What's with women and HR (bloody ridiculous)

SarahMollie · 23-08-2016 3:18pm

runawaybishop wrote: »

Who said there was a gun being pointed anywhere?

You've been given 2 already. You tried to move the goalposts, then you started arguing semantics, now you are resorting to ad hominems.

So, when I bring in a metaphorical gun, you don't get it, but suddenly you're able to bring in metaphorical goalposts? Curious.

I'm resorting to plain English. "Reasons" are subjective. Whats obvious to you may not be valid for others. Fathers can choose to be more involved if thats what the individual couple choose. That might be at the expense of earnings, but to some people, money isnt everything. A lot of people will choose the money, some won't.

We don't live in a dictatorship whereby women have to stay at home. The marriage ban was lifted quite some time ago actually.

Permabear · 23-08-2016 3:22pm

This post has been deleted.

SarahMollie · 23-08-2016 3:28pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I absolutely agree. I think you're caught in a situation whereby the law hasn't caught up with today's society and the reality of modern families - I think a lot of people would have a lot of sympathy for your case TBH.

I hope it gets better for you. Is there anything you can do to get added to the birth cert? Is the childs mother supportive of you being his/her guardian and willing to assign rights through the courts? I don't even know if this would help re child benefit but I hope you're exploring your options.

runawaybishop · 23-08-2016 3:28pm

SarahMollie wrote: »

I'm resorting to plain English. "Reasons" are subjective. Whats obvious to you may not be valid for others. Fathers can choose to be more involved if thats what the individual couple choose. That might be at the expense of earnings, but to some people, money isnt everything. A lot of people will choose the money, some won't.

We don't live in a dictatorship whereby women have to stay at home. The marriage ban was lifted quite some time ago actually.

What has this got to do with your statement that men have no reason to not stay at home?

SarahMollie wrote: »

theres no reason the man couldn't be the once to drop to part time hours once the children are born.

^^ reason provided

Lux23 wrote: »

But in some countries women don't get paid maternity benefit so how do you explain the pay gap there? In the US, you can be back in a number of weeks.

^^ goalposts moved.

SarahMollie wrote: »

You gave a choice, not a reason.

^^ semantic argument

SarahMollie wrote: »

You can't choose to stay in work for pragmatic reasons

^^ referring to it as a reason, despite your statement its a choice above.

SarahMollie wrote: »

So, when I bring in a metaphorical gun, you don't get it, but suddenly you're able to bring in metaphorical goalposts? Curious.

I never, once, said the man was forced to work. So again, what gun are you referring to?

SarahMollie · 23-08-2016 3:34pm

runawaybishop wrote: »

What has this got to do with your statement that men have no reason to not stay at home?

^^ reason provided

^^ goalposts moved.

^^ semantic argument

^^ referring to it as a reason, despite your statement its a choice above.

I never, once, said the man was forced to work. So again, what gun are you referring to?

I'm sorry, but talk about being pedantic now? As for semantics... wow.

I'm sorry if my repeated attempts to clarify my point have only confused you further, but I'm not going to get further drawn into a multiquoting frenzy as above.

I've explained how everyone has their reasons (as reasons are subjective), but at the end of the day we all make our own choices (objective) and live with the consequences. I'm not contradicting myself. They are not mutually exclusive.

Permabear · 23-08-2016 3:36pm

This post has been deleted.

Lux23 · 23-08-2016 3:38pm

Very timely report on the link between the gender pay gap and having children. The top finding is:

"The hourly wages of female employees are currently about 18% lower than men’s on average, having been 23% lower in 2003 and 28% lower in 1993."

18%? And people say it doesn't exist anymore.

https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/bns/bn186.pdf

SarahMollie · 23-08-2016 3:38pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Glad its worked out for you anyway

Charizard · 23-08-2016 3:39pm

SarahMollie wrote: »

Well there is no reason, as it theres nothing stopping any man choosing to stay at home - theres no law against it. People may choose to do otherwise for a variety of reasons but theres nothing stopping any couple from deciding that the man should be the one to stay at home.

Any "reasons" are choices.

Your argument is leaving out a massive amount of logic though

Charizard · 23-08-2016 3:43pm

SarahMollie wrote: »

You gave a choice, not a reason. A couple might chose for the man to stay in work if he earns more. If the man felt passionately about staying at home then they could choose to cut their cloth to meet their measure.

Also, I was clearly talking about more than just maternity leave. The burden of childcare doesnt just disappear once those few months are up.

Our baby wouldnt drink from the bottle, only breast feed, how is it a choice then, but hey fill your agenda with nonsense

smash · 23-08-2016 3:47pm

Lux23 wrote: »

Very timely report on the link between the gender pay gap and having children. The top finding is:

"The hourly wages of female employees are currently about 18% lower than men’s on average, having been 23% lower in 2003 and 28% lower in 1993."

18%? And people say it doesn't exist anymore.

https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/bns/bn186.pdf

Are the jobs comparable? For example, if I was to be compared to a childcare worker my wages would be broken down to an hourly rate many multiples of what they earn.

Even where comparable, from experience (in the private sector) I've seen how men are more forceful in pushing for a negotiation of a better deal for themselves.

SarahMollie · 23-08-2016 3:53pm

Charizard wrote: »

Your argument is leaving out a massive amount of logic though

Honestly, it feels like you're out to disagree with anything I've said the past few days??? Feels a bit like a bandwaggon.

Anyway, no it doesnt lack logic. I'm not advising anyone to make any particular choice, as I belive its a really individual topic.

All I'm saying is that parents can chose how they want their children to be cared for and each option has pros and cons. Depending on anyones individual circumstances, they may choose differently.

All i'm saying is that people just need to remember that what ever route was decided upon, that they had a choice. No one forces anyone to have childen. If you have children, you can choose how (and who) cares for them. In some cases, the reasons might be so overwhelming that the choice is obvious, but its still a choice nonetheless.

For example if the Man earns 3x what he woman makes, the likely choice will be for him to remain at work. Reason being money. However, the state doesnt prevent him from quitting job in favour of her working, if for whatever reason they decide between them that that would be better. Possible alternative reasons from money might be that;
- her job is low paying now but could have better long term prospects
- he might hate his job and need to change lifestyle
- his job is taking a toll on him personally whereby her worklife balance is great.

The list is endless.

I was merely saying to hose fathers who point to their sacrifice of being the breadwinner, that everything in life is a choice. If they're unhappy, perhaps they should evaluate as to whether they've made the right one. Maybe after reevaluating, they'll still make the same choice.

Ultimately - no one can have it all, not at the same time.

*note - reasons are not the opposite of choices! Reasons are just why you make you make the choices you make - I don't see why people have such an issue with this!*

SarahMollie · 23-08-2016 3:57pm

smash wrote: »

Even where comparable, from experience (in the private sector) I've seen how men are more forceful in pushing for a negotiation of a better deal for themselves.

I've heard this before. I can see a grain of truth in it, but obviously its hard to know as salary negotiations are typically secretive.

I know I personally die inside every time my pay review comes up. I fight my corner, but I hate having to do it. I get the impression that a lot of my male colleagues arent particularly bothered by the process.

SarahMollie · 23-08-2016 4:00pm

Charizard wrote: »

Our baby wouldnt drink from the bottle, only breast feed, how is it a choice then, but hey fill your agenda with nonsense

I love how you're picking and choosing which bits you want to attack.

How about picking on any of the multiple times when I said that every couples circumstances are individual, and that everyone has their own reasons for the choices they make. I also said I wasn't talking about the period of time covered by maternity leave.

You come across as an angry man.

Billy86 · 23-08-2016 4:03pm

Frank101 wrote: »

You'd have to wonder, is it human nature, for women to be more inclined to choose a man that is more charming or witty during the interview than one that isn't. This job was for a lab technician! What also annoyed me, was that 5 weeks later, when I asked if there was any decision, I was told that they were still deciding (instead of just informing me I hadn't got it). The envelope came about a week later, so late that it interrupted the holiday plans I had.

I'm definitely having no luck with the ladies at the moment, both in bars, and in interviews! And there's likely a correlation between the two!

Of course it is. Lab technician, salesperson, receptionist or accountant, you want to hire people that will be more likely to make the effort to get on with their co-workers.

That is also a long process, but how did it impact your holiday? Did you get the job, have the holiday booked, and not tell them in the interview? Or did you not get the job, in which case I have no idea how that would impact your ability to go on holiday? Just a bit confused by that part.

smash · 23-08-2016 4:07pm

SarahMollie wrote: »

I've heard this before. I can see a grain of truth in it, but obviously its hard to know as salary negotiations are typically secretive.

I know I personally die inside every time my pay review comes up. I fight my corner, but I hate having to do it. I get the impression that a lot of my male colleagues arent particularly bothered by the process.

I don't know if it's just me that's noticed it, or if it's the sector I'm in but I find men more career orientated and women more job oriented. When I say that, what I mean is that I've seen how a man will move company when more money is on offer where as women seem to want a stable job in a company and are more willing to stick it out and not take a risk. In doing this, men gain more experience which helps career progression. When it comes time for a pay review, it's a challenge and if they don't get what they want then it's time to move on.

Does that make sense?

SarahMollie · 23-08-2016 4:12pm

smash wrote: »

I don't know if it's just me that's noticed it, or if it's the sector I'm in but I find men more career orientated and women more job oriented. When I say that, what I mean is that I've seen how a man will move company when more money is on offer where as women seem to want a stable job in a company and are more willing to stick it out. In doing this, men gain more experience which helps career progression. When it comes time for a pay review, it's a challenge and if they don't get what they want then it's time to move on.

Does that make sense?

I actually get exactly what you mean, and I even recognise it in myself sometimes. I get so cough up in doing whatever it is I'm doing to the best of my ability, that perhaps I take my eye off the ball in terms of whats actually the best use of my time to further my career.

Or like as in the example you gave, I've previously turned down a job offer (more lucrative) because I felt loyalty to my existing employer. Turns out this loyalty isnt always appreciated or even noticed. Sometimes if you stay somewhere too long they actually just take you for granted. I should have just taken the money.

Lux23 · 23-08-2016 4:14pm

smash wrote: »

I don't know if it's just me that's noticed it, or if it's the sector I'm in but I find men more career orientated and women more job oriented. When I say that, what I mean is that I've seen how a man will move company when more money is on offer where as women seem to want a stable job in a company and are more willing to stick it out. In doing this, men gain more experience which helps career progression. When it comes time for a pay review, it's a challenge and if they don't get what they want then it's time to move on.

Does that make sense?

I know what you mean but I could say I know men who just want a cushy job and then women who are very ambitious and disloyal to their employers. I think it is more a personality type than a gender thing.

smash · 23-08-2016 4:16pm

Lux23 wrote: »

I know what you mean but I could say I know men who just want a cushy job and then women who are very ambitious and disloyal to their employers. I think it is more a personality type than a gender thing.

I know women like this too, but the men I know like this far outweigh the women.

SarahMollie · 23-08-2016 4:21pm

Lux23 wrote: »

I know what you mean but I could say I know men who just want a cushy job and then women who are very ambitious and disloyal to their employers. I think it is more a personality type than a gender thing.

Yeah true, there are no absolutes.

I just know I've been guilty of it in the past, but I try to be self aware and correct that behavior when I see it.

I did eventually take the money anyway

Charizard · 23-08-2016 4:23pm

SarahMollie wrote: »

Honestly, it feels like you're out to disagree with anything I've said the past few days??? Feels a bit like a bandwaggon.

Anyway, no it doesnt lack logic. I'm not advising anyone to make any particular choice, as I belive its a really individual topic.

All I'm saying is that parents can chose how they want their children to be cared for and each option has pros and cons. Depending on anyones individual circumstances, they may choose differently.

All i'm saying is that people just need to remember that what ever route was decided upon, that they had a choice. No one forces anyone to have childen. If you have children, you can choose how (and who) cares for them. In some cases, the reasons might be so overwhelming that the choice is obvious, but its still a choice nonetheless.

For example if the Man earns 3x what he woman makes, the likely choice will be for him to remain at work. Reason being money. However, the state doesnt prevent him from quitting job in favour of her working, if for whatever reason they decide between them that that would be better. Possible alternative reasons from money might be that;
- her job is low paying now but could have better long term prospects
- he might hate his job and need to change lifestyle
- his job is taking a toll on him personally whereby her worklife balance is great.

The list is endless.

I was merely saying to hose fathers who point to their sacrifice of being the breadwinner, that everything in life is a choice. If they're unhappy, perhaps they should evaluate as to whether they've made the right one. Maybe after reevaluating, they'll still make the same choice.

Ultimately - no one can have it all, not at the same time.

*note - reasons are not the opposite of choices! Reasons are just why you make you make the choices you make - I don't see why people have such an issue with this!*

I honestly didnt even notice I was replying to you at all, its up to you if you think theres a agenda. You leave out massive facts just to win a argument

Charizard · 23-08-2016 4:25pm

SarahMollie wrote: »

I love how you're picking and choosing which bits you want to attack.

How about picking on any of the multiple times when I said that every couples circumstances are individual, and that everyone has their own reasons for the choices they make. I also said I wasn't talking about the period of time covered by maternity leave.

You come across as an angry man.

Thats funny because you are coming across as the angry one, you see youve lost a argument but keep screaming hoping to get back on top. Its not my fault if you have ignored multiple times how wrong you are

SarahMollie · 23-08-2016 4:28pm

Charizard wrote: »

I honestly didnt even notice I was replying to you at all, its up to you if you think theres a agenda. You leave out massive facts just to win a argument

Sure. Maybe you're just this delightful whit everyone.

What facts!?! There are no facts. As if I'm going to discuss everyone individual circumstances (because I'm not interested for a start). All I've said is that everyone makes choices, all the time, some big, some small. People just need to have the awareness that choices often have knock on effects, not all of which are good. That doesnt mean they made the wrong choice, it just means that life its always ideal and sometimes you have to compromise. Its just about personal responsibility and realising that "thats just life!" when everything doesnt fall your way at once.

If you still believe the words "reason" and "choice" and interchangeable then thats not my issue.

SarahMollie · 23-08-2016 4:34pm

Charizard wrote: »

Thats funny because you are coming across as the angry one, you see youve lost a argument but keep screaming hoping to get back on top. Its not my fault if you have ignored multiple times how wrong you are

Unless I started typing all in capitals LIKE THIS I don't know where this screaming you're hearing is coming from - again, your issue, not mine.

I haven't lost anything. Just because you came on to back up some lad doesn't actually make either of you right. Again, it just follows your pattern of jumping in on threads and escalating things.

Charizard · 23-08-2016 4:36pm

SarahMollie wrote: »

Unless I started typing all in capitals LIKE THIS I don't know where this screaming you're hearing is coming from - again, your issue, not mine.

I haven't lost anything. Just because you came on to back up some lad doesn't actually make either of you right. Again, it just follows your pattern of jumping in on threads and escalating things.

You were the one saying Im coming across as a angry man, just because I dont agree with you. You do realise tone can be read with CAPITAL letters right

Wibbs · 23-08-2016 4:37pm

Can we dial back the badgering please.

Pat Mustard · 23-08-2016 4:37pm

SarahMollie wrote: »

You come across as an angry man.

Charizard wrote: »

you are coming across as the angry one

The ad hominems really don't help either argument.

SarahMollie · 23-08-2016 4:45pm

Charizard wrote: »

You were the one saying Im coming across as a angry man, just because I dont agree with you. You do realise tone can be read with CAPITAL letters right

Do you mean without? I was demonstrating (which I thought was obvious) - I think you'd find that with the exception of my demonstrating it for you above, it didn't use excessive capitals in any of my posts.

Anyhow, I've said all I can say, so enough is enough.

livedadream · 23-08-2016 4:58pm

Pat Mustard wrote: »

ad hominems

that's the phrase i was looking for the other day!!!!! Pat Mustard where have you been all my life!

Permabear · 23-08-2016 7:32pm

This post has been deleted.

runawaybishop · 23-08-2016 7:38pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'd love more time at home with the kids. Would swap with my wife in a heartbeat. I earn twice as much as her. She works 20 hours a week, I work 50 minimum.

Charizard · 23-08-2016 7:40pm

SarahMollie wrote: »

Do you mean without? I was demonstrating (which I thought was obvious) - I think you'd find that with the exception of my demonstrating it for you above, it didn't use excessive capitals in any of my posts.

Anyhow, I've said all I can say, so enough is enough.

So because you say enough is enough, thats it. You havent demonstrated anything only that you try contradict everyones elses opinion, but hey now Ive decided enough is enough

fits · 23-08-2016 9:43pm

We too would much appreciate more choice in how maternity/paternity/parental leave and pay is distributed. My husband would certainly consider going part time if that option were open to him - especially if I got a good job. Also amongst my friends, until now at least, the women have been the higher earners, and much much higher in some cases. Back in the 80s, my father did the bulk of the rearing for me and my younger sister while my mother worked (for myriad reasons I dont want to go into).

astrofool · 23-08-2016 10:03pm

SarahMollie wrote: »

True, but you can't say that being unwilling to put in as much overtime is a big a negative to an employer as maternity leave (which could happen 2-3 times). Upon returning to work, women with young families are also not going to want to work weekends etc, and I'm sure will need to take time off for illnesses etc also.

Also I don't think that the specter of potential pregnancy hangs over men as much as it hangs over women. Its something that annoys me, because I don't plan on having children, but I know its assumed I will, because I'm 30 and have am in a long term relationship.

There does seem a kind of socialist push that it's unfair for other people to work more hours ("than me") to earn more, and everybody should be happy to work the same amount, and we'll give out the correct amount of wages accordingly. Having children does exacerbate this effect as it definitely reduces a persons time availability, and more likely on the woman more than the man. The French try and enforce this, but then complain when FDI dries up. I personally don't think this is right either, if someone wants to work all hours of the day, then fair dues, the company should have checks and balances in place to ensure someone isn't endangering themselves, but that should be it. Hillary Clinton will not work 8 hour days if she becomes president, and CEO's push themselves to work many extra hours (see Marissa Meyer).

Children will reduce time available to work. People are rewarded based on what they "produce" for the company, thus a woman with a child will probably earn less than someone else who works more hours, if at the same productivity per hour (some will make up for this by being more productive per hour, but others will also get less).

I also don't think paternity leave and fathers leave will make a lot of difference. I wouldn't feel right taking time off unpaid while my partner was still working (I'd prefer she got the time instead of me, and I'm guessing on average women will be more likely to want to take the time than men, leaving the pay gap in place).

A more correct measure might be "productivity gap", do women earn less than men for the same amount of output over a given period of time.

professore · 23-08-2016 11:40pm

astrofool wrote: »

There does seem a kind of socialist push that it's unfair for other people to work more hours ("than me") to earn more, and everybody should be happy to work the same amount, and we'll give out the correct amount of wages accordingly. Having children does exacerbate this effect as it definitely reduces a persons time availability, and more likely on the woman more than the man. The French try and enforce this, but then complain when FDI dries up. I personally don't think this is right either, if someone wants to work all hours of the day, then fair dues, the company should have checks and balances in place to ensure someone isn't endangering themselves, but that should be it. Hillary Clinton will not work 8 hour days if she becomes president, and CEO's push themselves to work many extra hours (see Marissa Meyer).

Children will reduce time available to work. People are rewarded based on what they "produce" for the company, thus a woman with a child will probably earn less than someone else who works more hours, if at the same productivity per hour (some will make up for this by being more productive per hour, but others will also get less).

I also don't think paternity leave and fathers leave will make a lot of difference. I wouldn't feel right taking time off unpaid while my partner was still working (I'd prefer she got the time instead of me, and I'm guessing on average women will be more likely to want to take the time than men, leaving the pay gap in place).

A more correct measure might be "productivity gap", do women earn less than men for the same amount of output over a given period of time.

Great post.

SarahMollie · 24-08-2016 9:30am

astrofool wrote: »

There does seem a kind of socialist push that it's unfair for other people to work more hours ("than me") to earn more, and everybody should be happy to work the same amount, and we'll give out the correct amount of wages accordingly. Having children does exacerbate this effect as it definitely reduces a persons time availability, and more likely on the woman more than the man. The French try and enforce this, but then complain when FDI dries up. I personally don't think this is right either, if someone wants to work all hours of the day, then fair dues, the company should have checks and balances in place to ensure someone isn't endangering themselves, but that should be it. Hillary Clinton will not work 8 hour days if she becomes president, and CEO's push themselves to work many extra hours (see Marissa Meyer).

Children will reduce time available to work. People are rewarded based on what they "produce" for the company, thus a woman with a child will probably earn less than someone else who works more hours, if at the same productivity per hour (some will make up for this by being more productive per hour, but others will also get less).

I also don't think paternity leave and fathers leave will make a lot of difference. I wouldn't feel right taking time off unpaid while my partner was still working (I'd prefer she got the time instead of me, and I'm guessing on average women will be more likely to want to take the time than men, leaving the pay gap in place).

A more correct measure might be "productivity gap", do women earn less than men for the same amount of output over a given period of time.

While I agree with what you're saying completely, I think you've taken the piece you've quoted from me out of context.

I was responding to a previous poster who was saying that fathers make sacrifices too, and I was merely saying that in all likelihood it was hardly just fathers who'd be reluctant to work OT or weekends or whatever - its going to be both parents. But when combining this with women having to be the ones to take maternity leave, I still believe that women bare the brunt of the effect of having children on their careers, even when compared to the fathers of same said children.

That said, its tough to generalise. My office is a good mix of people with children and people without. THere are plenty with no children who are out the door as soon as it hits 5.30pm and plenty with children who don't take such a clock watching approach. Actually a number of the people who have families and therefore might seek the odd bit of flexibility are all the same people who tend to log on from home in the evening to get things done. I think personality and work ethic have a lot to do with it.

Permabear · 24-08-2016 11:22am

This post has been deleted.

Lux23 · 24-08-2016 12:38pm

There is no way I would ever stay home with a kid. I would gladly take my maternity leave, but I would be back in 6/7 months. I hate being home all day, I find it very hard to get into routine.

Tony EH · 28-08-2016 12:28am

Ben Gadot wrote: »

I've never enjoyed interviews, be it by man or woman. Someone actually used the phrase once while I was waiting to be called that I "looked like I was going to the gallows." And that was for a bloody internal interview so imagine what I'm like on unknown territory. :P

When I was leaving an internship a few years ago, after 2 years of hard graft and numerous failed interviews, one manager pulled me aside without me asking him about it and kindly gave me the following advice: you have to make the interviewer think they need YOU, and not that you need them.

To put it simply, you need to play the game. Some people are all show and interviews come naturally to them, so they're always going to have the advantage (well at least until they start the job and prove how useless they are, I do love seeing the range of emotions on the people that hired them when that happens ).

But if you have confidence in yourself, at ease and most importantly are PREPARED and know your own CV, you'll always have a fighting chance.

Believe me when I say HR, everywhere, consistently make mistakes when hiring people. Just don't worry about other candidates and focus on yourself.

Interviews are largely bullshit and in Ireland we simply cannot interview people properly. We've never been able to. Not at least since I've been in the workplace anyway.

The problem with interviewing here is that companies largely have a set list of questions and if you don't answer those questions "correctly", you "fail" the interview. It doesn't matter if your answer if perfectly valid, the interviewer is looking for a specific answer in a lot of cases. It's akin to going on 'Who Wants to be a Millionaire'.

Too many people are untrained to actually conduct interviews here too and it's not an easy process. Having been on either side of the table, as it were, I can tell you it can be just a daunting being the interviewer as it can be being the interviewee. That's why you'll usually get a panel interviewing you. They're probably all shitting themselves. :pac:

Another problem is the "American style" bullshit layer of "selling yourself" that the poor interviewee has to engage with. It's something that the vast majority of people can't and don't do. It requires a level of bollocks talk that is quite alien to most folk. People are usually quite modest and honest about themselves in general, but this can come across as reticent (and therefor "wrong") in an interview. Most people don't have "ambitions" or "goals" other than regular employment and that is a perfectly valid answer in the real world. Except in an interview (over here anyway) that's considered an

It ticks the "wrong" box.

Try again, but this time lie, or bullshit, or at least embellish.

And our interviews are laced with such pitfalls, it's no wonder that some people are terrified of going into them.

Another gem is the impromptu presentation nonsense that some interviews contain. I know a few people who have had to give mock presentations, out of nowhere and without any knowledge of what they're supposed to be presenting, or any kind of context. Something like that is a disastrous way to conduct an interview IMHO and it certainly wouldn't reflect anything that would happen in a real job.

Interviews...a frightening scenario where people get awarding for talking absolute crap.

suicide_circus · 28-08-2016 1:04am

Whatever about 90℅ of women being in HR, 90℅ of people in HR are çunts.

Ben Gadot · 28-08-2016 4:21pm

I agree with everything you said Tony, if I was ever asked to do a random presentation I'd laugh at them and end the interview there and then.

Given you're a man who has been on the right side of the table though do you not have any influence over the format of an interview, in order to break the wheel of "bull****" as you put it.

Tony EH · 28-08-2016 4:50pm

Ben Gadot wrote: »

I agree with everything you said Tony, if I was ever asked to do a random presentation I'd laugh at them and end the interview there and then.

I know, it's incredible to think that sort of thing flies as an idea with some people. I wouldn't even attend a meeting without some sort of agenda layout these days, never mind give an impromptu presentation about something I know nothing about!

The only thing that that type of angle would be useful for is to deliberately put the person under an extreme condition to see if the collapse or not. But, in the end what does that really achieve, when in the real world, you wouldn't be put into that situation or allow yourself to be either. It's just torturous.

And this is an office type job I'm talking about here. Not the UN or something.

Ben Gadot wrote: »

Given you're a man who has been on the right side of the table though do you not have any influence over the format of an interview, in order to break the wheel of "bull****" as you put it.

You do to a certain degree. but, I was only hiring people for the team I was running, so I pretty much knew what I wanted from a technical point of view and before the hiring process began, there were lengthy discussions with my superiors on how to approach the interviewee and what was necessary to ask, in which much of the bull**** questions were eliminated.

TBH, the interviews were just to see if the person wasn't an absolute nutter and if they could back up their CV.

And that's what most interviews for most positions should be really.

We didn't care or want to know what their "ambitions" were. :pac:

I think that most interviews that work are approached in an informal way. Everybody is at ease and generally the conversation flows better. You then get a better feel for the person.

I've been to interviews where I've been separated by a huge mahogany table and 6 people on the other side. Right there, that feels more like an interrogation than an interview and nobody is coming out of that with any real good impressions.

Leo Fatkar · 17-03-2019 11:39pm

Yeah

Wibbs · 18-03-2019 12:42am

73387d1293587394-pocono-country-place-good-bad-its-zombie-thread.jpg

Oh wait... It will.

What's with women and HR (bloody ridiculous)

Comments