|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Author
|
Topic: Hiring Decision Etiquette (SP?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Walsh
Film God
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/168.jpg)
Posts: 2490
From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way
Registered: Oct 1999
|
posted 02-20-2008 07:49 AM
Don't forget, the internet has changed practically everything in the world of employment hiring, especially to the employer’s advantage. When 20 years ago a company might get 10 applicants for a position, now they get 100. (Think; “Grapes of Wrath.”) It takes time for a personnel department to go through all of the applicants, especially since that personnel department is usually only one guy.
So, I wouldn’t automatically think a company that didn’t get back to me (as described above) was a ‘bad’ company. Inconsiderate, yes, but not bad.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/534a.jpg)
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 02-21-2008 01:02 PM
I frequently received unsolicited CVs, both when working in theatres and archives. My rule of thumb was as follows:
1. If the person looks like a viable candidate from the CV, write and say that you'll keep it on file, and let them know if we're advertising a suitable vacancy. I would often be able to fill posts simply by raiding the files, though in the line of public sector work I'm in now there is a legal requirement to go through a full-scale formal advertisement and interview cycle.
2. If the person doesn't look viable - i.e. their CV doesn't show enough relevant skills or experience to be viable for the job they're interested in at that point, write back with a short explanation of what we'd potentially be looking for, thanking them for their interest but saying that we don't really think they're suitably qualified as yet.
3. Absolutely inform all unsuccessful shortlisted candidates after a round of interviews, immediately after the successful one has accepted the post. If time allows, I'd also try to give them some individual feedback: usually this is along the lines of 'You are perfectly capable of doing the job: it's just that the successful candidate ticked more boxes on the spec'.
4. If you're anticipating too many applications to inform people you don't select for interview, make this very clear in the ad, with a form of words along the lines of 'If you do not hear from us within X weeks of submitting your application, then please assume that you were not selected for an interview. Due to the high volume of applications we anticipate receiving, we regret that we cannot contact all unsuccessful applicants individually'. For one position I had to fill, we had 220 applications. Even with a standard, pre-printed letter it would have simply taken too long to notify all the unsuccessfuls. IMHO it's OK not to, as long as you state clearly in the ad that you're not going to.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Christopher Crouch
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 128
From: Holywood, ca, usa
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 02-21-2008 05:17 PM
quote: Brad Allen In reality, most companies today don't have much hiring manners.
I'd have to agree. In recent years, I've noticed less and less companies that even bother to send out a form letter. Conversely, I've also noted a decline in the behavior of applicants (lack of proffessional attire for interviews, no shows for interviews, poorly prepared, unrealistic expectations, etc.). In general, the whole hiring process isn't what it once was, for all parties involved.
The thing I find odd about the employers is that so many are turning to a heavy use of personality tests, background checks, drug tests, and skill tests. Yet, they are neglecting the accepted norms of social interaction to such an extent.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean McKinnon
Phenomenal Film Handler
![](/ubbmembers/612d.jpg)
Posts: 1712
From: Peabody Massachusetts
Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted 02-22-2008 09:37 AM
quote: Christopher Crouch The thing I find odd about the employers is that so many are turning to a heavy use of personality tests, background checks, drug tests, and skill tests. Yet, they are neglecting the accepted norms of social interaction to such an extent.
The funny thing is that this company did an extensive background check, They checked everything, I wouldnt be suprised if they didnt try to call the physician who delivered him! After they got the results back they set up the second interview so that is why it's so confusing to my friend. He has poor credit but was upfront and honest with them and they said that wasnt such a big deal. Personally, I dont think companies should be allowed to check your credit and use it as a basis to hire you or not. I really do not see what it has to do with anything. If a person get's laid off from a good job and cannot find any other work for a period of time then naturally they are going to fall behind and damage thier credit. Whats to say that a person with perfect credit doesnt have that perfect credit because he stole the money to pay off his bills? For that reason I dont see how you can tell anything, You dont know where the money came from to pay off the bills... Drug Dealing, Theft, Blackmail, Extortion who really knows? As far fetched as it may be that someone with good credit got it through dishonesty it is still possible and its possible that someone with bad credit got it through circumstances beyond thier control so how does running an applicants credit really tell you anything about them?
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Walsh
Film God
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/168.jpg)
Posts: 2490
From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way
Registered: Oct 1999
|
posted 02-22-2008 11:10 AM
Doing credit checks is the norm, not the rare. In this day of easy access to all kinds of information it's an option many, if not most, companies are turning to since it's very difficult to let someone go after hiring. If the new employee turns out bad, it reflects on the HR guy. I would not be surprised if a bad credit check *was* the reason they did not get get back to him. They will say 'its no big deal' while interviewing because why start a possible arguement and sour him to the company if he turns out to be the best cadidate after reviewing all who applied? And they are not going to start a fight by telling him it was his credit that disqualifed him.
Of course, I do not know your friend and hope the best for him. But with the internet, your past is easily and cheaply researched. If a company has two otherwise qualified applicants, why pick one with a credit problem?
I went on a interview a few years ago, and they told me if I was called for a second interview to bring my last two paycheck stubs (orginals, not copies.) I could have said no, but they could have said OK, we're not hiring you.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|