I don't know what happened to the guy, he disappeared went for a coffee or something, but he didn't seem like a stooge. Also, we weren't given instructions to interject, the whole thing was facilitated by one panelist, it was a round the circle type affair.
Challenging Discrimination at Interviews
- Thread starter Ralph Masters
- Start date
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
So he came in, said what he said, then went out again. Discussion followed round the table?
Treacle Toes
Time
Why would you need instructions? Were you told not to interupt or address points being made?
It was a job for a therapeutic groupworker for children, no one challenged the christian guy there were 12 in the group, all men. The womens group was to follow, then a mixed group with the successful candidates.
I'm glad I didn't get it, but pissed off about the lack of challenge by the facilitator.
I'm glad I didn't get it, but pissed off about the lack of challenge by the facilitator.
Treacle Toes
Time
I have a feeling you might be missing an important point.
no there was no table, the guy was there when I got there with everyone else, he didn't strike me as in anyway different from the others until he came out with his god bit, he stayed for the whole group, over an hour, then went for a coffee or something. A list of those successful was read out, I only really picked up on the fact that I wasn't on the list, said farewell and good luck to 4 people who were still in the room, and left. whether God man was on the list I don't recall
we weren't encouraged to interject, it was meant to be about our own personal values and how we thought of ourselves
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
So he was a candidate?
Yes he was a candidate, he had strong religious beliefs about loyalty, and maybe you can say stuff like that. But I wish it was classed as discrimination
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
You can say stuff about loyalty and religion, but it veered into inappropriateness with the blood virus stuff. He probably didn't make it onto the list.
I hope not, The non challenge sent signals to the other candidates and must have led to a certain degree of mistrust towards the panel, which led to a different dynamic and a different outcome to the interview. Maybe they wanted an uncontrolled situation and invited fundamentalists to fire it up, I don't know. At the end of the group the facilitator did say "thankyou, ....... I hope you've all learnt someting about how our organisation works, you've been a good group, in the past we've had groups who...." then he bit his lip stp and said "thankyou, If any one would like to have a coffee......while we shortlist blah blah"
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
So the rest of the panel were acting as observers, and there was one facilitator whose primary function was to encourage the group to speak on certain subjects?
If I had been the facilitator, I probably would have asked him how his views might play out with regard to HIV+ employees and service users ... but I guess they might have been trying to play it safe by not addressing the tricky subject of religion/belief rights v disability rights. It would have made for an interesting discussion, but perhaps they didn't feel too sure of their ground, iyswim?
ajdown
Posting in this thread
Sometimes these things are plants, to see how you react.
I had an interview a few years ago, where one of the guys taking me between the two parts of the interview asked me "so how do you feel about working with women and blacks"? I can't for the life of me think how that could really have been part of the official interview procedure.
I had an interview a few years ago, where one of the guys taking me between the two parts of the interview asked me "so how do you feel about working with women and blacks"? I can't for the life of me think how that could really have been part of the official interview procedure.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
Well if you had come out with some of the stuff that you have on this forum, I'd have asked it as well.
I do indeed.
Training groups or therapeutic groups offer the possibility for people to challenge their ideas positively, Interview groups are a way of seeing a lot of candidates quickly, they don't seem very efficient. I'd say the whole idea is counterproductive and leads a bad taste in the mouth. Better to find a suitable candidate and invite them to join an in house group for the final selection stage.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
Tbh, I still haven't quite got my head around the format
But one of the things I do is to design and run assessment centres ... including training observers and facilitators. But assuming that this guy wasn't introduced deliberately, from what you told us I do think it could have been handled better. Even the standard "what do the group think of that" would have been better than ignoring it especially in the context of recruiting for a health worker role. Assessment centres can be very effective, but it does depend on how they're designed and run. Like most things really.That religion/belief v disability (or race/sex/orientation) is a tricky one for a lot of people though. Training issue there I guess.
I think you're entitled to religious belief but not entitled to apply it to a work situation, nor should we be put in the position where we feel we have to challenge someone because of their beliefs at work. Our personal values maybe of interest to an interview panel but when they are broadcast to a group which has no real opportunity to feedback, the exercise becomes counter productive and sends out all the wrong signals. I don't care what the guy thinks, all I care about is how he treats others, and that should be professionally. The same goes for the panel, I don't care about the fact that they feel interviews should be conducted according to a therapeutic approach, all I ask is that they are professional about it. Professionalism must over ride all belief systems.
zippyRN
Orange, Fuzzy, and allowed to possess Cat As
the OP is skirting around HIV, Hep B , Hep C .. i.e. the 'gay', 'junkie', jailbird' . 'whore' viruses which is what the religious guy was implying in his comments
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
Couldn't give a toss about peoples' belief systems unless they result in unfavourable/detrimental treatment of others' to be frank.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
Not sure if it was him or religious guy re that BBV thing, better they just come out with what they mean.
No I was just saying what happened, the guy was obviously homophobic and was talking about HIV (and I presumed Hep C) but he didn't say it, he talked in terms of god's punishment for people who were disloyal and went againsts gods will
BBV's is used quite a lot these days for diseases which can be transmitted by blood
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
Still none the wiser. Fuckwit ranting and belated response to fuckwit ranting. It's like drawing teeth!
Just bloody describe it better.
The guy was asked to talk about his toughts about himself and his values, he claimed his major value was loyalty and went on to say that because of disloyalty people are being punished by god for with blood diseases and other people who displease god are getting them too,
I used the term bbv bbv because i took it that he was talking about people who had unprotected, extra marital sex and intravenous drug users. It was pretty obvious ...he couldn't have been talking about anything eles
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
Thing is, from what you've said he was just a ranty idiot and any fule kno that you can get the bad aids from inter marital sex as well as extra marital sex lol or even just a blood transfusion. How much time did he have for all these rantings?
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Sounds kind of complicated an Machiavellian: a special plant to determine something or other - in candidates for group childcare worker.
Yes it was an interview, discussion was the wrong word. We were neant to express our feelings abour ourselves and our values as iondividuals.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
Similar threads
