Customer

Serving the Candidate as a Customer

by
Black Salmon/Shutterstock

As humans, it is natural to have certain reactions when we meet a new person. These reactions shape our perception of the other person. They also determine whether or not we want to continue to engage with that other person. If the experience with the other person is positive, we enjoy our mutual interactions and look forward to extending the time we spend with each other. If the experience of engagement is negative, most of us look forward to cutting off the time spent with that other person as quickly as we can.

With this in mind, the recruitment role taken on by the human resources practitioner can make or break a candidate’s job-seeking fortunes. As recruiters, we may find ourselves reacting to a particular candidate based on our own individual and personal perspectives. If the personal reaction is positive, the recruitment process with that candidate continues. If the reaction is negative, the process with that candidate stops. Either way, our responses as recruiters, in this type of approach, are based on our own self-interests and are not in support of the best interests of the organization that we must represent. The results from this type of approach are not good: the business interests of the organization are not met; the valid interests of the job-seeking candidate are not met; and the legitimate interests of meeting our human resources’ legal, ethical, and professional obligations are not met.

In order to meet the legitimate interests of the business and recruitment process, viewing the candidate as a customer can provide assistance in shaping the recruiter’s frame of reference. A customer service approach for the recruiter is explored in this article posted by HRD magazine.

As noted in the article, when the recruiter is able to use a customer service-based approach, the candidate and the recruiter both experience a better process. The result may be the same in that the candidate is not the successful choice for the organization; however, the credibility of the hiring process and its results are not put at risk when the recruiter has done their job by serving in the best interests of others.

Discussion Questions:

  1. If you experienced ‘ghosting’ by a recruiter during a job application process as a candidate, what impressions were you left with of the recruiter and the company you wanted to join? Would you re-apply as a candidate in the future?
  2. From an HR perspective, how can you monitor and adapt your personal reactions (positive or negative) during the recruitment process in order to maintain objectivity and reduce recruitment risks?
  3. In your opinion, what is the value of using a customer service-based approach for job candidates? Explain your rationale.

Striking A Balance

by

Ilin Sergey / Shutterstock

As we have learned in our industrial relations studies, taking strike action is a decision made by the members of a bargaining unit in order to send a very strong message to the employer. This message is usually clear about the lack of progress at, or acceptance of proposals from the negotiating table. Taking strike action is not something that unions do lightly. It is a strong tactic, used for leverage in order to influence the employer to do better at the table. The message is simple and clear, the employees will not work until the issues that are unresolved through the bargaining process are settled and a new contract is proposed between the parties.

The power of a strike lies in the lack of employee labour, which means that the employer’s levels of production would be impacted in a negative way. No work should mean no production and no output.

What happens, however, when the union goes on strike and the work continues? This scenario is playing out with the ground crew workers who work at Toronto Pearson International Airport. These workers are employees of Swissport. They are represented by the Teamster’s union (Local 419) and they went on strike in late July. The work, however, is continuing.

The duties that are usually done by ground crew workers are now being done by management or supervisory staff which has raised the risk of safety issues, specifically linked to the duties of load controllers.

Click here to read the article on load controllers.

As noted in the article, the few supervisors who have taken on the duties of specialized load controllers are working around the clock to ensure that customer flights are not impacted negatively. This arrangement, however, raises some significant risk concerns not only for the safety of airline crew and passengers, but also for the supervisors who have taken on multiple additional workloads. The leverage played out in this scenario does not seem to be enough to cause the employer to amend its position at the bargaining table. One wonders, however, how much of a risk the employer is willing to take before safe airline travel comes to an unfortunate stop?

Discussion Questions:

  1. The article describes supervisors taking over the duties of specialized workers during this strike. From a Human Resources perspective, what types of employment-related concerns does this raise?
  2. In your opinion, how much of a risk would you be willing to take in order to keep airplanes and the paying customer moving?
  3. What issues need to be settled in order for this dispute to be resolved?