Author Topic: Recruitment 2016 (Read 212991 times)

Pac · « **Reply #175 on:** November 18, 2016, 03:34:13 PM »

In the interview pool... Again... 128 of us in there as they didn't blind the cc...

Potentiometer · « **Reply #176 on:** November 18, 2016, 03:47:10 PM »

Yeah that's some real poor form by HR. That stuff is meant to be confidential!

Testuser · « **Reply #177 on:** November 18, 2016, 03:50:42 PM »

Quote from: Pac on November 18, 2016, 03:34:13 PM

In the interview pool... Again... 128 of us in there as they didn't blind the cc...

wow almost can't believe that, someone screwed up bad.
on the plus side at least you know the odds now

Left foot snap · « **Reply #178 on:** November 18, 2016, 03:54:23 PM »

So if they interview every day next week and conduct a max of 8 one hour interviews that would mean there are 40 getting interviewed? Or 80 if there are two interview panels?

kj · « **Reply #179 on:** November 18, 2016, 03:58:21 PM »

50 I've been told. Which works with the original 200 tested and 20 odd fails/no shows.

Pac · « **Reply #180 on:** November 18, 2016, 04:05:20 PM »

I dare say someone will be getting a talking to on Monday. Would love to know how many people have been invite next week. Is there a score to pass the interview? wonder where we sit in the interview pool? Not guaranteed to get an interview in it. Fingers crossed!

swift · « **Reply #181 on:** November 18, 2016, 04:29:53 PM »

So what does interview pool mean? I completed my PAT1 Tuesday afternoon and just got the interview pool email. This is the first time I've come this far.

Potentiometer · « **Reply #182 on:** November 18, 2016, 04:58:55 PM »

Basically, they've ranked the top 50 for the personality profile tests, and will interview them for the first/second drill squad. And when or if they require they will draw another number of applicants for further interviews/drill squads. No guarantees for an interview, the last couple recruitments have put a lot of weight on the profiling, interviewing considerably less applicants.

swift · « **Reply #183 on:** November 18, 2016, 05:19:13 PM »

Ah thanks. My email was near the bottom of that CC list so probably extremely unlikely to get an interview then.

joshman · « **Reply #184 on:** November 18, 2016, 05:30:37 PM »

anyone else not recieved anything yet? I completed Pat 1 on Wed and havnt even gotten the interview pool email yet.

Potentiometer · « **Reply #185 on:** November 18, 2016, 05:33:06 PM »

Wouldn't look into that cc list too hard. It could also be near the bottom as you were the first few added to the list i.e just outside of the top 50. Or it's completely random/alphabetical/applicant id etc etc. as I said earlier, don't stress yourself trying to work out the method to the madness, it's a brutal, stab in the dark sort of process for them. Carry on with your life, stay fit, and you may hear something, or may not.

beater · « **Reply #186 on:** November 18, 2016, 05:38:01 PM »

At least HR are consistent. Stuffed up last time too

Left foot snap · « **Reply #187 on:** November 18, 2016, 05:43:14 PM »

Quote from: beater on November 18, 2016, 05:38:01 PM

At least HR are consistent. Stuffed up last time too

Care to expand?

beater · « **Reply #188 on:** November 19, 2016, 02:40:45 AM »

Siting of truck licenses and uploading of first aid etc meant I originally didn't even get to first stage

Roscoe · « **Reply #189 on:** November 19, 2016, 06:55:17 AM »

gusto1 · « **Reply #190 on:** November 19, 2016, 07:26:58 AM »

Well said Roscoe.
Maybe you could run the HR department!

Left foot snap · « **Reply #191 on:** November 19, 2016, 07:54:03 AM »

Every person that applied could lay claim to the fact that they are "intelligent, keen to learn, has a fantastic work ethic, and is a valued, respected and respectful member of his team. He is also very fit and capable, trustworthy, reliable and brilliant at the job. As candidates go, he is as good as it gets"

And claiming that the SAMFS is not filtering out the best applicants and it's unacceptable based on the anecdotal evidence that you and your mate didn't progress is a broad and sweeping statement and probably an unfair comment to those on this forum who have progressed through to the next stage.

Feedback is not an obligation from employers to all people who are unsuccessful in winning a position. Often the most you will get is a "there were a number of high quality candidates who were more suitable" and you need to accept that and move on and throw your hat in the ring next intake.

Obviously they will not release the results from SAFESELECT. If they do that, the process is null and void as people alter their results to fit into a certain personality type and muppets slip through the net. I would advise against stamping your feet and talk HR to town because you are disappointed you haven't progressed. The process is clearly outlined on the website prior to application so none of this process should have surprised you.

I can understand your frustration but your post seems like sour grapes more than anything else. If you were being interviewed I'm sure you'd think the process was great.

Roscoe · « **Reply #192 on:** November 19, 2016, 08:29:01 AM »

Potentiometer · « **Reply #193 on:** November 19, 2016, 10:31:52 AM »

The process is brutal, great candidates always miss out. And this goes for all fire services. The nature of it is they need to cut down 2000+ people to 18-54. I do agree - and probably from a biased opinion due to where my application is at that they are going the wrong direction by interviewing less candidates as there is a huge value from face to face interviews and evaluating applicants demeanor. There are always external factors at play which can never be disregarded. Government policy/politics internally, boards and funding all affect the process. I do know they need to get a drill squad signed off by the end of the year, which has hastened the process and made it seem much less structured than normal. My suggestion is have a vent, don't pin any hopes on the process, try again next time with a clear head.

80224 · « **Reply #194 on:** November 20, 2016, 08:14:41 PM »

Quote from: Roscoe on November 19, 2016, 08:29:01 AM

I work with a lot of current SAMFS employees, some of who are involved in training the recruits. All of them have indicated that the candidates who get through are not always very suitable. Some are great, but a lot aren't especially on the first few drill squads taken from a recruitment process. They generally get better as they get to the candidates from further down the selection order.

This is not just my opinion, many of the SAMFS people I work with have worked with him too. They'd happily swap him for many of the people currently riding trucks in SA.

I call BS on all of this. First of all, if there was any evidence that personality traits of candidates 'further down the selection order' produced better firefighters, I would have thought that this feedback would filter up the chain and the selection criteria adjusted as a result. Especially since it apparently came from 'people involved in training'

Second, I have worked with dozens of individuals in my profession (finance/accounting) who I thought were absolutely hopeless (and so did many of my colleagues). But there were still others in the organisation who thought that those same individuals were the best thing since sliced bread. In other words, opinions vary greatly from individual to individual - what makes your opinion the right one?

We agree on one thing - the abilities part was piss easy. If anything, there's a quick way to eliminate a bunch of applicants if they perform poorly.

As for the psych test - my attitude was this: I answered all of the questions as honestly as possible. I figured, why lie or pretend to be something I am not, only to be selected based on those lies and potentially not fit in the workplace at the end of it all.

My personal opinion is that you should let it go. If you had 20 years of experience in recruitment and training of firefighters, then maybe you'd be taken seriously in relation to 'feedback on how to improve the selection process'... but at the moment you just look like some disgruntled applicant who has decided to be difficult and stick it up to SAMFS HR. (Not saying that this is the case, but if it sounds like a duck........) Also, what makes your think that opinion on the topic is right? Or wanted?

Have you ever though that maybe you didn't get through this time because there's simply a red flag next to your name due to the hassle you caused with FOI etc last time around?

Roscoe · « **Reply #195 on:** November 20, 2016, 10:14:46 PM »

beater · « **Reply #196 on:** November 21, 2016, 03:54:14 AM »

Time to accept that the SAMFS don't think you meet their entry requirements. No matter how much you tell us about your successful career in Britain and how you and your mates would make much better firefighters than anyone else who "can" meet the entry requirements.
Employers set the standards that they recruit by, not applicants.
I'm not sure if you realise but many reading your posts will think "Mfs have got it right" because you come across as thinking you are far superior than anyone else and you are more than happy to discredit many people already in the job.
There are many on this forum who have missed out many times and you are still gaining little support.
It's simple. Rightly or wrongly the Mfs are targetting a particular personality type/trait and you are not it yet 200 can meet what they are looking for.
The only point I agree on is we should have access to our personality results.

Roscoe · « **Reply #197 on:** November 21, 2016, 08:00:04 AM »

80224 · « **Reply #198 on:** November 21, 2016, 08:17:42 AM »

There could be dozens of reasons why you did not progress, and perhaps none are related to your psych test results.

It's no secret that SAMFS have been slammed for hiring too many 'anglo male' recruits in recent years, and there has been particular emphasis on hiring a gender and culturally diverse group this time.

It could be your age.

It could be your level of education.

It could be your address.

It could be something else completely different which could be bit too sensitive to disclose and discuss publicly.

beater · « **Reply #199 on:** November 21, 2016, 09:21:27 AM »

Oh he was a firefighter, hire him on the spot....
There is applicants from equally transferable professions who miss out each time from police officers, military personnel, the list goes on. I have passed one of the toughest selection courses in the ADF and didn't get thru the SAMFS on two occasions. Suitable but not suitable enough. I just get on with life.
All your whinging and whining and trying to justify to yourself how hard done by you are is probably the exact reason you can't get thru.
Anyway. Good luck next application process. I might see you there.