If you've worked in HR, please share your tricks and secrets. People on DataLounge seem to loathe HR people, perhaps unjustly.
I work there no longer but the loathing is largely justified.
We had to pretend to be 'friends' with the employees but our real job was to spy, make sure no unions were formed or alliances made. We had to keep benefits as possible, advertise jobs that were already filled pretending to interview people just to go through the motions.
We threw resumes away by the thousands and discrimated against 'ghetto' names, not calling anyone who might be black...
Would you like more?
Of course we do!
Yes, R2! I don't know what to ask, though... Maybe you could provide some of the more glaring oddities of your former job?
There should be a law against HR's that interview for non-existent jobs.
Don't they care that some people are spending their food money on transportation, or their last few bucks on a haircut or dry cleaning?
It's still infuriates me that this is legal.
The HR personalities Corporations want today are more like the guards at Auschwitz.
The HR people I've worked with mostly tend to be useless.
Seriously - they're just one more added layer or bureaucracy in a business or government office.
I never had to spy on employees, but I did have to enthusiastically present and execute policies that I couldn't dissuade our megalomaniacal CEO from implementing.
HR people are hired to protect cowardly managers.
My HR department is useless. I am second in command and it has taken two days to get a simple staff listing. And I don`t have it yet. I hear maybe tomorrow.
R5, The worst HR story I know is of 2 candidates who expected to start work right after the weekend, when there was only 1 position available. The manager was still advertising for employees, in case either one didn't work out. I live in a state where you can be called in to work, then be told that didn't actually need you, and be sent home without even an apology, let alone any pay.
HR is not a department that advocates for employees and any employee who thinks otherwise is a fool. HR is there to implement corporate policies and to act as a buffer between the corporation and its employees. It is there to handle downsizing, employee complaints, wage and hours matters, employee screening and terminations on behalf of the corporation. It has no input into those decisions other than to advise management on how to minimize the corporation's liability exposure. It is not there to make the workplace safer, healthier, or happier.
I know a lot about pensions and retirement, that side of HR.
[quote]We had to pretend to be 'friends' with the employees but our real job was to spy
We routinely get calls from HR to monitor certain employees. Translation: the employee is about to be fired and we need dirt in case they won't go quietly.
Email contents and a list of web sites visited on company time are the rule.
Gay employees are the easiest to "trap" as they always have gay porn in their email. ALWAYS!
DL will be used ti get you fired as well.
These are not the real reasons to fire someone, but will be used as the official excuse.
Employees with far greater dirt are not even looked into because TPTB want them to stay.
that's horrifying. Imagine one of those candidates having relocated already to a new apartment closer to this non-existant job.
Imagine a single parent encouraged by their children, that "they can get that job!" Imagine discussing the interview with your hungry child who so adores you and wants you to do well. Imagine having to explain to them that "You did't get it."
Fuck that shit, the hard way. Getting people's hopes up only to waste their time and limited funds is evil.
"Employees with far greater dirt are not even looked into because TPTB want them to stay."
Why is that, R14?
Be nice to co workers.
It's not quite that dire R12.
HR is definitely works to make the workplace safer, Worker's Comp is expensive.
Healthier? There is a big push for that in the vain hope it will moderate the increases in health insurance premiums.
Happier? Well, not unless you can show how a policy that employees like will improve the bottom line.
HR used to be the personell dept.
Government regulation (discrimination laws) led to the formation of this Bureaucracy. Their primary job is to prevent lawsuits against the company. They know all the tricks to hire and fire whoever their bosses want and have it pass the legal smell test. In other words, business as usual with some extra busy work to avoid regulators.
[quote]We threw resumes away by the thousands and discrimated against 'ghetto' names, not calling anyone who might be black...
This happens all the time. Resumes with obviously "black" names or black colleges like Howard U. immediately get thrown in the trash.
Dirt is only dug on people the company already wants to fire.
Real reasons to fire someone: Poor performance and personality issues. Nobody is looking to fire zero drama hard workers. Those employees are too hard to find.
You can only be 1 of 3 things to a company
1. An asset. The company will suffer without you. Surprisingly few people fall into this category.
2. Neutral. Who? You are indistinguishable from any number of workers. You do your job and go home. Most employees are here.
3. A liability. Firing your ass will actually improve the company. Good bosses weed these out. Bad bosses are too afraid to rock the boat and get rid of them.
Think about your company for a bit and you'll be able to fit every employee into one of these categories.
R14 is right on the money!
After much "pron collection", R16 it is easy to tell management targets specific employees, work groups, locations. Great way to reduce headcount before shutting down a whole location!
I second no DL or any kind of gay content from a work computer.
I am a gay male who has never had porn or anything remotely sexual on my work computer or work email in all the years I've been working. That is just asking to be fired; I can't believe anyone would be that stupid.
[quote]Dirt is only dug on people the company already wants to fire.
Sometimes. Sometimes, they will get the idea to fire you if people start complaining about you.
I had a supervisor who wanted to get rid of me but couldn't do it on performance, so would call HR for every little piss ass thing I did, or often didn't, do.
Fortunately, he was doing the same to his boss (so as to get rid of both of us and get the boss's job) but it backfired, and he ended up going.
"3. A liability. Firing your ass will actually improve the company. Good bosses weed these out. Bad bosses are too afraid to rock the boat and get rid of them."
This can be split into two subcategories: genuine liabilities (dangerous to others, stealing supplies, et cetera) and whistleblowers. A lot of the latter before they can even swivel in their chairs.
Yes, the real black sounding names used to get thrown in the trash. Do yourself a favor and use another first name when applying just don't lie about your SS# and you'll be fine. I worked under an HP manager who would only set up interviews for other Jews, if they were qualified or not. She would throwout the black, hispanic or Italian sounding names. I got her shit canned for favoritism. The documentation was easy. I used her hate of Persian Jews to do it. How ironic.
In the NYC area, anyone with an Anglo-Saxon name is black.
gotta change dat name...
Any dirt on targeting employees in their 50s to save on pensions? Most companies make these employees sign a waiver of their ADEA rights in order to collect severance. At the company where I used to work, and eventually quit, hitting 50 put a bullseye on your head. So many got weeded out in their 50s. They had maxed out on their salaries. There was so much knowledge lost during those purges. We knew they were deliberately doing this but no one in HR would squeal.
I am a teacher for a public school system and a few years ago, teachers over 50 started being targeted. These weren't stereotypical, mean, bitter teachers doing the minimum until retirement. They were excellent teachers who continued to learn and grow in the profession, and even led professional development. Students, parents, administration, and other teachers loved them. They always had excellent evaluations. Suddenly, they were receiving horrible evaluations, put on "assistance," and intimidated so much, that many took early retirement because of the harassment. The school system then hired new teachers, fresh out of college, at the bottom of the pay scale. The teachers that left didn't hit the qualifications for full retirement benefits (years of experience and/or age), and so, were basically cheated out of a lot of their benefits. It was sickening. The next year, the school system was livid that standardized test scores dropped across the district. What did they expect? Good, experienced teachers were dropping like flies and being replaced by newbies who, while full of enthusiasm, lacked all those years of knowledge and experience.
HR people are so funny. Most don't even know all the laws to which they are supposed to adhere. THey don't get sued not becuase they're clever, but because suing is protracted, and unless you're a very sympathetic victim (sexually-harasseed female, double-minority), it's not easy to get a lawyer, you might not win, and your name is out there for blacklisting.
Now if you cross paths with a REAL whistleblower, s/he'll have all the evidence/dirt on you and your company before s/he ever sets foot in the door, knows the EEOC, DOL, and legal system well enough to navigate it without an attorney, and can put three generations of your attorney's kids through the Ivy League by the time s/he's done with you, if s/he wants. Threatening the whistleblower will serve only to triple or more the cost of the inevitable settlement, since even if you win the case, your legal bills will bankrupt your company, which the whistleblower applied to specifically because s/he knew they'd be defenseless in court.
[quote]There should be a law against HR's that interview for non-existent jobs.
Yes, I agree. Fishing expeditions. I once was lured by three fishing expeditions in one week. Really fucked up.
HR people have it made. My last job interview went like this: I was interviewed not by someone who works for HR but were ordinary employees. They were recruiting a lot of people and HR were understaffed and asked employees from other departments to fill in and do interviews. The two recruiters who did my interview were terrible and couldn't string two sentences together. I had to repeat the same stuff over and over. The head of HR called me up and said I didn't get the job because according to the two recruiters I lacked enthusiasm during the interview. Well, I told him about all the stupid stuff which happened during the interview, in details and told them how incompetent they were. He said he was sorry but they weren't trained in hiring people. So I didn't get the job because of their incompetence. I'm glad I don't work there. But they get away with it because their incompetence is only experienced by the people they interview and most of them are not hired so how can people above HR know they're fucking up?
Forgot to mention that the targeted teachers who let it be known in HR that their lawyers were involved, suddenly were left alone. It was the ones who didn't fight that got it the worst.
HR here. If you're a cute guy, you should send a pic with your resume. If you're hot, I will sleep with you and land you an interview (can't guarantee the job, however).
Those who have said that resumes by applicants with black-sounding names are routinely trashed, why do you think this is?
Is their education perceived as lacking and/or superficial, i.e., a degree from an historically black college?
Are they viewed as a walking EEOC suit, the "more trouble than they're worth factor"?
Are they viewed as lazy or incompetent, e.g., non-self-starters who only do minimal work, or just enough to draw a paycheck?
What is it specifically?
Seems to me if a black job candidate knew his or her stuff and could do the work in a cheerful and pleasant way, as would be expected of any employee of any race, that blacks would not have their resumes trashed.
So what is it? I am trying to understand.
R23, I don't have any either. I think the poster meant to say lesbian but said gay by mistake.
R26, Maybe the human resource person doesn't like alot of religions. I would have no problem hiring a black, latino, asian etc.. But I jewish person? No. I don't support what doesn't support me.
I think R12 hit the nail on the head.
This makes me think. I have a hispanic last name but a "white" first name.
Time to change that last name?
Heritage not a priority, R37?
[quote]Nobody is looking to fire zero drama hard workers
Oh how naive you are. Pretty much everyone at the company is out to get rid of such people: The employees from jealousy, the managers from fear, the upper management because they don't think such people are down with their looting of the place.
Screw Heritage r38. I need a stable job!
That's not your last name, honey. That's your resume...
R35, It's assumed that non-Black customers won't want to deal with or buy from Blacks, in the same way that better looking applicants often have an extreme advantage. I've seen some African Americans break this barrier by being extremely polite and quiet and applying for positions in which they'll barely be seen. Very, very sad. I thought blatant racism and sexism was illegal in USA.
Some years ago I had an interview at Home Depot headquarters. They had outsourced their human resources screening to a contractor who used their facilities. The contractor more or less openly solicited a bribe from me to advance my resume in the process. In a Home Depot office, in the Home Depot headquarters (Which had some dumb p.c. name like Store Support Center).
The whole company, not just the contractor, was crooked from top to bottom.
I'm not getting any callbacks!
LaTrenda Johnson, alumnus of Howard U.
R39, I can't tell you how many times I've been physically threatened and psychologically stressed by employees who weren't there to work, and hated anyone who tried to do their best. The incompetent managers refused to deal with the situation, often asking me why I wanted to work for their company. How could someone accept the title of "supervisor," if he/she didn't want to solve problems, especially if it involves employee theft?
Jesus r38/r41. I must have touched a sore spot. Don't ask a question if you don't want a real honest answer.
HR people - when you interview/screen people in person do you base a lot of your judgment on how hot they are? If someone is not so sexy, are you more apt to dismiss them?
[quote]Are they viewed as a walking EEOC suit, the "more trouble than they're worth factor"?
That is the main reason. My company has had only 2 EEOC lawsuits in past 5 years, both by African Americans.
I AXSKED YOU WHERE MY RESUME AT?? DID YOU NOT HEAR ME???
R46, I sympathize. "Fitting in" and assimilating have long been a necessity for me. People falsely assume I'm divorced once they learn my last name, and see me in person. Lost out on a job once because the interviewer incorrectly thought I'd be a bitter divorcee.
That's horrible r50. I've never worked HR but I honestly cannot picture myself even assuming so much about a person. 'Bitter divorcee' never would have entered my mind.
Assimilation? Gee gosh willikers, that's just what we wanted you to do!
Well, looks like the racist trolls are coming out now like at R44 and R49.
HR people are human scum.
I'm AA and had to file a complaint against a company that deliberately tried to steer me towards Black neighborhoods when our sales organization went territory-based. Those neighborhoods were small and distrustful of sales people so I wouldn't make the money that, say, those who were assigned to the upper-east side would.
I totally called them on it and they tried to pretend like it was just a coincidence that the ONLY black sales rep was assigned to these territories.
I quit and got unemployment while I looked for another job.
It's annoying as fuck that this shit still goes on, but it DOES.
You'll find that most AA people in professional, white collar jobs just want to do our jobs and be judged like everyone else but it doesn't happen and it's very, very sad. We aren't the problem, your subconscious biases are...
All the HR people I worked with were liars and tools for management. We have corrupt cowardly managers and our HR group let's them get away with horrendous behavior! All to protect the company. They don't care about the employees.
Are the payroll and benefits ladies considered HR? Or is HR just the ones who screen resumes, schedule interviews, and "solve" employee problems?
R30, that's terrible. Not surprising (I worked in labor law, defense side) but terrible.
But I'm curious: were those teachers in a union, like so many are? Did the union try to "do something", especially when it was a number of teachers? Just wondering; TIA.
[Quote]I AXSKED YOU WHERE MY RESUME AT?? DID YOU NOT HEAR ME???
[quote] We aren't the problem, your subconscious biases are...
Subconscious biases??? Their biases couldn't be any *more* conscious!!!
As an unemployed 48 year old white male this thread depresses the hell out of me.
I was downsized 14 months ago and I should have been smart enough to have seen my miserable corporate witch of a boss intentionally blowing up non-existent issues. While I miss the money and I am desperate to work again, I am glad to be out of that hellhole, especially when I see the tortured but still-coded Facebook posts from my former colleagues.
Another awful aspect of HR people is the ones who don't know shit about anything benefits or payroll related (at least after it's submitted to corporate). I used to work at a large grocery store (400 employees) that is part of a regional chain. The HR lady was inept when it came to any benefits questions. Every time I stopped by to ask a question about something, she had that card ready with the "Employee Services" number on it. Couldn't answer a single fucking question herself. And of course the "Employee Services" hotline is so screwed up and tedious, you want to pull your hair out by the time you get to a real person.
A lot of HR people don't know what the fuck they're doing. There is one place that I've applied at multiple times for positions that are identical to the positions I've had in the past, yet somehow they always email me back that I'm not qualified even though I meet all the requirements??? Fuck off! I'm done applying to that place.
It all comes down to how much you suck up and kiss their asses when it comes to who they choose.
Don't complain about the game just because you're suddenly losing it. It's not like you spoke up when you had the chance.
R63 -- Truer words … but no one ever does.
It wasn't until the first time I was downsized that I realized what people looking for a job go through and I changed the way I treated them when their resumes crossed my desk. (marketing for a big energy company)
I've contacted each and every one since that time and told them something, even I couldn't be very helpful or give them any hope of employment. I am not HR.
Companies, especially HR departments, don't seem to realize that when you treaty people disrespectfully by ignoring them, it often affects the bottom line over time, either through direct sales or bad PR/word-of-mouth.
People bitch when they're treated shabbily by companies they're trying to be hired by …witness what goes here at the DL.
I'll be curious to see what happens with upcoming generations. The current college grad generation is graduating with no employment prospects. It would be great to see new companies formed that stayed on the small to medium side and shared the wealth the company makes with their employees. The paradigm needs to shift. Leaders of large corporations are corrupted by greed. It's going to take a strong generation to turn down their offers to buy their companies.
Ben & Jerry's was a good company at first, but the owners sold out to large corporate interests. They should be ashamed of themselves. So much for following their ideals.
R35 has never heard of racism?
And people wonder why still need affirmative action. Jesus.
Racism based upon what, R66. That's what I'm asking.
Are there any funny blogs or boards out there regarding HR?
At first I thought you meant alcohol anonymous.
[quote]And people wonder why still need affirmative action.
Since you're such a great supporter of Affirmative Action, could you answer a few questions for me?
1. Which specific law(s) govern it?
2. Which governmental agency is responsible for enforcing it?
3. Which employers does it cover?
4. What, *specifically*, does it require from those employers?
I look forward to all the wisdom in reply to this reply. TIA!
I think most folks know by now that to get a job at a company you need to figure out how to go around HR rather than through it.
SO revealing R71.
If I felt you really wanted an answer I'd help you, but it's clear what you're about.
So fuck off.
r35 is a pos who wants only to hear racist stereotypes repeated.
[quote]That is the main reason. My company has had only 2 EEOC lawsuits in past 5 years, both by African Americans.
Your company should probably stop breaking the law.
R74 is right because everyone knows that racism will go away of no one ever faces it and speaks about it.
This may be a stupid question, but has anyone ever been caught in a bind in a job search because of HR?
I was at a professional networking event and met some people thru someone I knew. We maintained contact and while not friends, we remained on cordial terms.
A position in middle management opened up that I was tailor-made for. The two top people who'd have to supervise or work with me were very enthusiastic. They set up an appointment with the division head and we got along really well.
Things seemed to be moving along until the point where "HR will be contacting you to set things up." Never happened, never called, everything stalled.
Apparently HR got their panties in a twist because they'd been "sidelined" and my guys didn't follow proper procedures. The job had to be posted internally, then advertised in the news papers,then interviews had to be conducted, etc. etc. etc.
They also succesfully argued that promoting from within, IF the budget permitted, was the proper way to go. Bottom line,I didn't get the job, and the people who "loved " me were screwed by HR.
They were embarrassed, pissed off, and yet they capitulated because it was a "real bad idea" to piss off HR. So I got into the crossfire between a department head, a division head, and HR. Internal politics.
I hate HR. I will also add that the HR department was completely turned off by me simply because I was the poor slob who stepped into the shit.I didn't harrass them. I was very professional.
After two phone calls when I hadn't heard from HR,I gave up. I placed one more call to the department head contact who recruited me, just to let him know I hadn't heard from HR, but I was still interested, and that was it.
I later calledHR to say that while I definitely understood, I had no idea about procedures and I'd like to at least ask them to keep my resume on file and expresed interest in interviewing thru them if other positions opened in the company.
I got a terse, "Yes, of course, thank you for calling."I even called then a few times over the next year, not excessively, and the essentially told me to forget it. Apparently, they don't like people who have inside connections to mess around with them.
[quote]HR is not a department that advocates for employees and any employee who thinks otherwise is a fool. HR is there to implement corporate policies and to act as a buffer between the corporation and its employees. It is there to handle downsizing, employee complaints, wage and hours matters, employee screening and terminations on behalf of the corporation. It has no input into those decisions other than to advise management on how to minimize the corporation's liability exposure. It is not there to make the workplace safer, healthier, or happier.
So true. Guys, read this. This poster speaks the truth.
[quote]I live in a state where you can be called in to work, then be told that didn't actually need you, and be sent home without even an apology, let alone any pay.
That's how all 50 states are unless you are covered by a collective bargaining agreement or other employment contract that says otherwise.
All 50 states are also at-will employment states, again, unless you are covered by a collective bargaining agreement or other employment contract that says otherwise.
R63 = HR pig
r76 wants to hear racist stereotypes, too.
Affirmative Action generally doesn't exist in Vegas. I could tell you stories of what I've witnessed for days and days. Finally heard an excuse for why, except for only one busser, all the service personnel in a Mexican Restaurant, run by the most racist of all Vegas companies, The Light Group, is White. They use the same excuse film companies do when they consider actors for a role. Then they try to explain that there are many Hispanics working in the kitchen, housekeeping, and horticulture. How many Blacks do you see working front desk (not porters) or the extremely high paying tip jobs of cocktailing and valet? Complain and you're Blacklisted from all Vegas jobs.
You never told us the excuse they use, R82, you just gave us other examples.
When I worked at MasterCard, we found new employees on our own because HR was so inept and took months to find people. They didn't care.
Could someone explain to me why one HR person at a company I applied to thought it was necessary to do a 45 minute PRE-interview over the phone with me? I have never in my life heard of anything so stupid. I've never had a phone interview last more than 5 minutes. And of course, after talking to this dumb cunt for 45 minutes I never got an inteview with the hiring manager.
Fuck all these dumb assholes.
Can any insiders explain how affirmative action policies are actually implemented within HR and the organizations of which they are a part? The party line where I work is that it only comes into play when the leading candidates for a position are equal in all other ways - then the minority candidate would get the job.
But really, how does it work? Do you strive to have a workforce reflective of national demographics, or local ones? Do you keep stats and when they show you have fewer than average filipinos, make an effort to hire some? Are all minorities equal - as long as you have a certain percentage of non-white, you're good?
It is so true, HR is the only thing standing between you and success.
Why if it weren't for HR everyone would realize you are next Steve jobs.
HR is beyond useless in my book.
I work for a college, and a job was advertised for internal applicants only. It would have been a lateral move for me, but I wanted out of a toxic environment. There were set requirements for the position (7-10 years of relevant experience, software knowledge, etc) that fit me to a tee. I was interviewed for the position, but did not get the job.
The person hired was an external candidate who had no relevant experience. He also started at 20K more than the advertised max. He was, however, the neighbor of the person doing the hiring.
I complained to HR and to the university Ombudsman. I was told there was nothing that they could do. Hiring officials can do what they want, and are able to disregard all HR rules. That same job is open again - Mr Neighbor realized he did not know anything about the job and so he left in less than two years.
[quote]It would have been a lateral move for me, but I wanted out of a toxic environment.
Lateral moves are a red flag for HR. Anyone who isn't deliriously happy right where they are is surely a troublemaker.
I have yet to meet an HR person who is actually pleasant. They ALWAYS seem to be the most sober, humorless, charm-free individuals within an organization. Accountants have more personality. Morticians are more amusing.
[quote]I live in a state where you can be called in to work, then be told that didn't actually need you, and be sent home without even an apology, let alone any pay.
This actually happened to a friend of mine, who got a job offer from a company a few states away, and he made arrangements for a temporary living space, left his family behind to go ahead and get settled/buy a house. Showed up to find the job was no longer available.
He told me this at a high school reunion when (surprise), about half a dozen of my classmates who had recently hit 50 found themselves downsized or only offered consulting positions.
We should all invite any HR vermin we know to a party at our houses and then leave town.
If you ever see the vermin again, calmly tell said vermin that yours is a "right-to-party-home" and parties are subject to cancellation at any time.
I'm white but have a "black sounding" first and last name and my middle name is another last name that is not ever a first name and my first and middle initials are not a combination anyone would use as a nick name like A.J. Or D.J. or anything. So what happens if you do use a totally fictitious first name? No one would know who I was when they called references and it's not a legal name for paperwork and would you have to go by the made up name on the job?
[quote]half a dozen of my classmates who had recently hit 50 found themselves downsized or only offered consulting positions.
This is why you should never let anyone at work know how old you are (that means no social networking with people at work!) and why companies now aren't supposed to ask anything that could force you to reveal your date of birth.
R91's post reminds us that we all need to cultivate hobbies and interests by the time we hit fifty. And I mean find things that we really love and cherish aside from any career or occupational activities.
And don't be ashamed if these are not glamorous or popular interests--all that matters is that you own your own brain and have a life that doesn't depend on the acceptance of strangers or society.
Our company was bought by a big media company based in the Bible Belt. A meeting was called to explain the new company's policies on benefits and taxes. The HR guy flown up for the day who was supposed to lead the meeting showed up very late. Halting, distracted delivery, only got through about a third of the issues. Very weird. Well, someone in our NY office screamed out loud when she saw a big naked hairy penis on an open webinar window -- this guy had been trolling for cock throughout the whole presentation!
Of course he is married, the father of three, and superreligious.
Unfortunately, HR knows how old you are...and because benefit costs tend to become higher as people age, it seems to have become the norm in the US these days to try to push out older workers, despite a career's worth of accumulated knowledge.
I'm about the same age as my classmates who found themselves downsized, and my division was sold to a new owner last year. I was one of the older people in my department at the previous company, but didn't stand out that much. In the new company...I'm MUCH older than most of my colleagues. You bet I keep that to myself.
R83, I'm sorry that I wasn't clear. HR will never tell you directly, as they are literally paranoid of bad publicity. They prefer to hire those who are recommended by a currently employed manager, who can determine if there's "a good fit." Managers will be blamed if the new hire doesn't meet expectations, as they're expected to know what the casino wants. Privately managers will tell you the real reasons for racist hiring. Vegas companies, especially casinos and restaurants, cater to those that spend the most money. When whales primarily came from Texas or the Mid East, most of the very visible and high paying jobs, like cocktail waitress, were given to blondes. Now that Asian tourists are more important, Asian and Phillipinas get more of those jobs. Supposedly both groups of whales aren't partial to Blacks or Hispanics. Prejudicial hiring is justified in the same way that those casting a movie can restrict applicants age, look, and nationality. Many jobs now have the title "model" in front of them to emphasize what is being sought.
How can you keep your age and real name a secret, if you're required to provide your Drivers' License or State ID Card to prove that you're a US Citizen?
R93, My first name is always mispronounced, and no one spells my last name correctly. Long ago I made everyone call me by my middle name. I don't use my ethnically identifying last name, as the paperwork is always lost anyway from being misspelled and misfiled. Still there are cases (see above) where I must give my full real name. Hopefully they've seen my face by that time which only adds to the confusion with my name. That's why I dissed the selfish parents on that other thread that gave their kids strange names.
[quote] someone in our NY office screamed out loud when she saw a big naked hairy penis on an open webinar window
Spinster frau. She'd never seen one before.
[quote]How can you keep your age and real name a secret, if you're required to provide your Drivers' License or State ID Card to prove that you're a US Citizen?
I'm assuming you don't live in the US. When you are hired you need to prove identity and eligibility to work in the US. Typically, an employee will use a driver's license to prove identity and a Social Security card to prove eligibility to work.
Giving a false name to a perspective employer is a bad idea. It will look suspicious when you bring in your work eligibility documents and you may end up getting a paycheck you cannot cash because it's written to the wrong person.
[quote] Mr Neighbor realized he did not know anything about the job and so he left in less than two years.
Did you reapply?
And no, lateral moves aren't always toxic. But you need to have a much better reason for wanting to make the move than "I was bored" or "My current scenario is toxic."
You'd need to reframe it as: I'd like to be challenged by a new team/part of the company/department. Whatever IS different about the jobs needs to be part of your enthusiasm for wanting the new position.
You can find out anyone's age using the White Pages on the internet.
"Spinster frau. She'd never seen one before."
Actually an attractive young woman with a man in her life. Just not expecting to see a hard dingus in the middle of a routine HR presentation.
What do you say to cover a gap in your resume to HR drones, assuming they even call you for an interview?
R105 How big is the gap?
If it's somewhere around six months or less, I'd see if you could claim some freelancing or contract work (can you?)
If it's more than that, have you been volunteering anywhere?
Always reframe for the positive, especially if you quit. You needed a new outlet for your passion. You wanted to take a sabbatical to learn new things or new skills. (This helps if you actually took some classes).
I wouldn't confess to any health problems, though if you took a brief break for a family member's health problem that may be OK to mention, but only if it won't be recurring.
Who trolls for cock in the middle of a presentation, a presentation you're giving? Did he want to be fired?
More than likely, he was doing it elsewhere or before the meeting and didn't close the window.
Still, dumb move.
and anyway...the best time for that sort of thing is 6 pm or later, after the fraus go home. The best time to find the guys working late....
Just admitting you don't know what affirmative-action is, or the answers to the questions, would have been simpler than saying "fuck off" instead.
I offered that gem to Romney as a surprise "zinger" for his debates with Obama, who I doubt could even answer this question.
I've *never* met a Democratic candidate or campaign worker who can. Says a lot.
[quote]Affirmative Action generally doesn't exist in Vegas.
Of course it does. It's a federal law.
Did Nevada secede when I wasn't looking?
If you act like an interview is "too long" or a "chore," that's a good way to blow an opportunity.
Sometimes they like to deliberately let you wait just to test your patience.
I'll give the answer to how Affirmative Action works if I see anyone even in the same area code as the answer.
You could set up a fictitious business name under your pseudonym, and use your tax ID number as your SS#, if you want to be tricky, though that could create other problems.
Customer preference is not a BFOQ.
Now who knows what a BFOQ is?
Interestingly, a lawfirm argued once that its strategic need to use a female attorney overrode any discrimination concerns.
Affirmative Action is not a federal law.
[quote]Unfortunately, HR knows how old you are...and because benefit costs tend to become higher as people age, it seems to have become the norm in the US these days to try to push out older workers, despite a career's worth of accumulated knowledge.
Yeah these are the same older workes who stood down when the others were sent packing illegally. Like they said about Hitler eventually coming for everyone. That was my experiennce, as I was retaliated against for being a whistleblower (I actually quit a job once I learned I would not have been hired if I were black, female, or Jewish).
My reward? To be called "Mary!" by DL types, bitter by others, etc. By force, I rebuilt my life and career, and I now see so many like those here just suffering in silence and ignorance. I guess I was lucky to have gotten my wakeup call prior to turning thirty, even if the first few years was absolute economic hell.
If that hell was good enough for me, for years, it's good enough for all of you, for life. Oh and if you want a job from me, sorry, I'm not hiring.
[quote]Of course it does. It's a federal law.
Are you retarded?
[quote]Affirmative action is not a federal law.
Be thankful Mitt Romney didn't ambush Obama with this in the debate.
Those who claim to want intelligent Republicans would shit their pants if they ever got their wish.
r61 in the last company I worked for the HR people would actually get angry at you if you asked benefits questions. They would yell at you and say "We have a support number that you should call". So much for being an HR "Generalist".
Please point us to the federal law mandating affirmative action in the private sector, R118.
[quote]How big is the gap? If it's somewhere around six months or less, I'd see if you could claim some freelancing or contract work (can you?) If it's more than that, have you been volunteering anywhere? Always reframe for the positive, especially if you quit. You needed a new outlet for your passion. You wanted to take a sabbatical to learn new things or new skills. (This helps if you actually took some classes). I wouldn't confess to any health problems, though if you took a brief break for a family member's health problem that may be OK to mention, but only if it won't be recurring.
I began getting my best job offers when I broke all of the above rules, and just about every other rule under the sun. Doing it the "right way" is a good way to be led to the slaughter.
Fact is, most jobs can be done by many. We are overpopulated, so employers can pick and choose for things other than skill. I just list my business ventures to cover gaps in my resume (made me immune to unemployment when I searched for work), but even without that, if someone needs a job done, you don't have it, you're skilled, and no one else is around, you'll get it.
I never relied much on networking, instead applying blind and interviewing through HR, so my skills were hardened. If you don't make an issue out of it, they aren't as likely to, or if they do, you were fucked to begin with. Remember, you need ONE job. There is no generic "workplace." Notice that the career experts on TV *never* talk about how people really get hired, and they pretend everyone plays fair. What a joke.
I built my career on skill, not politics. I've been through more employers than most of you will have in five lifetimes. There's *always* a new company, a new job, something that needs to be done. Try the state employment office if you must.
If you want to be slimy, do all the right things, keep a positive attitude, and cite your own case study as evidence that the job market is unfairly rigged. Rich people HATE it when people point out the criminals they are. If you do it right, they'll fear an uprising, since you "should" get hired, and if they let you fall through the cracks, who's next?
What happens then is that the rich person either hires you directly, or greases the wheels for you to be hired somewhere else. If you're sane, you'll cling to that job for dear life, and if you were properly matched, the employer should be happy.
That worked better before the internet, since now everyone is marketing and networking. I love all the advice to people about hitting up everyone you know for a job. How many people give us advice on how to BE hit up for one? Get real.
[quote]Please point us to the federal law mandating affirmative action in the private sector, [R118].
Did someone shut down Google while I wasn't looking?
I swear, for a website overrun by liberals who all support affirmative action, I would assume that even ONE of you would know what the fuck it is!
You made the claim, so you have the burden of proof. That's how it works. However, since there is no federal law mandating affirmative action in the private sector, you're having some trouble. It must be hard to be you.
Okay, I'm going to reveal the *best* way for the outcasts to get hired: CRAIGSLIST!!!
Idiots post jobs to Craigslist with illegal requirements all the time, like "need sexy female assistant," or "Need YOUNG manager," etc. Smoking gun and paper trail on your doorstep!
Supposedly CL is immune under Section 230 for those ads, but that has never been tested by the US Supreme Court.
If I needed a job that badly I'd be surfing CL every day and just suing anytime an ad asked for something I was not. I've even seen NYC bars and nightclubs say they won't hire men for any jobs.
Another trick: dig for dirt on every company you can (they do the same for you), see who breaks the law, see whose employees are snitching them out in blogs or on social networks, etc. Check PACER for actual lawsuits filed, or even "Catfish" an employer.
These arrogant fucks think they can put life's unwritten rules into written form and skate clear. Learn to become a corporate attorney's worst fucking nightmare.
Why do they discriminate? It's not you per se, but if you give ideas to the other workers, you could bring down a company. As it is, if they blacklist you, they've eliminated any incentive you have not to sue them, and if they want to spend $1.3 million on lawyers to keep you out of a $40k job, well that's their stupidity.
Do you guys even know what the typical "office frau" earns? I know several who retired by age THIRTY, due to a combination of no student debt, overtime, raises, etc. combined with good investment. By the hour, an overworked legal support staffer will usually do better than a staff attorney.
Bona Fide Occupational Qualification
Now is there even ONE Democrat on this site who can explain the details of the policy they support, to the point of considering it vital to our suvival?
1. Which law(s) constitute affirmative action?
2. Which governmental agency enforces it?
3. Which employers does it cover?
4. What, specifically, does it require of these employers?
I don't have to know what a law is to know I support it!
You're just another angry white male, R71!
r71 and r126, are you Dr. Joyce Brothers?
(go to 2:50)
I'm just someone whose every employment civil right was violated while people like the whiners in this thread stood loyal to the companies they would later whine about downsizing them, only to learn that the retirement money they lorded over me as proof of their financial superiority also vanished.
Now does ANYONE here know what affirmative action actually IS?
R121, that was a beautiful rendition of Hissssssssssing Eldergay.
Hisss to you too!
I'm sorry to say this but if a person with a gun came into our company and started to point it at an HR employee, I'd have to think long and hard about whether I would attempt to do anything.
R131 -- A few years back, a fired employee at a Silicon Valley company returned with a gun and killed the CEO, a VP and the HR lady. A comment beneath the news story said something like, "Oh, he got HR too? Sweet...I mean, that's too bad."
[quote]Which law(s) constitute affirmative action?
Affirmative action was first created from Executive Order 10925, signed by President John F. Kennedy on 6 March 1961 and required that government employers "not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin" and "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin".
On 24 September 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed Executive Order 11246, thereby replacing Executive Order 10925 and affirming Federal Government's commitment "to promote the full realization of equal employment opportunity through a positive, continuing program in each executive department and agency". It is notable that affirmative action was not extended to women until Executive Order 11375 amended Executive Order 11246 on 13 October 1967, expanding the definition to include "sex." Presently, affirmative action expressed through Executive Order 11246 considers factors of "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." In the U.S., affirmative action's original purpose was to pressure institutions into compliance with the nondiscrimination mandate of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Civil Rights Acts do not cover veterans, people with disabilities, or people over 40. These groups are protected from discrimination under different laws.
[quote] Which governmental agency enforces it?
For government contracting, it’s The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), but then there’s the U.S. EEOC that steps in when there are violations to discrimination laws (I know, not the same thing as Affirmative Action), but which also “monitors and evaluates federal agencies' affirmative employment programs.”
Private enterprises have to adopt their own policies. But as a recruiter for the private sector, more often than not I would be approached to actively recruit from a pool of candidates that reflected qualified diversity, since most companies wanted to show a proactive adherence to EEOC stipulations and basically get on their good side by stating their affirmative policies in their hiring propaganda (whch let’s face it , it is basically what it is).
From an academia FAQ
"The ideas underlying affirmative action and equal employment opportunity are similar with respect to selection, employment, and promotion; however, affirmative action and equal employment opportunity embody different concepts. Equal employment opportunity means that all individuals must be treated equally in the hiring process, in training, and in promotion. Each person has the right to be evaluated as an individual on his or her qualifications without discrimination based on sterotypic conceptions of what members of minority groups or any other protected class are like. Classifications protected under federal and state equal employment opportunity laws are those of race, color, sex, national origin, religion, age, veteran status, and disability.
Affirmative action goes further than equal employment opportunity. It affirms that organizations and individuals in organizations will seek to overcome the effects of past discrimination against groups such as women and minorities, disabled persons, and veterans by making a positive and continuous effort in their recruitment, employment, retention, and promotion. Affirmative action also means that organizations must actively seek to remove any barriers that artificially limit the professional and personal development of individuals who are members of protected classes. Affirmative steps should be taken to attract those qualified women and minorities in the field. These efforts include recruiting, employing, and advancing qualified women, minorities, and people with disabilities who have been or who are excluded from jobs. One way to increase the number of women and minorities in the workplace is through advertising job openings in journals and publications aimed at women and minority audiences.”
More stories about HR people dying, please.
The real fun begins in 2014. Under Obamacare, your primary employer is responsible for auditing all employee's income and collecting healthcare taxes for all income. We're going to outsource that part out to an accounting firm, but senior management is already worried that HR and the executive team will find out how much money people make on the side. I haven't read the regs so I'm not sure how a company can audit employee's tax returns, but our CEO regards this as the nightmare of 2014. My boss runs a few corporations on the side and sits on some Corporate boards. Because his health insurance is through the company, they will know all his earnings.
[quote]I have yet to meet an HR person who is actually pleasant. They ALWAYS seem to be the most sober, humorless, charm-free individuals within an organization. Accountants have more personality. Morticians are more amusing.
There was a bloodbath in HR at the one place I worked when a new HR head was hired and replaced the entire HR department at the head office. All the new hires were young, perky 'bots, like some kind of cult. I think the old-school humorless types were better. Who likes a smiley henchman?
R86, You can go directly to the source with any questions you have about AA.
You certainly don't want to get any mis(information) from the likes of R71/R112. It ought to be fairly obvious from his posts that he is disturbed.
Actually you're the one who appears disturbed, engaging in vicious personal attacks like thyat. People like you are why most workers are quiet little sheep.
Remarks like yours from an employer can cost millions, and people like me know how to make that happen.
Dislike me all you want, but act on it and you're buying a conflict that *you* started.
Now that someone explained how AA works, let me show you the math:
1. Job categories are established, based on skillset (clerical, managerial, etc.).
2. Each job category's "relevant workforce" within the area population is established. For example, say 41 percent female attorneys in the NYC area (I don't know the specifics). The "relevant workforce" also includes those who could be trained for entry-level work. For female attorneys, that's 41 percent in my example. For entry-level, it would mirror the population. For blacks it might be 30 percent in NYC. Interestingly, one employer I knew had 41 percent black women (matching the area population), but only 10 percent black men. Seems black women have it easier than black men.
3. Covered employers (all government, contractors doing 50k+ in business, or subcontractors doing 10k) must design an "Affirmative Action Plan" for bringing each category's protected-class incumbency in line with the area average in the "relevant workforce." Say you have a law firm in NYC with only 32 percent female attorneys. Women are "underutilized," which triggers the "goals" (not quotas). To achieve these goals, they can take "affirmaiive" steps which are quasi-discriminatory in how they fish for talent, but not in how they hire.
Sounds great! If women (or minorities) are underutilized, get those "binders full of women" and you're good to go. The problem occurs in female- or minority-dominated professions, where incumbency exceeds the area average, or is in the majority.
1. In construction, female incumbency in most areas is around 2.9 percent. The "goal" is only 6.9 percent, since anything above that is considered unattainable (women don't want to do physical labhor). So if you have 6.9 percent female construction workers, you are "diverse."
2. In science, female incumbency is around 15 percent. If you have say 9.6 percent women, aim for 15 percent, and if you get there, women are "utilized" even as a 15 percent minority.
3. In NURSING, female incumbency is around EIGHTY percent. Say you are "diverse" and hire more male nurses than other hospitals in the area. That's good, right? Breaks down gender walls, etc. Wrong! If you have 72 percent female nurses, and the area average is 80 percent, you need to increase the number of female nurses, even if the "goal" for female physicians might be ojnly 41 percent.
4. In Janitorial work, if you have "only" 85 percent blacks, and 93 percent is the area average, you need to hire more black janitors.
5. In clerical/office work, area incumbency is around 97 percent. If you have "only" 89 percent female "office frau," then women are underutilized, and you need "binders full of female secretaries" to compensate.
In other words, Affirmative Action offers the greatest assistance to those who need it the least.
In education, white/male privilege is universal. In employment, it is NOT. Under Affirmative Action, whites, males, and white males, are thought never to be discriminated against, or underutilized. In nursing, for example, the script should be flipped, the goal should be 20 percent men, not 80 percent women, and steps should be taken to increase male incumbency. One major employer actually noted this mathematical flaw in its own Affirmative Action Plan.
So, if you support affirmative action, you believe this:
1. If a company has 6.9 percent female secretaries, or 15 percent female scientists, it is diverse, and needs no more women in that job category.
2. If a company has 80 percent female nurses, or 90 percent female secretaries, it needs MORE females in the very type of positions which affirmative-action was designed to make diverse.
The math amounts to "women's jobs are her jobs, and men's jobs are their jobs." You'll eventually get at least 50 percent women in every profession (they want to be in), and very few men in "traditionally female" positions.
Because of this, for a man, the key to career success is simple: GO FOR JOBS WOMEN DO NOT WANT. A man in construction won't lose jobs to women, who don't want them anyway, while a man who enters nursing will face a government sanctioned brick wall. Same for any female-dominated profession.
Why would a LIBERAL who claims to be against discrimination support a policy which is clearly discriminatory against men, AND which keeps women in the very types of jobs they say they do not want?
You can call affirmative-action anything you want, but it's not a solution to discrimination (how's it done the last 40 years?), it does not promote diversity, and in fact cements the very biases it was created to eliminate.
I'm sure the Dems will say "I can't hear you" or just TL;DR, rather than confront this ridiculously flawed math, which could easily be rectified by taking equal steps to help males in female-dominated professions as it does to help females in male-doominated professions, and to take greater steps in areas like construction, where 6.9 percent as diverse is an absolute shame.
Democrats on Affirmative Action are a lot like Republicans on gun control. You can't reason with them.
To clarify on my proposed fix for AA:
In entry-level office work, the "goal" should be 50 percent men, not 97 percent women.
Whether or not you agree with me, at least now you all know what affirmative action actually is. That's a start.
I bet Obama would have been handcuffed by that question. Would have been hysterical watching him support a law he likely couldn't even explain properly.
R14, I'm gay and I'm happy to say I don't have any gay porn in my email. Except for my first few months on the job years ago I don't use my work email for anything personal. I did, however, absentmindedly go to Datalounge for a few seconds one day. So I have that against me.
From the sound of it, R141 hasn't gotten laid in years.
Gee, R141 / R142, might you happen to be a white male, and a little bitter about how it is slightly less easy for white males to succeed in the workplace, relative to protected classes?
Without Affirmative Action, in its current carnation, women and minorities would have no shot at good jobs. None. Period.
(work that is commonly thought of as...) Women's work is typically very low-paid, while men's work is paid at many times the rate of women's. How many men want to be seamstresses (IDK how to masculinize the job title), in childcare, or clean houses? Particularly when they can't make good money.
Some gender gaps are inevitable. Construction requires upper-body strength. Men are simply stronger physically in the upper body (and to add to that - it's a younger man's game, too, because older guys don't have the speed or energy). My boyfriend and his sister were both in construction (he's 60, she's 58). She simply couldn't do it anymore, as of a few years ago. The work is just too hard. That doesn't mean she doesn't want to. It means her body gave out because it truly is a type of work that is more suited to a male's body.
Don't even get me started on how low the pay is for the U.S.'s Mexican jobs and Black jobs relative to whitey.
I would rather have white males be scared about how to compete with Affirmative Action than the bi-racial person earlier in the thread needing to have legitimate concerns about how to get past the hiring barrier (AA notwithstanding!) with a black name or black face.
R140, your entries 1 and 2 completely contradict each other with the conclusions regarding female secretaries. Did you make a mistake or are you trying to make a point?
Sorry, referring to r140's last two conclusions 1 and 2 (regarding people who believe in aa), not his first two items
We have an anti-affirmative-action troll? Is he the same as the Nazi/White Supremacist/Klan troll(s) or is this a new example of the same fuckwitted logic?
Whatever it is, it's tedious as well as odious.
HR is Evil. I once worked at a place where where I was forced to revel my health issue to HR...I was Pos. Oh, she was so nice, said someone in her family was like that. Would keep it in strictest confidence.
One moth later I was fired for sudden poor performance. I tried to fight back back but oh how naive. 2 lawyers against 24 and unlimited funds was not good odds.
The worst part was, all the things I though they were doing behind my back, they were even worse. Secret meeting about me, HR bitch even suggested through email to revers a recent raise my boss just gave me so it would not conflict with my sudden poor performance review.
Now I am screwed because I lost and am essentially blacklisted. Haven't found work since.
R150 That's a damn shame. I wish I believed in karma, but unfortunately it seems assholes like that never pay a price.
My worst HR story was when I worked for a company that did stuff for films in Hollywood. Manager gave one small department the day before Christmas off with pay. HR discovered no one was in the office that day and complained to the CEO.
Next thing you know, they actually had a meeting with all of us telling us it was not approved and tried to take back the time from our vacation. And also as punishment, eliminated all paid holidays. I am not exaggerating.
Then again, she was Jewish, and it was Christmas sooooo I am just saying? Worst Frou I ever met.
I'm not sure how pointing out that affirmative action does not have the underpinnings of federal legislation most assume it does really proves much. If anything, those who would be embarrasses are white males who bitterly blame their misfortunes on affirmative action.
The federal government does not have unrestricted abilities to legislate, especially on private employment. However, they can freely place constraints on companies asking for federal money or contracts.
Who really cares? This is a debate from the eighties.
Nowadays when everybody has a smart phone why would an employee do anything personal on a work computer? That's just stupid.
I dont know if this is a trend, but I work at a growing company that has about 100 employees and they dont have an HR department.
You are intervened by the person who wants to hire you. The benefits are handed out by one person who dose that part time.
Questions are answered by the individual service providers. Vacation is tracked by accounting.
CEO has seen the light, even though he is older? But says HR is a waist of time.
I agree, one could only hope this is a trend.
No little kid ever says to mom or day "when I grow up, I want to be a Human Recourse Director"
It's right up there with: I want to be a car salesman, garbage collector, bill collector and IRS tax auditor.
Except, they make a LOT of money giving people shit.
You have to be a pathological lire to be in HR. Employees are not your friends, they are the enemy you greet with a smile on your face and empty platitudes.
It's no wonder so many of them are evil a-holes. It's in their nature.
R155, actually, companies are trending the other way, towards having formal HR departments for the simple reason that its more cost effective to have one. Training line managers to develop HR skills and implement polices wastes a lot of time, especially in modern business where core skills and competency based hiring is gaining ground. Having staff managers do all the scut work sames a lot of time and energy.
R146 hits every negative stereotype:
[quote]be a white male, and a little bitter about how it is slightly less easy for white males to succeed in the workplace, relative to protected classes?
In R146's world view, the correct way to live seems to be to fuck others over and then call them bitter if they complain about it. Interesting.
I could make $50 million in business, and if I pointed this out afterwards, R146 would still insist I was "bitter." Argument ad hominem is all they have, however.
I forgot, people should CELEBRATE injustice! It's not about fairness, but falsely imputed emotional reactions! Just ask R150! Funny thing is, women and minorities used to go ballistic when their claims of injustice were dismissed.
The problem isn't the injustice, but that it is passed off as just when it clearly is not. The math is simply flawed. Why do we need MORE women and minorities in subordinate positions? Anyone who argues emotionally just wants to deny the facts.
[quote]Without Affirmative Action, in its current carnation, women and minorities would have no shot at good jobs. None. Period.
The math works for minorities and women in higher-level jobs. Why would one apply the same math to entry-level jobs, unless the goal is to *increase* female and minority incumbency there?
We also have anti-discrimination laws which don't require flawed math to implement. What has helped women and minorities the most was the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which enabled private citizens to collect money damages (including punitive) as an incentive to file suit. That's when progress really began.
[quote](work that is commonly thought of as...) Women's work is typically very low-paid,
$75,000 a year for a 40-hour week with paid overtime is low-paid? Even a low-level white-collar secretary makes 30-40k a year. Most women don't want it known how much they make for how little work they do.
[quote[while men's work is paid at many times the rate of women's.
Right, so the cop making $12.50 an hour in the south is doing better than the female office worker earning $16. "Men's work" requires physical labor or much more education/training in the cases R146 is talking about. According to the most recent census, single women under 30 earn $1.17 for every $1.00 men earn.
[quote]How many men want to be seamstresses (IDK how to masculinize the job title), in childcare, or clean houses? Particularly when they can't make good money.
The "acceptable loss" argument! How ironic that these laws are predicated on equality. Women used to go ballistic when told they didn't really want to be cops and firefighters. Nursing is a better example, as many men enter that profession. Male flight attendants have complained abhout being shut out of first-class.
[quote]Some gender gaps are inevitable. Construction requires upper-body strength. Men are simply stronger physically in the upper body (and to add to that - it's a younger man's game, too, because older guys don't have the speed or energy). My boyfriend and his sister were both in construction (he's 60, she's 58). She simply couldn't do it anymore, as of a few years ago.
Logic and math are futile in the face of anecdote and stereotype. Affirmative action already reflects this, btw, with its 6.9 percent goal for female incumbency in construction. It seems the math I outlined was a little too abstract for this audience.
[quote]The work is just too hard. That doesn't mean she doesn't want to. It means her body gave out because it truly is a type of work that is more suited to a male's body.
Such an empowering stereotype. My logic is so strong they are reduced to water-cooler arguments.
More from R146,
[quote]Don't even get me started on how low the pay is for the U.S.'s Mexican jobs and Black jobs relative to whitey.
The math of affirmative-action says we need to INCREASE the number of racial minorities in those low-paying positions.
Is math class too tough for Barbie?
[quote]I would rather have white males be scared about how to compete with Affirmative Action than the bi-racial person earlier in the thread needing to have legitimate concerns about how to get past the hiring barrier (AA notwithstanding!) with a black name or black face.
Because white males are never discriminated against, and their concerns are just not legitimate. If it takes a litle flawed math and reverse-discrimination to fix it, even if that policy locks women and minorities into lower-paying jobs, well, so be it.
To revisit the math:
1. The area average for black janitors is 92 percent.
2. Your company practices diversity, hiring 16 percent white janitors.
3. Under affirmative-action, black janitors at your firm are "underutilized" because they are "only" 84 percent incumbent.
4. To correct the "problem," your company needs to hire MORE black janitors, to bring the company in line with the legacy-biased "relevant workforce."
As I mentioned earlier, a top university noted exactly this flaw in its own affirmative-action plan. Perhaps you know something that people from a world-class university do not.
Oh and why would I be bitter as a white male? I can cash in on that privilege anytime I want. It's a hell of a lot easier to do so without guilt when people are calling me bitter because the government policies say that companies should hire fewer males in female-dominated professions.
Want me to seek work more suitable for a white male? Okay. I'll somehow manage to survive on the higher salary. I just had this silly idea that we lived in a free country with equal employment rights for all.
Obviously, "equality" works in only one direction.
The purpose of the HR department is to provide a concubine for the executives. DUH!
Both the HR whores and their friends form a pool from which the executives choose their mats.
Hey, R161, seriously - shut the fuck up. Nobody cares about your shit, nobody thinks you're a victim, nobody wants to read your endless fucking rants because nobody believes a goddamned word you type.
I'm sure you can find some fucked up white boys' website that caters to guys exactly like you. You can have a cyber-circle-jerk against affirmative action every day at 2:00. You'll cum buckets.
I knew an HR whore once that told me every once and a while they would secretly test people by breaking into the interview and telling them their car was on fire.
He said it was to test their reaction. If they freaked and ran out of the interview, they cant handle pressure. He said the "right" thing to do would say "call the fire department" because there is nothing you can do.
What a douchebag! Maybe he has a friend in the car? Maybe there is a fire extinguisher in the garage? Maybe he dose not trust HR whores and want to check for himself.
Needless to say, that HR whore is still single. Can you imagine how he would test your love for him!
R161 nailed it.
I know 2 HR whores who married the boss.
[quote]I've been through more employers than most of you will have in five lifetimes.
And you don't see a problem with job-hopping?
R138, did you go to Drew?
r160, et al
I was perhaps the only person who actually asked simple question, i.e. invited your side to comment on something, and you've been so busy attacking opinions, you didn't even answer a bona fide question. Says a lot about what you want out of this discussion - a rant over a dialogue.
Again, I was confused by r140's statistics, i.e, "math"
I work in government and I'm not entirely sure what our HR dept even does. They don't do any interviewing - they won't even screen or set up interviews. They've even recently stopped attending interviews. As far as I can tell, all they do is manage the scope levels of all the jobs and perform scope reviews, but how much of that could there be when no one gets a scope review approved, anyway? And seriously, you should see the HR dept for our division. The director is this waxy Ken doll who goes for his noon workout/tanning session everyday, and his consultants (or harem) are all 6-foot tall Glamazons who are very nice, but oh so vapid - I'm not even kidding. It's funny, because his consultants don't do anything, and if you go to their office, their 'grunts', or the people who actually get shit done, are all the geeks and frumpy fraus.
150 (et al), I didn't even really have to do trolldar on you because of your odd spelling mistakes. But you seem to claim that after you were fired for being POS and haven't worked since that you NOW work for a company that doesn't have an HR dept.
I certainly don't believe the bit about the car on fire.
[quote]Hey, [R161], seriously - shut the fuck up.
Try to make me...
[quote]Nobody cares about your shit,
One poster, several voices. Apparently, this poster and a few others care enough to reply. Amusing.
[quote]nobody thinks you're a victim,
I'm not. I was merely pointing out a mathematical flaw in affirmative action, the one that says 85 percent black janitors is too few.
[quote]nobody wants to read your endless fucking rants because nobody believes a goddamned word you type.
The regal "we" has a corner office in this person's brain. Herman, is that your head?
[quote]I'm sure you can find some fucked up white boys' website that caters to guys exactly like you. You can have a cyber-circle-jerk against affirmative action every day at 2:00. You'll cum buckets.
So is the major university who pointed out exactly what I did also bitter and anti-AA?
One of the nice things about office work is there's always a new place to work at if one wants. I also liked to learn as much as I could about every industry, so I would work a lot of temp assignments, or spend a year here and a year there, before I went into business for myself. The knowledge is very useful in business, but even moreso in the sotck market.
I also freelanced a lot.
Something I learned at one of my jobs tipped me to some stocks which are going up 300-400 percent a year lately, almost twenty years after its breakthrough. Yeah, I'm bitter they didn't go up 600 percent.
[quote]150 (et al), I didn't even really have to do trolldar on you because of your odd spelling mistakes. But you seem to claim that after you were fired for being POS and haven't worked since that you NOW work for a company that doesn't have an HR dept.
Well that ain't me. Even if R150's story isn't accurate, it's reflective of what is.
Yeah I missed that sorry. If you're talking about the "relevant workforce" versus the "trainable" workforce, there is no conflict. The OFCCP includes trainable people in the relevant workforce for entry-level jobs, not higher-level ones.
The flaw I point out is the one that says we need to increase female and minority incumbency in the very job categories affirmative action was designed to yield the opposite.
Once again, a top university noted this exact problem in its own affirmative-action plan. I never realized how BITTER that university was!
The lesson of this thread is clear: the correct way to live is to fuck over others, then call them bitter if they react with anything other than silence.
Granted we have a smaller company but I'm in charge of HR and wouldn't dream of any of the dirty deeds described here. No way, never.
I'm not in HR, but I was a manager, so the upper manager passed some basic hiring chores to me.
I had to wade through resumes and pick ten for interviews.
The first thing I looked for was background and education in the field, then the proper wording/sentance structure then a nice looking resume.
I couldn't find six.
My manager asked why I picked so few, I went through each resume and pointed out the flaws.
I didn't even look at names.
[quote]Unfortunately, HR knows how old you are...
I feel very dumb that I didn't think of that yesterday. Of course the people in a position to push you out know your date of birth.
Post still stands, R139. You have serious issues.
I'm not the only one asserting that. Check it out.
[quote]I dont know if this is a trend, but I work at a growing company that has about 100 employees and they dont have an HR department.
Now that sounds like a good trend!
Oh and r158 sounds like one of "them."
R180 I'm not so sure it's a good trend, or I should say, it's not necessarily a trend that makes things better. I worked at a place of about 60 people and there was no HR department - the "HR dept" was the associate executive director and he was one of the biggest assholes I've ever met. So if anyone had a problem with their supervisor, they were basically fucked since he was the only person to go to.
So I'm not sure if having an HR dept or not having one makes much of a difference either way. These places will find a way to punish you no matter what.
I have a friend who has written about her time in HR. She calls it like it is - a place even more dysfunctional than the rest of a company, and filled with women who are unbelievably cunty to each other.
And of course, most of the CEO's and execs are men (not that I agree with this, but in many cases it is still true) so the women backstabbing each other is mirroring some sort of weird gender role dynamics.
R138, that sounds like all the companies I and my friends work for over the years, with most of the execs being men and the women in backstabbing mode. It plays out like junior high.
I once worked for this tiny company with no HR. There were always problems with getting paid, insurance, etc. The top person would always give these tasks to some newly-hired 20 year old receptionist who would be totally overwhelmed having had no training and having to figure it out on his/her own. Place had constant turnover, so over the years it was as if 100 (okay, maybe 15-20) different people had had access to all employee's personal information such as salary, SS #, date of birth, etc. I'm surprised there wasn't any identity theft. At the time, I was too young and stupid to realize that it was a problem.
Last job I was at I spilled all about my immediate boss, a cunty female, at my exit interview. I told the HR bot (yes, a perky recent college grad) about her rages and monthly attacks on her "pet" punching bag at the time. She picked one person at a time and mercilessly harassed and harangued them until she moved to a new target. This was a small satellite office of a large corporation so HR was across the city at the main district office but they would make visits every so often. I told her that all the other employees could verify my complaints but the were very afraid of this woman and the male in charge of the entire office did not want to hear complaints and pretended everything was sunshine and roses.
Cut to a year later a co-worker called me and said she'd handed in her notice and was denied her exit interview. Main reason we decided was because the HR bot and immediate "cunt" manager knew she was going to back up my complaints and they didn't want to hear them. The cunt manager had basically threatened my ex co-worker a few months earlier and said any complaints to HR about "management" would only make the employee look bad and past employees who had complained had been fired. Co-worker walked out in the middle of the work day and left the cunt with end of the month reports and reconciliations which she'd inherited from Cunty so Cunty could leave early and not be "stressed" by work that she was actually supposed to be doing. She already had another job lined up and she got a little petty revenge at least. The "manager" probably had to work overtime to get the reports done.
Many companies are now trying to outource HR not only to specialized companies, but to specialized companies in places like India.
So all the horror of foreign customer service will now hold sway over your 401k and health insurance.
[quote] I once worked for this tiny company with no HR. There were always problems with getting paid, insurance, etc. The top person would always give these tasks to some newly-hired 20 year old receptionist who would be totally overwhelmed having had no training and having to figure it out on his/her own.
That's the only thing HR is generally useful for - basic administrative duties. They all fail spectacularly when it comes to dealing with internal conflicts, or the hiring process.
And I think your HR was the exception to the rule R184....most HR departments have one person who has a DEATH GRIP on those tasks and that's how they gain power, by getting their hands on responsibilities.
I was at a seminar once where our company discussed the reasons why it was the most fabulous thing ever to crosstrain people, that everyone should know three different processes, etc etc etc (claptrap to get everyone working on extra work without extra pay or extra time).
Anyway, I piped up and asked why, if this was the company's belief, did we have an HR department where the opposite was happening, where only HR Bitch #1 did payroll and HR Bitch #2 did W-9's and so forth. Lots of awkward silence and "ums" and then an exec level manager piped in and said "wow, of course, we hadn't realized and thanks for that fantastic feedback, we will examine that..." blah. blah. blah. Nothing changed.
[quote] Many companies are now trying to outource HR not only to specialized companies, but to specialized companies in places like India.
True. At my last two employers, I can't even get a confirmation from them that I worked there. They outsourced it and any potential employer now has to call a ***900*** number to get a reference. Shitty, shitty stuff.
At the Fortune 100 legal department where I worked lawyers laughed while they threw out resumes from any applicants with AA or Latino names, black colleges, colleges in the CUNY or SUNY system (unless the applicant had gone on to a major law school and/or major law firm.)
[quote]At the Fortune 100 legal department where I worked lawyers laughed while they threw out resumes from any applicants with AA or Latino names, black colleges, colleges in the CUNY or SUNY system (unless the applicant had gone on to a major law school and/or major law firm.)
And people wonder why we still need Affirmative Action.
Beyond shitty R189, and makes me hate extreme and ruthless capitalism as a whole.
Al the HR people I've ever encountered were so bad at intuition - they prefer hired boring, unimaginative, not too bright people and management wonders why so few workers have any initiative; I am a very sharp, educated, attractive female and I cannot tell you how many times I've sat across from some three-fitty fat slob of a bitch with her horrible elastic waist "suit" made out of polyester knit and tried to explain my executive experience and background. They have no understanding of the job they are hiring for, which, um, would probably help if you are responsible for screening & HIRING people, and I rarely made it past the HR drones to talk to upper management. They are total assholes, all of them, and their sole purpose one you are hired is to handcuff everyone with red tape so we don't cost the company one penny more than they are required by law to pay. I heard from a reliable source that one fat fuck who didn't hire me actually said "I'll be damned if I'm going to have some size 4 blonde parading around here every day."
I've also been denied unemployment because another fat fuck didn't like that I dressed nicely/professionally and insisted I did not "need" unemployment. I appealed and walked in the hearing room only to face yet another fat fucking polyester bitch unemployment hearing officer, who backed up the company's denial. She told me I should stop buying designer purses if I needed money. My purse was a $15 thing from TJ Maxx for fuck's sake, but because it wasn't an old lady purse it must be "designer." She was in a lovely ensemble featuring a turtleneck that didn't quite make it over her fat rolls.
I know people always assume that good-looking people have advantages but in my experience (and I SWEAR I am not this bitchy or crazy in interviews, I am very professional) these dumpy bitches with their gunts (the poochy protruding gut that sits above their well you get the idea) or tit-shelves or stretchy brown Dress Barn suits that are two sizes too small with the seams SEWN in the pants and their Naturalizer shoes enjoy flicking their sausage fingers at hard working professionals like me. Excuse me for not eating fucking FRIED CHICKEN at every lunch, munching on Hershey's kisses from a giant bowl on my desk and drinking PEPSI all day from a giant re-used Big Gulp cup. I'm so sorry I work out and actually have my hair cut somewhere other than Betty's where they still use a frosting cap.
I know, I know, go ahead and snark on me because I said I was good looking but honestly I say that without ego, I'm just making a point. This is my experience in Corporate America. After the last shithole laid me off, I worked very hard and I have my own successful business now --I am SO much happier. Fuck those fat bitches, every last one of them.
I'm not sure what I should applaud first R192. But that subtle racism is definitely too fabulous for words.
Can't imagine why these lovely ladies wouldn't want a ray of sunshine like you around....
Now, please go. Your stories of jealousy and inadequacy do not interest me.
Sorry for the typos, I was on a rant. And FYI the fried chicken was in no way a racial indicator. All the women I referred to were actually white - they just ate shit every day for lunch and wondered why their Diet Shakes for breakfast weren't working.
I believe you, 100%. I have seen this with my own eyes. I once got an interview for my out of work room mate who was kind, hard-working, dependable and honest. She was also a hot- looking lady who took great care of her body and didn't eat junk food.
The fat-fuck bitch in HR actually INSULTED my room mate for no good reason, and my room mate actually was in tears that night. Said fat-fuck bitch-cunt basically would not let any fit, shapely woman cross her threshold, and most of the guys at work knew this, and hated her for it.
Eventually cunt-fuck was demoted to a demeaning postion so she did get hers eventually.
These sour HR cunt-traps ae the reason many beautiful women resort to working as strippers or call girls--they are commonly discriminated against by other women.
I can actually believe R192 too. I've heard women in offices say shit about women coming in for interviews. One of them said very loudly "oh, hell, no" when a very young, pretty Latina woman came in for an interview. I also witnessed a fat sow of a manager heap abuse on another young, pretty employee. Constant harping on job performance (which was fine), 10 seconds late to her desk, just really petty shit. The fat bitch was just jealous.
As a woman it saddens me to say that many women are, in fact, cunts.
My experience has been quite opposite, though. I've worked for several companies and larger sized women are almost never in positions of power.
It's usually 100% the other way around - that the perky blond bitches are the managers and the HR bitches, and that any woman who isn't wearing a hip floral dress and sporting Louboutins is either treated with open hostility or entirely shunned.
I've worked with my share of lazy office workers who seem to have a feedbag at their desk, but I've also worked with very talented and efficient workers who were larger sized, or who didn't look like models. And believe me, they pay for those differences. I hear it in how my coworkers have talked about them.
HR cunt-sows are why so many women choose to stay home as housewives and mothers. Very sensitive women are not cut out to battle these awful bitches.
A female friend of mine is extremely attractive, thin and in her early 30's. She gets shit on all the time by older, heavy women. The stories she's told me about her jealous female co-workers are the same as r192. My friend is an extremely nice woman and very professional at her job, but her beauty and youth make a lot of these older fat women jealous and they are terrible to her.
Women can be absolute CUNTS to one another out of jealosy, worse than any man.
The sow-cunts that are tormenting these sweet, attractive women are domestic terrorists, and should be treated as such.
I put them in the same class as the arch-assholes Adam Lanza and James Holmes..
I can't imagine why R193 got fired, or why her appeal was denied. She seems so... lovely. My sympathies to anyone who has to be around that kind of toxicity.
I am a woman and I go out of my way to treat everyone fairly, including other women.
Have seen cliques of hot women and bands of dowdy fraus each hold the upper hand. Both sets come with problems.
I with you R204. I hate to say it but I'm much happier working with only men. They don't seem to have the issues women have. Women drag their high school drama into the workplace with them.
Let it be known that HR cunts are not always heavy, in fact, the most sour, uber-cunt HR frau I've ever encountered is a fit, stylish man-eater who devours the souls of kindly, sweet-tempered women.
I beieve that her mission in life is to destroy other women. She seems to have a knack in sensing another women's weaknesses and insecurities--almost like a shark out for blood. It's uncanny how she does this.
I believe this broad to be a sociopath. Most sociopathic people, male or female, are charming and attractive to a degree. This arch-cunt is careful about how she dresses and puts all of her money into her hair, fillers, botox, and clothes.
HR was merely a method for her to have access to people's souls in order to devour them. Basically, she is into human sacrifice, so to speak.
And as true to form, her life is now unraveling as she's been found out and people are catching on. You see, sociopaths are great at fooling people for a time but eventually get found out and when they do, it's an ugly demise.
What you need to know about Human Resources is that they are there for their own job security.
Things running smoothly in a company? HR can't have that because then they don't have a job. So they stir some shit up to terminate some people so they can hire other people. It's a never ending vicious cycle to make sure that HR stays employed.
"Human ReSOURces, we put the sour in people!"
True R207 and I think those ridiculous performance reviews are just to find fault with workers. You can do the same job the same way without any problems but HR must make you fear for your job and set new bullshit "goals" so it makes them look like they are doing something.
Lots of bitter, nasty people on this thread.
Why am I not surprised?
Agree with r204. Both sides can be nasty fucks.
Not really R209. We just see through the bullshit and call it as we see it.
DL HR people -- we've got your number.
The whole country does.
Don't think the execs will be interested in protecting you when the shit starts to fly.
Men drag their own issues into the workplace. I posted on DL before about seeing my manager tell two women who had only greeted each other to get back to work, this while he and his cronies were spending an hour talking about last night's football game.
Maybe it would work better if men had their own workplaces and women had theirs.
Not sure which I would prefer because they both have their own problems.
Not convinced that HR is any more dysfunctional than any other group. My partner is an HR director. When we first met he described his HR role as helping other people to be able to do their jobs better, and 17 years later, I think that's what he stills tries to do. And when he gives advice to me or friends, I actually find it kind of a turn-on 'cause he's so good at what he does.
On time I was arguing with an HR person about frivolous accusations made by a coworker, and she said, "Do you want to see your file? Tell you what, I'll send you your file!" The next day I got an interoffice mail with a blank manila folder in it with my name on it. Or course that wasn't my file.
R201, that story sounds like a STORY.
You blonde bony bitches better not come up in my office looking for a job. Come up in here acting like you want to work. When all you want is to flatback your way to the top.
I'll keep kickin you narrow-assed whores to to the curb.
This is MY world.
hr and proud of it
I've always complained R63. I don't tolerate people discriminating in my companies.
People who are concerned that America is becoming a minority nation should see the utility in training/trusting minority people to run things.
I am talking to a big communications firm about a job and can see that it has a lot of qualified black people with strong credentials and real leadership positions. Granted, most are women, but it's impressive. Guess everyone does not toss AA resumes in the trash, thank goodness.
Ohhhkay, R140, well, I have to work all day and can't write 7ish identical posts talking about bitter universities and how the math means bad things. I'll just say what I need to say once, in terms of the Affirmative Action incumbency math: I don't care about how it offers a higher % of women and minorities in janitor positions rather than sharing that with men and/or whites. There's no such thing as a perfect AA system. I see it's an inherent flaw. My argument wasn't about that. I didn't dispute your point there, so I didn't need to bring it up before. It's still a good system for what it (potentially) offers protected classes, with a few problems in its execution (but problems that happen to offer more jobs to minorities, even though they're not the most desirable jobs).
In terms of how unfair AA is? Really? Are we to completely discount what our white ancestors have done to Blacks, Mexicans and indigenous people over time? Are we really going to piss and moan about how it's not fair now to whites or men, after we've committed genocide (many tribes were totally wiped out), stole their land and use them to do work we don't want to do (Indians / Mexicans), or dehumanized them at different points in relatively recent history (Blacks)? Anything our society can do for the betterment of the whole, particularly populations we've abused over time, is something I'm for.
[quote]Have seen cliques of hot women and bands of dowdy fraus each hold the upper hand. Both sets come with problems.
And this is why women should just stay home, take care of the baby and cook.
[quote]On time I was arguing with an HR person about frivolous accusations made by a coworker, and she said, "Do you want to see your file? Tell you what, I'll send you your file!" The next day I got an interoffice mail with a blank manila folder in it with my name on it. Or course that wasn't my file.
I'm guessing none of you ever win best dressed on Hawaiian Shirt Fridays or get first prize in Zaniest Popcorn Bowl contests.
The next time we have everyone bring in their baby pictures, participate! It'll improve your morale if you can win at matching your adult co-workers with their baby pictures!
Minority applicants should avoid mentioning college or outside activities including black or latino orgs or Greek activities. Those will get your CV tossed pronto.
Let me ask you recruiters a question: If you have someone's resume and it says he/she has a Bachelor's and has been working in the industry for 15 years, will you still verify the degree? I'm assuming it's part of a routine background search.
Not ion HR, R225, but facts are checked more rigorously these days - they contract out for these services. It's a huge gamble to lie about that these days, because you might be found out. But if it's the only foot in the door, you could try it. Just beware, if you're in a small market, people might remember you and it could screw you later (to be known as someone who lied about education). Or apply for jobs where they don't check - it's hard to know who does.
I had my orientation at a place in the late 90s, right after filing bankruptcy. The HR gal said we were required to maintain good credit (just in a long string of have-tos), and I casually asked would them checking my credit show up as an inquiry on my report - she then admitted they don't actually check credit reports; it was just a general expectation to maintain good character. While I was acting casual, I was terrified I'd be 'caught' with bad credit and then considered not worthy of a job.
The other day I applied for a job that I am perfectly qualified for and on the typing test (I can't believe places still have these) I typed 17 more words per minute than required.
Lets see if the HR cunts let me have an interview (not holding my breath).
Why wouldn't they R227? Does not holding your breath have something to do with not getting an interview? Do you have halitosis?
What's going on here today? I can't get the new posts or threads, only the ones I've posted in. ????
I have a question for HR pros. My boss is a department head using a headhunter to find a new executive. She's new to this company -- and so is *her* boss.
The headhunter's having a hard time booking appointments for candidates because the HR head insists on spending an hour with them first before they meet with my boss and her exec. But it's hard to schedule them becuase the HR head makes herself unavailable.
I asked my boss why we're paying the headhunter if HR has to screen the candidates first; one assumes the recruiter has assessed their background and personal presentation before sending them on to us -- isn't that why we're paying them all that money? She said she was told that's the company's policy. Except I think that's something the HR head cooked up and the new execs at the top didn't question her.
Anyone else know if this behavior is standard practice in the industry?
I used to work for a law firm where the HR folks would troll the floors all day making sure the legal secretaries stayed busy at their desks. It was creepy, I felt like I was in grade school.
I was laid off in 2009, and I was a little annoyed at how they did it, though there might be a law that covers it. It was a Friday and I wasn't feeling well, so I sent my manager an email asking if I could leave at 3. She said that was fine. I left at 3, and about a half hour later I get a text from a coworkers saying they just laid a bunch of people off (including her). I had no idea if my job was safe or not. It was a holiday weekend so I didn't know until I arrived on Tuesday that I had been let go. Why didn't they just tell me to come see them before I left instead of making me stress out all weekend????? Especially since my severance package was retroactive to that Friday, which I didn't think was very fair since I didn't know till Tuesday.
Oh, I was lucky and found a new job a month later, at a very small law firm. I got the job through an employment agency. I had FIVE interviews and was eventually chosen. I was a permanent employee, not a temp, though I was subject to a 90 day probationary period.
After about two months, the HR manager tells me they need to hire an additional secretary who speaks Spanish, since a lot of the new work coming in involving Spansih documents pertaining to immigration, etc. She asked me to assist her with going through resumes, using my own judgment as to who would be a good candidate, setting up rounds of interviews.
Anyway, on day 89 of my probationary period--you guessed it--they let me go! Saying the new secretary (you know, the one I just helped hire who didn't even start working there yet) would be able to better fulfull the needs of the office since I did not speak Spanish. So ridiculous.
Why do so many people lie about their experience on Linkedin and think they can get away with it? I just saw a former colleague's that says he was a director when in fact he wasn't even a manager at my company before he was let go.
Why does an HR person say they will set up an interview, then just not do it. Why not just refuse the person immediately.
R187: It's always fun to be the poison pill in meetings like that.
I recall one time I got drafted onto the dress code committee in a government office. I'm sitting next to the Director of Administration and they're talking about an item of clothing worn by women that wasn't acceptable. So I looked at her and said "You mean, similar to what you're wearing right now." Now the Admin director was essentially also our HR person.
They also tried banning sneakers. I torpedoed that one right away.
Then there's the political stuff - I love making politicians uncomfortable. If it means asking the question I know they cannot answer, I'll ask it. If it means getting their response on video, I will and post it everywhere.
R230, I would guess they are trying to block hiring for some reason. Either HR head is a control-freak, or they're not happy with the new department head and will get rid of her soon, or they're planning something big in the company, such as outsourcing an entire department, and therefore are supposed to keep everyone in limbo and in the dark so people don't quit en masse.
I had an interview and it went well, and HR said they'd make a decision this week. I sent a thank you note last Friday.
I was wondering if I should call and let them know that I really am interested in the position. Would that be too much? I'm pretty nervous so I'm not sure what's the right thing to do.
HR people do thank you notes mean anything to you?
Please, I need advice. I'll make a long story short as possible. I was in a hostile environment for three and half years, didn't leave due to the economy. I was harassed by my supervisor and three colleagues - textbook bullying - unfair work assignment, slander in and outside the agency, etc. Had a nervous breakdown 6/12. Took a month off on doctors orders. Went back to work and was harassed again. This time I went to the EEOC. I saw an attorney who told me I couldn't fight the State. Two weeks before mediation, the harassing manager "accepted" another position at another agency. The State brought in a senior HR exec/attorney who "had the authority to make decisions for the State." I proceeded with mediation and refused their (non-monetary) offers. Hostility then increased, the insults were unrelenting. I told our director I thought it was time for me to be moving on and he nodded. He offered to write a letter of recommendation and did. Two weeks later, after another harassing incident, I submitted a verbal resignation and she HR exec accepted it, I gave two weeks notice; they told me I was authorized to telecommute the two weeks. The next day I called the HR exec and told her I wanted to withdraw my resignation under a 24-hour resignation withdrawal policy. She told me that policy had been revoked three months earlier as part of the Governor's personnel reform (which I didn't know) and refused to let me revoke my resignation. I am on the fence about suing them for retaliating against me for my still-open EEOC complaint. I won't go into mudslinging, all I will say about them is that professional ethics and legalities are broken frequently.
r177, People like you are why I'm glad I'm self employed. You have such exacting standards for others; yet, you don't even meet your own standards for sentence(not 'sentance')structure. In addition, you either can't spell or won't even bother to proof your own writing.
I also used to notice that HR at my former employer often posted job descriptions that were poorly worded with outright misspellings. They routinely made the same complaint that you did regarding the shortcomings of others.
Home in my robe
No company with 84% black janitors was ever "required" to hire more to get up to the local practice of 92%. That's just bullshit.
If they ever lost a case like that, it was because something the manager said in front of witnesses, not due to the math. Really, such hysteria around affirmative action. The requirements are not onerous at all and frankly, the "surveys" about what percent of what race work in a different area are all faked anyway.
I am an AA woman who was hired by a company back in the early 80s as an Admin Asst to a VERY attractive, white, blond, well-built manager. The manager told HR that he and the entire department loved my work and were very happy to have me.
About a year after I was hired I was told by HR that the company wouldn't hire any internal candidates because they knew they would want to sleep with the boss. (All Admins were female at that time).
Little did they know, I did just that sometime during my 3rd year there!
They did know R241. He told them he wanted a foxy black chick. I worked at a company with five white males in their twenties and thirties in the 90s. They compared notes on the attractiveness of all female candidates, quite openly.
R197 and R200 have made my day!
Most of the professional women I have worked with don't have children for a reason: they are cutthroat bitches.
Still waiting for advice.
I am too.
You want to know how fucking stupid the HR cunts are?
I've applied for several jobs at this one company, all jobs that I'm qualified for. I was turned down for interviews for every one of those positions. So for the hell of it, I applied there for a position that I'm underqualified for, and guess what? I have an interview next week! Just goes to show they randomly pick whoever they want or are so fucking stupid they don't know who's qualified for what.
What a bunch of fucking morons...but I hope I get the job!
Me too r247!
r12 says what Dorner said about Quan, although D was sold on Q being on his isde.
Dr Amy Bishop's mom was HR at Northeastern
Toby on The Office is more like Personnel used to be. He cares so little about who does what unless he absolutely has to. Even then...
Dwight and Angela are more like HR
I have an interview next week, and already I got a call from someone on the "search committee" telling me that they couldn't get a hold of one of my references so they needed a different number and also that I needed to contact a previous employer to give them my permission to release reference info about me. This is the first place I've applied where the HR people are going into such depth, especially before I've even been interviewed.
Too much technology
Bump for help.
I have information that could result in the company paying huge fines if made known to the appropriate parties. What's the best way to work this to my advantage?