Interviews: Common Courtesy by Companys?

[bobbysamd]

Post-interview courtesy, or lack thereof, and age discrimination

They may be busy and of course, they have a thankless task in choosing candidates and rejecting others - BUT that is still no excuse for plain rudeness and inconsideration. Especially if you were told outright that they would contact you.

It is NOT a question of obligation, it is plain courtesy, pure and simply. This is exactly what distinguishes a great company from a mediocre one. If this is the way they treat prospective job candidates, then consider how they might treat their actual employees.

Originally posted by outermarket
Of course at the interview they could see me and my salt and pepper hair with 25 years of professional experience on paper. I could tell they were just going through the motions....iwhat was obvious to me at the end of that interview was that these guys never showed me the ops center, or introduced me to anyone, they took me back to the airport 5 hours before the return flight home, and it was their flight arrangments, they knew right then I was not going to get the job. Also, they never asked the first dispatch related question, none! All personal type Q's.

So what was this if not due to my age . . . .

* * * *

Getting an aviation job as a pilot, dispatcher or any other licensed position is a labor of love and emotion, it is what we are made of, this is not a job at McDonalds....it hurts to get rejected, especially over and over again, and you noone can tell you why. Your friends and professional associates cant see why your not getting hired, you have done all the write things, resume is perfect, hair combed....and you get the bathroom door slammed in your face by the girl you truly love!

This is the best analogy I could come up with, but do you see how personal this can get for people?

What excellent comments!! I second b757 driver and Outermarket 100%.

My experience is the interview process frequently provides valuable insight into how the company runs and how employees are treated. I will provide a non-aviation example.

I had applied to a law firm not long after I graduated from paralegal school. The office manager called me. I kept trying to return her calls but couldn't reach her. I even called at specific times. I finally reached her on a Friday and she asked me to come in for an interview. I said, of course, how about next week. She said "no, how about this afternoon?" I wasn't really prepared, but I also wasn't working, so I came in. I met with her and liked her immediately, which helped, but the process that day was not very organized at all. It almost was as if I arrived unexpectedly. I met with two partners, one of whom I had met before during school. I was later called back for a second interview with the principal shareholder. This woman put me on the hotseat with what I thought were inane and illegal questions about if I lived alone, and something about age, etc, ad nauseum. I left the place angry at the illegal questions and their interview process in general. Several days later, the office manager called me and said I was not hired. I told her I did not appreciate the illegal questions from the boss. She agreed with me and said she had cautioned her before not to ask such personal questions. Well, as it turned out, I was hired later, and the lawfirm was just as disorganized and wierd as my interview process, and was a revolving door!!

Having provided that example, my best aviation example is my Comair Aviation Academy interview. I spent megabucks to fly two-thousand miles from Arizona to Sanford for what turned out to be a lousy fifteen minutes with the Chief Flight Instructor and a one-hour flight. It was done in a morning. I could tell after this "interview" I wouldn't be hired, but after traveling that distance and spending that kind of money I thought I would rate a rejection letter. It never came - and the stories about the poor treatment suffered by CAA students and instructors abound.

There is absolutely, positively no excuse not to inform an applicant by either phone or letter whether he/she has been hired or rejected. You don't let people hang. To do so is outright rude, not to mention unprofessional and inconsiderate. Being busy is no justification but simply a disgusting cop-out for lack of courtesy and consideration.

Finally, I hear Outermarket's age discrimination suspicions five-by. I might be the only one around here who hears them. He titles his post, "Age Discrimination is alive and well." D@mn right it is! And I had people on another discussion try to convince me otherwise. Read my posts on that subject. Sorry to hear, for his sake, that someone besides me has been there and done that, though it gives my complaints credence as me not being the only one to suffer from age discrimination - which is something I knew anyway. He probably was brought in to check off an ADEA square. I'd bet I was during at least a couple of my interviews years ago.

 

[bobbysamd]

Re: Let's Find Out The Answer (or at least receive informed feedback)

[Kathy]also asked if it would be helpful if she were to join flight info and participate in the discussions. Does anyone want to see her do that? She said she didn't want to look like she was trying to "advertise" by participating. She just wants to help.

I would love to see Kathy participate. I'd love to read her thoughts about the hiring process, how to surmount the institutional hurdles one faces to be hired in aviation, and receive some informed feedback.

 

[rettofly]

Re: Perspective

First, when I put an ad on one of the boards, I try to be very specific as to who we want and what we want them to do.

Language like MUST have a Lear 55 Type rating, 1000pic, be current in aircraft, have flown 135.........That is pretty specific. Now the question is -- why did I not send or call the other hundreds and tell them they were not going on. Well unfortunately the invention of email and job services means that it is twice as easy to send me your resume. If you actually had to take the time to hand type a new letter every time, perhaps an employer would not have to be bombarded with resumes.

In every case in which I was able to discern a snail mail address or FAX number, I've taken the trouble to send a cover letter and resume' to follow up the e-mail. I've made innumerable phone calls to unanswered voice mailboxes. I've been very careful to limit my submissions to the postings for which I was realistically qualified. I'm not a 121 furloughee. I've made it clear in my cover letters that I'm willing to relocate.
If e-mail makes it so easy for a bunch of wannabees to apply, it also makes it easy for the screeners (HR or Operations types) to send a "have a nice life" message. So.... why do I stand before the wall of silence?

"Finally, I hear Outermarket's age discrimination suspicions five-by. I might be the only one around here who hears them."

No, you're not!

 

[English]

Kathy is a wealth of information. I'd just hate to see her ripped to shreds by some of the flamers on this board, just for trying to help. She's already been wrongly accused of making up fake screennames (including mine!) in order to put her name out there.

So, I'll do it for her instead....

Kathy Sweeney, Certified Professional Resume Writer (and all-around nice gal) www.awriteresume.com

 

[bobbysamd]

Hiring discourtesy

If e-mail makes it so easy for a bunch of wannabees to apply, it also makes it easy for the screeners (HR or Operations types) to send a "have a nice life" message. So.... why do I stand before the wall of silence?

Internet and high-tech has not improved courtesy and consideration of others. They still just blow people off because they don't want to deal with applicant e-mails. They undoubtedly see it as spam and move it to the electronic round file - just as they pitched resumes into the round file years ago.

 

[Publishers]

on subject

While we are on the subject, more than half of the recent resumes that I received were just the form exactly as it came from the job post company.

Half of them had as an objective something totally different than what we stated we were looking for. Example: Objective-- airline employment when we are not an airline.

Location -- if I advertise for a dispacther and you reply but are in Washington state and another guy is here in MIA, you are going to the round file or the delete button without me reading farther.

Like in my pilot example, if I do not see Lear 55 under the type section -- it is dumped. Not Read. not replied to.

If I thought you were the guy and the next guy comes through the door blows me away, you are instant history. If you call me, I will tell you, but I am not spending time trying to find you.

Much of what you have written on here is correct and it would be nice if it could happen. The courtesy is somewhat lacking. STill this is why guys like Plato Rhyne was considered such a god, he could make or break your career at Delta.

How many people did he call back.

 

[bobbysamd]

Hiring BS and legal authority supporting age discrimination

All this interviewing I have been on, ones that they paid for and the ones that I paid for, were just ADEA, and EEO trips. When the push comes to shove they can use any rational they want to disqualify you from the race and not tell you why. The laws have turned out to hurt us more than they help us, in that they can still discriminate for any reason they want and get away with it . . . and even if they did talk to us, we would not hear the truth, we get the standard answer that someone else more qulified got the job.....

(emphasis added)

I couldn't have said it better. These comments, in a nutshell, are why employment discrimination cases are so hard to prove.

The airlines cite age as a bona fide occupational qualification to hide behind age discrimination. The following is an excerpt from Coupi v. Federal Express Corporation (this underlining is a link to the case). This was a Federal Court case in which a pilot who had turned age 60 sued to beat the age 60 rule. The excerpt explains the BFOQ defense that airlines use as one weapon to discriminate because of age.

As we have indicated, it is not unlawful for an employer "to take any action otherwise prohibited [by the ADEA] . . .where age is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the particular business. . . ." 29 U.S.C. '623(f)(1). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has elaborated on this statutory "BFOQ defense" as follows:

"An employer asserting a BFOQ defense has the burden of proving that (1) the age limit is reasonably necessary to the essence of the business, and either (2) that all or substantially all individuals excluded from the job involved are in fact disqualified, or (3) that some
of the individuals so excluded possess a disqualifying trait that cannot be ascertained except by reference to age. If the employer's objective in asserting a BFOQ is the goal of public safety, the employer must prove that the challenged practice does indeed effectuate that goal and that there is no acceptable alternative which would better advance it or equally advance it with less discriminatory impact." 29 C.F.R.
'1625.6(b).

In maintaining the age 60 rule subsequent to enactment of the ADEA, the FAA has never expressly purported to establish a bona fide occupational qualification for ADEA purposes. See Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Boeing Co., 843 F.2d 1213, 1220 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 889 (1988). That is not the FAA's function; "Congress
has not provided for agency determination of whether a particular age is a BFOQ for a particular occupation." Hahn v. City of Buffalo, 770 F.2d 12, 15-16 (2d Cir. 1985). Nonetheless, as we shall explain, the FAA performed the same sort of analysis that a court would undertake in determining the
legitimacy of a BFOQ defense under the framework established by the EEOC regulation.

As to the first element, the FAA determined though not in so many words, of course that its age 60 requirement "is reasonably necessary to the essence of the business. . . ." 29 C.F.R. '1625.6(b)(1). The business in this case is that of flying aircraft engaged in Part 121 operations. The rule was first promulgated in 1959 "because of concerns that a hazard to safety was presented by utilization of aging pilots in air carrier operations." See 60 Fed. Reg. 65977 (1995). The FAA has reaffirmed the rule several times, most recently in 1995, noting that "[c]learly. . .there is progressive anatomic, physiological, and cognitive decline associated with aging. . . ." Id. at 65981.

The FAA has thus decided that safety concerns made the age 60 rule "reasonably necessary" for pilots in Part 121 operations. Safety concerns may be factored into the BFOQ calculus if safety goes "to the core of the
employee's job performance" that is, when the safeguarding of human lives is an inherent part of the job. United Auto. Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187, 203 (1991). Safety, in our view, goes "to the core" of an aircraft pilot's performance.

(emphasis added)

(The outcome was the court held that it could not strike down the Age 60 rule because the FAA was not a defendant in the case.)

See what older pilots and other personnel are up against? The airlines always raise "safety," successfully, as their defense against age discrimination. A similar case is Murnane v. American Airlines, Inc., 667 F.2d 98, 101 (D.C. Cir. 1981) ("we find the maximization of safety to be reasonably necessary to the normal operation' of [the defendant airline]"). But, as outermarket notes, you'll never see "age" as a reason why you weren't hired. They'll say they hired someone who is better qualified, or, more subjectively, say they did not like the applicant. Et cetera.

Did I mention that I have a friend who had interviewed with Trans States who found out that he was rejected because of age?

Do not believe that age discrimination does not exist in airline hiring. I've had people here argue with me strenously to the contrary. Now, you have seen some legal authority that is used to "justify" it.

 

[Publishers]

Bobby

I totally concur with the above.

The thing is that all of life is a case of discrimination, some for better, some for worse.

If the guy hiring does not like red headed people, heh, they are probably not going to get hired.

Like my example over on the thread of the hypothetical airline, there not only is a good old boy network, but, we all have that tendancy. We hang with and employ people we like and feel are compatible to us.

Companies are culture related and all have definitive cultures. It is entirely possible to have someone very qualified who just does not fit the culture.

The bottom line is that we all discriminate, we all have preferences, and we all have good old boy friends we would hire if we were in position to do so. The question is --Is this bad?

My answer-- doesn't make any difference -- it is the way we all are.

 

[b757driver]

Shame on them

And my answer is that then don't blame the unemployed for being unemployed and getting extensions! You can't have it both ways.

Most intelligent people have known about this for some time. Glad someone has finally admitted that employers are regularly violating the law while hiding behind "we are an equal opportunity employer, we love diversity, we don't discriminate against age, sex, national origin etc" I think everyone knows this is BS. It makes a mockery of the whole system and degrades the whole process, and as Publisher says, isome is less so and others worse.

Discrimination should be used only for selecting the criteria for doing the job - nothing else. Sure, you may have a candidate that you like better, and that is probably OK but to blatantly discriminate against the criterion given above is nothing short of hypocrisy. It seems to be the way "forward" for many companies and does nothing to promote goodwill and getting the best. It is nothing to be proud of.

 

[Resume Writer]

Just Joined the Forum!

I just got around to joining the forum. I want to say thank you to those of you who felt it would be a good idea for me to join. As New2Flying said, I just would like to see what help I can provide and possibly some insight into the whole HR/Airline game. I will do my best to answer any questions that anyone on the board has; if I do not know the answer, I will try to find it for you.

Just a little about my background. I was in the airline industry for 16 years in several different positions. Some of those include recruitment, international sales and marketing, customer relations, revenue accounting, yield management and I worked all of the line positions, including the last few years as a Flight Attendant. Prior to working in the airline industry, I was a Hiring Manager for a Fortune 500 company. Since 1987, I have owned a resume writing and employment consulting business. While I specialize in the airline industry, I compose resumes for all positions; from front line workers up to CEOs.

The reason I tell you this information is NOT to advertise, but to let you know that I do have a substantial background in hiring. I really try to help my clients in all aspects of their job search. I will try to do the same for those individuals with questions on the boards.

Ok, enough about me...

I called a Recruitment Manager friend of mine and asked about the issue of hiring individuals not returning phone calls. She told me some really interesting information.

First, her company, while small, gets about 200-500 resumes per position posted. This just confirmed what I already knew from my other hiring manager friends.

Second, and I found this particularly interesting. She said it was easier if people had email addresses on their resumes and cover letters. That way they could set up an "auto responder" to reply to the candidate when they had received the resume. She told me that when people fax or send in their information, they are not as likely to send a reply, as it is costly.

Let's figure it logically. If they get even 100 resumes a day faxed or mailed, that would be 37.00 a day times 200 days a year (just an estimate). That is $7400 a year. Of course, that is not the cost for paying someone to mail all of those replies. Let's say they pay someone $15k a year for that job. As you can see, it adds up. It is cost prohibitive. Also, HR is primarily a support function and if upper management could eliminate that department, they would!

Third, most of the HR folks do not just do hiring. They do employee benefits, compensation reports, annual reviews, budgeting, training - the list goes on. As you can probably see, they have a great deal on their plate, as management expects them to perform.

When I told her about some of the people being promised jobs and then not followed through with, she was very surprised. She said that people who make those kind of comments are usually not full time HR people. It is usually the people that are the department managers. While they try to train people in the rules of hiring, they cannot always control the "blunders" that they make. Believe me, after being a hiring manager for 6 years myself, doing stupid things like that get you sued.

When I host the Human Resource Forum at the end of this month, I plan on asking all of these questions. Further, I am going to write a press release addressing this very issue. I think it is time that people in hiring positions (whether they be managers or HR people) take some responsibility for their actions. This is NOT the first time I have heard of this happening.

Now, on to the Age Discrimination, the answer is yes, it does exist. Is it supposed to? Absolutely not. When I did hiring, I could have cared less how old someone was; I just wanted to know if they could do their job. In fact, in one of my departments in retail, I had many older ladies in the department (infants and kids clothing), because they enjoyed it and people liked buying from these women. (I guess they saw them as grandmothers) Did that mean I did not hire younger workers for these positions - nope. But I found that placing them in positions where they would sell to their peers was a better fit.

Now, while it is not supposed to happen, imagine yourself as an HR manager. The top bosses are putting pressure on you to hire younger people because they want the best cost/benefit. In other words, how much time could they get out of someone for the amount of training that was required. Do I agree with it - no. My only point here is to provide everyone with a reality check of what really goes on. Unless you have deep pockets, you will not be able to sue for it. Further, you have to "prove" that the discrimination happened, and believe me, they will find some other reason why they did not hire you.

When I have older workers contact me to do their resume and associated job search documents, the first thing I look at is how we can effectively cover their age. What I mean by this is that I have several people who want to include things they did back in the 60's or 70's. I only go back about 15 years, and at the most 20. My job is to get the job seeker in front of the hiring managers through effectively written documents. Then it is up to them to prove themselves.

There are many things I suggest older workers do. One is to get updated clothing. The next would be to go to a professional colorist and have their hair done. While some of the men on here may think that is silly, it does work - IF it is done by a professional.

I hope I have answered some of the questions people have asked. If there are questions that people have, you can feel free to private message me. I will try to answer them as quickly as possible, but I have a 9 month old daughter who is quite the mobile little one! In addition to her, I also have a son and many clients that I must attend to keep the roof over my head. I promise I will do my best to reply and to also participate in this forum.

Thank you for allowing me to participate!

Kathy

 

[Wang Chung]

Wouldn’t you think they should have some moral or ethical obligation to update or advise people they have left on the employment ledge

Last year I submitted a resume for a flying position. The CP contacted me by email and told me that he would like to set up a time for a phone interview. He also invited me to submit an online application. I responded immediately- told him I was VERY flexible about scheduling a phone interview (I also did the online app).

He NEVER responded back. Couldn't get ahold of him.

I was hired for a very similar flying position at a different company about one week later. Sort of ironic.

 

[English]

Welcome Kathy!

 

[dispatchguy]

Re: Finally and foremost, the Truth!

mindless drivel and whining deleted....

Herr Outermarket, you whine more than ANYONE I have ever seen on nearly any aviation-related board.

Just thought I would point that out

 

[rettofly]

Re: Just Joined the Forum!

Second, and I found this particularly interesting. She said it was easier if people had email addresses on their resumes and cover letters. That way they could set up an "auto responder" to reply to the candidate when they had received the resume. She told me that when people fax or send in their information, they are not as likely to send a reply, as it is costly.


The top bosses are putting pressure on you to hire younger people because they want the best cost/benefit.

There are many things I suggest older workers do. One is to get updated clothing. The next would be to go to a professional colorist and have their hair done. While some of the men on here may think that is silly, it does work - IF it is done by a professional.

Welcome aboard! Your insight from the perspective of the hiring professional is extremely enlightening.

I have been putting my e-mail address on every resume' that I have sent. To date, only two recipients of e-mailed resume's and cover letters have taken the trouble to click on the "REPLY" button to send an acknowledgement.

Having spent decades in industry before making the career change to aviation, I am very well acquainted with HR practices and management pressure put upon the HR folks. I've put a little pressure on HR myself during those years. I agree that there is pressure to hire young (consistent with meeting minimum experience levels).
There is one factor, however, that mitigates against this practice in pilot recruitment. Every pilot is required by regulations to complete recurrent training AT LEAST once every year. The cost benefit horizon is limited to the recurrent training cycle. Last time I checked, the cost of recurrent training for older pilots was the same as that for younger pilots. Moreover, it could be argued that hiring older pilots has a cost benefit, in that older pilots tend to retire before they reach the higher strata of the salary structure.

The hair color thing is a sore point. My locks have been silvery gray since I was in my thirties. Since I have been unable since last May to obtain a face-to-face interview, this issue has so far been moot.

Just my two cents.

 

[Resume Writer]

>>There is one factor, however, that mitigates against this practice in pilot recruitment. Every pilot is required by regulations to complete recurrent training AT LEAST once every year. The cost benefit horizon is limited to the recurrent training cycle. Last time I checked, the cost of recurrent training for older pilots was the same as that for younger pilots. Moreover, it could be argued that hiring older pilots has a cost benefit, in that older pilots tend to retire before they reach the higher strata of the salary structure.<<

I understand fully about the recurrent training of pilots, however, there is still a cost/benefit factor involved. If someone has the chance to get 20 years out of a pilot, instead of 10, then the cost for training for that pilot is amortized over a longer period, and is outweighed by the productivity gained.

Your argument is valid though about the pay structure of older pilots not reaching the higher pay scales before retirement. However, in most airlines now, the average upgrade time could be anywhere from 5-10 years, with some of the regional carriers upgrading sooner than that. So, if someone is at a regional, then the pay scale argument is not really valid, when the upgrade time is sometimes 3-5 years. At the end of a 10 year work history, the pilot in question would have already made Captain and be at the higher end of the pay scale.

If the company (and I say if) has a retirement plan, then the person who retires at 10 years of service, is an immediate cost burden to the carrier, versus someone who has 10 more years of service in them. So, the argument could be seen either way. I guess it depends on who is sitting on the hiring side of the desk, and what the directives are from upper management.

When I made the comment, I was speaking in general about hiring, not specific to pilots.

Thank you everyone for welcoming me to the boards. Although I have been out of the business for a year, I think you will all agree that aviation gets under your skin! This board is wonderful and I think it is great all the information that everyone is willing to share with each other.

Kathy