Jump to content
Captain America

Job interview Tips

Recommended Posts

superjack
5 hours ago, Captain America said:

Had the interview today.

 

Think it went well, main woman who was interviewing me said they were doing a different format from interviews they had previously done and asked me 9 questions and I had to give reply within 2 minutes to provide examples of how I meet the criteria. 

 

I came out of the interview not feeling like I had messed up or should have said something else so even if I don't get job I feel good about how I performed.

 

Again, thanks to everyone who took the time to give me tips/pointers, funny posts and pictures of Spud.

 

😀

 

Hope it went well for you captain. Purely as I'm a nosey bugger, what were the questions? I quite like the idea of that interview technique.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AlphonseCapone
3 hours ago, i8hibsh said:

 

 

Would defo put you to the front of the queue.

 

In all seriousness, this probably deserves it’s own thread instead of hijacking the OP but I need to go on my soapbox.

 

It seems like every company now proudly advertises themselves as being an ‘equal opportunities’ employer.  This of course sounds fantastic and fair but they then follow it up with something like “We aim to recruit 60% more women by 2021” or “We aim to have 15% more people of colour in the boardroom by 2025” and so on and so on.  I implore people to think about what this is actually saying.

 

By saying you are going to recruit 60% more women, that is without the slightest shadow of doubt saying that somewhere along the road a woman is going to be favoured for a role for no other reason than she is a female.  There is absolutely no other way to construe this.  To say you want 60% more women employed means you are going to make a concerted effort to employ less men and more women.  This is ‘equal’ in the year 2019 and there is absolutely NOTHING fair about it.

 

It really doesn't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sydney
4 hours ago, i8hibsh said:

 

 

Would defo put you to the front of the queue.

 

In all seriousness, this probably deserves it’s own thread instead of hijacking the OP but I need to go on my soapbox.

 

It seems like every company now proudly advertises themselves as being an ‘equal opportunities’ employer.  This of course sounds fantastic and fair but they then follow it up with something like “We aim to recruit 60% more women by 2021” or “We aim to have 15% more people of colour in the boardroom by 2025” and so on and so on.  I implore people to think about what this is actually saying.

 

By saying you are going to recruit 60% more women, that is without the slightest shadow of doubt saying that somewhere along the road a woman is going to be favoured for a role for no other reason than she is a female.  There is absolutely no other way to construe this.  To say you want 60% more women employed means you are going to make a concerted effort to employ less men and more women.  This is ‘equal’ in the year 2019 and there is absolutely NOTHING fair about it.

 

When Rangers (after a century of deliberate recruitment bias) started to sign catholics, they weren't discriminating against protestants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain America
52 minutes ago, superjack said:

Hope it went well for you captain. Purely as I'm a nosey bugger, what were the questions? I quite like the idea of that interview technique.

 

I don't remember them all but some of them were:

 

Can you tell us something you have been proud of at work recently?

 

Can you give us an example of a time when you have had to deliver a message to staff you personally didn't agree with?

 

Do you think you have the ability to convince people round to your way of thinking?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i8hibsh
33 minutes ago, Sydney said:

 

When Rangers (after a century of deliberate recruitment bias) started to sign catholics, they weren't discriminating against protestants.

 

 

:facepalm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i8hibsh
1 hour ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

It really doesn't. 

 

Of course it does. If you have 100 people who you have yet to interview and know nothing about and you know that regardless of ability, you know that a certain percentage of the people who will get the job will be female etc. For the reason that they are female etc is wrong. What if of this 100 people there were 10 jobs. You notice that there are only 10% PoC in your workplace and only 30% female. You then say at the start you need to boost your numbers. This is prejudicial to someone who does not tick this box.

 

There is absolutely nothing equal or fair knowing who is going to get a job before you interview and there is absolutely nothing fair to employ someone based on skin colour, gender or sex.

 

It is all just one big one way street. Whenever you hear the term 'equal opportunities' and the promise it makes beside it i ask you to replace the word men where it says women, white where it says people of colour and straight where it says gay. How does it now sound? fair?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i8hibsh
1 hour ago, Sydney said:

 

When Rangers (after a century of deliberate recruitment bias) started to sign catholics, they weren't discriminating against protestants.

 

 

What if Rangers said that in 2 years time they will sign 20 catholic players? Fair?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brighton Jambo
On 14/03/2019 at 20:13, Silvery_Moon said:

Think of positive examples of work you have done.

 

Use the 'STAR' approach to answer the questions. Situation, Task, Action, Result.

 

When describing what you did make sure to say 'I did this' as opposed to 'we did this'.

 

Truth is though people work in different ways and you can never be sure what they are looking for. In some situations they will have already decided who they want before the interview. However, give it your best shot and you will be fine.

 

Maintain good eye contact too 

 

Good luck.

This covers a lot of what I would have said and is really good advice.

 

i would add that it’s important to have a really clear answer to the question of why you want the job, people often forget to prepare that.  Also have some pre-planned questions to ask at the end as you know they will ask and you should be ready (make sure they don’t relate to money, holidays or sick pay though!!) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AlphonseCapone
9 hours ago, i8hibsh said:

 

Of course it does. If you have 100 people who you have yet to interview and know nothing about and you know that regardless of ability, you know that a certain percentage of the people who will get the job will be female etc. For the reason that they are female etc is wrong. What if of this 100 people there were 10 jobs. You notice that there are only 10% PoC in your workplace and only 30% female. You then say at the start you need to boost your numbers. This is prejudicial to someone who does not tick this box.

 

There is absolutely nothing equal or fair knowing who is going to get a job before you interview and there is absolutely nothing fair to employ someone based on skin colour, gender or sex.

 

It is all just one big one way street. Whenever you hear the term 'equal opportunities' and the promise it makes beside it i ask you to replace the word men where it says women, white where it says people of colour and straight where it says gay. How does it now sound? fair?

 

You've just made the massive assumption that a less qualified woman would get the job over a man when you've nothing to back that up. I work for an "equal opportunities" employer and at times are involved in recruitment and we 100% employ of basis of ability, and that's all being equal means. 

 

When organisations say they'll employ 60% more women, that's not 60% in reference to men, it's in reference to females and the companies that state these things are the ones who are recognising in the past they've shown favouritism to men (despite ability). This might be a company with 10 women compared to 100 men, not because men were better but because of bias. What they are saying is they'll look to increase their female employees with 60%, that would be 6 extra women in this case. That absolutely won't be over better qualified men, it's an acknowledgement of basic statistics that says we don't have as many females as we really should, even purely by chance, now we won't be showing bias to men, that'll naturally boost up females. 

 

I think you just interpret any attempt to fix already existing existing inequality as a direct attack on straight, white men. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i8hibsh
40 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

You've just made the massive assumption that a less qualified woman would get the job over a man when you've nothing to back that up. I work for an "equal opportunities" employer and at times are involved in recruitment and we 100% employ of basis of ability, and that's all being equal means. 

 

When organisations say they'll employ 60% more women, that's not 60% in reference to men, it's in reference to females and the companies that state these things are the ones who are recognising in the past they've shown favouritism to men (despite ability). This might be a company with 10 women compared to 100 men, not because men were better but because of bias. What they are saying is they'll look to increase their female employees with 60%, that would be 6 extra women in this case. That absolutely won't be over better qualified men, it's an acknowledgement of basic statistics that says we don't have as many females as we really should, even purely by chance, now we won't be showing bias to men, that'll naturally boost up females. 

 

I think you just interpret any attempt to fix already existing existing inequality as a direct attack on straight, white men. 

 

 

I have made no assumptions about female ability v men ability. Ability is ability and no-one is equal in life when it comes to it.

 

Now, if I start a company and I need 100 workers. If I already know that I must have a certain amount of people who resemble this or that that is me employing on looks not ability. It would make me an affirmative action employer and not a fair and equal one.

 

Why must we have diversity? Who cares if my 100 staff are black, brown, have a penis or a vagina? The only people this is important to are the left. I tell you this, capitalism doesn't give a **** it just wants the person in who will generate the most money. 

 

To suggest that in the recruitment process if you have a pre requisite of having more of a certain demographic then this is not fair or equal. Well it is to the person that 'looks right' for the job it is not to the interviewee who does not. This is box ticking and does not even live in the same country code as fair or equal recruitment.

 

If an employer recognises it has no Indian workers then it will feel pressured to change this. In the next batch of recruitment guess who will have a head start? Yip the Indian man or lady and this is staggeringly unjust.

 

It is wrong on absolutely every level. it sounds good tho

 

:fonzie:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Sausage

I believe in equality of opportunity. 100%. I think people who attempt to block this or work around it are stuck in the 19th century. 

 

I do not believe in equality of outcome. If everyone has access to the opportunity, the best person should get the job, irrespective of race/religion/sex. This is where the whole ‘equality’ thing falls down. 

 

More women in the boardroom? Disagree. Equal opportunity for women to reach the boardroom? Absolutely. 

 

It’s not sexist to admit that women typically take the hit on a career and either drop to part time working or fall out of work completely. Even where both partners continue full time work, it’ll usually be the woman who works shorter hours or works from home when the child is ill. These decisions play out in the wider sense to explain why leadership positions are typically male dominated. 

 

The above logic also applies to the incredibly politicised ‘gender pay gap’. It is literally illegal to pay a man more than a woman to do the same job. And yet, the pay gap is still spouted as if men are somehow better off than women for doing the same job. 

Edited by Captain Sausage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i8hibsh
1 minute ago, Captain Sausage said:

I believe in equality of opportunity. 100%. I think people who attempt to block this or work around it are stuck in the 19th century. 

 

I do not believe in equality of outcome. If everyone has access to the opportunity, the best person should get the job, irrespective of race/religion/sex. This is where the whole ‘equality’ thing falls down. 

 

More women men in the boardroom? Disagree. Equal opportunity for women to reach the boardroom? Absolutely. 

 

It’s not sexist to admit that women typically take the hit on a career and either drop to part time working or fall out of work completely. Even where both partners continue full time work, it’ll usually be the woman who works shorter hours or works from home when the child is ill. These decisions play out in the wider sense to explain why leadership positions are typically male dominated. 

 

 

Can't say fairer than that.

 

Every single person should have every single opportunity out there on an equal basis but the cream must always be allowed to rise to the top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i8hibsh

In a nutshell :

 

Positive discrimination is as equally repugnant as negative discrimination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AlphonseCapone
3 hours ago, i8hibsh said:

 

 

I have made no assumptions about female ability v men ability. Ability is ability and no-one is equal in life when it comes to it.

 

Now, if I start a company and I need 100 workers. If I already know that I must have a certain amount of people who resemble this or that that is me employing on looks not ability. It would make me an affirmative action employer and not a fair and equal one.

 

Why must we have diversity? Who cares if my 100 staff are black, brown, have a penis or a vagina? The only people this is important to are the left. I tell you this, capitalism doesn't give a **** it just wants the person in who will generate the most money. 

 

To suggest that in the recruitment process if you have a pre requisite of having more of a certain demographic then this is not fair or equal. Well it is to the person that 'looks right' for the job it is not to the interviewee who does not. This is box ticking and does not even live in the same country code as fair or equal recruitment.

 

If an employer recognises it has no Indian workers then it will feel pressured to change this. In the next batch of recruitment guess who will have a head start? Yip the Indian man or lady and this is staggeringly unjust.

 

It is wrong on absolutely every level. it sounds good tho

 

:fonzie:

 

:laugh: I'm bowing out. You're just going all ranty based on your own views and I'm not sure you are ever willing to consider alternatives so peace out on this one chum :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Der Kaiser

If they're interviewing a lot you need to stand out so they remember you.

 

Short sleeves and a tie shows you're serious about work. Trousers that are slightly too short with white socks and slip on shoes show you value your career more than your personal appearance.

"Accidentally" arrive with your knob hanging out.....they'll definitely remember you.

 

Oh....and flirt......a lot!

 

Then just sit back and wait for "You're hired" 

Edited by Der Kaiser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
frankblack

The following training video should help the OP:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sydney
On 20/03/2019 at 10:06, i8hibsh said:

 

 

What if Rangers said that in 2 years time they will sign 20 catholic players? Fair?

Well, that would just be silly, wouldn't it?

 

Anyway, you have your views, and that's fine by me.

 

Healthy discussion in the Shed about these topics allows everyone to see that we all have different views on these things.  If I only spoke to like-minded people or only read like-minded media I wouldn't get to see why others disagree with these topics.

Edited by Sydney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i8hibsh
3 hours ago, Sydney said:

Well, that would just be silly, wouldn't it?

 

Anyway, you have your views, and that's fine by me.

 

Healthy discussion in the Shed about these topics allows everyone to see that we all have different views on these things.  If I only spoke to like-minded people or only read like-minded media I wouldn't get to see why others disagree with these topics.

 

 

Amen to that. Any form of discourse nowadays on subject matter like this between two opposing sides just turns into one side usually firing obscene accusations at the other. It is all quite sad. We should debate more like adults. Equality is a sensitive subject but a fact of life is that what is equal and fair to some is not equal and fair to others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spitonastranger
On ‎20‎/‎03‎/‎2019 at 08:50, AlphonseCapone said:

 

You've just made the massive assumption that a less qualified woman would get the job over a man when you've nothing to back that up. I work for an "equal opportunities" employer and at times are involved in recruitment and we 100% employ of basis of ability, and that's all being equal means. 

 

When organisations say they'll employ 60% more women, that's not 60% in reference to men, it's in reference to females and the companies that state these things are the ones who are recognising in the past they've shown favouritism to men (despite ability). This might be a company with 10 women compared to 100 men, not because men were better but because of bias. What they are saying is they'll look to increase their female employees with 60%, that would be 6 extra women in this case. That absolutely won't be over better qualified men, it's an acknowledgement of basic statistics that says we don't have as many females as we really should, even purely by chance, now we won't be showing bias to men, that'll naturally boost up females. 

 

I think you just interpret any attempt to fix already existing existing inequality as a direct attack on straight, white men. 

:pray: well said but will go above his head though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ribble
On 20/03/2019 at 11:22, Captain Sausage said:

I believe in equality of opportunity. 100%. I think people who attempt to block this or work around it are stuck in the 19th century. 

 

I do not believe in equality of outcome. If everyone has access to the opportunity, the best person should get the job, irrespective of race/religion/sex. This is where the whole ‘equality’ thing falls down. 

 

More women in the boardroom? Disagree. Equal opportunity for women to reach the boardroom? Absolutely. 

 

It’s not sexist to admit that women typically take the hit on a career and either drop to part time working or fall out of work completely. Even where both partners continue full time work, it’ll usually be the woman who works shorter hours or works from home when the child is ill. These decisions play out in the wider sense to explain why leadership positions are typically male dominated. 

 

The above logic also applies to the incredibly politicised ‘gender pay gap’. It is literally illegal to pay a man more than a woman to do the same job. And yet, the pay gap is still spouted as if men are somehow better off than women for doing the same job. 

 

The bit in bold is key, to have an equal and diverse workforce the access to opportunities needs to improve. 

 

Using the 100 workers need for a factory as an example, if the jobs are advertised only in the small town nearest the factory and that town is 99% white working class and I make the working hours restrictive so as to overlap with the school run and don't offer parental leave then i'm going to end up with 99 white male workers, probably 100.

 

If however I advertise in every town within 1.5 hours commute of the factory, subsidise travel costs, offer flexible working patterns and generous maternity and paternal leave I stand much more chance of employing a diverse workforce.

 

That diverse workforce will make my factory more successful, just look at big corporate boardrooms around the world now, they are much more diverse than they were and the reason isn't to please snowflakes, the reason that a workplace filled with people from different cultures, backgrounds and sexes is more inventive, it's more flexible and you capture a wider range of both technical and emotional skills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i8hibsh
3 minutes ago, Ribble said:

 

The bit in bold is key, to have an equal and diverse workforce the access to opportunities needs to improve. 

 

Using the 100 workers need for a factory as an example, if the jobs are advertised only in the small town nearest the factory and that town is 99% white working class and I make the working hours restrictive so as to overlap with the school run and don't offer parental leave then i'm going to end up with 99 white male workers, probably 100.

 

If however I advertise in every town within 1.5 hours commute of the factory, subsidise travel costs, offer flexible working patterns and generous maternity and paternal leave I stand much more chance of employing a diverse workforce.

 

That diverse workforce will make my factory more successful, just look at big corporate boardrooms around the world now, they are much more diverse than they were and the reason isn't to please snowflakes, the reason that a workplace filled with people from different cultures, backgrounds and sexes is more inventive, it's more flexible and you capture a wider range of both technical and emotional skills.

 

 

This is saying the job needs to come to you but one must always seek the job.  A job will never come and knock on your door, if someone has to wait for a job to be advertised in their personal radius to them then they clearly are not someone I would employ.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ribble
1 hour ago, i8hibsh said:

 

 

This is saying the job needs to come to you but one must always seek the job.  A job will never come and knock on your door, if someone has to wait for a job to be advertised in their personal radius to them then they clearly are not someone I would employ.

 

 

 

So you are saying you wouldn't employ someone if they weren't actively looking for another job? Sure staff retention will be high!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spitonastranger
2 hours ago, i8hibsh said:

 

 

This is saying the job needs to come to you but one must always seek the job.  A job will never come and knock on your door, if someone has to wait for a job to be advertised in their personal radius to them then they clearly are not someone I would employ.

 

 

That's clearly not what they are saying, you deliberately every time fail to answer the points raised for your own strange agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PTBCAL

If had my own business I wouldn’t employ Hibees. 👍

 

They are effectively representing me and that’s my reason why 😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BarneyBattles
17 hours ago, Ribble said:

 

The bit in bold is key, to have an equal and diverse workforce the access to opportunities needs to improve. 

 

Using the 100 workers need for a factory as an example, if the jobs are advertised only in the small town nearest the factory and that town is 99% white working class and I make the working hours restrictive so as to overlap with the school run and don't offer parental leave then i'm going to end up with 99 white male workers, probably 100.

 

If however I advertise in every town within 1.5 hours commute of the factory, subsidise travel costs, offer flexible working patterns and generous maternity and paternal leave I stand much more chance of employing a diverse workforce.

 

That diverse workforce will make my factory more successful, just look at big corporate boardrooms around the world now, they are much more diverse than they were and the reason isn't to please snowflakes, the reason that a workplace filled with people from different cultures, backgrounds and sexes is more inventive, it's more flexible and you capture a wider range of both technical and emotional skills.

 

Great post. I had a chat with a lady recently who’s job it is to advise companies on how to achieve diversity in the workforce and she made this exact point. 

 

It’s not about a job finding you as I8 states, it’s about making it accessible to more than one type of person. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i8hibsh
48 minutes ago, BarneyBattles said:

 

Great post. I had a chat with a lady recently who’s job it is to advise companies on how to achieve diversity in the workforce and she made this exact point. 

 

It’s not about a job finding you as I8 states, it’s about making it accessible to more than one type of person. 

 

 

The post was talking about subsidising travel and stuff. Should the employer go round and make their breakfast, wipe their arse and dress them before they get in too.

 

It is bad enough under this ever increasing 'nanny state' the Holyrood gang hut are trying to create without molly coddling employers too.

 

A job gets created, the company lists it via usual outlets like job centres and relevant media and people apply. Is this too 'tough' for the modern world?

 

If 10 people apply and they are all Indian women then that is the interest. If it is 10 white straight men then this again is your 'pick'. Knocking on someone's door and offering someone a job because they 'tick a desired box' is so wrong I can't even articulate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
superjack
24 minutes ago, i8hibsh said:

 

 

The post was talking about subsidising travel and stuff. Should the employer go round and make their breakfast, wipe their arse and dress them before they get in too.

 

It is bad enough under this ever increasing 'nanny state' the Holyrood gang hut are trying to create without molly coddling employers too.

 

A job gets created, the company lists it via usual outlets like job centres and relevant media and people apply. Is this too 'tough' for the modern world?

 

If 10 people apply and they are all Indian women then that is the interest. If it is 10 white straight men then this again is your 'pick'. Knocking on someone's door and offering someone a job because they 'tick a desired box' is so wrong I can't even articulate.

That's not what was said though. By advertising the job in wider circles, you will more than likely get a better standard of applicant as there will be a wider pool of people who can apply. My work advertises nationally, even though we're in the western isles. If we only advertised locally, there is a smaller chance of the right people with the right skills applying.

As it's a multi national company, we have even had applicants from north and south America.

The successful applicant is entitled to relocation costs and assistance with accommodation costs for the first year.

How is this in anyway negative? It suits us just as much as any prospective employee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i8hibsh
5 minutes ago, superjack said:

That's not what was said though. By advertising the job in wider circles, you will more than likely get a better standard of applicant as there will be a wider pool of people who can apply. My work advertises nationally, even though we're in the western isles. If we only advertised locally, there is a smaller chance of the right people with the right skills applying.

As it's a multi national company, we have even had applicants from north and south America.

The successful applicant is entitled to relocation costs and assistance with accommodation costs for the first year.

How is this in anyway negative? It suits us just as much as any prospective employee.

 

 

How much wider a circle do you get than the internet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ribble
24 minutes ago, i8hibsh said:

 

 

How much wider a circle do you get than the internet?

 

Advertising a job on the internet on its own doesn’t widen an employers search, unless you include the things mentioned such as relocation or travel assistance then you are still limiting your search pool to the local area. 

 

Making it it easier for the right candidate to work for you isn’t molly coddling, it’s sound business sense, not only do you have the right candidate being happier and more productive, it saves the company staff turnover costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i8hibsh
5 minutes ago, Ribble said:

 

Advertising a job on the internet on its own doesn’t widen an employers search, unless you include the things mentioned such as relocation or travel assistance then you are still limiting your search pool to the local area. 

 

Making it it easier for the right candidate to work for you isn’t molly coddling, it’s sound business sense, not only do you have the right candidate being happier and more productive, it saves the company staff turnover costs.

 

 

If someone needs the recruitment proces 'made easier for them' then without doubt they are not the right person for the job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ribble
22 minutes ago, i8hibsh said:

 

 

If someone needs the recruitment proces 'made easier for them' then without doubt they are not the right person for the job.

 

Nonsense, today’s job market is such that the onus is on employers to compete for the best staff. No longer is it simply down to paying a grand a year more than the company next door. The easier the recruitment process, the better the working conditions, the more flexible you are around working hours and location, the overall benefits package are now all major considerations.

 

Just look at the financial services industry in Edinburgh, each company has the same jobs doing the same things so they all compete for the same candidates so need to do more than simply compete at a base salary level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i8hibsh
59 minutes ago, Ribble said:

 

Nonsense, today’s job market is such that the onus is on employers to compete for the best staff. No longer is it simply down to paying a grand a year more than the company next door. The easier the recruitment process, the better the working conditions, the more flexible you are around working hours and location, the overall benefits package are now all major considerations.

 

Just look at the financial services industry in Edinburgh, each company has the same jobs doing the same things so they all compete for the same candidates so need to do more than simply compete at a base salary level.

 

 

Who is talking about employers competing? Being a capitalist I live for competition but you are talking about gifting people jobs. Why should someone get a job so easy that someone may have had to bust their bollocks to get.

 

You strike me as an older poster Ribble (with due respect) but you are talking like an entitled Millennial. Life is not easy and a good job is priceless. Best people for the jobs a all times, no free passes, no fastracking, no nepotism and no diversity hires aka box ticking. As soon as you start diversity hiring you are making gender, age, sex and race an issue and it never should be.

 

The whole 'diversity' issue is very much a one way street too and that stinks. Best people for the jobs, period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
superjack
25 minutes ago, i8hibsh said:

 

 

Who is talking about employers competing? Being a capitalist I live for competition but you are talking about gifting people jobs. Why should someone get a job so easy that someone may have had to bust their bollocks to get.

 

You strike me as an older poster Ribble (with due respect) but you are talking like an entitled Millennial. Life is not easy and a good job is priceless. Best people for the jobs a all times, no free passes, no fastracking, no nepotism and no diversity hires aka box ticking. As soon as you start diversity hiring you are making gender, age, sex and race an issue and it never should be.

 

The whole 'diversity' issue is very much a one way street too and that stinks. Best people for the jobs, period.

You're just not getting it I8, it's not about gifting jobs to people, they'll still have to work hard to get the jobs. It's about trying to encourage more people to apply. Helping them if they live a good distance away.

By doing this, there is a better chance of getting the better employee. By offering them subsided travel etc, more chance of them staying, thus reducing costs in staff turnover.

Edited by superjack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EH11_2NL
On 19/03/2019 at 12:46, i8hibsh said:

 

 

Would defo put you to the front of the queue.

 

In all seriousness, this probably deserves it’s own thread instead of hijacking the OP but I need to go on my soapbox.

 

It seems like every company now proudly advertises themselves as being an ‘equal opportunities’ employer.  This of course sounds fantastic and fair but they then follow it up with something like “We aim to recruit 60% more women by 2021” or “We aim to have 15% more people of colour in the boardroom by 2025” and so on and so on.  I implore people to think about what this is actually saying.

 

By saying you are going to recruit 60% more women, that is without the slightest shadow of doubt saying that somewhere along the road a woman is going to be favoured for a role for no other reason than she is a female.  There is absolutely no other way to construe this.  To say you want 60% more women employed means you are going to make a concerted effort to employ less men and more women.  This is ‘equal’ in the year 2019 and there is absolutely NOTHING fair about it.

 

🙄 What a load of utter bollox. Hand-wringing leftie nonsense. I live in the Caribbean where black people call themselves black or dark brown or light brown or whatever colour they are. Sorry for the hijack OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ribble
30 minutes ago, i8hibsh said:

 

 

Who is talking about employers competing? Being a capitalist I live for competition but you are talking about gifting people jobs. Why should someone get a job so easy that someone may have had to bust their bollocks to get.

 

You strike me as an older poster Ribble (with due respect) but you are talking like an entitled Millennial. Life is not easy and a good job is priceless. Best people for the jobs a all times, no free passes, no fastracking, no nepotism and no diversity hires aka box ticking. As soon as you start diversity hiring you are making gender, age, sex and race an issue and it never should be.

 

The whole 'diversity' issue is very much a one way street too and that stinks. Best people for the jobs, period.

 

Nothing infuriates me more than millennial entitlement! 

 

At no point have I suggested gifting people jobs, free passes, fast tracking, nepotism or box ticking diversity hires. My point is that to enable the casting of a wider net, to ensure you get the best possible candidate) companies now have to be flexible in their approaches to recruitment and remuneration, by doing this you get the best available candidate and will naturally and organically increase diversity.

 

Simple example, I'm a company based in Ripley, Amber Valley. If I only advertise in the Amber Valley local paper and in the job centres in the towns of Ripley, Swanwick, Riddings and Ambergate, the chances of the number 1 candidate applying for the position not being white is less than 2%. However if I advertise the vacancy across all of Derbyshire the chances of the number one candidate not being white increase to over 20%. This doesn't mean that the number one candidate will be white or a non-white candidate will be chosen over a better candidate, it means I am giving my company the best chance I can to have a diverse workforce and a diverse workforce is a better workforce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rudi must stay
15 hours ago, PTBCAL said:

If had my own business I wouldn’t employ Hibees. 👍

 

They are effectively representing me and that’s my reason why 😀

 

Sadly this comes into it for some people

 

My advice for interviews. Say that you can do things, makes a tremendous difference. Even a hesitant yes can get you a job or a trial

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i8hibsh
2 hours ago, EH11_2NL said:

 

🙄 What a load of utter bollox. Hand-wringing leftie nonsense. I live in the Caribbean where black people call themselves black or dark brown or light brown or whatever colour they are. Sorry for the hijack OP.

 

 

Oh without a doubt, it is a tap on the head term from the lefties to their (what they see as) little pets.  They just don't get how patronising they actually are.  

 

I was in Barbados last month and this guy came up to me as I lay in the sun with a rum and said "yo man soon you will be my colour", then I joked "that is the aim my man".  That is a case of one adult black male talking to a one adult white male exchanging a friendly pleasantry for a brief moment without someone screaming oppression and insults (usually by some poor little white rich kid).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Homme

i8 you would love my place of work :lol:

 

8 of us went for 4 promotion positions last month and i, being a straight, white male was fortunate enough to be offered a higher position.

 

The other three that were chosen?

 

A female colleague

An Asian colleague

A homosexual colleague.

 

No joke :lol:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×