31 of the stupidest things ever put on a resume

31 of the stupidest things ever put on a resume

stupid resume

Want to meet a bunch of people who absolutely didn’t get the job? 

A Reddit user started a thread calling on all interviewers to share “the most ridiculous thing you’ve seen on a resume.”

The user stated the reason for this as, “I’m reviewing resumes and someone stated that they have ‘advanced knowledge of the internet.’”

Presumably, the user wanted to take this opportunity to revel in others’ absurd resume findings.

Luckily for all of us, the thread produced a plethora of gems.

Here are some of the highlights:

  • “None of my references really like me, so please don’t believe what they say.”
  • “We got an application from a man who simply put ‘Mexicans’ as his reason for leaving former employment.”
  • “I was helping someone with their resume once who listed their email address as 420bluntbro@….. “
  • “Grate communication and atention to details.”
  • “Under ‘certifications’ this guy put ‘bad ass.’”
  • “I had a guy put ‘Cougars’ in his interest category.”
  • All nicely typed on the first and only line of the page: “My name is Mike and I’d like a job. Here is my phone number. Thanks.”
  • “My friend used to put ‘petroleum transfer specialist at British Petroleum’ on his resume. In reality, he pumped gas at an BP gas station.”
  • “‘Applied to Harvard University’ under their education profile.”
  • “My brother-in-law put under Skills that he can ‘Hold 17 eggs in one hand.’”
  • “At the bottom under an interests/hobbies type heading: Collects Dragon Eggs.” (Commenter said this was more than a decade ago, so it was long before Game of Thrones.)
  • “When I worked retail, I once received an application that was filled out with a rainbow pen. Under address they wrote, ‘Not Relevant.’”
  • ” … I’m a producer and have read a lot of acting resumes. If you list ‘dinosaur noises’ as a skill, I AM going to make you demonstrate in your audition.”
  • “I have a buddy who thought it would be a good idea to put his 2.0 GPA on a resume.”
  • “‘Hydration specialist’ – she was the water girl for a football team.”
  • “An astrophysicist I know included ‘Can use a shovel.’ on her resume when applying to research positions. She got her first pick.”
  • “I was interviewing prospective servers for a restaurant. One young man turned in a resume written entirely in text speak. i.e. Werk Xperince- Bezt bAg Boy in da hizzouse at Da Key FUUD! I told him the job required he be able to write in English. He took the ‘resume’ back from me and left.”
  • “On a resume applying for a helpdesk position. USMC sniper, two tours in Iraq, 23 confirmed kills. To be fair I did consider hiring him and stationing him on the roof. There were a number of technical problems he could have solved from up there.”
  • “I manage a coffee shop, and females constantly put glamor shots in the resume. I even had one middle aged woman include a full length picture of herself in an evening gown. It was weird.”
  • “World of Warcraft Guild Leader as an example of leadership skills (listed like a previous job).”
  • “Under ‘Reason for applying with us:’ ‘My parents are rich, and I thought I could live for free off them for a few more years. Turns out I was wrong. Now I need to get a job and move out. I’m lazy though.’”
  • “‘Have you ever been convicted of a Felony? If yes, please explain’ Answer: ‘Yes. Arson. But he deserved it, will discuss in interview.’”
  • “‘Spelling Bee Winner’ listed under accomplishments/activities. The ironic part – the Objective part of the resume started ‘To obtane a chalenging position…’”
  • “All seriousness: ‘Italian cuisine logistics engineer’. He was a pizza delivery guy.”
  • “One guy summarized every position with a one-line summary.. that sounded like a movie trailer. The one we laugh about to this day is ‘a code-slingin’ cowboy venturing alone into the Wild West of Java’.”
  • “‘experience using microwave,’ on an application to a restaurant.”
  • “‘I am in the top 2% of programmers’ No explanation of how that is determined… I should have asked. :-(“
  • “I asked someone to fill out an application, since they didn’t have a resume…he only had one previous job, and in the space where it asked why he left, he wrote ‘got locked up’.”
  • “Left a contact email that started with kinkykitty@”
  • “Windows 7 was my idea.”
  • “‘I bake great cakes and will share if you give me this job.’ It was for a mortgage banking position.”

Share the worst thing you’ve ever seen on a resume in the Comment section below, and we’ll put together a follow-up list.

For more HR News, please visit: 31 of the stupidest things ever put on a resume

Source: News from HR Morning

In hiring mode? Better haul out the checkbook

Is your organization planning on adding staff over the next three months or so? Be warned — a bunch of your competitors are, too. And that’ll probably mean a hike in your payroll costs.  

That’s the overall message in recent research from CareerBuilder, which says that 32% of the people who make hiring decisions at businesses of all sizes said they intend to hire additional full-time permanent employees in the next few months.

The biggest businesses were most likely to be in expansion mode. Fully 38% of businesses with more than 500 employees expect to hire in the current quarter, compared to 32% in the same period a year ago.

This time around, however, small- and mid-sized businesses are expected to join the talent competition. Many of those companies had remained cautious about their prospects for business growth in the recent past.

Now, 24% of small businesses say they plan to expand full-time headcount by the end of June, compared to 18% in the same period a year ago.

The pick-up in small business hiring has been showing up gradually over the past few months, Matt Ferguson, CEO of CareerBuilder, said in a press release.

“Small businesses have been playing a larger part in the solid stretch of job growth the U.S. has experienced over several months,” he said. “When you pair that with the fact that hiring has increased in a variety of industries and regional areas, it bodes well for workers seeking new and better-paying employment prospects.”

The price is going up

Recent growth may bode well for applicants’ prospects, but there’s likely to be a price to pay for employers, according to thew CareerBuilder study.

There are signs that employers are feeling the pressure to raise salaries to attract the best candidates. Forty-three percent of employers said that they have job vacancies that have been open for 12 weeks or longer.

A majority of those surveyed said they plan to reward employees with raises during the present quarter. About 24% said they’ll increase salaries by at least 5%. Another 44% anticipate increasing salaries by 4% or less. In the hottest field, information technology, about 37% of employers expect to raise salaries.

IT is one of four industries whose employers are most likely to be in new-hiring mode. More than 40% of bosses in the transportation and financial services industries said they would be hiring, as did 32% of mid-sized health care companies.

Temporary or contract employment also is showing an upswing. Thirty-seven percent of employers plan to hire temporary or contract workers in the second quarter, up from 33% a year ago. And 31% plan to offer a permanent job to some contract or temporary staffers in the second quarter, up from 26% last year.

The survey was conducted for CareerBuilder by Harris Poll, and included a representative sample of more than 2,000 hiring managers and human resource professionals across various industries.

For more HR News, please visit: In hiring mode? Better haul out the checkbook

Source: News from HR Morning

2 keys to safely react to your own Bruce Jenner

Having an employee announce that they’re switching sexes will likely raise a few questions in your workplace. Being prepared to answer them correctly can be the difference between maintaining order and landing in court. 

Bruce Jenner, the famous stepfather (sorry … stepmother?) of the Kardashians, announcing to the world that he is transitioning from male to female is just the latest in a growing line of breaking news stories to bring the topic of transgender treatment to the forefront of employers’ consciousness.

Last fall, the EEOC filed two lawsuits against employers, claiming they illegally discriminated against transgender individuals. And in doing so, the agency made it clear that discriminating against any individual — male, female or someone transitioning to a difference sex — on the basis of the gender they identify with will draw its ire.

One of the employers, Lakeland Eye Clinic, just settled one of the suits for a whopping $150K, so this is not a topic to be taken lightly.

As more of these stories begin to break, expect more employees to begin announcing their gender transitions to their employers.

2 big questions, 2 answers

If one of your employees announces that they’re transitioning from male to female — or vice versa — there are likely two questions you’ll have right off the bat:

  • Which bathroom should the person use?
  • Do we call the person “him” or “her”?

The answers to both of these questions are actually pretty straightforward.

Which bathroom should the person use?

This is one of those rare situations in which you shouldn’t take immediate action based on co-workers’ complaints.

Yes, you should listen to — and take seriously — employees’ complaints about having to share a bathroom with a transgender individual, but you shouldn’t dictate which bathroom an individual uses based on complaints.

Here’s what the EEOC had to say on the issue in a case in which the Army was found to have improperly forced a transgender employee to use a single-person, gender-neutral bathroom (a tip of the hat to Evil HR Lady Suzanne Lucas for bringing this passage to our attention in a similar article she wrote for Inc.com):

“We recognize that certain employees may object — some vigorously — to allowing a transgender individual to use the restroom consistent with his or her gender identity. But supervisory or co-worker confusion or anxiety cannot justify discriminatory terms and conditions of employment.”

Bottom line: The EEOC says employers should allow employees to use the bathroom of the gender they identify with. So the EEOC would say Jenner must be allowed to use the women’s room, as that’s the gender Jenner now identifies with.

Do we call the person “him” or “her”?

The answer to this is a little more commonsensical: Call the person whatever he or she’d prefer to be called. Most likely this will correspond to the gender the person identifies with.

If you’re not sure, ask. It can pay to be proactive, rather than guess incorrectly and spark animosity — and possible legal action — from the employee.

For more HR News, please visit: 2 keys to safely react to your own Bruce Jenner

Source: News from HR Morning

The perils of perks: If you pull one, expect a backlash

You’d probably be hard-pressed to find any Google employees who could complain about the tech juggernaut’s perks and benefits with a straight face. But Google has also found out what happens when you just go and get rid of a seemingly obsolete perk.   

Google’s Head of People Operations Laszlo Bock recently told CNNMoney about an unexpected employee reaction to the news one of the tech firm’s myriad perks was getting the axe. That perk was a $5,000 subsidy paid to employees who bought hybrid cars, which at the time (mid-2000s) were limited to Toyota Priuses. For Googlers, this benefit became known as the Prius subsidy.

‘Got used to it’

Eventually, hybrids became more common and cheaper, and Google decided it wouldn’t be a big deal if it stopped “subsidizing Toyota.”

What it didn’t count on was the backlash. As soon as Google staffers caught wind of the company’s plan to kill the Prius subsidy the following year, they let it be known they were far from happy.

This reaction seemed to have caught Bock off guard. As he told CNNMoney, â€œWe’d only done it [the Prius subsidy] for three years, but they [Google workers] still got used to it.” Bock also said employee weren’t the only ones who enjoyed the perk by adding, â€œlocal dealers tell us they had an amazing December that year.”

5 most-coveted perks

It’s not like cutting the Prius perk left the Google benefits cupboard bare. Bock outlined the five most-stellar benefits the company still offers:

  • Free food. Google was one of the pioneers of free (and healthy) employee meal trend that has become commonplace in Silicon Valley.
  • Shuttle service. According to Bock, Google’s free shuttles take 20,000 to 40,000 cars off the road each day.
  • Googlers-to-Googlers (G2G). Here, Google workers can share their knowledge with one another on anything and everything. Last year, more than 3,000 employees took part in these G2G classes.
  • Google talks. The company has landed guest speakers ranging from President Obama to Lady Gaga, and Bock says these Google talks help foster an environment of fresh ideas and constant learning.
  • An unparalleled death benefit. How generous is this? If an employee dies while employed at Google, all of his or her stock immediately vests, the employee’s spouse can collect half of his/her salary for 10 years, and the worker’s kids get $1,000 a month.

For more HR News, please visit: The perils of perks: If you pull one, expect a backlash

Source: News from HR Morning

Take HR to the Next Level: Engage Your Employees to Drive Better Business Value

In the age of the empowered individual, organizations must rethink the workplace, with the employee at the center of the business. This means focusing on three employee centric dimensions: Talent, Culture and Work. By using workforce science, analytics, collaboration tools and technologies with flexible deployment models, you can develop a more engaged and innovative workforce.

Click here to learn more!  

For more HR News, please visit: Take HR to the Next Level: Engage Your Employees to Drive Better Business Value

Source: News from HR Morning

Top Trending HR & Talent Management Resources for Spring 2015

Top Trending HR & Talent Management Resources for Spring 2015 brings together the latest in information, coverage of important developments, and expert commentary to help with your HR and Talent Management related decisions.

Click here to learn more!  

For more HR News, please visit: Top Trending HR & Talent Management Resources for Spring 2015

Source: News from HR Morning

‘We didn’t know he was disabled: Do we have to accommodate him?’

‘We didn’t know he was disabled: Do we have to accommodate him?’

ada, disability discrimination

Here’s more disappointing proof that employees (or rather, ex-employees) will sue you for just about anything these days. The more disturbing fact: Sometimes, seemingly ridiculous lawsuits are found to have merit.

Thankfully for this employer, however, this was not one of those lawsuits.

But it still forced the employer, Gregg Appliances Inc (a.k.a., hhgregg) to assemble its legal team and mount a defense.

Failed to take drug test

Christopher Lucas, was about to be promoted to general manager at the electronics and home appliance retailer.

The only things standing in his way were a drug test and his paruresis (shy bladder syndrome).

hhgregg’s drug policy was very clear on a few key points:

  • It applied to all associates (including Lucas)
  • Any associate who refuses to submit to any type of testing when requested by the company will be discharged for insubordination
  • Promotion was contingent upon passing a drug test, and
  • After a drug test is scheduled, an associate has 24 hours to complete the screening.

Lucas knew he had trouble urinating in public restrooms and at work. He’d frequently go an entire work day without voiding his bladder. Still, he made no mention of this prior to showing up to take the drug test.

When Lucas arrived at the testing clinic, he entered an unoccupied restroom and shut the door. He was in the restroom for five minutes and failed to produce a urine sample. He then told the clinic’s technician he had a shy bladder.

The technician then gave him 16oz of water, and he attempted to urinate again an hour and a half later. Again, he failed to produce a sample.

The technician said he was allowed to wait a while longer and then try again, but Lucas refused and said he was leaving the clinic.

The technician then said that would be considered a refusal to take the test. Lucas left anyway.

Lucas then spoke to his direct supervisor, and explained that he was unable to produce a urine sample at the clinic. What he failed to mention to the supervisor, or anyone else at hhgregg for that matter, was that he’d had trouble urinating in public facilities in the past.

The next day, Lucas was fired.

Upon hearing of his termination, Lucas finally spoke up and informed hhgregg that he’d been dealing with shy bladder syndrome for years.

And here’s the kicker: The first time Lucas ever saw a doctor about his condition was the day after his termination (he said he didn’t think his symptoms were serious enough to consult a physician any earlier).

The doctor did, indeed, find that he suffered from shy bladder syndrome, but it was too late. His termination stood.

Claimed disability discrimination

Lucas then sued hhgregg, claiming his termination violated the ADA. He said the company illegally fired him as a result of his disability. He also claimed hhgregg should’ve accommodated his condition by allowing him to take the drug test by another means — i.e. allowing him to produce a hair or blood sample.

The company tried to get his case thrown out on summary judgment, arguing it never knew about his condition until after he was fired. Plus, because it never knew about his disability it was under no obligation to look for an accommodation.

The court swiftly agreed with hhgregg.

It said:

“[E]xisting case law makes clear that an employee cannot be considered to have been fired `on the basis of disability’ unless the individual decision-maker who fired the individual had knowledge of that disability.”

It then went on to say that because hhgregg had no knowledge of Lucas’ disability prior to making the decision to terminate his employment, there was no way the decision to terminate him could’ve been influenced by his disability.

The court also made it clear that when a disability is not obvious — as was the case with Lucas — the burden is on the employee to make the employer aware. The same is true of accommodations; the burden falls on employees to request them.

Lucas not only made no attempt to inform hhgregg of his disability prior to his termination, he hadn’t even seen a doctor about his condition until after he was fired.

Case closed.

Cite: Lucas v. Gregg Appliances Inc.

For more HR News, please visit: ‘We didn’t know he was disabled: Do we have to accommodate him?’

Source: News from HR Morning

FMLA compliance keeps getting trickier: 46 states get new rule

Is the latest change to the FMLA taking affect in your state? 

Not if you’re in Arkansas, Louisiana, Nebraska or Texas.

As you’ve probably heard by now (we reported it in February), the DOL just updated the definition of “spouse” for FMLA purposes to reflect the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States. v. Windsor.

It did this via a rule change that essentially said any eligible employee who’s in a legal same-sex marriage can take federal FMLA leave to care for his or her spouse, regardless of the state in which that employee resides.

Now, however, this rule won’t apply to those living in the four states mentioned above — at least for the time being.

Judge: Rule violates states’ rights

As we reported a few weeks ago, a federal judge in Texas preliminarily enjoined the implementation of the rule after the attorneys general of Texas, Arkansas, Nebraska and Louisiana filed suit, claiming the rule violated states’ rights.

Well, the DOL has just responded to the injunction — and it’s likely going to make life difficult for employers with multi-state operations.

The DOL announced it’ll enforce the new rule in every state except those four.

At the same time, the DOL made a motion for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas to reconsider the injunction. The result? The court just denied the DOL’s request, so the injunction will stand — at least until the states’ lawsuit is resolved.

Moot point?

Many observers seem to think the Texas decision could well be moot, since the Supreme Court will hear several same-sex marriage cases this term — and likely rule that federal law requires the states to recognize those unions.

Stay tuned.

Cite: State of Texas v. United States of America

For more HR News, please visit: FMLA compliance keeps getting trickier: 46 states get new rule

Source: News from HR Morning

EEOC rakes in the dough for sex and race bias, retaliation violations

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s been busy. Here’s a look at just three of the numerous cases it’s won — or settled — in the past few days.  

$1.5M jury verdict for sex harassment and retaliation

A federal appeals court in Memphis upheld a jury verdict of over $1.5 million in the EEOC’s lawsuit against a High Point, N.C.-based logistics services provider for sexual harassment and retaliation.

According to the EEOC’s suit, New Breed Logistics unlawfully discriminated against three female workers in its Memphis warehouse who were sexually harassed by a New Breed supervisor, and retaliated against them after they objected to his sexual advances. The EEOC also charged that a New Breed supervisor retaliated against a male employee who verbally opposed the supervisor’s sexual harassment and supported the women’s complaints.

Two years ago, a federal district court jury found in favor of the EEOC, and awarded the discrimination victims $1,513,094. The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the jury finding.

New Breed Logistics, a logistics services provider that helps companies design and operate supply chains, warehousing and distribution, operates five Memphis warehouses. The company also has warehouses in Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Texas, Los Angeles and Kearny, N.J.

$14.5M to settle race/national origin bias cases

Patterson-UTI Drilling Company LLC, a Snyder, Texas-based multistate oil drilling company, will pay $14.5 million and furnish other relief to settle a lawsuit filed by the EEOC and to resolve several cases through separate conciliation agreements, the agency announced.

The EEOC charged the company with race and national origin discrimination, harassment and retaliation at its facilities throughout the country.

The EEOC’s lawsuit charged that since at least 2006, Patterson-UTI engaged in a nationwide pattern or practice of discrimination based on race and national origin on its drilling rigs, including assigning minorities to the lowest level jobs, failing to train and promote minorities, and disciplining and demoting minority employees disproportionately.

The EEOC also claimed that Patterson-UTI tolerated a hostile work environment on its rigs.  Among other things, the EEOC claimed that these employees endured frequent and pervasive barrages of racial and ethnic slurs, jokes, and comments, as well as verbal and physical harassment and intimidation of minority employees.

The EEOC added that employees who opposed or complained about discriminatory practices suffered retaliation, including discriminatory discipline and discharge.

The settlement requires Patterson-UTI to put $12,260,000 into a settlement fund for distribution to the class of discrimination victims, that’s not the full extent of the tab. Related charges filed with the EEOC resulted in separate out-of-court conciliation agreements with the Commission.  When combining the money from the decree and the conciliation settlement agreements, the monetary relief for the victims totals $14.5 million.

Systemic sex bias suit costs $400k

Unit Drilling Company, a nationwide oil drilling company, will pay $400,000 and furnish other relief to settle a systemic sex discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC.

According to the EEOC’s suit, when women applied for jobs at Unit Drilling, they were told that the company did not hire women. Rejected female applicants testified that they were told by Unit employees that the company did not hire women because it only had “man camps,” that women were “too pretty” and that their presence would “distract the men,” the EEOC said.

Under a federal court decree, Unit Drilling will pay $400,000 to five women whom, the EEOC alleged, Unit Drilling refused to hire because they are women. In addition, Unit Drilling will change its policies, provide training against sex discrimination, post anti-discrimination notices, and provide detailed hiring information to the EEOC, which will monitor Unit Drilling’s compliance with the decree.

Unit Drilling Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Unit Corporation and owns drilling rigs all over the country. The company operates approximately 90 onshore drilling rigs in the Anadarko and Arkoma Basins, the Rocky Mountains, and the Texas and Louisiana Gulf Coast.

A full rundown of all of EEOC’s recent settlements can be found on the agency’s web page.

For more HR News, please visit: EEOC rakes in the dough for sex and race bias, retaliation violations

Source: News from HR Morning

85% of managers are failing your employees in this critical area

85% of managers are failing your employees in this critical area


Here’s something disturbing: Resent research shows employees value this singular, no-cost perk more than even health insurance — yet, in the vast majority of cases, they aren’t getting it. What is it? 

Answer: “Open communication.”

Eighty-one percent of employees said they’d rather join a company that values “open communication” to one that offers great benefits — like health insurance, free food and gym memberships, according to a survey by 15Five, a web-based communication software maker.

There’s just one problem: Employers, and managers in particular, are failing workers in this area.

Just 15% of the more than 1,000 workers surveyed said they were “very satisfied” with the quality of communication within their organizations.

The shortcoming appears to start with their managers — as only 15% of employees said they believe their managers “highly valued” their feedback, and 58% said their managers valued their feedback only moderately, slightly or not at all.

Some other knocks against managers:

  • 31% of employees said their higher-ups didn’t create enough transparency
  • 24% said their managers were too busy to listen, and
  • 23% said their managers simply weren’t good at communicating.

Respondents said having a manager check in with them for five minutes each week is extremely important. In other words, employees don’t want to feel like they’re working on an island.

What can you do about it?

Survey respondents seemed to offer a possible solution to this communication issue, although you’ll want to take their suggestion with a grain of salt, as this is the portion of the survey that appears to be entirely self-serving for 15Five.

According to the results, about 70% said they’d be more likely to share info with their managers, thus opening up the lines of communication, if they could enter comments into a feedback platform that managers could then access.

Plus, 60% said an online Q&A platform would make it easier to communicate with team members of a different generation.

Also contributing to the problem is …

Besides a lack of listening from their managers, employees said generational gaps are also a big roadblock to communication.

The survey pointed out the specific communication faults owned by every generational group in today’s workforce:

  • Baby boomers: They tend to be less open and more guarded. This was also tagged as a group that struggles to adapt to new communication technologies like text and chat.
  • Gen-Xers: They, too, were labeled as less open and more guarded.
  • Millennials: While they tend to be honest, they’re also too brash and opinionated (Millennials themselves, seemed to agree with this finding). This group was also labeled as having an inability to talk face-to-face due to its over reliance on technological tools like chat and text.

Survey respondents said companies could improve communication by addressing these generational faults.

For more HR News, please visit: 85% of managers are failing your employees in this critical area

Source: News from HR Morning