loves SNES video games and grew up around that time.
It's hard to tell if this same person is also running your team. From what I gather this person's job is to interview and hire talent.
With that said, can you bring it up to your team's lead? Also, in your day to day job, are you or coworkers playing SNES games? So it's misleading if no one except this person is playing or into SNES.
If the person doing the job ad is also your team's lead, I would bring up that this could lead to potential conflict especially if he's friendly on the ground that the person is into SNES games. I had coworkers in the past who got friendly with the boss by playing online games for hours. Things went south when the boss and coworker had a conflict and discipline had to be done. It caused a fallout.
add a comment |
up vote
-1
down vote
The person hiring and writing the job ad loves SNES video games and grew up around that time.
It's hard to tell if this same person is also running your team. From what I gather this person's job is to interview and hire talent.
With that said, can you bring it up to your team's lead? Also, in your day to day job, are you or coworkers playing SNES games? So it's misleading if no one except this person is playing or into SNES.
If the person doing the job ad is also your team's lead, I would bring up that this could lead to potential conflict especially if he's friendly on the ground that the person is into SNES games. I had coworkers in the past who got friendly with the boss by playing online games for hours. Things went south when the boss and coworker had a conflict and discipline had to be done. It caused a fallout.
add a comment |
up vote
-1
down vote
up vote
-1
down vote
The person hiring and writing the job ad loves SNES video games and grew up around that time.
It's hard to tell if this same person is also running your team. From what I gather this person's job is to interview and hire talent.
With that said, can you bring it up to your team's lead? Also, in your day to day job, are you or coworkers playing SNES games? So it's misleading if no one except this person is playing or into SNES.
If the person doing the job ad is also your team's lead, I would bring up that this could lead to potential conflict especially if he's friendly on the ground that the person is into SNES games. I had coworkers in the past who got friendly with the boss by playing online games for hours. Things went south when the boss and coworker had a conflict and discipline had to be done. It caused a fallout.
The person hiring and writing the job ad loves SNES video games and grew up around that time.
It's hard to tell if this same person is also running your team. From what I gather this person's job is to interview and hire talent.
With that said, can you bring it up to your team's lead? Also, in your day to day job, are you or coworkers playing SNES games? So it's misleading if no one except this person is playing or into SNES.
If the person doing the job ad is also your team's lead, I would bring up that this could lead to potential conflict especially if he's friendly on the ground that the person is into SNES games. I had coworkers in the past who got friendly with the boss by playing online games for hours. Things went south when the boss and coworker had a conflict and discipline had to be done. It caused a fallout.
answered 3 hours ago
Dan
6,74721325
6,74721325
add a comment |
add a comment |
user95595 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user95595 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user95595 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user95595 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to The Workplace Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworkplace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f124482%2fis-it-discriminatory-to-put-bonus-video-game-skills-in-a-job-advertisement%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
31
Do you have a working SNES in the office?
– Stefano Palazzo
4 hours ago
5
I'm not sure why all the downvotes - this seems like a perfectly reasonable question.
– David K
4 hours ago
1
@StefanoPalazzo if there is not, how can the applicant prove they have the SNES skills
– SaggingRufus
4 hours ago