OK - HR Q from employer's POV for once

[dmallind]

Recently hired several people for experienced but ground level office/professional positions.

I deliberately wrote the requirements to PREFER but NOT MANDATE a degree, because I believe experience can override education for these positions.

One of hirees claimed a BA and AA on online application form, but only an AA on resume and BA in progress.

On contact from background verification service we use for all profressional hires, comment was that it was inadvertent error and that only has AA, but was just one course short of BA.

Turns out she is many many courses - about 1.5 years - short.

Entry error I can accept no problem - anybody can screw up a drop down menu. Compounding prevarication troubles me, especially when I didn't need even the AA. Interviewed pretty well but not stellar, but available pool in this area is small and low-level and this applicant seemed best choice. Backup for this slot would need a bit more grooming and training,

We are woefully understaffed but I need trustworthy people. This is a position that can and would be routinely expected to legally commit the company to six figure sums after all. HR is pushing retraction of offer, and I am not all that hard to sway given outright false claims even on follow up. Any creative thoughts?

[mdmc]

1. no creative thoughts here

but please post back on what you decide..

[Brickbat]

2. Find someone honest you can train. You can't train honesty, IME.

Someone could change my mind, though, with a plausible scenario that would explain her multiple prevarications.

[vadawg]

13. yup integrity is key, you need to be able to rely on them and their word

[Sanity Claws]

3. She is not trustworthy

You made a point that the BA was not required but she fudged about it.

I agree with HR -- rescind the offer.

[liberalhistorian]

25. I agree. You need to be sure

the person is honest, especially if she'll have the type of responsibility you describe.

People need to realize that their backgrounds WILL be checked and verified and that they need to be honest on their applications, even if it means they might not be considered or hired for the position and no matter how desperately they may need it.

I don't normally side with HR all the time, but, in this case, I would agree. May I suggest, though, that when you do rescind the offer that you explain that it isn't because she doesn't have the degree, it's because she lied about it. Otherwise, she'll continue to do the same thing. And I applaud your willingness to consider experience in lieu of a degree and your understanding that such experience can often be as good as a degree. That will help a lot of qualified, competent people who might not otherwise be considered simply because they don't have that degree.

[dflprincess]

4. I'd go with the person who needs more training if they're also more honest

like you, I can understand a mistake - but the continuing changes in the story are troublesome. If this person will be dealing with customers or vendors, could you trust him/her to be honest with them? Or, for that matter, to own up is s/he makes a mistake on the job?

[Cronus Protagonist]

5. Dump 'em

Remember, this is them on their BEST behavior. What would they be like when at work?

[Touchdown]

6. I got a Q for you. Why did you change the name from 'Personnel'?

I am not a "resource". A resource is coal, iron, wood pulp, to be used up, exhausted, and thrown out. This is what Corporate America thinks of us when they cutely change the terms? Human resources, My ass!

You want trustworthy people? Start with treating them with the dignity of human beings as opposed to "human resources", "Our best assets", "associates" with "Synergy" of AA and BAs.

Ok enough of me.

[dmallind]

8. Because that's what the department is called

I didn't name it - it's on their office and their business cards and everything. Although to be honest I think a resource is no more pejorative than being personnel. Resources are not necessarily exploited and discarded. Is it an insult to be resourceful?

So are you saying that if they had been contacted by the personnel department instead of HR they would have been honest? Really?




resource - 3 dictionary results
re·source   /ˈrisɔrs, -soʊrs, -zɔrs, -zoʊrs, rɪˈsɔrs, -ˈsoʊrs, -ˈzɔrs, -ˈzoʊrs/ Show Spelled Show IPA
–noun
1.a source of supply, support, or aid, esp. one that can be readily drawn upon when needed.
2.resources, the collective wealth of a country or its means of producing wealth.
3.Usually, resources. money, or any property that can be converted into money; assets.
4.Often, resources. an available means afforded by the mind or one's personal capabilities: to have resource against loneliness.
5.an action or measure to which one may have recourse in an emergency; expedient.
6.capability in dealing with a situation or in meeting difficulties: a woman of resource.

personnel - 3 dictionary results
per·son·nel   /ˌpɜrsəˈnɛl/ Show Spelled Show IPA
–noun
1.a body of persons employed in an organization or place of work.
2.(used with a plural verb) persons: All personnel are being given the day off.
3.personnel department.



Gotta be honest I see resource as far more complimentary. I see the idea that being contacted by a department called either one would change a person's honesty as far less than rational.

[Touchdown]

9. It's a psyops thing. Started when Reagan gave them carte blanche.

I've been thinking about corporateze for a while now, and have only seen company fellaters see these "new improved" terms as complimentary. More descriptive of how they really see us (chattle, peasants, costs, etc.) than anything more inclusive.

Anyhow, sorry I took your thread off the rail.

[dmallind]

10. You are a fricking loon obviously.

There is not the slightest indication that HR is more "chattel based" than personnel and yet you are so invested in assuming this idiocy that you can't accept facts. I mean for the love of all that is holy you think "HR" is a sign that we are all peasants?? Lemme guess you refuse to put a shopping cart back in the corral because it is "stealing a job"?

[LooseWilly]

12. You obviously have no concept of the implications of the connotations of words.

The above poster is not a "loon", but is instead pointing out the implication that resources often refer to such things as coal, as is evidenced by the commonplace term "renewable resources" to refer to such things as lumber, which grow back, vs. "non-renewable resources" to refer to such things as oil or coal, which don't grow back.
The use of the term "human resources" suggests to those familiar with the term "renewable resources" an implicit equation of 'personnel', i.e. employees, with lumber... as humans are perhaps even more 'renewable' than lumber is... since trees take longer than 18-22 years to 'mature' in many cases.

I further point to one of the definitions provided by the HR OP "2.resources, the collective wealth of a country or its means of producing wealth." Its means of producing wealth... and that is the essence of the 'resource' nature of a company's employees. When employees are referred to as 'human resources' there is no connotation that employees are seen as 'resourceful humans'... they are rather being referred to as a 'means of producing wealth'. And, once persons are labeled as 'resources', then they become, unconsciously in the minds of those who would utilize these resources, just another class of assets... like computer monitors or accounting software or company vehicles (motor pools and whatnot). It is a linguistic means of dehumanizing the labor force, which is particularly useful when industrial engineers are doing whatever they do to optimize business efficiency models.
The company's personnel become little more than tools for carrying out the business of the company's business... like AR spreadsheets or phones... resources to be optimized and made more efficient... even if the stress causes these Human Resources to 'break down' (as in drop dead), like efforts to optimize the use of other machinery is liable to make office copiers and company vehicles break down.
And, of course, the answer is to simply invest in new resources when the old are worn out. New copiers when the old are wearing out, and new employees when the old are wearing out.
Which is, in fact, a system similar to that employed with peasants and serfs under a feudalistic system.

Your example of refusing to put a shopping cart back in the 'car corral' is rather nonsensical... since the guy (or occasional girl) who has the job of 'herding' them back into the store gets paid the same no matter where the carts are. If this employee isn't 'herding' the carts, he or she will be doing something else... there is no one who has that job and no other responsibilities... if it comes to it that poor slob will get the job of scrubbing the walls to keep them occupied if every customer brings every cart back to the by-the-door-corral after using it. The slob is a Human Resource... which should more honestly be called a labor resource... and while he or she is 'clocked in', he or she is not human... but a human resource.
Which is also not a person. Unlike those dealt with by 'Personnel'.
Resources are commodities. Human Resources is a word that 'commodifies' the labor, ideationally divorcing the labor from the laborer... and thereby dehumanizing the laborer who outputs the labor in question.

Judging by your example, however... I suppose I've just wasted a shitload of keystrokes trying to explain this to you....

[dmallind]

15. I posted what Resources ACTUALLY means!

It has not a single connotation of disposibility except in the fevered imaginations of the hypersensitive wannabe revolutionaries. Show me one cite that says the word contains this meaning.

The means of producing wealth are surely exactly what employees and labor especially have always claimed to be. How many times do you see here on DU or in union PR that only work creates wealth? Why is it wrong then to use a word that means this?

And "my" example is one frequently suggested on DU - where people proudly claim to refuse to put carts in corrals to "save jobs". Trust me I agree it's nonsense - as of course is teh idea that calling a department HR instead of personnel leads to and condones applicant dishonesty.

[Touchdown]

18. What you posted is not what you think it is.

Look at those words.

Something convertible to wealth. A tool of wealth creation.

Resource=Asset... which means one thing Property, as in "Our employees are our most valuable (comvertible to money) assets. Another word for property is Chattel. It's all there in what you linked to.

Organized labor does not use the corporate terms you think we do. We fight back and file grievences every time a manager calls us "associates". We are workers or employees. Don't condescend to think that labor approves of corporatespeak.

[dmallind]

21. Ridiculous projection

Do you think labor says workers do NOT create wealth? Then why are they not a resource?

[LooseWilly]

23. Answer me a simple question. Is labor a renewable resource, or a non-renewable resource?

[Touchdown]

31. No, I didn't say that. Labor does create wealth.

Resources do not create wealth. People create wealth with resources.

[Touchdown]

19. You eloquently said what I wish I could.

I know it, just couldn't put them into good words like you did. :toast:

You didn't waste any keystrokes. many more people will read your post than just the OP.

[apocalypsehow]

34. There was nothing "eloquent" about that post. It was semantics-driven gibberish. n/t.

[Touchdown]

35. Umm. Ok.

Have another brandy in your smoking jacket, Professor.

[apocalypsehow]

36. More gibberish. You imitate well. n/t.

[Touchdown]

37. Actually, I know gibberish when I see it.

Like this...

"More likely than not you are here because I have bested you in some thread debate, and a sense of pitiful frustration at your own shockingly limited intellect in comparison to mine has angered you greatly. You are here hoping to find some "personal" info to attack me with, as is the wont of those on the losing end of internet debates - ridiculing my occupation, my hometown, my marital status, etc. Sucks to be you, huh?"

EDIT: and for the record, I went to your profile because I wanted to know what sex you were. It helps if your male. Insulting your mother doesn't work much on women.

[apocalypsehow]

39. You went to my profile for the reasons you found described there. QED. n/t.

[Touchdown]

40. And what you wrote in there was truly gibberish.

... not to mention the rhetorical equivalent to a pro wrestler talking shit.:hi:

[apocalypsehow]

41. Uh-huh - which is why you're still chafed and posting about it so many replies later. n/t.

[Touchdown]

16. Ok, ignore it.

Oh' and BTW: Your "for once" remark is like a GOPer with his own TV show complaining about being locked out of the media.

Employer perspectives are given on CNBC, Fox Financial, Bloomberg, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, ABC nightly News, CBS News, NBC News, News Hour... am I missing anybody?

You act like a brainwashed corporate lackey who thinks any applicant with a discrepency on her resume is out to screw your company out of... something, when all she wants is a job.

[dmallind]

20. How many questions about hiring from a hirer's perspective are raised on DU?

Should I hire a liar when non-liars are available? Why? Would you?

[Touchdown]

29. Why would you think that DU is sympathetic to the tribulations of a hiring manager...

that holds all the cards? Such a poor soul.:eyes:

[liberalhistorian]

27. That is so fucking crazy that I don't even know where to

begin. First of all, employers DO sometimes have legitimate perspectives and some applicants and employees are liars and cheats. It's not a black and white employers always evil, employees always holy, thing. And that wasn't a "discrepancy", it was an outright fucking lie, made several times. Lies by a person who will have sensitive financial responsibilities in the job and could cause major problems for the company if she's dishonest. Like it or not, not all applicants and employees are honest and trustworthy.

And applicants have responsibilities as well. Desperately needing a job doesn't give you the right to deliberately lie on an application and to continue that lie. Companies do not automatically owe you a job just because you need one. And I'm saying that as someone who's been unable to find work in this area for a very long time (hubby moves us around for his job).

[Touchdown]

30. That's so fucking blindsided, I don't even know where to begin.

First of all, the default position of the majority of managers is that everybody is out to cheat them, everybody is a fraud, and everybody is a liar. It goes on throughout all aspects of business, from hiring, to workers's comp, in and out of computer usage, productivity, days off, sick time, expense accounts... everything in the relationship between employer and employee.

90% of the time it's bullshit, but that doesn't stop management from the behavior.

You don't know the applicant deliberately lied, because all you are hearing is the rantings of a hiring manager, who has that very mentality I explained. Stop swallowing the corporate Kool-Aide.

[Bluenorthwest]

32. But it is a company you own, right? So what it is called, that's

your call. So why do YOU call it that at your company, where you make the rules? Or are you not really the 'employer' but merely the employer's employee for hiring other employees?
If it is yours, you call it Human Resources, a term that is so off putting that I can not tell you. Much like those who claim to be 'employers' when they are employees.
If you are an employer, the name of the department is your choice. You are not held to what the door says. You like that term. Says volumes.

[Fozzledick]

14. Have you ever seen the original TV Science Fiction series "V"?

There's a climactic scene where the hero sneaks into the spaceship of the aliens who claim to have come in friendship but are really here to steal our natural resources. The cargo hold is jam packed with frozen human bodies about to be sent to the aliens' home planet to be eaten.

That's the image I see in my mind whenever I hear the term "Human Resources".

[Touchdown]

17. I do remember that series.

Never thought of the connection, but you're right.

:toast:

[liberalhistorian]

26. Oh, for God's sakes. I seriously doubt

that most people would choose to be dishonest on an application because they don't like the words Human Resources. Most people don't even think about that, frankly. She WAS treated with more respect than some employers do, with the willingness to consider experience in lieu of a degree. That's not often the case nowadays. People are ultimately responsible for their own choices in how they behave, a stupid name really isn't gonna make much difference.

[damntexdem]

7. Tell her that the salary she was offered was an inadvertent error.

The actual salary is a little over half of that amount -- about the same percentage as her completed classwork toward a BA. ;-)

[liberalhistorian]

28. LOL,

good one.

[Lisa0825]

11. I am in HR, I generally err on the side of the candidate at first, but if

it is clear they are caught in a lie, that is a deal-breaker. I have rescinded 2 offers in the past 3 months due to falsification. I have had 2 others which I believed were just errors, and once I spoke to them, I was satisfied. Those individuals' hires did go through.

[slampoet]

22. I have a good resume w/o a single falsification. Can't get a reply from any of you HR people

The problem is that you are ASKING a computer to lie to you instead of Reading the resumes yourself off an email or fax.

If you really believe that experience is important why are you using pull down menus?
What pull down menu do you have for people who worked their way through college while taking care of their dying mother and what pull down menu do you have for people who had Daddy pay their way?

Your honest applicants with good experience are probably turned off by trying to fit their lives into your little computer menus.


I try not to fill out computer forms because they are a waste of my time. It takes me 30 minutes to belt out a proper cover letter from scratch and email or fax it right to you.

By contrast i have had to waste 3 hours of pull down menus on some jobs only to find out that the posting is just a ruse to justify promoting from within or that the whole website is sending out my information (including my HOME ADDRESS and work numbers of my Past Employers!!!!) to Spam Artists.

My father told me 20 years ago not to apply to blank post office boxes in the want ads. His line was "If a potential employer won't reveal themselves to you what are they hiding?" BTW- my father hires 15-20 people a year. He does it by fax only. I have done the same.


If a potential employer isn't willing to give you the 45-120 seconds that it takes to visually scan a resume and they send a computer to do that two minute job what does that tell a potential applicant about what kind of company this is? It tells the applicant that one of the most important jobs in any company is being fudged. It also tells the applicant that the company is more than willing to replace anyone with a computer even though that machine doesn't do the job as well and affects the quality of the whole company.

From your description it sounds like you already got what you are looking for and have very little to complain about.

If you don't have an option for "I haven't finished my degree yet" then why are you calling your applicants liars?



Looks to me like one of these people rounded up to the nearest pull down option. I would look like a cheap bastard if i accused a person of stealing from me because they rounded up to the nearest penny.

If you don't like this hire an HTML person to change your pull down menus or better yet put on your reading glasses and do this by fax and email only.

Be thankful they told you the truth on paper. You interviewed the person who made it through your Computer Filter, first. If you had asked for a faxed resume and read it, you wouldn't be in this position of rewarding behavior you don't desire with interviews.



I am trying to respect you, but it seems that you really aren't being very empathetic towards people who are trying to apply to 25-35 jobs in a day.

The employees you are looking for are treating their application process like a Full-Time Job and spending 8-14 hours a day applying to everything they can in their fields. If you don't respect their time, they apply elsewhere.

BTW - if you have anything open in the audio, multimedia, or any other computer tech or public speaking back channel me with your real contact information and I will FAX you my Cover letter and Resume. If you insist on making me re-type my entire work history into an online form, then I'm sure i have better job leads. In fact i should be doing this right now instead of typing to you but I really hope that I might have changed your mind for the next guy even if that person won't be me. If I have, then tell someone else at your next HR person convention.

[LooseWilly]

24. Nicely put...

[Touchdown]

33. Excellent post

:applause:

[TorchTheWitch]

42. No, the problem is your reading comprehension

Your quite lengthy rant about the computer application is moot seeing as the OP said that they were unconcerned about the claiming of the BA in progress as a completed BA and accepted the applicant's explanation that it was an error on their part in filling out the computer app. The concern came from the applicant claiming that the BA is in progress and that either in their resume or in their interview (or both) claimed they were only one course short in completing it as in the verification process it was discovered that the applicant lied about only having one more course to go and in fact had a year and a half worth of courses to complete for the BA.

The OP SAID they were not concerned about the claiming of the BA on the computer app and was willing to accept the applicant's claim that it was in inadvertent error and that it was the lie in the resume or the interview (or both) that they only needed to complete one more course for the BA that the OP is concerned about. And frankly, it's that lie that is a very valid concern as it also makes the original claim of inadvertent error in filling out the computer app appear to also be a lie.

[me b zola]

38. "...from an employer's POV for once"

Yeah, because we don't hear enough of the employers POV. :eyes:

What used to be the labor section of the paper is now the business section. The Dept. of Labor now caters to business interest and screw the worker. The world now revolves around "productivity" numbers, "downsizing" was a way to get a worker to do the job of two people for half of the money. Union busting, blaming the economy on the workers instead of the greed of business.

Yeah, we simply don't hear enough from the employer's POV. :nopity: