Resignation Letter

skoob said:
I was called for a reference on an ex contract staff member. I just said that 'I can confirm that the person was employed from <date> to <date>' I was asked for more info and I replied 'I would not have made him permanent'
end of conversation.
Click to expand...

I've been here for 6 years - trust me, If I go for a interview, they always ask me why I leave the place, I'm very open and honest in my answer.

I CAN'T WORK IN A CRECHE ANYMORE!
 
I was called once, all I said was yes she worked here...
HR recruiters knows the game, they can tell the good from the bad.
 
gdiza said:
I've been here for 6 years - trust me, If I go for a interview, they always ask me why I leave the place, I'm very open and honest in my answer.

I CAN'T WORK IN A CRECHE ANYMORE!
Click to expand...

Hahahahahaha!:D
 
Pitbull said:
huh ?

Did you ever do an interview in your life ?

What do you think a reference is ? a Story about your love life with the Ex-boss's daughter :confused: a Reference is in relation to your work history and work ethic. Personal chatter and gripes is not what companies are after ;)
Click to expand...

If this is what you think a reference merely is, then you are sorely mistaken. And yes, I've attended and conducted 100s of interviews already. And called for many a reference that did not involve static employment details.

EDIT: you bring up work ethic and history - how is that supposedly covered in a static confirmation of employment letter from HR?
 
JK8 said:
I was called once, all I said was yes she worked here...
HR recruiters knows the game, they can tell the good from the bad.
Click to expand...

I think this is where most of the people are missing the point.

HR does not do the employment. They need to make sure the process is fair. They do all the screening and supply me with all the applications. I shortlist a few and send the whole lot back to HR. I will then have a meeting with HR to discuss my selections. They will go through the applications again and maybe get me to add another 2 or 3 to the list based on certain criteria.

I will then do an interview together with the HR partner on each of the shortlisted candidates. The candidates will be scored on certain criteria set out for the said job spec.

Together myself and HR will go through the scores and make sure we select the best candidate/s for the job. A bad reference will not be anywhere in this process. Only the work related details they supplied to us. This is recorded. Not the speech the ex-boss gives about Gdiza one day having a big fall out with his PA and causing the company to lose X amount of money because he deleted said file on system and and and. If there was warning for those he will supply us with the documentation for said offences and we will judge them accordingly.

If I was running a one man corner café yes I would prob speak to his boss via the phone and I will take what he says to heart. Not in the big corporate sector ;)
 
JK8 said:
Hahahahahaha!:D
Click to expand...

No really, one thing you will learn about me is that I'm very honest - no need to lie!

I can bad mouth this place all you want, but meet any EX employees or even someone from this department and they'll agree with everything I've said - as a matter of fact, they'll probably say I'm being nice about it still and probably that I've been way to loyal for far too long.
 
Pitbull said:
If I was running a one man corner café yes I would prob speak to his boss via the phone and I will take what he says to heart. Not in the big corporate sector ;)
Click to expand...

So you've never called for a reference or to double check a supplied reference? It does happen in the "big corporate world", just evidently not at MTN - is this a company policy or your own?

When I receive a sterling written reference, my immediate reaction is to double check the details, in particular - why they allowed the employee to leave if he/she was such an asset and to confirm that what was written is accurate. If I receive a standard confirmation of employment, then I want to know more about the potential employee from his/her previous employer's perspective. Notably, how they worked in a team environment, their successes, what future growth opportunities they saw for the employee, their strengths and weaknesses etc. None of these can be accurately and succinctly conveyed in a confirmation of employment letter and taking the interviewee's word for it is like asking a toddler if they've been good enough to get a cookie. It's just due diligence. I'm not interested in the love triangle between the employee, the receptionist and the cleaner as you imply. I'm interested in background information pertinent to the position they're applying for. How do you not see this as beneficial due diligence for your short-listed candidates?
 
DJK said:
So you've never called for a reference or to double check a supplied reference? It does happen in the "big corporate world", just evidently not at MTN - is this a company policy or your own?

When I receive a sterling written reference, my immediate reaction is to double check the details, in particular - why they allowed the employee to leave if he/she was such an asset and to confirm that what was written is accurate. If I receive a standard confirmation of employment, then I want to know more about the potential employee from his/her previous employer's perspective. Notably, how they worked in a team environment, their successes, what future growth opportunities they saw for the employee, their strengths and weaknesses etc. None of these can be accurately and succinctly conveyed in a confirmation of employment letter and taking the interviewee's word for it is like asking a toddler if they've been good enough to get a cookie. It's just due diligence. I'm not interested in the love triangle between the employee, the receptionist and the cleaner as you imply. I'm interested in background information pertinent to the position they're applying for. How do you not see this as beneficial due diligence for your short-listed candidates?
Click to expand...

I know myself not the HR partners I have worked with before have no time for emo crap on references. I'm interested in your ability to work and perform at said job function. If you have a desire to hunt for emo details I guess that is your preference :o
 
Pitbull said:
I know myself not the HR partners I have worked with before have no time for emo crap on references. I'm interested in your ability to work and perform at said job function. If you have a desire to hunt for emo details I guess that is your preference :o
Click to expand...

Emo details? What are you on about now? The ability of a future employee (one of your short-list) to fulfil the requirements of the position can be more accurately conveyed from someone with previous managerial experience of the short-listed candidate. Nothing to do with emo details. Yes, one can get a fairly accurate picture of a potential employee during the interviews, however that is a one-sided perspective, and not one from management's perspective more often than not. It's just due diligence. If you have the time to post on mybb during the day, then you can certainly make the time to lift up a handset and make a call to their previous employers. How you see any of this as non-beneficial is beyond me. Moreover, if this takes place before an interview, questions can be structured accordingly to see how honest an employee is or to gauge how they cope in pressure scenarios...
 
DJK said:
Emo details? What are you on about now? The ability of a future employee (one of your short-list) to fulfil the requirements of the position can be more accurately conveyed from someone with previous managerial experience of the short-listed candidate. Nothing to do with emo details. Yes, one can get a fairly accurate picture of a potential employee during the interviews, however that is a one-sided perspective, and not one from management's perspective more often than not. It's just due diligence. If you have the time to post on mybb during the day, then you can certainly make the time to lift up a handset and make a call to their previous employers. How you see any of this as non-beneficial is beyond me. Moreover, if this takes place before an interview, questions can be structured accordingly to see how honest an employee is or to gauge how they cope in pressure scenarios...
Click to expand...

very good post/
 
Ok let me make it simple.

1. I need a reliable person to be at work 90+ % of the time.
2. I need someone that can do said job functions.
3. I need someone who is flexible and can be used in other sections if needed.

If Gdiza as an example meets the requirements then he will get an interview. If he has the technical knowledge then he will get the Job.

Plain and simple. I don't care why he's previous company let him go (I will however ask this in the interview [Why did you leave your previous employer]) I already know the answer ;) "Money, location, perks"

No strings, no nothing

I will have his work history from said company.

He worked here for X amount of years, was responsible for AB&C, Attendence history, disaplinary actions with proof. O and Kroll will do the other checks

Cha ching ....
 
@gdiza: this hilarious resignation letter of yours is a worse idea than discussing the fact that you are planning to resign and why with fairly scathing language before you have actually done so from your work internet connection during working hours.

IMO you are headed for some fairly serious reality sandwiches.
 
blunomore said:
Umm, sorry. I was asking you.

You gave up the trader job, so I was asking as to your current occupation.
Click to expand...

Managing a rubber manufacturing business in the morning (family business, don't ask), drawing up a media distribution business plan and financials in the evenings and running a record label on the side, when I choose to make the time...
 
Pitbull said:
Ok let me make it simple.

1. I need a reliable person to be at work 90+ % of the time.
2. I need someone that can do said job functions.
3. I need someone who is flexible and can be used in other sections if needed.

If Gdiza as an example meets the requirements then he will get an interview. If he has the technical knowledge then he will get the Job.

Plain and simple. I don't care why he's previous company let him go (I will however ask this in the interview [Why did you leave your previous employer]) I already know the answer ;) "Money, location, perks"
S
No strings, no nothing

I will have his work history from said company.

He worked here for X amount of years, was responsible for AB&C, Attendence history, disaplinary actions with proof. O and Kroll will do the other checks

Cha ching ....
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like quantity over quality. I guess I just give more weight to a good and verifiable reference than asking the candidate whether they can do the job and hoping for an honest answer.

However it is very circumstantial. In my experience I am hiring managers, marketing staff and senior sales staff. All of which require honesty, integrity, dedication, ability to handle pressure etc as many of these roles are fairly autonomous. I therefore require a little confirmation of what is said in an interview. Sounds like you're hiring within a micro-managing environment in which case you might be able to get away with minimal due diligence, however imho you'd get better quality employees and minimise staff turnover if you followed a more stringent due diligence process...
 
Last edited:
DJK said:
Sounds to me like quantity over quality. I guess I just give more weight to a good and verifiable reference than asking the candidate whether they can do the job and hoping for an honest answer...
Click to expand...

Qualifications and experience does that for you, no need to even ask ;)
That is why Kroll does the checks on the qualifications.

But yes, I think every recruiter has their own way of doing things
 
DJK said:
Sounds to me like quantity over quality. I guess I just give more weight to a good and verifiable reference than asking the candidate whether they can do the job and hoping for an honest answer.

However it is very circumstantial. In my experience I am hiring managers, marketing staff and senior sales staff. All of which require honesty, integrity, dedication, ability to handle pressure etc as many of these roles are fairly autonomous. I therefore require a little confirmation of what is said in an interview. Sounds like you're hiring within a micro-managing environment in which case you might be able to get away with minimal due diligence, however imho you'd get better quality employees and minimise staff turnover if you followed a more stringent due diligence process...
Click to expand...

Assumptions my dear friend, assumptions ;) :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X