I really do think that the modern way the hiring process works is actually more discriminatory than it has ever been.
A long time ago, the hiring process worked like this:
1. you contact a company about a job opening they had
2. You get scheduled for an interview with your potential boss, either the big boss or guy you'll work directly under or even both.
3. after the initial interviews with all applicants, you either were offered the job or given a second interview
4. after potential second interview and quick background check to verify some facts relevant to the job, again either given job or not.
Today, here's how it works
1. Most times, you "submit" your resume to the "employment opportunity" via a link on a website, where even though you give your resume you have to fill out a long, archaic set of questionnaires that in general make you write your resume into a searchable form for a computer algorithms.
2. If you SEO your resume right, you may get an initial phone interview, again, that's if you are chosen worthy through SEOing your resume to get past algorithms.
3. If the phone interview goes well, then you might get a face-to-face interview. Sometimes you are given a "personality test" or another "test", that you can either take honestly, or game it to get to the next interview.
4. should you get past the BS test, there will probably be 2-4 interviews with people who only see your resume five minutes before you meet, and usually the person you will be meeting with are the "hiring managers/HR professionals" who again, have no clue about you or your experience until just before the interview. Usually they will get whatever the computer will spit out to them.
5. Now comes the vetting by looking at your background. That includes calling past employers, references, looking at your criminal record if you have one, and oddly now your credit report irregardless of the position you are applying for.
6. After all this, they may offer you the opportunity to become an "associate" of the company. Of course, you have to sign a ton of paperwork you will have no time to review or have an attorney review.
See the difference between the modern way of hiring? No wonder a ton of job opportunities are still unfilled, while qualified people are left on the wayside because of how discriminatory the process is. Notice how little human input from the hirer there is, and it's mostly relying on computers. Let me go through some points that are the problem in the modern hiring process.
-Lazy, HR professionals. Sorry any who are reading this, you are one major part of the problem. You are usually tasked with helping out in finding qualified people for the jobs your company have opened. Not too long ago, you actually had to speak with us dirty, filthy masses of unemployed people (I know, you think it's all "eww"), and read resumes. Now you've all gotten lazy and decided to leave and trust computers or farm the work to third parties who have NO clue about the company or who works there, to figure out who's right for a job. So bullshit artists who can SEO their resumes and get through. Also you, or your bosses, figured out it's easier to have the applicant fill out the forms online you are supposed to be responsible for, and then you have all this data to exploit and sell or spam the person with useless emails. Sometimes that's a nice revenue generator.
But you are saying "but I have no time to go through all the resumes I would get the old way..." IT'S YOUR JOB TO! You are one of the main person who is to help hire the correct people for the company, but you refuse to now help and leave it up to artificial, flawed systems. How are you supposed to know if the person knows how to write an accurate, clean resume that search programs just can't read? You won't see those clearly qualified people. but you will see the bullshit artist's, SEOed resume that you will waste time, energy and money to find him out to be a bullshit artist. There's one form of discrimination.
-Archaic applications and "tests" people have to take. Remember in school, you or someone you knew was really knowledgeable in something, but testing showed otherwise? or the smart kid you knew could go to an elite college couldn't because he didn't do well on the SAT? Some people don't "test" well. Some people have minds that just don't do well in tests. It's not a bad thing or a problem, some are not built to "test" well. But the new system on how companies hire people will discriminate these people. On top of it, sometimes the questions or forms or in these tests are so poorly written, even people who do well with it can't, and rather than meet with the person and see how he is, the computers hiring people rely on will take more qualified people out because their minds don't like testing/questionnaire formats.
-The bosses don't get to meet the candidate. Again, HR/hiring people are the ones who have more power to choose who get hired than the boss or direct manager has. To me that's so stupid. Why isn't the manager or boss having the final say after meeting all the candidates going "I like this guy, hire him."? So you have someone who probably has zero idea what the boss/manager needs or wants, having the say if someone can even meet him. That's why I advocate going over the HR person's head and find the boss and contact him directly (Linkedin makes this even easier). HR people are nothing more than a waste of time in the hiring process these days. They tend to be counter productive. Best way to get what you want is to ask and also go straight to the person you need to ask, not some underling.
-The vetting process. Thais is another borderline legal way to quickly discriminate people. It used to be that if you have a job candidate, you would call his past employers, maybe a reference or two, and check if he has any felonies that would be a problem. Not that much and pretty quick to do. Now, it's all that, a ton of references, any infraction you may have had-all of this for the past decade-and a credit check. I get credit checks if you are in a position where you handle money, and even there it's an iffy thing there. Why if I am going for a low level admin job I have to allow them to see how good my credit is. What if I do have a missed payment on something-maybe it's from being out of work at the time-have to do with my ability to get the job done? Again, discrimination of possibly the perfect candidate because of a irrelevant reason.
Hey companies, THIS IS WHY YOU CAN'T GET PEOPLE INTO YOUR COMPANIES!!! it's not the lack of qualified people, it's the moronic, BS, gatekeepers you put up that ineffectively screen candidates. Go back to the old days and actually have your HR or hiring people in your company actually do their jobs, as well as have the managers or boss see all the candidates and let them figure out the right guy for their department. Maybe they find someone who hasn't have the experience asked for, but has that "it factor" the boss sees in the guy that will fit in the company.
Why hasn't this been looked at as a massive discrimination issue? it astounds me.
Finally, When I apply to a job, I"m applying, not submitting, to a job. The term submitting means a company wants you to "submit" to them. I don't, I just apply for an open job position. That's another entry in the future where I'll tel you the difference.