Hacker News Reader

Comment by largesse | Hacker News Reader

I'm finding myself more and more irritated with this sort of submission to Hacker News. It makes a bold assertion and does nothing whatsoever to back it up. Then, half the comments here attempt to do the digging needed to back the point and typically we find that the point is overstated or false.

The most galling thing is the usually the tone of the original submission. It's all: "This is the way it is, kids! Run off and use this information because I'm giving you a scoop on the truth!"

The worst thing is, I don't think there is anything we can do about it. It's just the way things have devolved.

View on HN

I'd agree with you, were it not explicit that this is UK employment law here. And is probably a UK-only issue. ACAS (crudely speaking, the body responsible for UK employment law) have explicitly said so.

"Avoid references, however oblique, to age in both the job description and the person specification. For example, avoid asking for ‘so many years’ experience. This may rule out younger people who have the skills required but have not had the opportunity to demonstrate them over an extended period. A jobseeker could challenge any time requirement and you may have to justify it in objective terms."

(stolen from Peroni at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5442441)

"should avoid" is a bit of a leap from "you're breaking the law."

There are lots of things you should avoid doing when hiring, but few of them are -- on their own -- illegal.

Your totally right I am an "approved" person within the meaning of UK employment law ie I could represent you at an Industrial tribunal (labor court)

This sort of ill informed commentary on UK employment law does not help you can legally discriminate if there are objective reasons for doing so and hiring a senior developer you could objectively justify x years experience of leading a team for example.

The problem comes when some one uses poor quality information form sites like hackerjobs.co.uk or some solicitor you met down the golf club who did your house conveyancing and makes decisions based on it and then gets hammered in the courts for it.

You're attacking my point without attempting to correct it.

you can legally discriminate if there are objective reasons for doing so

There is a ridiculous breadth of methods to legally discriminate. Equally, there are a large number of ways to fall fowl of the law. I've highlighted one of those ways, and provided citation.

The rule of thumb when it comes to employment law is to always err on the side of caution. That's exactly the suggestion I'm making.

Also: I am an "approved" person within the meaning of UK employment law ie I could represent you at an Industrial tribunal

I am also an 'approved' person. As are the majority of tax paying UK residents.

I think the problem is the title of the article , "Don't specify X years of experience required - You're breaking the law".

This makes an assertion without strong enough supporting evidence.

If the title was "Be on the safe side, consult your solicitor before writing your job requirements" then it might not get such criticism. OTOH without the punchy title you don't get to the front page of HN...

True but id suggest an actual employment law specialist not J random guy who did your house conveyancing.

And given that a large % of uk adverts say x years experience some where in them its unlikely to be "breaking the law" in all but a tiny minority of cases.

er no I put "approved person" in quotes as it has a specific meaning in the UK context.

It makes a bold assertion and does nothing whatsoever to back it up.

I posted direct citation in the original post. ACAS is an official organisation assigned to preventing and resolving employment disputes in the UK. Their take on the matter:

Avoid references, however oblique, to age in both the job description and the person specification. For example, avoid asking for ‘so many years’ experience. This may rule out younger people who have the skills required but have not had the opportunity to demonstrate them over an extended period. A jobseeker could challenge any time requirement and you may have to justify it in objective terms.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com