Posted on 01/20/2016 7:11:30 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Getting a job takes longer than ever, as employers ask more of candidates.
It has never been easy to land a job, but a rise in hiring has added a new twist: Employers are taking nearly twice as long to hire people as they did several years ago.
Companies need an average of 23 days to screen and hire new employees, up from 13 days in 2010, says Andrew Chamberlain, chief economist at the jobs and recruiting site Glassdoor, based on a study of nearly 350,000 interview reviews by the site's users. Applicants run a gantlet of multiple interviews not only with bosses but with teams of prospective co-workers. Also, more people are being asked to submit business plans or face a battery of personnel tests.
Employers are trying to avoid costly mistakes. Getting a new hire up to speed can take six months to a year, and replacing one who fails can wreck a tight budget. Finding the best candidates requires assembling a large, diverse pool, says David Orr, vice president, human resources, at Osram Sylvania, Wilmington, Mass., a lighting designer and manufacturer.
For job seekers, performing well during decision-making marathons requires a thick skin and new skills. Some get frustrated or blame themselves for delays in the hiring process. "It can be debilitating. It goes on and on," says Carole Osterer, Wayland, Mass., who completed a job search late last year. A human-resources manager at one employer called her with glowing comments. A month later, he called to say the company wasn't interested after all. After another month, he reversed himself again and asked her to interview, says Ms. Osterer, a university research administrator. She did the interviews but never heard from the employer again.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
The way I got my current job was by a friend of mine knowing a manager at the company. When I sent in my resume, the manager went to HR and told them “schedule THIS GUY for an interview”.
I took one of those once. I got about 8 questions in and told the HR person to stuff their stupid freakin test, and if the company is stupid enough to use bullshit like that in their hiring process, they are a chickenshit outfit I’d never work for. I was laughing at them.
A few months later, the guy who would have been my boss came to work with me at another place I hired on with.
They were a top 50 contractor in America one year. They are now gone. Eff them all to hell.
My mom would kill me if she saw me ending two paragraphs in a row with prepositions.
Glad it worked for you because there are bunches of HR departments that would have told the hiring manager that the only candidates get through the door is with the online application process. And they would have refused to schedule the interview because that didn't follow the process.
What I found terrifying was how many ethnic/gender studies people ended up in HR, enforcing political correctness and biased hiring and promotions.
This is why crowdsourcing and outsourcing are popular.
You might be surprised to know that in the late seventies Chem Bank had already made accomadations for trannies.
Contract work with them at their Park Avenue offices had our survey team pass through the corporate cafeteria floor. A loud overly dramatic falsetto turned our heads to view a 6’-4” black man wearing a dress and with darn near clown make-up staggering on heels as it approached her lunch buddies. The CB contact whispered, “GD HR department head.”
It seems to me that the bigger the federal government gets, the bigger municipal, state and corporate governments get and that’s why we now have HR departments, staffing services recruiting and its management, when there used to be just one or two people working in the Personnel Departments of small businesses and municipalities.
I believe it helps no one to have HR Departments be so empowered. They will most likely never know when they have said no to the wrong person. The “human capital” they miss out on and the people they misjudge as being good candidates has to be a significant factor in why such businesses fail to achieve their goals for quality and continuous improvement. Zero tolerance policies are a great way for corporations to shoot themselves in the foot. When you hear them complain how they “can’t find enough good people”, you know there’s a problem in HR and not necessarily with their pool of potential candidates. I believe there is a pandemic of the wrong people being scrutinized and not just in matters pertaining to employment.
I was at my last job (Earthlink ISP) taking a call from a person who needed email help. My call center was closing and we started talking about it and I asked if there were any job openings where they worked. I did not know they were in my area. It was just a joke question.
The caller replied they had 2 job openings. It was a internal help desk. They told me to send my resume in. They did not know I was working on it in between calls so I emailed it to them during the call. I was emailing and faxing my resume to many companies and had 1 interview prior.
They said to come in for an interview the next week on Tuesday. I did and was told they would contact me later next week.... I did not think I would hear from them. They called 2 days later and asked for me to come in on Friday and made me an offer. It was $11,000 more then I was currently making!. I keep my poker face on until I was out of the building : )
So in short, luck plays a big part.
With so many costs to bring a simple idea to life, it's no wonder they'll go elsewhere to be born or that their makers will just practice abstinence and mental masturbation, instead.
It's not supposed to be like this. I remember when it wasn't.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.