Widgets Magazine
Results 1 to 20 of 20
  1. #1

    Angry A rant about employers...

    So.... I decided to look for a part-time job. I'm a full-time student at UCO and I didn't take summer classes this year, so I've got lots of time on my hands. On a whim, I decided to apply for a sales job at a (don't know if I should name the place) nationally known used car dealer with a location near Edmond.

    Well, I went online a week ago and applied. The application process in itself was sort of painful. It took -- I don't know -- at least an hour, maybe an hour and a half. I entered all my information: SSN, work history, education, skills, etc, etc. I read their legal forms (i.e. the "we can fire you without cause form 'cause we're a big, evil corporation" form) and typed in my initials, blah, blah, blah. Then, I completed the longest part: the psychological quiz.

    These quizzes, I have to say, are flat out stupid. (example question: Do you think of yourself as a hard worker? -- Answer 1. Strongly agree.... 5. Strongly disagree.) Okay, what moron would actually choose "strongly disagree" when applying for a job? Some of the other questions were downright weird. Anyway, that's not the main part of my rant.

    The main part is about the interview, which was this morning. I show up on time and I'm all dressed up, tie and all. Clean shaven, new haircut, I did everything to look my best. This young lady, who had to be no more that 19, greets me at the door. She's apparently the one who's going to interview me, which is no big deal really, but it's kind of weird when you're like me and in your early thirties and you're being interviewed by someone who wore diapers when you were in high school. (Does that make any sense?) Anyhow, she points me to a cubicle with a computer where I apparently get to fill out even more quizzes and information. On top of that she hands me a stack of pages that I am to review and initial.

    Page 1: Drug screening release form...
    That's fine, I have no problem with taking a drug screening. And I understand them wanting to not hire crack addicts. Totally acceptable.

    Page 2. References...
    Sure, fine. Whatever. No problem.

    Page 3. Authorization to perform a credit check...
    What? Why do they need to check my credit? Now if I were applying to work at a bank or some other kind of financial services institution, I'd somewhat understand. But to work as a car salesman? Why? And I'll admit, my credit isn't perfect. There's a credit card on there that looks pretty ugly. And some student loans. I also had an issue with a broken apartment lease, but I paid it off (that's another rant entirely.) I initialed it, but I wasn't happy. I don't think employers or at least non-financial employers need to know an applicant's credit history. But this is why I'm getting a job, or one of the reasons, so that I can pay stuff off and have better credit!

    (Oh, and on a side note, I was turned away from a job a few years back because of a bankruptcy... I got in over my head with credit cards when I was in the Navy, in my late teens/early twenties... but still, I was 29 when I applied. The jerks....)

    Page 4. Motor vehicle information request...
    Again, it's a car dealership, this is okay with me. It's probably a good idea they check my driving record. It would be bad if a dealership hired a sales guy with DUIs and a hit and run or two. This is a non-issue.

    Page 5. Social Security earnings report...
    This is a request for my detailed earnings from the past seven years. Why? I fail to see how what I earned at my job in 1999 has anything to do with the position I'm applying for in 2007 (oh, and it's all commission at that.) And on top of that, it's just really reeks of BIG BROTHER. It's creepy.

    There was also a thing for a background check, which is fine. I'm not a felon or perv or terrorist or whatever...

    I just got up and left the place. Plus I also realized I didn't want to survive on a commission-only basis.

    Am I being irrational or are these big companies getting really out of hand with their application processes?

  2. #2

    Default Re: A rant about employers...

    I understand you on the credit, but that has been coming for a while now...Bank I work for does a soft credit check at account opening and if you don't have a minimum score...No account..No checking or savings...No ifs ands or buts...And that is in addition to looking at Chexsystems (sp?)

    Only thing I can see on the social security earnings is they may have a lot of fudging going on the resumes they receive...Guess that is a good way to see if what you claim to have done is correct or at least appears to be

    Big brother is going to get worse and worse I'm afraid

  3. Default Re: A rant about employers...

    That type of "interview" is always a sure sign that it's a company that only cares about the bottom line and expects to have huge turnover.

  4. Default Re: A rant about employers...

    Quote Originally Posted by Moondog View Post
    So.... I decided to look for a part-time job. I'm a full-time student at UCO and I didn't take summer classes this year, so I've got lots of time on my hands. On a whim, I decided to apply for a sales job at a (don't know if I should name the place) nationally known used car dealer with a location near Edmond.

    Well, I went online a week ago and applied. The application process in itself was sort of painful. It took -- I don't know -- at least an hour, maybe an hour and a half. I entered all my information: SSN, work history, education, skills, etc, etc. I read their legal forms (i.e. the "we can fire you without cause form 'cause we're a big, evil corporation" form) and typed in my initials, blah, blah, blah. Then, I completed the longest part: the psychological quiz.

    These quizzes, I have to say, are flat out stupid. (example question: Do you think of yourself as a hard worker? -- Answer 1. Strongly agree.... 5. Strongly disagree.) Okay, what moron would actually choose "strongly disagree" when applying for a job? Some of the other questions were downright weird. Anyway, that's not the main part of my rant.

    The main part is about the interview, which was this morning. I show up on time and I'm all dressed up, tie and all. Clean shaven, new haircut, I did everything to look my best. This young lady, who had to be no more that 19, greets me at the door. She's apparently the one who's going to interview me, which is no big deal really, but it's kind of weird when you're like me and in your early thirties and you're being interviewed by someone who wore diapers when you were in high school. (Does that make any sense?) Anyhow, she points me to a cubicle with a computer where I apparently get to fill out even more quizzes and information. On top of that she hands me a stack of pages that I am to review and initial.

    Page 1: Drug screening release form...
    That's fine, I have no problem with taking a drug screening. And I understand them wanting to not hire crack addicts. Totally acceptable.

    Page 2. References...
    Sure, fine. Whatever. No problem.

    Page 3. Authorization to perform a credit check...
    What? Why do they need to check my credit? Now if I were applying to work at a bank or some other kind of financial services institution, I'd somewhat understand. But to work as a car salesman? Why? And I'll admit, my credit isn't perfect. There's a credit card on there that looks pretty ugly. And some student loans. I also had an issue with a broken apartment lease, but I paid it off (that's another rant entirely.) I initialed it, but I wasn't happy. I don't think employers or at least non-financial employers need to know an applicant's credit history. But this is why I'm getting a job, or one of the reasons, so that I can pay stuff off and have better credit!

    (Oh, and on a side note, I was turned away from a job a few years back because of a bankruptcy... I got in over my head with credit cards when I was in the Navy, in my late teens/early twenties... but still, I was 29 when I applied. The jerks....)

    Page 4. Motor vehicle information request...
    Again, it's a car dealership, this is okay with me. It's probably a good idea they check my driving record. It would be bad if a dealership hired a sales guy with DUIs and a hit and run or two. This is a non-issue.

    Page 5. Social Security earnings report...
    This is a request for my detailed earnings from the past seven years. Why? I fail to see how what I earned at my job in 1999 has anything to do with the position I'm applying for in 2007 (oh, and it's all commission at that.) And on top of that, it's just really reeks of BIG BROTHER. It's creepy.

    There was also a thing for a background check, which is fine. I'm not a felon or perv or terrorist or whatever...

    I just got up and left the place. Plus I also realized I didn't want to survive on a commission-only basis.

    Am I being irrational or are these big companies getting really out of hand with their application processes?
    Welcome to the world of non caring employers.

    1. The drug screen. OK. I am not really a fan of tinkeling in a cup, however, there is no such thing as a "typical drug addict."

    2. Those quizzes. They are biased. You could tell the truth to such a degree God would give you a supervisors role in Heaven, and still not get the job. It is a way to skirt the law against pre-employment polygraphs.

    3. The reference check. The employer can get boned no matter how they hire. I hire by gut feeling. I am rarely wrong. Yes. I have been hosed before, and will probably be again. That is business.

    4. The credit check. Unless I am applying for a loan with your company, my credit history is none of your business.

    5. Social Security earnings? That is a new one. Again. Non of their business.

    6. The interview. For some reason, the employer thinks they must ask "elimination" questions. I thought the purpose of an interview was to hire someone. Not eliminate them. I say "eliminate this!" (you do the math)

    7. References. OK. If something DOES go wrong, then you might need them. (the employer)

    8. Long applications? No need for them. Cut to the chase. Maybe if I get carpil (sp) tunnel due to writers cramp, I will sue.

    Add to this, as you get older, the supervisors (at my age most are immature kids) get younger. They have the power to hire their own kind. (age. Not any other area) That eliminates the older, more experienced worker who needs less training.

    Short story long, Moondog. I totally agree with you (except for the differences I stated). No wonder there are so many older workers struggeling.

  5. #5

    Default Re: A rant about employers...

    The company you are speaking of is a seperated cousin of my employer.

    The 19 year old is not someone that makes a hiring decision, she is a screener. The screeners help weed out the people who clearly are just wasting the company's time. You know the people who are just wanting an inquiry to please the unemployment office or their parents who are hounding them to get a job.

    The credit check and the drug test. It is because the majority of people who steal from company are stealing to support a drug habit or have personal debt problems. They do not care if you have a couple of bad marks. If you are making the effort to pay your bills that is all that matters.

    The background check is just a simple run of your name through a criminal data base. They want to make sure you have no criminal offenses such as assault, theft, forgery or burglary. You can pull the same data they would see at OSBI or at your county sheriff's office.

    The test is nothing more than personality analysis that identfies where your strengths and weakness are and if your trainable. Not to mention the test runs off the people that are not serious about the job.

    Bottom line employers have to cover there asses these days. If they do not do their homework on new hires it could cost them millions. In the form theft, and lawsuits.

  6. Default Re: A rant about employers...

    Quote Originally Posted by BaconCheeseburgerDeluxe View Post
    The company you are speaking of is a seperated cousin of my employer.

    The 19 year old is not someone that makes a hiring decision, she is a screener. The screeners help weed out the people who clearly are just wasting the company's time. You know the people who are just wanting an inquiry to please the unemployment office or their parents who are hounding them to get a job.

    The credit check and the drug test. It is because the majority of people who steal from company are stealing to support a drug habit or have personal debt problems. They do not care if you have a couple of bad marks. If you are making the effort to pay your bills that is all that matters.

    The background check is just a simple run of your name through a criminal data base. They want to make sure you have no criminal offenses such as assault, theft, forgery or burglary. You can pull the same data they would see at OSBI or at your county sheriff's office.

    The test is nothing more than personality analysis that identfies where your strengths and weakness are and if your trainable. Not to mention the test runs off the people that are not serious about the job.

    Bottom line employers have to cover there asses these days. If they do not do their homework on new hires it could cost them millions. In the form theft, and lawsuits.
    If you want to believe that crap, then that is your right. Personally, I will stand behind my life experience and what Moondog and I both wrote in the previous posts.

  7. #7

    Default Re: A rant about employers...

    Quote Originally Posted by mranderson View Post
    Personally, I will stand behind my life experience...
    ...until someone questions if that life experience is actually true...

  8. #8
    Patrick Guest

    Default Re: A rant about employers...

    1. Credit Check? Companies are getting tired of having to deal with garnishments and creditors. It makes their lives more difficult if they have to pay your creditors a cut out of your check.

    2. Social Security: Could be due to so many people now-a-days being on SSI disability. Most employers don't want to bother with someone who's on disability. In fact, they see them as a risk. I don't blame them.

    Why is the application process so long? Well, they want the best employees, and part of the long application is to weed out those applicants that are wasting their time. They hope this will actually reduce turnover, by weeding out the applications that are wasting their time.

    The psychological tests are also part of the weed out process. If you're not willing to take the time out to answer them, it shows them no initiative on your part, and thus they don't want you.

  9. #9
    Patrick Guest

    Default Re: A rant about employers...

    Quote Originally Posted by mranderson View Post
    If you want to believe that crap, then that is your right. Personally, I will stand behind my life experience and what Moondog and I both wrote in the previous posts.

  10. #10

    Default Re: A rant about employers...

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick View Post
    1. Credit Check? Companies are getting tired of having to deal with garnishments and creditors. It makes their lives more difficult if they have to pay your creditors a cut out of your check.

    2. Social Security: Could be due to so many people now-a-days being on SSI disability. Most employers don't want to bother with someone who's on disability. In fact, they see them as a risk. I don't blame them.

    Why is the application process so long? Well, they want the best employees, and part of the long application is to weed out those applicants that are wasting their time. They hope this will actually reduce turnover, by weeding out the applications that are wasting their time.

    The psychological tests are also part of the weed out process. If you're not willing to take the time out to answer them, it shows them no initiative on your part, and thus they don't want you.
    Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding... we have a winner!

    If someone doesn't like the application process, there is no one forcing them to apply. And if you need the work bad enough, you're willing to go through the application process of a potential employer. At least for now, it's still a free country. You can choose to apply elsewhere.

  11. #11

    Default Re: A rant about employers...

    Is there any way to ignore certain phrases that are repeated in every post?...No interest in putting anyone on ignore entirely just their usual answer to every question posted on this forum

    Just wondering...Would love to just see smileys or asterisks in place of the phrases that annoy the heck out of me so I can have some fun and fill it in myself


  12. #12

    Default Re: A rant about employers...

    You mean phrases like "my life experience"?

  13. #13

    Default Re: A rant about employers...

    Quote Originally Posted by PUGalicious View Post
    You mean phrases like "my life experience"?
    You mean phrases like " "

    Hey it works PUG...Appreciate it

  14. #14
    MadMonk Guest

    Default Re: A rant about employers...

    You think that was a long form and process, try applying for a federal government job! I once went through the air traffic control academy here in OKC, but it took me over a year to get the job. I forget the form number, but it was something like 10 or 11 pages - not including all the background check and security clearance forms.

  15. Default Re: A rant about employers...

    I couldn't help but notice the stereotyping of people that have bad credit. I had horrible credit but was able to pay my way out of it without stealing from an employer or having any wages garnished.

    Why do we instantly assume the bad in people. It would have been really hard to not be able to find work because I was instantly slammed with $60,000 in hospital bills. I have tons of friends that are struggling financially in some way and not one of them got into debt intentially and would never steal from an employer to get out of debt.

    Here's one case: 11 creditors, all of which are accepting some money every month without hesitation, 1 creditor says, "well, we will not accept any less than our lowest amount allowed, so we'll just garnish your wages and get our money anyway and you can deal with your other creditors with what money you have left" and that's exactly what happened to him. (He was told by attorneys that if he paid just anything, they would accept it, but they didn't, they sent his check back to him). Ultimately, because of this, he ended up breaking the deals he had with the other creditors and all hell broke loose. The employer couldn't fire him, instead, being a very small company and him being in upper management, they started treating him like dirt and he finally had to search for other employment. He was within about 4 months of having 2 or 3 paid off and was starting to see an end to it, now he's back up there because so many have obtained lawyers and extra charges have been added.

    If you ask me, I would want to work for anyone that even considers credit to be an issue. Please people, why would someone truely BAD, be applying for a job when they can just become a career criminal or something. As for garnishments, so what if something needs to be garnished, it's just paperwork, the guy's asking for a job for a reason.

  16. Default Re: A rant about employers...

    I couldn't help but notice the stereotyping of people that have bad credit.
    It's a sad reality. Credit can make or break you. It's a practical issue.

    People who give you money want assurances that they will get their money back..... a good Credit history shows intent to repay debt and demonstrates responsibility..

    Unfortunately, credit can affect your whole life...hopefully, you can repair your credit, raise your score and get ahead.

    But, bad stuff happens to people and employers realize that ... that's where a good resume, experience and a quality personal interview or reference can help.
    " You've Been Thunder Struck ! "

  17. #17

    Default Re: A rant about employers...

    [QUOTE=Karried;100027]

    Unfortunately, credit can affect your whole life...hopefully, you can repair your credit, raise your score and get ahead.

    QUOTE]


    Yeah, so what is the 'average' credit score based on again? If all the web ads that I have seen are correct, the average American should have a 670 or so.

    Now, how many people that post here measure up to that? And how many of us care enough to actually have our credit scores checked once a year or more frequently?

    And, academically speaking, all other things being equal from a set of two applicants, would (or should) an employer take a 675 credit score applicant over a 665 credit score applicant?


    Oh... and how important was all this to the hiring process twenty years ago?

    Seems to me that the 'weeding out' process could be coming dangerously close to discrimination.



    Here's a few thoughts to the prospective employer: take a chance. If the person seems to be a good risk (they will no doubt let you know it during the interview) and exhibits a true interest to work for your company, hire them.

    However, if you are an employer, and you need to set up an obstacle course to get your folks to an interview, your company should be probably be doing some cutting edge stuff. Which means, of course, you'll need to pay your employees accordingly...



    Thanks for letting me ramble on this one!

  18. Default Re: A rant about employers...

    [quote=Rifleman2C;100082]
    Quote Originally Posted by Karried View Post

    Unfortunately, credit can affect your whole life...hopefully, you can repair your credit, raise your score and get ahead.

    QUOTE]


    Yeah, so what is the 'average' credit score based on again? If all the web ads that I have seen are correct, the average American should have a 670 or so.

    Now, how many people that post here measure up to that? And how many of us care enough to actually have our credit scores checked once a year or more frequently?

    And, academically speaking, all other things being equal from a set of two applicants, would (or should) an employer take a 675 credit score applicant over a 665 credit score applicant?


    Oh... and how important was all this to the hiring process twenty years ago?

    Seems to me that the 'weeding out' process could be coming dangerously close to discrimination.



    Here's a few thoughts to the prospective employer: take a chance. If the person seems to be a good risk (they will no doubt let you know it during the interview) and exhibits a true interest to work for your company, hire them.

    However, if you are an employer, and you need to set up an obstacle course to get your folks to an interview, your company should be probably be doing some cutting edge stuff. Which means, of course, you'll need to pay your employees accordingly...



    Thanks for letting me ramble on this one!
    20 years ago, employers hired the correct way... By instinct. And guess what? They got burned at the same rate they get burned now.

    The " weeding out" process IS dangerously close, and often IS discrimination. A older worker can be cut due to his or her age by a young kid that has the authority to hire so they hire people close to their age. Age is revealed in several ways. The so called voulantary information asks your age, ethnicity, and several other questions that legally can not be used in a decision. However, some employers look at that form and say "hey, he's (whatever race), so I don't want their kind," or "he's (fill in an age), I don't want anyone that old." So, I refuse to answer them. If the employer fails to call me, then I must presume it is because I did not fill out that form.

    When they interview you. If they do not like the extra pounds a person may carry, if they think you are ugly, have the wrong color hair, wrong skin tone (not neccessarily racial), look to old, have big feet, are too short or too tall, or a lot of other things, they can refuse to hire you. Those are discrimination. Can you prove it. Usually no. Either that or you do not meet EEOC's ethic guidelines.

    Most employers have an "obsticle course." Just hire by feel. Give people a chance. I bet you would be surprised how the old ways can work.

    One other note. It really makes me angry when I take the time to apply for a job and the employer does not have the common courtesy to call or write me and give me atruthful reason why they do not want to hire me. Who knows. Maybe it is something I need to improve on. Many people can not see what they may be doing wrong. It takes a third party that is non biased to see it.

    When my dad ran his buisness, if he felt he could not hire someone, he called them and told them the true reason why. Plus, if someone took the time to apply, no matter what, he took the time to interview them.

  19. Default Re: A rant about employers...

    "So, I refuse to answer them."
    That might be one of the reasons they don't call you back for a second interview.


    Regarding credit scores... I don't necessarily agree with Employers knowing my personal business.

    But I feel strongly about maintaining credit. I just got my Free Annual credit report this week from the three reporting agencies..

    Why? I want to make sure there is no unauthorized activity or fraudulent credit apps etc etc...

    A high Fico score enables people to qualify for better loan programs and lower interest rates. Without good credit, you pay more to borrow money and with bad credit, many won't loan you money so it is very important to try to keep your score high.
    " You've Been Thunder Struck ! "

  20. #20

    Default Re: A rant about employers...

    Well the main thing that has happened in the last 20-30 years is that Title 13 laws as well as the ADA have come into effect. Basically, anyone can claim discriminatory hiring practices against an employer and it is then the company's burden to prove that they did not discriminate. Interesting huh? This applies to all companies with 15 or more employees in our country.

    Some things are specifically outlawed; for example you can't fire anyone over age 50 for age related reasons. You can't not hire someone because they have a disability. And the list goes on.

    HOWEVER, there is a caveat. If a company can prove it has a "bona fide work requirement" to discriminate, they are allowed to discriminate. For example, if you own a landscaping company and are trying to hire someone to manually pull weeds from lawns, you are allowed to discriminate against anyone who applies and is disabled in the arms/hands, assuming you can show that having strength in your forearms is a work requirement and attempting to cater to that person via technology or other means would cause too great a burden for your company.

    I think most managers know that they could hire someone using good judgment in lieu of all the tests we mentioned above. But the thing is, if you are ever brought up on EEOC allegations, it's the manager's burden to prove they didn't discriminate. There's no way to do that unless you can point to documented job descriptions, test metrics, etc. That's why they do it.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Midfirst Bank Rant.
    By shotoond in forum Current Events & Open Topic
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 08-10-2006, 10:44 PM
  2. The Rant
    By Rev. Bob in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-11-2005, 10:30 PM
  3. What corporations should we bring to Oklahoma City?
    By mranderson in forum General Civic Issues
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 07-14-2004, 03:52 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO