In one of their product called DNA they hired a person having no experience except lady was a Director's wife. I believe it's in texas office. This was a topic of discussion in our team call last week and now we crack jokes on it. The lady was a cashers with no IT background or experience what so ever.
Now this is called working towards a social cause at the cost of seasoned employee.
19 replies (most recent on top)
Powerless? It's exactly the opposite. If you don't like your job, go in tomorrow, put in your notice to quit and find a better job. Walking out the door is the best way to show how you really feel. That's power.
You are posting that your job is important and matters a great deal, and that you are powerless and your job doesn't matter.
This site is great to get information about layoffs you wouldn't otherwise hear of, but the downside is that most everyone who posts was either just let go from that company, at risk of being let go, or is generally unhappy with their job or their life.
Next time you're about to take a new job, look up that company here. I'll bet all you'll read is how terrible they are and have no idea what they're doing, clowns and id--ts abound!
What gets posted here is just a sliver of reality. This thread is the perfect example. Facts are just thrown aside because they don't match the agenda. Who cares about facts? A law is quoted but vote it down because I don't like it disagrees with me - even if it's a law and is fact.
It's terrible when people are let go, but companies always will make decisions based on their bottom line. Most of the managers who have to actually let people go are devastated as it wasn't their choice to let people go. They're almost never the ones that make the decision about letting people go.
But I do feel bad for those that have so much hate or sadness built up in them that they waste their time pushing a false narrative. Go ahead and down vote this; it'll just prove I'm right sadly.
Looks like the OP just woke up as he or she just fired up the bot to down vote anything against agenda. Gotta love the downvotes on US law. Disgruntled much?
You're right the hiring manager is going to make the decision on who they want to make an offer to for the position. It's their position to fill after all, but to suggest that HR doesn't matter is a bit extreme. The "boxes" HR checks are the points mentioned below to make sure that the process was followed with the candidate so that the final offer can be made. So yes, the hiring manager selects the person and yes HR is involved. You can't just hire anyone if it violates laws, and you can't ask or discuss marital status as part of the hiring process. It doesn't matter even if you're the CEO.
Whether you agree or disagree with management since the merger is not relevant to a hiring situation.
I like how HR thinks that anything they do matters. If management wants to hire someone, then they will hire someone. HR is just checking boxes but the outcome has already been determined. HR is having trouble wrapping their minds around this concept while the rest of the company has been experiencing this since the merger.
This is why we call it a "clown show" because nothing you do matters, the clowns are going to do whatever they want anyway.
yep bots on both sides fighting each other for votes like that makes something more correct :) forget bot votes and read what people said. i think the post on the law says how it is. can't fight facts computer bots!!! now let's see how many votes i get. ;)
Lots of bots working overtime on this one, where there is smoke there is fire
For the OP, businesses in the US that employ more than 15 workers are subject to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act which is a federal law that prohibits discrimination based on certain characteristics of a person. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is the federal agency that enforces Title VII. While some states also have specific laws against marital status discrimination, federal law often considers marital status discrimination as discrimination based on the s-x of the individual. It's because of this law why you can't ask questions directly or indirectly about marital status during interviews. HR at these larger companies conduct background checks to verify prior employment, educational history, and references as well as directly interviewing candidates to ensure that the candidate qualifies for the position they applied to. This layer of HR during the hiring process is part of the vetting process and ensures the company is following all federal and state laws. For these reasons, I have no doubt that the hired person you refer to had qualities, experience, and/or skills that allowed them to be hired regardless of marital status.
oh it's even better than that! Yesterday it was flooded against OP... then overnight OP flooded it the other way. They're both mad over something that isn't a problem.
OP struck a nerve with someone and now there is a fuming-mad individual flooding the page with votes. I am giggling about it right now :-)
Why is thread getting so many reactions? Over 600. Bots?
boo! hiss! how dare anyone actually use reason and bring up that HR must validate candidates. We just want to be mad because someone makes a crazy claim behind anonymous posting!
I'm hearing that this company is going to require people wear only white socks and black shoes starting Monday! WFB (Work from Bathroom) must be followed every third and fourth Tuesday of the month. Standing only at your desks on Thursdays (chairs will be removed). To conserve energy and help the bottom line, power will be off every Wednesday at the offices, however you must be there.
You heard it here first!
Fiserv never hires someome without background check. Recruitmet team, HR and interviewers play big role in hiring. People are hired based on capabilities not based on relationships.
Honestly I'm not sure which is funnier: the fact that Guy posted under two fake identities or the fact that he said "lul". Picturing that antique saying "lul" gave me a good laugh.
lul hr reply gets downvotes because people don't like facts. don't let facts get in the way of conspiracy theories hidden behind anonymous posts. people are d-mb. hope you have that tinfoil hat on tight
When a spouse is hired, HR has to be involved to validate the candidate's qualifications before an offer can be presented. If the wife was hired she has skills that fit the role she took. I see DNA is used at banks. Maybe she has a finance degree or was a teller at one time? Maybe she worked with a different application that is similar to DNA or connects to that product. Maybe they're going to add new features she has experience in that DNA doesn't have. Maybe as someone else said she does customer support calls or she writes up / tracks issues from clients. Maybe she's a tester or writes documentation or has a project manager background. None of that would require an IT background.
The point is HR had to qualify before hiring. The original post draws conclusions just because a wife works on the same team as a husband. Spouses on the same team happens more than people realize in businesses.
What do you expect at the new First Fiserv.
Huh? This post would make more sense if the title of the person was given. I mean if the person was hired as an entry level customer support role on the phones taking calls for DNA... so what. So was she given a role she didn't deserve?