Posted July 14, 2018
Meanwhile, the sister of one of the workers was on welfare, and rumor has it that she was the one who established and owned the family restaurant, but it was registered in his name, because it would've influenced her welfare payout. To be fair, regardless of rumor, he did manage the place to a respectable degree as far as we could tell, and this ended up getting him a promotion to supervisor in the company he works for full time (still the chicken factory). But, who knows, maybe he manages the company by phone while doing his day job in the company, and we just don't know about it (otherwise a great guy, though, and the food's great, too).
Hogwash. I've discussed ... workforce just need to pick the people from the list.
But, to answer your question: probably not. Usually the people behind these messes are HR people, whom have to go out of their way to justify their positions (at the nursing home i worked for, he was almost never there, because he was doing busy work outside of the building [i saw the CEO way more often, and he was known to actually work with bottom level employees like me, just to be nice, and he even wrote me a card by hand when my mother had passed, and he actually talked to me about improving my future, because he believe the work i was doing was beneath my skills, though i never told the HR person that he said as much]). To be fair, everyone's taking orders from above, even the CEO, so I really can't tell where this crap usually comes from, but i've heard supervisors going after the HR reps as well in companies.
Our HR's scope is fairly limited, as they've been cut back to mainly mediation, new hire processing, wellness benefits reps, and hugely serious infractions, which they generally don't even rule on anymore, forwarding it to their bosses back at HQ. (Example, one long time supervisor was legitimately creating a hostile work environment back in a fairly crucial support department that fabricates a lot of parts for assembly, as well as overseeing the automated painting process for those parts. Long story short, he had gotten so bad about making his employees feel insecure in their jobs, that good workers were constantly bidding out of his department, or off his shift completely, until a friend of mine filed a harassment report, with things since having calmed down.) Things like this are now entirely out of their scope and they don't generally participate in the rulings on issues like that.
This always seems to be the big one at the end of the day: HR people have a tough job of having to evaluate people and their worth, and given their responsibilities and their expectations, they are expected to err on the side of safety: you don't get fired for passing up talent, but you do get fired if you hire someone who's completely incompetent and costs the company money. Instead of trying to make it easier for HR by making standardized qualifications tests that the HR people can apply, or by having HR people work with department heads who are close enough to the job to evaluate skill on a practical level, we, in turn, filter them out by whether or not they got a damn piece of paper.
This. They've actually done away with aptitude test requirements for a lot of our skilled jobs, which has backfired entirely, as the test generally provided the leadership team that handles the interviews for these jobs with a barrier to entry to keep entirely legitimately unqualified people out. (With the exceptions of maintenance based or mechanical jobs, as those still require passing the GAT in order to interview, as the company pays for your apprenticeship if chosen, along with any education needed, if necessary.) Major difference where I'm at is that HR generally evaluates you on two primary factors: disciplinary actions in the past, and attendance. That's pretty much it. If you keep your nose clean and show up to work when you're scheduled, they'll generally be far more receptive to you.
Post edited July 14, 2018 by LiquidOxygen80
