One of the reasons people can't find employment....

Sncjw

Fitness to practice I would guess a health related role such as nursing. Good god.

Nursing is supposed to be non-judgemental. You say dyslexia is a disability then if your getting rid of people for that your going against the equality act .

gettingready

pioneer22 wrote: »

That's why your unemployed and don't have a job/can't get one.

Your? Brilliant... straight A's you said?

You have no idea what field I specialise in so don't even try to put me down. Not everyone spends their working life where the ultimate achievement is to be an extra on an interview panel for some admin

Sncjw

You say you could be acussed of discrimination but that's what you are doing if your getting rid of people with dyslexia

[Deleted User]

Sncjw wrote: »

You say you could be acussed of discrimination but that's what you are doing if your getting rid of people with dyslexia

If you are dyslexic, like my wife is, then nothing stops you getting someone else to proof-read your CV.

So.. you're really just filtering out people who aren't able to get help when it is necessary.

pioneer22

Sncjw wrote: »

You say you could be acussed of discrimination but that's what you are doing if your getting rid of people with dyslexia

That's why there's a "do you need any adjustments to attend interview" section so that doesn't happen.

usefulmale

pioneer22 wrote: »

That's why your unemployed and don't have a job/can't get one.

gettingready wrote: »

Your? Brilliant... straight A's you said?

You have no idea what field I specialise in so don't even try to put me down. Not everyone spends their working life where the ultimate achievement is to be an extra on an interview panel for some admin

Not only that. You can't say "that's why your[sic] unemployed and don't have a job".

That's like saying "You're rich and wealthy".

Straight A-something, certainly.

Sncjw

But say the applications are done by cv so where would they say they need adjustments.

pioneer22

Sncjw wrote: »

But say the applications are done by cv so where would they say they need adjustments.

HR highlight any that need adjustments before we see them, IIRC there's a couple of boxes you complete prior to submitting the CV.

Ebe_Scrooge

ringo_24601 wrote: »

I like how people are confusing a flipping online post, with a CV. A post on here isn't under the scrutiny that a CV is, and there is limited importance in how good the grammar and spelling needs to be.

I agree with you ... up to a point. My point being that the OP is slating job applications for poor spelling and grammar, yet displays the same errors themself.

Ultimately, yes of course there is no excuse for errors on a CV. If you suffer from dyslexia - or if, for any other reason, your ability to produce correct spelling and grammar is compromised - then most word processing applications will check it for you. Failing that, ask a friend to proof-read it - as has been suggested by a previous poster.

[Deleted User]

pioneer22 wrote: »

Wow, do people not realise the indeed format for CV's is terrible

One of the guys in HR said when they rung one of the candidates they said "whose this, I've applied for so many jobs" At least pretend you know which job it is!!

Incredibly frustrating.

Least they answered the phone? (see below)

Have heard this before - It just means they don't have a photographic memory. Shame on them if it was a really good position though there was one company I managed to interview 'unsuccessfully' 5+ times in the space of 2 years :o:o and nobody took note of the name, acknowledged even when faced with the very same interviewer so more fool both of us hey. Another time I sat in an interview for well over an hour without appreciation of what the job was doing, if there is one thing that get's under my skin it's unclear and inaccurate job descriptions. It's got to trump any poor CV format!

Word of warning those large application numbers can whittle down very easily.. I remember an organisation with absolute hundreds at selection event after application, we all knew formal interviews started the very next day, didn't stop just hours after the selection and assessment event, a mere 30 people only answering calls - GRAND TOTAL OF 7 turned up to interview with the peanut paying 'employer' that was thinking a talent pool was required to take care of so many people wanting a job if you were to go by initial figures - save the energies!.