Posting Your Resume on YouTube To Stand Out From the Competition. First, the gist of the article:

…young job hunters are starting to make a video clip part of their job application, sometimes even posting them on sites like Google Inc.’s YouTube…

It seemed like this day would be coming. But the author does bring up a good point that crossed my mind:

Many employers and third-party recruiters remain wary of the concept of video resumes. Those who oppose it say that turning down candidates for interviews after seeing what they look and sound like on video could leave employers open to discrimination lawsuits. When job candidates send in photos of themselves, most employers throw them out for the same reason.

If you are screening candidates by simply reviewing resumes then yes, the video (or photo) resume is a discrimination risk. If you are running an objective hiring process (i.e. not screening on the resume alone), then this media format can become an asset.

Of course, whether or not the video resume is an asset for the candidate is a different story. I submit to you this popular, and embarrassing, video from YouTube.

A final quote from from the article:

Despite the potential hazards, some in the recruiting industry are betting that the practice will blossom. “You have this perfect storm of more people with broadband connections, more adoption of home video technology, more people who have viewed video online and more people who have created video online,” says Jason Goldberg, CEO of Jobster.com.

Comments(0)

Remember that old line? Apparently some employees believe it still has legs even after graduating. We love lists here at The Hire Sense and CareerBuilder offers up one of my seasonal favorites – Thirty-Two Percent of Workers Called in Sick With Fake Excuses in the Last Year.

I have no idea how many companies still separate sick days from vacation days – I was under the impression most companies just offered PTO now. At any rate, a couple statistics from the survey:

Twenty-seven percent of hiring managers reported they have fired a worker for calling in sick without a legitimate reason.

The most popular motivator for missing work was the need to relax, according to nearly half (48 percent) of workers. (ed. – sounds like a work/life imbalance issue)

One-in-four workers said they consider their sick days to be equivalent to vacation days and treat them as such.

Ah, but now for the best part of the article – the list of lame excuses. It needs no further comment, but I did bold my personal favorites.

1) Employee was poisoned by his mother-in-law.
2) A buffalo escaped from the game reserve and kept charging the employee every time she tried to go to her car from her house.
3) Employee was feeling all the symptoms of his expecting wife.
4) Employee called from his cell phone, said he was accidentally locked in a restroom stall and no one was around to let him out.
5) Employee broke his leg snowboarding off his roof while drunk.
6) Employees wife said he couldn’t come into work because he had a lot of chores to do around the house.
7) One of the walls in the employee’s home fell off the night before.
8) Employee’s mother was in jail.
9) A skunk got into the employee’s house and sprayed all of his uniforms.
10) Employee had bad hiccups.
11) Employee blew his nose so hard, his back went out.
12) Employee’s horses got loose and were running down the highway.
13) Employee was hit by a bus while walking.
14) Employee’s dog swallowed her bus pass.
15) Employee was sad.

Comments(0)

This is sheer stupidity in action – St. Paul gives ex-cons a break on city hiring – With rehabilitation in mind, job applications won’t require disclosure of criminal records. Honestly, what do they hope to accomplish by decreasing their information on a candidate?

We always tell our customers to complete a thorough background check before hiring any new employee. It is simply common sense that drives this approach.

Then there is the city of St. Paul:

The city decided this week to stop requiring job hopefuls to state on their applications whether they’ve ever been convicted of a crime.

My first thought was positions that work with children, but then I got to the end of the story and read this excerpt:

Nalezny also said the city conducts background checks when the applicant would work with children or have access to money or sensitive information, and would know whether those applicants have a criminal record.
Therefore, there’s no risk of a sex offender being assigned to work with children, Nalezny said.

Well that’s reassuring. What about a sex offender working in an office with many female employees? I can envision the lawsuits if the city hires a registered sex offender and they commit another similar crime at their employment.

In this day and age, background checks need to be a part of any thorough hiring process. Crimes come with consequences and jeopardizing future employment options is one of them. I think most employers are fairly evenhanded in their approach to criminal records. We have all made mistakes in the past. But those mistakes must have an accounting when making an important hiring decision.

Comments(0)