RJ
Established Member
Recruitment is quite a formulaic process I find. Tick as many of the boxes as possible and you'll get through the initial sift. Visualise exactly which boxes assessors and interviewers are looking to tick in person and if you can meet their requirements, you stand a good chance of getting to the next stage.
Some people are galled by having to fill out an application form and thus exclude themselves from the competition. Often, applicants filter themselves out by submitting poor quality applications. If an application is strewn with spelling errors, poorly punctuated and sentences are barely strung together then it's likely to get binned. If the application completely ignores what is stated in the job advert then it's going to get binned. Many people don't seem to realise these things and because of this, the actual competition is between only a tiny fraction of the number of people of apply.
Favouritism and nepotism does happen in some TOCs for certain roles. If you can build a reputation as a competent, reliable and amiable person then you increase your chances of getting that role you're after. Whether you like it or not, networking is a necessary to better your chances of reaching your career goals. Compulsory once a certain level is reached.
As for encouraging applications from under-represented demographics, what's wrong with that? Surely those outside of this group are not excluded from applying? Due diligence should still be excised to ensure every individual possesses the competencies to do the role applied for.
There's no easy way to say this, but the problem isn't First's recruitment process - it's the way you are choosing to do things.
From your post, you come across as someone who;
In my opinion a fair few people on the railways have been radicalised by the sometimes outdated way things are done. Recruiters can sniff this a mile off and probably aren't interested in taking someone on who makes it clear to them they have no intention of doing things the way their company wants things done.
If First want someone who is going to question their policies and be one of those nightmare employees who uses the union to get away with doing their own thing, they'd state that in their job adverts. I've been working on stations for years now and seen people come and go, failing their probation for thinking they can get away with that. Going on in assessments about how another TOC did things is a very good way to get sent home early, because it completely misses the point of the exercise.
Next time you apply, try reading the job advert, thoroughly. They can see from your CV that you've worked on the railways. Let that speak for itself and focus on meeting their requirements when at any assessment centres.
I worked for London Midland and they were alright as an employer. I parted on good terms with a decent reference. Not sure why you'd call them rubbish.
In my job I overlook a gateline. To be honest, stopping people who want to jump the gates or double through is not what being a gateline assistant is about. They're there for customer service and to provide compulsory supervision of the gates. People who are too keen on stopping fare evasion, against company policy dramatically increase the risk of assault, using up police resources and spending time off work.
Some people are galled by having to fill out an application form and thus exclude themselves from the competition. Often, applicants filter themselves out by submitting poor quality applications. If an application is strewn with spelling errors, poorly punctuated and sentences are barely strung together then it's likely to get binned. If the application completely ignores what is stated in the job advert then it's going to get binned. Many people don't seem to realise these things and because of this, the actual competition is between only a tiny fraction of the number of people of apply.
Favouritism and nepotism does happen in some TOCs for certain roles. If you can build a reputation as a competent, reliable and amiable person then you increase your chances of getting that role you're after. Whether you like it or not, networking is a necessary to better your chances of reaching your career goals. Compulsory once a certain level is reached.
As for encouraging applications from under-represented demographics, what's wrong with that? Surely those outside of this group are not excluded from applying? Due diligence should still be excised to ensure every individual possesses the competencies to do the role applied for.
From what I've experienced, & it's only my experiences, over the last 6 years or so the recruiting process at what's now GWR is a joke & possibly flawed. I say this because I've done over 70 applications with them over that time & most of them have been for revenue, ticket examiner & gate line along with a few for on board staff. From what I know, on several occasions, the job's been offered to someone who at the last minute doesn't like the shifts or whatever & the job gets re-advertised. Because you got overlooked at that assessment day you can't apply for that position for 6 months even though you were probably sat next to the person who didn't suddenly want it !! Now may be a good time to mention that I did nearly 10yrs as a revenue inspector based at Milton Keynes with initially Silverlink then the rubbish that was London Midland.
GWR sometimes take away your on line application if you apply for more than one position but don't ask you if you have any preferences ?
They hold assessment days which, from my own experiences, are always recruiting females who at that time are working for the likes of Tesco or Asda & are in their 20's ! They don't like anyone around the 50 mark & experience frightens them as you already know to much & presumably you may question something from your own experiences on the railway especially where unions are concerned.
There's nothing wrong with females on the railway & god knows there's a few of them that would scare the c**p out of any bloke if they were confronted in any way & that inc's my mrs !! GWR's recruitment for the last say 5yrs has been heavily female orientated except for maybe drivers & TM's although rightly so there are a lot of female TM's.
Now I know a lot of you may say you obviously weren't good enough but to be fair if that was the case I'd hold my hands up & stop wasting GWR's time, the railway is based upon lots of rules & safety yet 10yrs experience counts for nothing with them & they've even said it's not important !!
So why can I stand near the barriers at Temple Meads, even now, when waiting for my mrs & suss out straight away who's going to double shuffle the barriers & who doesn't actually have a ticket before they get asked to pay & then come out with a story from a false starting point yet all the time the gate-line staff are talking to each other, eating, playing on a phone or looking elsewhere ? Yet experience counts for nothing, baffles me ?
There's no easy way to say this, but the problem isn't First's recruitment process - it's the way you are choosing to do things.
From your post, you come across as someone who;
- Slags off former and prospective employers
- Knows it all already and has no interest in doing things the way First have established
- Displays tendencies of being entrenched and difficult
- Doesn't get the purpose of the roles applied for
In my opinion a fair few people on the railways have been radicalised by the sometimes outdated way things are done. Recruiters can sniff this a mile off and probably aren't interested in taking someone on who makes it clear to them they have no intention of doing things the way their company wants things done.
If First want someone who is going to question their policies and be one of those nightmare employees who uses the union to get away with doing their own thing, they'd state that in their job adverts. I've been working on stations for years now and seen people come and go, failing their probation for thinking they can get away with that. Going on in assessments about how another TOC did things is a very good way to get sent home early, because it completely misses the point of the exercise.
Next time you apply, try reading the job advert, thoroughly. They can see from your CV that you've worked on the railways. Let that speak for itself and focus on meeting their requirements when at any assessment centres.
I worked for London Midland and they were alright as an employer. I parted on good terms with a decent reference. Not sure why you'd call them rubbish.
In my job I overlook a gateline. To be honest, stopping people who want to jump the gates or double through is not what being a gateline assistant is about. They're there for customer service and to provide compulsory supervision of the gates. People who are too keen on stopping fare evasion, against company policy dramatically increase the risk of assault, using up police resources and spending time off work.
Last edited: