Comparing hiring practices--Who is doing it right?

[WillowRunVortex]

Last time I checked I was entitled to my own opinion whether popular or not. Had you stayed at Southwest, you would be a Millionaire today. We have never furloughed, so your decision to leave might have been your disparagement for Southwest. I was at Bob Pratt's retirement party, and he was a great guy, not just for his character, but for the fact that he stuck with this airline. We have had guys leave in every decade since our inception, always thinking that the grass is always greener. For those that have left I have no love lost, the place is obviously better without them. I never rule anything out but with all due respect Sir, the next 20 years in this industry wont be anything like the last 20, and I have to live it.

"so your decision to leave might have been your disparagement for Southwest"

Canyonblue, where did you get "disparagement" from, reading what I read?
THE MAN STATED THAT HE WAS "ROOTING FOR YOU GUYS ALL THE WAY"!!!

What country you from Canyonblue?, What? , What aint no country I ever heard of,,,they speak english in What? What? English M... Fu... do you speak it? YES!!! Then you understand what I'm saying...........

JEEEEZ

 

[capt. megadeth]

If we can agree all airlines, to varying degree make mistakes in there hiring, then at least SWA is willing to reinterview you in the hopes that perhaps either you have changed your approach or perhaps a different set of interviewers will see it differently. No matter how you shake it, I think it is a better deal than like some majors who once they shut you down you have zero chance of ever getting another shot.

Auto*****,
I love ya and I agree with you although it is still annoying (the "you may be good enough the 2nd or 3rd time around")

 

[typhoonpilot]

I was hired by Don Ogden in the office of my former boss at a failing airline after about 20 minutes of one professional aviator shooting the breeze with another professional aviator. We each knew where the other was coming from, what we were discussing, and what it meant for each of us. It ended with a handshake and a May, 1971 classdate at UAL ( Don picked up the tab, as it should be ).

Shortly after, Pratt, Salazar, Cabeza, Benjamin, Tietjen, Hoyt, Hampton, Matter, Deakins, Everett, Steele, and Burk ( all from the same unfortunate company ) were given the same dignified, professional courtesy by a very fine gentleman who had some serious history behind his name and whose judgement could be trusted ( maybe someday you can make the same claim; today, however, is apparently not that day ).

From other sources came Welch, Van Oversheld, Cohen, Patterson, and others, fine gentlemen to a man. Your now #1 guy, Sprague, came along ( after a stint as an appliance salesman at Sears ) from the same non-sked as I was leaving SWA in early '73. I helped him find his first apartment in DAL. He's an absolutely first-class guy, and always was.

I have followed the history of SWA with a very personal interest and rooted for you every step in the process. I cut my teeth in aviation with these guys and they are my heros. I am proud of them and am glad to see them hang in there and reap the rewards they earned. You, my friend, walk on their shoulders. Not the shoulders of some batch of paper shufflers who expect you to show up with a certified copy of your parent's marriage license to prove you're not a bastard, and then tell them your best "...there I was, when all of a sudden..." story. Real aviators don't need this monkey motion to size up one another; they just know because, when you're the guy they want, it's obvious even without your parent's certified marriage license.

As evidenced from your posts, you have a lot to learn. Get humble, Junior, because the taller that high horse you're riding, the longer and more painful your inevitable fall to the ground will be. And, in today's airline biz, you can NEVER rule that out.

And, no, I did not invent the internet.

Thanks Bafanguy, that is almost exactly how I would have pictured it.


TP

 

[Resume Writer]

Luvchild is correct as to why HR is involved in the hiring process. The legalities of hiring are very complex.


To say that HR screws up the hiring process is inaccurate at best. To also say that airlines are the only business that has HR involved is also untrue. While a person might be "interviewed" for an accountant position by a department manager, I can assure you that HR was involved in the process from the beginning to ensure the qualification requirements were met. HR is also the department that conducts background checks in most companies. This method is valid for government positions, private and public companies and non-profit organizations.

The chief complaint I hear from HR folks is that the department managers have to constantly be reminded not to ask illegal questions. It is these managers that get companies in hot water legally because they ask illegal questions.

Further, in many companies, the hiring process involves what is called a "stakeholder" interview, which is in essence what the airlines conduct. Stakeholders are anyone that will have direct contact with the potential employee. Most of the time it involves a frontline employee, a manager and the HR representative. This can be with everyone in the same room or three separate interviews.

The reason SWA and other airlines have a "standard" interview process is to ensure that it is fair AND legal - no matter which person conducts the interview.

I can tell you that I conduct interview presentations every three months at Career Expos. This is a topic I have researched and discussed with candidates for many years.

In addition, I apply for positions and go out on interviews every six months. There is a method to my madness. In order to be an effective resume writer and interview prep coach, I need to know the process my clients will go through. I am one of the few, if not the only, resume writer and interview coach that does this.

No airline or any other company has the "perfect" interview process - not even SWA. They have high turnover in some departments - namely the Customer Service Agent and Ramp Agent positions. Is that a product of the interview process? Maybe, maybe not. I think it is the fact that they pay people about $8.50 an hour to work thankless positions. One of the highest stations for turnover in the SWA system is BWI. I am sure the people in that area can probably make more money on welfare than SWA - or any other airline - can pay them. However, this is true for any airline and these positions - not just SWA.

The latest trend is screening individuals prior to the selection for a telephone or face-to-face interview. JetBlue does this, as does Eli Lilly pharmaceuticals. They ask questions and require the potential employee to share stories in written form to ascertain whether they have the qualifications necessary to meet their business requirements. Believe me, how you answer these questions does make a difference.

Just my two cents on the subject.

Kathy

 

[CapnVegetto]

If the company wants to require a type rating as a condition of employment, that's fine too. But I think it is lame that you basically won't be called for an interview without one, so you get one and then they turn you down anyways........lame. I think that SWA HR has gotten a little full of themselves since they all of a sudden have all these pilots wanting to work there and I find that to be a turnoff. You all can get all pi$$y with me if you want, but I am entitled to my opinion.

I agree with megadeth on this one. Why the hell should I go out and spend $6000-$10000 of my money for a SHOT at SWA? I know it's a good place to work, but it's not THAT good. How many guys out there have spent that money and SWA has said 'sorry!!", or have not even called them? I don't have a problem with them requiring a 737 type to work there, but I do have a problem with them requiring it for an interview. As far as I know, they technically don't, but the only way I would ever spend that kind of money was if I had already been hired and were on my way there.

 

[bafanguy]

Last time I checked I was entitled to my own opinion whether popular or not.

CB,

Agreed 100%. If I appeared to snap at you, I apologize.

My point in this "discussion" ( and it's merely a discussion since nothing material comes from it) is how sad it is to see the employment practises deteriorate from what they were to what they are...that's all. Both parties entering the employment/inteview transaction with shields full up, lawyers figuratively in tow, and jumping through silly hoops is an unfortunate arena in which to begin what's supposed to be a lifelong, trusting relationship. No amount of support or lament from any quarter is going to change anything, but it's a subject worth exploring for its historical perspective, if nothing else.

Of course, each person who gets hired thinks that particular process must be an absolute stroke of genius. After all, they got hired so the system must be wise and all-seeing in all aspects !! These days, I would think the feeling is closer to a benign form of Stockholm Syndrome that an objective assessment of the process.

This is waaay off subject, but as willowrunvortex mentioned, I have cheered on the company full tilt and have nothing but warm, enthusiastic feelings for SWA for a couple of reasons: I want to see all the people I know there doing well because they have earned it. It's nice to see good things happen to good people. Second, SWA is the last hope to prove to other airline management groups that MANAGEMENT is the key piece of the puzzle ( not that they'll notice, acknowledge, or act on it but they have been shown the truth that only management can create the environment which avoids the current crisis of trust that has a major part preventing the legacy carriers from saving themselves. This demonstrates the counterproductivity of relationships begun in distrust. ).

Even further off subject would be my reasons for leaving or Bob's reasons for staying. As a further bit of historical perspective, in '73, DL was about the size SWA is now ( pretty close pilotwise...my original number was 3,000-something ) and while it was certainly quite different from what I'd known owing to scale effects, it was still a pretty collegial, pleasant, stable place to work. The pilot group was actually quick to espouse respect/trust/support for management, and visa versa. There was usually a bit of head-butting around contract time but it seemed more symbolic than heart-felt. One of the founders of ALPA, Charlie Dolson, actually went on to become CEO. So, all things considered, as a consolation prize it turned out OK.

But, things can sure change; it's that type and scope of change you guys need to watch out for. Once past the initial few years of your history, you haven't been in any struggles for survival and haven't been tested in that way. Maybe you'll break the mold and not have to take that test.

P.S. Thanks for the financial advice. You don't need to hold any telethon for me, but I'm not too proud to accept contributions to my worthy cause.

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

A few reasons why I think SWA hiring is done the way its done.

Low Cost--

For SWA, the 737 type saves SWA some money. FAA approved academics that are shorter (I think) and more of a review for new hires. It ensures military hires good enough to handle a fast paced 2 week type program. Few if any failures on upgrade to Captain. Maybe cheaper insurance.

Culture (Esprit de corps)--

This is a biggee for SWA. Pilots have something in common. They talk about their type class. It's a rite of passage. You feel closer to your new hire and line brethren. You have to be highly motivated to spend $7000 to make yourself look more competitive. They not only want but need you to get along with other company employees. If the pilots aren't hired to fit into the culture, why should any other department be held to that standard?

Culture = Lower Cost

I believe there is a synergistic effect here. With a definite and positive culture, you feel closer to your fellow employees. You don't want to leave, less turnover. You want to come to work, more productive.

Any of you work somewhere with a pervasive negative attitude in the air? Whatever the reason, it stinks. That environment makes people want to find employment elsewhere, work less and degrades the quality of the work they accomplish.

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

bafanguy,

Amen.

"in '73, DL was about the size SWA is now...it was still a pretty collegial, pleasant, stable place to work. The pilot group was actually quick to espouse respect/trust/support for management, and visa versa. There was usually a bit of head-butting around contract time but it seemed more symbolic than heart-felt...But, things can sure change; it's that type and scope of change you guys need to watch out for. Once past the initial few years of your history, you haven't been in any struggles for survival and haven't been tested in that way. Maybe you'll break the mold and not have to take that test."



This above is very instructive. I hope the spirit of trust and teamwork continues forever at SWA.

 

[xtwapilot]

Resume writer, you just made my point for me. What I was trying to say is that HR's function should be only to do the background checks and other admin duties, they should never have the authority to say yes or no to an applicant, that function should only belong to the department that is hiring. And BTW, I have several friends in other professions such as doctors, business people, engineers, and every time we talk about this, they are amazed at HR's role in pilot hiring. Their respective departments don't defer their authority to HR. After all, who knows what makes a good pilot and coworker, the HR rep who has never been a pilot, or a CP or someone with piloting experience that can seperate within the first 2 minutes the BS from the truth. HR's function in the pilot hiring process should strictly be to act in an admin role, no authority to make the decision to hire. Many airlines give the HR rep an equal vote to hire or not, to me, that is simply wrong.

 

[jetexas]

xtwapilot
Agreed! I have always thought it an insult that non-pilots bear so much weight in hiring pilots. They have not seen what a pilot sees. They don't have the same thought processes. All they do is look at 'numbers', without looking at the soul or spirit of a person. So and so have such and such time...great, call them in! Well, how did they get that time, etc?
I feel also that if it becomes too much work, they just move on. Ie, if someone has a long address history, instead of verifying, they just find someone who has not moved. Long employment history? Same thing. Non-pilots don't understand what it can take..the moving around, the chain of jobs to get there, etc. They haven't seen the weather, night flying, emergencies, diversions, unruly passengers, on time demands, etc, etc. It's hard to understand someone if you have never walked in their shoes, much less to be able to judge them as a worthy employee.