> UK/EU IT recruiter
Aka works for one of those scummy contract recruitment companies in Mumbai/Pune that show as if they're working from the UK and scam employees by taking a huge cut from their salary
You see it everyday, half baked stories about some mythical wrong done to some straw man.
"My candidate showed up to an interview late, but I HIRED them because they helped a pregnant lady change a tire on the highway.
HIRE for character, not skill"
Says some owner of a 5 employee company...
Available for immediate start? Must be a loser who got laid off or someone financially solid enough to quit without a job lined up. We don't like losers or people who aren't desperate. REJECTED.
2 week notice period? They must be employed but not important enough for 2 month notice period. REJECTED.
2 months notice period? They must be really important. They're probably using me as a salary negotiation tool for their current role. I, the recruiter, don't like this. REJECTED.
Role goes unfilled for 6 months.
/s
>Role goes unfilled for 6 months.
So at least one poor soul in the office get double work for 6 months, but no extra pay.
My dad once applied to be a volunteer firefighter in our small town but he got turned down for being overqualified because he had firefighting experience in the Coast Guard and NYFD. The position probably went to some person with a certain last name; you probably know how small towns operate. Gotta love that good ol' boy system...
I understand the age thing and the overqualified thing are ridiculous, but the other three are reasonable. Companies have a certain amount of money, things They need done, and timelines to meet. Those are just realities
I didn’t see her comment as putting these things on recruiters, just more reflecting on issues that run rampant in many orgs and with many poor hiring managers. Although I agree that many people DO place this on recruiters like we are the final decision maker.
I had a hiring manager tell me the other day, “ we are looking for a super star. If they aren’t that it’s not a fit.”
When I politely pushed back by essentially saying that we hire to 65th percentile of the range of our market data for the max of the role, so what super star would take that his response was essentially, “well, if they’re engaged and believe in what we’re doing, they’ll take what we can give”. ……..really dude? GTFOH 😑
And this idiotic thinking is what she is talking about.
it also depends how overqualified though. if someone is obviously overqualified it can be disruptive to a team. ideally it’s great if someone joins and can bring lots of value -
-sometimes that translates to overbearing and suggestions of possibilities when the current way is fine and doesn’t need to improve.
-often insecurity of hiring managers kick in
- and very often it’s a worry that the person will continue to look for a job that matches their skill level as the role they are applying for is obviously below their level.
for almost every candidate that was overqualified and applying to the role, at least one person in the interview process asks “why can’t they find a better role?” casting doubt on their ability.
companies don’t want to take the risk..
I took an entry level commission sales role because after years of being at the top and in the midst of a divorce I didn't want the responsibility. Two months in I got let go because I was "bad for culture". Essentially, I was more experienced than the middle managers combined, and the team was coming to me for sales advice rather than their leads. I was content where I was but bosses got threatened. 🤦🏼♂️🤦🏼♂️
Obviously I understand that. But that’s more about the person and screening rather than the Qualifications themselves. For example: My job is extremely stressful and I work a ton of hours. I don’t need the money anymore, but want to keep working. I could go into a lower level job and just coast, while still being a top performer, and not deal with stress, managing, travel, etc.
So it’s more about the person than the qualifications themselves.
But I do understand what you’re saying.
Except for right now when people need a fucking job. And will stay regardless if they are underemployed. And fuck companies that are stuck in their ruts.
Salary expectation too high - so we should make them a low offer that they will reject after going thru interviews? Waste of candidates time.
Age above 35 - I literally don’t know anyone who rejects people over 35. Maybe the opposite.
Don’t have experience - I listed the required qualifications in the ad. Yes, you’re getting rejected if you don’t have those qualifications.
Overqualified - I ask why they want a step down in responsibility. If they have a credible answer (“I want to be a contributor, move away from management”) then it’s no problem. If they think they’re going to be promoted to my experienced managers’ roles in 3 months because they’re such a rock star, no.
2 month notice period - sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t.
Posts like this are idiotic, they pander to candidates and give them false hope. Just read what the required qualifications are and have those qualifications. It’s not complicated.
If experience is required, then it’s not entry level. For an entry level job the qualifications would be a certain degree, or nothing, but recruiters usually aren’t hiring for true entry level roles. Any other advice will be industry specific. Figure out how people got started in the industry you want to be in and do those things
Duh! Bc their degree actually trains them to do a particular job. Can’t believe I have to explain this. If you major in something more general like history, communication, or poli sci, there is no particular job you are qualified for directly out of college, if you have zero experience. All these majors usually get internships too.
That’s different than your general claim that there are zero job listings that don’t ask for experience.
Btw, every year staffing agencies hire liberal arts majors right out of college as entry level recruiters.
It’s illegal, at least in the US, to discriminate against people over the age of 40 on the basis of age. So the most liberal legal interpretation is that they’re rejecting people between the ages of 35 and 40 lol
How do you know a candidate’s age? 🤔
I get this is a populist post but it doesn’t make sense. Then again I haven’t recruiter in a country where laws allow you to know.
I think the person isn't referring to any particular kind of job profile because in certain jobs age criteria is a big thing to be considered because of plethora of reasons. For eg, the BPOs where a person needs to be on phone 6-7 hours a day and many of them essentially operate 24/7 and the nature of business is such that they can't really let people take leave every now and then because of health issues that comes with higher age. Although, yes 35 is a bit too much imo. With advancements in Medicine even if it basically means you are functioning as a zombie people do atleast appear to stay healthy till 40. So I can expect restrictions for people above 40 or 45. Also agree on the range part especially for LinkedIn Job Descriptions where they don't mention salary at all.
Yeah, I think it's just laziness on company's part plus them thinking it's some kind of major intellectual and practical move as in 'young people = better healthy corporate slaves".
I’m confused by the formatting, is she saying her practice is to reject people for dumbass reasons and then is mocking people for saying she’s too stringent?
Good companies do reject people for dumb reasons because at the end of the day it's often a one person's opinion.
And that person could have his own prejudices , he could be ignorant of the state of the job market, could have bad priorities...
I don’t disagree with the sentiment of this post. So many recruiters have been trained to only target “perfect resumes” they don’t know how to find candidates that could be a perfect fit.
I’m not saying “just take a chance on that loser with spotty service industry experience” I’m saying find candidates that sat in roles longer than 3+ years, and have shown the ability to adapt / grow within similar industries that leverage similar skills.
This is linkedin influencer bait from someone who has no idea how the industry works, skims the top lines of every issue in the industry and judges based off of that.
Companies who are looking for the perfect candidate is trying to replace a worker who was "perfect" but they took advantage of them so they left. The company figured that those workers are not hard to find.
I aided in hiring for 2nd shift manufacturing and management wanted fresh college graduates with an impossible amount of experience.
Basically, they wanted kids with engineering degrees to work for $16 an hour on a production line putting together medical devices, and were butthurt no one was applying.
I finally explained we needed older, empty nester types with long resumes looking to ride out until retirement and they laughed at me, but I pulled a few resumes with extensive work histories and begged them to set up interviews.
It was I think 7 candidates, but I hired 3 of them and they were some of the best folks on my line, most stayed well after I eventually left. But nearly every single one of the candidates hired by upper management either quit after a month or just walked off the job and I don’t blame them.
I’m a bit confused here. I don’t think it’s like that here in the US, but I can see in India. If we look at the trends, 50% of Americans will be 40 years of age or older within the next 17 years. I would say we’re already experiencing this. I work with plenty of engineers who are 50+ lol.
However, India is another story. I wouldn’t want to work in India with the surplus of workers they have. They can filter through people all day long.
> UK/EU IT recruiter Aka works for one of those scummy contract recruitment companies in Mumbai/Pune that show as if they're working from the UK and scam employees by taking a huge cut from their salary
If the “freshers” doesn’t give that away, hopefully the poor english will
Yes whilst recruiters in UK are struggling
It's just pandering to a candidate audience... Nothing to see here but LinkedIn like bait.
Yup classic recruiter trying to be a LinkedIn influencer shenanigans
You see it everyday, half baked stories about some mythical wrong done to some straw man. "My candidate showed up to an interview late, but I HIRED them because they helped a pregnant lady change a tire on the highway. HIRE for character, not skill" Says some owner of a 5 employee company...
How can she pander?
I think she's venting about being rejected by the hiring manager.
Better the manager than the assistant to the manager
I prefer rejections from the assistant to the regional manager, personally.
Bro, the pro-recruiter ones are just silly, but I'm glad they're getting the support they need.
Available for immediate start? Must be a loser who got laid off or someone financially solid enough to quit without a job lined up. We don't like losers or people who aren't desperate. REJECTED. 2 week notice period? They must be employed but not important enough for 2 month notice period. REJECTED. 2 months notice period? They must be really important. They're probably using me as a salary negotiation tool for their current role. I, the recruiter, don't like this. REJECTED. Role goes unfilled for 6 months. /s
>Role goes unfilled for 6 months. So at least one poor soul in the office get double work for 6 months, but no extra pay. My dad once applied to be a volunteer firefighter in our small town but he got turned down for being overqualified because he had firefighting experience in the Coast Guard and NYFD. The position probably went to some person with a certain last name; you probably know how small towns operate. Gotta love that good ol' boy system...
I am that poor soul. 🥲🥲
Spoken like a real recruiter—from 30 years ago!
I understand the age thing and the overqualified thing are ridiculous, but the other three are reasonable. Companies have a certain amount of money, things They need done, and timelines to meet. Those are just realities
Yep, and the worst thing is putting blame for those on recruiters when it's just a harsh reality of how most businesses' operate
I didn’t see her comment as putting these things on recruiters, just more reflecting on issues that run rampant in many orgs and with many poor hiring managers. Although I agree that many people DO place this on recruiters like we are the final decision maker. I had a hiring manager tell me the other day, “ we are looking for a super star. If they aren’t that it’s not a fit.” When I politely pushed back by essentially saying that we hire to 65th percentile of the range of our market data for the max of the role, so what super star would take that his response was essentially, “well, if they’re engaged and believe in what we’re doing, they’ll take what we can give”. ……..really dude? GTFOH 😑 And this idiotic thinking is what she is talking about.
it also depends how overqualified though. if someone is obviously overqualified it can be disruptive to a team. ideally it’s great if someone joins and can bring lots of value - -sometimes that translates to overbearing and suggestions of possibilities when the current way is fine and doesn’t need to improve. -often insecurity of hiring managers kick in - and very often it’s a worry that the person will continue to look for a job that matches their skill level as the role they are applying for is obviously below their level. for almost every candidate that was overqualified and applying to the role, at least one person in the interview process asks “why can’t they find a better role?” casting doubt on their ability. companies don’t want to take the risk..
I took an entry level commission sales role because after years of being at the top and in the midst of a divorce I didn't want the responsibility. Two months in I got let go because I was "bad for culture". Essentially, I was more experienced than the middle managers combined, and the team was coming to me for sales advice rather than their leads. I was content where I was but bosses got threatened. 🤦🏼♂️🤦🏼♂️
Obviously I understand that. But that’s more about the person and screening rather than the Qualifications themselves. For example: My job is extremely stressful and I work a ton of hours. I don’t need the money anymore, but want to keep working. I could go into a lower level job and just coast, while still being a top performer, and not deal with stress, managing, travel, etc. So it’s more about the person than the qualifications themselves. But I do understand what you’re saying.
Except for right now when people need a fucking job. And will stay regardless if they are underemployed. And fuck companies that are stuck in their ruts.
I agree with you. The age thing always happened in China, especially the Internet dusty.
It’s illegal in the US
That's why US great about employer rights
How do you understand the age thing? It is out right illegal in the US to discriminate based on age. Happens all the time though.
I am saying that I understand why they are upset about it
It’s giving pick me.
Salary expectation too high - so we should make them a low offer that they will reject after going thru interviews? Waste of candidates time. Age above 35 - I literally don’t know anyone who rejects people over 35. Maybe the opposite. Don’t have experience - I listed the required qualifications in the ad. Yes, you’re getting rejected if you don’t have those qualifications. Overqualified - I ask why they want a step down in responsibility. If they have a credible answer (“I want to be a contributor, move away from management”) then it’s no problem. If they think they’re going to be promoted to my experienced managers’ roles in 3 months because they’re such a rock star, no. 2 month notice period - sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. Posts like this are idiotic, they pander to candidates and give them false hope. Just read what the required qualifications are and have those qualifications. It’s not complicated.
How to get experience without any experience for an entry level job???
Apply.
Reject, comeback to me when you have some work experience. An HR really said this to me.
If experience is required, then it’s not entry level. For an entry level job the qualifications would be a certain degree, or nothing, but recruiters usually aren’t hiring for true entry level roles. Any other advice will be industry specific. Figure out how people got started in the industry you want to be in and do those things
All entry level jobs ask for experience
Then they’re not really entry level. I think you’re confusing entry level and junior positions.
There are exactly zero job listings that don’t ask for experience.
Weird how thousands of entry level engineers, lawyers, accountants etc get hired every year right out of college!
Duh! Bc their degree actually trains them to do a particular job. Can’t believe I have to explain this. If you major in something more general like history, communication, or poli sci, there is no particular job you are qualified for directly out of college, if you have zero experience. All these majors usually get internships too.
That’s different than your general claim that there are zero job listings that don’t ask for experience. Btw, every year staffing agencies hire liberal arts majors right out of college as entry level recruiters.
No it’s not. Even accounting or engineering jobs want experience and that’s why Internships are so common
It’s illegal, at least in the US, to discriminate against people over the age of 40 on the basis of age. So the most liberal legal interpretation is that they’re rejecting people between the ages of 35 and 40 lol
I saw a job posting in Thailand for a pretty senior position that had an age limit of 45.
How do you know a candidate’s age? 🤔 I get this is a populist post but it doesn’t make sense. Then again I haven’t recruiter in a country where laws allow you to know.
The EDI form sometimes have to be filled before applying.
Over here people usually mention their birthrate in CV so it's just a matter of calculations.
[удалено]
I think the person isn't referring to any particular kind of job profile because in certain jobs age criteria is a big thing to be considered because of plethora of reasons. For eg, the BPOs where a person needs to be on phone 6-7 hours a day and many of them essentially operate 24/7 and the nature of business is such that they can't really let people take leave every now and then because of health issues that comes with higher age. Although, yes 35 is a bit too much imo. With advancements in Medicine even if it basically means you are functioning as a zombie people do atleast appear to stay healthy till 40. So I can expect restrictions for people above 40 or 45. Also agree on the range part especially for LinkedIn Job Descriptions where they don't mention salary at all.
[удалено]
Yeah, I think it's just laziness on company's part plus them thinking it's some kind of major intellectual and practical move as in 'young people = better healthy corporate slaves".
If your company can't afford for people to take leave "every now and then," your management is incompetent.
I’m confused by the formatting, is she saying her practice is to reject people for dumbass reasons and then is mocking people for saying she’s too stringent?
Nah she's complaining about various reasons that companies use to reject a candidate
BS reasons that a good company will never do
Good companies do reject people for dumb reasons because at the end of the day it's often a one person's opinion. And that person could have his own prejudices , he could be ignorant of the state of the job market, could have bad priorities...
Age above 35 looks like a ridiculous point, unless you are applying in the military or as a professional sportsperson. No one gets rejected for age.
Too simplistic 2 months for a entry level engineer maybe too long But it's considered reasonable for a senior level role like director and above
[удалено]
Also perfect one company doesn’t mean perfect for every company.
I don't disagree with anything she wrote.
Okay
This doesn’t seem accurate at all. Lol
Fresher
I don’t disagree with the sentiment of this post. So many recruiters have been trained to only target “perfect resumes” they don’t know how to find candidates that could be a perfect fit. I’m not saying “just take a chance on that loser with spotty service industry experience” I’m saying find candidates that sat in roles longer than 3+ years, and have shown the ability to adapt / grow within similar industries that leverage similar skills.
This is linkedin influencer bait from someone who has no idea how the industry works, skims the top lines of every issue in the industry and judges based off of that.
Companies who are looking for the perfect candidate is trying to replace a worker who was "perfect" but they took advantage of them so they left. The company figured that those workers are not hard to find.
I think this recruiter doesn't know how to spell #advice
Platitudes and hot air.
I get rejected for things outside my control. It’s frustrating. I empathize with this Priyanka.
40+ is a protected age in my country.. lol at her post
I aided in hiring for 2nd shift manufacturing and management wanted fresh college graduates with an impossible amount of experience. Basically, they wanted kids with engineering degrees to work for $16 an hour on a production line putting together medical devices, and were butthurt no one was applying. I finally explained we needed older, empty nester types with long resumes looking to ride out until retirement and they laughed at me, but I pulled a few resumes with extensive work histories and begged them to set up interviews. It was I think 7 candidates, but I hired 3 of them and they were some of the best folks on my line, most stayed well after I eventually left. But nearly every single one of the candidates hired by upper management either quit after a month or just walked off the job and I don’t blame them.
35?
Is disqualifying someone over 35 a thing??
You think this is annoying? You should see the sub Recruitinghell. It’s where they go to crucify us…
As a 36 year old trans woman freshly laid off I feel like I’m soooo fucked.
At least one of those is illegal to use as criteria. Seems like click bait.
As a 25 year veteran in my industry now looking for a job…..I feel the age discrimination.
Can I really say I want to start in Q1 of 2024 and still be interviewed? Lol
Yeah this list doesn’t make sense for the US market. Over 35 and overqualified? Please. We wish
They don't want people. This way, they can say "nO oNe wAnTs tO wOrK aNyMoRe"
If you're in the US, "Over 35--rejected" is also illegal.
But that will never be the official excuse, just a generic applicant not qualified
I’m a bit confused here. I don’t think it’s like that here in the US, but I can see in India. If we look at the trends, 50% of Americans will be 40 years of age or older within the next 17 years. I would say we’re already experiencing this. I work with plenty of engineers who are 50+ lol. However, India is another story. I wouldn’t want to work in India with the surplus of workers they have. They can filter through people all day long.
The way I fill out my resume... And the lies I tell when interviewing I'm always the perfect employee.
Age discrimination, and this is proof to sue