Llanigraham
On Moderation
If the employer thinks it does have a relevance then it does.
End of!
It is YOU that have to fit into THEIR criteria, not the other way around.
Get used to it.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Getting a Train Cleaning Job, Unbelievable!!!!!
- Thread starter AndyN
- Start date
- Status
If the employer thinks it does have a relevance then it does.
End of!
It is YOU that have to fit into THEIR criteria, not the other way around.
Get used to it.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I could not agree more. It is completely out of hand now with all this "give me an example when you have". It's called the S.T.A.R system of interviewing and all the crap HR departments are using it now because they know no better.
What would you suggest is a better way ?
We could go back to the old school way of interviewing. That would be awesome. Nepotism, racism, sexism, deals under the table, face fit culture, jobs for the boys, blagged answers and only getting the job because some random person said yes, based purely because they wanted to.
I don't specifically agree with STAR etc but interviews and applications that require set criteria has allowed anyone to join a company without fear of prejudice of discrimination. Pass the test, meet the criteria, everyone gets the same questions.
MichaelAMW
Member
- Joined
- 18 Jun 2010
- Messages
- 1,011
Well... That is a somewhat extreme view in the other direction, but I suspect just a bit of hyperbole. A better way is one which not only retains the benefits of the STAR lark but also is a little more sympathetic to recruiting on the basis of potential. Ideally, you do this by using STAR for some basic transferable skills with a view to developing those for the specific requirements of the particular job, but it often seems to me that STAR is used as a way of only selecting people who have more or less already done the job before. The risk is, say, that a person who needs a bit of training but would be a pleasure to have on the team is sifted out in favour of someone with previous direct similar experience but a poor work ethic. The civil service tries to do this with the idea of core competencies for particular grades or specialisations.
Not really hyperbole. Discrimination 'back in the day' was rife and to be honest, there is still plenty of discrimination that takes place.
I found the whole process to Driver a bit weird but ultimately it was fair because EVERYONE was going through the process. It didn't matter the colour of your skin or gender EVERYONE went through the same process.
I also recently sat and internal interview and this was under this much maligned STAR approach but I was confident that all the candidates were asked the same questions. A few years ago it was very much the case of jobs for the boys. If you were part of the club you got the job. STAR and criteria based interviews remove all of that. There is still wiggle room but its generally quite fair.
There is risk in all cases and I don't think that could be avoided without a pure test based method like, you know, a maths test....
What you describe is pretty much the exact experience of how we interview. There is a mix of set criteria, STAR and experience based criteria, and then you still have the wiggle room for candidates passing the various 'attitude tests'
Should a cleaning job have these requirements ? Why not. They are no less than any other employee and should also aim for good quality candidates who may have potential for promotion and transferable skills. One of my jobs in a previous life was cleaning. (great job) I went through a whole day of assessments. It transpired that some of their previous candidates got the job the 'old school' way and turned out they were idiots and a complete liability.
Some of our Train Cleaners operate heavy pumping material. Deal with hazardous chemicals, mix up caustic solutions and drive about industrial vehicles etc.
Basic maths and English seem like common sense.
Last edited:
Nevillehill
Member
- Joined
- 13 Jun 2014
- Messages
- 140
It's not out of hand, it's about weeding out the deadwood, if you can't be bothered with a simple example the railway isn't for you.
It's crazey to ask someone who is going for a cleaning job to ask "give me an example of when you have given excellent customer service". "when have you had to deal with a stressful situation" and more questions like that all that have nothing to do with the job applied for.
The reason for the ridiculas questions that are completelty unrelated to the job is to select people on the bases of subservience (willingness to obey others unquestioningly) and a desire to avoid people with experiance.
Here is an example that was asked by a TOC.
A railway company advertised for 6 train drivers externally and internally (why externally when there are already over 100 guards that are trained over the route and have the knowledge already and a proven track record of being able to carry out safty critical duties).
At the drivers interview both internal and external applicants where asked the following question.
" You are a train driver travelling passenger to London to pick up a working out of London"
"The catering manager comes to you and ask's can you come into the kitchen and wash up some pots because we are really busy"
"What would your response be?"
Now that seems quite a fair question does it not?
But it isn't, because all the internall applicants (mostly guards) know that you don't wash pot's up because you can cut yourself and scaled your self, put glasses in a sink then someone puts plates on top and the glasses break leaving shards of glass in the sink, put a sharp knife into a sink which cannot be seen under the water causing injury to anyone reaching into the sink. then when you have cut or scalded yourself another driver has to be found to work the train out of London (this is called experience gained by doing the job and knowning what you should do and not do).
And we all know what the externall applicants that have no experience and very little knowledge about the railway, other than the 50k + a year drivers sallary are going to say.
"of course I would get out of my seat and help wash up the pot's,stick a broom up my arse as well if you want" (keeping the overtime rate on 50k+ year in mind)
And the correct answer straight from the mouth of the HR manager "yes I would get up and wash the pot's"
Ladies and Gentleman we regret to announce that the 18.00 service from London has been delayed due to no driver (he is getting the stitches put in at the Hospital).The reality being the train is delayed due to some utter idiot in HR.
That is just one example of how HR have a determined policy of promotion based on subservience.
If the S.T.A.R system where being used properly the question to the cleaner who started this thread (and I suggest you go back and read it before posting) would be " can you give my an example of how you have cleaned a particularly dirty location and if you have not already done so discribe to me how you would do so in the future" That is a fair and sensible question.
"Give me an example of when you have given excellent customer sirvece" What rubbish!
I have spelt some things wrong in this post so those who realise they are loosing the argument can pick up on them.
The reason for the ridiculas questions that are completelty unrelated to the job is to select people on the bases of subservience (willingness to obey others unquestioningly) and a desire to avoid people with experiance.
Here is an example that was asked by a TOC.
A railway company advertised for 6 train drivers externally and internally (why externally when there are already over 100 guards that are trained over the route and have the knowledge already and a proven track record of being able to carry out safty critical duties).
At the drivers interview both internal and external applicants where asked the following question.
" You are a train driver travelling passenger to London to pick up a working out of London"
"The catering manager comes to you and ask's can you come into the kitchen and wash up some pots because we are really busy"
"What would your response be?"
Now that seems quite a fair question does it not?
But it isn't, because all the internall applicants (mostly guards) know that you don't wash pot's up because you can cut yourself and scaled your self, put glasses in a sink then someone puts plates on top and the glasses break leaving shards of glass in the sink, put a sharp knife into a sink which cannot be seen under the water causing injury to anyone reaching into the sink. then when you have cut or scalded yourself another driver has to be found to work the train out of London (this is called experience gained by doing the job and knowning what you should do and not do).
And we all know what the externall applicants that have no experience and very little knowledge about the railway, other than the 50k + a year drivers sallary are going to say.
"of course I would get out of my seat and help wash up the pot's,stick a broom up my arse as well if you want" (keeping the overtime rate on 50k+ year in mind)
And the correct answer straight from the mouth of the HR manager "yes I would get up and wash the pot's"
Ladies and Gentleman we regret to announce that the 18.00 service from London has been delayed due to no driver (he is getting the stitches put in at the Hospital).The reality being the train is delayed due to some utter idiot in HR.
That is just one example of how HR have a determined policy of promotion based on subservience.
If the S.T.A.R system where being used properly the question to the cleaner who started this thread (and I suggest you go back and read it before posting) would be " can you give my an example of how you have cleaned a particularly dirty location and if you have not already done so discribe to me how you would do so in the future" That is a fair and sensible question.
"Give me an example of when you have given excellent customer sirvece" What rubbish!
I have spelt some things wrong in this post so those who realise they are loosing the argument can pick up on them.
Why externally. That's obvious and if you fail to see that, then I can understand why you fail to see the rest.
If you have a pool of 100 Guards (who don't know the route or have the knowledge btw) you have a very limited pool. If you advertise externally you potentially have thousands of applicants.
Why is it limited ? Well lets start at the basics. Those 100+ Guards are already employees and a % of them are happy in their roles so do not want a new one. Then you have those without a proven track record. Then you have those who are near leaving for any reason (retirement etc) Then you have a question of those who will fail to make the grade. With a huge failure rate for the assessment you lose even more. That's not even the last of it. You still have to replace those who are successful and in the interim you are then short staff members. Chuck in the additional costs of internals vs externals and you can understand why recruitment is advertised externally.
I think your confusing subservience with good employees. Should a company employ someone who would say "No, **** it, I'm booked pass so I do what I want" ? But then again we can both use extreme examples to highlight a point.
I would agree. Are you now suggesting we keep the STAR system but simply change the questions ?
I can see a big reason why that question is asked. It's a shame that you clearly can't. The point remains that the company who sets the questions believes that they are relevant to the job or relevant to getting a decent employee. Neither you or I have a say in that (although I might...) ALL candidates go through this process. Those that fail; I can see why.
fredk
Member
- Joined
- 2 Sep 2016
- Messages
- 100
It's crazey to ask someone who is going for a cleaning job to ask "give me an example of when you have given excellent customer service". "when have you had to deal with a stressful situation" and more questions like that all that have nothing to do with the job applied for.
The reason for the ridiculas questions that are completelty unrelated to the job is to select people on the bases of subservience (willingness to obey others unquestioningly) and a desire to avoid people with experiance.
Here is an example that was asked by a TOC.
A railway company advertised for 6 train drivers externally and internally (why externally when there are already over 100 guards that are trained over the route and have the knowledge already and a proven track record of being able to carry out safty critical duties).
At the drivers interview both internal and external applicants where asked the following question.
" You are a train driver travelling passenger to London to pick up a working out of London"
"The catering manager comes to you and ask's can you come into the kitchen and wash up some pots because we are really busy"
"What would your response be?"
Now that seems quite a fair question does it not?
But it isn't, because all the internall applicants (mostly guards) know that you don't wash pot's up because you can cut yourself and scaled your self, put glasses in a sink then someone puts plates on top and the glasses break leaving shards of glass in the sink, put a sharp knife into a sink which cannot be seen under the water causing injury to anyone reaching into the sink. then when you have cut or scalded yourself another driver has to be found to work the train out of London (this is called experience gained by doing the job and knowning what you should do and not do).
And we all know what the externall applicants that have no experience and very little knowledge about the railway, other than the 50k + a year drivers sallary are going to say.
"of course I would get out of my seat and help wash up the pot's,stick a broom up my arse as well if you want" (keeping the overtime rate on 50k+ year in mind)
And the correct answer straight from the mouth of the HR manager "yes I would get up and wash the pot's"
Ladies and Gentleman we regret to announce that the 18.00 service from London has been delayed due to no driver (he is getting the stitches put in at the Hospital).The reality being the train is delayed due to some utter idiot in HR.
That is just one example of how HR have a determined policy of promotion based on subservience.
If the S.T.A.R system where being used properly the question to the cleaner who started this thread (and I suggest you go back and read it before posting) would be " can you give my an example of how you have cleaned a particularly dirty location and if you have not already done so discribe to me how you would do so in the future" That is a fair and sensible question.
"Give me an example of when you have given excellent customer sirvece" What rubbish!
I have spelt some things wrong in this post so those who realise they are loosing the argument can pick up on them.
I agree that some questions can be attributed to finding subservience, but honestly asking a train driver if he would go and help the caterers washing up is more of a common sense question. Why should the driver go and help the caterers?
Jonfun
Established Member
I'm going to have to wade in here for a sec, are we seriously suggesting that train drivers, who are responsible for hundreds of passengers, and hundreds of tons of metal travelling at over a hundred miles an hour, and are selected based on strict aptitude criteria, are incapable of washing up without scalding themselves or cutting themselves on a knife? Do they go home and make their missus do it for them? Should they be banned from using the hot water brewer too to make a coffee just in case they miss the cup?
I agree that staff helping out colleagues in their duties shouldn't be *expected*, rather a nice thing for them to do if possible - and the problem of course is that if other staff just help out, with, lets say, the catering, then management will look at the figures and say, right, well it runs fine with a lower number of staff, so we'll don't need as many staff on the train, so it can be counter productive.
I agree that staff helping out colleagues in their duties shouldn't be *expected*, rather a nice thing for them to do if possible - and the problem of course is that if other staff just help out, with, lets say, the catering, then management will look at the figures and say, right, well it runs fine with a lower number of staff, so we'll don't need as many staff on the train, so it can be counter productive.
Perhaps this cleaning job would be preferable?
http://www.naturistcleaners.co.uk/
Articles about them in lots of local papers today
http://www.naturistcleaners.co.uk/
Articles about them in lots of local papers today
deltic
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 3,211
Having been forced to use generic STAR questions in interviews - colleagues and I tend to rush through them as fast as possible so we can get on to questions that concentrate on finding out whether they have the technical skills to do the job. If you are used to these type of interviews applicants can easily blag/invent stories and no-one knows if they are true.
I think some of the comments being made here about recruitment policies and HR are going a bit far. One of the things that interviews are for is to try and select the right person for the job. That doesn't only mean those who can actually do the work, but also those who possess a good attitude to the role.
In addition, the interviewers are assessing what type of person is before them. Do they appear to be keen, motivated, honest and so forth. Are they good communicators, do they listen to the question, do they think a little before answering, do they clarify things they might not understand properly?
Don't forget that while these sort of skills might have little relevancy to a particular job title on the surface, it's important for every job that I can think of on the railway to be able to follow instructions, to ask if you're unsure of anything, and to be able to communicate when something goes wrong, even if it's just to report some broken equipment.
As for customer service, many cleaners can and do come into contact with passengers at some point.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
A lot can be learned from the way the person answers, regardless of whether the answer is true or not. It reveals how they think, what they reckon priorities are and all sorts of other things.
In addition, the interviewers are assessing what type of person is before them. Do they appear to be keen, motivated, honest and so forth. Are they good communicators, do they listen to the question, do they think a little before answering, do they clarify things they might not understand properly?
Don't forget that while these sort of skills might have little relevancy to a particular job title on the surface, it's important for every job that I can think of on the railway to be able to follow instructions, to ask if you're unsure of anything, and to be able to communicate when something goes wrong, even if it's just to report some broken equipment.
As for customer service, many cleaners can and do come into contact with passengers at some point.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
A lot can be learned from the way the person answers, regardless of whether the answer is true or not. It reveals how they think, what they reckon priorities are and all sorts of other things.
deltic
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 3,211
True but unfortunately with generic questions it is easy to find on-line generic answers that can be tweaked to tick all the right boxes.
Dieseldriver
Member
- Joined
- 9 Apr 2012
- Messages
- 973
Guards are not 'trained over the route' to anywhere near the same standard as a Driver. They also do not 'have the knowledge already' as they don't have the route knowledge, they don't have the skills etc of driving, they don't have the same level of rules knowledge and they don't have the traction and faults/failures knowledge.
Guard and Driver are 2 totally different jobs, just because you are a Guard, it does not automatically mean you are capable of being a Driver or that you have the aptitude to be one. This isn't intended to slate Guards, I just get slightly irritated when some feel it is their divine right to be accepted onto a Drivers course when they are trained in a completely different role.
AnthonyRail
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2015
- Messages
- 1,208
GWR Carriage cleaner Penzance job role has closed, did anyone apply?
Plenty of guards would be hopeless drivers, and plenty of drivers would be utterly useless guards. They're different jobs using different skills and they complement each other nicely as 'equals' on board for that reason. Assuming one could just do the other's job would be a fallacy (though of course there are plenty on either side that can, do or have). Many of the drivers I know who used to be guards would funnily enough though be appalling at the modern version of the job and I actually think taking into account the nature of driving work, being quite isolated etc in the cab, that there's probably more guards capable of being good drivers than there are drivers for being good guards - I love working with 99% of our drivers but plenty of them wouldn't have the social skills for managing passengers constantly because that isn't what they're recruited to do.
As for cleaners, our train cleaners are on about 25 grand a year, are often around the public, have PTS training for working around a busy station and depot and operate all kind of things. I'd expect a rigorous selection process including customer service.
As for cleaners, our train cleaners are on about 25 grand a year, are often around the public, have PTS training for working around a busy station and depot and operate all kind of things. I'd expect a rigorous selection process including customer service.
I couldn't, and wouldn't do you job for all the tea in [insert proverbial] I haven't got the patience, or tolerance. How you guys do it is beyond me. All credit to your grade.
Finally, someone gets it.
OneTrackMind
Member
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2014
- Messages
- 82
Train Cleaner Talent Pool (Nightshift)
I have to say, I've never seen a talent pool advertised for cleaners, are these kinds of vacancies really that popular?
A lot of people commenting that the OP has failed the attitude test.
Just out of curiosity what is the right attitude? I apply for jobs individually and am quite specific about what I want to do. Others might be in the category," I'll apply for any job, I'll do anything, whatever's going". I certainly don't fall in the latter category.
Does that mean I'm not flexible enough, therefore have the wrong attitude, for not being open or flexible to getting my hands dirty/doing anything to get my foot in the door.
Just out of curiosity what is the right attitude? I apply for jobs individually and am quite specific about what I want to do. Others might be in the category," I'll apply for any job, I'll do anything, whatever's going". I certainly don't fall in the latter category.
Does that mean I'm not flexible enough, therefore have the wrong attitude, for not being open or flexible to getting my hands dirty/doing anything to get my foot in the door.
I have been told yesterday that someone attended an interview at ASDA to stock shelfs. During the interview the interviewer said "can you show me your best impersenation of a Lion". The bloke got up and walked out.
At a TOC that operated out of Leeds a few years ago,at the interview (conducted by two people) the interviewer said to the applicant "It's my colleagues birthday today do you think you could sing happy birthday to him"
These things have nothing to do with finding people that can DO the job. It's about findind submisive people that can be easily controlled, that is the main priority throught regardless of the skills the person has. In fact having skills is to DO the job will probably work against an applicant.
This sort of rubbish has gone on outside the railway for years, it has become more prevelant on the railway in the last few years. The HR departments have become drunk on power and lost all sens of respect for people.
There needs to be legislation brought in so that if people think they have not been tret with respect and dinity at an interview they can take action like there is if sexism or racism is suspected.
Here are three more questions that were asked of applicants who were applying for jobs on the railway.
"Tell me how you would make a cup of tea in a chocolate tea pot and how you would wash it out"
"Talk about accommodation at the North Pole for two minutes"
"Tell me how would you abseil down the drinks water bottle in the staff room"
I despair!
At a TOC that operated out of Leeds a few years ago,at the interview (conducted by two people) the interviewer said to the applicant "It's my colleagues birthday today do you think you could sing happy birthday to him"
These things have nothing to do with finding people that can DO the job. It's about findind submisive people that can be easily controlled, that is the main priority throught regardless of the skills the person has. In fact having skills is to DO the job will probably work against an applicant.
This sort of rubbish has gone on outside the railway for years, it has become more prevelant on the railway in the last few years. The HR departments have become drunk on power and lost all sens of respect for people.
There needs to be legislation brought in so that if people think they have not been tret with respect and dinity at an interview they can take action like there is if sexism or racism is suspected.
Here are three more questions that were asked of applicants who were applying for jobs on the railway.
"Tell me how you would make a cup of tea in a chocolate tea pot and how you would wash it out"
"Talk about accommodation at the North Pole for two minutes"
"Tell me how would you abseil down the drinks water bottle in the staff room"
I despair!
AndyN
Member
Ha ha Unbelievable Falcon. Think were on the same page in how we think. Trust me If I was at a interview and was asked any of these things you have said my reaction would probably make them wish they hadn't. I'm of the thought that no matter how much I want a job if I have to be subservient and submissive to get one Id sooner not work at all and live on beans on toast, seriously, self respect first and foremost. When I go to a interview I'm also in my mind interviewing them and have cut interviews short myself saying that I don't think this will be for me. I think in todays competitive job market they can try it on like examples you have just given. I don't want to open another can of worms again like I did at the beginning of the thread 
but I wish I was born 10 years earlier than I was and the old school ways.
These tests you have to pass nowadays. I know people who are academically clever, good in exams etc, but their common sense is zero. I used to train at a gym with a mate who had a University degree and fair to say he would beat me in a exam but common sense, jeez, I carried him sometimes he was that nieve lol.
The best example I could give on the system being totally wrong was working with the Post Office Stores picking orders some years back in a temporary position. I had been there the longest about a year, others 8 months, 6 months etc. They had to get rid of 2 so rightly thought I was safe as been their the longest. No we had to take tests. Doesn't matter that I picked the most orders, been there the longest etc. We all passed but they kept on the ones with the best 2 scores and told we would leave in a month. A month my ass. I told them what I thought of them and was out of that place in seconds. I actually downed tools on the spot while picking a order and they never saw me for dust. Never mind I picked the most orders and was the most accurate. Again, the system is totally wrong. People should be picked on their ability to do the job, not how well they do in a test hence Northern Rail have lost me and I no longer want a job with them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Another daft thing I hear nowadays is how employers can snoop on peoples Facebook and my mate who is a ass kisser told me I need to toe the line on some of my statuses and some of the things I put up as employers could read it. Sorry but what I do and put on Social Media in my own time is my business and say what I want in my own time and if a potential employer snoops on my Facebook etc then again that is not a employer I want to work for anyway so they saved me the bother. What anyone puts on Social Media has no relevance to how well they can do a job.
but I wish I was born 10 years earlier than I was and the old school ways.These tests you have to pass nowadays. I know people who are academically clever, good in exams etc, but their common sense is zero. I used to train at a gym with a mate who had a University degree and fair to say he would beat me in a exam but common sense, jeez, I carried him sometimes he was that nieve lol.
The best example I could give on the system being totally wrong was working with the Post Office Stores picking orders some years back in a temporary position. I had been there the longest about a year, others 8 months, 6 months etc. They had to get rid of 2 so rightly thought I was safe as been their the longest. No we had to take tests. Doesn't matter that I picked the most orders, been there the longest etc. We all passed but they kept on the ones with the best 2 scores and told we would leave in a month. A month my ass. I told them what I thought of them and was out of that place in seconds. I actually downed tools on the spot while picking a order and they never saw me for dust. Never mind I picked the most orders and was the most accurate. Again, the system is totally wrong. People should be picked on their ability to do the job, not how well they do in a test hence Northern Rail have lost me and I no longer want a job with them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Another daft thing I hear nowadays is how employers can snoop on peoples Facebook and my mate who is a ass kisser told me I need to toe the line on some of my statuses and some of the things I put up as employers could read it. Sorry but what I do and put on Social Media in my own time is my business and say what I want in my own time and if a potential employer snoops on my Facebook etc then again that is not a employer I want to work for anyway so they saved me the bother. What anyone puts on Social Media has no relevance to how well they can do a job.
Last edited:
Nevillehill
Member
- Joined
- 13 Jun 2014
- Messages
- 140
The OP did work doing the job with an agency, surely if they've done the same job with the agency why not give them a permanent job, as they're already doing it.
All of these tests etc are just a way of whittling down numbers to a manageable number to interview. If 100 people put in for a couple of jobs, it is likely less than 10 will get interviews. After the initial sift they may still have a large number of decent candidates, they need other layers in place to whittle the numbers down. As a candidate that is all you really are, just a number.
AndyN
Member
I can totally understand that if you get 100 applicants then there has to be a whittling down process but has Dave just said, if someone has already done the job via a agency, had plenty of experience relevant to the job, passed courses like PTS then surely you have shown you already have the required criteria for the job and at least get a interview. In fairness to Northern Rail in interviews they are fair and don't ask daft questions but to say someone should get a interview above someone with experience just because they have done better in a test is wrong
We have a situation at our TOC where you can be employed by an agency but not be allowed to work for the TOC because you failed the test. Same person, same job, different employer.
The problem with Agency Vs Employee is that it isn't one of qualifications for the job but more of costs. It's cheaper to employ agency staff. Its also possible that agency work suits the employee better. The guy I was speaking to the other week earned more working for the agency than he would do at the TOC.
It's just as arbitrary to give someone a job purely because they've done it before.
I'm sure we all remember our first job. No experience, no skills. Just do a good interview and pass a silly entrance test. I had no previous experience and no skills or qualifications but I still got a Drivers job. Imagine limiting employment to the grade because you have no prior experience driving trains.
Everyone has to jump through hoops to get work nowadays. Like it or loath it doesn't change anything.
https://www.firebox.com/Chocolate-Teapot/p7499?mkt=en (£24.99)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ok9rLVB9tWM&feature=youtu.be (as seen on the one show 2014)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
No, it really isn't.
You have no right to a job over another candidate based on previous experience. That doesn't mean you are better at the job or a better employee.
I've used a computer for many many years. I am pretty competent in excel and I can strip and rebuild a pc. I'm pretty sure that my experience counts for jack over someone who has specific qualifications. Conversely, its very possible that I could pass a test in excel just as much as someone who has a Microsoft Office Certification
Do you give the job to someone who has experience, qualifications, or passes a test ? Which is less discriminatory ?
RJ
Established Member
There's a way to answer those kind of questions. The context of the response should correspond to the competencies sought for the role on offer. People who demonstrate that they can't align with the skills the interview is testing for are only doing themselves out of opportunities, leaving the path clear for others who are more prepared!
Last edited:
Another daft thing I hear nowadays is how employers can snoop on peoples Facebook and my mate who is a ass kisser told me I need to toe the line on some of my statuses and some of the things I put up as employers could read it. Sorry but what I do and put on Social Media in my own time is my business and say what I want in my own time and if a potential employer snoops on my Facebook etc then again that is not a employer I want to work for anyway so they saved me the bother. What anyone puts on Social Media has no relevance to how well they can do a job.[/QUOTE]
Not just employers, and you can't go slagging people or companies off on social media, quickest way to get the sack , might sound harsh but that's the way it is, they like to see your attitude etc , who you socialise with, if you don't want that , best thing is to keep off the net.
Not just employers, and you can't go slagging people or companies off on social media, quickest way to get the sack , might sound harsh but that's the way it is, they like to see your attitude etc , who you socialise with, if you don't want that , best thing is to keep off the net.
- Status