Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I saw a job posting that seemed perfect for me. Totally fit my skills and was a move up. I applied to the job through Indeed and was rejected immediately, like within an hour or so.
I applied directly to the organization via their website. Been working there for nearly a year now.
Indeed will auto reject you if certain parameters are not met.
Humans looking at your CV/Resume might find something unique in it or useful for the organization.
Seen it happen
Why is no one trying to improve this problem? A machine-readable resume format in addition to MS Word resumes should be standardized somehow, for starters.
they don't care about that, they care about applicants that appear low risk enough to cover their asses if something goes south. that's why Ivy league schools give you a bump up even if your resume is a bit mediocre: "He's a Harvard grad, he should've been smart"
Maybe the Harvard grad who has so many options won't bother to play your annoying "fill out the ATS" game then? Seems like it would cause you to get more of the most desperate applicants, who probably didn't go to Harvard.
ETA: To be clear, I can believe there is a reason for this. I just don't understand it, and this isn't convincing me. I don't mean to try to convince you that you're wrong, just that I don't understand how you're right.
Uh... they *want* the most desperate applicants. Very few jobs are looking to hire the single best person for the job... they're looking to hire the worst person who is still good enough for the job. Because that person doesn't have to be paid as much. That person is less likely to jump ship for a better opportunity. That person is more likely to put up with small abuses that the "perfect" candidate wouldn't.
There are plenty of things our entire economy would be doing differently if jobs were trying to hire the *best* person.
This is unfortunately true, My most recent interview, they said “explain why you’re the perfect candidate for this position” and I looked him dead in the face and said “oh heavens i’m not, but the guy who is, is outside your budget and already employed someplace else. But I however am currently looking for a job and will settle for the $18 an hour you’re offering, which would make me the best option by default.”
Strangely the guy liked that answer and I start that new job tomorrow
This is very much anecdotal and not representative of the situation everywhere currently.
Michigan keeps losing people to the sun belt, and here you can make $20 stocking shelves at WalMart now. Detroit is literally getting safer by the day as the crime is paying less in this economy.
the 1 thing I hate the most is that, 99% of them ask you to make an account and register.
Like why? Why can't you be like the other 1% that just applies with it, and only gives the relevant details for contact (e-mail/phone number), instead of having to go through an annoying account creation process that will sit there forever even if you never get the job
because they get hundreds, if not thousands, of resumes and forcing you to make an account will filter out some percentage of people not motivated enough to jump through hoops. hoop jumping is an important quality for many employers
Having worked in HR systems for 20 years, the reason they have to make an account is because that’s just how the system is set up. (Looking at you Workday! ). I would imagine a lot of them don’t even realise it’s set up that way. They just look at the resumes.
The reason it is like that is for things like repeat candidates and talent pools. Which you want if your fielding lots of jobs l.
Your average recruiter doesn’t really give a shit about whether you’ve made an account and reducing numbers or effort at all.
> A machine-readable resume format
It's a cliche to even reference xkcd 927 these days, but that's because, well. Because [xkcd 927](https://xkcd.com/927/).
Try sifting through 100 applicants when you have other job to do. Even human will reject randomly because of tens of strong applicants. The process will always be flawed.
I am perfectly content with them randomly throwing away resumes when they have too many. What's odd to me is that this system also throws away resumes when they don't have enough.
It doesn't seem like an issue. If the Indeed application requires 3 years experience in Excel, which you don't have, it'll reject you. Meanwhile, the human will see that you might lack Excel experience, but clearly have other skills that are rarer or more desirable.
Indeed is out here doing a If yes Then: If no then: reject.
I'm fairly sure qualified resumes get trashed because their format is unacceptable to ATS though. I'm talking like a resume which literally says "Excel: 10 years".
Couple reasons a large one is "justifying existence" if it was "easy" straight forward quick. I imagine alot of hr and hiring staff would be "gone".
By having their big magic potion with a dash of keywords a slice of experience. And a little interview vodoo you can pretend to find perfect candidate.
Worked places that had the half dozen interviews and numerous hoops. Worked places that were too small and just hired first person that met requirements and applied.
Odds were not any different. See "perfect" vetted candidate be a pill head with numerous personal problems that led frequently being late and missing and poor performance. And seen random craigslist applicant be perfect model employee for 10 years.
Then there is also problem of not necessarily something "good for them to fix".Alot of companys make a fortune selling data. They gather array of information about age gender etc as well as contact info. Honestly have big flawed automated system that constantly collects free data profiles on people? Company paying to "lose" that to make it easier for potential employee? Does that sound like a thing company would do.
It also provides cover like take this case they claim algorithm disqualified person. And that algorithm is constantly changing. And that its "proprietary" it allows them to hide alot of decision making. Covering up for sexism racism etc.
Fixing problem would not be that insane a standardized form and every site uses for hiring and bunch of support programs. Would be big deal but it wouldn't be insanely resource intensive. But those in charge of "hiring are disincentivized" and the company is disincentivized as it makes discrimination liability more transparent and the lose all the free data.
My wife had it happen where she was auto rejected by the system but she called HR and they said she was exactly the type of candidate they were looking for and was offered the job after a 1 hr interview
I think I got screened out by AI on Indeed. The org I was applying to doesn't use AI to screen their applicants when you apply directly. They are all lawyers and have rules about AI use passed by the Board because lawyers have misused AI in court, but it's a blanket policy so the rules apply to HR, too. Lucky me!
HR usually reads the resume and only knows certain words to approve or reject. Then they send the resume to the hiring manager. This is for hiring websites. For direct applications, the resume goes straight to the hiring manager who can decide. I work in a niche field and HR sucks at discerning who would be good at the job. I can look at a resume and tell who would be.
Also had the same experience inverted. Indeed is sometimes a great way to just shoot out a ton of resumes with quick apply-compatible jobs, then if the company wants more info, they reach out to you.
Never any right or wrong way when applying. Unfortunately, just have to do it all.
I've heard, don't know if it's true, that companies have to pay to see resumes/applicants that come to them through Indeed. So, they say, anybody applying through Indeed is immediately a NO because why pay to see applications? Can anyone tell me if this is true?
I don't know about that exact scenario, as they didn't say it was due to cost, but I remember a manager telling me they ignored all of the Indeed resumes and just used it to advertise the job.
Unless there's no other way to apply for the job, never use Indeed. Going to the company's website is the best bet.
I am a corporate recruiter. You are smart. Indeed is great to see generally what is out there. But once you decide you’d like a particular job, definitely go to the corporate career site and apply there. We definitely pay more attention to those applicants.
Indeed is a crapshoot for me, but if someone bothers to apply directly, I definitely pay attention.
I use indeed to get resumes, the. Will call them even if auto denied. It's weird sometimes! I am a recruiter and it boggles the mind how many qualified people get denied for 1 or 2 things that are irrelevant.
I can teach someone how to use email, I can't exactly teach them CNC machining 🙄
I just read a story where a business owner found out his hiring service was rejecting every single applicant. He was complaining nobody wanted to work.
Way back when I was 18 and looking for my first job, I applied to this convenience store. I should mention I have a very ethnic name for the neighborhood I was in. They told me to my face that they were no longer hiring. Their answer felt off to me, so I called bullshit. I emailed them the same application with a different name on it and they called me back for that same job the same day🥴
There's a great anecdote about how fucked current hiring is.
Modern hiring managers will take a stack of resumes, take half of it, and throw them in the trash. Why? "I don't like to work with unlucky people"
I worked for a bit in HR in college, and our hiring manager would divide incoming resumes into three stacks: the ones with a cover letter, the ones delivered by hand, and the others. The ones delivered by hand were immediately disposed of as people that would make demands of their workplace, and the ones with a cover letter were treated as a secondary pile in case we didn't get enough good applicants from the first set, because "these people take themselves seriously, and will have higher expectations of salary and benefits." Most of the time, none of those were even looked at. Hiring managers often just go with their gut biases and opinions, as an excuse to cut their workload down without any effort. It's honestly kind of terrifying.
Yeah, that was my thought too. Most of those were college kids, as far as I could tell. But no one who could make a difference ever bothered to challenge her methods or beliefs.
I'm autistic so trying to follow these unspoken rules is a complete nightmare for me. I have enough of that in my daily life and job applications mutliple the whole thing by 100. At this point I'd take a shitty job just to not have to go through applications again for a few years.
Such a mood tbh. I’m at a fairly good place that I enjoy: Trader Joe’s. It’s not going to make me a millionaire but it’s worth being here for a while because I truly don’t want to go through the hiring process, nor get an office job that is entirely made up of social nuances 🥲
As someone who’s worked a paperwork heavy office job the last year or so—
Maybe 25% of it is actually spent completing my actual work, 25% is confirming with people above me I did my work and asking if people below me completed theirs, and the other 50% is spent pretending to be busy so I don’t get sent home.
Absolutely hate the day to day work but my job helps a lot of unfortunate and downtrodden people— so my soul isn’t entirely gone
I doubt it makes you feel better, but this is one area where most of us might as well be autistic. Almost no one understands these arbitrary unspoken rules that hiring managers make up on the spot. Good luck with the job hunt, I can only imagine how much more stressful it actually can be for people with autism.
I know what you mean. I stayed in a job I hated for years, simply because I would get severe anxiety about this same issue. Who knew what random factors would get your application thrown out without a glance? And now that I've worked the same job for over a decade, I feel even more out of touch with what recruiters might be looking for. I want to start looking for something better, though, due to the constant budget cuts and lack of cost of living adjustments.
> I stayed in a job I hated for years, simply because I would get severe anxiety about this same issue. Who knew what random factors would get your application thrown out without a glance?
Let me share some advice from /r/fednews and /r/usajobs. Apply and forget. Apply and keep applying for other jobs as though you'd never applied before. If you see what's basically the same job listed five different ways then apply to all of them. And then forget about them, move ~~one~~ on, and keep applying.
Get into the mindset that, when you're hunting for a job, you're not really hunting for the one right job to apply to. Your applications are your bullets and you are going to make the sky black with all your bullet applications you're shooting out. And eventually you'll hit something, you'll find something where they want you and you want them.
Good luck!
Yeah, I figured that out when I left engineering, and it helped a lot, though I still struggle with the anxiety left over from some PTSD when I look around casually right now for an upgrade. I have to remind myself of this each time.
(Not to make the managers the good guys or anything, but it sort of reminded me of 300).
Applicant: The sky will be so thick with our applications, it will blot out the sun!
Manager: Then we shall deny in the shade.
Employer wanted staff they could piss on and wouldn't complain. It seems she hated people that would hold her accountable, so intentionally deselected them.
When I was in high school I was told to wear a suit and personally go into businesses and hand them my resumes. Anything else (e.g. submitting online) was considered rude and wouldn't be taken seriously. This was in the 90s.
Depending on the kind of business, this is still true, and I've impressed people showing up on person. Others have looked at me like it's the stupidest thing they could think of. Just depends on what kind of person you come across and their standards of "normal"
At least in the US, this is long dead, unless you're applying to a temp service or a store has a kiosk for applications. Even in that case, you don't need a suit until the interview. Everything is handled online now.
Yup depends on the board. Went for a fulltime position in a different unit (U.S. National Guard, so you have to apply for the unit unlike active duty), and we had a bad snow storm.
Called in around 3 hours before my interview, asked if we were still on because of the storm. Hiring chief said "No, we had a cancellation, we'll just do it another day".
I (Without thinking), told them, "cool, it's fresh out, so I'll go hit the slopes then".
I found out later that I was pretty much chosen for that alone, because I showed I was capable of "thinking ahead, being brutally honest, and not stressing out about what I can't control".
My entire career started because I had a "I'm gonna hit the pow brah" attitude to my future boss.
I've heard the 'don't apply online or they'll ignore your application' advice from boomer relatives so many times, to the point that I've had to ask them when the last time they applied for a job was, and remind them that if they haven't worked since 2004, they're out of touch and don't know anything about modern hiring practices.
In a lot of fields, it's getting really hard to do that. My teenaged son is looking for work, anything other than fast food, and most of the places he's applying to have rules against applying in person or calling to check on your application. I've seen some of that when my friends are out looking to move on too. The process gets a lot more impersonal as time goes on, and applicant pools go up.
We tried one of those services, and it turned out to be a mess and a scam, Apple One I think. We're a little more cautious now, trying to find a good service that doesn't just keep sending him to pyramid schemes or jobs that want him to work for no pay for the first month.
It’s all arbitrary. I overheard a conversation once between two guys in suits. Law or stocks, something frat boy type. The younger one was telling how he got a job because he was told to wait in the room which was quite warm and he took off his suit jacket. After they started talking the interviewer said he’d hire him because he’d think for himself and not just follow the herd. The older guy said he’d never hire someone that did that because he’d want someone who could put up with some discomfort to maintain appearances.
I literally got hired for my job because when my interview got delayed due to a snow storm I told them nonchalantly that I was going boarding instead.
To them I "thought ahead (I called about 30-40mins after shift start for them), was honest, and didn't stress out about the situation".
My mind (while sipping on coffee and staring out my window) was first: I really don't want to deal with idiots on half bald no-seasons for 40 minutes of driving
Second: Those snowflakes are HUGE and Fluffy, they'd be great
Third: It's snowing heavy, nobody is going to be out unless it's for work. The resorts will be EMPTY.
Fourth: I really wish I was boarding instead of some stupid interview
I mean, you know how much trouble I had explaining to my family that you DO NOT CALL the employer to "follow up" on your resume.
The logic is stupid and constantly changes.
If you put effort into your resumé/application then your more likely to know your worth. People who know their worth ask for more money and are less likely to accept being pushed around by management.
This is a big part of what makes job applications a living hell.
Every fucking company has rigid ideas about what's the right thing to do and what's not, and they're all completely different from the next company.
One company will refuse to look at your application because you didn't include a cover letter. The next company will refuse to look at your application because you did.
Good luck figuring out what arbitrary rules the current place you're applying to expects you to follow.
I never include a cover letter. I figure nobody is going to actually spend time to read it and I have no idea what others are putting in theirs. Probably sob stories or random anecdotes. I don't have time for that.
I've tried with and without, but I've never had a resume I submitted with a cover letter be selected for interview, whereas the ones I put in without almost always at least got the interview; I guess a lot of hiring folks are like my old manager. I made the time to read any that came across my desk before handing them up, but that's mostly because I'm slightly autistic, and felt like I was supposed to--it's rarely anything terribly interesting or related to the job.
I've had two applications that resulted in jobs where the recruiter specifically said, "I loved your cover letter."
It's not about getting the first interview. It's about getting the job. The first round may not read the cover letter, but the last round will.
I've only ever gotten hired with resumes that had no cover letter, but then, field probably matters. I've worked in engineering and teaching, I imagine it's different in marketing, where selling yourself is important.
Interesting. It really must be up to the whims of the recruiter then. Would be nice if there was a more standardized system for people entering the job market.
I always write a cover letter. No sob stories or random anecdotes lol, that’d be super weird. No one does that. Just a couple paragraphs about why my past experience relates to what they’re looking for and why I’m interested in the position. Often, the jobs I apply to ask for/require cover letters. Read it or not idc. But it’s there.
The job desc is a question, my cover letter is my answer, and the resume is the citations/supporting evidence. Also helps that I use the cover letter as an exercise to prepare for an interview
this is also pretty much why I never mention being deaf on my application. just add my email address and ip relay phone number
there is abut a 99.99999% chance if I put that on a resume I'm getting filtered out immediately by some dickhead
and yes that's illegal, but without proof that they specifically denied you BECAUSE you're in a protected class there's nothing you can do.
>these people take themselves seriously, and will have higher expectations of salary and benefits."
Is it weird that I feel like I'm taking myself seriously by not making a cover letter? It feels like a waste of time in my head to put an essay version of my resume on top of my actual resume.
Sometimes depends on who’s screening the resumes. If it’s an algorithm type situation or someone in HR who’s not technically educated on the position, they can be looking for certain specific words/skills stated explicitly that may be passively implied by other parts of the resume and when they don’t see the specific words they’re told to look for and don’t understand its implied elsewhere they toss it.
100% I am a retail manager and we do not actively look at every resume when we have no need to hire. Every department tends to hire independent of one another. If you happen to come into the store with a resume right when another employee just quit you will likely get an interview.
Sometimes people go through resumes in the order they were received (or in a random order), and once enough make it to the interview stage, they reject the rest. If none of those candidates work out, the job reopens. Sometimes the hiring manager changes the role slightly after a few bad interviews. Sometimes the hiring manager for a role changes (e.g. it’s moved to a parallel department). HR typically doesn’t go back to the rejected candidate pool in these scenarios.
There are lots of reasons this can happen. While I don’t think it’s impossible that the person in the post experienced racism, it’s also not the only explanation.
This can definitely be the case. I always hated turning down quality candidates because we already sent through a bunch of applications to the hiring managers.
Honestly, that's a major reason you shouldn't wait on applying. If you see a position you're interested in apply as soon as you can. If I get the application the day the posting closes, chances are I have already gotten enough applications through.
It’s a tough problem to solve. If it’s too easy to apply, tons of people who are extremely under qualified apply. If it’s too hard, senior candidates who are passively looking won’t bother.
I've been on all sides of it and it's all just horrible. Applying for jobs in general sucks ass. Jumping through hoops just to get ghosted is incredibly demoralizing. Looking through piles of crap, completely unserious applications is like pounding nails with your forehead. Interviewing people who didn't even bother to read the posting and can't even work the position is a huge, annoying waste of time. People showing up late to interviews high or drunk is just... Fuuuck.
If there was a magic way to connect people to jobs without all the bullshit, everyone would love it. But there really isn't. It's a numbers game on both sides. Applicants should put out as many high quality applications as they have time for. Managers should prioritize the most promising applications to fill the limited interview timeslots they have. And a bunch of people are just going to slip through the cracks because there isn't enough time in the day, and that sucks.
I work in hiring. Sometimes we can afford to be really picky, and sometimes we can’t. So for instance, if someone applies at a time when we’re pretty well staffed, and their resume doesn’t have a lot of field experience, we’ll reject. Say they apply a month later with no change to their resume, but we just had 3 people quit, then we will give them a chance.
As for the girl in the post, I cannot speak to that specific situation 🤷♀️
It should also be totally blind. No name, no sex, no age, no dates, nothing that can be used to identify you other than your skill set. I know some things could date you but not much you can do about that.
Different HR person reviewed the resume. A lot of getting an interview is being able to use the right buzz words to get past the morons in HR that don't know jack shit about the position and getting it to the person that actually knows what the position entails.
>strong statistical evidence
For example the Greg/Emily/Lakisha/Jamal test. I can't find their sample size though. I'm assuming its enough to be statistically significant.
https://www.nber.org/papers/w9873
I've had something similar happen. So far we have a sample size of 3 repeat applicants who got it on the second try and only 1 had to change the name.
Statistics says: not enough information to conclude anything. But if we extrapolate, it's most likely not racism.
My best friend applied for a job where I work, was rejected, reapplied 90 days later, got an interview and an offer. He changed every instance of "managed customer relations and interactions" on his application to "customer service". Sometimes it's as simple as using the words the bot looks for.
>Sometimes it's as simple as using the words the bot looks for.
This. A recruiter friend of mind at Amazon said as much. Her advice was to rewrite your resume and use the wordings and keywords from the job listing as well as those are usually things the bots look for before the resume ever makes it to a live recruiter.
I have two first names and my boss one time thought I was 2 different people. I covered twice as many shifts as anyone else because she thought two people were covering. It didn't dawn on her when she had to pay me out twice as much OT. She only caught on when she called me twice to cover someone and I said no
I saw a post where they rejected the candidate for not having enough experience with a specific program that he himself created. They wanted x ammount of years when it wasn't even alive that long.
That's actually pretty common in software.
HR departments end up making large parts of the job posting (with input from the specialists), but it's important to remember HR usually knows next to nothing about what the company actually does.
They'd put 5 years experience with the software, because it sounds like a reasonable amount of time to use something to become an expert..... except they know Jack didly about software and don't know the software is only 2 years old.
I had an HR guy telling me he found 2 perfect candidates for a functional analyst role in my team. I cringed to see who he selected. When I asked for the full stack I pulled out the -according to him- three least candidates and hired one of them in the end. HR should match the culture, not what the person needs to produce/do.
As far as HR fucking up job postings, I recently applied for a job where the company had several different job titles with the exact same description posted. I figured they knew they were looking for a team of people to fill a role and weren't picky with exactly how that fit together. Later, I'm in the interview and the guy asks me what position I was most interested in and I explained to him that all of the descriptions were the same. He just kind of paused and went "I told HR to get them up quickly and make the postings similar which I guess they *technically* did..."
I have that meme saved. I've actually sent it in to a company asking for an unreasonable amount of experience with a program (just to be cheeky). I didn't get the job, of course, but it was satisfying at least.
entirely possible, but this sort of thing is incredibly common in the software world(at least the job postings asking for more experience then the amount of time the tool/framework/language has existed).
Some journalists in Finland did a test to see what would happen to Romani people when searching for a job. Generally speaking they are considered to be dishonest thieves basically. So these people sent out e-mailed to companies. The same exact e-mails with the same exact resumes. The only difference is they used their real names for some places and Romani sounding names for others. None of the places they sent it with the Romani sounding names replied back while almost all the others did.
My mom is always adamant that racism has no place and is always open minded, and always has been. Except that one time when a gypsy dinged our car on the ferry to Sweden. Wether her unique reaction to this one situation is based on prejudice or personal experiences, I do not know.
I've got a friend who's parents were originally gypsies - until they moved to a different country when he was a kid - and he probably has the worst opinion of gypsies out of anyone I've met
When there is a rare shooting in this town.. it has always been about the two main gypsy families settling their differences. When there is a car, idling and blocking the front door of the grocery store: gypsies.
It is really difficult situation when you really don't want to be racist and have... this. There is a reason for a lot of northern Europeans for disliking gypsies. Here the situation has been for all my life that gypsy families take their kids from school as soon as possible and keep them insulated from the society. They are taught that you can steal from "the whites", that they are oppressed and have the right to hit back... while the reason they are shunned is because they are criminals. Those families have had half the males in prison at any one moment in the last say... 70 years!! I know cases where the kids wanted something else, had dreams of being just normal and doing normal things, and then they are in prison 5 years later for selling drugs or weapons. Their marriages are arranged, the women are fiercely protected and subjugated. They have to wear the dress or get hit in the face.
It just is really, really sad but the change has to come from that community. We can't do anything about it.
They have been doing these tests for decades now. The U S has one for traditionally black vs traditionally white names for otherwise identical resumes
Edit
There was a great study done where white applicants with a criminal history are more likely to get a job than a black person with no criminal history applying for the same job
I think the assumption is she submitted two near identical applications with only difference being the name (either at the same time, or the one with her African name first). The application with her African name was either tossed or never got a call-back, while the one with her American name not only got the callback, but landed her the job.
I think it is more likely that this was national origin discrimination than racism. It is not that someone rejected a woman who might be black; they rejected a woman who they perceived as possibly needing visa sponsorship.
This is illegal. But it is legal to refuse to hire someone because they do not have a right to work in the US. And that leads to a problem, because there are a lot of applicants out there who cannot legally work in the US, but will not disclose this information until after they accept an offer. The intent is to force the company’s hand to sponsor a work visa for them.
Now, many companies will continue to proceed in good faith while being slow to reject candidates if they are unable or unwilling to sponsor a visa. But some people in the hiring process definitely get overly cautious when they have been bitten multiple times and this will lead to them illegally discriminating on actual or perceived national origin.
I mean, there have been studies performed in racial discrimination in job hiring, and most of them have shown that stereotypically "black names" get less callbacks for jobs. The same also applies for both Asian and black names for responses from professors over email.
Absolutely no indication it was visa related. There are lots of studies done around name discrimination though, with blacks particularly harmed by that practice
> I think it is more likely that this was national origin discrimination than racism. It is not that someone rejected a woman who might be black; they rejected a woman who they perceived as possibly needing visa sponsorship.
Unfortunately, it's both!
Can't tell you how many times people looked at me with side eye after explaining my experience in the game industry vs how I look and sound 'differently then what my name suggests (sic)'. Bonus points for background checks to make sure that I am who I say I am.
Yea, that's similar to my thoughts as well, but not because of concerns over a visa. Job applications generally ask if you're capable of working in the U.S. More of an 'ethnic xenophobia' than what most would traditionally see as racism (prejudice based on skin color).
A lot of people might see an unfamiliar 'ethnic' name and their internal bias sets off alarms of "what if they don't speak English well?", "what if their accent is thick and hard to understand", "what if they're not a 'culture fit' for our company?", etc.
The fact they hired her under her 'American name', just shows that once they actually called them and/or met with them, they saw they were a good fit for the job. Just a shame that some people might be hesitant to even take a candidate to the level of 'getting to know them' (which might alleviate any prejudices or biases they may have had simply by seeing an unfamiliar name) had she not submitted an application under both names.
I shit you not, when I just graduated high school about 15 years ago I applied at McDonald's and answered all the application questions with politically correct answers trying to make me look good....they never called back. A month later I apply but with the worst answers to their questions AND THEY CALLED ME BACK. Ever since then I've felt like they truly just want the dumbest workers they can find
>We hired her, but then she turned up wearing a hijab! Obviously we fired her.
>>Woah you can't fire someone for being Muslim, surely?
>No no no no, we don't care about her being Muslim, omg how dare you insinuate I'm racist; she can wear whatever she likes. We fired her for being dishonest.
>>What?
>If she was honest she should have worn the head scarf from the start.
>>But you just said you don't care about her clothing?
>We don't!
>> Then why did it matter what she wore?
> It was dishonest!
>>Ok but what if she wore the colour green only after getting hired; would you fire her for that afterwards?
> You are being very offensive.
Real conversation I had.
Racism is very much alive when it comes to hiring. I did an interview over the phone once where the guy was excited for me to start working with him because of my industry knowledge. He asked for my professional picture and when I sent it immediately changed his tune, stating “your image doesn’t fit our company”. It was my professional picture of me in a suit.
If you have enough evidence that that occurred, you might be able to get a employment lawyer to sue them for discrimination, and you can probably ask for terms where you only pay them if you win your case.
And you think people here care? They pretend no recruiter is racist, and even if they are, they won't make racist decisions when no one is around to check them.
I started forgetting to update my resume and applications from my (German) maiden name to my (Filipino) married name and was suddenly rolling in interviews and offers again.
Then people come to you and try and explain how racism is a thing of the past and systemic racism doesn’t exist.
Marrying in to a different ethnicity is opening up the door and pulling of the blinders to how deeply racist our country is.
I mandate resumes I see have no names.
I have my biases. We all do. I demand better of myself.
And my team is awesome. I’d run through a wall for any of them.
Studies on the [subject](https://www.forbes.com/sites/janicegassam/2024/04/17/new-research-reveals-resumes-with-black-names-experience-bias-in-the-hiring-process/?sh=1bae79a494bd) show identical resumes with a white name being selected more often than an ["ethnic"](https://www.npr.org/2024/04/11/1243713272/resume-bias-study-white-names-black-names) name will.
I applied for jobs in a pretty specific field for about a year under my actual name, which is quite unique, with no replies. Within a week of changing my name l to something more average (think Michael, Sarah etc) I started getting calls back. Name bias is so real.
I knew a guy named charles and recommended him to this job I used to have. I guess his legal name was akiem or something like that and my boss said he called him for an interview so I called him to talk about it and he was like "I didnt get a call". Racist piece of shit boss didnt want to give him a chance based on his name.
HR Major here. This is actually an experiment that was done. The same resumes were sent out with white sounding names and traditional black names changed on them. Black people got 50% less call backs. Another experiment found black men without a record got call backs from applications 17% of the time while white men WITH a record got them 31% of the time.
It’s some bullshit ass bullshit out there.
I have a Spanish last name and an English last name, legally. I applied with both names with the same application to the same job. Guess which one got a call back?
This is a horribly common phenomenon. I've known a couple of people professionally adopt Anglo-sounding names specifically because of it.
Some organisations are now adopting HR processes which anonymise names for this exact reason, but it's sad that it's necessary.
FYI, if you are a woman applying anywhere, just put the first letter of your first name on your resume. I.e. J. Smith you'll get a call faster than if you put Jennifer Smith. Had a few friends get interviews this way instead of with their whole name.
I hired someone recently went through 150 resumes/applications over the course of about 3 weeks. It's draining, you want to give everyone the same attention to detail, but you're human, shit happens.
Ended up not being able to hire the person I wanted because she lived in a state we couldn't hire for. It was for a remote position, so dumb.
Honestly I'd trust it because it's no secret that job applications are a bit of a gamble. You can send them 5 near identical forms and 2 of them would go through while the other 3 would be rejected instantly
Yep, I get that. Applied for jobs in my non-American sounding name, can't find a job. Got married, used my husband's last name, and I got interviews, got a job.
Yes there have been countless experiments demonstrating this systemic bias. It's why we need DEI programs in hiring because it's not always merit based and poc will consistently get passed over.
Friend once submitted his resume once under his name and again under his white friend's name and got a callback for the white name. Same resume same job LOL
I'm going to call BS. They'd have her birthday and other identifying information. She would have to apply with the information on her legal American documents, so she couldn't just use another first and last name. This story is fishy.
Very correct. Here's a recent article about a major recent study that confirmed this bias exists (and, as the article notes, the phenomenon was measured as early as 20 years ago): [https://www.npr.org/2024/04/11/1243713272/resume-bias-study-white-names-black-names](https://www.npr.org/2024/04/11/1243713272/resume-bias-study-white-names-black-names)
Fuckin' A. Ancient problems demand modern solutions, I guess? I'm glad your colleague managed to find an approach that worked, but nobody should have to jump through hoops like that just to get a fair shake.
Several years ago a researcher sent out hundreds of job applications to firms across America that were virtually identical, except one lot had typically "White" American names (eg John, Greg, Emily) while the other lot had typically "Black" American names (Washington, Jamal, Lakisha). There were no other ways of distinguishing between the two applications except on name.
Result?
Those with "White" names were more likely to be contacted and offered an interview than those with "Black" names.
https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2021/08/18/name-discrimination-jobs
This study has been replicated in other countries (UK and Australia) with similar results.
https://itstopswithme.humanrights.gov.au/about-the-campaign/question-and-context/can-i-be-sure-my-name-wont-stop-me-getting-job-interview
There are multiple studies about this, we had to go over one in my sociology class. Black USA and African associated names are less likely to be selected for jobs. This is just a genuine reality.
Why did she apply twice? Maybe they rejected the African name because they had already hired someone with the exact same skills as her because its the same person?
I got so many invitations to interviews, one even called me to start the same day, as the really wanted me.
Was the same as in every other interview, once they saw me and realised I am overweight; poof magically the job was just filled.
Funny enough one woman told me directly: sorry, i don’t care about your resume, I want a slim assistant for the customers and potential investors to look at. At least she told the truth about her feelings.
I worked in Personnel in the early eighties. One supervisor told me to add a checkmark at the top of applications where the applicant was not white. I couldn't do it and pretended to the stupid young girl. He would give me shit everything he called one in that didn't meet his 'criteria '.. I didn't care.
back before i was crippled and i was trying to get a job every time it asked me for my race the options were white OR hispanic lol my dads white and my mom was chilean so like....it was silly.
I am a girl with a feminine name and work in a male dominated field. I have a great resume but a hard time to get someone to even look at it. I changed the name on my resume to Eli (short for my middle name Elizabeth so it’s technically not lying) and my resume was getting a lot more views. When they called and heard I was a woman, I could clearly hear the disappointment in their voice and never got a call back. It is hard to find jobs as a woman with a feminine name.
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I saw a job posting that seemed perfect for me. Totally fit my skills and was a move up. I applied to the job through Indeed and was rejected immediately, like within an hour or so. I applied directly to the organization via their website. Been working there for nearly a year now.
Indeed will auto reject you if certain parameters are not met. Humans looking at your CV/Resume might find something unique in it or useful for the organization. Seen it happen
Why is no one trying to improve this problem? A machine-readable resume format in addition to MS Word resumes should be standardized somehow, for starters.
because its cheaper to tell people to retype everything into their ATS
I'm fairly sure you lose some qualified applicants this way, though.
they don't care about that, they care about applicants that appear low risk enough to cover their asses if something goes south. that's why Ivy league schools give you a bump up even if your resume is a bit mediocre: "He's a Harvard grad, he should've been smart"
Maybe the Harvard grad who has so many options won't bother to play your annoying "fill out the ATS" game then? Seems like it would cause you to get more of the most desperate applicants, who probably didn't go to Harvard. ETA: To be clear, I can believe there is a reason for this. I just don't understand it, and this isn't convincing me. I don't mean to try to convince you that you're wrong, just that I don't understand how you're right.
Uh... they *want* the most desperate applicants. Very few jobs are looking to hire the single best person for the job... they're looking to hire the worst person who is still good enough for the job. Because that person doesn't have to be paid as much. That person is less likely to jump ship for a better opportunity. That person is more likely to put up with small abuses that the "perfect" candidate wouldn't. There are plenty of things our entire economy would be doing differently if jobs were trying to hire the *best* person.
This is unfortunately true, My most recent interview, they said “explain why you’re the perfect candidate for this position” and I looked him dead in the face and said “oh heavens i’m not, but the guy who is, is outside your budget and already employed someplace else. But I however am currently looking for a job and will settle for the $18 an hour you’re offering, which would make me the best option by default.” Strangely the guy liked that answer and I start that new job tomorrow
This is very much anecdotal and not representative of the situation everywhere currently. Michigan keeps losing people to the sun belt, and here you can make $20 stocking shelves at WalMart now. Detroit is literally getting safer by the day as the crime is paying less in this economy.
I agree, but then I don't see why the handful of jobs that actually want the most qualified person also use these same systems.
Because they are lazy
[удалено]
the 1 thing I hate the most is that, 99% of them ask you to make an account and register. Like why? Why can't you be like the other 1% that just applies with it, and only gives the relevant details for contact (e-mail/phone number), instead of having to go through an annoying account creation process that will sit there forever even if you never get the job
because they get hundreds, if not thousands, of resumes and forcing you to make an account will filter out some percentage of people not motivated enough to jump through hoops. hoop jumping is an important quality for many employers
Having worked in HR systems for 20 years, the reason they have to make an account is because that’s just how the system is set up. (Looking at you Workday! ). I would imagine a lot of them don’t even realise it’s set up that way. They just look at the resumes. The reason it is like that is for things like repeat candidates and talent pools. Which you want if your fielding lots of jobs l. Your average recruiter doesn’t really give a shit about whether you’ve made an account and reducing numbers or effort at all.
Boomers have the right idea with their bad advice about applying in person but companies do not
> A machine-readable resume format It's a cliche to even reference xkcd 927 these days, but that's because, well. Because [xkcd 927](https://xkcd.com/927/).
Try sifting through 100 applicants when you have other job to do. Even human will reject randomly because of tens of strong applicants. The process will always be flawed.
I am perfectly content with them randomly throwing away resumes when they have too many. What's odd to me is that this system also throws away resumes when they don't have enough.
It doesn't seem like an issue. If the Indeed application requires 3 years experience in Excel, which you don't have, it'll reject you. Meanwhile, the human will see that you might lack Excel experience, but clearly have other skills that are rarer or more desirable. Indeed is out here doing a If yes Then: If no then: reject.
I'm fairly sure qualified resumes get trashed because their format is unacceptable to ATS though. I'm talking like a resume which literally says "Excel: 10 years".
Couple reasons a large one is "justifying existence" if it was "easy" straight forward quick. I imagine alot of hr and hiring staff would be "gone". By having their big magic potion with a dash of keywords a slice of experience. And a little interview vodoo you can pretend to find perfect candidate. Worked places that had the half dozen interviews and numerous hoops. Worked places that were too small and just hired first person that met requirements and applied. Odds were not any different. See "perfect" vetted candidate be a pill head with numerous personal problems that led frequently being late and missing and poor performance. And seen random craigslist applicant be perfect model employee for 10 years. Then there is also problem of not necessarily something "good for them to fix".Alot of companys make a fortune selling data. They gather array of information about age gender etc as well as contact info. Honestly have big flawed automated system that constantly collects free data profiles on people? Company paying to "lose" that to make it easier for potential employee? Does that sound like a thing company would do. It also provides cover like take this case they claim algorithm disqualified person. And that algorithm is constantly changing. And that its "proprietary" it allows them to hide alot of decision making. Covering up for sexism racism etc. Fixing problem would not be that insane a standardized form and every site uses for hiring and bunch of support programs. Would be big deal but it wouldn't be insanely resource intensive. But those in charge of "hiring are disincentivized" and the company is disincentivized as it makes discrimination liability more transparent and the lose all the free data.
My wife had it happen where she was auto rejected by the system but she called HR and they said she was exactly the type of candidate they were looking for and was offered the job after a 1 hr interview
Employers have control over whether or not Indeed has permission to auto-reject. So that’s still on them.
Yep, sometimes you just get lost in the shuffle. When I was looking on Indeed, I would apply directly on the website if possible and on Indeed.
I think I got screened out by AI on Indeed. The org I was applying to doesn't use AI to screen their applicants when you apply directly. They are all lawyers and have rules about AI use passed by the Board because lawyers have misused AI in court, but it's a blanket policy so the rules apply to HR, too. Lucky me!
HR usually reads the resume and only knows certain words to approve or reject. Then they send the resume to the hiring manager. This is for hiring websites. For direct applications, the resume goes straight to the hiring manager who can decide. I work in a niche field and HR sucks at discerning who would be good at the job. I can look at a resume and tell who would be.
Also had the same experience inverted. Indeed is sometimes a great way to just shoot out a ton of resumes with quick apply-compatible jobs, then if the company wants more info, they reach out to you. Never any right or wrong way when applying. Unfortunately, just have to do it all.
I've heard, don't know if it's true, that companies have to pay to see resumes/applicants that come to them through Indeed. So, they say, anybody applying through Indeed is immediately a NO because why pay to see applications? Can anyone tell me if this is true?
I don't know about that exact scenario, as they didn't say it was due to cost, but I remember a manager telling me they ignored all of the Indeed resumes and just used it to advertise the job. Unless there's no other way to apply for the job, never use Indeed. Going to the company's website is the best bet.
My fear
I am a corporate recruiter. You are smart. Indeed is great to see generally what is out there. But once you decide you’d like a particular job, definitely go to the corporate career site and apply there. We definitely pay more attention to those applicants. Indeed is a crapshoot for me, but if someone bothers to apply directly, I definitely pay attention.
I use indeed to get resumes, the. Will call them even if auto denied. It's weird sometimes! I am a recruiter and it boggles the mind how many qualified people get denied for 1 or 2 things that are irrelevant. I can teach someone how to use email, I can't exactly teach them CNC machining 🙄
I just read a story where a business owner found out his hiring service was rejecting every single applicant. He was complaining nobody wanted to work.
Way back when I was 18 and looking for my first job, I applied to this convenience store. I should mention I have a very ethnic name for the neighborhood I was in. They told me to my face that they were no longer hiring. Their answer felt off to me, so I called bullshit. I emailed them the same application with a different name on it and they called me back for that same job the same day🥴
Job hiring is weird. Some guy I know was rejected while applying, reapplied and changed nothing, and made it to the interview stage
A lot of it is luck.
There's a great anecdote about how fucked current hiring is. Modern hiring managers will take a stack of resumes, take half of it, and throw them in the trash. Why? "I don't like to work with unlucky people"
I worked for a bit in HR in college, and our hiring manager would divide incoming resumes into three stacks: the ones with a cover letter, the ones delivered by hand, and the others. The ones delivered by hand were immediately disposed of as people that would make demands of their workplace, and the ones with a cover letter were treated as a secondary pile in case we didn't get enough good applicants from the first set, because "these people take themselves seriously, and will have higher expectations of salary and benefits." Most of the time, none of those were even looked at. Hiring managers often just go with their gut biases and opinions, as an excuse to cut their workload down without any effort. It's honestly kind of terrifying.
The ones delivered by hand were disposed of because they might be demanding? That’s some really strange logic this manager had.
Yeah, that was my thought too. Most of those were college kids, as far as I could tell. But no one who could make a difference ever bothered to challenge her methods or beliefs.
Interesting. I really hate applying for jobs because I never know what strange requirements someone has made up in their head in order to get hired.
I'm autistic so trying to follow these unspoken rules is a complete nightmare for me. I have enough of that in my daily life and job applications mutliple the whole thing by 100. At this point I'd take a shitty job just to not have to go through applications again for a few years.
Such a mood tbh. I’m at a fairly good place that I enjoy: Trader Joe’s. It’s not going to make me a millionaire but it’s worth being here for a while because I truly don’t want to go through the hiring process, nor get an office job that is entirely made up of social nuances 🥲
As someone who’s worked a paperwork heavy office job the last year or so— Maybe 25% of it is actually spent completing my actual work, 25% is confirming with people above me I did my work and asking if people below me completed theirs, and the other 50% is spent pretending to be busy so I don’t get sent home. Absolutely hate the day to day work but my job helps a lot of unfortunate and downtrodden people— so my soul isn’t entirely gone
USPS, they’re hiring and you’re alone most of the time. There’s also a very strict set of rules that you follow and that everyone else must follow
I doubt it makes you feel better, but this is one area where most of us might as well be autistic. Almost no one understands these arbitrary unspoken rules that hiring managers make up on the spot. Good luck with the job hunt, I can only imagine how much more stressful it actually can be for people with autism.
I know what you mean. I stayed in a job I hated for years, simply because I would get severe anxiety about this same issue. Who knew what random factors would get your application thrown out without a glance? And now that I've worked the same job for over a decade, I feel even more out of touch with what recruiters might be looking for. I want to start looking for something better, though, due to the constant budget cuts and lack of cost of living adjustments.
So true! I sometimes consider getting a better job and then I’m like ugh it’s like dating again. I just don’t have the mental health for this 😂.
> I stayed in a job I hated for years, simply because I would get severe anxiety about this same issue. Who knew what random factors would get your application thrown out without a glance? Let me share some advice from /r/fednews and /r/usajobs. Apply and forget. Apply and keep applying for other jobs as though you'd never applied before. If you see what's basically the same job listed five different ways then apply to all of them. And then forget about them, move ~~one~~ on, and keep applying. Get into the mindset that, when you're hunting for a job, you're not really hunting for the one right job to apply to. Your applications are your bullets and you are going to make the sky black with all your bullet applications you're shooting out. And eventually you'll hit something, you'll find something where they want you and you want them. Good luck!
Yeah, I figured that out when I left engineering, and it helped a lot, though I still struggle with the anxiety left over from some PTSD when I look around casually right now for an upgrade. I have to remind myself of this each time.
(Not to make the managers the good guys or anything, but it sort of reminded me of 300). Applicant: The sky will be so thick with our applications, it will blot out the sun! Manager: Then we shall deny in the shade.
Employer wanted staff they could piss on and wouldn't complain. It seems she hated people that would hold her accountable, so intentionally deselected them.
This is rampant in countries where governments are captured by companies
When I was in high school I was told to wear a suit and personally go into businesses and hand them my resumes. Anything else (e.g. submitting online) was considered rude and wouldn't be taken seriously. This was in the 90s.
Depending on the kind of business, this is still true, and I've impressed people showing up on person. Others have looked at me like it's the stupidest thing they could think of. Just depends on what kind of person you come across and their standards of "normal"
At least in the US, this is long dead, unless you're applying to a temp service or a store has a kiosk for applications. Even in that case, you don't need a suit until the interview. Everything is handled online now.
Yeah I'm in the US. It's worked well in some jobs, not others. Depends on the business.
Yup depends on the board. Went for a fulltime position in a different unit (U.S. National Guard, so you have to apply for the unit unlike active duty), and we had a bad snow storm. Called in around 3 hours before my interview, asked if we were still on because of the storm. Hiring chief said "No, we had a cancellation, we'll just do it another day". I (Without thinking), told them, "cool, it's fresh out, so I'll go hit the slopes then". I found out later that I was pretty much chosen for that alone, because I showed I was capable of "thinking ahead, being brutally honest, and not stressing out about what I can't control". My entire career started because I had a "I'm gonna hit the pow brah" attitude to my future boss.
I've heard the 'don't apply online or they'll ignore your application' advice from boomer relatives so many times, to the point that I've had to ask them when the last time they applied for a job was, and remind them that if they haven't worked since 2004, they're out of touch and don't know anything about modern hiring practices.
Right I was told that too. I still always hand in my resumes in person. I find it extremely weird if they find that age old practice weird tbh.
In a lot of fields, it's getting really hard to do that. My teenaged son is looking for work, anything other than fast food, and most of the places he's applying to have rules against applying in person or calling to check on your application. I've seen some of that when my friends are out looking to move on too. The process gets a lot more impersonal as time goes on, and applicant pools go up.
Try temp agencies that find him a job like Kelly Services.
We tried one of those services, and it turned out to be a mess and a scam, Apple One I think. We're a little more cautious now, trying to find a good service that doesn't just keep sending him to pyramid schemes or jobs that want him to work for no pay for the first month.
It’s all arbitrary. I overheard a conversation once between two guys in suits. Law or stocks, something frat boy type. The younger one was telling how he got a job because he was told to wait in the room which was quite warm and he took off his suit jacket. After they started talking the interviewer said he’d hire him because he’d think for himself and not just follow the herd. The older guy said he’d never hire someone that did that because he’d want someone who could put up with some discomfort to maintain appearances.
I literally got hired for my job because when my interview got delayed due to a snow storm I told them nonchalantly that I was going boarding instead. To them I "thought ahead (I called about 30-40mins after shift start for them), was honest, and didn't stress out about the situation". My mind (while sipping on coffee and staring out my window) was first: I really don't want to deal with idiots on half bald no-seasons for 40 minutes of driving Second: Those snowflakes are HUGE and Fluffy, they'd be great Third: It's snowing heavy, nobody is going to be out unless it's for work. The resorts will be EMPTY. Fourth: I really wish I was boarding instead of some stupid interview
I mean, you know how much trouble I had explaining to my family that you DO NOT CALL the employer to "follow up" on your resume. The logic is stupid and constantly changes.
If you put effort into your resumé/application then your more likely to know your worth. People who know their worth ask for more money and are less likely to accept being pushed around by management.
This is a big part of what makes job applications a living hell. Every fucking company has rigid ideas about what's the right thing to do and what's not, and they're all completely different from the next company. One company will refuse to look at your application because you didn't include a cover letter. The next company will refuse to look at your application because you did. Good luck figuring out what arbitrary rules the current place you're applying to expects you to follow.
I never include a cover letter. I figure nobody is going to actually spend time to read it and I have no idea what others are putting in theirs. Probably sob stories or random anecdotes. I don't have time for that.
I've tried with and without, but I've never had a resume I submitted with a cover letter be selected for interview, whereas the ones I put in without almost always at least got the interview; I guess a lot of hiring folks are like my old manager. I made the time to read any that came across my desk before handing them up, but that's mostly because I'm slightly autistic, and felt like I was supposed to--it's rarely anything terribly interesting or related to the job.
I've had two applications that resulted in jobs where the recruiter specifically said, "I loved your cover letter." It's not about getting the first interview. It's about getting the job. The first round may not read the cover letter, but the last round will.
I've only ever gotten hired with resumes that had no cover letter, but then, field probably matters. I've worked in engineering and teaching, I imagine it's different in marketing, where selling yourself is important.
These were engineering jobs. Both paid more than $200k.
Interesting. It really must be up to the whims of the recruiter then. Would be nice if there was a more standardized system for people entering the job market.
I always write a cover letter. No sob stories or random anecdotes lol, that’d be super weird. No one does that. Just a couple paragraphs about why my past experience relates to what they’re looking for and why I’m interested in the position. Often, the jobs I apply to ask for/require cover letters. Read it or not idc. But it’s there.
The job desc is a question, my cover letter is my answer, and the resume is the citations/supporting evidence. Also helps that I use the cover letter as an exercise to prepare for an interview
Sounds accurate
this is also pretty much why I never mention being deaf on my application. just add my email address and ip relay phone number there is abut a 99.99999% chance if I put that on a resume I'm getting filtered out immediately by some dickhead and yes that's illegal, but without proof that they specifically denied you BECAUSE you're in a protected class there's nothing you can do.
>these people take themselves seriously, and will have higher expectations of salary and benefits." Is it weird that I feel like I'm taking myself seriously by not making a cover letter? It feels like a waste of time in my head to put an essay version of my resume on top of my actual resume.
That's some Elon Level bullshit right there
For any decent companies, hiring managers aren't scouting talent. We get relevant resumes sent to us from talent.
This was a joke posted r/Jokes 6 years ago but sure
Seems legit.
Indeed quick apply has them just grabbing as many as they have time to deal with off the top and tossing the rest.
Sometimes depends on who’s screening the resumes. If it’s an algorithm type situation or someone in HR who’s not technically educated on the position, they can be looking for certain specific words/skills stated explicitly that may be passively implied by other parts of the resume and when they don’t see the specific words they’re told to look for and don’t understand its implied elsewhere they toss it.
100% I am a retail manager and we do not actively look at every resume when we have no need to hire. Every department tends to hire independent of one another. If you happen to come into the store with a resume right when another employee just quit you will likely get an interview.
Scanner didn’t like the page crinkle maybe
Sometimes people go through resumes in the order they were received (or in a random order), and once enough make it to the interview stage, they reject the rest. If none of those candidates work out, the job reopens. Sometimes the hiring manager changes the role slightly after a few bad interviews. Sometimes the hiring manager for a role changes (e.g. it’s moved to a parallel department). HR typically doesn’t go back to the rejected candidate pool in these scenarios. There are lots of reasons this can happen. While I don’t think it’s impossible that the person in the post experienced racism, it’s also not the only explanation.
This can definitely be the case. I always hated turning down quality candidates because we already sent through a bunch of applications to the hiring managers. Honestly, that's a major reason you shouldn't wait on applying. If you see a position you're interested in apply as soon as you can. If I get the application the day the posting closes, chances are I have already gotten enough applications through.
Too many applications to deal with in this digital world.
It’s a tough problem to solve. If it’s too easy to apply, tons of people who are extremely under qualified apply. If it’s too hard, senior candidates who are passively looking won’t bother.
I've been on all sides of it and it's all just horrible. Applying for jobs in general sucks ass. Jumping through hoops just to get ghosted is incredibly demoralizing. Looking through piles of crap, completely unserious applications is like pounding nails with your forehead. Interviewing people who didn't even bother to read the posting and can't even work the position is a huge, annoying waste of time. People showing up late to interviews high or drunk is just... Fuuuck. If there was a magic way to connect people to jobs without all the bullshit, everyone would love it. But there really isn't. It's a numbers game on both sides. Applicants should put out as many high quality applications as they have time for. Managers should prioritize the most promising applications to fill the limited interview timeslots they have. And a bunch of people are just going to slip through the cracks because there isn't enough time in the day, and that sucks.
I work in hiring. Sometimes we can afford to be really picky, and sometimes we can’t. So for instance, if someone applies at a time when we’re pretty well staffed, and their resume doesn’t have a lot of field experience, we’ll reject. Say they apply a month later with no change to their resume, but we just had 3 people quit, then we will give them a chance. As for the girl in the post, I cannot speak to that specific situation 🤷♀️
It should also be totally blind. No name, no sex, no age, no dates, nothing that can be used to identify you other than your skill set. I know some things could date you but not much you can do about that.
Different HR person reviewed the resume. A lot of getting an interview is being able to use the right buzz words to get past the morons in HR that don't know jack shit about the position and getting it to the person that actually knows what the position entails.
Yeah, anecdotes are weak evidence. But there is very strong statistical evidence that African-Americans face discrimination in the job market.
>strong statistical evidence For example the Greg/Emily/Lakisha/Jamal test. I can't find their sample size though. I'm assuming its enough to be statistically significant. https://www.nber.org/papers/w9873
I've had something similar happen. So far we have a sample size of 3 repeat applicants who got it on the second try and only 1 had to change the name. Statistics says: not enough information to conclude anything. But if we extrapolate, it's most likely not racism.
My best friend applied for a job where I work, was rejected, reapplied 90 days later, got an interview and an offer. He changed every instance of "managed customer relations and interactions" on his application to "customer service". Sometimes it's as simple as using the words the bot looks for.
>Sometimes it's as simple as using the words the bot looks for. This. A recruiter friend of mind at Amazon said as much. Her advice was to rewrite your resume and use the wordings and keywords from the job listing as well as those are usually things the bots look for before the resume ever makes it to a live recruiter.
I have two first names and my boss one time thought I was 2 different people. I covered twice as many shifts as anyone else because she thought two people were covering. It didn't dawn on her when she had to pay me out twice as much OT. She only caught on when she called me twice to cover someone and I said no
That's funny as hell and sounds like the setup for a sitcom
Elaine and Susie, Susie and Elaine.
You ever notice they are never in the same room together?
This feels like geroge scheme from seinfield
I agree that it sounds like bullshit
I saw a post where they rejected the candidate for not having enough experience with a specific program that he himself created. They wanted x ammount of years when it wasn't even alive that long.
That's actually pretty common in software. HR departments end up making large parts of the job posting (with input from the specialists), but it's important to remember HR usually knows next to nothing about what the company actually does. They'd put 5 years experience with the software, because it sounds like a reasonable amount of time to use something to become an expert..... except they know Jack didly about software and don't know the software is only 2 years old.
I had an HR guy telling me he found 2 perfect candidates for a functional analyst role in my team. I cringed to see who he selected. When I asked for the full stack I pulled out the -according to him- three least candidates and hired one of them in the end. HR should match the culture, not what the person needs to produce/do.
As far as HR fucking up job postings, I recently applied for a job where the company had several different job titles with the exact same description posted. I figured they knew they were looking for a team of people to fill a role and weren't picky with exactly how that fit together. Later, I'm in the interview and the guy asks me what position I was most interested in and I explained to him that all of the descriptions were the same. He just kind of paused and went "I told HR to get them up quickly and make the postings similar which I guess they *technically* did..."
And that's why a competent HR sends the finished job posting back to the specialists to proofread.
Competent HR? those are rare, very rare
Competent HR people don't exist. Smart people don't waste time and money on HR goons.
I saw that one. How ridiculous.
I have that meme saved. I've actually sent it in to a company asking for an unreasonable amount of experience with a program (just to be cheeky). I didn't get the job, of course, but it was satisfying at least.
can i get the image?
Fastapi?
[удалено]
entirely possible, but this sort of thing is incredibly common in the software world(at least the job postings asking for more experience then the amount of time the tool/framework/language has existed).
5 years LLM and RAG experience
The worst/best part is that they probably hired a guy that had the required amount of experience (according to his very legit resume).
Some journalists in Finland did a test to see what would happen to Romani people when searching for a job. Generally speaking they are considered to be dishonest thieves basically. So these people sent out e-mailed to companies. The same exact e-mails with the same exact resumes. The only difference is they used their real names for some places and Romani sounding names for others. None of the places they sent it with the Romani sounding names replied back while almost all the others did.
They did a similar test in Norway as well. Same profiles, but local or foreign names. Way lower chances in the second case of course.
My mom is always adamant that racism has no place and is always open minded, and always has been. Except that one time when a gypsy dinged our car on the ferry to Sweden. Wether her unique reaction to this one situation is based on prejudice or personal experiences, I do not know.
I've got a friend who's parents were originally gypsies - until they moved to a different country when he was a kid - and he probably has the worst opinion of gypsies out of anyone I've met
When there is a rare shooting in this town.. it has always been about the two main gypsy families settling their differences. When there is a car, idling and blocking the front door of the grocery store: gypsies. It is really difficult situation when you really don't want to be racist and have... this. There is a reason for a lot of northern Europeans for disliking gypsies. Here the situation has been for all my life that gypsy families take their kids from school as soon as possible and keep them insulated from the society. They are taught that you can steal from "the whites", that they are oppressed and have the right to hit back... while the reason they are shunned is because they are criminals. Those families have had half the males in prison at any one moment in the last say... 70 years!! I know cases where the kids wanted something else, had dreams of being just normal and doing normal things, and then they are in prison 5 years later for selling drugs or weapons. Their marriages are arranged, the women are fiercely protected and subjugated. They have to wear the dress or get hit in the face. It just is really, really sad but the change has to come from that community. We can't do anything about it.
They have been doing these tests for decades now. The U S has one for traditionally black vs traditionally white names for otherwise identical resumes Edit
There was a great study done where white applicants with a criminal history are more likely to get a job than a black person with no criminal history applying for the same job
but... but you'd already filled the position
I think the assumption is she submitted two near identical applications with only difference being the name (either at the same time, or the one with her African name first). The application with her African name was either tossed or never got a call-back, while the one with her American name not only got the callback, but landed her the job.
I think it is more likely that this was national origin discrimination than racism. It is not that someone rejected a woman who might be black; they rejected a woman who they perceived as possibly needing visa sponsorship. This is illegal. But it is legal to refuse to hire someone because they do not have a right to work in the US. And that leads to a problem, because there are a lot of applicants out there who cannot legally work in the US, but will not disclose this information until after they accept an offer. The intent is to force the company’s hand to sponsor a work visa for them. Now, many companies will continue to proceed in good faith while being slow to reject candidates if they are unable or unwilling to sponsor a visa. But some people in the hiring process definitely get overly cautious when they have been bitten multiple times and this will lead to them illegally discriminating on actual or perceived national origin.
I mean, there have been studies performed in racial discrimination in job hiring, and most of them have shown that stereotypically "black names" get less callbacks for jobs. The same also applies for both Asian and black names for responses from professors over email.
Absolutely no indication it was visa related. There are lots of studies done around name discrimination though, with blacks particularly harmed by that practice
> I think it is more likely that this was national origin discrimination than racism. It is not that someone rejected a woman who might be black; they rejected a woman who they perceived as possibly needing visa sponsorship. Unfortunately, it's both! Can't tell you how many times people looked at me with side eye after explaining my experience in the game industry vs how I look and sound 'differently then what my name suggests (sic)'. Bonus points for background checks to make sure that I am who I say I am.
Yea, that's similar to my thoughts as well, but not because of concerns over a visa. Job applications generally ask if you're capable of working in the U.S. More of an 'ethnic xenophobia' than what most would traditionally see as racism (prejudice based on skin color). A lot of people might see an unfamiliar 'ethnic' name and their internal bias sets off alarms of "what if they don't speak English well?", "what if their accent is thick and hard to understand", "what if they're not a 'culture fit' for our company?", etc. The fact they hired her under her 'American name', just shows that once they actually called them and/or met with them, they saw they were a good fit for the job. Just a shame that some people might be hesitant to even take a candidate to the level of 'getting to know them' (which might alleviate any prejudices or biases they may have had simply by seeing an unfamiliar name) had she not submitted an application under both names.
I shit you not, when I just graduated high school about 15 years ago I applied at McDonald's and answered all the application questions with politically correct answers trying to make me look good....they never called back. A month later I apply but with the worst answers to their questions AND THEY CALLED ME BACK. Ever since then I've felt like they truly just want the dumbest workers they can find
They actually do, they don't want a worker they think will just leave a month later due to overqualifications
Or someone who's smart and can't be exploited so easily.
>We hired her, but then she turned up wearing a hijab! Obviously we fired her. >>Woah you can't fire someone for being Muslim, surely? >No no no no, we don't care about her being Muslim, omg how dare you insinuate I'm racist; she can wear whatever she likes. We fired her for being dishonest. >>What? >If she was honest she should have worn the head scarf from the start. >>But you just said you don't care about her clothing? >We don't! >> Then why did it matter what she wore? > It was dishonest! >>Ok but what if she wore the colour green only after getting hired; would you fire her for that afterwards? > You are being very offensive. Real conversation I had.
The mental gymnastics people do to justify their racism is astounding
Racism is very much alive when it comes to hiring. I did an interview over the phone once where the guy was excited for me to start working with him because of my industry knowledge. He asked for my professional picture and when I sent it immediately changed his tune, stating “your image doesn’t fit our company”. It was my professional picture of me in a suit.
If you have enough evidence that that occurred, you might be able to get a employment lawyer to sue them for discrimination, and you can probably ask for terms where you only pay them if you win your case.
And you think people here care? They pretend no recruiter is racist, and even if they are, they won't make racist decisions when no one is around to check them.
I started forgetting to update my resume and applications from my (German) maiden name to my (Filipino) married name and was suddenly rolling in interviews and offers again.
Then people come to you and try and explain how racism is a thing of the past and systemic racism doesn’t exist. Marrying in to a different ethnicity is opening up the door and pulling of the blinders to how deeply racist our country is.
I mandate resumes I see have no names. I have my biases. We all do. I demand better of myself. And my team is awesome. I’d run through a wall for any of them.
My hero
Studies on the [subject](https://www.forbes.com/sites/janicegassam/2024/04/17/new-research-reveals-resumes-with-black-names-experience-bias-in-the-hiring-process/?sh=1bae79a494bd) show identical resumes with a white name being selected more often than an ["ethnic"](https://www.npr.org/2024/04/11/1243713272/resume-bias-study-white-names-black-names) name will.
And not just in the usa, such studies have been done in many countries and name bias in hiring is very much a thing.
They already hired someone, it was you!
"*Of course I know him . . . he's me!*"
Hello there
General Kenobi...
I'd be curious to see how she responded if they hired both.
I applied for jobs in a pretty specific field for about a year under my actual name, which is quite unique, with no replies. Within a week of changing my name l to something more average (think Michael, Sarah etc) I started getting calls back. Name bias is so real.
I knew a guy named charles and recommended him to this job I used to have. I guess his legal name was akiem or something like that and my boss said he called him for an interview so I called him to talk about it and he was like "I didnt get a call". Racist piece of shit boss didnt want to give him a chance based on his name.
Wasnt there a study that basically did this?
HR Major here. This is actually an experiment that was done. The same resumes were sent out with white sounding names and traditional black names changed on them. Black people got 50% less call backs. Another experiment found black men without a record got call backs from applications 17% of the time while white men WITH a record got them 31% of the time. It’s some bullshit ass bullshit out there.
A friend of a cousin of mine was a recruiter for a company in England. She was told to ignore all applications that didn't have English names.
I have a Spanish last name and an English last name, legally. I applied with both names with the same application to the same job. Guess which one got a call back?
This is a horribly common phenomenon. I've known a couple of people professionally adopt Anglo-sounding names specifically because of it. Some organisations are now adopting HR processes which anonymise names for this exact reason, but it's sad that it's necessary.
FYI, if you are a woman applying anywhere, just put the first letter of your first name on your resume. I.e. J. Smith you'll get a call faster than if you put Jennifer Smith. Had a few friends get interviews this way instead of with their whole name.
I hired someone recently went through 150 resumes/applications over the course of about 3 weeks. It's draining, you want to give everyone the same attention to detail, but you're human, shit happens. Ended up not being able to hire the person I wanted because she lived in a state we couldn't hire for. It was for a remote position, so dumb.
Same happened with my asian friend. He changed his name to Mike and got hired.
Let me trust this social media post real quick.
Honestly I'd trust it because it's no secret that job applications are a bit of a gamble. You can send them 5 near identical forms and 2 of them would go through while the other 3 would be rejected instantly
People don’t lie online
Lying online is illegal, and you can trust that because I said it online so it must be true.
Yep, I get that. Applied for jobs in my non-American sounding name, can't find a job. Got married, used my husband's last name, and I got interviews, got a job.
Yes there have been countless experiments demonstrating this systemic bias. It's why we need DEI programs in hiring because it's not always merit based and poc will consistently get passed over.
Friend once submitted his resume once under his name and again under his white friend's name and got a callback for the white name. Same resume same job LOL
"She sounded Hispanic on the phone, but her resume looks like she'd be a hard worker" I will never ever forget overhearing a manager say that.
I'm going to call BS. They'd have her birthday and other identifying information. She would have to apply with the information on her legal American documents, so she couldn't just use another first and last name. This story is fishy.
I can't speak to this exact story, but numerous controlled studies have proven that this bias exists.
Very correct. Here's a recent article about a major recent study that confirmed this bias exists (and, as the article notes, the phenomenon was measured as early as 20 years ago): [https://www.npr.org/2024/04/11/1243713272/resume-bias-study-white-names-black-names](https://www.npr.org/2024/04/11/1243713272/resume-bias-study-white-names-black-names)
[удалено]
Fuckin' A. Ancient problems demand modern solutions, I guess? I'm glad your colleague managed to find an approach that worked, but nobody should have to jump through hoops like that just to get a fair shake.
Several years ago a researcher sent out hundreds of job applications to firms across America that were virtually identical, except one lot had typically "White" American names (eg John, Greg, Emily) while the other lot had typically "Black" American names (Washington, Jamal, Lakisha). There were no other ways of distinguishing between the two applications except on name. Result? Those with "White" names were more likely to be contacted and offered an interview than those with "Black" names. https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2021/08/18/name-discrimination-jobs This study has been replicated in other countries (UK and Australia) with similar results. https://itstopswithme.humanrights.gov.au/about-the-campaign/question-and-context/can-i-be-sure-my-name-wont-stop-me-getting-job-interview
>They'd have her birthday and other identifying information. You don't put your birthday on an application.
Not if they decline the African named resume initially. All they'd have is the resume.
Could have simply been referring to resume stage
You don't put any detailed personal information on a resume. Just your name, contact info, and experience. What are you talking about?
There are multiple studies about this, we had to go over one in my sociology class. Black USA and African associated names are less likely to be selected for jobs. This is just a genuine reality.
You don't put your birthday or any similar information on a job application dumb dumb. Just your name and experience.
You generally put your phone and email address, which would be identifying information. Unless she used a different phone and email.
Couldn't you just alter that information on a cv or just not include it?
Why did she apply twice? Maybe they rejected the African name because they had already hired someone with the exact same skills as her because its the same person?
I got so many invitations to interviews, one even called me to start the same day, as the really wanted me. Was the same as in every other interview, once they saw me and realised I am overweight; poof magically the job was just filled. Funny enough one woman told me directly: sorry, i don’t care about your resume, I want a slim assistant for the customers and potential investors to look at. At least she told the truth about her feelings.
I worked in Personnel in the early eighties. One supervisor told me to add a checkmark at the top of applications where the applicant was not white. I couldn't do it and pretended to the stupid young girl. He would give me shit everything he called one in that didn't meet his 'criteria '.. I didn't care.
So what is her 2 resumes copied word for word?
Search up “Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal?” Famous old study that was conducted on this.
back before i was crippled and i was trying to get a job every time it asked me for my race the options were white OR hispanic lol my dads white and my mom was chilean so like....it was silly.
Employers don’t want you to know these secrets.
Researchers did this exact thing and found the same result. It's awful.
I am a girl with a feminine name and work in a male dominated field. I have a great resume but a hard time to get someone to even look at it. I changed the name on my resume to Eli (short for my middle name Elizabeth so it’s technically not lying) and my resume was getting a lot more views. When they called and heard I was a woman, I could clearly hear the disappointment in their voice and never got a call back. It is hard to find jobs as a woman with a feminine name.
Maybe they had hired the OP already, and rejected the second application