U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment > Job Search
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-14-2014, 07:04 PM
 
Location: Southern Willamette Valley, Oregon
9,157 posts, read 8,945,328 times
Reputation: 15674

Advertisements

[quote=oldtrader;33009359]
Quote:
Remember, when you are rejected, others were given interviews as they met the requirements better than you did, had more experience in doing the job advertised for, had the exact degrees they were looking for, etc., etc. There is nothing wrong with you, except others fill the bill better than you do.
Thank you for this informative reply OT. All I wish is that the rejection letter would be specific as to the reason of rejection, and that the job posting was truthful from the get go. If you don't know what the reason was for the rejection, what are you supposed to fix for the future jobs you apply to? I've responded back to several HR managers after being rejected to ask them the specific reason. There was one in particular that told me that the candidates they were looking for had little to no prior work experience (by the way, this was for a corporate training position that started at $58,000/yr., and they were looking for 41 candidates). On the job posting, they stated that two of the preferred qualifications for consideration were prior transportation related experience and prior management leadership history. I had both, along with an advanced degree in the necessary field with a high GPA to boot. Being contrary to what was listed on the job posting, I called them on it, and I got no response from that point on.

Quote:
There is even a physiological program out now, that checks Facebook, and other chat line sites for what you post, to find your personality, and beliefs, and attitude to seen if you will fit into their company when you file an application. Her company does not use it, but some are starting to use it and swear by it. Especially banks and financial institutions as an example.
This is a sickness. They need to put these cubicle drones back on their leashes. Your beliefs? How does this not infringe on a protected status? I'm sorry, but this is going too far. These SOB's preach EEO compliance, but they don't practice it. They want their rank and file to live by the rules, but HR seems to be above the rules.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-14-2014, 07:56 PM
 
456 posts, read 874,066 times
Reputation: 138
During my second interview a few days ago (security position), they asked what would come up if they googled my name. They also asked me if I had any objections to opening up my facebook page. I said no problem immediately. I followed up with I have nothing online to be ashamed of. They went onto the next question.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2014, 08:09 PM
 
Location: Southern Willamette Valley, Oregon
9,157 posts, read 8,945,328 times
Reputation: 15674
Quote:
Originally Posted by chgodon View Post
During my second interview a few days ago (security position), they asked what would come up if they googled my name. They also asked me if I had any objections to opening up my facebook page. I said no problem immediately. I followed up with I have nothing online to be ashamed of. They went onto the next question.
LOL! If they Googled my name, they would see the mug shot of a felon in Georgia, an individual about a decade younger than me and nowhere near as good looking (and I have a pretty unique last name, but someone beat me to the wrap sheet), and I have no Facebook anything.

The sad thing is, they would consider the facts that I have no Facebook and am practically Google proof as signs that I am antisocial, even though I'm on LinkedIn.

If someone asked me if they could probe my social networking sites, I would honestly question if their interviewing skills were not sufficient enough to select a quality candidate just from that. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't. If you have a life online, you're life is fair game. If you don't have a life online, you're considered antisocial and unhireable. Screw them.

Last edited by ditchlights; 01-14-2014 at 08:23 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2014, 08:27 PM
 
Location: Idaho
836 posts, read 1,475,775 times
Reputation: 1554
If you're over-qualified or having some other immediate disqualifier I'd spend less time online and go directly to stores where you'd like to work.

Some bosses are impressed by old school initiative. When I wasn't seeing want ads in my field I dropped off resumes at businesses from the phone book - a company created a well-paying position for me that I was at for 4 years.

Think of techniques like that to get a hiring person's attention.

Good luck!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2014, 09:01 PM
 
5,572 posts, read 5,092,377 times
Reputation: 2909
No banks are using facebook. Not everyone uses facebook and about 10% of the profiles are not even real. I'm sorry but I'm not buying it. Companies have much better things to do like make profit for their shareholders. What specific gain would be made financially with such a system?

The reason why rejections are not that personal is you have to consider the other end of it. A long time I ago I applied for a job in Vermont. I received a response that basically said they received 180 applications and another 30 after it closed. Out of those 180 about 80 were from New England and 50 were from Vermont. Montpellier is a small city to say the very least (3,000 people!) Much of the time it is hard for some employers to weed out those applying for jobs and those applying to show activity for unemployment.

Let's say you don't have electronic applications for a moment. Say you get 30 decent looking resumes. What's the problem? Well many of them are formatted differently. Are they *REALLY* going to manually type each one in a system to judge the content of each one? Do they really have the time to put all 30 of them on a table and run back and forth to judge who has what? No of course not. That's why many employers have online systems to fill out.

Beliefs are not a protected class. Religious beliefs sure but not actual beliefs. Protected class has to deal with the way you are classified at birth. Race, gender, religion, disability I think (blind, deaf etc) etc.

Using Facebook To Screen Potential Hires Can Get You Sued | Fast Company | Business + Innovation
"Employers should also familiarize themselves with the "off-duty" laws in each state where their employees are located and refrain from considering any protected activities in their hiring decisions. More than half of the states prohibit employers from taking an adverse employment action based on an employee's lawful conduct on their own time (that is, off the job), even if (in many cases) the employee is only a prospective employee. In Minnesota, for example, it is unlawful for an employer to prohibit a prospective employee from using lawful consumable products, such as alcohol and tobacco, during nonworking hours. Further, New York protects all lawful recreational activities, including political activities, during nonworking hours."

This one is about Oregon and pretty much most social media is off limits.
Can You Screen Employees Using Facebook? | Oregon Law Practice Management

In a sense some of this is like a police officer finding evidence without a search warrant. It is not able to be submitted in court and therefore cannot be legally used.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2014, 09:15 PM
 
456 posts, read 874,066 times
Reputation: 138
I agree with the social media shouldn't be included in a job interview. Problem is my field in the law enforcement sector. Character becomes a big issue. I remember on the news awhile back where supervisors were asking for social media passwords to "look" at the pages. That's Bull****. That's where I draw the line. I'll show you my social media but no job is worth supervisors asking for my personal computer passwords. Can't remember what ever happened to that story.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2014, 09:36 PM
 
Location: Southern Willamette Valley, Oregon
9,157 posts, read 8,945,328 times
Reputation: 15674
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdovell View Post
Beliefs are not a protected class. Religious beliefs sure but not actual beliefs. Protected class has to deal with the way you are classified at birth. Race, gender, religion, disability I think (blind, deaf etc) etc.

Using Facebook To Screen Potential Hires Can Get You Sued | Fast Company | Business + Innovation
"Employers should also familiarize themselves with the "off-duty" laws in each state where their employees are located and refrain from considering any protected activities in their hiring decisions. More than half of the states prohibit employers from taking an adverse employment action based on an employee's lawful conduct on their own time (that is, off the job), even if (in many cases) the employee is only a prospective employee. In Minnesota, for example, it is unlawful for an employer to prohibit a prospective employee from using lawful consumable products, such as alcohol and tobacco, during nonworking hours. Further, New York protects all lawful recreational activities, including political activities, during nonworking hours."

This one is about Oregon and pretty much most social media is off limits.
Can You Screen Employees Using Facebook? | Oregon Law Practice Management

In a sense some of this is like a police officer finding evidence without a search warrant. It is not able to be submitted in court and therefore cannot be legally used.
Sure, they can't "legally" use these as reasons to deny a particular applicant, but that doesn't mean they don't look and come up with a generic reason for rejection based off what they find in their investigations. The same goes with perceived age of the applicant based off the dates of their employment history. They can give whatever reason for rejection they wish to.... That doesn't mean it is the REAL reason (This is why the correspondence from most HR entities is generic, with no names attached; so they don't have to explain anything and no one can come back to them) . Same goes for any landlord. To think that employers or landowners don't reject potential candidates/tenants based on a status that is considered "protected" is absurd. Like the saying goes, "It's not what you know, it's what you can prove". It happens everyday, and it is rampant. This is the burden of the applicant. The corporation's HR office is scot free and running wild in today's job market.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2014, 02:19 PM
 
9,751 posts, read 9,405,600 times
Reputation: 21438
Calling a company and asking why you were rejected is not something that will do you any good. All they will really tell you, is that there were other more qualified applicants. They will not look up your application and try to figure out the best answer to give you. They don't have the time to waste, trying to tell a lot of applicants why they were not accepted for the job.

In today's job market, there are always applicants that can exactly fit the needs of the company. Anyone that is not a perfect fit, is just rejected in favor of those that are a perfect fit.

If you apply for a job, when you have say 80% of the qualifications they give, expect to get rejected, as someone will have 100%.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2014, 03:03 PM
 
5,572 posts, read 5,092,377 times
Reputation: 2909
Quote:
Originally Posted by ditchlights View Post
Sure, they can't "legally" use these as reasons to deny a particular applicant, but that doesn't mean they don't look and come up with a generic reason for rejection based off what they find in their investigations. The same goes with perceived age of the applicant based off the dates of their employment history. They can give whatever reason for rejection they wish to.... That doesn't mean it is the REAL reason (This is why the correspondence from most HR entities is generic, with no names attached; so they don't have to explain anything and no one can come back to them) . Same goes for any landlord. To think that employers or landowners don't reject potential candidates/tenants based on a status that is considered "protected" is absurd. Like the saying goes, "It's not what you know, it's what you can prove". It happens everyday, and it is rampant. This is the burden of the applicant. The corporation's HR office is scot free and running wild in today's job market.
Correspondence as I have implied is generic because frankly the massive volume that employers receive would require significant effort, time, money and energy.

You also are implying as if everything is a private corporation, it isn't. There's plenty of openings in government and non profit.

It does not take that much effort to pretty much shut down a business. Remember that many corporations have no real decision making on the lower level. Factoring in the influence of social media and frankly many of them are running scared. Remember with budgeting if they don't spend the funds allocated the shareholders probably won't authorize it next time.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2014, 03:35 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
13,524 posts, read 19,019,849 times
Reputation: 20166
Quote:
Originally Posted by chgodon View Post
I've always worked in the Gov sector which required to apply online. Those apps actually did get reviewed by a live HR person. It seems the private sector depends on a computer to determine if I get an interview. Again, I have no problem applying online. I don't think it's right for a computer to judge a candidates character or detailed qualifications. Just because I didn't use certain keywords does not mean I'm not qualified to do the job. That's what I've been reading from people who have degrees or years of experience in a specific field that were rejected.

What makes you think a human has looked at your resume?
Just because 100 people applied to an opening doesn't necessarily mean all 100 applicants' resumes were reviewed. Only a small batch is reviewed and a few are selected to proceed to the next step. If the batch doesn't yield enough candidates, another batch is fished out -- kind of like jury duty.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment > Job Search

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top