POOR RECRUITING PRACTICES IN NZ - FUJITSU
Oct 20th 2010, 9:11 pm
#16
Just Joined
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 28
Re: POOR RECRUITING PRACTICES IN NZ - FUJITSU
have you thought, that maybe they think you're not worth 90k 
Oct 20th 2010, 10:50 pm
#17
Banned
Joined: Jul 2010
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 1,010
Re: POOR RECRUITING PRACTICES IN NZ - FUJITSU
Who, exactly, told you that if you turned down the offer they will never consider you again? the person who approached you initially, or someone in the HR department?
Don't turn it down, why not just treat it as an opening offer and haggle it up, remember it was 'them' that approached you in the first place.
Oct 20th 2010, 10:54 pm
#18
Banned
Joined: Jul 2010
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 1,010
Re: POOR RECRUITING PRACTICES IN NZ - FUJITSU
P.S. Take a look at this, is it possible someone is just trying to railroad you into accepting so that they get their bonus?
http://www.fujitsu.com/nz/employment/benefits/
Employee Benefits :
3. Recognition Awards
Recognising the efforts of our employees as individuals and in teams and the contribution they make to the success of Fujitsu is an important facet of the Company's Cultural Values. Recognition Awards are made at four levels:
Achievement Award
The "Dinner for Two" is usually awarded for carrying out responsibilities in an outstanding manner over a period of time or for completing or contributing to a project assigned in an outstanding manner.
Professional Performance Award
The Professional Performance Award is given to employees who either achieve a substantially high level of performance beyond that normally expected or whose achievement brings demonstrable benefits to Fujitsu.
Weekend Away Award
This award is in recognition of the importance of our "Life Balance" cultural value and will be awarded when an individual's ability to maintain "Life Balance" has been affected.
CEO Award
This is the highest recognition award available and is presented to individuals or teams whose outstanding achievement has directly contributed to company profitability.
Service Awards
To recognise continuous service with the global Fujitsu organisation, service awards are presented to employees for every five completed years of service with Fujitsu or one of its related companies. Service Awards are presented on Foundation Day (see below).
Recruitment Bonus
Employees who refer successful candidates may be eligible for a recruitment bonus payment.
3. Recognition Awards
Recognising the efforts of our employees as individuals and in teams and the contribution they make to the success of Fujitsu is an important facet of the Company's Cultural Values. Recognition Awards are made at four levels:
Achievement Award
The "Dinner for Two" is usually awarded for carrying out responsibilities in an outstanding manner over a period of time or for completing or contributing to a project assigned in an outstanding manner.
Professional Performance Award
The Professional Performance Award is given to employees who either achieve a substantially high level of performance beyond that normally expected or whose achievement brings demonstrable benefits to Fujitsu.
Weekend Away Award
This award is in recognition of the importance of our "Life Balance" cultural value and will be awarded when an individual's ability to maintain "Life Balance" has been affected.
CEO Award
This is the highest recognition award available and is presented to individuals or teams whose outstanding achievement has directly contributed to company profitability.
Service Awards
To recognise continuous service with the global Fujitsu organisation, service awards are presented to employees for every five completed years of service with Fujitsu or one of its related companies. Service Awards are presented on Foundation Day (see below).
Recruitment Bonus
Employees who refer successful candidates may be eligible for a recruitment bonus payment.
Oct 21st 2010, 12:58 am
#19
Happy in Wellington
Joined: Mar 2005
Location: Tawa, Wellington, Aotearoa
Posts: 2,286
Re: POOR RECRUITING PRACTICES IN NZ - FUJITSU
If it's the same as when I worked there it's a good amount too - up to about a grand I think.
Oct 21st 2010, 2:26 am
#20
BE Enthusiast
Joined: May 2010
Location: Mission Bay, Auckland yay!
Posts: 493
Re: POOR RECRUITING PRACTICES IN NZ - FUJITSU
The thing that's annoying me at the moment is that most vacancies are advertised through agencies and the companies seem to use multiple agencies who are all desperately competing to fill the same jobs. The agencies then all advertise the same jobs on all the main channels i.e. seek and trademe.
So, many of the so-called vacancies are the same job. Each agency wants you to keep the job secret, but also you need to try to prevent them from submitting multiple applications if you use mutliple agencies. To get your application to the company you need to be interviewed by the agency who then has to filter and re-present your details to the company.
I don't know if this is how it works in the UK, but it's bloody ridiculous.
So, many of the so-called vacancies are the same job. Each agency wants you to keep the job secret, but also you need to try to prevent them from submitting multiple applications if you use mutliple agencies. To get your application to the company you need to be interviewed by the agency who then has to filter and re-present your details to the company.
I don't know if this is how it works in the UK, but it's bloody ridiculous.
Oct 21st 2010, 7:54 am
#21
Truth is the safest lie.
Joined: Jul 2008
Location: @ the beach.
Posts: 7,241
Re: POOR RECRUITING PRACTICES IN NZ - FUJITSU
You should walk away no matter what their offer is, if this is how they treat potential staff now (ignoring your single condition of employment as clearly stipulated repeatedly) we can only wonder how they might treat a person that has been hooked into the company.
Oct 21st 2010, 8:10 am
#22
Truth is the safest lie.
Joined: Jul 2008
Location: @ the beach.
Posts: 7,241
Re: POOR RECRUITING PRACTICES IN NZ - FUJITSU
Employment
(1) Where an applicant for employment or an employee is qualified for work of any description, it shall be unlawful for an employer, or any person acting or purporting to act on behalf of an employer,—
o
(a) To refuse or omit to employ the applicant on work of that description which is available; or
o
(b) To offer or afford the applicant or the employee less favourable terms of employment, conditions of work, superannuation or other fringe benefits, and opportunities for training, promotion, and transfer than are made available to applicants or employees of the same or substantially similar capabilities employed in the same or substantially similar circumstances on work of that description; or
o
(c) To terminate the employment of the employee, or subject the employee to any detriment, in circumstances in which the employment of other employees employed on work of that description would not be terminated, or in which other employees employed on work of that description would not be subjected to such detriment; or
o
(d) To retire the employee, or to require or cause the employee to retire or resign,—
by reason of any of the prohibited grounds of discrimination.
(2) It shall be unlawful for any person concerned with procuring employment for other persons or procuring employees for any employer to treat any person seeking employment differently from other persons in the same or substantially similar circumstances by reason of any of the prohibited grounds of discrimination.
(1) Where an applicant for employment or an employee is qualified for work of any description, it shall be unlawful for an employer, or any person acting or purporting to act on behalf of an employer,—
o
(a) To refuse or omit to employ the applicant on work of that description which is available; or
o
(b) To offer or afford the applicant or the employee less favourable terms of employment, conditions of work, superannuation or other fringe benefits, and opportunities for training, promotion, and transfer than are made available to applicants or employees of the same or substantially similar capabilities employed in the same or substantially similar circumstances on work of that description; or
o
(c) To terminate the employment of the employee, or subject the employee to any detriment, in circumstances in which the employment of other employees employed on work of that description would not be terminated, or in which other employees employed on work of that description would not be subjected to such detriment; or
o
(d) To retire the employee, or to require or cause the employee to retire or resign,—
by reason of any of the prohibited grounds of discrimination.
(2) It shall be unlawful for any person concerned with procuring employment for other persons or procuring employees for any employer to treat any person seeking employment differently from other persons in the same or substantially similar circumstances by reason of any of the prohibited grounds of discrimination.
So it seems to me there is a question mark about employing people at the same time as a subcontractor that is providing the same services doesn’t infringe the “substantially similar capabilities employed in the same or substantially similar circumstances” part of the act. Especially true if they are being paid at different rates!
- You’re both providing similar/identical services.
- You both have “substantially similar capabilities”.
- You’re both employed in “substantially similar circumstances” (in my view).
Oct 21st 2010, 8:53 am
#23
It is what it is Member
Joined: Feb 2010
Location: Blockhouse Bay, Auckland
Posts: 2,797
Re: POOR RECRUITING PRACTICES IN NZ - FUJITSU
However I did find this from the Human Rights Act 1993:
Linky: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p...html#DLM304483
So it seems to me there is a question mark about employing people at the same time as a subcontractor that is providing the same services doesn’t infringe the “substantially similar capabilities employed in the same or substantially similar circumstances” part of the act. Especially true if they are being paid at different rates!
- You’re both providing similar/identical services.
- You both have “substantially similar capabilities”.
- You’re both employed in “substantially similar circumstances” (in my view).
Linky: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p...html#DLM304483
So it seems to me there is a question mark about employing people at the same time as a subcontractor that is providing the same services doesn’t infringe the “substantially similar capabilities employed in the same or substantially similar circumstances” part of the act. Especially true if they are being paid at different rates!
- You’re both providing similar/identical services.
- You both have “substantially similar capabilities”.
- You’re both employed in “substantially similar circumstances” (in my view).
Obvously an employer can´t necessarily take on all applicants that apply for a single position and so are able to discriminate between applicants in order to select the successful candidate...and cheapest labour isn´t prohibited discrimination under the Act.
Contractors normally have quite different terms to permanent staff, it is true in the UK that the labour Govt chipped away at those differences over time by applying what had been perm staff terms to all peeps thereby removing some of the key differentials but applied correctly contractors provide short-term services and are paid a premium for accepting those limitations...
Oct 21st 2010, 9:49 am
#24
BE Enthusiast
Joined: May 2010
Location: Mission Bay, Auckland yay!
Posts: 493
Re: POOR RECRUITING PRACTICES IN NZ - FUJITSU
That's one of the massive downsides of NZ and a personal bugbear - no Disability and Discrimination type Act like Oz and of course the UK have. Govt claims Human Rights Act is adequate which of course it is not, and uses it as an excuse to not implement something halfway decent. Experts at my work say something halfway to the UK act would be more than adequate (UK is too much the other way they feel and they are probably right - but then better to have it than not, particularly if you are in the 'disabled' category).
Of slightly more relevance to this thread is that they are only just introducing probationary periods here as part of the law too (as I understand from my HR department having recently been inducted
). Imagine that, no probationary period - the only way to get rid of a pants employee is to performance manage them out. All that is changing now as I understand it.
But that could just be my place of work of course
Sorry rant over....carry on....
Of slightly more relevance to this thread is that they are only just introducing probationary periods here as part of the law too (as I understand from my HR department having recently been inducted
). Imagine that, no probationary period - the only way to get rid of a pants employee is to performance manage them out. All that is changing now as I understand it. But that could just be my place of work of course
Sorry rant over....carry on....
Oct 23rd 2010, 7:33 pm
#25
BE Enthusiast
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 457
Re: POOR RECRUITING PRACTICES IN NZ - FUJITSU
You know I think you have just been approached by someone looking for a recruitment bonus. Sounds like Fujitsu are offering their staff incentives for attracting new people into the company. It probably saves them from paying out extortionate fees to recruitment companies.
Who, exactly, told you that if you turned down the offer they will never consider you again? the person who approached you initially, or someone in the HR department?
Don't turn it down, why not just treat it as an opening offer and haggle it up, remember it was 'them' that approached you in the first place.
Who, exactly, told you that if you turned down the offer they will never consider you again? the person who approached you initially, or someone in the HR department?
Don't turn it down, why not just treat it as an opening offer and haggle it up, remember it was 'them' that approached you in the first place.
Every employer would like every employee to work at minimum wage - does not work out that way though
The recruitment person (permanent employee of Fujitsu) warned me that he will make sure that I am NEVER EVER considered for any role - What is my fault if they cannot offer the minimum expected salary?
It has been 3 months since I rejected the offer and they are still headhunting
