Totally hijack but…
Yeah that’s the US healthcare system. I have literally spent more time filling in forms to get the single most basic thing done (like visit my doctor for a single checkup) in the US healthcare system, than I spent in the previous quarter century in the NHS.
It depends on what the document is - leases and loans and contracts are agreements and therefore require signatures. Without you signature, nobody knows if you agreed the the terms. But resumes and job applications aren’t contracts - there isn’t any agreement being made. Someone seeking a job hands you a resume - you haven’t agreed to do anything based on simply receiving the resume.
If someone gets fired because they lied on their resume, the lack of a signature won’t matter. At most, what matters is whether the employer can show that the employee lied on their resume - which to be honest, is not going to be an issue all that often. Certainly not often enough to make it worthwhile for an employer in an industry that normally hires based on resumes to require an application. A signature might make things easier , but that doesn’t means it’s necessary
I had a job with a state agency that required maintaining records on cases. When I first got that job , we kept paper records. We did not sign entries - the assigned person’s surname was printed on top of the page. If someone else took a phone call or something, they would include their name in that particular note , but still no signature. People got fired and even jailed for falsifying business records even though there were not signatures in the notes. All they had to do was prove that this person wrote the falsified note(s) which didn’t require a signature.
Fascinating. Quite different from Canada. Won’t hijack this thread by talking details.
Fair point.
No, I’m saying quite the opposite. The attorney for the guy being accused of civil and possibly criminal fraud is not putting forward a defense that he can’t be responsible because his false statements via email and false invoices submitted as email attachments didn’t have any signatures.
If your employer is going to fire you for submitting an application with false information they can fire you for submitting a resume with false information. You can’t be charged with PERJURY but that’s not the issue in an employment case.
Of course a signature matters. In most cases it’s acknowledging that you have seen and agreed to some terms. Like you have seen and agree to the Sexual Harassment Code or the Safety Handbook.
Unless you’re going to say “That’s not the resume I uploaded to LinkedIn” your claim for wrongful termination will be shitcanned if you got the job based on material lies on your resume.
Ah. Thanks for the clarification.
Jeeze Louise. That’s like a cartoon I saw ages ago where a worker is standing before the boss at his desk. Jenkins, you might recall that when you started twenty years ago we warned you the position might be temporary…
I didn’t walk out but grew highly doubtful I’d have accepted a technical position when the HR-type looking at my resume said, “Hmm. I see you had naval experience. Do you have their phone number?”
“1-800-THE NAVY, I suppose.” I never did talk with anyone I would have been reporting to.
I’d have been tempted to fill out the paragraph answers with
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
I tend to agree with the job applicant. I don’t think I’ve been asked to fill out a application in person while someone watched, ever. Am I asked to fill out applications? Yes. In fact, I pretty much expect to. But most companies have the software that can place info from your resume into an applications leaving you to fill in the blanks.
It is much more efficient to do this electronically, rather than by hand. What they were doing was not only wasting the applicant’s time, but also the time of the person doing the interview.
This raises the questions of how the company values the time of its employees, as well as how behind the times are they in their usage of engineering tools.
Are you desperate enough for this job that you will comply with whatever pointless demands we make?
I can imagine younger folks, who grew up somewhat paperless, to be less inclined to indulge them.
The vast majority of us would agree (?) that showing up late for a job interview would be something to avoid at all costs. The employer might reason that if you’re late for the interview, when you don’t even have the job, that you’re likely to be late if you do get it. Shoe on the other foot: if the employer is happy to make you jump through hoops and waste your time before you even have the job…
I’d be a lot more tolerant of it if they asked me to fill in the paperwork after awarding me the job.
An alternative approach to job interviews:
Not a bad policy since, as a lot of you’ve experienced, you jump through all the hoops and reach a final-stage panel interview and one member, you can tell, has no interest in the proceedings. It’s because the position is slated to be filled by their protege and always was. You’re just there as an audit metric.
Why not send them an invoice?
About the “hellish” job - did they offer you a job, and if so, did you take it?
What, and have the HR drone glare at you because you didn’t check off “Foreign Languages – Latin” in the Skills Inventory?
The goalposts were handing an applicant a pen and demanding he fill out a application in longhand on the spot.
There is no possible use for that in a professional level position.
Applications can be filled out online and e-signed.
Yes, and you check sex. race, disability and veteran status, then e-sign. Or just check a box saying that you verify the info.
No, it was obvious fairly early on, to all parties present, that I was not the candidate they were looking for.
It was an IT team manager job for a company that owned a chain of marinas and boatbuilding/repair services - they tasked me with presenting a ‘first 90 days’ plan for a fictional management scenario where a dysfunctional department would need to be turned around - the scenario included demotivated staff, an overflowing portfolio of unfinished projects, a chaotic set of assets and infrastructure, technical debt and knowledge loss, etc.
In the role I was currently working elsewhere, I had walked into just such a scenario without seeing it coming, and (baptism of fire sort of thing) had slogged my way through it, eventually prevailing, but at the same time, realising what my plan should have been. I felt that I had very relevant skills and experience for this scenario.
My plan was fairly simple (well, this is the short version): Spend a short time comprehensively cataloguing ‘stuff being done/needing to be done’, spend a slightly longer time to aggressively triage and prioritise that list, then get the boardroom to agree unanimously on which things to do and which to postpone. Stop doing the wrong things; start doing the right things; resource projects to the level required to get them done; plan what you do, do what you plan.
I got a few minutes into my presentation and there were awkward glances passing between people in the room, eventually, they interrupted to refine the ‘fictional scenario’ to the effect ‘yeah, but the managing director/CEO in this scenario likes to run projects on his own using resources outside the team, then sort of lob them over the fence into IT, for completion’*
I responded to point out this was a recipe for exactly the sort of failure defining the scenario. ‘Yeah, we know’, they admitted - and it was then revealed that the only fictional thing about the given scenario was that they had changed the name and business sector of the company. They were asking for a plan for their own desperately broken situation.
My plan would have worked - I am pretty sure of this because as I say, I had already been through this before, and learned some lessons from it - but they could not implement any such plan. Really all they wanted was to employ a manager who would accept chaos and scurry around dealing with it, whilst accepting blame and responsibility, with no control over the root causes.
I knew they wouldn’t offer me the job, but I continued with the presentation just for the practice, and in the faint hope that some of it might wake them up to the reality of the downward spiral they were in.
*The sort of antics where the IT department has presented a requirement to update some infrastructure, but the CEO guy goes out on his own and buys a bunch of second hand, nearly-obsolete servers, pays two-Freds-in-a-shed to ‘configure them’, then has them delivered on a pallet to the IT department, no warranty, no documentation, no support contract, etc, and declares ‘There you go! I don’t know why you guys thought they would be so expensive!’
Filling out a job application is not bad, in and of itself. But I agree that filling it out in an interview is just tacky. What, are we looking to witness penmanship? Or keyboarding skills? No, fill it out beforehand, submit a resume, and if you get an interview, let the prior paperwork and the interview be the basis for a hiring decision.
Back in October, I was offered a job outright, without an interview. It came on the strength of somebody whom I had worked for before, and did a good job for, for years, and didn’t seem bad, on its face. Note that the job required a law degree, and a license to practice law, both of which I have.
Problem No. 1: I was given only one day to review the contract. In it, I was urged to get “independent legal advice,” but since I’m a lawyer, that wasn’t necessary. Still, there were a number of places where the contract ran contrary to local provincial employment rules. But if I wasn’t a lawyer, and didn’t know local employment law, how could I arrange to meet with one, who could review it, within 24 hours?
Problem No. 2: Buried within the fine print, was the pay. Without getting into details, the hourly rate was less than one-third what I’d get from Legal Aid, and ~90% less than I make in my private practice. And that fact was buried, at paragraph 96, on page 3, in a five-page contract. In small print, as the rest of the contract was. Oh, and I wasn’t allowed to privately practice if I accepted the job. Of course, this company was not willing to subsidize the annual cost of my law license nor my professional insurance, and was giving me no way to make money on the side that could help towards the cost of those.
So I had a job in hand, that would pay me poorly and not let me practice the skills that I am licensed for on the side? No. Thank. You.
I should note that about every hour after they extended the offer, I was bombarded by e-mails asking for my SIN (like an SSN, for our American friends, and needed for tax purposes) from my “onboarding coordinator,” (seriously, when a hiring manager calls themselves that, isn’t that a signal of some kind?) who assured me that “everybody is excited to be working with you,” and other such happy-crappy. Again, I said a flat “No,” and never heard from them again. I kind of wish I had received an enquiry as to why I declined the offer, and I would have answered with why some of their practices, as outlined in the contract were illegal; as well as telling them that the pay they were offering was an insult.
Maybe a hijack, but I had to get this off my chest and this thread kinda-sorta fit. Thanks for listening, and we can go back to the thread topic.
This …
and this.
I thought that too. If you didn’t need an application to get to the interview part, then you don’t need the application now.
Welllll…in some quarters there is a possibility of impostors. With online hiring, phone interviews, etc., the person who shows up to work on day 1 just might not be the one who wrote the resume or was interviewed. It happens, I’ve seen it for IT developer jobs.
This. It’s a bright red flag that this job will be full of time wasting bureaucracy.
I have, once, about 40 years ago. I’d already been hired. But part of my onboarding was that HR made me fill out an application. For every job listed on my resume, they wanted me to fill in a section including dates and compensation. I got to the job working as a teaching assistant when i was in college. “I don’t remember what they paid me”, i said. “You need to fill it in”, i was told.
So i made up a number.
Years later, i learned that HR had done a background check and determined that i lied about my wages as a teaching assistant, and brought this to the attention of my boss. He told them to go suck eggs, and didn’t bother to mention it to me at the time. (I’d already accepted the job, and the pay was fixed, when i filled out the damn form. How more totally irrelevant could it have been?)
But I’m still pissed about that. I told my kids not to let HR bully them into making up stuff that’s verifiably false.
That company had a generally shitty HR department. I had a hell of a time getting them to meet with me to discuss how maternity leave would work, for instance. And the form i had to fill out when i went on maternity-related disability asked me to “describe the circumstances leading to this disability”.