No one will hire me....

Post Reply New Topic

A lot of companies especially mid to large have moved on from it.

A lot of mid to large companies now outsource HR duties including first few rounds of interviewing/hiring to staffing firms (I hate dealing with said staffing firms).

The staffing firms then select the candidates they think fits the description they were handed to a T to the company who's hiring.
The company that's hiring will either review the data and:

1) Reject everyone
2) Pick someone and hire them
3) Pick the ones they like the best and do their own final interview, hopefully hire someone.

The staffing company has no in depth knowledge of the company and no in depth knowledge of the job they are tasked with hiring over rendering the whole process pointless for most people.

In my case with staffing firms have gone this way:

Do their online applications and personality tests (takes over an hour to complete) > Do phone interview > do in person interview with the staffing company > do another round of staffing company > wait to see if hiring company likes the what is sent over about me > maybe hear back.

Or it is just being logged in a database, hoping that my resume gets flagged when a company is looking to hire someone
This is how it works with recruiters...


When applying/interviewing with mid to large companies it's gone like this:

Submit resume, cover letter, contact list, and/or anything else they are asking for > Fill it all in by hand on their digital form as well (takes up to an hour) > Fill in/answer all other questions asked (can take up to an hour) > Take personality test (can take up to an hour) > do phone interview with HR who lacks in depth knowledge about the department and job > in person interview with HR who lacks in depth knowledge about the department and job and is following the literal description and requirements because they don't have in depth knowledge of IT/Marketing (in my case) > Do round 2 of in person interviews with more HR people who lacks in depth knowledge about the department and job > do round 3 of interviewing with HR people lacks in depth knowledge about the department and job.

You get three out comes:
1) Hired without ever interacting with anyone in that department or who works people who do that job
2) Round 4 of interviewing with more HR people who lacks in depth knowledge about the department and job, which will lead to hiring.
3) Round 4 of interviewing with the more HR people and someone from the department who is actually knowledgeable about that job and department, but can't hire anyone without HR in agreement.

Most people I know who have been hired in the past 5+ years have gone through this process at nearly every job they've interviewed for, including my dad who was forced to get a new job in 2010 and again in 2012.
He said he almost didn't get hired because HR didn't like his specific job questions and his technical answers (obviously HR lacks in depth knowledge about the department and job) but the department liked him and his resume.
Hell nearly all the jobs I had to interview for went like this.

This is why actually good for the job people aren't getting hired and why it takes so damn long to get through the process.

Hell the online application process can take between 1 - 3 hours in most cases due to the horrible systems in place.
Why must I submit a resume and other documentation to upload and then fill it all in by hand?
What's the point of the upload?
Why can't they program the system to convert it and my LinkedIn information into filled out fields (some companies do)?

I hate the HR hiring process.

Though to be fair when I interviewed with GM IT it strangely different.

I had to interview in person first with a team of two people > then create an account on their online jobs portal > fill out all the information > submit all the necessary documents including a resume > apply for one of the entry level jobs (which I wasn't qualified for based on their asinine requirements) > wait for next round of interview if HR approved.

I got the interview because the guy manning the booth at the career fair had classes with me, so I got the interview.
I interviewed before applying to a job.

This is how it all works in the Midwest/Great Lakes and from what I hear in the South and East Coast.

The agencies that I work with perform the basic screening for qualifications - citizenship, education, experience, licenses, warrants - and we do the face-to-face interviews. Some are better than others ...

It might amaze you to see how many graduates fresh out of university seem to have been given their diplomas without ever really learning the coursework. Some technical candidates have been near tears when asked questions involving only the four basic functions of simple maths - a clearly demonstrable lack of marketable skill.

Some have responded to questions as if attending an interrogation - they get offended when asked about their hobbies or recreational interests, for example.

(I once asked a person who claimed to be training for the Olympics in archery whether she preferred left-handed or right-handed fletching. She said she was ambidextrous. )

Some have shown up for their scheduled appointments hours or even days late, and still expected to be hired on the spot.

("What do you mean you won't see me now? I have an appointment!. So what if it was for yesterday?")

Some have argued with the interviewers over trivial matters, or insisted they they were right when they were factually wrong.

("No, sir. Ohm's law describes how to interpret the colored bands on a resistor." )

Yes, agencies can screen for the basics, but we've often been caught flat-footed by candidates who didn't have a clue about how to handle an interview.

Thanks Fnord for showing examples of what NOT to do to get a job. I have have one more to add, talking smack about former employers. I interviewed one guy and asked why he left his last employment and he bluntly told me that his former Boss was an a--hole, needless to say he did not get the job.
A survey was done on 2,500 resumes and it was found that 56 percent of them lied on their resumes, the examples Fnord gave was clearly cases of that.

Not a lot of people like you are in the hiring process, it would seem than. Most people I know have trouble getting and keeping jobs...when they are more than willing to work, show up on time and all that good stuff.

This is all completely depressing and now I feel like I'll never get a decent job, even though I'm very intelligent, hardworking, honest, etc. All those qualities that people lie about having on job interviews, which are actually true for me. So it's not like I can even mention that stuff, because they assume it's all a lie.

What I'd like to do is just say, "You should hire me because I'm likely smarter, more honest, more talented, and a harder worker than any of the other candidates." However they will not only think I'm full of sh*t, they'll assume that I'm egotistical, even though those things have been true for the types of jobs I apply for. People like me typically have advanced degrees and decent jobs, whereas I have a crappy two-year degree and am applying for jobs that pay little and often require nothing more than a high school diploma and job experience (and I don't usually have the amount that they are requesting).

I also have many different skills because I teach myself how to do things. But since most of my skills aren't actually accompanied by degrees or certifications, they don't count. Nobody cares if it isn't on paper. It doesn't matter that I actually can do the job and have more than enough skills, learn quickly, etc. because they don't believe it.

If I am not even considered for most jobs I apply for because of my resume, there is next to no chance for me to prove myself in an interview or position.

It's worse to be smart than "un-papered"-- being smart sends warning signals to the other person, basically if you're smarter than they are you're a threat because they don't want those smarts directed at them. I know it's silly and ridiculous, but you have to understand NT's are highly paranoid about their status and will do anything to protect it.


I've also heard it claimed that up to 70% of recent college graduates aren't proficient in their degree area-- it was a minor point in a PBS documentary about the ongoing "grade inflation" that's been hitting colleges since the turn of the century. As I've always said-- it's not what the piece of paper says, it's what the person actually knows. I don't know how long this country has if businesses keep making hiring decisions based on a candidate's ability to "fit company culture" as opposed to actually knowing how to do their job.

That's really funny, because someone had told me that before, but I didn't really believe it. I realize that some people are like that, but it can't be that common, can it? It makes no sense to me. But if that is really the case, then I'm in trouble. I'm usually smarter than the people who interview me.

I would go about the interview process entirely differently if I were hiring. I would want someone intelligent, talented, hardworking, and honest. I would care much more about actual skills than what's on paper. The candidate would have to prove him/herself by actually knowing what he/she was talking about. No b.s. would be accepted. I wouldn't want to be charmed; I'd want someone with the best skills and personality to do the job well.

They seem to do things in the opposite manner here, however. They want b.s., and seem to respond best to it. When I used to go to interviews and be honest about my skills and those things that I still needed to work on, I never got a call back. But then when I decided to start being not quite so honest, and fed them the b.s. cliched answers that they wanted, I got positive results.

I know someone who got his job because he published a complicated ham radio project--it was proof he not only had engineering skills--but could "finish the deal" and produce something that worked!

What I'd like to do is just say,harder worker than any of the other candidates." However they will not only think I'm full of sh*t, they'll assume that I'm egotistical, even though those things have been true for the types of jobs I apply for. People like me typically have advanced degrees and decent jobs, whereas I have a crappy two-year degree and am applying for jobs that pay little and often require nothing more than a high school diploma and job experience (and I don't usually have the amount that they are requesting).
:[/quote]
Do you know this for a fact? Hard to base this on just assuming what other people are like.

The biggest issue is not what you know but how well you are liked. If you look at what people are looking for in employees they may list things like: team player or collaborative (popular), thinks outside the box (creative), etc. Many more, though I cannot really think of them this early, are "soft skills" or social skills. These are part of the hidden rules and requirements for getting and keeping jobs.

I know there are many graduates who are unprepared and many more who aren't good at interviews.

Many agencies do as they are told by the company that's hiring, many agencies have been caught bending the rules to meet quotas.
In the end, most hiring companies go to the cheapest staffing agency they can find to save money!
So you get what you pay for.

But the ones I know are well educated, well prepared but stuck in the horrible jobless recovery without enough to be the huge requirements to get into entry level jobs.

One of the problems since the late 1990s, is the colleges students are struggling to afford tuition.
Many work while going to school, in which their managers schedule them at the same time as their classes.

Going to college and refusing to take the work schedule that conflicts with classes, is automatic grounds for firing.
I've known plenty of students who had to struggle to find aid and loans to go to school, because their parents were worth too much!

Also many internships now don't teach you jack and just use you for lowest level of basic work because they know you aren't going to complain.
You are essentially cheap/free labor to be used to do the lowest possible jobs, freeing the actual workers to do more important jobs.
You can see all this in most internship listings.

My first internship was doing basic office work to help them catch up on many things they neglected because they had more important stuff to do. I mean they were nice and I was treated well, they just didn't have the degree related work I needed but due to shortage of internships in 2009 in Metro Detroit I took the internship.

My last internship wanted to assign me more stuff, but legal department denied it because I was student and they were afraid of the possible legal issues for having me working on technical stuff. So I mainly did basic office work.
I needed the internship because frankly there were even less available in Metro Detroit and the Great Lakes region than in 2009.

I cannot make it clear enough that most internships have you do the lowest most basic jobs, instead of giving you degree related work (which is technically illegal)

It didn't help by 2011 my professors ran out of legitimate business projects, as in real business stuff that companies were willing to get college students to work for free on.
Instead the local business (including large companies such as FCA and GM) stopped doing it because they could get well season engineers for practically nothing.

Also in 2011 the Dean of my school had to end the internship because the local businesses including GM and FCA (the school is literally around the corner from the FCA NA HQ) quite participating because they could get well seasoned engineers to do those internship for the same price.

Why higher a college student to do a real internship when you can get a well seasoned career person in their late 30s, 40s and 50s to do it for the same price?

This is what most economies are facing right now even in the U.S.

"....talking smack about former employers"

I just had to chuckle when I saw this. I remember interviewing a prospective employee who had a few complaints about his previous employer, and when I discussed the interview with my manager he flew into a mini rage saying: "This person has broken a code of silence that exists between an employee and his employer....etc....etc......"

But then I thought of the information on former employees HE had requested from the previous employer and saw this "code of silence" was strictly a one-way-street for the benefit of the employer and anyone who thought differently was duped. I actually appreciated this candidate's candor and would have hired him....I guess I felt I had nothing to hide?

Actually neither side is supposed to bad mouth the other.

"....talking smack about former employers"

I just had to chuckle when I saw this. I remember interviewing a prospective employee who had a few complaints about his previous employer, and when I discussed the interview with my manager he flew into a mini rage saying: "This person has broken a code of silence that exists between an employee and his employer....etc....etc......"

But then I thought of the information on former employees HE had requested from the previous employer and saw this "code of silence" was strictly a one-way-street for the benefit of the employer and anyone who thought differently was duped. I actually appreciated this candidate's candor and would have hired him....I guess I felt I had nothing to hide?[/quote]

Actually neither side is supposed to bad mouth the other.[/quote]
Actually, not talking about former employers is to your benefit. You want to put your best foot forward, in order to do this you must look like you "play nice in the sandbox". By insulting your former employers you are clearly demonstrating a lack of adaptability to the workplace and common workplace stress, in addition to looking anti-social. It is not true that former employers cannot say negative things about you, it is just what they don't say as well. Savvy HR and hiring managers can pick up on things although not explicitly stated can still spell doom for you.

Actually neither side is supposed to bad mouth the other.[/quote]
Actually, not talking about former employers is to your benefit. You want to put your best foot forward, in order to do this you must look like you "play nice in the sandbox". By insulting your former employers you are clearly demonstrating a lack of adaptability to the workplace and common workplace stress, in addition to looking anti-social. It is not true that former employers cannot say negative things about you, it is just what they don't say as well. Savvy HR and hiring managers can pick up on things although not explicitly stated can still spell doom for you.[/quote]
Yes and it's good business not to give a bad reference/referral as an employer.

Take either too far and it violates the law.

It'seems to be a myth that former employers cannot give you a bad reference, they can. It just has to be documented, for instance: how was the said employees work ethic? He was late several times, etc.
People think they are protected by law not to get a bad reference they are not. The former employer cannot say untruthful stuff that is libel.
Many companies discourage managers to say negative stuff to avoid legal issues, but on the face of it, it is not illegal.

There is one question that is legal to both ask and answer, and that does not risk libel.

"If you could hire this person back, would you?"

All I'd have to say is "No" to ruin someone's chances at another job, and no court in the land would entertain a lawsuit against me.