What is employers' problem

Xikams

undaunted wrote: »

Putting it in plain English you came here and asked the question of random strangers - Nobody forced you to do so! You therefore have to be open to hearing the answers those strangers give as others perceive you, like them or not

I meet and talk to strangers about real jobs every day. I'd rather be too closed than too open. But it's not unreasonable to be critical. You probably do the same with anything important to you. No, recruiters are not rolling over throwing jobs at me right now (unlike last year, being offered jobs when I was in a job and wasn't even applying) but neither are they making much sense right now. And it's not like fixing your roof or replacing a tyre - I understand there's no such thing as a job specialist.

undaunted wrote: »

Self absorbed, tolerate? oh the irony here!!! :rotfl:

Yes, because if I was self-absorbed, I could probably make a killing in sales and/or marketing. Or something even more ridiculous, like teaching.

undaunted wrote: »

Interviews are often very much about you and the other candidates / members of the team etc and how the interviewer(s) - not you!! perceive that this will all gel. Had you got further so far you wouldn't have felt that you needed to post!

So if you want to talk in "plain English", why can't you talk to me as if I was just a plain jobseeker? There are other jobseekers out there too, and you could talk to me and them properly. You could talk about how you need to refine your E-mail font when talking to agencies, you can go to the jobcentres' and get free shoes, you can you tell a bad employer when they're constantly advertising for the same job, you can tell a dishonest employer when their sign-in book has 2 recent pages full of random agency workers, you can tell a good one when the manager is joking with his employees.

Many companies respect the desire of (prospecting) candidates that they wish to feel comfortable in their environment, benefiting them with good pensions and benefits. Some wish the other, for the benefit of ultra-high staff turnover so as to deny employee rights and reasonable wages. I've worked in both. And they do this because of their own personality and perspective towards the company ethos. Go to the spot for an hour before. Use a coffee (or stimulant of choice). Belt must match the shoes, have mints at hand, always accept a tea and always accept compliments. Each have different ideas of how to compete. When you look at it closely, it becomes quite interesting.

I think I could school many here about getting a job and quick. But I wouldn't, because those who can't, teach. Being nice is bad for business. I think it is truly about the company and how they feel that day. Companies are extremely fickle and pure personalities in themselves. And good advice gets lost fast. Though bad advice (like much of it here) remains and is promoted, because there is no convincing challenge to its immediate claim. And that to me divides the thinker from the idiot.

Polarbeary

I'm on the OP's side here...there are a few rather hypocritical / holier than thou posters here!

daytona0

Polarbeary wrote: »

I'm on the OP's side here...there are a few rather hypocritical / holier than thou posters here!

And, as a third party with an objective eye, you also concluded that OP comes across like that too?

They've just had a pop at teachers (and sales and/or marketing), for example! "Those who can't, teach" and "Or something even more ridiculous [than sales/marketing], like teaching."

I would love to see how OP fares on a PGCE course and the induction year! They probably couldn't even pass a TEFL :rotfl:

So, before you rally to the OP's side, just run your career past them to see if it meets their criteria for acceptable jobs

pupgrum

This guy seriously needs to take his medication. He's obviously got some mental health problems and won't change his ways, and will never be hired.

Detroit

Xikams wrote: »

Oi matey! Pull up dem bootstraps. *hawk* Yooo wunt a jub? Pull up dem bluddy bootstraps! *spits*


You do get some pretty interesting tests. A common one is how you "boosted company efficiency" or "increased revenue". You're usually tested on how you brought value to a team and sometimes you may be asked how you introduced a more efficient company process. One time it was required to come up with ideas to get only specific positive feedback for company marketing as part of the test and to give pure ideas for revenue-enhancing strategies.

I don't like answering these questions because it's a one-way street. Sure they evaluate competence, and you have to, but once they get real-world answers then they can use the interview process to harvest ideas. Not only does it feel dishonest but also that they aren't very good as a company. QUOTE

I have interviewed many many people over a number of years, and can think of only two occasions in which the candidate gave us a new idea. Neither were for an entry level position, and both got the jobs.
The question is intended not to harvest ideas but to gauge your understanding of the role,and identity how close your thinking is to the company's ethos.
At the level of role it seems you are applying for, creative input and free thinking may be of less importance to coming across as someone who will do as they're told and fit in, a soldier if you will.
In my experience, a lot of people have a tendency to recruit in their own image, so hold back on too much personality coming across until you've got the measure of the panel.
How do they behave? Can you emulate this? E.g., professional and formal, you act the same, jokes, you laugh along, discussion about personality rather than process, you discuss personality.
Unlike other posters I'd be amazed if you come across in real life as you have here.
This type of controversy and grandstanding is safe enough in your bedroom at a keyboard, but in the real world, not so much, I'm sure.
I think you're posting for effect, honing your literacy and debating skills, and in fairness, I've found your posts, and the response you've provoked has held my interest.
With this in mind, perhaps a role in a company is less suited to you than a job where you could write, express opinion, debate? Some form of journalism perhaps?
I don't know your background, age or education, or whether this would be attractive or realistic.
Regardless, I would certainly recommend you review your career options, given your lack of success in the roles you're currently applying for.

Malthusian

Polarbeary wrote: »

I'm on the OP's side here...there are a few rather hypocritical / holier than thou posters here!

Where's the hypocrisy? If people were slating the OP for being a misogynist dimbulb while at the same time beating their wives, that would be hypocritical. But I can't see how you would know that.

colazombie

Xikams wrote: »

My attitude is that I can and will get a job (probably in the next several days). If you're suggesting that needs changing and I should give up searching, you'll complain I'm sponging off your tax money too.

Would love Xikams to come back and update us as to whether he has that job yet