Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Misuse of double tick scheme...

  1. #1

    Angry Misuse of double tick scheme...

    I am sick of people displaying the "positive about disabled people" logo and don't keep their promise, to give an interview to any disabled person that meets the minimum criteria.
    I applied for a job at Keele University, I made sure they are aware I am a disabled person. I didn't receive any response, and after the date the interviews were due I asked them what happened, why didn't I get an interview. I was stunned to see the response: They had 16 criteria for the job and they told me I don't meet 3 of them and thats why I didn't get shortlisted... I wrote them back: the double tick scheme mentions "who meet the minimum criteria", you're asking for all the criteria?? And they confirmed me that indeed "minimum" for them is "all".
    So... where's the positive steps toward employing disabled people?? If I have to meet all the criteria that means I am being treated just as any other candidate, disable or not. In my opinion it's a false representation and a misuse of the logo...
    I want to fight this - I know I wont get that job, I am not sure I would want to work there any more, but this behavior must be sanctioned. We shouldn't just accept it - large corporations are getting publicity based on us, on the disability subject, by using this logo and not helping us at all.
    My question is... what ideas do you have to fight this? I want to go and talk about this at CAB office as a first step. Actually the first step was writing on this forum...
    I also would like to contact organizations that fight for us on these matters. Can you suggest a few?
    Thank you.
    Last edited by colin_21; 09-05-13 at 21:53.

  2. #2
    I've had this aswell, only way i found out something was "wrong" - Was when i started testing things with job applications.

    10 Applications 10 Different companies. All saying "Unsuccessful" when stating i have a disability

    10 Applications Same 10 companies as before, this time saying "No" to disability, 6 out of 10 got back to me offering a interview...

    So its either a getting through by chance.. (which i doubt) or the fact they do not want to employ someone with a disability.

    There is not alot you can do about it as they will just say you did not meet the minimum criteria, or if you do by chance get a interview, it will only be so they can say "We've gave an applicant with a disability a interview" So either way, they can waste your time.

    [qoute]If I have to meet all the criteria that means I am being treated just as any other candidate, disable or not. In my opinion it's a false representation and a misuse of the logo... [/qoute]

    to give the other side to the argument...

    Would you expect the benchmark to be lowered, just because you declare a disability? Is that not unfair on able-bodied people?

    What do you have to offer the Employee, in terms of going above and beyond what a candidate with the same skills, but without a disability can do?

    If you don't mind me asking; What type of jobs (skill set requirement) and what level (entry level/semi-experienced/ senior)

    Also, What is your disability? Physical / Impaired mobility / learning difficulties / mental health issues.

    What do you state on your application packs under reasonable adjustments?

    I Don't think you will have grounds to fight this, as its documented that you have not met the minimum criteria, If you fight it you could make yourself look very stupid, and if you go public very few employers if they get wind of any legal case you take against other companies will not consider you.

  3. #3
    Corzair
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by jsh1988 View Post
    to give the other side to the argument...
    Would you expect the benchmark to be lowered, just because you declare a disability? Is that not unfair on able-bodied people?
    What do you have to offer the Employee, in terms of going above and beyond what a candidate with the same skills, but without a disability can do?
    To interject into this thread, sorry if im acting out of bounds...
    Wasn't there supposed to be some sort of quota to get something like 3% of your staff with disabilities in.

    If Employers are going to use the same argument as you have mentioned then what's the point of even applying ?
    As i see it there must be, or rather, has to be some sort of leeway for people with disabilities.
    They may well be better employees in the long run being thankful for the the opportunity etc.

    Could that guy/gal with a disability do the job and do they deserve a chance ?
    This is what the positive about disabled people logo should mean...

    Otherwise I think its just lip-service and it kinda sound good but ultimately nonsense and not positive at all!

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    North West
    Posts
    2,293
    Quote Originally Posted by Corzair View Post
    To interject into this thread, sorry if im acting out of bounds...
    Wasn't there supposed to be some sort of quota to get something like 3% of your staff with disabilities in.
    The short answer to this is no.

    When the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 was replaced by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 parts of the Act, including the requirement for employers with 20 or more employees 3% quota of registered disabled people and the register of disabled people were repealed.



    The Two Ticks programme is about setting a minimum benchmark for an interview, it doesn't mean you'll get the job, you have to meet their minimum requirements (as they set out) to be considered for the interview and that is all.
    more info here
    Motability Car History
    05/09-05/12; Nissan Qashqai 1.5 Diesel Tekna; 36,500 miles; avg 41.1mpg
    06/12-07/15; Ford C-Max 2.0 Diesel Titanium Powershift; 35,400 miles; avg 37.8mpg
    07/15-09/17; Skoda Octavia 1.6 Diesel SE-L DSG; 28,200miles; avg 43.9mpg
    09/17-Present; VW Touran 1.4 Petrol SEL DSG; 11,600miles; avg 35.9mpg (28.6 - 43.9mpg)

    Click here to send me an email with any private Motoring questions you may have. Replies usually within 48hrs

  5. #5
    Senior Member Lighttouch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    3,800
    The two tick system is nonsense. It's more to do with the company promoting a positive image than trying to employ disabled people.


    Incidentally if a company asks you how you meet the person spec then you must cover all the points - that's the minimum for all employers.

    What they are looking for is the best person for the job. If you meet the minimum criteria you will be guaranteed a job interview. Each candidate wat interview will be given points for each question answered or task undertaken. The candidate with the most points gets the get. However, if you had let them know that you were disabled on the application and you came joint first at interview with a non disabled person then the company would offer you the post.

    Large companies with HR departments do set targets to employ disabled, black, gay, lesbian staff.

    Companies can positively discriminate in favour of certain types of people in the black community but it is against the law to positively discriminate in favour of disabled people.

    My advice, always put down on the application that you're disabled but in any covering letter put a positive spin on it.

    And if you need support at interview stage get in touch with Access to Work.

    Tip - companies are looking for qualities more so than skills e.g. - flexible, team player, good communication skills, pro-active, approachable. All other skills can be taught once you start.

  6. #6
    Senior Member andypandy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    649
    It's a shame the OP hasn't returned to see what long and in depth answers you have all taken the trouble to go into. Shame.

  7. #7
    Sorry andy, I started the thread and as you can see the first reply came after 2 weeks, so I figured that it just wasnt interesting...
    It is hard today to find work, and this scheme seemed very helpful.
    Since starting the thread I applied to a few more jobs, at least one where I was sure I ticked all of the essential criteria for that job. The result was the same... I received a letter home saying that they had many applications and they found someone better. No mention about their promise, it seemed to me that they simply forgot to check that I am disabled and (if I meet the essential criteria) they should call me for an interview. Afterward... they can invent reasons - you didnt put enough commas in the applications, you did not mention the obvious... etc. And theres nothing we can do about that, even the gov site states that you cant sue companies in relation to this scheme.

    So... I do agree with Lighttouch that this scheme is strictly for promoting a positive image for the companies. But... it is a "positive image" on the expense of our disabilities.

    "Would you expect the benchmark to be lowered, just because you declare a disability? Is that not unfair on able-bodied people?
    What do you have to offer the Employee, in terms of going above and beyond what a candidate with the same skills, but without a disability can do?"
    Well, I'm not the one with the big misleading logo displayed on the fence about supporting disabled people ... I expected just what they said: an interview if I meet the minimum essential criteria. It is absolutely normal for us to compete with the abled-bodied people, so why use a logo? Do you see on any pubs door "we serve disabled people", or "we serve gays", or "we serve black people"? Cause at this point it is the same situation.
    This "minimum" essential is very vague, If minimum essential criteria means all, why dont they use the word "all"? I expected them to consider me for the interview with me ticking only half of the boxes, and at the interview stage I would prove myself that I deserve the job, I wouldn't want to take it over somebody else better than me. But this is not the point I was making.

  8. #8
    Senior Member andypandy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    649
    Quote Originally Posted by colin_21 View Post
    Sorry andy, I started the thread and as you can see the first reply came after 2 weeks, so I figured that it just wasnt interesting...
    It is hard today to find work, and this scheme seemed very helpful.
    Since starting the thread I applied to a few more jobs, at least one where I was sure I ticked all of the essential criteria for that job. The result was the same... I received a letter home saying that they had many applications and they found someone better. No mention about their promise, it seemed to me that they simply forgot to check that I am disabled and (if I meet the essential criteria) they should call me for an interview. Afterward... they can invent reasons - you didnt put enough commas in the applications, you did not mention the obvious... etc. And theres nothing we can do about that, even the gov site states that you cant sue companies in relation to this scheme.

    So... I do agree with Lighttouch that this scheme is strictly for promoting a positive image for the companies. But... it is a "positive image" on the expense of our disabilities.





    Well, I'm not the one with the big misleading logo displayed on the fence about supporting disabled people ... I expected just what they said: an interview if I meet the minimum essential criteria. It is absolutely normal for us to compete with the abled-bodied people, so why use a logo? Do you see on any pubs door "we serve disabled people", or "we serve gays", or "we serve black people"? Cause at this point it is the same situation.
    This "minimum" essential is very vague, If minimum essential criteria means all, why dont they use the word "all"? I expected them to consider me for the interview with me ticking only half of the boxes, and at the interview stage I would prove myself that I deserve the job, I wouldn't want to take it over somebody else better than me. But this is not the point I was making.
    No apology needed Colin. I'm sorry I never noticed the big gap in dates.

    I have to be perfectly honest with you because I had never heard of the scheme but then I am in Cornwall

    I honestly wish you well in your search for work

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by colin_21 View Post
    Sorry andy, I started the thread and as you can see the first reply came after 2 weeks, so I figured that it just wasnt interesting...
    It is hard today to find work, and this scheme seemed very helpful.
    Since starting the thread I applied to a few more jobs, at least one where I was sure I ticked all of the essential criteria for that job. The result was the same... I received a letter home saying that they had many applications and they found someone better. No mention about their promise, it seemed to me that they simply forgot to check that I am disabled and (if I meet the essential criteria) they should call me for an interview. Afterward... they can invent reasons - you didnt put enough commas in the applications, you did not mention the obvious... etc. And theres nothing we can do about that, even the gov site states that you cant sue companies in relation to this scheme.

    So... I do agree with Lighttouch that this scheme is strictly for promoting a positive image for the companies. But... it is a "positive image" on the expense of our disabilities.



    Well, I'm not the one with the big misleading logo displayed on the fence about supporting disabled people ... I expected just what they said: an interview if I meet the minimum essential criteria. It is absolutely normal for us to compete with the abled-bodied people, so why use a logo? Do you see on any pubs door "we serve disabled people", or "we serve gays", or "we serve black people"? Cause at this point it is the same situation.
    This "minimum" essential is very vague, If minimum essential criteria means all, why dont they use the word "all"? I expected them to consider me for the interview with me ticking only half of the boxes, and at the interview stage I would prove myself that I deserve the job, I wouldn't want to take it over somebody else better than me. But this is not the point I was making.

    If you are still watching this thread, one thing i would do in your situation (I Have done it myself and landed a job) is to avoid disclosing the fact you have a disability. going by the two ticks scheme you should not need to do this, but its often the only way to get a chance to show yourself face to face with the employees.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    North West
    Posts
    2,293
    Quote Originally Posted by jsh1988 View Post
    If you are still watching this thread, one thing i would do in your situation (I Have done it myself and landed a job) is to avoid disclosing the fact you have a disability. going by the two ticks scheme you should not need to do this, but its often the only way to get a chance to show yourself face to face with the employees.
    When I graduated with a degree in Design Engineering in 2007, it took me 3 months before I got a job in a similar industry (a very low wage, but it was a foot in the door).

    I had several rejection letters when I applied for jobs and declared my disability, as you say even when the two-ticks symbol was displayed.

    I managed to get interviews but only by not mentioning my disability, and as it isn't an obvious disability I could hide it during the interviews too.

    The one job that I really wanted, I made sure that I was super-high on my painkillers and acted as 'normally' as possible - and I got it. It was only when I was formally offered the job (in writing) did I mention my disability to them.

    I know some people won't be able to do this, but I agree with jsh1988, you shouldn't declare this disability at all in the early stages.

    I don't know if you're aware but it's actually illegal for an interviewer to ask you about any disabilities you may have. They can ask you about sick days (and if you were off because of your disability, these days don't count) and they can ask about your general health but not if you are disabled.

    You can have a disability and not be sick, it's when people group 'the sick and disabled' together that it really pees me off.

    (sorry for ranting)

Similar Threads

  1. Misuse if motor tax exemption
    By Pepsi in forum Motoring - help & advice on cars for disabled people, Blue Badge and Motability
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-11-14, 12:03
  2. Dacia now available on the scheme.
    By wazza in forum Motoring - help & advice on cars for disabled people, Blue Badge and Motability
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-05-13, 12:00
  3. HRM and Motability scheme.
    By wobble1 in forum Motoring - help & advice on cars for disabled people, Blue Badge and Motability
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 27-10-12, 15:14

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •