What Is The Responsibility Of an Employer

What Is The Responsibility Of an Employer

When you are applying for a position with a company....

1...Do you think that they owe you some sort of closure when you have been iterviewed?

2...Do you think they owe you a timley answer once you are no longer a candidate for the job.

3....Do you think they owe you an acknowlegment when you send them a resume.

4....Should employers be required to state in a add for a position whether they are just gathering resumes for future hiring or that there is a actual position opened up now.

I am interested in hearing some responses.....it seems that employees are a drop in the bucket....I have been affected recently by some of the above questions.

1 yes

2 probably

3 no

4 no

but in an age when some poor overworked secretary would be forced to do all these things, it is impossible. I have been in your position where these would have been nice, but unfortunatly it is not so.

for instance - I put a short ad in the paper for Local Driver/ Warehouse help. I got over 100 resumes within 4 days. Unfortunately, I had to go thru all of them, call the top 10% in for interviews. You know how many showed up? 5 out of 10. 4 of those only showed up because they would lose unemployment if they didn't. I'm not just talking out of my butt here, it's become epidemic. We can't pay more than $10 an hour for this position, but when people need $12 or more to pay the bills and support their family, they say they can't work for less. But if they don't apply for these jobs that don't pay enough, they lose their unemployment. It wastes my time and theirs.

What I don't understand is.... They are getting piddle from unemployment, and $10 and hour is more! I'd take any job to save my unemployment for later, when it will be harder to find ANY job.

State, federal, and local assistance such as ADC, WIC, job re-education, utility and rent assistance, etc. They may be getting diddly squat from unemployment, but they'll lose assistance with, say, their home heating bills and subsidized rent and they stand to lose more by taking a job at $10 an hour.

Basically the intersection known as "Hell"

They usually can't give you the reason(s) they are rejecting you because the reason is illegal (race, age, gender discrimination).

There is a difference. The reality is, you weren't the best fit for the job.

In an era of one-click responses to ads, every hiring manager I know gets overwhelmed, so while it would be nice, it's silly to expect a response.

Any idiot can file a lawsuit. That doesn't mean those suits will go anywhere, but the company has to defend itself and worry about potential bad PR. All it takes is one crank with an axe to grind and an overzealous cub reporter and the next thing you know, boycott city.

Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. Never again.

black...or maybe you wanted a competitive salary. It takes nothing and does not expose an employer at all to thank someone for applying and let them know a position was filled.

I have interviewed with potential employers in recent months and after the interviews---nothing... I would prefer a letter or something saying they decided to hire someone else, and I have gotten that once or twice...But usually after the interview-NOTHING. I believe employees are a dime a dozen..

they don't have to be civil to anyone who applies for a job.

When there is full employment, they have to compete for the best workers and that means they have to develop manners.

That explains why employers are so arrogant and bloody minded in how they treat people now.

which is why I have always told younger people to save their hiring bonuses cuz they are a once in a lifetime cashout...typically it doesn't often happen again.

1. No, not immediately after.

2. Yes

3. No

4. No

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No..but email helps cuz normally they do respond.
4. No

A few places have emailed me or sent me a letter saying they are still collecting resumes.

I know its nerve racking waiting around wondering what the hell is going on.

For me the worst thing was, after an interview I had in December, they emailed me and told me I was too good for that job, and my talent would be wasted there! What! I was so annoyed by that.

1) yes - at the very least some indication of when the decision will be made, ala: we will be deciding within six weeks, if you don't hear from us, you have not been considered blah blah blah

2) no if number 1 was followed, yes otherwise, so the person looking for a job can know what's up. I personally don't mind to play the "I have another offer, are you guys interested" call if I don't hear anything after an interview.

3) no - personnel typically gets tons of these

4) yes

they say "we'll let you know" they absolutely owe you some sort of closure.

If 2 is after the interview, yep, timely being within a week of their hiring decision.

3) No, but it would be nice so you can know for sure it was received rather than sitting around thinking "what if it got lost in the mail?".

4) Actually, I think yes. If they are not actually hiring, they should let you know. It would be easy to word it, "accepting applications for positions which will open soon" or something like that.

When i interview people, i give them straight feedback at the end
based on my assessment.

There are cases where i might not be totally honest. In some cases,
a team is all female or all male, and hiring an opposite sex member
will only cause trouble and make the team not work with jealousy,
people trying to get laid and then subsequent problems. Though it
is clearly blatantly sexist, i would not hire an opposite sex member
in this situation, no matter the qualifications. Risking my own job
and the team's capability on a new hire is not worth it.

This is contingent on whether the person pushes around their sexuality
obviously... but given the laws on sexual harassment, having 1 woman
in a team of men, or 1 man in a team of woman basically means that
"that" employee can never ever be alone in a room with another member,
as any story can be made up and the company bankrupted... better to
avoid the situation by lying and getting rid of the candidate.

As well, what you're asking is that there be a functional human resources
(personnell) department, which is seldomly the case these days after
2 decades of reaganomics. There is simply nobody with the job of
sending these letters... the only company focus is filling the job
slot successfully so the work can get done.

This is why, i think that ALL people should work for the government
and be loaned on contact to an employer, that the government maintain
a long term relationship with its citizens, making sure there is
social justice in this area. As well, such a situation would make
sure everyone got pensions and taxes could be completely automated.
Then the employer would be relieved of the headache of a personell
department and we could all be better for it. Computer systems like
peoplesoft (oracle) and SAP permit a massive re-think on the
legal relationship of the employer with the employeed... just it'll
never be fixed proper until the corrupt republican and vichy-dems are
fired.

...they're just 'going through the motions' of interviewing candidates when they already have someone hired for the position from within the org (transfer or promotion). I've had the same org do this to me at least 2-3 times. (large org).

Dumbass HR policies sometimes dictate that hiring mgrs must post jobs for 2 weeks and interview at least 2-3 other candidates before 'hiring from within'.

The unsuspecting applicant has no idea they are not seriously being considered and their time is being wasted because someone already has the job - but the manager has to involve them in the little ruse due to HR 'policy'.

Whatta load of crap. It should be THE LAW that they must keep you up to date after you've interviewed until someone is hired - that would include of course, you're knowing if/whether you're no longer a candidate for the position. This is common feckin goddamned courtesy and I don't give a rat's ass what the job market is like, treating applicants like shit is unwarranted.

The other items, I don't believe should be required.

There's usually a very good reason why hiring practices are set up the way they are. In the case of my own company, we post positions internally for three weeks before looking outside the company. What this means is that I get a lot of calls from the friends and relatives of employees who want an early jump on the position and then become borderline abusive when they're told we're simply not ready to look outside the company.

This policy was implemented as part of our retention efforts- we put the emphasis on promotion from within before hiring outside the company. It's not fair to outside candidates to begin interviews before we've exhausted our internal possibilities and it's not fair to current employees to look outside the company first, no matter how much someone else wants a job.

Interviewing candidates is not an "HR ruse". In inviting a candidate for an interview, you are exposing the company to risk of lawsuits. Most companies try to interview the top candidates in order to give everyone fair consideration.

as an employer it isnt doable. generally when you are looking for an employee you are already short handed. already working tons of hours ergo why you are hiring. adn then after the hire, there is a lot of wasted time and lots of patience training the employee. there just isnt enough hours in a day.

i have never had those expectations when i have been job hunting. and in all the years i have applied for jobs, i have never had a perspective employer do any of that

call back and ask. shows you are interested and inclined to follow up and you will receive an answer

... that they demand. False advertising and misrepresentations should be prosecutable. I've been a hiring manager on numerous occasions, and I absolutely demand this.

False advertising and misrepresentations should be prosecutable.

They are.

I think the answers to all should be yes.

You don't need long, detailed responses:

Thank you for coming in, we'll let you know by ....
We're sorry but the position has been filled. (Possibly a one-liner about needing other qualifications to be considered in the future.)

If you put an email address on your resume, or submit it by email, it isn't that hard to have an autoresponder or a form email saying, 'thank you, we received your submission'. Would probably also save the company some hassle from people trying to find out if the resume ever got there.

It isn't really fair to raise hopes of a job when all you're doing is gathering resumes.

But small companies are overworked as it is. it's unreasonable to expect people who do not work for the company or are not customers to get great treatment.

If you don't have common courtesy, you're an asshole. That applies to companies too.

Here's my thoughts:

1) If you interview and don't get the position, a polite letter thanking you for your time should be sent.

2) See above.

3) No. Employers get inundated with resumes, especially now in the Bush economy.

4) Employers usually don't advertise positions that aren't open. Collecting resumes is a complete waste of time because your candidate pool will change drastically over time (people find jobs, move, change plans, refine their salary/duty requirements). It's a complete waste of money because let me tell you, job ads aren't cheap.

wage is low and grunt work.

lets be specific. how fine tuned of an employee. is there a wage line.

i listened to a thread of people saying ok for an employeer to not hire a smoker, and discriminate on that. yet if you dont get a thank you note from some manager working 60 hour week sweatin his/er ass off, you are pissed

any of you have any empathy for the employer at all. that gives up family time, life, so he can pay the gas bill

personally i am hearing a lot of whining. what i find in employees too.
how old was this person. how much work experience. what are expectation of employer. where is his/her responsibility

how much coddling and love and nurturing are required in these jobs, or does an employer just get to hire someone to do a job, and be paid for the work. must i treat them like a child. is that what is expected.

you have a big business and a person who handles employment exclusively, pretty easy to do. i may expect that. go into mcdonalds and expect a call back. i wouldnt

If you collect resumes in March, odds are only a fraction of those resumes will be viable come May. And what's worse, odds are your requirements will have changed as well.

i listened to a thread of people saying ok for an employeer to not hire a smoker, and discriminate on that. yet if you dont get a thank you note from some manager working 60 hour week sweatin his/er ass off, you are pissed

Job-seekers and employees always want the moon. Their goal is to get as much $$, status and intangibles out of the position as possible. Companies want someone whose more qualified than they're willing to pay. Make no mistake about it: if a company could get someone to work for minimum wage, six days a week with little or no benefits, they'd do it. A few years ago, employees had the upperhand and were making all sorts of crazy demands. Now, employers have the upperhand and their demands are crazy. That's business for you.

I, personally, work 60 hours a week. I replaced two people when I took this job. I was damn grateful to get it. But I sure as shit miss the good old days.

i am also seeing an expectation of entitlement from youth market, as it always is because of idealism, yet,........from these brilliant youths (husband in computer business)

i see my two boys in spoiled also, the type of employee they will be. i tell them often, you do that kind of sloppy job, i would fire you. i am amazed with adaquate to really good salaries for the area and health care, and lack of former degree, and inexperience.......down time to surf the web, comfy place, flexible hours.....and then whine. opposed to minimum work ass off poor need, they worked their butt off. two different businesses

go to corportation and see the decedence and corruption, greed, criminal, control of government, bush, election, certainly.

everything is relative.

taxes, osha & laws, insurance and then comes the wage

EOM

Legally, none.
1 and 2 should be done as a courtesy.
3 used to be done, but has gone by the wayside, at least in part because a lot of companies are snowed under by resumes immediately sent on web programs like monster (of course, they could set up an instant e-mail response, I suppose)
4 I don't know any employers who do actually do this, because it's not an effective methodology.