You guys should look into the ATS and how it works.. minority status, veteran status. It matters. The only way to get around it is to know a hiring manager, someone really high up, or someone in HR.
I've never been in the military, and I see that as one of my greatest mistakes looking back. My Dad was in the Army during the Korean conflict and did what he loved (29th Infantry Division Band), got out and opened a music store. My best friend joined the Marines. Many others I know and respect, regardless of where they were in the service. Long story short though, I didn't enlist due to the fear of being assigned where I didn't fit, combined with my knowledge that I didn't "need" anyone guiding my path. Foolish, looking back.
To address your question, I believe folks who served deserve the same shake anyone else does when they get out into the 'real' world. "Having served" means a LOT - but that can be a lot of good, or a lot of bad. So military service can increase or decrease their applicability to the position I'm interviewing them for, but it still boils down to the person. Being in the military can teach you a lot, but that doesn't mean people always learn. Case in point, when I was younger I worked in a music store as an electronics technician. I learned from my boss, and became quite proficient in about a year, how to repair most electronics at component level. Helps that I already knew the basics and already had interests in electronics. We had to fire the one other tech because he was a creepy pedo (not kidding), and we ultimately hired a Navy Senior Chief who happened to be over the ET (Electronics Training) school at Great Lakes Naval Base. He presented well, interviewed well, was retired from service and wanted to continue in the field he loved. He apparently figured working with the "menial" kind of stuff us civilians have was going to be relatively easy and more enjoyable when compared to the highly complex military hardware he was used to. To put it bluntly, he learned he was wrong. Very wrong. One of the first obstacles he had was a personal one - I didn't stand at attention and address him as Senior Chief when he entered the room. I said "Good morning, Dennis." He got through that one pretty well, but it was still a big cultural shift. The next obstacle that was more difficult was the concept of working alone. In our shop, you grabbed a piece of equipment off the rack and went to work on it. Once you fixed and tested it, you finished the work order and called the customer. When the customer arrived you would stop work, greet him, answer any questions and send him upstairs to pay. This was a foreign concept - he's a technician, where were the people who do the other tasks? He got through that one too, and actually did quite well with the customers. I think that actually helped him a lot. But the straw that broke the camel's back, one my boss didn't do much to help, was his lack of applicable skills. When it came to technical ability, the Navy taught him a lot but in a VERY narrow window. He didn't know how to diagnose, he knew how to follow a troubleshooting guide. He didn't actually know electronics, he knew process. Where my boss threw a big wrench into the gears was when Senior Chief was trying to fix an amplifier (Peavey CS800) and in his long course of trying to fix it he blew it up worse. Angry, my boss hastily collected the components, picked it up and slammed it on the bench in front of me. "Fix this." Being 19 years old, I kept my mouth shut and did what he asked, in about 10 minutes (common failure, we repaired them frequently). Senior Chief took it like you might expect, as an act of disrespect. He resigned soon after, but not after sitting down and having a bit of a heart to heart with me. I will always hold that man in high regard, but I also learned first hand how simply having the military credentials doesn't always mean the person will be your best match for a given position. Given the same opportunity to learn as I did, I'm betting he could have picked up the skills. But, my hunch is he was paid a whole lot more than I was so the expectations to perform were higher.
Personally, I don't believe age, race, color, creed, etc. directly have any indication on suitability for the position. I believe you can be a member of a designated group of people based on whatever attribute, but that doesn't mean you will perform similarly. I hire based purely on whether I believe you can fit well in the position, you could be a green blob with carrots for fingers for all I care.
He gave you three. You getting greedy?Paragraphs please.
He gave you three. You getting greedy?
I actually do know how our ATS works. The only way we will know about VEVRAA or other Veteran status is if it’s disclosed by the applicant, just like any of the other protected status/demographic information.
We specifically shield that info from the recruiters and hiring managers.
We do aggregate and report it as required, but that’s handled by a team outside of talent acquisition.
Interesting, all the ones I've seen programmed assign points based on answers given by applicants....
So something FISHY definitely is going on with many companies and their ATS systems. The government too.
We’re a F100 company and our recruiters’ #1 complaint is we don’t have a ‘real’ ATS/Candidate Relationship Management system. While it’s a challenge, the best thing we did was not create a metric/performs objective tied to a recruiter’s ability to produce an applicant pool based on certain demographic responses.
We also human read every resume, so yes we are quite different in that approach, but I expect that to change over the next 24 months.
We have a huge bias against keyword matches, which is what everyone tries to sell us.
Man your company is awesome. If more companies did that they wouldn't have 300 positions unfilled. They're all waiting for the perfect resume along with the perfect demographic candidate.