Strange Hiring Process
AardvarkGoodSwimmer
Veteran
Joined: 26 Apr 2009
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,663
Location: Houston, Texas
28 Mar 2015, 3:09 pm
Okay, so jobs are hard to get, or can be, depending on your local market, your skills, etc. What Fnord says about the current set-up being advantageous to the company. We might all wish we had a better set-up, but we currently do not.
Rhapsody, I would recommend that you not withdraw your application, but just kind of engage with this workplace slowly if and when they do hire you. Try and get there a few minutes early most mornings, but do not stay late for extra work. Just plead family responsibilities. Once you're past these clumsy-at-best, borderline-disrespectful-at-best hiring practices, you might find the actual people you are working with are okay. Socially, maybe be open to interact with people according to how you usually like to do it. But as far as caring about the well-being of the company and any extra work at all, I'd be slow to engage with that.
And most importantly, continue to look for other jobs.
30 Mar 2015, 3:53 pm
Report it to the Dept. of Labor. They will not disclose who reported the company to anyone and if you provide enough information to warrant them taking a look, they will investigate the company.
Alternatively you can also contact your local news station. Many of them have investigative units that focus on these type of things and expose them (your anonymity should also be held).
30 Mar 2015, 8:24 pm
Report it to the Dept. of Labor. They will not disclose who reported the company to anyone and if you provide enough information to warrant them taking a look, they will investigate the company.
Alternatively you can also contact your local news station. Many of them have investigative units that focus on these type of things and expose them (your anonymity should also be held).
This is true, though if you are found out to be or suspected to be the one who reported them, you will be blacklisted from working in that industry.
It will also look bad to other employers in general.
Though with that said, many companies are doing unconventional interviewing/hiring formats.
_________________
Something.... Weird... Something...
31 Mar 2015, 12:52 pm
It will also look bad to other employers in general.
Though with that said, many companies are doing unconventional interviewing/hiring formats.
Dept. of Labor does not reveal the person that tipped them. Its the same federal identity protection rule that whistleblowers get. The news station may be a different story but you can always simply sent a letter anonymously to the station after you find out who their big investigative reporters are.
31 Mar 2015, 3:31 pm
It will also look bad to other employers in general.
Though with that said, many companies are doing unconventional interviewing/hiring formats.
Dept. of Labor does not reveal the person that tipped them. Its the same federal identity protection rule that whistleblowers get. The news station may be a different story but you can always simply sent a letter anonymously to the station after you find out who their big investigative reporters are.
It doesn't stop companies from hiring people to find out who reported them.
The Dept. of Labor doesn't do enough to protect whistle blowers.
_________________
Something.... Weird... Something...
01 Apr 2015, 9:32 am
At one of my former employer's, there was a large number of people applying for work in the Service Department. Many of those who passed the initial screening process, passed the interviews, and showed up for work, quickly demonstrated that they either could not do the work, could not handle the pressure of the job, or both.
So I introduced a test: I would first explain to the pre-screened candidates how a certain module should work, and then ask them to find out why it would not work. The module was one of several of the same type with different intentionally-induced failures. The candidate would have all of the necessary tools and test equipment at their disposal, and an hour to complete the test (most of the production-line staff needed less than twelve minutes to trouble-shoot a single module).
Those who could trouble-shoot the first module were given another module to troubleshoot. This process went on until the hour was up or I ran out of modules, whichever came first. Then a score was generated by the modules successfully trouble-shot and the time it took to determine the fault.
Thus, a person who could not correctly troubleshoot even one module in an hour was given a score of '0' (zero). All ten modules earned a '10' (ten). The number of minutes left in the hour were tacked on as a decimal fraction - 0.00 was the worst score, and 10.60 was (hypothetically) the best.
Only the highest-scoring candidates were given an offer, and most of the scores were either 5.00 or 6.00, with no one ever scoring higher than 8.00 (even me).
I had to stop administering this test because too many candidates left the testing area all teary-eyed and anxious from having to endure the stress of the examination - they either froze or 'freaked'. That is, they nearly panicked as soon as they were confronted with the need to demonstrate what they had already claimed they could do.
I left that company after that, because Management started blaming me for the inevitable decline in the efficiency of our Service Department.
You were only deluding yourself with that practice. If a person is prepared for an interview they're prepared for an interview, if they get there and have to take a test instead their entire psychology changes, generally to anxiety and fear. Now, if you say second round of interviews is a test they'll be prepared to take a test, and psychologically that different frame of mind will produce better/more consistent results. Even in a high pressure job rarely does the goal and focus of the job completely change in a matter of seconds, like what you did to those prospective employees. So while you think what you were doing was collecting "real world" examples, it was anything but "real world".
Purposefully inducing stress to see how people react is rarely useful in jobs, people perform better with less stress not more. If I were applying for that job and had that happen to me I'd ace your test and then look for another employer because I'd assume that how your company operates-- inducing stress for no reason. I worked for a medium size online store writing php/javascript/actionscript (it was a decade ago), and that company operated the same way-- the owner enjoyed inducing stress for no reason. The turnover was atrocious, I was there for a year and saw literally 90% of the people leave within 6 months. One position, customer service (front line to the public, very important) had 8 different employees in the year I was there. The owner was constantly training new people and losing money by constantly training. Flash forward three years after I left and the company went under. It was not surprising to me in the least.a
01 Apr 2015, 6:36 pm
Deluding myself? As I said, the quality of work at that company declined after they stopped the practical examinations, and started hiring people on their ability to dress well and give a good interview.
The candidates were also told ahead of time that they would be tested on their technical knowledge and abilities, so it was not as if they could not be prepared. Also, since the modules they were tested on we're not production units, we weren't getting any free work out of them, either.
It's too bad that practice is so unpopular. I think more people would be hired on the basis of being able to do the job (Aspies/Autistics), and not just on the basis of being able to socialize (Allistics/NTs).
01 Apr 2015, 7:11 pm
The candidates were also told ahead of time that they would be tested on their technical knowledge and abilities, so it was not as if they could not be prepared. Also, since the modules they were tested on we're not production units, we weren't getting any free work out of them, either.
It's too bad that practice is so unpopular. I think more people would be hired on the basis of being able to do the job (Aspies/Autistics), and not just on the basis of being able to socialize (Allistics/NTs).
Forget my point then, I was under the assumption it was just dropped on them. I have no problem if there was fair warning-- but I have been in situations where an interviewer drops unexpected work. My point with that is it only really tests stress management, not skills or ability. But like I said, fair warning alleviates stress and allows mental preparation-- sorry for misunderstanding your technique.
02 Apr 2015, 6:56 am
Work samples are one thing. Expecting you to do a project for NO compensation (in the USA) is illegal.
Whether you choose to do it or not, feel free to file a complaint with the authorities. You often can do so anonymously (citing fear of retaliation), and the agency will send someone in to see if it's true (often have someone apply for a job and see if it's done to their decoy).
That employer can be in big trouble for expecting applicants to work for free. The most I've ever seen like this was a job that had you come in for basically 30 minutes to spend some time doing the job (no comp) to see if it's something you would or would not actually want to do. There was no point hiring you and have you quit on your first day, so it was the only practical "test" they could come up with. They certainly didn't make us work for a whole hour or even a full shift.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| An Ingenious New Process Could Make Computers 2x Faster—With |
20 Mar 2024, 1:35 pm |
| Strange fishy behavior going on in Florida |
31 Mar 2024, 10:14 pm |
| Thousands of Strange White Rocks Found on Mars |
04 Apr 2024, 7:53 pm |
