3 ms·

You make a good point, but as for telling how a company will respect you, because they ask for a drug test, you may be a little off. If it is a big company, HR

You make a good point, but as for telling how a company will respect you, because they ask for a drug test, you may be a little off. If it is a big company, HR practices will have nothing to do with anything else in the company, so don't judge the department you will be working in by what HR makes you do. On the other hand, a company that lets HR have free reign to do anything, may cause endless suffering as HR feel the need to make themselves more "integrated". I recently interviewed for a developer in a government position, and decided that the people doing the interview are the ones are out of their depth, and should be unemployed. They clearly had to technical understanding where it was required for their job, and got very confused by the simplest question.

buro9 16y ago
HR practices disconnected from a respectful approach to the individuals involved can certainly reflect on the general approach of a large company. HR is one of those neglected things, if they've gotten that right then they tend to have other things right. It's also something that you hope will be invisible and will "just work" when you're there... you want it to be friendly, respectful, and efficient. I would say that if HR appears from the outset to be burdened by needless bureaucracy (an aptitude test when you acknowledge the position/department/legislature may not require it) definitely checks the box of reflecting a corporate culture that allows such crud to creep in. I don't go for any positions that: 1) Require me to jump through silly hoops when there is no benefit from anyone to doing so. 2) Bog me down in bureaucracy before I've even begun. 3) Require me to give access to any personal data that they do not have the legal right to ask for. On that last one, I'm talking about social networking credentials, overly invasive background checks that don't relate to the position and so on. I was fine with the Home Office and GCHQ asking questions about my finances, running criminal record checks and contacting friends and family as part of a security vetting process that they have the legal mandate to perform... but I wouldn't be fine with a large company performing such things.

buro9 16y ago

HR practices disconnected from a respectful approach to the individuals involved can certainly reflect on the general approach of a large company. HR is one of those neglected things, if they've gotten that right then they tend to have other things right. It's also something that you hope will be invisible and will "just work" when you're there... you want it to be friendly, respectful, and efficient. I would say that if HR appears from the outset to be burdened by needless bureaucracy (an aptitude test when you acknowledge the position/department/legislature may not require it) definitely checks the box of reflecting a corporate culture that allows such crud to creep in. I don't go for any positions that: 1) Require me to jump through silly hoops when there is no benefit from anyone to doing so. 2) Bog me down in bureaucracy before I've even begun. 3) Require me to give access to any personal data that they do not have the legal right to ask for. On that last one, I'm talking about social networking credentials, overly invasive background checks that don't relate to the position and so on. I was fine with the Home Office and GCHQ asking questions about my finances, running criminal record checks and contacting friends and family as part of a security vetting process that they have the legal mandate to perform... but I wouldn't be fine with a large company performing such things.