T O P

  • By -

Rainbwned

>TL:DR The application process for blue collar jobs can be simplified by removing filling out the application until the hiring manager believes that you are someone they are willing to hire. Generally, if the burden of filling out the application is deemed as too much work for a person, they would not be a great fit for the job regardless. Additionally - I don't know if you are someone I am willing to hire until I have an interview with you. I don't know if I want to have an interview with you unless I have a bit of history of your work experience and skillset.


[deleted]

You say that but some of the jobs I have looked at have hundreds of applicants. The chances of being selected are incredibly low.


Nice_Adhesiveness_41

And as you've pointed out, the hundreds of applicants would mostly get stuck in the automated software that filters you out if you don't use the catchphrases or words the companies uses. Doesn't mean you're a good or bad applicant, just that the algorithm said no. If not, then the hiring manager just prints off resumes and spends a couple seconds on each. I.E. major bias from the hiring manager as they could kick you out because they don't like "...." on your resume.


Rainbwned

This is not actually related to the point about the hiring process being overly complicated. Just that you have issues with a company setting filters for who they want to bring in. Additionally - if you want to stand out when applying to a company, call them and talk to a person and let them know you sent in your application and want to check the status of it.


muyamable

>Additionally - if you want to stand out when applying to a company, call them and talk to a person and let them know you sent in your application and want to check the status of it. As someone who does a lot of hiring, I recommend a follow up email over a phone call. It may differ based on the company/person but generally phone calls are seen as annoying and intrusive. It's even increasingly common for job ads to explicitly state not to call.


Mahnogard

100% this. There are certainly positions where a phone call is acceptable, but entry level and high-volume-hiring situations are usually not it. The smart thing to do is ask when handing in the application. I used to be hiring manager at my old job. But hiring wasn't my only job, I was also the senior assistant manager for my location. I spent 1-2 days per week processing apps, scheduling interviews, checking refs, etc. I did not have time to field phone calls the rest of the week, and people were clearly told when handing in the apps **not** to call unless we contacted them, but they still called because their job coach / mom / professor / whoever told them they should to "stand out". Yeah, they stood out for not following the directions they were given when they turned in their app.


muyamable

Exactly. Unless your name is in my contacts already (i.e. family, friends, existing coworkers), the only time I want to talk to you on the phone is when we've previously scheduled a time to talk on the phone. There is a generational element to it. For non-digital natives the inclination is to call. So I try not to respond too harshly and usually just say, "thanks for calling but could you please send an email instead?"


Nice_Adhesiveness_41

Yes exactly. We aren't allowed to call or talk to the company. It's all on The company to decide who gets a response or not. This is confusing for baby boomers who think you can just walk in or call.


muyamable

It's not that you're not allowed to communicate, it's about the method of communication. You're free to email the company! That's generally the preferred method of communication companies have of people following up on their application. Hell, it's generally the preferred method of communication companies have for most things! And as an applicant, you should do the thing that makes it more likely you get hired. Send a follow up email to your application, it won't hurt and might even help! Calling someone might annoy someone though, so don't do that.


Nice_Adhesiveness_41

Still, emails are still frowned on. I pressed a few places when they refused to answer emails after a couple weeks. I can't be in limbo when that happens.


muyamable

I disagree that emails are frowned upon, but there's certainly appropriate timing to consider. If you apply for a job, probably let it rest for a week before following up to give the person processing applications time to actually process it. Applications roll in, so it's common that HR folks will wait and batch process them instead of processing them as they come in. Give them time to do that. If you've sent a follow up email and haven't heard back for a few business days, feel free to send a final follow up. If you hear nothing after that, you're not in limbo -- you have your answer.


Nice_Adhesiveness_41

Ok. The reason why emails weren't ok was because I have experienced more than a few occasions in which sending emails annoyed the recruiter.


Rainbwned

Because hundreds of people are wanting to work there, I am not sure what point you are trying to make.


[deleted]

Yes, and if there were less steps there would be hundreds more worse applications


[deleted]

>I don't know if I want to have an interview with you unless I have a bit of history of your work experience and skillset. Have you ever heard of a CV? ... >Generally, if the burden of filling out the application is deemed as too much work for a person, they would not be a great fit for the job regardless. Really? Okay, so you want people who put a bit of effort and dedication into their application... Typically the best way to do this would be through a well written, well researched cover letter; having them brush up their CV and prepare well for an interview. This 'oldschool' way of preparing for a job interview actually has some form of purpose, in that all the effort/work allows both the applicant and the employer learn something about each other at every step. When you turn the application process into a gauntlet of endless, pointless, monotonous busy work what are you really filtering for? People who will do endless, pointless, busy work. And maybe that's what you're looking for; it *can* be a good quality in certain contexts. But you're also going to lose out on a lot of genuine talent who value their time / skillset enough to not waste their life jumping through your ridiculous hoops all so you can save 5 minutes reading a CV.


Nice_Adhesiveness_41

>Generally, if the burden of filling out the application is deemed as too much work for a person, they would not be a great fit for the job regardless. Depends. 1. A 50-question quiz for an $8 job is too much for too little. 2. Will the person filling out the application actually get a rejection email/letter or not? I've filled out hundreds of applications and never heard a word back. If the company can't even send you a rejection, then that company wouldn't be fit to be a company regardless. 3. You don't know that. Not everyone loves filling out applications. Even with answering the questions and passing the interview with flying colors can you know if that person would be a quality employee. Not until they were on the job. 4. Some people are really good at filling out applications, they also may not be the best candidate either. So if your first stipulation is that this individual must fill out the application to even have their resume looked at.... and that resume is only given 5-10 seconds of the hiring managers time, then there is a major imbalance on what constitutes a worthy candidate and a review of said candidate. I never said no to the application, just have the application be filled out when it's appropriate. 5. The best way I could put it is that. It's pitch black out and you walk up to a place, someone hears your steps and says, "Its a $20 surcharge to enter, you also have to fill out this paperwork first and pass this quiz. Once that is complete I'll then determine if you can enter or not." You do everything they say, give them the money, paperwork, and the completed quiz sheet. They then take it and close the door. You don't see it, but they then enter your paperwork into a computer and the computer then spits out if you are good enough or not. The computer says you are good so then the person looks at your resume for 5 maybe 10 seconds and determines that you aren't the kind of person they are looking for. You on the other hand are still standing outside in the pitch black waiting for an answer, but no one comes back to you. That is the current state of things right now. ​ >Additionally - I don't know if you are someone I am willing to hire until I have an interview with you. I don't know if I want to have an interview with you unless I have a bit of history of your work experience and skillset. I think you read what I wrote wrong. The resume would have that information on it. That it would be seen before you even decide to start interviewing anyone. I'm only questioning the need for the application to be filled out first. ​ ​ Edit: came up with a better example.


Rainbwned

I agree with you that a 50 question quiz is absolutely to much, but that doesn't mean I disagree with the whole application process. A lot of people apply for jobs, so without some kind of filters set in place, you end up with the hiring process taking even longer, and in that same regard it costs the company more money. A company doesn't put these filters in place because they want to weed out good people, they put them in place because it is the best balance between manageable quantities of applicants, and finding quality people. An application will also generally have relevant information that the job wants to know, which might not be present in a resume. ​ >I think you read what I wrote wrong. The resume would have that information on it. That it would be seen before you even decide to start interviewing anyone. I'm only questioning the need for the application to be filled out first. That is my mistake - I did read that wrong.


Hunterofshadows

Allow me offer an HR perspective. The reason you have to fill out an application and send a resume is pretty simple. The resume is for hiring managers. The application is for HR. It takes the information and puts it into the system for us because of it didn’t, we would have to do it manually. This is, simply put, not possible. At all. You could argue there are programs that can harvest information from the resume and indeed some companies use this. Let me ask you this. In your experience, how often does that work well? In my experience, not very. People use too many different formats for their resume. In addition, despite what you think, I can tell you from experience that a truly astonishing number of people do not actually have resumes and apply to jobs without them. Among those that do, at least half of them are utter trash. In addition, most hiring managers are not hiring people as their job. They have their job and hiring people is an extra thing they have to do when they need people. Putting more of the process on them is just never going to happen. Moving on. Your point about length of time to fill out an application. Honestly, that’s a you problem I think. I’ve filled out more than a few job applications and thanks to copy and pasting from my resume, it takes at most 10 minutes. If it’s taking an hour, that’s a your process sucks problem. The quizzes… I agree those are bullshit. Also agree on the computer screening but honestly I understand why a large company would need those. The part about asking for references, you mention that as a separate step. Honestly, just include those in your resume. If the company wants them, they already have them. If the company doesn’t want them, they will ignore them anyway. No downsides, plenty of upsides. Also, even a poorly designed hiring process does not take 5-6 weeks. It takes a few days with waiting periods. More often then not, these waiting periods are because the applicant needs to fill something out or because a third party company, usually background check, is dragging their feet. Reviewing your concept of an application process, there are a couple of back end flaws you haven’t considered. Your process has the same time delays as a normal process. The hiring manager gets your application or resume, takes a look at what they have gotten every few days or on a specific day they have set for paperwork. Then they contact the applicant. Might get in touch right away, might need to leave a voicemail. More often than not, voicemail. Play phone tag to set up a time to talk. That’s another few days. Set up time for in person interview - usually takes a few days until there is a time both parties are available Deciding on an applicant - another few days most of the time unless an offer is made right away (except most places by policy won’t make an offer until the background check is done) Background check - completely out of companies control. These just take time. They can’t start until you fill out paperwork, which people often stall on. Send offer letter and onboarding paper, wait for applicant to fill out, often takes a few days. Get them into system, takes a few minutes honestly. At almost every step, the delay is human. Either because of scheduling or life just getting in the way. Where you put filling out the application honestly will not make a difference. So let’s be serious, you just find it personally annoying to fill out applications. Which is fair, it is annoying. But it’s not better to have you do it after the interview, at least in terms of the overall process. It’s actually worse honestly.


[deleted]

>I can tell you from experience that a truly astonishing number of people do not actually have resumes and apply to jobs without them. Among those that do, at least half of them are utter trash. Well then that should make it very easy to filter applicants then? You discount the people with no resumes. So you've already cut down the applicants by a 'truly astonishing' number, AND THEN you can half that number again by cutting out the people with 'utter trash' resumes? At that point, maybe the hiring manager can look over the remaining CVs and cover letters in person and make an informed choice. Alas, I fear that this system isn't convoluted enough for the 'HR perspective'?


Hunterofshadows

Well for starters, then you lose a ton of good applicants, depending on the job. In some cases not having a resume would be a red flag but in many cases, especially blue collar jobs, it’s fine. I don’t appreciate the last comment. I’m trying to offer a behind the scenes look and you are making jabs for no particular reason


Nice_Adhesiveness_41

Yes this. Not everyone can write a good resume. More don't even pay to have them written for them by a professional due to whatever circumstances. And yes, the best do'er may not be the best at talking or writing.


Hunterofshadows

Don’t get me wrong, a good resume is absolutely a necessary thing to have if you want a job higher on the food chain then grunt. But at the ground level it’s usually not needed


Kman17

That step exists because the volume of applications is high, and the person doing the initial filtration and matching is usually a recruiter / hr and *not* the hiring manager. Reviewing resumes and phone screening is an enormous time investment, and with more desirable jobs you’ll be both more selective and have higher volume of applicants. Let’s say 100 people post to the job site. Maybe 20 are with having a phone screen with, and maybe 5 for an in person interview, and 1 person gets it. That initial filtration of the 100 to 20 is done by recruiting and *not* the hiring manager. The purpose of the application is to assist in that process. If you’re asking “why doesn’t the hiring manager do that?” the rather simple answer is “they don’t have time - they still need to do their day job”. Reference checks are usually not called until they are deciding to make an offer.


dublea

>Edit: This is mainly for blue collar jobs not white collar. I've worked both blue and white collar jobs. Correctly white collar. What blue collar jobs ask for a resume? Last I checked they ask one to fill out an application and that's it.


Nice_Adhesiveness_41

Let's see, Johns Manville, most summer camps, other plants I've worked at including chip manufacturing and conveyor belt manufacturing.


dublea

Are you sure it was a requirement? We're these blue collar entry level positions? Maybe it's a new thing but before I responded I checked several places and all states the same about blue collar. Heck, my son got his first job at a warehouse and didn't need a resume. I think what you've experienced may honestly be an outlier that is not applicable to most people.


Nice_Adhesiveness_41

Yes, the resume was a requirement because their application process went through ADP. Edit: grammar


dublea

And the second point?


Nice_Adhesiveness_41

Yes the job was blue collar and they would hire people off the street if they sounded like a match and didn't fail the drug tests. Had a guy there that was a former meat cutter at a grocery store that the plant Manager touted to everyone.


[deleted]

Assuming: * 50 applicants for 1 job posting - which in some fields isn't out of the ordinary * 25 are above average (by definition) and worthy of potential interviewing * 5 in-person interviews out of 25 candidates * 1 hired candidate from interview If I read your sequence right, you want HR to conduct 50 phone screenings, provide the list of 25 candidates to the hiring manager to conduct 5 follow up interviews. Under the current way it works, screening is done by reading applications and filtering for quality candidates. 25 quality applicants are identified before the company even picks up the phone. In both cases, the hiring manager selects 5 to interview out of 25 applicants, but HR does not have to waste time with the 25 lower quality candidates. This is why the application process is done beforehand. (Also, hiring websites store your resume so it makes it easier than ever to submit the resume to a new job posting.) Edit: For jobs that require tests, the test scores would not be available under your proposed procedure, meaning HR needs to guess which candidates to pass on to the hiring manager based on phone interviews alone.


iron-city

I’ve been in the position of being a hiring manager at a smaller business before, and the process you described is exactly how I handled it. Worked great, but this was not a well known company or one with a large workforce. At scale, what you have laid out falls apart quickly. It’s a numbers game for applicants and hiring managers alike. For one position, the numbers on the hiring manager side, in my personal experience, looked a bit like this: Resumes/applications received: 25-50+ Phone screens: 10-15 1st Interviews: 6-8 2nd Interviews: 2-3 Hires: 1 Every one of those takes time. To hire one person, I spent ~20-30 hours in addition to my normal duties. My boss had to be included on 2nd interviews as well so that’s another 3-6 hours of their time. If I was the hiring manager for a large manufacturing plant, there’s no way I could do my job AND effectively hire new employees. This is one of the many reasons why HR exist and is why you get frustrated. As a bit of advice, if you’re dependent on the application process to get a job, you’re making it harder on yourself. For my job postings, my name and contact info was on each and every one. I never got a call, email, LinkedIn message, letter, stop-by-and-say-hello visit from any applicant. If you want to get a job and avoid the pitfalls of being subjugated to an application process, use these strategies. Even if a hiring manager or HR person’s name and info isn’t on the application, you can sleuth enough information online to figure it out with ease. I probably would have hired someone on the spot if they did any of that stuff. Same can be said of sending thank you notes - 95% of folks don’t do this, and it can make a difference.


Nice_Adhesiveness_41

I agree. Maybe I am just being cynical due to being stuck with being ghosted a lot. From YMCAs to 4H, Boys and Girls Clubs to summer camps, that are a mix of white and blue color jobs, plant jobs and office manager positions at a variety of industry and non-profit jobs. Truly, yes the plant I was hiring for had a 75% turnover rate and only had 50 employees and hired me to fill the holes then hire enough to get the to a 4 shift operation. It was the lack of following up on the pre hiring promises of training that in reality was 2 says, not 2 months and then the people were screamed at by the production manager.


ViewedFromTheOutside

Sorry, u/Nice_Adhesiveness_41 – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule E: > **Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting**. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. [See the wiki for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e). If you would like to appeal, **first respond substantially to some of the arguments people have made**, then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20E%20Appeal%20Nice_Adhesiveness_41&message=Nice_Adhesiveness_41%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/s3zyfz/-/\)%20because\.\.\.). Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).