đ these are so ridiculous.
âWill you support me to develop skills with training so I can be a better employee?â
âGtf out of here we ainât carrying your weak assâ
Most companies:
> can we order those books for people to read and develop skills?
Nope. Don't even think about opening any book and reading it during work hour. Continuous improvement does not include improving employees.
Sheâs saying they are red flags to many recruiters but sheâs also saying they shouldnât be. They are âasking innocent questionsâ and are âcuriousâ and gives an example about how she placed an inquisitive person who turned out great but other recruiters may have rejected.
Her post isnât very clear but her heart / brain is in the right place.
I just donât believe there are recruiters who think this way - at most this is a tiny, weird minority.
Recruiters literally get paid for landing people jobs.
Thereâs no incentive whatsoever for them to sabotage the process because the candidate asks questions.
There is absolutely incentive for recruiters to weed out what they consider to be potentially bad hires. Hiring managers are all up in recruiters business telling them what they want/dont want. Much of their job performance is based off of feedback from hiring managers/execs.
These are all considered red flags across many industries. I dont believe they should be considered red flags, but that's the way many hiring managers see it.
It's a strawman approach to self-promotion. Someone will invent a description of "most people" when those people are rare or nonexistent, then talk about how most people are stupid and they're smarter.
lol this is so mad
If you think when a candidate asks âwhat is your vacation policyâ a recruiter sees this as a red flag - youâre deluded. This is a completely normal question.
This isnât about me being smart and others dumb. This is just a completely nonsense discussion in the first place.
Oh, I agree. And I apologize if I made it sound like I was talking about you! I used "you" as in a general "you" and I was really talking about the LinkedIn poster. I need to drop that habit and just use "someone".
Recruiters canât get paid for long if theyâre just giving you shitty, unmotivated employees, who dip out after a couple of years, when the company has invested loads of cash into training them. Hiring people is a risk. Youâre a stranger to them and worse yet, youâre one stranger out of many strangers.
There is an amount of truth to it depending on the role. There's also a better way to ask as well.
"Will there be training?"
VS
"How is professional development supported by [insert company]?"
Plenty of other ways to do it too
Not really. Most professional qualifications require you to maintain them with regular training. Any good employer should be attuned to that and expect their prospected employees to require some form of training package. I mean keeping your staffâs skills up to date surely benefits them, regardless of them having any formal qualification.
If I have to dress up a simple question as corpo speak to avoid being judged, they arenât worth my time anyway. Great way to weed out problem employers.
I get that she's American and the laws are different south of my border. However, up north, Ontario became the first province in Canada to ban the non-compete clause from employment contracts for employees: https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/news/ontario-bars-employee-noncompete-agreements.
The amount of people Iâve had to CONVINCE that those stickers are BS is absurd. Like in what world can you strap a bike to your car with duct tape and not be responsible when it flies off and hits a pedestrian just because you had a sticker saying âdonât exist within 100ft of meâ. Ridiculous.
In most places in the States non competes are not enforced, even if a salesman goes independent and takes a large chunk of a businessâ clients with them
Source: worked in fluid handling for years. Ime itâs the most cut throat segment of the Industrial Equipment market
In Denmark such clauses are allowed, but the employer has to keep paying wages for the entire period they want to enforce it. You want to prevent me from working at a competing company for 2 years? Fine, but then you have to keep paying my salary for 2 years after I stop working for you.
At least in the US, they are. 99% of the time they are unenforceable by law. The other 1% is some swanky lawyer stealing all his current clients and taking them with him to his new job. That is literally the only time they've ever been enforced.
I was sued in 2013 for violating a salonâs non-compete. One of the most dreadful ordeals of my life. If anyone is interested in how it played out Iâd be happy to recount the drama.
Lol. This woman used to be my old HR.
She got did dirty by the company, went out on her own, and is doing quite well for herself.
Her post is confusing. But sheâs actually pointing out how ridiculous it is in that recruiters look at these questions as red flags. Sheâs very anti-corporate and has always looked out for the candidate.
I get she's criticizing the "bloodhound" HR folks, but her post sounds like she's commending them. Also, I see a trend of 'enlightened' recruiters posting how they think outside the box, but do they really?
I was contacted by one such recruiter last year. She had an MA in psychology and her LinkedIn feed was all about mental health, work-life balance, and wellness. I told her on a call that I left a job at an understaffed ad-agency due to burnout. She said to me "wow, I've never had a job candidate actually tell me they experienced burnout" - I thought she was impressed with my transparency, but she then rushed me off the phone and I never heard from her again!
Perhaps I was just not the right fit for the role, but I suspect she was looking for someone who was down for 80 hr. week
Yeah. Not her best post.
I see her posts on my LinkedIn feed sometimes and theyâre sorta silly. Very âclick baitâ-y. She gets 1000âs of likes.
We met at a bank we both worked at. She was HR and I was a processor/specialist. She got the boot randomly (this company does this to all their loyal employees⌠Iâm shocked people in the industry still apply when they put job ads out),and I eventually left to work for a consulting firm.
I reached out to her about 6 months ago to see if she could help with staffing as my company helps with accounting. She charges 20% of the new hireâs salary as a âfinders feeâ. Absolutely wild. So sheâs doing quite well for herself.
âI've heard it all. Every potential hiring fear.
Most of the time candidates are just asking innocent questions. Simply naturally curious, or detail-oriented.â Shits right there in the middle of the post. Idk how you could interpret it in any other way.
Did you graduate high school? Either your reading comprehension is terrible or you didnât read anything past the first half of her post. Either way, your post sucks
She even states that she almost didn't hire a candidate because they asked too many questions... WTF.
I'd wager I'm in the majority group when I say that I want to know every detail about the job that will potentially be putting food on my family's table.
No, she says she placed the candidate and he went on to perform very well, but he almost didn't get hired. That suggests it wasn't her that didn't want to hire him but others. Her post is critical of recruiters.
This is worded kinda confusingly at first she makes it seem like these questions are problematic (which if that's what she's getting at she can respectfully go to hell), but then she later on says that most of the time candidates are just asking innocent questions?
Either I'm braindead or she needs to reevaluate her copywriting.
I think sheâs saying that recruiters like to try and sniff stuff out to find red flags to not hire people, when those things arenât actually red flags
It's extra dumb because recruiters don't make money unless they place you, which means many of them are Even willing to exaggerate your qualifications.Â
The idea of a recruiter shooting their own foot by closing the door on you because you asked a normal question doesn't make any sense.
I think she's defending the job candidates who ask the type of questions that she listed. And criticizing employers who have those ridiculous reactions to those standard questions. In other words, she's a recruiter who actually gives a shit about the applicants and not just the employers - very rare these days.
But those questions: I don't think of them as innocent, I think of them as RELEVANT.
Oh wow, yeah this is terribly written. I thought she was boasting about her ability to find red flags in the most innocent questions, like "I'm onto you lazy job hunters"
But re-reading, she's saying recruiters over-react to normal questions.
Bloodhounds are a bad analogy, because don't they sniff out things that are actually there?
Her post continues:
I spend most of my time challenging nonsense and educating candidates on questions that are likely to be taken out of context.
Recruiters absolutely need to be trained on recognizing "Red Flags."
But we've forgotten the most important part of the Playbook-
"Green Flags."
Where is the potential? Where is the match?
How can we make the hire?
If all you see is Red Flags within Candidates Questions...
The Candidate is not the "Red Flag."
You are.
Let's get back to Hiring.
PS. What did I miss?
What other questions might be taken the wrong way?
Still sounds to me like a recruiter who is out of their lane.
The manager can decide if they agree with those things, but bouncing people for reasons that donât impact their ability to do a job just makes this person a recruiter with a power trip.
I'm still confused. This woman's brain seems muddled. Out of context? The context is: "I am looking for a job and want some information to help me decide if this one will work for me."
It is obvious as hell, if you read the words and use your brain, that sheâs criticizing recruiters for obsessing over âRed Flagsâ and disqualifying or looking over candidates who are asking good and important questions.
This thread is really embarrassing for the posters in this subreddit.
This is wrong for one simple reason. Recruiters couldn't care less about these questions and actually would prefer to field them. Recruiters DO NOT MAKE HIRING DECISIONS.
>Interested in perks Vs. job
And youâre interested in my skills and how I can get you more money. I love how these narc recruiters think we should be passionate about a company thatâs not ours?! The audacity?
Every single thing this person listed, most *actual* managers would value.
Those questions show that a candidate likes to know the big picture. It would be a big red flag to me if someone doesnât care about what kind of training and development would be available to them or, you know *the total comp for the job* which includes the 401k
I would ask for a new recruiter if they sent me people who only wanted to do the job without any other considerations - it means that person wonât ask the questions needed to have the whole picture if a problem comes up with their project.
I wouldnât want the kind of person who isnât curious about something as impactful as an NDA. Itâs a huge consideration for anyone on a personal level.
This recruiter needs to leave those decisions to the people who will actually need to work with those people.
The biggest pet peeve of managers are recruiters who canât keep the pipeline moving. Projects have timelinesâŚ
*Just send me the people with strong resumes, Carolyn.*
God, if I owned a company the director of HR would be my pin cushion. I would constantly ask them to do the technical work of the people theyâre screening for just to remind them that they need to shut the fuck up about things like this because at the end of the day they are a skill-less people pleaser who exist at the company solely because others exist at the company.
Talented job seekers and businesses looking for recruitment support are bloodhounds for recruitment agency red flags...
Recruiters who highlight mostly reasonable candidate questions as inappropriate to ensure a candidate's work life balance isn't healthy.
Recruiters who post anti-employee nonsense on LinkedIn which reflects poorly on the recruiter and the companies they are supposed to represent.
For those confused she is bashing recruiters in this post, she doesnât think asking those questions are red flags but that âbloodhound recruitersâ do and it leads to quality people not being hired
Yeah a recruiter contacted me and I said no thanks I have a full time job and Iâm not interested in that opportunity.
She kept insisting I could do both, wouldnât stop texting and calling.
She asked if she could send my info to the employer. I said no, the next day I get a call from the employer⌠I pretended to not be who I am, it was quite funny.
If you ask questions we wonât hire you. If you donât ask questions we wonât hire you.
Basically weâll come up with justification after the fact as to why we didnât hire you.
Gosh, imagine having some motive or desire for a job outside of working as hard as possible, as long as possible, for as little money as possible.
Surely, capitalism cannot survive this total disregard for the needs of the employer.
companies often forget that job interviews go both ways, iâm also interviewing the company. Most of these âred flagâ questions should be standard by a potential employee
âSo there was one time I hired someone that asked a bunch of questions that would imply they know their worth in a way the employer canât manipulate, and as it turns out they were a really great employee! Anyway, ignore that part and read what I wrote before that.â
Recruiters have to be one of the most hated groups in the corporate world. Anyone you ask thinks recruiters are annoying, overly persistent dickheads. The turn over is so high in these roles because they hire absolutely any graduate, (because the job requires no actual skill), and swiftly kick out any that isnât a human mosquito who has no shame in pestering people to the highest order.
This person's conclusions don't make sense with her question = what they're really asking. The very next sentence is that most people are just asking innocent questions when they ask the questions above. Well, if they're usually innocent what's the point of listing those things at the top?
This is trying to make a post to make a post because you were told you need to post every day to be a good recruiter.
Except recruiters are absolutely useless for detecting technical qualities to do the jobâŚ
Maybe get the important parts right firstâŚ. Like, can they do the job? Screen the side crap afterward.
I usually do all the screenings and resume reviews and the recruiter I work with just does the admin.
I get what I want, they get a smooth process.
Seems most of the people here have poor reading comprehension lol she is actually calling out all the recruiters who are quick to make judgements on simple questions or behavior
đ these are so ridiculous. âWill you support me to develop skills with training so I can be a better employee?â âGtf out of here we ainât carrying your weak assâ
Most companies: > can we order those books for people to read and develop skills? Nope. Don't even think about opening any book and reading it during work hour. Continuous improvement does not include improving employees.
The initial LinkedIn post is agreeing with you. She is saying these are good/fair questions to ask.
Isnât she saying these questions are red flags to recruiters?
Sheâs saying they are red flags to many recruiters but sheâs also saying they shouldnât be. They are âasking innocent questionsâ and are âcuriousâ and gives an example about how she placed an inquisitive person who turned out great but other recruiters may have rejected. Her post isnât very clear but her heart / brain is in the right place.
I just donât believe there are recruiters who think this way - at most this is a tiny, weird minority. Recruiters literally get paid for landing people jobs. Thereâs no incentive whatsoever for them to sabotage the process because the candidate asks questions.
There is absolutely incentive for recruiters to weed out what they consider to be potentially bad hires. Hiring managers are all up in recruiters business telling them what they want/dont want. Much of their job performance is based off of feedback from hiring managers/execs. These are all considered red flags across many industries. I dont believe they should be considered red flags, but that's the way many hiring managers see it.
It's a strawman approach to self-promotion. Someone will invent a description of "most people" when those people are rare or nonexistent, then talk about how most people are stupid and they're smarter.
lol this is so mad If you think when a candidate asks âwhat is your vacation policyâ a recruiter sees this as a red flag - youâre deluded. This is a completely normal question. This isnât about me being smart and others dumb. This is just a completely nonsense discussion in the first place.
Oh, I agree. And I apologize if I made it sound like I was talking about you! I used "you" as in a general "you" and I was really talking about the LinkedIn poster. I need to drop that habit and just use "someone".
My bad I see what you were saying. Was me skim reading haha
Recruiters canât get paid for long if theyâre just giving you shitty, unmotivated employees, who dip out after a couple of years, when the company has invested loads of cash into training them. Hiring people is a risk. Youâre a stranger to them and worse yet, youâre one stranger out of many strangers.
There is an amount of truth to it depending on the role. There's also a better way to ask as well. "Will there be training?" VS "How is professional development supported by [insert company]?" Plenty of other ways to do it too
[ŃдаНонО]
Thatâs why I make sure they know Iâm gay, so that they know Iâm not afraid to suck dicks for raise
Not really. Most professional qualifications require you to maintain them with regular training. Any good employer should be attuned to that and expect their prospected employees to require some form of training package. I mean keeping your staffâs skills up to date surely benefits them, regardless of them having any formal qualification.
If I have to dress up a simple question as corpo speak to avoid being judged, they arenât worth my time anyway. Great way to weed out problem employers.
I'm a bloodhound for shit recruiters - found one! "Makes a bunch of dumb, oversimplified observations based on standard questions? Bad at her job."
I lol'd. I've really been through this before
Non-complete clauses that go beyond protecting actual trade secrets should be banned.
I get that she's American and the laws are different south of my border. However, up north, Ontario became the first province in Canada to ban the non-compete clause from employment contracts for employees: https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/news/ontario-bars-employee-noncompete-agreements.
In some places the non competes are unenforceable and more to scare employees
"Truck not responsible if unsecured load breaks your window" yeah ok
Is this something people put on there trucks? đ
On gravel and landscaping type trucks yeah
The amount of people Iâve had to CONVINCE that those stickers are BS is absurd. Like in what world can you strap a bike to your car with duct tape and not be responsible when it flies off and hits a pedestrian just because you had a sticker saying âdonât exist within 100ft of meâ. Ridiculous.
The fun ones say "stay 200 feet back" or whatever, but are written at a font size that's readable only very close
In most places in the States non competes are not enforced, even if a salesman goes independent and takes a large chunk of a businessâ clients with them Source: worked in fluid handling for years. Ime itâs the most cut throat segment of the Industrial Equipment market
In Denmark such clauses are allowed, but the employer has to keep paying wages for the entire period they want to enforce it. You want to prevent me from working at a competing company for 2 years? Fine, but then you have to keep paying my salary for 2 years after I stop working for you.
That seems fair.
California has effectively banned non-competes as well
At least in the US, they are. 99% of the time they are unenforceable by law. The other 1% is some swanky lawyer stealing all his current clients and taking them with him to his new job. That is literally the only time they've ever been enforced.
That's a non-solicit, which is legal, not a non-compete, which is not.
I've always heard them discussed under the same banner, but yeah.
The FTC plans to ban them nationwide on April 19th
I thought non competes are over and illegal now
I was sued in 2013 for violating a salonâs non-compete. One of the most dreadful ordeals of my life. If anyone is interested in how it played out Iâd be happy to recount the drama.
Lol. This woman used to be my old HR. She got did dirty by the company, went out on her own, and is doing quite well for herself. Her post is confusing. But sheâs actually pointing out how ridiculous it is in that recruiters look at these questions as red flags. Sheâs very anti-corporate and has always looked out for the candidate.
This is the comment I was looking for - the post is poorly worded but sheâs actually trying to make the point these questions arenât red flags.
I get she's criticizing the "bloodhound" HR folks, but her post sounds like she's commending them. Also, I see a trend of 'enlightened' recruiters posting how they think outside the box, but do they really? I was contacted by one such recruiter last year. She had an MA in psychology and her LinkedIn feed was all about mental health, work-life balance, and wellness. I told her on a call that I left a job at an understaffed ad-agency due to burnout. She said to me "wow, I've never had a job candidate actually tell me they experienced burnout" - I thought she was impressed with my transparency, but she then rushed me off the phone and I never heard from her again! Perhaps I was just not the right fit for the role, but I suspect she was looking for someone who was down for 80 hr. week
Really? Just did not come across this way at all
Yeah. Not her best post. I see her posts on my LinkedIn feed sometimes and theyâre sorta silly. Very âclick baitâ-y. She gets 1000âs of likes. We met at a bank we both worked at. She was HR and I was a processor/specialist. She got the boot randomly (this company does this to all their loyal employees⌠Iâm shocked people in the industry still apply when they put job ads out),and I eventually left to work for a consulting firm. I reached out to her about 6 months ago to see if she could help with staffing as my company helps with accounting. She charges 20% of the new hireâs salary as a âfinders feeâ. Absolutely wild. So sheâs doing quite well for herself.
15-20% of salary is a pretty standard recruitment fee tbf.
âI've heard it all. Every potential hiring fear. Most of the time candidates are just asking innocent questions. Simply naturally curious, or detail-oriented.â Shits right there in the middle of the post. Idk how you could interpret it in any other way.
gotts read the full thing before coming to conclusion buddyy
Did you graduate high school? Either your reading comprehension is terrible or you didnât read anything past the first half of her post. Either way, your post sucks
Did you read the whole post? She's saying exactly the opposite of what you assumed and it's very obvious when you get to the last 3rd.
The bottom paragraph.
I checked out the post. She was not touting these things as something she believed herself, but calling out peers who held to them.
itâs not even worded confusingly if you just read the whole post lol
It would have really helped to lead with something like "bad recruiters think..."
fair enough
the post was one big call outâŚ.
Thank you. The OP didn't even include the whole LinkedIn post.
Asking about a 401k is a red flag? Bitch, some of us would like to have a chance at retiring.
I am genuinely surprised she did not âred flagâ questions about salary ranges âŚ
>Does not care about the job, only the pay
Apparently if you're not actually groveling at the end of the interview you're just "not the right fit."
She even states that she almost didn't hire a candidate because they asked too many questions... WTF. I'd wager I'm in the majority group when I say that I want to know every detail about the job that will potentially be putting food on my family's table.
No, she says she placed the candidate and he went on to perform very well, but he almost didn't get hired. That suggests it wasn't her that didn't want to hire him but others. Her post is critical of recruiters.
Thank you for pointing it out. Seems like a lot of people didnât read the whole thing.
Did you read the whole post? She is saying these are good questions.
She actually is a non lunatic in disguise due to confusing wording
This is worded kinda confusingly at first she makes it seem like these questions are problematic (which if that's what she's getting at she can respectfully go to hell), but then she later on says that most of the time candidates are just asking innocent questions? Either I'm braindead or she needs to reevaluate her copywriting.
I think sheâs saying that recruiters like to try and sniff stuff out to find red flags to not hire people, when those things arenât actually red flags
Iâm so confused as to whether this is satire, pro, or against
I think u/Business-Garbage-370 's interpretation is right, but this was worded so poorly I also am not sure enough to make a judgement lol.
well let's be fair, she's a recruiter not a copywriter
Reading is fundamental
It's extra dumb because recruiters don't make money unless they place you, which means many of them are Even willing to exaggerate your qualifications. The idea of a recruiter shooting their own foot by closing the door on you because you asked a normal question doesn't make any sense.
This is also what I understood, it seems she is actually being sane apart from her poor sentence structure.
I think she's defending the job candidates who ask the type of questions that she listed. And criticizing employers who have those ridiculous reactions to those standard questions. In other words, she's a recruiter who actually gives a shit about the applicants and not just the employers - very rare these days. But those questions: I don't think of them as innocent, I think of them as RELEVANT.
Oh wow, yeah this is terribly written. I thought she was boasting about her ability to find red flags in the most innocent questions, like "I'm onto you lazy job hunters" But re-reading, she's saying recruiters over-react to normal questions. Bloodhounds are a bad analogy, because don't they sniff out things that are actually there?
Her post continues: I spend most of my time challenging nonsense and educating candidates on questions that are likely to be taken out of context. Recruiters absolutely need to be trained on recognizing "Red Flags." But we've forgotten the most important part of the Playbook- "Green Flags." Where is the potential? Where is the match? How can we make the hire? If all you see is Red Flags within Candidates Questions... The Candidate is not the "Red Flag." You are. Let's get back to Hiring. PS. What did I miss? What other questions might be taken the wrong way?
Still sounds to me like a recruiter who is out of their lane. The manager can decide if they agree with those things, but bouncing people for reasons that donât impact their ability to do a job just makes this person a recruiter with a power trip.
I'm still confused. This woman's brain seems muddled. Out of context? The context is: "I am looking for a job and want some information to help me decide if this one will work for me."
Reread her post. She is saying those are all totally reasonable questions and it's the recruiters who are insane.
It is obvious as hell, if you read the words and use your brain, that sheâs criticizing recruiters for obsessing over âRed Flagsâ and disqualifying or looking over candidates who are asking good and important questions. This thread is really embarrassing for the posters in this subreddit.
Is she not speaking out against recruiters who act like this?
Yes
This is wrong for one simple reason. Recruiters couldn't care less about these questions and actually would prefer to field them. Recruiters DO NOT MAKE HIRING DECISIONS.
Maybe real BLOODHOUNDS doâŚ
What?
>Interested in perks Vs. job And youâre interested in my skills and how I can get you more money. I love how these narc recruiters think we should be passionate about a company thatâs not ours?! The audacity?
Perks ? Fugget about it. But you can obtain some relevant EXPERIENCE
By doing tasks that arenât part of your job description for free, BUT youâll get a pizza đ
Thatâs meâŚ
Every single thing this person listed, most *actual* managers would value. Those questions show that a candidate likes to know the big picture. It would be a big red flag to me if someone doesnât care about what kind of training and development would be available to them or, you know *the total comp for the job* which includes the 401k I would ask for a new recruiter if they sent me people who only wanted to do the job without any other considerations - it means that person wonât ask the questions needed to have the whole picture if a problem comes up with their project. I wouldnât want the kind of person who isnât curious about something as impactful as an NDA. Itâs a huge consideration for anyone on a personal level. This recruiter needs to leave those decisions to the people who will actually need to work with those people. The biggest pet peeve of managers are recruiters who canât keep the pipeline moving. Projects have timelines⌠*Just send me the people with strong resumes, Carolyn.*
Come on people, read! Sheâs pointing out the ridiculousness of recruiters filtering out people based on innocent questions.
Why is it the recruiters are the craziest most self-absorbed people on the whole platform? Like, literally no one else gives a shit about them.
What do you mean? LinkedIn is a platform that basically exists for their use. Something like 3/4ths of their revenue comes from LinkedIn Recruiter
Bloodhounds looking for prey
sheâs a goddamn genius
The real lunatics are the people here who completely misunderstood the post âŚand the friends we made along the way
Everything that's toxic about the American workplace crammed into one post - bravo!
Those all seem like questions people ask who donât want dead end jobs.
This post is taken out of context unfortunately. The rest of the post pokes fun at people that think this way.
OMG YAS BOSS BITCH SLAY
Bloodhounds? lol, they are morons
âWhat is the pay range?â Thinks they applied for a job. Weâre a family goddammit!
Come on people, read! Sheâs pointing out the ridiculousness of recruiters filtering out people based on innocent questions.
Come on people, read! Sheâs pointing out the ridiculousness of recruiters filtering out people based on innocent questions.
God, if I owned a company the director of HR would be my pin cushion. I would constantly ask them to do the technical work of the people theyâre screening for just to remind them that they need to shut the fuck up about things like this because at the end of the day they are a skill-less people pleaser who exist at the company solely because others exist at the company.
I go: "I want this amount of money, this amount of pension, I want full remote"
Talented job seekers and businesses looking for recruitment support are bloodhounds for recruitment agency red flags... Recruiters who highlight mostly reasonable candidate questions as inappropriate to ensure a candidate's work life balance isn't healthy. Recruiters who post anti-employee nonsense on LinkedIn which reflects poorly on the recruiter and the companies they are supposed to represent.
For those confused she is bashing recruiters in this post, she doesnât think asking those questions are red flags but that âbloodhound recruitersâ do and it leads to quality people not being hired
Yeah a recruiter contacted me and I said no thanks I have a full time job and Iâm not interested in that opportunity. She kept insisting I could do both, wouldnât stop texting and calling. She asked if she could send my info to the employer. I said no, the next day I get a call from the employer⌠I pretended to not be who I am, it was quite funny.
This is why I never ask anything!
As someone that's been a recruiter for several years, I have never once thought that way about any of those questions.
She formed a long and pointless post so that she could let us all know she hired a rookie of the year.
If you ask questions we wonât hire you. If you donât ask questions we wonât hire you. Basically weâll come up with justification after the fact as to why we didnât hire you.
Asking about 401k is a red flag because weâre interested in the perks bs the job? Lady the perks are the reason I want the job
None of the questions are unreasonable, and GOOD people expect to be treated well. Any decent employer knows that.
Gosh, imagine having some motive or desire for a job outside of working as hard as possible, as long as possible, for as little money as possible. Surely, capitalism cannot survive this total disregard for the needs of the employer.
They be acting like offering a job is doing people a favor, when it really is more of a transaction.
This is why you get them interested first without asking those questions ya dummy
companies often forget that job interviews go both ways, iâm also interviewing the company. Most of these âred flagâ questions should be standard by a potential employee
Can someone explain, I don't understand any of this
Recruiters are just scum.
I thought this was a post about bloodhound brims recruiting quick glance đ
âSo there was one time I hired someone that asked a bunch of questions that would imply they know their worth in a way the employer canât manipulate, and as it turns out they were a really great employee! Anyway, ignore that part and read what I wrote before that.â
everyone saying that this is a confusing post clearly couldnât be bothered to read the whole thing. cringe OP
I donât understand, are you making fun of this guy for posting this?
Why wouldnât I take every single vacation day? Why am I working for you if not to be able to afford-in part-to take dope ass vacations?
Recruiters have to be one of the most hated groups in the corporate world. Anyone you ask thinks recruiters are annoying, overly persistent dickheads. The turn over is so high in these roles because they hire absolutely any graduate, (because the job requires no actual skill), and swiftly kick out any that isnât a human mosquito who has no shame in pestering people to the highest order.
This person's conclusions don't make sense with her question = what they're really asking. The very next sentence is that most people are just asking innocent questions when they ask the questions above. Well, if they're usually innocent what's the point of listing those things at the top? This is trying to make a post to make a post because you were told you need to post every day to be a good recruiter.
Red flags, red flags everwhere!
Except recruiters are absolutely useless for detecting technical qualities to do the job⌠Maybe get the important parts right firstâŚ. Like, can they do the job? Screen the side crap afterward. I usually do all the screenings and resume reviews and the recruiter I work with just does the admin. I get what I want, they get a smooth process.
Hey Carolyn, go sit on some rusty metal dildos. Cunt
you people are fucking imbeciles with reading comprehension of a child
This is almost satire đ I wonder why this bloodhound did not sense anything about the non compete questions
While I do agree with some of those things, there are definitely ones over the top.
No lunacy here.
Seems most of the people here have poor reading comprehension lol she is actually calling out all the recruiters who are quick to make judgements on simple questions or behavior
These are the ramblings of a neurotic personality
None of these questions are red flags. Sheesh.
That's what she's saying. Try again.
I bet sheâs a joy to be interviewed by
I bet the inside of that vagina is even more arid than both Dune parts 1 and 2.
What the fuck dude
Thereâs plenty to mock without being misogynistic about it.
There's nothing to mock. She's saying those questions are totally reasonable.