I was told 'You don't look disabled' at an interview

[Throbbing Angel]

I agree that there can be tactical advantages to waiting until the probationary period is successfully completed.

Hmm. Aren't some of them going to see this as lying by omission?
I know they shouldn't discriminate and it shouldn't make any difference to their selection process or decision - but , in real life,it does in some places, as does my being a bloke going for an admin job in a school, there was a definite 'school secretaries are wimmin' vibe I thought

However, some employers appreciate the potential employees being open from the outset. Also, the protection then extends to the selection process. Plus it assists employers in monitoring the effectiveness of their recruitment and selection process so whilst it might not directly benefit each individual candidate, in the wider scheme of things a more effective recruitment process is a good thing for disabled people generally.

I agree it can help them monitor their selection process
I do however feel like I am making up numbers
Three interviews, all had a feeling that I was there because I had ticked that box, and only because I had ticked that box, all for shitty part time jobs that I am now limited to because of my fucking conditions

'tall sucks at the mo'

 

[prunus]

"You don't look disabled"

<withering look, followed by>

"Well, you don't look like a twat, but there you go"

(unless he did of course).

Seriously though - yes, complain, kick up hell - people need to know when they are being twats.

 

[cesare]

Hmm. Aren't some of them going to see this as lying by omission?
I know they shouldn't discriminate and it shouldn't make any difference to their selection process or decision - but , in real life,it does in some places, as does my being a bloke going for an admin job in a school, there was a definite 'school secretaries are wimmin' vibe I thought

There's no legal obligation on people to declare it. Most decent employers understand the reasons why some people are reluctant to declare. Those reasons can be practical in that people have had bad experiences in the past, or personal in feeling that they shouldn't be defined by their disability.

And if they do decide to view it as lying by omission, what does that tell you about the employer? Lack of understanding/awareness of the very real problems that people with disabilities encounter.

I agree it can help them monitor their selection process
I do however feel like I am making up numbers
Three interviews, all had a feeling that I was there because I had ticked that box, and only because I had ticked that box, all for shitty part time jobs that I am now limited to because of my fucking conditions

'tall sucks at the mo'

Depending on your condition, you could try not declaring it for a while as an experiment. (Obviously this is easier with an 'unseen' condition).

 

[ericjarvis]

21stC
headteacher of a Day Special School

what...the...fuck

Totally out of order. Take it seriously. It isn't something that should be said at an interview. It isn't information the interviewing panel should have unless it is clearly stated on your CV that you have a disability. Even if so, every candidate should be asked the same questions, otherwise it isn't a fair process. Somebody there needs their head stamping on.

 

[_angel_]

Hmm. Aren't some of them going to see this as lying by omission?
I know they shouldn't discriminate and it shouldn't make any difference to their selection process or decision - but , in real life,it does in some places, as does my being a bloke going for an admin job in a school, there was a definite 'school secretaries are wimmin' vibe I thought

That's very odd, because teachers and teaching assistants can be and often are male! Why not the admin staff?

I think getting any job in a school is really hard from my experience, they get so many applications.

 

[Throbbing Angel]

Totally out of order. Take it seriously. It isn't something that should be said at an interview. It isn't information the interviewing panel should have unless it is clearly stated on your CV that you have a disability. Even if so, every candidate should be asked the same questions, otherwise it isn't a fair process. Somebody there needs their head stamping on.

good point - same Qs for everyone isn't something that crossed my mind
cheers for that

That's very odd, because teachers and teaching assistants can be and often are male! Why not the admin staff?

I think getting any job in a school is really hard from my experience, they get so many applications.

Well, I've been looking as TA work as well and from what I have seen, Male TA's represent less than 5% of the total TA's in schools - I may as well pursue that as I have more chance of getting in there purely because I have a penis

I'm sure they do get lots of applications, so what? No reason to go a bit Rigsby when they interviewed me was it? As you say, a bloke in an office in a school shouldn't be an oddity.

There is this strata of society that seem to assume blokes in schools, regardless of what they are doing, is a weird thing-christ knows why

 

[_angel_]

good point - same Qs for everyone isn't something that crossed my mind
cheers for that



Well, I've been looking as TA work as well and from what I have seen, Male TA's represent less than 5% of the total TA's in schools - I may as well pursue that as I have more chance of getting in there purely because I have a penis

I'm sure they do get lots of applications, so what? No reason to go a bit Rigsby when they interviewed me was it? As you say, a bloke in an office in a school shouldn't be an oddity.

There is this strata of society that seem to assume blokes in schools, regardless of what they are doing, is a weird thing-christ knows why

Ridiculous isn't it?

I can only imagine there must be people who actively want male TA's (they have male teachers so I can't see why not)

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

It is staggering how many people still seem to believe that if you're not in a wheelchair, you aren't disabled.

In my experience, a course leader seemed to consider that only wheelchair users or people wielding a white stick had 'real' disabilities.

 

[kittyP]

That's disgusting behaviour from someone in his position but sadly sounds like something my arse of a Headteacher would say.
He suffers badly from Foot in Mouth and Being a Twat Syndromes.
You wouldn't think it to look at him either

 

[SpookyFrank]

"You don't look disabled"

<withering look, followed by>

"Well, you don't look like a twat, but there you go"

(unless he did of course).

Seriously though - yes, complain, kick up hell - people need to know when they are being twats.

Better still:

"You don't look disabled"

"I wouldn't know mate, I'm blind"

 

[yardbird]

I'm 'disabled' but look fine (MS) and some people's attitude just makes me laugh.
"It's all right mate, I'll only be a minute" as someone parks in a disabled bay at Sainsburys to get cash out of hole-in-the-wall.
I can often struggle to make 20 yds - even without shopping.

Thanks. Rant ('cos that's what it is ) over.
All disabled peeps should chill out more and I shall do my best

 

[cesare]

Wrong thread, oops!

 

[clandestino]

If there's no legal obligation to declare a disability, is it legal to have tickbox asking if you consider yourself disabled? Isn't there something slightly dubious about that?

And out of interest, given that TA had ticked the box, does that give the interviewer permission to ask about that disability? If the Qs should be the same for everyone interviewed, that doesn't quite add up.

And TA, were you happy to be asked about your disability, given that you'd ticked the box, but felt that the line of questioning was insensitive? Or are you annoyed that you were questioned about it full stop?

It seems to me this is a can of worms - and a lot of it centres around the legality or otherwise of having that tickbox...

 

[cesare]

Yes, it's legal to have the tickbox. However, it's better to have that type of question along with the others on equal opps monitoring - a page that can be separated from the main application and not given to interviewers.

The only questions relevant about disability are those relating to requirements for reasonable adjustments during the recruitment process and employment.

 

[starfish2000]

My girlfriend has a rare foot condition and she gets that all the time, because she does not appear outwardly disabled, people think she's lying.

 

[dessiato]

In my experience, a course leader seemed to consider that only wheelchair users or people wielding a white stick had 'real' disabilities.

Better still:

"You don't look disabled"

"I wouldn't know mate, I'm blind"

I like that as a reply!

I'm 'disabled' but look fine (MS) and some people's attitude just makes me laugh.
"It's all right mate, I'll only be a minute" as someone parks in a disabled bay at Sainsburys to get cash out of hole-in-the-wall.
I can often struggle to make 20 yds - even without shopping.

Thanks. Rant ('cos that's what it is ) over.
All disabled peeps should chill out more and I shall do my best

My girlfriend has a rare foot condition and she gets that all the time, because she does not appear outwardly disabled, people think she's lying.

As for the others they are total twats every single last one of them. disability is not always obvious nor plainly visible.

(Aside: my sister knows a woman who was refused disability living allowance on the grounds that having only one leg was not a permanent condition.)

 

[Upchuck]

I'm confused.

So you can self declare saying you have consider you have a disability, even though you are not considered legally disabled. Does that then mean people who wear glasses have a disability, being sight impairment? Some people could well consider that a disability.

Have I misunderstood? I just don't understand how self declaring you consider yourself to have a disability works..

 

[lighterthief]

Does ticking the box saying you consider yourself disabled guarantee you an interview under the Guaranteed Interview Scheme or anything like that, or does it depend on the employer?

 

[cesare]

I'm confused.

So you can self declare saying you have consider you have a disability, even though you are not considered legally disabled. Does that then mean people who wear glasses have a disability, being sight impairment? Some people could well consider that a disability.

Have I misunderstood? I just don't understand how self declaring you consider yourself to have a disability works..

There's no such thing as being 'registered disabled' since the Disability Discrimination Act in 1995. To meet the definition of disabled for the purposes of the Act, broadly you have to have a substantial condition that adversely affects your ability to carry out day to day tasks; and it has to be a condition that will last 12 months+. Since 2005, progressive conditions such as HIV, MS and cancer are also covered from point of diagnosis.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Disabled...hts/DG_4001069

So in your example, any such sight impairment would need to be sufficient to adversely affect someone's ability to carry out day to day tasks.

If you consider yourself disabled, you have the option of declaring it. If the condition is such that you need the employer to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate your condition, the employer has a duty to consider doing so.

Does ticking the box saying you consider yourself disabled guarantee you an interview under the Guaranteed Interview Scheme or anything like that, or does it depend on the employer?

It depends on the employer - not all employers are an accredited user of the Disability Symbol. This is a summary of the scheme:

The Disability Symbol is a Government initiative (Jobcentre Plus, part of the Department for Work and Pensions) developed so employers can show their commitment to good practice in employing disabled people. It is a recognition given by Jobcentre Plus to employers who have agreed to meet five commitments regarding the recruitment, employment, retention and career development of people with disabilities.

The five commitments are:

1. To interview all disabled applicants who meet the minimum criteria for a job vacancy and consider them on their abilities. (This is called the Guaranteed Interview Scheme (GIS)

2. To ensure there is a mechanism in place to discuss, at any time, but at least once a year, with employees with disabilities what they can do to make sure they can develop and use their abilities;

3. To make every effort when employees become disabled to make sure they stay in employment;

4. To take action to ensure that all employees develop the appropriate level of disability awareness needed to make the commitments work;

5. Each year, to review the five commitments and what has been achieved, to plan ways to improve on them and let employees know about progress and future plans.

 

[Upchuck]

So in some cases it might actually be easier to get a job if you consider yourself disabled? To meet quotas and all.

Interesting.

 

[cesare]

So is it easier to get a govt job i(or at least an interview) f you declare disability? To meet quotas and all.

There are no quotas.

It is only easier to get an interview if you meet the minimum criteria for the vacancy & the employer is an accredited Disability Symbol user.

 

[Upchuck]

I don't understand this. When I was temping for the public sector a graph would come around on the monthly bulletion listing the % of men, women, and disabled employed by the department. So obviously disability was on their agenda, or are they compelled to list this % disability section?

 

[cesare]

I don't understand this. When I was temping for the public sector a graph would come around on the monthly bulletion listing the % of men, women, and disabled employed by the department. So obviously disability was on their agenda, or are they compelled to list this % disability section?

Keeping track of the demographics of the workforce and letting the workforce know about it is fine.

There's a greater onus on public sector bodies to go further than the private sector - the duty to promote equality in gender, race and disability.

 

[Upchuck]

Could my alcoholism be considered a disability? It doesn't affect my working capacity as I don't drink and haven't for a few years, but I know you can get disability allowance for being an alkie (which, tbf, is fair enough when folk are still drinking). Could I consider myself disabled? Would I need to specify my disability if I was aksed by an employer?

 

[cesare]

Could my alcoholism be considered a disability? It doesn't affect my working capacity as I don't drink and haven't for a few years, but I know you can get disability allowance for being an alkie (which, tbf, is fair enough when folk are still drinking). Could I consider myself disabled? Would I need to specify my disability if I was aksed by an employer?

Alcoholism in itself isn't a disability and is excluded from the DDA - but there are accompanying regulations to the DDA which mean that impairment (such as depression) that occur as a result of alcoholism could be considered a disability. In other words they would look at the effects of alcoholism rather than the cause when determining if the person is disabled.

So if you manage your alcoholism with no significant impairment to your ability to carry out day to day tasks, it is unlikely that you would be considered disabled.

 

[Upchuck]

I know I am not disabled, I just didn't realise until this thread the self consideration of disability and how all that works.

Thanks for the info.

 

[cesare]

I know I am not disabled, I just didn't realise until this thread the self consideration of disability and how all that works.

Thanks for the info.

NP

I just wish that some employers would take the time and trouble to ask questions/find out.

 

[lighterthief]

Yep, interesting and enlightening info there cesare - thanks.

 

[Throbbing Angel]

yes, thanks very much Cesare, you've been really helpful and gone ABCD as they say at Asda

my position is that I am diabled (M.E/CFS and psoriatic arthritis)
I am not 'registered' disabled (no claims or blue badges) and that is by choice as I haven't fully accepted the (my) position yet
I have been a stay at home Dad & student for three years and feel that any guaranteed interview is a good thing in light of the way employers (generally) think in my experience, having been on interview panels myself in the past I can vouch for the fact that there are a lot of cocks responsible for hiring & firing and if they didn't have to interview disabled, black, asian, gay, foreign, fat, ugly, female, short, burka wearing, ginger, catholic or candidates from conucil estates or those with Open Uni degrees - some of them, believe it or not, wouldn't.

All candidates treated equally? My arse - I've seen and heard it happen.

anyway, complaint is being written up this weekend, I have names and addresses of those I want to inform

 

[cesare]

Cheers

Good luck with it Throbbing Angel. It's hard enough developing a condition/s and having to manage the effects & deal with the psychological impact in itself. It's so much worse when this is all compounded by ignorance and/or prejudice