Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But how many people applied to those 4 positions? I'm sure quite a few were equally qualified, but you can't possibly hire them all. Even when the applicant does everything correctly, they will still get rejected when the supply is greater than the demand.
About 300 applications. About 100 of whom were initially interviewed over the phone. 30 of whom were brought in for interviews and 12 for 2nd interviews.
Yes, the supply is greater than the demand...but that is no more my employer's fault than it is the fault of the employee. And that is where I am irritated at the blaming of the employer. My company just grew by 10% of it's workforce, but because we picked the 4 best candidates, we are evil.
That's exactly why everything she is saying is stupid. Just because someone is selected doesn't mean they are not a good candidate it's just that the company has to chose someone and not hire all. That's why i always said if someone goes to a interview and feel they did a good job and wasn't selected, then it's no need to feel bad because it's only a matter of time before they get hired.
But only if they did a good job. I am guessing there are a lot of the people we interview who think they did great, even though they showed up in jeans, answered a cell phone call during the interview, or asked how long the interview would take because their mom was waiting int he car outside (and lets not even talk about the guy who got up in the middle of the interview, went to our coffee area, and got himself coffee). These people were NOT doing a good job with interviewing. And, if they continue to get interviews and not get hired, they DO Need to look at what they are doing wrong. Is it the fault of the company that someone interviewed better, more professionally? Or is it the fault of the person who is being interviewed who does nothing to improve his skills in interviewing, thinking he did just fine?
But only if they did a good job. I am guessing there are a lot of the people we interview who think they did great, even though they showed up in jeans, answered a cell phone call during the interview, or asked how long the interview would take because their mom was waiting int he car outside (and lets not even talk about the guy who got up in the middle of the interview, went to our coffee area, and got himself coffee). These people were NOT doing a good job with interviewing. And, if they continue to get interviews and not get hired, they DO Need to look at what they are doing wrong. Is it the fault of the company that someone interviewed better, more professionally? Or is it the fault of the person who is being interviewed who does nothing to improve his skills in interviewing, thinking he did just fine?
My point is even if you had to decide between 4 strong candidates, only one of them can be hired so just because someone wasn't selected doesn't mean they did anything wrong. Plus the interviewer maybe looking for a certain gender or age so those could be other reasons.
True. But my point is that if you are not chosen, it COULD BE because you did something wrong in the interview. Blindly blaming HR people for ruining your chances is getting you (and I am not meaning you specifically, more a everybody type "you") nowhere. And in fact could be hurting you. If you blame the evil HR type for costing you the job, you will never actually take a look at what you are doing and what could be improved.
True. But my point is that if you are not chosen, it COULD BE because you did something wrong in the interview. Blindly blaming HR people for ruining your chances is getting you (and I am not meaning you specifically, more a everybody type "you") nowhere. And in fact could be hurting you. If you blame the evil HR type for costing you the job, you will never actually take a look at what you are doing and what could be improved.
The same could be said for HR and for those that blindly blame the unemployed. Your point is noted. But that same point can be true for both applicant and HR. Surely there are people in HR that can improve as well.
About 300 applications. About 100 of whom were initially interviewed over the phone. 30 of whom were brought in for interviews and 12 for 2nd interviews.
Yes, the supply is greater than the demand...but that is no more my employer's fault than it is the fault of the employee. And that is where I am irritated at the blaming of the employer. My company just grew by 10% of it's workforce, but because we picked the 4 best candidates, we are evil.
If you don't mind me laying out the math...for each job opening you had (roughly):
75 applications
25 phone interviews
7 first round interviews
3 second round interviews
That sounds like a solid, efficient hiring method. Does anyone here disagree?
"thebunny" cut a lot of the lessor applications out at the beginning (2/3rds), but still gave lots of marginal candidates a chance with a phone interview (1/3rd). That's necessary. She can't hire everyone, and why waste #299's time?
Then in person interviews with about 30% of the phone interview candidates (7 or 8 people). Finally, choices were narrowed to 3 candidates per position with a second interview. Then the company picked their best fit from the 3. Again, sounds reasonable.
Thanks for laying out your experience - was very educational.
It's hard to get "the other side" of the hiring equation sometimes.
Last edited by LOL_Whut; 03-16-2013 at 04:46 PM..
Reason: typo
The same could be said for HR and for those that blindly blame the unemployed. Your point is noted. But that same point can be true for both applicant and HR. Surely there are people in HR that can improve as well.
Please look through my posts for a single one in which I have said I, or anyone else in HR, is perfect. You will not find it. But you will also find is my agreeing that the not hiring of the unemployed is as big a deal as the lot of you make it out to be. Yes, there are the ads out there that say they want someone currently employed, but those are in the minority...and I have yet to have a single hiring decision or discussion that came down to "he is unemployed so not him". Hasn't happened to me or to any of the other HR people I have spoken with, yet it is rampant and the main reason cited by people when they say they did not get a certain job.
If you don't mind me laying out the math...for each job opening you had (roughly):
75 applications
25 phone interviews
7 first round interviews
3 second round interviews
That sounds like a solid, efficient hiring method. Does anyone here disagree?
"thebunny" cut a lot of the lessor applications out at the beginning (2/3rds), but still gave lots of marginal candidates a chance with a phone interview (1/3rd). That's necessary. She can't hire everyone, and why waste #299's time?
Then in person interviews with about 30% of the phone interview candidates (7 or 8 people). Finally, choices were narrowed to 3 candidates per position with a second interview. Then the company picked their best fit from the 3. Again, sounds reasonable.
Thanks for laying out your experience - was very educational.
It's hard to get "the other side" of the hiring equation sometimes.
Pretty close. I could look back at the actual numbers, but as I recall for the most part you are close.
And you are welcome...but that is what the other side looks like. And quite a few of the ones that were not called for the first interview were the ones who did not meet the required qualifications as stated in the ad (and one woman who included a photo of her cat on her resume...not even her and her cat, just the cat...we wondered if the cat would come to the interview with her, LOL).
to hiring-managers, HR(Human Resources People), overall, to employers? Why has it always been like that and probably always will? why do they always want to know what the applicant, job-seeker has been doing in that time span? why does it matter to them? why should it matter? Even if the person is not a criminal, has no criminal record, etc. Why do they always have to assume that the person was lazy? I wish hiring-managers, employers, would mind their own business sometimes, I hate how the past always has and unfortunately always will matter to hiring-managers, employers, because a person's past should not dictate their future. Even one person agrees with me by saying: "I know man, how you feel! Its like can't people change? I guess they wonder that maybe you have aproblem of some sort. I say anyone can change, A person can say "tomorrow I will start to be more responsible, and do this etc. Like its really a joke to me, that Hrs put so much weight into your past. smh" If a person is never given a chance to change how can they? An example is this "
Humans are weird that way. Same with criminals. An employer may say "this guy has a criminal record. I don't want him." How's a person to reform if he's never given a chance? So I see what you mean. Again, humans are weird."
Because i'd been reading posts in here about some people who are in their 20's who have never had a job before or they just have limited job, work experience, they don't have much job experience for someone there age, and entry-level jobs, customer-service jobs, minimum-wage jobs, you know, for example: McDonald's and other Fast-Food places, Movie Theaters by being an Usher, Grocery Stores, easy position by being a Grocery Bagger or Stock postion, Retailers such as Walmart, Target, Home Depot, OSH, JC Penny, Macy's, SEARS, overall, those type of Jobs, you need experience for even those type of jobs, why are employers so lazy, reluctant to train inexperienced people nowadays for easy jobs like those I mentioned? I hate how you are expected, employers require you to have certain employment, job experience by a certain-age, why do they feel they can judge an applicant before they completely know him or her? why can't they just train him or her for a month without pay so the applicant can have a chance to prove himself/herself to the manager, boss.
A person's past should not dictate their future, people say that all the time when giving people advice for how to succeed in life, on how to take charge, control for their lives, that you gotta leave the past behind, don't dwell in the past, but yet hiring-managers, human resources, employers for entry-level job positions, customer-service jobs, minimum-wage jobs, they always have to be so damn judgemental, they always have to assume, think that a person's work ethic in the past is the same in the present, why does Volunteering look good on a resume, application? I find it preposterous that people have to work, volunteer just to get hired, to get a job, it's almost like slavery again.
The reason employers demand experience of all the applicants is simple really. There is an abundance of warm bodies out their willing to settle for a low paying job. The new world as it is is like this now. The employer demands all applicant's have a college education, or years of experience. And guess what?? If you meet that requirement, a job will come your way. It will not be a job that provides a livable wage, but instead a job that demands all your time and energy. A job that requires one to give up most or all their free time and offers nothing in terms of benefits. Low wages, no health insurance, zero PTO or sick leave. In today's time, it is all about the numbers game. And guess what, we are the numbers. We may have names, but it means absolutely ZILCH to the employers. We, in america, will learn to live life as slaves. We will go to work like good little slaves and show our loyalty to a faceless entity just so we can live our meaningless lives and uphold their high standards. Happy Sunday!!
Oh and by the way, I've been seeing more and more part time job applicants having to go on second and third interviews just to land that special part time-buck-over minimum wage job that has zero benefits.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
