Help. Advice to find contacts inside Amazon or Expedia (Seattle: lawyer, home)

[jwb123]

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)

The EEOC is mainly concerned with word of mouth, and homogenous recruiting, because they feel that it will not make for a diverse workplace, and doesn't cast a very wide net to gather ALL candidates that may be qualified for a position.

Like I said, a company may very well have a certain person in mind for a position (they could have already been interviewed and selected), but a company really still needs to post publically the position AND keep on file the resumes, and action taken on them. If an audit was ever called (and I have been through them) they are a total mess if you don't have your ducks in a row.

Word of mouth/networking/friend of a friend hiring is fine, and acceptable and within the law - however, you have to prove that is not your only method of hiring.

Here is an interesting article.

EEOC is Watching You: Recruitment Discrimination Comes to the Forefront

[Jennibc]

Originally Posted by Jenbar

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)

The EEOC is mainly concerned with word of mouth, and homogenous recruiting, because they feel that it will not make for a diverse workplace, and doesn't cast a very wide net to gather ALL candidates that may be qualified for a position.

Like I said, a company may very well have a certain person in mind for a position (they could have already been interviewed and selected), but a company really still needs to post publically the position AND keep on file the resumes, and action taken on them. If an audit was ever called (and I have been through them) they are a total mess if you don't have your ducks in a row.

Word of mouth/networking/friend of a friend hiring is fine, and acceptable and within the law - however, you have to prove that is not your only method of hiring.

Here is an interesting article.

EEOC is Watching You: Recruitment Discrimination Comes to the Forefront

I am actually looking for a citation for a regulation requiring it. Honestly, I don't believe one exists. Sometimes when companies have run afoul of EEOC regs and there disparite impact is shown, it may be part of a consent decree that companies will post jobs in the future. But those are related to individual companies, that's not a blanket requirement.

I could be wrong but I took a couple of employment law courses and I don't remember ever coming across this requirement. Of course, coursework cannot cover every possible law or regulation that has been passed which is why I am interested in reading the regulation itself.

[OcularBeauty]

Having a personal referral for a position is one thing. Handing in the resume of a complete stranger who happens to read the same discussion group is another.


My intent by the origional posting was not too have a complete stranger hand in my husbands resume. I was looking for a possible name of an HR person or someone tangible that my husband could speak with. Many of these companies just have a program that sorts through thousands of resumes by keywords and just gets rid of the others with out a person evaluating them because of the sheer volume of resumes they get. Most people have a much better chance if they can speak to a real person. I do not think that having a person to talk with at a company is an unfair advantage. We all know that most companies to hire from referals within when possible so what is wrong with someone getting to have a slightly better chance then just sending in their resume by talking to a real person?

[jwb123]

You can go through the link to the EEOC. The regulations are there.

Without having the time to sit here and do it for you - you can read this article.

http://www.hrmdirect.com/EEO-OFCCP_Compliance.pdf

Please note the "3 prong test". Specifically - particularly the first, under practical application. If your company is not posting the positions, they are not acting to fill a particular position.

"[SIZE=3]
But the bottom line is that in most cases, a resume equals an applicant, and triggers reporting requirements. [/SIZE][SIZE=3]If you are not collecting EEO demographics for every resume you receive, you are at risk for failure to comply with federal regulations. "
[/SIZE][SIZE=3]


[/SIZE]

[jwb123]

"I was looking for a possible name of an HR person or someone tangible that my husband could speak with. Many of these companies just have a program that sorts through thousands of resumes by keywords and just gets rid of the others with out a person evaluating them because of the sheer volume of resumes they get. Most people have a much better chance if they can speak to a real person. "

That "real person" will be annoyed if you just called their office out of the blue to inquire about a job - regardless of skills and schooling. If that real person had the time to talk to everyone who thinks they qualify for a specific position, they would put their name and phone number on the job listing.

They DO appreciate being handed a great resume by a current employee - but even then, they will call that applicant on their own time. And sometimes being given a resume by a current employer is annoying too because then they feel like they HAVE to follow up... and the recruiter may see something that does not indicate a perfect fit.

Look, recruiting is a high paced, high stress, numbers driven position. Like I said in another post, if you try and go around their posted process for applying for a position, it's not necessarily going to look very favorable on the applicant. HR for sure is protective of their perceived right and ability to hire for their assigned positions ... absolutely they are gate keepers and that's sometimes a good and sometimes a bad thing. The fact of the matter is though, that hiring managers don't have the time to deal with the calls either...

Anyway, that's about all I have to offer on this subject ... it's been years since I was a recruiter, but having friends still in, I know things have not changed... being an over eager applicant can shoot you in the foot, or it could turn out to be right place, right time. My husband landed his current job at Dell by applying online through their site... it happens.

[Jennibc]

[quote=Jenbar;4570728]You can go through the link to the EEOC. The regulations are there.

Without having the time to sit here and do it for you - you can read this article.

http://www.hrmdirect.com/EEO-OFCCP_Compliance.pdf

Please note the "3 prong test". Specifically - particularly the first, under practical application. If your company is not posting the positions, they are not acting to fill a particular position.

"[SIZE=3]
But the bottom line is that in most cases, a resume equals an applicant, and triggers reporting requirements. [/SIZE][SIZE=3]If you are not collecting EEO demographics for every resume you receive, you are at risk for failure to comply with federal regulations. "
[/SIZE][SIZE=3]

Having just reread EEOC v. Consolidated Services System, 989 F.2d 233 (7th Cir. 1993), Unless the 9th Circuit has come out differently, there is no requirement to post a job. Citing an earlier case, the court stated that "word of mouth recruiting does not compel an inference of intentional discrimination," and it held that a janitorial service company did not violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by solely relying on word of mouth recruiting.

Relying on word of mouth recruiting only becomes an issue if a complainant can show disparate impact. That said, it is probably a good practice to do post and it likely reduces legal risk, but there is no legal requirement to do so.

[bigtrees]

Originally Posted by Jennibc

Can you point me to the reg. I would be interested in reading it.

I don't think it's a direct law or regulation.

What happens is the employers are required to either submit data to the EEOC or protect themselves in case of a lawsuit, and they find the only way they can collect and maintain that data is by requiring everyone to submit the resume through a certain system.

Same thing on interview questions. Some employers believe they are required to ask the same question of every candidate. I don't know of a law that requires it, but the companies find that asking different employees different questions can give the appearance of discrimination.

At my company, the interviewers are now required to give copies of interview notes to HR who keeps them on file.

[Jennibc]

Originally Posted by Jenbar

You can go through the link to the EEOC. The regulations are there.

Without having the time to sit here and do it for you - you can read this article.

http://www.hrmdirect.com/EEO-OFCCP_Compliance.pdf

Please note the "3 prong test". Specifically - particularly the first, under practical application. If your company is not posting the positions, they are not acting to fill a particular position.

"[SIZE=3]
But the bottom line is that in most cases, a resume equals an applicant, and triggers reporting requirements. [/SIZE][SIZE=3]If you are not collecting EEO demographics for every resume you receive, you are at risk for failure to comply with federal regulations. "
[/SIZE][SIZE=3]


[/SIZE]

I read the article, it's an advertisement for a service that performs some sort of reporting function. It doesn't speak to a requirement to post a job. After scanning all of the regs on the EEOC site, I still haven't found a regulation requiring the posting of a job either in a newspaper, with an employment agency, or on a job site.

[bigtrees]

Originally Posted by OcularBeauty

My intent by the origional posting was not too have a complete stranger hand in my husbands resume. I was looking for a possible name of an HR person or someone tangible that my husband could speak with. Many of these companies just have a program that sorts through thousands of resumes by keywords and just gets rid of the others with out a person evaluating them because of the sheer volume of resumes they get. Most people have a much better chance if they can speak to a real person. I do not think that having a person to talk with at a company is an unfair advantage. We all know that most companies to hire from referals within when possible so what is wrong with someone getting to have a slightly better chance then just sending in their resume by talking to a real person?

I understood what you were looking for in your original post, and don't think that was a problem.

What I didn't like are the people that say you can get great jobs because you are "affliated" with the right person through Linked In. Sort of like saying, "I can get you a job because I know a guy there that was a fratenity brother with the director of software development. I'll talk with him and he'll hook you up with a job." That doesn't give me the feeling of open or fair.

Asking for names is good business practice and you can't go wrong by asking for a name.

Good luck!

[bigtrees]

Originally Posted by Jennibc

I read the article, it's an advertisement for a service that performs some sort of reporting function. It doesn't speak to a requirement to post a job. After scanning all of the regs on the EEOC site, I still haven't found a regulation requiring the posting of a job either in a newspaper, with an employment agency, or on a job site.

To explain it in another way, if they hire someone without posting a position, they are reviewing and considering an unsoliticed resume. It gets sticky for companies to defend (in court) why they brought in candidate A (who is white or able bodied or male or not Muslim or any of a bunch of protected classes) for an interview in January when they didn't bring in candidate B (who is not white or not abled boded or not male or is Muslim) who submitted a resume in December.

In fact, the employer may not have had a business case to hire someone in December and did have a business case in January to hire someone, and didn't include any of the discrimintory information in their decision. In court, though, it becomes really hard to defend.

So most big companies post a position and only consider the resumes that were received in to the post. It narrows the pool of candidates (and therefore the potential for discrimination) and allows them to select only the best ones to interview.

Again, I don't think there is a direct federal requirement to post every position.