Trying to get a job these days must be a bit of a strange experience. Giving someone a job or kicking them out of the interview room, simply because they're just plainly horrible, nasty, shifty or not your cup of tea, must be even stranger and, indeed, fraught !

Charles Moore in the Spectator [07/04/07]reports someone showing him a single clause in a contract. It refers to :-

......' section 77[4a] of the Sex Discrimination Act, 1975, the Equal Pay Act of 1970, section 72 [4a] of the Race Relations Act 1976, section 288[2b] of the Trade Union and Labour Relations [ Consolidation ] Act 1992, para.2 of schedule 3a of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, section 203[3]of the Employment Rights Act1996, regulation35 [3] of the Working Time Regulations 1998, section 49 [a] of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998........and goes on in the same vein about Transnational Information and Consultations Regulations, Part Time Workers, Fixed Term Employees, Employment Equality [ Sexual Orientation ], Employment Equality [ Religion ] , Information and Consultation of Employees, Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes and Employment Equality [ Age ].

I wonder if anyone has actually been driven stark-staring bonkers by all this lot ? I wonder how thay actually tell people they haven't got the job and why ? It must be a minefield for the interviewer/ employer ! Well, that was just from 1 paragraph of the contract. I bet by the time they'd waded through the rest they could have built the Forth Bridge or dismantled Birmingham.

Has anyone on S.F. had any strange experiences with this brave new world---------either as an applicant or an interviewer ?

I was last involved in a recruitment exercise around 5 years ago. Due to the ridiculous criteria, the fact that I was forced to give jobs to worthless idiots provided they gave the right answers, (which seems endemic in British society today,regardless of ability), I've never done it since. Four themes cropped up throughout the interviews, Death, Disease, Divorce and Dogs. By the end of the interviews, I was suicidal, not because of the pathetic stories, minus any qualifications ( we were not allowed to ask) but purely because these people were not suitable to even grace a mental health unit for retarded Hamsters. And so it was proven once they started work................

Due to the ridiculous criteria, the fact that I was forced to give jobs to worthless idiots provided they gave the right answers

How do you judge people other than if they give the right answers?

Eyes too close together?

How do you judge people other than if they give the right answers?

Eyes too close together?

Nope. Deodorant. Or lack of it. Personally, I prefer the Football Club answer.

Actually, Cloudybay, I'd imagine that these days it's more difficult NOT to set someone on than to employ them once they came for an interview ! As you say, total nincompoops thus get through the system and go on to make a complete mess for all those they come in contact with.

With the increasing sophistication of computers, no wonder little old ladies get electricity bills for 5 million quid and so on ; the personnel operating the computers are often ' ninepence to the shilling ', as it were.

I suppose if it didn't lead to occasional tragedies, the whole system is hilarious and could be the basis of a new comedy series on the lines of ' The Office ' ! I mean, imagine someone TOTALLY unsuitable coming through the door for a fairly responsible job. Apparently they'd have to be completely and utterly loopy [ dressed as Hitler or Napoleon ? ] NOT to get the job. Even then, the interviewer would have to be very careful or very tactful !
I bet these days, even a geezer who thought he was ' Der Fuehrer ' would claim compensation if he was discriminated against in his bid to be a parking attendant or something !!

It is difficult to judge a person in an interview as you know a lot of the answers they give are what they think you want to hear.

I don't tend to ask questions about their work or why they want to work for me.

I try to get to know the person, and I introduce them to everyone else in the office to see if we get on with each other.

To me that is vital.

The contracts of employment are scary.

The contracts I issue are over 20 pages long, but they still don't cover all the points that could occur.

The contracts of employment are scary.

The contracts I issue are over 20 pages long, but they still don't cover all the points that could occur.

which is why we have the lovely clause saying the list is not exhaustive and is subject to change with a given notice period :hihi:

Charles Moore in the Spectator [07/04/07]reports someone showing him a single clause in a contract. It refers to :-

......' section 77[4a] of the Sex Discrimination Act, 1975, the Equal Pay Act of 1970, section 72 [4a] of the Race Relations Act 1976, section 288[2b] of the Trade Union and Labour Relations [ Consolidation ] Act 1992, para.2 of schedule 3a of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, section 203[3]of the Employment Rights Act1996, regulation35 [3] of the Working Time Regulations 1998, section 49 [a] of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998........and goes on in the same vein about Transnational Information and Consultations Regulations, Part Time Workers, Fixed Term Employees, Employment Equality [ Sexual Orientation ], Employment Equality [ Religion ] , Information and Consultation of Employees, Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes and Employment Equality [ Age ].

These are all statements that protect the applicant/employee and are what the unions fight so hard for to achieve for everyone in the workplace. It stops employers from discriminating against anyone. Without these regulations, the prospective employer could say to you ( if you were say a yellow spotted gay person with a disability ) you can have the job, but you will not be paid very much and will not be included in our company pension scheme, and you will be secluded in your own workspace where no one will see you. We can't afford for our clients and public to see that we employ such as you. I would assume that Charles Moore has no idea of what he is talking about.

I was last involved in a recruitment exercise around 5 years ago. Due to the ridiculous criteria, the fact that I was forced to give jobs to worthless idiots provided they gave the right answers, (which seems endemic in British society today,regardless of ability), I've never done it since. Four themes cropped up throughout the interviews, Death, Disease, Divorce and Dogs. By the end of the interviews, I was suicidal, not because of the pathetic stories, minus any qualifications ( we were not allowed to ask) but purely because these people were not suitable to even grace a mental health unit for retarded Hamsters. And so it was proven once they started work................

How do I apply? :wink:

All it means is that you have to do things properly:

Set out a clear set of criteria which the person you want to appoint must meet. You can set qualifications, experience, even attitude as criteria.
Set out a set of qualities which would be desireable.
Make sure these things are, at least at some level, measurable.

This isn't just form-filling - it will help you to choose the best person for the job!

Then use those criteria to evaluate each applicant. If someone interviews and you know you don't get on with them and that there is someone who meets the criteria with whom you do get on, then appoint the other person. So long as you don't discriminate on prohibited grounds (age, sex, sexual orientation, religion or belief, race or disability) then you're fine!

Now, you do have to do your best to avoid making it harder for some people to work for you because of their personal characteristics (the list I gave above). But that, too, is to your benefit: if three people apply, one is useless, one is ok, and one is great, but the great one is a Muslim woman who wants to wear a headscarf, unless it's going to be a major impact on your business somehow, it is sensible all round to allow her to wear it!

I don't see why this is so offensive to some people. Discrimination is actually bad for productivity as it excludes people who are good for the position.

It is difficult to judge a person in an interview as you know a lot of the answers they give are what they think you want to hear.
I experienced this recently, and it did dampen my spirit in the job hunting process. I gave answers to solutions which were not the exact solution to what they had in mind, even though it solved the problem, and that was how we approached it in my last job role relating to this system.

They advertised for a role which I thought fitted my experiences. So I tried for it. Yet, I think they definitely had a checklist, tick, tick, tick. Unless it matched the way that they do things in the company, then it's a no, no. Even though I have the certificates to show for it.

I asked directly for feedbacks. The technical manager said that I did not give precise answers, and off the top of my head. I asked him whether my not working on this particular system back my chances back and he said no. I then thought that's ironic because he wanted me to remember things that I did a couple of years ago, so surely my not worked on the system did affect my chances cos I cannot recall the exact terminologies? I've since then brushed upon it all, and will try again in the future.

Some people have a set expectation, and if you don't meet it, or if you say something which they do not understand, then it is a mental "no". I thought that because I was able to think laterally and give an answer which was not directly answering that, and also did some things in a different way meant I was a lateral thinker, which I stated in my cv! lol... :confused:

I find that sometimes job hunting is about chance, and also about perceptions.

I try to get to know the person, and I introduce them to everyone else in the office to see if we get on with each other.
I think this is good if you're looking for a long-term employee, but with some industries like IT, people will jump around a lot anyway to get the experiences and gain different technical skills. Well, I've come to realise this...

sorry for going off-topic. Bago, if were in umist lemme know. Can't PM you cos your inbox is full. If you're not who i think you are... very sorry.

I've got through every interview I've ever gone to (yes, all 4 of them) and I'm a white heterosexual male. The one thing to remember is that you are always selling yourself, so approach it from the point of view of what can you do for the company, rather than what can the company do for you.

That said, the last interview I had was the best ever. Sat in a room with another candidate and we interviewed each other over several questions we'd been given. Got about 20 minutes to do it, then presented the other person to the interviewer when he came back in. Then a quick vocabulary, literacy and technical test and a chat with the interviewer (the two candidates and him, not one-on-one).

By the end of it, it didn't feel like an interview at all, it was pretty relaxing actually :)

How do I apply?

Write to:

Mr G Brown
The Bloated Civil Service
10 Downing Street
Old London Town

I think this is good if you're looking for a long-term employee, but with some industries like IT, people will jump around a lot anyway to get the experiences and gain different technical skills. Well, I've come to realise this...

The best way to boost your wages very quickly is to move Jobs every 2 years especially just after a pay rise because your new employer will offer you more money to move to them.

The draw back of this is that I have known an employer would not employ someone if they kept moving Jobs too often.

Four themes cropped up throughout the interviews, Death, Disease, Divorce and Dogs.

What was the job? :confused: