Archive Back To News
Feb 22, 2022

Human Resources Nonsense

Why is it that sometimes when recruiters are advertising a job they keep the company looking for people confidential? I mean do they really not see that people are weary of applying for a job and then showing up to be interviewed by Trevor Sayers? Personally it's a red flag when I see a position advertised and the employer is not disclosed. Next thing you know I end up on a Law & Order SVU episode in ass-less leather chaps.

The next thing I find is utter bollocks is the norm where salary ranges for positions aren't disclosed in the job ad. I don't get why they wouldn't put the salary in the ad for prospective candidates to decide if it's worth their time. I don't want to shower, put on my best gabardine pants and chalais shirt, come down to your establishment for you to offer me $50 and a box lunch like some extra in an Ajala video.

Then there is the awkward question during the interview about salary, you know the one, "so, what are your salary expectations?". There were times where I wanted to say "I want enough money to want to come to work and not feel to start slapping people from in the car park". Here's an idea, how about you offer what the position is actually worth rather than play the "how low a salary are you willing to accept?" hunger games.

To me that is a most disingenuous way to start off a relationship with an employee. Basically they know the range the position is rated but they're trying to see how much you are willing to prostitute yourself for. It's as if they get the difference between the top of the salary range and what you accept.

Speaking of rating, what about those compensation studies HR does and somehow they're always within the range of the market. So basically, everyone in the industry is under paying, but we're in-line with that, so we're good. In other words, as long as you don't have any better options to leave we can keep paying you in chataigne.

What about companies where HR controls the training budget. Imagine HR trying to tell a specialist business unit what training is or is not relevant. How?? I mean I agree companies shouldn't be expected to pay for every basket weaving, plasticine rolling or psychology qualification employees want to to get. However, HR cannot be the ones to say Jagdesh doesn't need more finance training but we're hiring a consultant to conduct some tree hugging training session.

Now don't get me wrong, I am under no illusion about the role of HR. Under all their fancy talk about caring for employees, human capital is the biggest resource, best place to work, we're a family, tra-la-la...I always remember that HR is an agent of the company. Their main allegiance is to the company. Never fall into the trap of thinking that HR's priority is looking out for the employees. They're a business unit of the company like any other.

Having said all that let me just say, for the benefit of my current employer who may see this post at some point, I am not actively looking for alternative employment. Any familiar references in this post is not about you because I have bills to pay. Unemployment is not a good look for me, neither is homelessness. That said HR and recruiting companies need to pull up their proverbial socks.


Turn your Facebook Page into a website, instantly.

Try now for 14 days FREE

No credit card required, unsubscribe at any time.

Get In Touch!