A friend of mine went for a job interview recently, one of the desirable criteria for the position was that you had to be a residential landlord. It was valued by the employer organisation who worked in the property field.
The more we considered this point the more we realised that being a landlord was ultimately governed by how much personal wealth one has.
How do others feel about this? Would you work for an employer who said you can only work for us if you drive a certain value/brand of car or if you have a certain amount of money in your bank account?
Here's the point...
Should personal wealth underpin job offers?
Juliet LeFevre
19 Responses
No personal objections to this
I don’t have a problem with this; we are all wealthy or poor in relation to a range of factors which relate to our individual employability, although personal wealth is an uncommon prerequisite in my experience.
I don’t see it as any different from an employer saying you must have the relevant qualifications, skills, experience or personality; applicants who are ‘rich’ in the required attributes are likely to be short-listed and interviewed, whereas those who are ‘poor’ in the required attributes are not.
Having been made redundant recently I have just been offered a job based on doing very well on psychometric testing and having skills, experience and qualifications that exceed the requirements for this post. I am ‘wealthy’ in relation to the requirements of my new employer. Had the employer required me to financially wealthy I would not have had any moral objection, although that prerequisite would have excluded me due to my lack of financial wealth.
Regarding whether personal wealth should underpin job offers, I would say yes if that attribute is essential in the circumstances for successful performance both for the employee and the company.
Personal Wealth?
Eddie Newall wrote: ‘Regarding whether personal wealth should underpin job offers, I would say yes if that attribute is essential in the circumstances for successful performance both for the employee and the company.’
Eddie, what kind of job are you thinking of that would have personal wealth as an essential job criteria?
(I’m Just curious.)
one step beyond
A long time ago I was commissioned in the Army, at that time they used to check your financial situation at commissioning. This was not to ensure that only upper class toffs got commisions but because, at the time it was a chargable offence (under Section 69 of the Army Act) to bounce a cheque.
I don’t know whether they still do but banks used to check the financial situation of managers to ensure that they were unlikely to dip their fingers in the till (out of necessity rather than greed).
Police officers were similarly checked to reduce the likelihood of taking bribes to pay the grocery bill. These were direct checks on wealth.
There was a US presidential candidate a few years ago whose campaign slogan was “He’s too rich to steal from you”
I suspect that the requirement here is a check on whether the applicant has the affinity for the role.
Folk like Anthony Robbins make money now because they have money, Dragon’s Den judges get the job because they have made money.
In some circumstances it is a legitimate criteria.
Rus
Person Specification
Rus – I don’t view any of your examples as actually a ‘wealth check’ or a job requirement as defined and outlined in the example starting this thread. Rather it is an assessment as to whether an individual is financially soluble which is a different issue and actually also a person specification item not a requirement of the job, it’s an important differential.
Being soluble in these instances is not a demand of the job but a requirement of the person undertaking the role, for reasons you clearly outlined.
As to whether being a house owner illustrates or provides evidence of any ‘affinity’ with other householders? I’m not even sure what that means, nor I am beginning to suspect did the original author of this requirement.
I am still intrigued to know of a work role where personal wealth is a job requirement. I don’t say they don’t exist I’m just not familiar with any.
Response to Garry
Garry asked: what kind of job are you thinking of that would have personal wealth as an essential job criteria?
I was thinking of those people who work in banking, financial and legal services (I don’t mean Lloyds TSB, NatWest or Barclays!) who have very wealthy private and corporate clients. They need to be affluent themselves in order to have credibility, although not necessarily millionaires like their clients.
Nope
Eddie,
I recently recruited for one of those private banks you mention (cant say who but think regally ). Its simply not true. Just normal banking qualifications and skills were all that was required, it also helped if you were articulate and yes, a solvency check which is part of FIA regulations.
Juliet
The wealth of experience
Juliet
I think there are two issues here. Firstly, experience of being a residential landord may be relavant to the job, in which case, fine. I wouldn’t assume that being a landlord equates to wealth – especially for those with ever more expensive buy-to-let mortagages.
Secondly, should personal wealth be a criteria in recruitment. You would need to consult an employment lawyer as I suspect if this were explicit it would constitute indirect discrimination. I understand the desire for personal credibility in certain types of jobs but whether you can equate that to personal wealth I seriously doubt.
As others have said, at the opposite end of the scale, there may be legitimacy for some jobs in checking a candidate’s financial risk status. But this is not about wealth per se, it is more a security check.
Graham
Further points
Thanks Graham,
I agree with some of your points and the more I considered it I also thought that
1. Generally one is more likely to be a residential landlord if one has financial wealth. Furthermore the greater the wealth the higher the number of properties owned (for rental). I diagree with your point, being a landlord does require wealth – a deposit to purchase the rental property(s) in the first place, the greater the wealth the larger the portfolio.
2. Generally a married couple may have a higher propensity for financial wealth than a single person.
3. Lets look at where financial wealth comes from – its not a qualification or experiential – it can be earnt, it can also be inherited, acquired or married into.
4. The experience you talk of of being a landlord can, I suggest, ONLY be gained if you have the financial wealth to purchase a property in the first place. That would appear to be the employer’s viewpoint. eg.”You can only work for us as Ferrari mechanic if you are a Ferrari owner.”
5. The poorer sections of our society may have a larger proportion of ethinic minorities than the wealther sections.
6. Older persons are more likely to have greater wealth than younger persons.
7. What about if the desirable criteria was (for the sake of argument) “You have to be a wheelchair owner”? Or more pointedly “You have to own the most expensive kind of wheelchair”?
What is wealth?
Juliet
I am in no way endorsing the situation your friend found him or herself in. But I would challenge your quite strong assertion that owning property equates to wealth. I accept that there is a chance that requiring someone to have been a landlord may potentially exclude the poorer sections of society in the same way that requiring someone to be a car owner may also be excluding (note: the experience of being a landlord need not be current in my view and so one cannot make assumptions about current financial status).
However, if a person is currently a landlord, they still may not be ‘wealthy’ in that they may not have ‘an abundance of money’ nor be ‘rich’. A number of ‘buy to let’ landlords borrow against their own home (or have a guarantor), have interest only mortgages and are gambling on property prices increasing. About a quarter of new landlords who have entered such arrangements this year have more debts than assets. Some may be ‘wealthy’ but then some non landlords may be wealthy too.
The thing for me is that the employer should distinguish between a legitimate requirement for relevant experience and a potentially unfair (and, with wealth, irrelevant) criteria that might directly or indirectly discriminate.
As I said before, this requires legal advice. But, in my opinion, having landlord experience as a desirable criteria would be unlikely to be illegal. If they specified that it is essential that the person be a current landlord (and worse still, specified that it they should own several properties, large properties or run them as a major business venture) then there might be potential discrimination.
I think your friend should be proud that you are defending her position with such passion and that you, like me, hate injustice even if it is not you that is affected. I offer my views for information, not in any way to dampen that spirit.
Regards
Graham
Sorry to be a spoilsport but…
I suspect that this is a case of a badly worded/misunderstood requirement.
For someone in the property field experience as a residential landlord (as opposed to a commercial landlord) could well be desireable – this would not mean ownership but rather experience of fulfilling the legal obligations of a residential landlord (typically as a service offered by a property management company).
With enough personal wealth you don’t even have to do the landlord bit yourself…
No misunderstanding
John,
You are wrong, no misunderstanding, it was a desirable requirement, my friend said “No, I’m not a landlord” he/she was even asked if they intended to be a landlord in the future – my friend said they honestly couldnt speculate what the future might hold (an honest answer). When he/she asked if not being one would count against him/her, the employer stated it was one of their criteria and it would figure in the employer’s decision. It was clear that ownership was the issue not experience – were it experience there may well be grounds for indirect age discrimination.
Graham, I agree with you and thanks ever so for your comments. I find it all vexing and a bit like the ‘old boys network’ of 70’s recruitment – you cant join our club unless you are one of us. I hate that stuff.
Person Specification
Eddie Newall wrote: “Garry asked: what kind of job are you thinking of that would have personal wealth as an essential job criteria?
I was thinking of those people who work in banking, financial and legal services (I don’t mean Lloyds TSB, NatWest or Barclays!) who have very wealthy private and corporate clients. They need to be affluent themselves in order to have credibility, although not necessarily millionaires like their clients.”
I understand, but I see this as an aspect of the Person Specification, and a definition of a questionable desirable trait, it doesn’t define some aspect of competence or skill relating to the job.
full circle
Juliet
you last comment included the line…
“you cant join our club unless you are one of us. I hate that stuff”
Which brings you full circle to your original entry, which includes the question..
“Would you work for an employer who said you can only work for us if you drive a certain value/brand of car or if you have a certain amount of money in your bank account?”
They are bunch of £*&%**’s and your friend wouldn’t want to work with people like that so put it down to experience and look elsewhere, moving into the “unfair discrimination” arena may be “right” but does it actually benefit anyone?
People who do want to work with people like that are consenting adults.
Rus
Full story?
Is there more to the story Juliet? It seems very odd.
John makes a good point that with enough wealth you don’t even have to do the landlord bit yourself.
Unless you’d really looked into someone’s finances, it’s hard to judge their wealth – I could live in a big house with a nice new car on the drive. People may assume I’m wealthy but I could have a huge 30-year mortgage and a car on HP.
I’m digressing though.
Not much more to it
Helen,
There is nothing more to the story. It is as it is. I was keen to explore its implications and seek others views.
Rus,
>>>They are bunch of £*&%**’s and your friend wouldn’t want to work with people like that so put it down to experience and look elsewhere.>>>
Not so, my firend said he/she wanted to work with them, that they were very nice people. It was a policy decision (presumably by the board) and as we all seem to agree its probably legal although somewhat morally dubious. One questionable policy doesnt make the all staff a bunch of £*&%**’s – my colleague wanted the job and had a good impression of them.
Sorry to take up everyone’s time but I like exploring grey areas and discrepancies.
ok…but
Juliet
your friend said that they were nice people but that the board has set a policy you hate….
the board is “people”…
There is little enjoyment in working WITH “nice” people FOR people who do things that you deem to be immoral…
It is all a bit “us, the workers” and “them, the management”
Rus
Not dividing and conquering
Rus,
The big picture is different to your appraisal.
It matters not if I hate it or adore it, my friend was the one interviewed and who has built up first hand knowledge.
Secondly its not an us and them thing, apparently the employer was actively involved in landlordship, its their thing, thats why its important to them to have the policy. Not to put anyone down or to create divison “wid the workers”.
I’m sad
Hi again Juliet
a thought struck me late last night…..
if it is ok to make landlordship a condition of JOINING the organisation what happens later when an employee wants to sell their property and reinvest the money somewhere else?
Would this be a sackable “offence”? or a restriction of trade?
just a grey area!
Mixed signals
Yeah I agree its a farce. How are they going to ascertain you are a landlord? Interview your tenants? Inspect rent books?
What if you are a dodgy landlord who doesnt look after tenats well and generates complaints will that reflect badly on your employment history?
Doh!