There are problems in the UK employment market; I don’t need to tell anyone that. There are also problems in the creative industry, especially for graduates getting their foot in the door. Perhaps we ought to forget our obsessions with equality, recruitment policies and all such obstacles that are in the way of getting the right person in the right job.
I found this ad in a 1968 issue of GRAPHIS magazine.
No list of software to be fluent in, nothing ‘client-facing,’ no emerging technologies – not even the obligatory sense of humour required. No equal opportunities hogwash (and none needed) and no salary given. Refreshing isn’t it?
Can you imagine the brouhaha if this ad was placed today?
Thank you for the recent opportunity to be interviewed for the position of Designer as advertised in the last issue of Graphis magazine, and your prompt notification of my failure to secure this post. There is, however, one issue that concerns me with regard to one of the criteria used in the selection process. Can it not be acceptable to be furnished with all of the required attributes and have a rather fetching manner of genius, brooding or otherwise?
Was I rated upon the aforementioned genius? If so, I demand that you reveal the scale on which this selection was decided upon. I made it quite clear on the Equal Opportunities Monitoring Questionnaire that I was of the Genius (Brooding, Mercurial or Aloof) persuasion and believe that if you were not fully paying proper attention when shortlisting, then that constitutes a serious breach of the Employment Recruitment Act (1985) which states that “persons should not be discriminated against on the grounds of race, sex, sexual orientation, age or creative temperament.”
You will, of course, be hearing from my solicitors (Messrs. Fingritt, Fawcett, Thrust & Co) and I will be selling my puerile story to any newspaper or low-brow magazine that will buy it.