When hiring employees, negligent hiring practices can doom the process. Learn from your colleagues’ successes – and avoid their pitfalls.
Smart interview questions, well-written job descriptions, and sharp interviewing result in hiring employees that work out well, AND make you look good in the process.
After initially refusing to settle a sex discrimination case alleging the company would not hire female technicians, Parma-based Digital Cable and Communications seems to finally get the picture. Several women sued the cable company, claiming they lost out on jobs to less-qualified male applicants. Facing litigation, the company elected to settle.
The Farmington School Board is investigating one of its own. The board recently voted to investigate member Tim Burke to see if he poses a potential liability. Several board members have accused Burke of treating administrators disrespectfully, burdening them with unnecessary data requests and making unfounded accusations against them.
Supervisors may think they know all the candidates for promotion so well they can select one without actually interviewing any of the interested employees. That’s a big mistake. Chances are that if one of the disappointed applicants sues, the supervisor will have to answer very specific questions about the hiring process.
How do you decide between two equally worthy candidates? When in doubt, hire the person with the best writing skills, says Kris Dunn, VP of People for software firm DAXKO and author of “The HR Capitalist” blog. Here’s why:
You have a job now, but times being as they are, you may one day find yourself without it. The time to prepare for—and hopefully prevent—that scenario is while you’re still employed. Here are four things to do now that will benefit you if you ever lose your job.
In what could be a groundbreaking case, the National Labor Relations Board filed an unfair labor practice complaint last month against a Connecticut company that fired a worker who complained about her supervisor on Facebook. This is the first case in which the NLRB has argued that workers’ criticisms on social networking sites are protected activity.