Most UK Jobseekers Don't Know They Can Challenge AI Rejections
A survey of 2,000 UK workers found 75% were unaware they can challenge an automated job rejection, as People Like Us urges employers to audit their AI hiring systems.
By AXY Business Desk ·
Key points
- A survey of 2,000 UK workers who applied for at least one job in the past 24 months found 75% were unaware they can challenge an automated rejection.
- People Like Us, a London-based non-profit, is running the Reject the Rejections campaign, led by CEO Sheeraz Gulsher.
- Gulsher calls on companies to audit their AI and automated recruitment systems, publish the results and have them independently assessed.
- Guidance from the Information Commissioner's Office says people subject to certain automated decisions have the right to request a human review.
- 70% of ethnically diverse jobseekers said they had altered or concealed information on their CVs, compared with 57% of white candidates.
Many people who have applied for hundreds of jobs describe the same experience: rejection after rejection, often with the feeling that no human being ever looked at their application. A London-based non-profit, People Like Us, says part of the explanation is that software now does much of the first sorting, and that most people do not know they can ask for a person to look again. Its chief executive, Sheeraz Gulsher, is leading a campaign called Reject the Rejections. It calls on employers to improve transparency and accountability in how they use AI and automated recruitment systems.
How Software Now Sorts the First Pile of CVs
Recruitment technology covers a wide range of products. Some match candidates to jobs. Others grade and screen CVs, deciding which applications move on and which are set aside. Employers adopt these tools for a practical reason. A popular vacancy can draw a large number of applications, and reading each one carefully takes time that many hiring teams do not have.
The trade-off is that a rejection can arrive without a human being involved at any stage. From the applicant's side, an automated rejection looks the same as one sent by a recruiter who spent a few minutes on the file. That is the root of the frustration described by people who have been through the process. They are not only losing jobs. They are losing the ability to tell why.
The source material says there are growing concerns that these tools could be biased. The concern is not that every tool treats every applicant unfairly. It is that a filter which works quietly in the background can make the same choice again and again, across thousands of applications, without anyone noticing a pattern.
Why Candidates Describe an 'AI War'
Gulsher describes the current situation as an "AI war", with candidates "resorting to AI to bolster their applications" while "employers are dealing with huge amounts of applications". In practice, both sides are now using automation. Applicants use AI tools to tailor CVs and cover letters to each advert, which means more polished applications arrive for every vacancy. Employers respond with screening software, which then has to cope with that larger pile.
This could create a cycle that is hard for an individual to step out of. If a generic application is more likely to be overlooked, a candidate has a reason to adapt every application to the wording of the advert. The employer then receives more applications that look alike on paper, and has a stronger reason to rely on automated filters to narrow them down. Each side reacts to the other. The person at the start of the chain, who is simply trying to get an interview, has the least control over the outcome.
The Right to Ask for a Human Review
The most practical part of the campaign is legal. Gulsher said that People Like Us found guidance from the Information Commissioner's Office, the UK's data protection regulator, stating that people subject to certain automated decisions have the right to request a human review.
For readers unfamiliar with the terms, an automated decision is one made by a computer system without a person making the final call. A human review means a person looks again at the decision and the information behind it. UK data protection law, which governs how organisations handle personal information, places limits on decisions made solely by automated means where they have legal or similarly significant effects. Losing a job application can count as a significant effect, which is why the right matters to people who are applying for work.
The problem is awareness. The Censuswide survey questioned 2,000 UK workers who had applied for at least one job in the previous 24 months. It found that 75% were unaware of their right to challenge an automated rejection. That means roughly three in four people who had been through the process did not know a route existed. Gulsher framed the gap in simple terms: "We're trying to remind people of that right, as many simply aren't aware of it."
Hiding Names and Origins on CVs
The research also points to a more troubling pattern. It found that 70% of ethnically diverse jobseekers had altered or concealed information on their CVs, including their country of origin, religion or name. The reason given was fear that recruitment software or AI tools would reject their applications. By comparison, 57% of white candidates had done the same.
The figures suggest that many people are not waiting to find out whether automated systems are fair. They are changing how they present themselves before they press send, in the hope of avoiding a filter that they fear may treat them differently. Removing a name, a place of origin or a religious affiliation from a CV is a painful choice for someone who has spent years building a career. It also means the information an employer sees may not fully reflect the person who would be doing the job.
Under the Equality Act 2010, which applies across Britain, race and religion are protected characteristics, and employers must not discriminate on those grounds. The survey does not, on its own, show why the gap between groups exists. What it does show is that fear of bias is already shaping how people apply, and that the fear is stronger among ethnically diverse candidates in this sample.
What Reject the Rejections Asks Employers to Do
Gulsher was careful not to claim that every company is acting unfairly. He said: "We can't say for certain that every company is operating its automated or AI systems without bias. That's why we're calling for companies to audit these systems, publish the results and have them independently assessed."
That call for transparency is the core of the campaign. An audit would check whether a system treats different groups of applicants differently. Publishing the results would let candidates and the public see what was found. Independent assessment would mean the company is not only checking its own work. Together, these steps would let employers show that their tools are working as intended, and give applicants a clearer picture of how their applications are handled.
For employers, the challenge is practical. Screening software is often bought from outside suppliers, which means a company may be using a tool without a full understanding of how it ranks candidates or what data it relies on. Asking for audits puts pressure on both the buyer and the supplier to explain the system in plain terms.
How Jobseekers Can Use the Right Now
The campaign's next test is whether employers respond with more openness. If companies begin to publish audit results and explain when automated decisions are made, job seekers will have a firmer basis for deciding whether a rejection is worth challenging. If they do not, the gap between what the law provides and what applicants know is likely to remain wide, and most people will continue to accept silence as the final answer.
For people job hunting today, the immediate step is simple. If a rejection arrives quickly, with no explanation, it is reasonable to ask the employer whether a person reviewed the application. The Information Commissioner's Office guidance cited by People Like Us gives applicants a basis for that request. Asking does not guarantee a different result. It does change the applicant's position, because a rejection that is questioned is no longer treated as the end of the matter by default.
The wider question is whether the use of AI in hiring will become something employers explain openly, or something candidates can only guess at from a short email. For now, the campaign is making a narrower argument: people have rights they are not using, and companies that rely on automated sorting should be able to show how it works.
Questions and answers
What is the Reject the Rejections campaign?
Reject the Rejections is a campaign by the London-based non-profit People Like Us, led by CEO Sheeraz Gulsher. It calls on employers to improve transparency and accountability in their use of AI and automated recruitment systems.
Do job seekers have the right to challenge an AI rejection?
Guidance from the Information Commissioner's Office says people subject to certain automated decisions have the right to request a human review. A survey of 2,000 UK workers found 75% were unaware of this right.
Why are some candidates hiding information on their CVs?
The research found 70% of ethnically diverse jobseekers had altered or concealed information such as country of origin, religion or name, out of fear that recruitment software or AI tools would reject them. The figure for white candidates was 57%.
What does the campaign want employers to do?
People Like Us wants companies to audit their automated or AI recruitment systems, publish the results and have them independently assessed.
Topics: AI recruitment, Job applications, People Like Us, Reject the Rejections, Sheeraz Gulsher, Information Commissioner's Office, UK jobseekers, Automated hiring bias
Sources: BBC Business RSS
https://axynewsglobal.com/article/most-uk-jobseekers-don-t-know-they-can-challenge-ai-rejections