>Real Estate agents

A few years ago I lived with a man who described real estate agents as "slightly worse than venomous snakes"

Justifying the existence of venomous snakes is much easier than justifying how this so-called profession still exists.

The perfect example of a useless middle-man. They are obstructive, clueless and take a massive chunk of profit for effectively getting in the way.

>>2378160
>live in New Zealand
>we have a website called www.trademe.co.nz where people can sell second hand shit and also list houses for rent/sale
>for 2% of house sale price, a real estate agent will save you entire minutes and whole dollars of setting up a shitty ass listing, and showing a few people through the house

Seriously. There is no justification for these people to exist.

Also
>video store clerk

Thats what I do, and we're gradually being phased out by ATM-like machines that dispense DVDs and shit.

>venomous snakes

Slightly less irritating than real estate agents. These adorable reptiles are perfect for entertaining guests and impressing that special someone.

Nothing says "tough as nails" like a snake handler. Walking up to a venomous snake and petting it like a kitten? Not every man is capable of effortlessly swaggering around with those gargantuan testicles weighing him down.

>>2378176

Major bummer dude.

Video store clerks may be a useless job, but hanging out in a video store used to be a great way to spend a hangover afternoon.

>venomous spiders

Friendly to those who know them but shy around strangers, the venomous spider is a true asset in localised pest control.

Living with venomous spiders is easy if you keep a vial of anti-venom nearby.

Thinking of a career in HR seems easy and my dream job must = easy (I know not everything is easy but I mean like you have to be smart/have certain qualities but it's not that much hard work)

>NHS Administrators

All right, I'll admit they are important. But considering you could reduce the size by 90% and still have the same kind of efficiency, I'd say most of them are useless.

>>2378140
>mfw im getting a masters in HR
>mfw i hate HR but love monies
>mfw i have no face

>>2378222

>masters
>HR

You know I lost out on a recruitment role to someone with a HR degree.

No bad eggs though. I didn't waste 3 years and about 30k on a HR degree.

>>2378160
>>2378176
>>do not understand what real estate agents are actually supposed to do

GOOD real estate agents have a legitimately useful role in identifying well-matched houses for buyers, organizing prospective buyers for sellers, and dealing with all the shitty paperwork in between for both parties

problem is the damn profession is saturated with lazy shits who don't know their market or their clients' needs and are just out to make a quick buck
so I can see why people might have a bad impression of em'

I had an aunt who worked in real estate actually trying to build up a legitimate career providing useful services, and she had to deal with these snakes almost every day

>>2378216

> That feel when I start work as an NHS administrator this week.

hr works closely with management on personal issues they have to keep private so they are usually tight with the bosses. Protip: be nice to hr. Working in an office is a lot like high school. Hr are like the suckup teachers pets, so if they don't like you you'll get a bad rep with bosses.

>>2378299

My uncle works as an NHS administrator. His job is essentially getting illegal immigrants to pay for their NHS treatment after it's been proven they are illegal immigrants.

Him, his boss and his team generally take about 25% of the working year off due to "sickness", leave about an hour and a half before leaving time and every Monday little to no work is done.

Don't get me wrong, I love my uncle. But his job is pretty useless.

Why are most people in HR female? I have noticed a lot of HR and marketing are female

Why is this?

>>2378320

Just how shit goes. HR are like secretaries - good for lifting up the slack of the "actual" workers. They deal with petty things that only affect productivity and efficiency in the same way that say, a pencil holder does.

The business world is highly misogynistic. Sales, Recruitment, Finance, Banking, Blue Chip work and so on are all male dominated industries.

>>2378320

Because it's easy and shit and women are dumb lazy cunts? It's the perfect "job" for them.

>>2378332
Why is marketing also female though?

I always thought maybe HR was an easy job so females chose it because they didn't want the harder jobs such as sales or management

>>2378320
Because HR and marketing are mostly made up of made-up bullshit positions that they purposely fill with females so that feminists don't get on them for not hiring enough females.

>>2378140
>>2378332
ITT people who don't understand how HR works

I also like how you call HR people entitled, yet you feel entitled to a job despite being a basement-dwelling, spaghetti-laden piece of shit. Stop pretending everyone is out to get you and change your shitty personality. It isn't that fucking hard to talk to people.

>>2378340

Pfft, you tell me. Marketing is a step below sales. All telemarketers answer to a salesman. Salesman comes up with the pitch, USPs and maybe the script then the marketers just follow it and answer any questions. You'll be surprised how quickly and how few skills you need to pick up the phone and have a conversation with someone.

Granted, these jobs are easy. But they don't have a scope for progression and emonie. It's the salesmen, headhunters, investment bankers, hedge fund managers, speculators and so on that work bloody hard to earn a big piece of pie everyday. HR is just there to look nice and make sure they don't rub eachother up the wrong way and telemarketers/telesales are there to "separate the wheat from the chaff" and bring in new business.

Ticket checkers, toll booth operators. A simple card swipe machine could replace them.

>>2378357

>implying I'm not

I work in Recruitment, see? I work in the same office as the HR recruitment team and take it from me, HR has is easy. They have it easier than the consultants (not the RCs, the consultants who do whatever it is they do) have it.

HR is a pussy industry for pussies. Get over that fact or go sit in the corner and shout about how "writing abuse reports and filing away complaint letters" is changing the world for the better.

>>2378388
Oh, your HR is for vaginas. My company's HR does recruiting, interviews, training, hiring in addition to complaints. Also since all of our employees are union, handling complaints is more serious.

I hired 400 people in a month and a half, working like 70 hour weeks in the process, over Christmas so I get frustrated when people say HR is easy.

Not only are many jobs utterly useless, but the workers lazy and deceitful. It's all such a joke.

>>2378357

OP here. Yes I am buttfrustrated about HR, but it is one of many so-called professions that the world can live without.

An esteemed acquaintance of mine is the head of a libertarian think tank and he describes these types of jobs as "sawing sawdust"

Another example is "Whitehall". Vast swathes could be cut from "Whitehall without damaging the every-day running of the public sector.

>>2378447
Who would do the hiring and processing if not HR?

>>2378465
The higher-ups, I'm guessing.

>>2378468
All right. Who would do their job while they were distracted with recruiting/interviewing/processing? That's a good amount of time that they can't do their actual jobs. Are you going to tell your best salesman he has to stop producing leads to go interview some /r9k/ neckbeard?

Hiring? You mean asking a bunch of questions?

Ever heard of a questionnaire? It's essentially the same thing as the interview process except it's faster and cheaper.

Im fairly certain that the reason most HR jobs even exist is so that they can hire women and meet quotas for the company, theyre literally non-jobs created so that women can have "jobs".

And marketing is sales without the close.

>>2378520
lol. Okay, then, who will do the higher up's job while he reads over those questionnaires, ranks them, does the processing and so on?

Also you're really fucking stupid if you think a questionnaire is as good as a face to face interview.

I suspect your rebuttal will be something along the lines of have a robot autograde the paperwork. That absolutely crystallizes how fucking autistic you are: you'd rather have a machine talk to you than a person. Maybe I'm wrong, but it just sounds like you have no social skills.

>>2378542

>read questionnaire
>did he answer any of the "ALERT: BATSHIT CRAZY QUESTIONS" questions incorrectly?
>if so, don't hire
>if not, hire
>most of the questions would likely be irrelevant fluff
>the only questions that would actually matter are can you do this and are you qualified
>implying it couldn't be skimmed over in 5 seconds

>>2378566
You really fail to realize how many people are qualified for positions and then suck shit at them. The most qualified person might be the worst choice. Also it's easier to lie on paperwork as opposed to lyong to someone's face.

>>2378577

>interview someone
>they appear qualified
>hire them
>they suck

The difference? Besides, you may not know this, but you can actually fire shitty workers.

>work at an engineering firm
>all the engineers are white men
>all the HR department is black women

Diversity

>>2378542
For those minutes reading the questionaire will be the job of the higher up.
Our point is that the face to face interview is senseless if its done with someone you wont be face to face with in your actual job. it has some value to determine social compatibilty but you dont need to be compatible with HR-workers. the argument is almost that you shouldnt.

>>2378577

Also, I didn't realise interviewers were perfectly traine in the art of human lie detection. Just admit it peacock, your job is the same as a piece of fucking paper.

I had six interviews for a thirty k a year job. All of the lamest interviw questions were flung at me over and over. I was desperate for work.

Happen to see what I assume is some bullshit listing in craigslist of all places. Call.
Guy answers. Talk for twenty minutes about random shit no career related. Asks me to come meet him for lunch. We have lunch and just talk. Tells me he likes me and wants to hire me. So far I'm on track to make sixty k this year. Feelsgoodman.

>>2378612
You can (sometimes) but then corporate comes down on you for not making tunover rates, which can lead them to audit the building or force operations management to devote time and money to a turnover prevention program.

The other times, they grieve the termination to the union and get their job back. An employee was recently terminated for being involved in an underage prostituion ring. Union said we can't fire him for that.

Also, an interview is not the same as a questionnaire. You can learn about their demeanor, for example. They might slip up and say something that would cause you do not hire them that wasn't revealed in a paper format (this has happened countless times).

I'm sorry that an HR person murdered your family or whatever, but you really don't understand the full scope of what you're arguing.

>>2378647
At my company, all promotion is done from within so the HR personnel were promoted from the job the applicant is seeking.

>>2378669

It's really no reflection on my logic that shitty workers can get their jobs back, that's the fault of the idiotic system.

You really can't think of a way to put into words questions which would reveal potential nutjobs/idiots? Seriously, this is so difficult? But no, their body language and facial expressions, right, which you're such an expert in.

>>2378662

If you are a job seeker casually scrolling through the pages of this board, read his post. This guy here has unintentionally given the best career advice to jobseekers: talking directly to the person who will hire you is extremely effective.

In the last 10 years, a vast majority of the jobs that were offered (and accepted) were done in this manner.

>>2378714
You can't just fire people in any company -- yeah, unions make it shitty here. But, in any other company, you're putting money into hiring -- working a month before you fire them is a month's paycheck you just squandered.

Also, it really isn't that hard to read someone's body language. I'm not saying I never make mistakes, but usually I'm pretty good at it. It takes practice, and I understand it seems impossible to someone whose only meaningful interaction is talking on ventrilo with his guild buddies.

>>2378669
your not answering his question in the slightest.

Question: Do you work in HR?

( this is no insult. A statement and a question. if they insult you thats on your part.)

>>2378759

During that month the worker is likely to have produced at least some output. You're not throwing away money on nothing.

"Please let me keep my job it's so much more efficient to spend 1 hour per candidate, hiring or firing based on how many times someone scratches their nose! Pay me! Pay me!"

Question 1. Are you insane?
Question 2. Come on, seriously, are you?
Question 3. We'll just find out anyway, so are you really?
Question 4. Can you actually do this job?
Question 5. Do you have citations saying you can do this job?
Question 6. What are your hobbies?

Keep crying bitch nigga, you're job is utterly pointless.

>>2378759
You have no idea wether you make many mistakes. Since body language is not objectifiable it could be a completely thought up concept for all we know.

exept if you use a camera

>>2378801
>Question 6. What are your hobbies?

"Hmm, he likes framing jigsaw puzzles? That's weird... better not hire him, he might shoot the place up."

>>2378816
what i mean. if you see crossed arms as a sign of cofidence or ignorance is up to you but what you decide isnt nessecarily right exept if you have some objective support (electronic) in which case I would fire you and strengthen the actual objective part.

>>2378761
Yes, for UPS.

Also I thought I did answer the question -- you can pick up on subtleties in a face to face situation as oppose to a questionnaire. We have paper applications and they are in no way comparable to the interview with me or a second interview with an operation manager.

>>2378140
Every job is useless.

>>2378801
>You're not throwing away money on nothing.

Except for you know, training and the fact that a new worker won't produce the same level of output as someone who has been on the job for months.

Being able to interact successfully with people is one of the most important traits necessary to being successful in the workplace, you can't get that from a questionnaire.

>>2378832
If somebody mentions idly that they don't like waking up early, an I'm looking for an AM employee, there's a slipup that could prevent employment. Probably wouldn't see that on a questionnaire.

If somebody has a weak handshake, another indication. How do you expect to lift a box if you can't even take the time to grasp my hand firmly?

Super cocky in the interview? Probably have a bad attitude and won't work in a team setting. Generally I do appreciate confidence, but cocky people don't like to take orders in my experience.

>>2378845

Your points about the existence of incompetent workers are irrelevant with regards to the issue of questionnaire vs interview. Both are as likely to occasionally pick up a bad apple. The point is a questionnaire is simply a quicker and cheaper means to produce the exact same result. Regardless of whether it's a questionnaire or an interview, the candidate is never going to outright state "I am a lazy cunt", no matter how good you think you are at reading body language.

Instead of worrying about social skills, just ask (on the questionnaire) can you work with others? If no, fuck off. If yes, great! Shit, that was easy.

>>2378884
>If somebody has a weak handshake, another indication. How do you expect to lift a box if you can't even take the time to grasp my hand firmly?

By uhh, lifting a box? These are two unrelated things. There could very well be a bodybuilder with a weak handshake.

>>2378835
yeah your kinda right. sorry. We still disagree wether face to face brings you that much more information if performed by an HR worker who is not actually doing the job.
>>2378884
the slipup of course is mostly testing wether people slip up, not wether they actually get up early

>>2378895

Yeah, that's bullshit. You will know if someone is sociable or not in seconds when someone walks through the door in an interview.

Fact is, although interviews will not be 100%, they are far more efficient and effective than a shitty questionnaire. The ineffectiveness of a questionnaire could end up costing the company much more money (from firing, possible lawsuits, training, etc.) than simply hiring a recruiter.

>>2378895
That's exactly the point you aren't seeing. People are never going to say no if you ask them flat out like that. You have to ask in other ways that wouldn't be as effective on paper.

>>2378925
if you give people little time to fill out that questionaire theyll still slip up. you could also film them and then analyse that material to see where they were lying ( because thats just as possible as in an interview: not possible at all. imagine you HR people worked at the police (as your types do) woe is us)

The qualification youre testing could be lying just as well as competence

>>2378905
>>2378905
It's a demonstration of a lack of motivation. If you can't take the second of motivation to grip my hand firmly, wha is going to motivate you to do an extremely difficult, fast paced job? PS i've never met a weightlifter with a weak handshake.