Very interesting article - it's not always the candidate's fault

[Hemlock140]

Originally Posted by Greg1977

It goes both ways. At the end of the day the interview is a two-way sales pitch, the interviewer is selling the company and the candidate themselves. It isn't till the employment relationship starts that you find out that the new employee is a lazy slob, or that the company has outdated equipment that isn't maintained, archaic processes and rife with office politics. I work in an open office with two women who . Shockingly enough, the hiring manager failed to mention that to me during my 3 interviews( though I know for a fact that she is well aware of their behavior).

Some good reader comments on that article......

I can just see you at a future interview, when at the end they ask if you have any questions for them:

"Do the other members of the team play music, sing to it, belch and fart throughout the day, and curse?"


Seriously, if you find their behavior to be distracting and/or offensive, you should be able to complain and your boss should do something about it. I suppose it doesn't always work that way though, especially when you are new and they have been doing that for years.

[Roman77]

Originally Posted by Hemlock140

I can just see you at a future interview, when at the end they ask if you have any questions for them:

"Do the other members of the team play music, sing to it, belch and fart throughout the day, and curse?"


Seriously, if you find their behavior to be distracting and/or offensive, you should be able to complain and your boss should do something about it. I suppose it doesn't always work that way though, especially when you are new and they have been doing that for years.

I've mentioned it to my boss, that I find the behavior of those two a distraction. I was told to put on headphones. She is as much a problem as the two in question. And as I said, she is well aware of these women as I've heard various accounts that other staff members have gotten into heated arguments with both of them. They are the definition of 'problem' employee, and there's been turnover in my office because of it. My manager is just hiring one person after another hoping to find that 'one' person that can deal with it. It saves her from actually having to manage.

[BigDaveyL]

Originally Posted by Rambler123

Not surprising. HR gatekeepers rarely understand the jobs for which they are recruiting or interviewing, and once a half-dozen other people have had their hand in writing the job description, it usually becomes a random laundry list of requirements that almost nobody can meet. So, the company either leaves its resume filters set too tough and ends up hiring no one (and then complains loud and long about the "lack of qualified workers in America"), or they end up hiring best-guesses or buddies who may or may not work out.

Most corporations have zero interest in correcting their recruitment and hiring problems because they see employees as an expense to be minimized (for them, the best hiring process is the one that hires no one since that keeps expenses low) and there's no shortage of workers all over the world, so they don't really care who they hire - they can always replace them. Finally, large corporations have so much money and inertia that they can exist for many years even if their hiring practices are terrible and suffer limited consequences from their actions. In the end, the problems - and the blame - always falls on the working class and the would-be employees since they are the ones who have to wade through the maze of insane job requirements and flaky interviews, only to be blamed if they somehow end up not being what the company wanted, and yet failed to express clearly.

I recently had an HR person contact me to apply for a job via their company website. I said one of the jobs looked good (i.e. the requirements were not to onerous - 1 or 2 years experience in VB.NET and SQL). I asked him that since I didn't have everything required (i.e. professional experience), how much would that be held against me? He said there was a test as part of the process, so if you did well enough on the test, they would look past experience requirements, which I think is fair.

So, I sat down this past weekend to apply. On the job application:
1. SS # was a mandatory field
2. Detailed work history - Employer, names of supervisor, addresses, phone numbers, STARTING/ENDING SALARY
3. 3 references up front

I called out the HR person on these and he said they were working to fix #1 (so enter all 1's) but asking #2 and #3 were "industry standard"

Now, I have been in direct contact with about 10 employers in the last year (and applied to countless others), and none of them asked this level of detail. They would only ask references before/during the final interview and share the salary range.

[Serious Conversation]

Like was mentioned, employment is a two way street.

Perhaps the company didn't evaluate the candidate extensively enough. Perhaps the candidate overselled themselves. Perhaps the fit was a good fit at the time of the interview, but are in over their heads at the job.

Perhaps the candidate didn't evaluate the company will enough to see if it would be a good fit, instead of a paycheck. Perhaps the company overselled itself on upward movement. Perhaps the job was below the candidate's capabilities and the person got bored.

There are so many reasons why a mismatch can occur, many economic and some personal, that it's hard to tease any one out as the sure cause of failure.

[const_iterator]

Originally Posted by Emigrations

Like was mentioned, employment is a two way street.

Not these days. There are very few job seekers who are able to line up several options and choose between them. The vast majority of people took their job because no one else would hire them. There are few job seekers with enough value as to have companies compete over them. It is not a 2-way street. There's a large class of job seekers competing over an increasingly limited number of decent jobs.

[Serious Conversation]

Originally Posted by const_iterator

Not these days. There are very few job seekers who are able to line up several options and choose between them. The vast majority of people took their job because no one else would hire them. There are few job seekers with enough value as to have companies compete over them. It is not a 2-way street. There's a large class of job seekers competing over an increasingly limited number of decent jobs.

Even with the job market as lousy as it is, most people are still employed. They have already been hired by someone. The vast majority of people coming into new jobs are coming into them to try to better their circumstances, not out of sheer desperation.

[hopefulone]

Originally Posted by const_iterator

Not these days. There are very few job seekers who are able to line up several options and choose between them. The vast majority of people took their job because no one else would hire them. There are few job seekers with enough value as to have companies compete over them. It is not a 2-way street. There's a large class of job seekers competing over an increasingly limited number of decent jobs.

Agreed.

[Hemlock140]

Originally Posted by const_iterator

Not these days. There are very few job seekers who are able to line up several options and choose between them. The vast majority of people took their job because no one else would hire them. There are few job seekers with enough value as to have companies compete over them. It is not a 2-way street. There's a large class of job seekers competing over an increasingly limited number of decent jobs.

I haven't found that. The last 3 people I made offers to had other offers at the same time. In two cases I was able to get them, with HR giving them some more detailed information about the benefits and family life/work balance here. The 3rd kept trying to delay while he negotiated with the other offer so I finally gave a deadline and he missed it so I took the next person.

[hopefulone]

Originally Posted by Hemlock140

I haven't found that. The last 3 people I made offers to had other offers at the same time. In two cases I was able to get them, with HR giving them some more detailed information about the benefits and family life/work balance here. The 3rd kept trying to delay while he negotiated with the other offer so I finally gave a deadline and he missed it so I took the next person.

Ok but that is YOUR experience. Others have different experiences.

[hopefulone]

Originally Posted by BigDaveyL

I recently had an HR person contact me to apply for a job via their company website. I said one of the jobs looked good (i.e. the requirements were not to onerous - 1 or 2 years experience in VB.NET and SQL). I asked him that since I didn't have everything required (i.e. professional experience), how much would that be held against me? He said there was a test as part of the process, so if you did well enough on the test, they would look past experience requirements, which I think is fair.

So, I sat down this past weekend to apply. On the job application:
1. SS # was a mandatory field
2. Detailed work history - Employer, names of supervisor, addresses, phone numbers, STARTING/ENDING SALARY
3. 3 references up front

I called out the HR person on these and he said they were working to fix #1 (so enter all 1's) but asking #2 and #3 were "industry standard"

Now, I have been in direct contact with about 10 employers in the last year (and applied to countless others), and none of them asked this level of detail. They would only ask references before/during the final interview and share the salary range.

Glad you called them out!