Age Legislation Policy Statement
Friday 14 October 2005
EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY: COMING OF AGE –
RESPONSE OF AGR
Foreword
The Association of Graduate Recruiters, AGR, was established in 1968. We are a not-for-profit business and currently have a membership of more than 600 businesses with a shared interest and heavy investment in the recruitment and development of graduates, in the main through operating graduate schemes.
Our professional interest in the Coming of Age consultation exercise is therefore restricted to the graduate market and specifically the recruitment, selection and development of graduates on to graduate schemes. In 2005 our members recruited well in excess of 20,000 graduates into high quality programmes.
Because our interest is quite specific we felt that the response form was not the most appropriate way for us to respond to the consultation. Hence we have prepared a statement dealing directly with the issues that are of most concern to our members. In addition to holding numerous consultations with sector focus groups, we also organised a one day national conference in May 2005 on the proposed legislation with the title ‘Are You ready?’ Almost 200 people attended that event, suggesting a high level of interest in the proposed legislation.
AGR’s position statement
Few would argue with the premise that there is no place for age discrimination in employment in the modern world of work. There are overwhelming economic and social arguments for ensuring that all people within the UK workforce should be able to fulfil their potential regardless of their date of birth.
AGR is concerned with the recruitment, selection and development of graduates into graduate level opportunities that lead to professional roles or middle and senior management positions within both the public and private sector. Essentially these are opportunities that follow structured training programmes over a specific period of time, ranging in the main from one to three years. We are pleased to see that the draft regulations do not question the legitimacy of graduate recruitment schemes.
Marketing of opportunities on graduate programmes or schemes is usually targeted at universities and for an obvious reason – they are an easily identifiable and captive audience (of increasingly diverse age ranges). However, employers are recognising that not all the graduates who are eligible to apply for their programmes are still at university and are therefore adapting their marketing strategy to reflect this despite the fact that broad based marketing campaigns are more expensive to run. We expect all of our members to accept applications from people of all ages whatever form their targeting takes
The consultation paper includes a brief reference to ‘practical work experience’. In the graduate market, employers offer work experience and placements, which may be called ‘internships’, to undergraduates. These placements serve several purposes including providing young people with a real taste of the world of work. Placements are also useful in terms of providing undergraduates with an in-depth insight into a job and business environment. Where a placement has worked satisfactorily to the benefit of both parties it may result in a shortened application procedure for a place on a graduate scheme a year later. Work experience opportunities and placements are specifically targeted at students, predominantly young students with limited or no prior experience of the working world. Will they be deemed discriminatory under the new laws? Clarification on this issue is urgently sought as next year’s intake of undergraduates on to summer placements in 2006 is being organised now.
Recruitment of graduates into training programmes is, in a very real sense, recruiting for potential and while most employers use carefully constructed and relevant competency based selection models, they are nevertheless recruiting a talent pipeline to ensure the future success of the business. Age should not be a factor in determining candidate suitability and we see the value in removing age/date of birth from the application form which is used to screen and short-list candidates. AGR has always stressed the importance of businesses ensuring that the personnel involved in the recruitment and selection process should be properly trained to recruit objectively and that should include age awareness training.
The same objectivity applies to graduate development programmes and promotion opportunities. However, we believe that there is a case for arguing that graduates who have already had extensive work experience and who apply and are successful in being recruited to a graduate scheme may not benefit from a generic development programme in the same way as a graduate with limited work experience. The more experienced recruit may be more suited to a tailor made development programme. This will tax some employers more than others depending on the size, scale and intended outputs from their programmes. Some employers may find it difficult to effectively manage a programme that could be made up of a whole series of individual learning plans. There are also significant cost implications in so doing. More detail on what is and what is not acceptable practice in terms of succession planning would be welcomed.
A further issue in relation to graduate schemes is the requirement that some employers have for all of their trainees to be geographically mobile and undertake placements in different locations as part of their career development. An older applicant/recruit may be less willing or able to move around the country for personal reasons. Could the requirement to be mobile be construed as indirect discrimination? Greater clarification in the regulations on what employers must, as opposed to should, consider in relation to development programmes would be helpful. The same applies to requests to participate in graduate training programmes on a part-time basis. While it is not necessarily always going to be a mature candidate who requests this, we suspect it is most likely to be put to the test by one.
In our view it should not be considered unlawful for an employer to require a graduate to undertake placements in different working environments as part of their career development. There are many advantages in exposing trainees to different working environments and experiences and these can often only be achieved by moving between different locations. Nor should it be considered unlawful to refuse a request to participate in a graduate development scheme on a part-time basis.
We recognise that the Government’s intention is to leave it up to employers to come up with suitable reasons for treating people of various ages differently and that cost alone will not be considered an acceptable reason. Yet the examples quoted above are very real for employers who treat the recruitment and development of graduates very seriously and are prepared to invest vast sums of money in recruiting for potential. AGR hopes that greater clarity will be included in the regulations on what employers can do in such situations.
What the Government must avoid is the implementation of a set of regulations that reduces the confidence of employers in running graduate schemes. There is a long established tradition in the UK of recruiting for potential and that tradition should be maintained. Indeed we need more employers to provide high quality training opportunities for the increasing numbers of graduates emerging from our universities. It seems to us that this underpins the Government’s ambitious higher education expansion programme and the widening participation agenda which, incidentally, AGR has consistently supported. It will also reduce the UK’s competitiveness in the global economy. We would make the same points in relation to Modern Apprenticeships that are designed specifically for young people entering the workforce.
In short, the more clarification that employers have on what is lawful and what is unlawful in relation to graduate recruitment and development programme the better. It would be a huge loss to the UK skills base if employers fought shy of recruiting and developing graduates because of a lack of clarity on what is lawful practice. Graduate recruitment schemes are no longer axiomatic. Employers are constantly evaluating the effectiveness of their investment and despite the fact that the number of places has been increasing steadily in recent years, the future of graduate schemes cannot be assured. Recognising that in time case law will emerge may not be enough to convince employers in what is a specialised, complex and heavy investment area of recruitment.
From extensive consultations with our membership across a diverse range of sectors we are convinced that they are preparing to embrace the spirit of the age discrimination legislation, but there remains a degree of nervousness and uncertainty about the sorts of issues that we have highlighted here. Good law works in the best interests of all concerned. It is in everyone’s best interests – Government, graduates, and employers – to ensure that:
- entry routes to careers for recent graduates do not dry up
- employers do not reduce their level of investment in training and development for graduates
- no undermining of the added value that graduates bring to the workplace occurs.
We trust that our comments are useful to the consultation exercise and look forward to watching the progress of the regulations through Parliament.
Carl Gilleard
Chief Executive, AGR
On behalf of The Association of Graduate Recruiters.