Recruitment processes

bristol_pilot

They can get rid of a new employee within one year anyway (unless it's unlawful discrimination). Ask yourself why the 'probationary period' is not more than 1 year - because the employee could sue for wrongful or unfair dismissal after that time, 'probationary period' or not !

SomeBozo

Rant over.....any thoughts?

I think you need to concentrate more on getting a job rather than dwelling (and posting) on what is wrong with the job market.

(In case you were wondering, there is more supply than demand now hence employers are being extra picky. Can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen).

Of course no offense intended on a personal level.

Rant over. Any thoughts?

Bozo

Jomo

bristol_pilot wrote: »

They can get rid of a new employee within one year anyway (unless it's unlawful discrimination). Ask yourself why the 'probationary period' is not more than 1 year - because the employee could sue for wrongful or unfair discrimination after that time, 'probationary period' or not !

Why bother with the 6 month probationary period at all then?

bristol_pilot

It provides the Company with a process for weeding out 'poor performers' before they 'drift' over the one year mark.

liney

Probation is a formal mark in time for review. You can be dismissed for pretty much any reason other then discrimination, whistleblowing or incidents relating to health and safety, at any point up to 12 months even after "passing" probation.

A probationary period does not offer any additional job security as in British Law the rules are all in place for the 12 month mark.

starsky365

I agree with alot of the points made and I am not dwelling on anything. It just feels like at times HR deps are justifying their own positions and such expense in finding a new employee surely could be counter-productive?

garbadine

If you've got a high volume of applicants for 1 job (even if it IS only paying £13k), you can't really blame the HR department for putting several different selection methods in place - if nothing else, you hope that this would whittle it down to people who really really want the job and will therefore (with any luck) stick with it (rather than taking it knowing full well they just want work for a couple of weeks to tide them over before taking up something else).

It's a pain, it does seem disproportionate - and I agree that sometimes the only way of really telling is once the person is in the job (I've lots of examples of people who look great on paper, make all the right noises at interview - but still don't last a week). However, as Emmzi says, the amount of time & resource that's invested in someone once they start work is costly - so any cluey HR person is going to balance up this cost against the resources used to apply several selection techniques. It's not a perfect science by any means, but there's been plenty of research that suggests combining more than one different selection method (which of course have to be appropriate to the skills you're looking for in that role) is more likely to result in successfully recruiting the right person for the job than relying on single selection methods.

Good luck with the job hunt!

snowqueen555

I did a marks and spencers online assessment, just some questions, and I got an email two hours later saying I didn't pass.. LOL

Doesn't make me feel good though, like I am not good enough for them. A lot of these tests are pointless