So hear me out. From time to time, I have applicants who repeatedly apply, but because they said something stupid to the person who took their application, or they were dressed inappropriate, or had poor hygiene, or whatever reason, I keep their resume in the ‘do not call’ pile.
If that person simply changes the name on the resume, It is likely that I would then give them a call, not knowing it was actually stinky Pete applying again, or whatever.
In this totally reasonable scenario, the names used had nothing to do with it.
Also, we are always advertising that we are hiring so that we have a fresh set of resumes to choose from if we need someone immediately. We may not be hiring for months while someone applies over and over. Then someone will quit or get fired and we will immediately begin calling resumes starting with the most recent. There is a good possibility that this whole thing is a coincidence… not everything has malicious intent.
I know racial discrimination in hiring definitely exists and is probably super prevalent, but there is a chance this is not one of those cases and there are other plausible explanations if the only evidence that exists is what is in this post.
Yes those could all be possible but the evidence has shown time and time again that people with minority sounding names get less call backs than average. So him filing suit over this is good cause either it was one of those and it will be proven in court pretty easily by company records or it’ll turn out it was race based and the company can be punished for it.
Fair enough, I just hope it’s a large company who deserves the court costs regardless of their intent in this case, and not some small business who can’t afford to go to court when they have done nothing wrong. The burden of proof should be on the person making the claim.
The problem is that this is a megacorp tactic designed to keep up with the massive turnover shit companies have. Mom and pop shops don’t have this problem when they treat employees with even basic levels of respect.
We have very low turnover, and we are a small mom and pop. Part of the low turnover is being prepared for the occasional open position so that while we are looking for a real good hire, we aren’t burdening the existing staff with picking up the slack… we have a stack of applicants and can get a solid replacement immediately. We are transparent about the process with the applicants, I don’t see the problem.
Correct, we advertise that we are hiring so that we have fresh resumes, and then when someone quits or gets fired, we call the resumes and hire someone. Most businesses do this.
And the prospect already got employed at a different business that had an open vacancy, congrats you’ve got NOTHING by hiring in advance and you also wasted the prospects time.
Just because there are other businesses that do this scummy tactic doesn’t mean it’s right or less scummy.
Also, hiring on advance because someone would quit or would be fired so you need to have a roster to replenish them, says A LOT about your business and its climate.
Having fresh resumes is a tactic that allows us to be more flexible with employee schedules. With a staff of 20 people, maybe two per year turn over. I don’t know what you mean about hiring in advance… We hire when we need someone and we have a good number of people to choose from, that way we aren’t stuck with hiring the first applicant that comes along, which inevitably causes more work for the rest of the employees when we don’t get a good hire.
We don’t have that problem because we keep a fresh stack of resumes.
The problem is that sending in a resume and applying for a job takes effort. If you invite people to spend time and effort and mental energy to get a thing (job) when you know you won’t give it to them, then you are wasting their time and effort and mental energy, which I can tell you as somebody who fucking hates looking for jobs, that mental energy can be in serious short supply for people looking for work.
That “fresh pile of resumes” is definitely good for you when you want it, but the giant stale pile of resumes that you keep throwing away is not free for the people sending them in.
The people that are emailing us their resume each month know that it might be 6 months or a year before we call them, we are super transparent about that.
A lot of people want to work for us and we only have a limited number of positions which do not turn over very often.
We generally only accept emailed resumes, not paper resumes.
Wasted whose time? It’s not like we are constantly interviewing people. When people put their resume in we tell them that when a spot opens up we will call them. We encourage them to put a resume in once a month so that when we need someone they will likely get a call. I don’t understand your term ‘hiring in advance’.
How is accepting a resume when we aren’t actively hiring a scummy tactic? People ask to work here every day and we tell them that we aren’t actively hiring but we would be glad to accept a resume. The real persistent people who really want the job keep following back up and eventually they get hired and stay for years and years.
And the prospect already got employed at a different business that had an open vacancy, congrats you’ve got NOTHING by hiring in advance and you also wasted the prospects time.
no no, you see, it’s ethical, because there’s always a revolving door of unemployed people, who somehow don’t have bad hygiene, and are always dressed appropriately, and this tactic works because they exist, and we’re just doing them a service, really. don’t ask questions as to why or how that revolving underclass of desperate unemployed people exist, that’s not allowed.
Also, we are always advertising that we are hiring so that we have a fresh set of resumes to choose from if we need someone immediately.
Sure just go ahead and be disrespectfully wasteful of everyone’s time. other people are just tools that exist to be used, after all.
disgusting behavior, given the number of people actively trying to find good work to survive. if I was looking for work and I found out someone was doing this with my resume I’d be livid if they ever dared to call me.
Buddy, if you think for one second that any job candidate worth the paper their resume is written on is going to take a job from a place pulling the shenanigans you are, that would explain why you’re “struggling to make it” in this capitalist society. Your job listing went into the “don’t bother interviewing” pile months before you even pulled that resume out of the pile. Of course you’re going to start needing employees in a pinch when your hiring pool is only the most desperate suckers out there lol.
It’s more so that the constant supply of people who want to work for us have a system they can follow to have a chance to get hired. We hire about 1 out of every few hundred applicants. We hired two people in the last three years and accepted hundreds of emailed resumes.
The resumes come in regardless of the sign on the door because of the high demand, hanging the sign on the door directs people to email it rather than submit a paper copy.
It also directs people to talk directly with the staff so that they can understand that it’s very unlikely we will be calling them anytime soon.
When someone has to quit, it is usually because of extenuating circumstances, someone dying or some other major life event, so we want to be prepared to not ask the employee to have to work out the two weeks notice that they always want to offer. It’s nice to say, “thanks for your hours over the years, take your last two weeks as paid vacation, we have someone ready to replace you”
This happens maybe once per year and we haven’t fired someone in maybe 5 years.
You and the rest of the people I am talking with here have no idea how a good business operates and only want to assume the worst. I agree that capitalism = bad, but there is some nuance that should be understood before shouting your uninformed opinions from the rooftops.
You can try and justify this nonsense all you want but the fact is we do know how a good business operates because they don’t operate the way yours does, and that’s reflected in your self pity about how hard it is for your business to compete in the market without resorting to awful behavior. All those Good businesses out there that you find it so hard to compete with are doing so well at making it hard for you because they aren’t playing games like this. A good business can put a job posting in and get a qualified applicant in short order.
So instead you come to Lemmy and cry about what a struggle it is as a poor victimized small business just trying to compete in the big scary world of capitalism, while waving a huge red flag with “We’re not worth working for” over your head at all times. You’d think the way you’re being publicly annihilated would be enough to trigger some introspection but I guess not
I haven’t applied for a job in over a decade as the best companies will come to me, but if I happened across your job listing and it interested me enough to apply, only to find out it’s a ghost job, you’re immediately blacklisted and there’s literally no amount of money you could pay me to even hop on an interview call with you.
We are doing fine, I wasn’t crying about anything. Read my original post which you and everyone else has failed to engage with.
Completely unrelated, most other small businesses are struggling because mega corps engage in collusion and price fixing, and also their volume allows them to take smaller margins and gives them better costs, which makes it hard for small businesses to compete.
A small business putting a sign in the window is not awful behavior, you are attacking a straw man.
Sounds like you have no idea what it’s like working retail in 2024.
A lot of bellyaching coming from somebody is doing just fine. Clearly you didn’t get the sympathy you wanted so now you’re changing your tune lmao. And I’d sure say a lot of people engaged with your original posts. Sitting at -25 currently, with nothing but negative comments calling you out as well. But you just keep trying! Surely it’s everyone else in the world who is wrong, and you’re the only one who’s right, even though you’re admittedly struggling!
How is ‘always accepting resumes’ malicious? Put your resume in and move on, I’ll call you if I need you, the world doesn’t owe you anything.
If you really wanted a job, be persistent and eventually someone will hire you, but not if you walk around with a huge chip on your shoulder hating on every small business trying to make it in the late stages of capitalism.
I bet you’d bitch if you went through the effort of setting up an interview with somebody and then you never hear from them again because they’re not actually looking for a job right now. Don’t hide your clown show behind legitimate small businesses who don’t play games.
I don’t understand… do you think we are interviewing with no intent of hiring? How would that make any sense?
All we are doing is accepting resumes and letting people know that when we need someone we will call the resumes. We tell people when they put the applicant in that we aren’t actively hiring.
If they really want to work there, basically they have to get in line. It may be 6 months or a year before we call because we don’t have very much turnover.
Why does your company waste people’s time saying they’re hiring when they’re not? That’s a whole other problem… called lying… but I guess it’s okay because everyone is being treated like shit equally?
You can get fresh resumes by putting up a listing on Indeed and get new ones almost immediately. There’s no excuse for lying to applicants.
I really hope your just a troll making shit up, even though I know companies do this frequently. Never thought I’d see someone almost proud of it and act as if it’s not problematic behavior.
The sign says ‘always accepting resumes - send resume to xxx @ xxx.com - see staff for details.
When people ask about the ‘accepting resumes’ sign, we tell them that the best way to get a job with us is to put in a resume about once a month and if/when we need someone we will call all the recent resumes.
A ton of people want to work for us because we pay way above the industry standard, we pay for good healthcare and retirement, paid vacations, unlimited sick pay, good bonuses, and flexible scheduling… completely unheard of in the service industry.
There is no lying, we are super transparent. And turnover is low, because only the best applicants make it through to the hiring stage.
Believe it or not, indeed provides a very slow and small number of shit applicants, nothing more. To get good hires, you need to have your finger on the pulse of the community.
You are so blinded by rage against the machine that you fail to see the difference between the dying small business and the mega corps, to you it’s all the same, and that attitude is a part of the problem.
I work for a small business. And I’m not blinded by rage. But when I was looking for a job companies that pull this sort of “always hiring” thing are pretty frustrating.
Also, it’s not my fault if you misrepresented your companies policy. “Always accepting resumes” and “always hiring” are similar but different enough for you to switch when it was convenient for your argument. Not falling for your faux high road and trying to mischaracterize my argument.
What lie? We tell all applicants that we aren’t actively hiring but we will reach out to the most recent resumes if/when we need someone.
There is high demand to work for us, so we have a system for all the people who keep asking for a job.
We have tried it without a sign on the door as well and we still get a ton of applicants. We just would rather people email the resumes instead of leaving a physical copy.
In a previous comment, you said you indicated you were “now hiring” as a ploy to collect resumes. later, in a different post, you reveal that you actually say “accepting applications” which, critically, does not directly state that you are hiring. Lying about lying about hiring, I guess. It was an effective tactic to stir shit, but you outright misrepresented your situation.
As I said in a previous comment, I used the phrase ‘now hiring’ for brevity because the point I was making was not particularly about this method of managing the constant inflow of applicants.
After that inaccuracy proved to cause a half dozen of you to freak out, I specified the full verbiage ‘always accepting resumes, see staff for details’
I understand the difference but I didn’t foresee that being a catalyst for this detraction from the original point I was trying to make.
My intention, believe it or not, was not to stir shit. I had a point originally that had nothing to do with our now hiring, excuse me, accepting resumes sign. People here just latched on to that one detail and picked it a part without addressing my original point and the conversation went pear shaped.
Not meticulously including every minute detail is not lying. Call it a lie by omission if you want to, but you and everyone else here so far has completely missed the point.
If I knew my original point was going to be ignored and everyone was going to swoop down on this one detail which was not even relevant to the point I was making, I would have used a completely different example altogether.
I may not have been specific enough for you on my companies hiring practices, but you have completely ignored my point and everyone here picking apart the sign on the door has strawmaned my point so hard that I haven’t once yet engaged with someone on the original point.
Thank god they’ve already seen to the important things and have nothing better to than to pass shit that already exists. I’ll know that we truly live in a safe and secure democracy when they get to rounds 3, 4, 5, etc. And /s if it wasn’t blatantly obvious.
Semi-related: I’ve never understood why american cops insist on handcuffing everybody they arrest. If the person being arrested is not resisting or is otherwise dangerous, why cuff them?
Because they could become dangerous and/or decide to resist at any point. And you don’t want to have your partner’s widow asking “why didn’t you cuff them?”
A 10 yo is a bit different in that they’re far easier to control physically. for most people, they’re not going to be acting entirely rationally and it’s safe for everyone if they’re cuffed. Or it’s supposed to be. I hope Chauvin is enjoying his luxury accommodations,
Better to just execute them on the spot - you don’t want them slipping out of the cuffs, then have your partner’s widow asking “why didn’t you just shoot them?”
People are already searched upon arrest, and I don’t think most people are inclined to try to fistfight a pair of cops armed with batons, tasers and guns from the back of a cop car. It’s not necessary in most of the rest of the world - are the residents of the land of the free so inherently prone to violence that they should be locked up just in case?
yes, people here really are that violent. First off, consider that we have cities that have larger populations than many European countries. The US, in terms of population size is closer to the entire EU (350 million to 450, respectively) and it poses some… unique challenges. Secondly look at population adjusted murder rates. Yup. We feature prominently on that list, too.
It’s. Not appropriate to paint everyone with that brush. But even if it’s only 1% that are violent… that’s still a fairly large amount of violent people to be dealing with, and most of the time, cops are dealing with people suspected of anything ranging from jay walking to mass murder.
Even in places like the UK, if cops can justify it they will cuff you. And, no, you don’t have to be violent to for them to justify it. (And it’s not terribly difficult for them to do so. Sometimes that can be less of a factual obligation and more paperwork often cover-your-ass sort,
Generally, it’s best to cuff before the search, the process of cuffing generally places you in a dominant position and better able to respond to aggressive actions. Searching… not so much. (Imagine checking some one’s boot and where your head is when you find that weapon.) M
If our system didn’t turn every action with police into one that will literally ruin lives even if your innocent, have the potential to be extra judicially murdered, and have to deal with a police force who has no patience and will remarkably quickly escalate to violence themselves maybe the populace wouldn’t resist cops so much
I’m not saying it’s right. And it’s definitely not preferred. There is a distinct and dire need to reform policing.
OC asked why, and the Too Angry; Didn’t Read is that cops are scared. They cuff you up when they don’t feel safe. They might also justify it as preventing escape or something. But mostly they’re scared.
And there is some justification for that not a lot. It’s far less common than they’ll imply. But there is some.
They’re scared little shits who’ve been selectively hired to be too dumb to find other solutions or have empathy.
It’s such a contrast from Europe. I had the cops called on me once in the UK (and they also don’t have a great reputation) as I drank too much and somehow got stuck in someone’s garden knocking on their window at like 3am to let me out.
Cops came, ID’d me, asked what I was doing there and helped me climb out/half pulled me out then gave me a ride home. I remember them just having a laugh at me being stupid due to being drunk. I asked them if they could cuff me cuz I wanted to know what it’s like and they said no because they didn’t want me to hurt myself by falling over or something. I also asked if we could go through the McDonald’s drive through when we went by one on the way and offered to bribe them with a happy meal but they just chuckled and told me they can’t do that unfortunately. One of them walked me up to my flat and made sure I got in safe before leaving. Granted I wasn’t arrested or anything, but it felt like a positive experience and I woke up feeling thankful for them having been there the night before.
To contrast, I’ve once been pulled over in the US with friends and even though the cop didn’t do or say anything wrong, I distinctly remember feeling like his tone and demeanor was challenging (as if he wanted us to argue with him or something). We were let go without a ticket or anything in the end, all he said when we asked why we were pulled over is that it’s a routine check. It felt like a very negative experience and from what it sounds like, it’s as good as it could have gone in the US.
Wait the American cop knew why he pulled you over? That is exceptionally good. Usually they don’t even know and have the gall to ask you. And they’re just looming with a hand on their gun while they ask
When we pulled over he came over and asked for license and reg, we immediately asked why we got stopped and he said routine check, then proceeded to ask us a bunch of questions about where we are driving from, where to, why etc. I would not answer those now, but we didn’t know about how things go in the US then so we did. He didn’t get anything out of it luckily.
I distinctly remember feeling like his tone and demeanor was challenging (as if he wanted us to argue with him or something). We were let go without a ticket or anything in the end, all he said when we asked why we were pulled over is that it’s a routine check.
That’s an unlawful detention in the US. You can only be pulled over for either actually violating something or a reasonable suspicion of doing a specific illegal thing. They can always make something up, but that’ll limit how long they can investigate you for. Coming out and saying they have no reason should always just be responded with asking to leave.
Yeah, I know that now but none of us knew how to handle the situation then. I’ve learned since then to read up on the rights i will have in countries I plan on visiting.
It’s a shame that we pay our taxes only to have to invest even more energy into protecting ourselves from the system that’s built with our money (I’ve found this to be true to different degrees in most countries unfortunately).
Also, obviously pandemic related, no? Can’t imagine not being burnt out when half the people coming in the building won’t follow mask protocols, and will do so with a fucking argument. Can’t imagine the number of doctors burnt out from diagnosing COVID only to hear their patient consistently refer to it as the Wuhan flu.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.