Headhunters rush to sign up older candidates for City jobs
Recruitment agencies in the City and elsewhere are scrambling to get the CVs of older workers onto their books before age discrimination becomes illegal later this year. Leading financial-sector headhunters are among thousands of recruitment firms nationwide that have signed up to a new code of conduct requiring them to place older workers across a greater range of jobs.
The code has been adopted by the Recruitment and Employment Confederation (REC), the professional body that regulates recruitment agencies, and is intended to bring the £24bn-a-year industry up to date with Britain's changing employment laws. It will also oblige agencies to put forward more disabled workers and people from ethnic minority backgrounds.
The move comes amid evidence that companies are failing to keep up with legal reforms. The cost to business of fighting discrimination, harassment and unfair dismissal lawsuits has risen by 70 per cent in the past three years. Companies in Britain are now spending £210m a year on employment tribunal claims.
Government measures against age discrimination - which come into force this autumn - could herald a new wave of litigation and may lead to a big shake-up in the Square Mile, where banks and brokerages have tended to recruit younger workers.
'Employers in the City and elsewhere will now have to recruit fairly,' said Janet Lakhani, the chief executive of the think-tank C2E, which has advised the government on workplace equality issues and helped draw up the REC code of conduct.
'If you're an older worker or from a minority and you have all the right qualifications, recruitment agencies now have an obligation to put your name forward for a job,' Lakhani said. 'Employers were previously specifying age, sex and other details in their job adverts. This is no longer an option.'
First published in The Observer
posted by Ian Dodds Consulting @ 4:39 pm
1 comments
1 Comments:
One thing that would reverse this and help re-claim childhood would be the scrapping of compulsory sex education. Let's preserve innocence as long as we can. Decidedly explicit stuff is to be foisted on children as young as five.
This is enough to make any decent person think that if ever they become a parent, home-schooling is the only option left.
To my knowledge, UKIP are the only political party who are committed to making sex education optional (apart from in the context of biology) and cutting it out altogether for under-10's. Good on them! As for the NSPCC spokesperson saying: “The NSPCC wants to see a society where all children are loved, valued and able to fulfill their potential. Our Royal Charter of 1895 requires that we ‘undertake and carry out publicity and educational work of all descriptions for making known the objects of the Society’.
“We also support the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which says that children should be protected from all forms of discrimination.” It has consistently opposed the idea that both parents have an automatic right to access to children, regardless of the wishes of the child, which may explain today’s statement from the NSCFC and rightly so Mr.Dodds for as you will see from that very same Convention that the NSPCC claims to support in full reads the following which they without question from the quote above appose!! Herein lay the Convention as breached to date by the NSPCC.
.Article 5; UN Convention clearly States:
Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child, to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognised in the present Convention.
Article 18; States:
Parental responsibilities
Parents have joint primary responsibility for raising the child, and the State shall support them in this. The State shall provide appropriate assistance to parents in child-raising.
Article 9; States:
Separation from parents
The child has a right to live with his or her parents unless this is deemed to be incompatible with the child’s best interests. The child also has the right to maintain contact with both parents if separated from one or both.
Article 12 ; States
The right of the child to express an opinion and to have that opinion taken into account, in any matter or procedure affecting the child. States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.
2. For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law.
The NSPCC by non compliance in full of said UN Convention as sited above need and must be challenged as to its true agenda, for to seemingly perpetuate a gender war be it for political or social gain is not conducive to family life.
In conclusion I would only add this, neither the NSCFC or its Chairman can in anyway shape or form be branded homophobic as can be clearly seen from the following NSCFC website link www.nscfc.com/linksother3.htm
Post a Comment
<< Home