HR and Recruiment

[Catters 070911]

I'm going to be honest, all of this best resume writer, employers not wanting the best candidate and bosses not even wanting the role filled is just pure **** that's got no basis behind it whatsoever and reeks of somebody who's just horribly jaded by how the hiring process typically works so I don't see a lot of value in me trying to argue differently.

I will note that you seem to have this extraordinary misunderstanding of how much time and work needs to be devoted to properly vetting candidates through face-to-face interviews and by calling referees, often when job postings receive dozens of applicants. You seem to think that these are tasks that take only a few minutes where they can holistically take several hours. You seem to think that employers actually have 100 free hours in a couple of weeks to actually perform these tasks, as if those weirdos that work in HR literally do nothing else all day except manage the recruitment of one role. Hell, most small businesses don't even have a dedicated HR person, so you're expecting an employee to stop acting in their own role for a week while they do nothing but call referees and do interviews. If businesses actually allocated all of these man hours to hire one person, they'd go broke.

Just to give you some perspective, it costs $40,000 in overheads for my company to fill a vacancy. $40,000 in devoting company employees to being a part of a process with generally 100+ applicants, of which 10 go to a short list for interviews.

The flip side is that if you can't be ****** to spend half an hour creating a proper resume and a relevant, role-specific cover letter for the job you're applying for, something that's purely for your own benefit and nobody else's, then why on earth would anyone think you're ever going to put in an acceptable level of effort at work? This is the same attitude you see with grad students who average D's at university and don't understand why graduate employers care that they've only ever produced work at 50% standard. You can expect that if you put 5 minutes into sending a generic CV and cover letter riddled with grammatical errors that you have barely updated since you were 21, they'll probably only read it once. Stuff like that isn't being bad at resume writing, it's ******* laziness that any employer will see right through.

Either the applicant wants the job, or he doesn't. Either put the time into your application so the employer knows you're capable of doing things to a high standard or stop wasting resources on the other end.


Nobody said that.

You sound like an employer.

If it takes so much time to vet applicants, can how come some employers can find time to look at a potential employee's facebook page or social media accounts, prying into personal business, to determine their "character"?

Why call all referees and past employers? One of my past employers died, so there would be little point in calling him. Employers who you worked for years ago may not remember you as much, or may have retired, gone broke or not be working there anymore. Maybe call one or two random past employers who you can contact, and get a feel of it. Calling everyone on the list is not necessary if the employer doesn't have enough time.

How many people work in HR? If there were ten people working in the department, and each of them read ten resumes a day (most resumes are two or three pages, so it shouldn't take long) over ten days, you have looked at the resumes of 1,000 candidates. So in a week and a half, you have read the majority of resumes that hit your desk. Unless there are a massive amount of sexual harrassment complaints that HR have to deal with, I don't see why they don't have the time to look at resumes.

Or here's an idea. Why not hire more people to read over the resumes? There you go, you have employed more people. Oh, I forgot, you would have to call up their referees first and check every job they claim to have worked at, in order to do that.

Besides, aren't there software programs that eliminate resumes that don't contain key words? So, when they use software and care if you use insider terms or not, then don't tell me full consideration is being given to resumes.

I've worked in small businesses, and there aren't over a thousand candidates applying for the one small business, so it is manageable. Also, small businesses are usually more desperate for someone, so they are happy just to have someone who knows the job, shows up and works with customers.

You say about the cost of hiring. If it takes so much time, and costs so much to fill a position, then why do you even want to hire someone anyway? Wouldn't it be better to just do the work yourself and save on a wage and all the hassle of hiring, and you probably know the job better than anyone else anyway? Many employers are workaholics, and would rather do the work themselves, and save money, than hire someone else. Why not do this, and let the unemployment levels grow?

Like I said, I wouldn't be surprised if many employees advertise a position to "cast their net and see if there is anyone out there", but if they can't find anyone, he will just do it himself.

Also, how do you test some of the intrinsics of a potential employee? How do you know that they won't constantly show up late, steal from you, or be disrespectful to you, other employees or customers? And once you hire someone, because of "unfair dismissal laws", you are most likely stuck with this person. Candidates can lie in resumes, or "puff themselves up" and even may be able to get through the interview stage, through charm and saying all the right things. But the most experienced candidate who had a great CV and performed excellent in the interview, can drop the act once they are hired and display bad habits, even behind the employer's back. Some candidates know how to beat the system and skate through, while others who would be better workers are held back because of lack of experience, or because they failed to use key terms in their resume.

You say either the candidate wants the job or not. Well, that cuts both ways, and either a company wants the position filled or not. Employers shouldn't go on free sites like "Indeed" and "Seek" unless they are desperate to fill the position, and so will be flexible if a great candidate shows up who didn't use key phrases or follows every step of the process to the letter. Resumes don't tell the whole story.

 

[toxic]

You sound like an employer.

If it takes so much time to vet applicants, can how come some employers can find time to look at a potential employee's facebook page or social media accounts, prying into personal business, to determine their "character"?

Why call all referees and past employers? One of my past employers died, so there would be little point in calling him. Employers who you worked for years ago may not remember you as much, or may have retired, gone broke or not be working there anymore. Maybe call one or two random past employers who you can contact, and get a feel of it. Calling everyone on the list is not necessary if the employer doesn't have enough time.

How many people work in HR? If there were ten people working in the department, and each of them read ten resumes a day (most resumes are two or three pages, so it shouldn't take long) over ten days, you have looked at the resumes of 1,000 candidates. So in a week and a half, you have read the majority of resumes that hit your desk. Unless there are a massive amount of sexual harrassment complaints that HR have to deal with, I don't see why they don't have the time to look at resumes.

Or here's an idea. Why not hire more people to read over the resumes? There you go, you have employed more people. Oh, I forgot, you would have to call up their referees first and check every job they claim to have worked at, in order to do that.

Besides, aren't there software programs that eliminate resumes that don't contain key words? So, when they use software and care if you use insider terms or not, then don't tell me full consideration is being given to resumes.

I've worked in small businesses, and there aren't over a thousand candidates applying for the one small business, so it is manageable. Also, small businesses are usually more desperate for someone, so they are happy just to have someone who knows the job, shows up and works with customers.

You say about the cost of hiring. If it takes so much time, and costs so much to fill a position, then why do you even want to hire someone anyway? Wouldn't it be better to just do the work yourself and save on a wage and all the hassle of hiring, and you probably know the job better than anyone else anyway? Many employers are workaholics, and would rather do the work themselves, and save money, than hire someone else. Why not do this, and let the unemployment levels grow?

Like I said, I wouldn't be surprised if many employees advertise a position to "cast their net and see if there is anyone out there", but if they can't find anyone, he will just do it himself.

Also, how do you test some of the intrinsics of a potential employee? How do you know that they won't constantly show up late, steal from you, or be disrespectful to you, other employees or customers? And once you hire someone, because of "unfair dismissal laws", you are most likely stuck with this person. Candidates can lie in resumes, or "puff themselves up" and even may be able to get through the interview stage, through charm and saying all the right things. But the most experienced candidate who had a great CV and performed excellent in the interview, can drop the act once they are hired and display bad habits, even behind the employer's back. Some candidates know how to beat the system and skate through, while others who would be better workers are held back because of lack of experience, or because they failed to use key terms in their resume.

You say either the candidate wants the job or not. Well, that cuts both ways, and either a company wants the position filled or not. Employers shouldn't go on free sites like "Indeed" and "Seek" unless they are desperate to fill the position, and so will be flexible if a great candidate shows up who didn't use key phrases or follows every step of the process to the letter. Resumes don't tell the whole story.

Do you have a referee who wouldn't give you a "glowing report"?

 

[Scotland]

I'm going to be honest, all of this best resume writer, employers not wanting the best candidate and bosses not even wanting the role filled is just pure **** that's got no basis behind it whatsoever and reeks of somebody who's just horribly jaded by how the hiring process typically works so I don't see a lot of value in me trying to argue differently.

If this thread is anything to go by then it seems to be pot luck if your CV even gets read in the first place.

I will note that you seem to have this extraordinary misunderstanding of how much time and work needs to be devoted to properly vetting candidates through face-to-face interviews and by calling referees, often when job postings receive dozens of applicants. You seem to think that these are tasks that take only a few minutes where they can holistically take several hours. You seem to think that employers actually have 100 free hours in a couple of weeks to actually perform these tasks, as if those weirdos that work in HR literally do nothing else all day except manage the recruitment of one role. Hell, most small businesses don't even have a dedicated HR person, so you're expecting an employee to stop acting in their own role for a week while they do nothing but call referees and do interviews. If businesses actually allocated all of these man hours to hire one person, they'd go broke.

Just to give you some perspective, it costs $40,000 in overheads for my company to fill a vacancy. $40,000 in devoting company employees to being a part of a process with generally 100+ applicants, of which 10 go to a short list for interviews.

That seems a pretty inefficient way of doing things.

$40k is conservatively about 800 man hours, more if you get some lowly HR admin to do the grunt work. If it takes you that long to vet 100 applications then you're spending 8 hours per application. Given only a handful will actually progress to an interview this seems like severe overkill.

The flip side is that if you can't be ****** to spend half an hour creating a proper resume and a relevant, role-specific cover letter for the job you're applying for, something that's purely for your own benefit and nobody else's, then why on earth would anyone think you're ever going to put in an acceptable level of effort at work? This is the same attitude you see with grad students who average D's at university and don't understand why graduate employers care that they've only ever produced work at 50% standard. You can expect that if you put 5 minutes into sending a generic CV and cover letter riddled with grammatical errors that you have barely updated since you were 21, they'll probably only read it once. Stuff like that isn't being bad at resume writing, it's ******* laziness that any employer will see right through.

Either the applicant wants the job, or he doesn't. Either put the time into your application so the employer knows you're capable of doing things to a high standard or stop wasting resources on the other end.

This thread is a bit of a shit show. Either prospective employers read all CVs or they don't. My money is on the latter.

There seems to be an expectation that prospective employees will cross every Y and dot every I in applying for roles only for said application to land on the desk of some HR person who is 'sahhh busy soz' and is no guarantee of reading it anyway. Will the best CV in the pile always get an interview? Doubt it. There's a whole emphasis in here about doing a tailored cover letter and addressing key selection criteria but I'm sure I'm not alone in having done that and received crickets in response. Of course it is going to breed jaded applicants. 'OMG there's like 500 CVs I can't read them all' 'What do you mean they're not all amazing and tailored?'. Err, what?

There's an old saying that 'those who can do, those who can't teach'. Don't fully agree with it because teaching itself is a skill but that's an aside. My experience with recruiters and HR types is that those who can do, those who can't recruit. Recruiting is supposed to be a skill and recruiters are supposed to recognise abilities and traits in individuals that mesh to organisations and roles. Most of the time you just end up dealing with another road block box checker whose focus is on making sure they generate enough paper to be part of the process rather than someone who genuinely adds value.

The best way to hire/move jobs is to know people. It cuts out the awkward stage of vetting people by CV, interviewing strangers etc. and it cuts out dealing with HR beyond the bare minimum. I had a CV come across my desk of a guy I'd worked with previously. Came across well on paper but no chance I'd hire him, he's not useful in real life. And you know where that CV came from? A recruiter who supposedly vets candidates...

 

[magpie_marty]

HR is a self made industry that developed in the USA,
I see nothing they do besides bleeding companies with there so called reading of a resume for a job they could never do and have never done.Or even create a short list of applicants to send to a company for face to face interviews,Not withstanding the fact the HR employee never reads all the resumes sent to them!

 

[Catters 070911]

Do you have a referee who wouldn't give you a "glowing report"?

No. Like I said, my previous employer is deceased, so it would be hard for him to give me a recommendation.

Who do you get as referees? Wouldn't an employer ignore if you got family and friends as referees, thinking that they might be biased?

Besides, this isn't court, where you need character witnesses.

Also, what happens if you worked in a place, and there was a falling out with the manager. Now, it might be the manager's fault in some cases (say, in a sexual harrassment case), and some employers could vindicatively give you a bad recommendation because they are pissed off you are leaving, and hope to sabotage your new job, so you come crawling back, or they might have a set against you. It happens. How does an employer know that what he is being told by a referee is the truth, as family and friends can give you a glowing report, but then they could be accused of bias, or someone could give you a negative report, and it might be inaccurate.

 

[Dee Snider]

No. Like I said, my previous employer is deceased, so it would be hard for him to give me a recommendation.

Who do you get as referees? Wouldn't an employer ignore if you got family and friends as referees, thinking that they might be biased?

Besides, this isn't court, where you need character witnesses.

Also, what happens if you worked in a place, and there was a falling out with the manager. Now, it might be the manager's fault in some cases (say, in a sexual harrassment case), and some employers could vindicatively give you a bad recommendation because they are pissed off you are leaving, and hope to sabotage your new job, so you come crawling back, or they might have a set against you. It happens. How does an employer know that what he is being told by a referee is the truth, as family and friends can give you a glowing report, but then they could be accused of bias, or someone could give you a negative report, and it might be inaccurate.

Reference checks are almost non-existent in Europe and fast becoming that way in the US. Give it 5 years and they’ll be gone here too. 90% a waste of time already.

 

[magpie_marty]

Reference checks are almost non-existent in Europe and fast becoming that way in the US. Give it 5 years and they’ll be gone here too. 90% a waste of time already.

So having a fake or even true resume and correct referees on the resume could be a waste of time for these HR people to decipher?
Or do they even care?

 

[magpie_marty]

But i keep asking my self this question.
How in the world can a HR person read a resume and suggest this person should be employed? In a job they have never done?
It could be any industry.
Could they recommend as a small example.
*Fitter and Turner
*Bus Driver
*Bank Teller
*Chef
*Airline Pilot

So it all comes back to a simple question.
How can a HR person recommend a person to a job they have never done?

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

If this thread is anything to go by then it seems to be pot luck if your CV even gets read in the first place.

This thread seems to be a fairly terrible collection of personal experiences so I definitely wouldn't be going by it.

That seems a pretty inefficient way of doing things.

$40k is conservatively about 800 man hours, more if you get some lowly HR admin to do the grunt work. If it takes you that long to vet 100 applications then you're spending 8 hours per application. Given only a handful will actually progress to an interview this seems like severe overkill.

$40k covers the rent on the desk, the lights, the computer, the phone, the internet and more. It covers the hosting cost if the ad is being held on a third party website. It covers the lost time for getting managerial staff out of the field away from their usual roles to perform interviews and be involved in the process. It covers the cost of getting people medically examined to confirm they're medically fit to be undertaken.

Maybe that seems inefficient to you, to me that sounds like a holistic way of working out how much filling a position really costs.

Either prospective employers read all CVs or they don't. My money is on the latter.

Depends on the business.
The smaller ones generally do.
The larger ones generally don't.

The smaller ones usually attract 10-20 applicants, mostly local because they advertise local.
The larger ones don't, because they'll usually receive 100+ applications, half of which will be spammed from sham recruiters that aren't remotely related to the role being offered, so they'll be run through a computer program to scan for relevant terms. There's no secret in the keywords they use to scan, it's usually the basic job description.

This thread is a bit of a **** show.

There seems to be an expectation that prospective employees will cross every Y and dot every I in applying for roles only for said application to land on the desk of some HR person who is 'sahhh busy soz' and is no guarantee of reading it anyway. Will the best CV in the pile always get an interview? Doubt it. There's a whole emphasis in here about doing a tailored cover letter and addressing key selection criteria but I'm sure I'm not alone in having done that and received crickets in response. Of course it is going to breed jaded applicants. 'OMG there's like 500 CVs I can't read them all' 'What do you mean they're not all amazing and tailored?'. Err, what?

There's an old saying that 'those who can do, those who can't teach'. Don't fully agree with it because teaching itself is a skill but that's an aside. My experience with recruiters and HR types is that those who can do, those who can't recruit. Recruiting is supposed to be a skill and recruiters are supposed to recognise abilities and traits in individuals that mesh to organisations and roles. Most of the time you just end up dealing with another road block box checker whose focus is on making sure they generate enough paper to be part of the process rather than someone who genuinely adds value.

****ing oath it's a shit show, but what do you expect? It's a thread about having a collective whinge at faceless human resources people that were apparently responsible for you not getting the position you thought you were entitled to. It was created and is being mostly discussed by people who have seemingly never had any involvement in hiring a candidate beyond being on the receiving end of an email telling them they were unsuccessful. At no point has there been any real attempt to understand if and why things are how they appear to be, so there's nothing more than a circlejerk about how useless the HR profession is. What good could have ever come of this?

And of course there's an expectation that employees will put in the best application possible, I mean they're only asking for a job. I don't understand where this sense of entitlement for receiving a detailed, sincere debrief of why your job application was unsuccessful stems from when just 20 years ago the most common way to apply for a job was to physically hand your resume in and then usually never receiving any correspondence back at all, Now for some reason, a generic email advising you that you were unsuccessful is deeply disrespectful.

This weird implication from a few that employers should care deeply about the best applicants not applying for positions is downright bizarre. I daresay if you're that easily offended by getting rejected for a job offer, you're probably not the right candidate anyway. The entitlement here is off the charts.

The best way to hire/move jobs is to know people. It cuts out the awkward stage of vetting people by CV, interviewing strangers etc. and it cuts out dealing with HR beyond the bare minimum. I had a CV come across my desk of a guy I'd worked with previously. Came across well on paper but no chance I'd hire him, he's not useful in real life. And you know where that CV came from? A recruiter who supposedly vets candidates...

Obviously, because you're leveraging your personal experience with the candidate that probably goes back years. A half hour interview, a resume and a cover letter will never replicate that, but when you don't know any candidates who can just walk right into the role, how else are you supposed to hire somebody?

Seriously, with all the complaints and whinging about the process in this thread, I'm yet to see a simple, practical and cost-effective alternative to the hiring process that helps the employer.

 

[gimp!]

I have a bit of a bug up my ass about HR and 'Talent Acquisition' lately, not going to lie. Can somebody in the know tell me the point of the online video interview, and what HR looks for when culling people at this stage of a hiring process? Key words? Phrases? Looks?
Online interview contains questions like, "What motivated you to apply for the job?" and "What do you know about the company?" (Questions I answered in the application and cover letter). Why is this step necessary?

 

[Dee Snider]

I have a bit of a bug up my ass about HR and 'Talent Acquisition' lately, not going to lie. Can somebody in the know tell me the point of the online video interview, and what HR looks for when culling people at this stage of a hiring process? Key words? Phrases? Looks?
Online interview contains questions like, "What motivated you to apply for the job?" and "What do you know about the company?" (Questions I answered in the application and cover letter). Why is this step necessary?

I've used these mainly for remote hiring eg if we are looking at someone in Singapore or China (or even central QLD), and I can't justify flying there. More and more companies are using these now to help the shortlist process. They're a supplemental tool, starting to replace the good-old phone screening prior to finalizing a shortlist of maybe 4-6 candidates. Importantly, the hiring manager will watch these videos and given non-verbal communication accounts for 80-90% of all effective communication, this can be a valuable tool to assist them in selecting who they want to talk to face to face. As already discussed ad nauseam, words on a piece of paper only help differentiate candidates to a fixed point.

Don't stress, you will be able to complete a 'practice question' to check and see if your lighting is right, the microphone picks up your voice well, your tie is straight etc. Just be yourself, but you will have a fixed time for each question so be aware of this, the camera will cut you off. Most hiring managers just want to see how you communicate etc.

 

[Dee Snider]

Can I just add, as a HR guy, I've read a lot of the comments posted here and for what its worth, there is no doubt in my mind that being a job seeker (at every level from graduate to Exec), can be one of the shittiest times of your life. Particularly if you are out of work while you look. There is nothing enjoyable about it. If there is, please let me know what the **** that is.

Dealing with some internal recruitment functions (Talent Acquisition) and many volume external Recruitment houses..... its infuriating and over time, totally demoralising. Many have poor reputations. And it's astounding the convoluted processes some companies insist on subjecting people to. Total overkill. 2 interviews maximum is our limit.

Anyway, I'm not perfect and my HR functions are not perfect but one thing they do is read every CV and respond to every single application.This requirement is audited annually. We don't use Artificial Intelligence/analytics (yet) and we bought reference checking back in-house (it was outsourced to a 3rd party) so we could do it properly. We don't use agencies except in extreme technical cases (eg we recently hired a guy in the US from NASA would you believe who will relocate over here for 2 years). There goes AUD$44k in recruitment fees alone but there was no-one in our business equipped to handle this role. And managers decide who they interview (they often view those CVs we didn't shortlist to do a sense check) and who they hire. No-one in my team will ever do that for them.

None of this makes us special, most big multinationals adopt the same approach.

Mistakes get made (6-month probationary periods (Aus) are there for a reason) for sure; its not an exact science and never will be.

70%-80% of roles get filled through contacts, networks, friends, current & previous colleagues, industry networks etc. Going to market is always our last choice.

 

[Scotland]

This thread seems to be a fairly terrible collection of personal experiences so I definitely wouldn't be going by it.

When there is a 'positive experiences with HR and recruitment' thread I'll be sure to check it out.

$40k covers the rent on the desk, the lights, the computer, the phone, the internet and more. It covers the hosting cost if the ad is being held on a third party website. It covers the lost time for getting managerial staff out of the field away from their usual roles to perform interviews and be involved in the process. It covers the cost of getting people medically examined to confirm they're medically fit to be undertaken.

Maybe that seems inefficient to you, to me that sounds like a holistic way of working out how much filling a position really costs.

Yes, it seems inefficient to me. And including overheads that apply to an entire business isn't going to sway me otherwise.

You're actually touching on my general opinion of HR and that they are box checkers and button pushers who don't add value. If you need managerial staff to perform interviews etc. then you're basically just presenting them with 5 or 10 bodies and saying 'you work out who you want'. Trying to claim the cost of their time is a bit rich. Medicals are outsourced so while they incur a cost they don't incur labour.

Depends on the business.
The smaller ones generally do.
The larger ones generally don't.

The smaller ones usually attract 10-20 applicants, mostly local because they advertise local.
The larger ones don't, because they'll usually receive 100+ applications, half of which will be spammed from sham recruiters that aren't remotely related to the role being offered, so they'll be run through a computer program to scan for relevant terms. There's no secret in the keywords they use to scan, it's usually the basic job description.

This is fair, at least people are willing to acknowledge that CVs get binned by robot.

So if we come to conclusion that you're only dealing with a manageable number of CVs to begin with or a computer is doing a big chunk of the work for you can we dispense with the notion that poor HR has hundreds of CVs to read like it's the most arduous task ever performed?

Let's be realistic. For the most part you just need to match CVs people send you to keywords someone gives you then present a number of CVs that match the keywords to someone who knows about the role to interview/hire. Yes that's simplified but it's an admin function really.

******* oath it's a **** show, but what do you expect? It's a thread about having a collective whinge at faceless human resources people that were apparently responsible for you not getting the position you thought you were entitled to. It was created and is being mostly discussed by people who have seemingly never had any involvement in hiring a candidate beyond being on the receiving end of an email telling them they were unsuccessful. At no point has there been any real attempt to understand if and why things are how they appear to be, so there's nothing more than a circlejerk about how useless the HR profession is. What good could have ever come of this?

Maybe, but personally I've seen this from multiple angles. Successful applicant, unsuccessful applicant, involved in hiring, involved in not hiring. As an applicant I've dealt with internal HR and external recruiters also. I'm not a jaded jobseeker, but I've seen where the value is added in the chain.

And of course there's an expectation that employees will put in the best application possible, I mean they're only asking for a job. I don't understand where this sense of entitlement for receiving a detailed, sincere debrief of why your job application was unsuccessful stems from when just 20 years ago the most common way to apply for a job was to physically hand your resume in and then usually never receiving any correspondence back at all, Now for some reason, a generic email advising you that you were unsuccessful is deeply disrespectful.

Are you serious? Treat people like numbers and invariably you get numbers in return. 20 years ago maybe you just handed in a CV and tried your luck, and if you got lucky someone would call you in and you'd have a chat. Now you need to register, submit a CV, and a detailed cover letter tailored to a specific advertised role, and then go through line by line filling in every possible piece of personal information (all of which that is important is contained within the CV and cover letter in the first place) so a database can screen applicants so someone at the other end doesn't have to read all the CVs before clicking 'reply all'. Why the endless box ticking and hoops to jump through? Just streamline the whole thing so people don't feel like they're wasting their time preparing applications that probably won't even be seen by a human.

I'd be more than happy to go back to the system of 20 years ago but you know who wouldn't? The whole industry of people whose employment is contingent on the current one!

This weird implication from a few that employers should care deeply about the best applicants not applying for positions is downright bizarre. I daresay if you're that easily offended by getting rejected for a job offer, you're probably not the right candidate anyway. The entitlement here is off the charts.

I think you've missed the point a bit. Every unsuccessful applicant is going to be disappointed to some degree, but what really gives people the shits is hearing about how hard it is to read hundreds of CVs etc. when they are screened by a computer anyway and 99% if not all unsuccessful applicants will get no feedback anyway. There's a difference between being offended by a rejection and being annoyed by 100 rejections worded near identically to 100 different applications. Don't piss on my back and tell me it's raining.

Obviously, because you're leveraging your personal experience with the candidate that probably goes back years. A half hour interview, a resume and a cover letter will never replicate that, but when you don't know any candidates who can just walk right into the role, how else are you supposed to hire somebody?

Isn't that why people go to uni and study this stuff? And why HR managers and recruiters get paid big bucks? It's supposed to be a skilled profession. What is supposed to happen is that recruiters identify quality candidates and present them - that's the skill. What usually happens is that the person in HR just ends up being a postbox. If all I'm getting from HR is a bunch of CVs that a computer filtered then I think I'll pocket the $40k and do it myself.

Seriously, with all the complaints and whinging about the process in this thread, I'm yet to see a simple, practical and cost-effective alternative to the hiring process that helps the employer.

Ever worked in an organisation without HR? Bliss. For a certain number of employees you need a certain level of admin staff but it's amazing what you can survive without.

 

[magpie_marty]

I would suggest to these HR people watch an episode of
https://iview.abc.net.au/show/employable-me-australia
And see what these people go through regarding rejection and much of the same applies to able bodied people.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

I think you've missed the point a bit. Every unsuccessful applicant is going to be disappointed to some degree, but what really gives people the shits is hearing about how hard it is to read hundreds of CVs etc. when they are screened by a computer anyway and 99% if not all unsuccessful applicants will get no feedback anyway. There's a difference between being offended by a rejection and being annoyed by 100 rejections worded near identically to 100 different applications. Don't piss on my back and tell me it's raining.

Oh, I understand. I just don't care. The last two positions I've held have both been at extremely large multinational companies, the sort that are notorious for having these demanding, hour long job applications via taleo or pageup and I've got to say that the teams of people I worked with are by far the most high performing than anything else I've experienced in my career. Maybe these applicants don't mind jumping through all these hoops, maybe the great remuneration and career prospects on offer has made it worth their while, but one thing's for sure, nobody gives a shit about the people who didn't apply.

And I guess that's something I'm having a lot of trouble understanding in this thread, why should I give a **** if you don't apply for a job that I advertise? Why should I care that your application sucks because this cover letter could have been sent to the CSIRO, Metro Trains or KFC? Is there some sort of strike of the jobseekers imminent and nobody is going to apply for vacancies in protest of "poor treatment"? Hate to break it to you but if you're a job applicant and I'm the employer, such is the balance of power that I can piss all over your back and not tell you anything at all. When there's one role and a dozen applicants, 11 people are going to be walking away not getting what they want no matter which way you cut it. So no, I really don't care.

Ever worked in an organisation without HR? Bliss. For a certain number of employees you need a certain level of admin staff but it's amazing what you can survive without.

Riiiiight, so after all that the system you're proposing returning to is having the boss manage the entire hiring and firing system. Instead of having somebody dedicated to manage the process, somebody who actually has to answer to a superior when making a decision, you're proposing having somebody do it in their spare time who's free to do as much or as little investigation as possible and is far less likely to actually read every CV, every cover letter and call every referee, unlike a HR rep who has some obligation to do exactly that because those exact roles are written black and white in their job description. I wonder if you've actually read or considered anything at all I've posted if this is your solution, evidently not.

Since we're talking about personal experiences, I'll just make a point that 90% of every incompetent ******* and/or complete arseh*le that I've ever worked with has only gotten to where they are because they were somebody's mate or they metaphorically spent enough time on their knees sucking dick. Say what you want about HR, but I've seen far less captain's picks come from "the professionals" than I have managers and business owners. HR people generally don't nominate applicants because of ass and t***ies.

Now, to me it's clear at this point that you're not really upset at having CVs and resumes not read given the above, but mainly the mere fact that HR people exist. And like old mate Catters above, if you're that set in your ways then I really can't be bothered trying to talk you out of them on the internet. I guess you could say I'm not getting a lot of value from this discussion.

 

[PoppedCorn]

And I've seen just as many HR hire the wrong people for the job for those exact reasons

 

[magpie_marty]

Oh, I understand. I just don't care. The last two positions I've held have both been at extremely large multinational companies, the sort that are notorious for having these demanding, hour long job applications via taleo or pageup and I've got to say that the teams of people I worked with are by far the most high performing than anything else I've experienced in my career. Maybe these applicants don't mind jumping through all these hoops, maybe the great remuneration and career prospects on offer has made it worth their while, but one thing's for sure, nobody gives a **** about the people who didn't apply.

And I guess that's something I'm having a lot of trouble understanding in this thread, why should I give a **** if you don't apply for a job that I advertise? Why should I care that your application sucks because this cover letter could have been sent to the CSIRO, Metro Trains or KFC? Is there some sort of strike of the jobseekers imminent and nobody is going to apply for vacancies in protest of "poor treatment"? Hate to break it to you but if you're a job applicant and I'm the employer, such is the balance of power that I can piss all over your back and not tell you anything at all. When there's one role and a dozen applicants, 11 people are going to be walking away not getting what they want no matter which way you cut it. So no, I really don't care.


Riiiiight, so after all that the system you're proposing returning to is having the boss manage the entire hiring and firing system. Instead of having somebody dedicated to manage the process, somebody who actually has to answer to a superior when making a decision, you're proposing having somebody do it in their spare time who's free to do as much or as little investigation as possible and is far less likely to actually read every CV, every cover letter and call every referee, unlike a HR rep who has some obligation to do exactly that because those exact roles are written black and white in their job description. I wonder if you've actually read or considered anything at all I've posted if this is your solution, evidently not.

Since we're talking about personal experiences, I'll just make a point that 90% of every incompetent ******* and/or complete arseh*le that I've ever worked with has only gotten to where they are because they were somebody's mate or they metaphorically spent enough time on their knees sucking dick. Say what you want about HR, but I've seen far less captain's picks come from "the professionals" than I have managers and business owners. HR people generally don't nominate applicants because of ass and t***ies.

Now, to me it's clear at this point that you're not really upset at having CVs and resumes not read given the above, but mainly the mere fact that HR people exist. And like old mate Catters above, if you're that set in your ways then I really can't be bothered trying to talk you out of them on the internet. I guess you could say I'm not getting a lot of value from this discussion.

So you speak about system,
But have you thought out bad systems where a persons phone number etc end up on a data base,due to bad software and a complete lack of security online,
I actually like your input and you make some great points but tend to be a tad one sided in your view,
And that Is fine.

 

[magpie_marty]

So you speak about system,
But have you ever thought out bad systems where a persons phone number etc end up on a data base,due to bad software and a complete lack of security online,
I actually like your input and you make some great points but tend to be a tad one sided in your view,
And that Is fine.

 

[DidakDelight]

Recruiters are like real estate agents.
It’s ultimately an unskilled job with a sense of importance that ultimately pays pretty mediocre. It’s not a career or profession that many set out to attain but rather fall into.

In saying that, just like real estate agents they have a need and a place in the market or else they would not be employed.

It must be frustrating as a recruiter and difficult for the ego knowing you’re helping people land jobs that pay a lot more than they earn. Herein is what produces the attitude that many on here are complaining about.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

The best way to hire/move jobs is to know people. It cuts out the awkward stage of vetting people by CV, interviewing strangers etc. and it cuts out dealing with HR beyond the bare minimum. I had a CV come across my desk of a guy I'd worked with previously. Came across well on paper but no chance I'd hire him, he's not useful in real life. And you know where that CV came from? A recruiter who supposedly vets candidates...

I'm in the mining industry. 4 years ago when I was supervising warehouses, we needed to put someone on working a 4 day on / 2 day off - 5 day on / 3 day off roster, 12 hour days. It was a basic warehousing job.

My back to back and I were sent 30 CVs that had apparently been whittled down from 4 or 500 by HR down in Perth. Ten of them lived in Kalgoorlie, a 900 km round trip by car, they went straight in the bin. Five were former project managers that had been chasing short term, big dollar contracts during the mining boom, now that times were tight, they were looking for a permanent role, all in their mid 50s (not that there's anything wrong with that) but none had done any manual work for decades, I couldn't picture any of them sitting in an open cab forklift out in the dust on a 45 degree day with a billion flies buzzing around, unloading a truck, and as soon as there was an uptick in the industry again, they'd be off again chasing those big contracts, those 5 went in the bin.

We are now down to 15. Seven of the fifteen had one of my best mates from my Navy days as their referee, I said to HR and my back to back that I would call the referee up and see if any of the 7 were worth our time. Nope, you can't do that, we only call referees up after the interview, I argued that I could potentially save us time by calling my mate up. Nope, and if you do you'll have questions asked.

Ok, I won't call my mate. 4 of the remaining had all been made redundant in a short space of time, multiple times. Were they victims of last in first out or culling the weakest link first?

We ended up with half a dozen to interview. The company then canned the position. No explanation, and nothing sent out to the applicants to let then know.

Rude and a joke of a process.

 

[Catters 070911]

Here's a question.

Now, I believe that if someone makes a decision, they need own the decision if they get it wrong.

So, what incentive does HR have to pick the right person? I mean, they are not the ones who are paying his or her wage, or will have to deal with him or her, day to day.

I think the person paying the paycheque should be the one who makes the final decision. They will be the one who possibly deals with this new employee on a daily or weekly basis, and whose money will be used to pay this person, so there is an incentive for the boss to pick the right person, as it will cost them, and they will be the one sued on any "unfair dismissal" lawsuit, not HR.

I have had, on four occassions, very fruitful conversations with the manager or boss of a place I am applying for. In each case, they seemed pleased with my answers, were impressed with my resume, and, in one job, was even willing to accomodate me if I got the job. I know for sure, that one boss would have hired me if it were up to them.

But then the other shoe fell. They don't do the hiring, head office or HR do. They promise to pass my resume onto them, and wish me luck. I then never hear back from them.

Now, I wonder if the person I spoke to was even consulted about me? They met me, spoke to me, and if I got hired, would deal with me every day.

What happens to HR if they hire the wrong person? What consequence is it to them?

I have found that, in small businesses, they don't have HR or head offices, so the person who interviews you is the person who hires you, and I think a better decision is then made, and more chance of the right person (best fit) being hired.

 

[magpie_marty]

Catters 070911
I have found that, in small businesses, they don't have HR or head offices, so the person who interviews you is the person who hires you, and I think a better decision is then made, and more chance of the right person (best fit) being hired.

Brilliant I totally agree,
And 9/10 that person has some knowledge of the job required.
Unlike HR people that read resumes for a job they have never done,
But seem to justify they are good enough to consider and read and recommend a person to a short list to be interviewed.
It astounds me how they can have this attitude that has been displayed in some of the responses on this thread!

 

[Scotland]

Catters 070911
I have found that, in small businesses, they don't have HR or head offices, so the person who interviews you is the person who hires you, and I think a better decision is then made, and more chance of the right person (best fit) being hired.

This happens in medium and large businesses also. The only difference is the layers of paperwork increase.

Last interview I went for was with a company that employs 200,000. Before that a company that employs maybe 200. On both occasions I ended up speaking with people I would actually be working with/for. Invariably it has to be that way because the person doing the hiring has to live with the decision.

 

[magpie_marty]

100% Agree,
And back to the reason I started this thread I am somewhat astounded that a HR person think's he or she has the qualifications to go through resumes and discard or recommend a person for a job they have never done.
It's mind boggling to be honest.

 

[toxic]

I will say, the most annoying thing I've heard a HR rep say is,

You didn't get the role because you've never worked at that level before.

Based on that , the word promotion would not exist and we'd have only ever had 1 prime minister