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.
Thanks for posting this. Although it will be twisted around and made out to always be on the candidate.
Yup this is true, the employer has to take no responsibility and does not have to give a reason at all. Most of the time it is because the candidate lacked education or experience in some generic mass email.
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.
This is all well and dandy on paper, but managers have an ego just like anyone else. The mangers will simply say the employee lied on their resume or in the interview and said they had the skills but they don't.
Personally, I've been hired for positions that they sugar coated in the interview. I come in from previous companies and find their product to be underachieving so I make my recommendations and changes hand it in and they blast it. Then they sit there and act like I have no clue to what I am doing. It's not that I can't do the work, it's that you do the work one way and your diversity is horrible.
I've also been hired on false pretenses. Saying I would be working on large X projects, then hired and come to find I'm working small Y projects that they said they did not perform.
Bait and switch occurs all the time, I would rather have them be upfront about it instead.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,585 posts, read 81,186,228 times
Reputation: 57821
I'm a hiring manager and have been a long time, and I readily admit that I have made a few mistakes. They are typically not because the person lied, but because it's hard to measure work ethic in an interview. Those people I have hired that did not pass probation have not been with performance, but rather attendance, punctuality, or goofing off. When I have created a new position the person hired may not end up performing all of the duties outlined because being a new position, I may not be able to accurately predict how long the work is going to take. We don't have HR gatekeepers, I make the decisions as to who gets interviewed, HR only verifies that the data on the resume meets the minimum requirements, handles the scheduling and verification of references/background check after the contingent offer.
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.
Yeah but this isn't supposed to be discussed. The only time to discuss anything is when the applicant is wrong. You can tell alot about a person's character when they can admit they are wrong instead of always blaming the applicant.
Why are you trying to frame this thread around "fault" or "blame?"
Two people involved in this situation. The employer and the employee. When the employee doesn't work out, who is then unemployed? The employee.
At that point, when someone is unemployed, does it matter who's to blame?
As the employee, even if a job isn't what I thought it was, I would do everything I could do to make sure I wasn't in a position to get fired. Come in on time, no long lunches, no issues with co-workers, regular communication with the boss on performance standards, etc.
There is no way for an employer to know for sure that a candidate will be the perfect person for the job. The candidate may have lied about their ability. They may have appeared to be far above the person they are when they go to work. They may have appeared to be a strong confident person ideal for the job, but actually are a better person selling the employer on their ability but can not live up to being as good as they appeared.
There is no way for an employer to know for sure that a candidate will be the perfect person for the job. The candidate may have lied about their ability. They may have appeared to be far above the person they are when they go to work. They may have appeared to be a strong confident person ideal for the job, but actually are a better person selling the employer on their ability but can not live up to being as good as they appeared.
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 play music, sing to it, belch and fart throughout the day, and curse. 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......
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.
