Yes. They really socked it to a former coworker of mine. The "guaranteed to screw you situation" was almost putting it mildly. They did everything to set this individual up and they did nothing to hide it. This person was very dynamic and did not deserve it. It was painfully obvious for us to watch and see the entire setup. I think about it now and still feel sick for them. They were lied to about the territory, their numbers, and they were put through way too much drama over this low rent situation.
"Do Not Rehire" list?
- Thread starter Anonymous
- Start date
-
- Tags
- None
I'm new to this thread, and won't take the time to read all the posts - but as someone who used to be in management on several contracts with Publicis, its not unreasonable to have a 'do not hire' list; if you worked on a previous contract and were let go for disciplinary purposes, you're on the list. If you left a contract position without any notice, you're on the list. If you accepted an offer then bailed on it during training or otherwise, you're on the list.
Bottom line - if you have shown yourself to be unreliable, un-trainable or un - anything, you are on the list.
Bottom line - if you have shown yourself to be unreliable, un-trainable or un - anything, you are on the list.
Hey dummy, since you yourself did not read the threads and do not know what you are talking about let me enlighten you as to why this is serious problem for PSS. I have the list. There are about 1600 names listed on it and about half have the reasons you stated above for not to re-hire. HOWEVER, there are hundreds of names on the lists with NO REASON stated as to why they cannot work here again. That leads to speculation and potential lawsuits since managers, HR and recruiters can list someone simply because they did not like them or they were too old, too ethnic or too gay. Can now understand that these are lawsuits waiting to happen and that the total ineptness of PSS created this situation?
Typical response from a PSS DM. They admit they do not know the facts since they have not read the posts but they come and tell you the way it is anyway. The DMs at this dump are all wash outs, ass kissers and useless hacks like the above poster.
Pot calling kettle..? I've been forced to work with the dregs of sales that come to work at Publicis - you people are all here because no respectable pharma company would hire you.
DMs or Reps , on the list or off the list...you all suck.
Sincerely,,
The Rest of Pharma
So what is your point fuckstain? We are all here to suck the last drop of this pharma fuck train.
Please do not post this info since it may cost me my cushy job where I act like I appreciate diversity, except at my level of course.
Old white guys rule HR!!!!!!!!
Can u imagine how many attorneys now and in the future have read this post? Great job recruiters, your ass is next. LOL
I know everything her is bottom of the barrel but seriously, no one manages these recruiters?
You can bet that PSS is now making major changes since they view this site all the time and know this is a major issue and will likely cost them a lot of money. This company is such a dysfunctional, screwed up clown show that it is hilarious.
Yes, it is quite obvious HR monitors this post very closely. They have contacted CP many times to try to get posts removed. That is why when you post on here it always go to review first.
Ok, so back to the basic point of this thread - under what circumstances, according to the reps, DMs or others that post here, is it ok to put someone on a list of this type? If I was a hiring manager, do I have the right to know that there was disciplinary issues with one of the candidates for a position? Of course I do. Would I have the right to know that a candidate backed out of a position after accepting it, with no explanation or reason given? Of course I do. As a hiring manager, do I have the right to know the awful sales performance of a candidate for a position? Of course I do - and if he/she doesn't have some documented data or valid reason to explain the poor performance, I won't hire them anyway.
So-- I can understand if there was a concern that people were on a list for being a minority, sexual orientation, etc. . ; but as an employer(Publicis), if I have documented information that a particular person has shown themselves to be irresponsible, poor performer, or some other issue that will reflect poorly on the company if they are in the mix for a future position/contract, why shouldn't I be allowed to have a list of this type?
So-- I can understand if there was a concern that people were on a list for being a minority, sexual orientation, etc. . ; but as an employer(Publicis), if I have documented information that a particular person has shown themselves to be irresponsible, poor performer, or some other issue that will reflect poorly on the company if they are in the mix for a future position/contract, why shouldn't I be allowed to have a list of this type?
Yes moron, there are legitimate reasons for not rehiring people. However, for about the 50th time I will explain it to you once again. There are hundreds of people on this black ball list that have NO REASON stated at all as to why they cannot be re-hired. That leads to speculation that they were black balled by someone in HR, recruiting or management that put on the list for retaliation, race, age, sexual orientation, etc.. This has been covered numerous times already on this thread. Now are you finally able to understand why this list is such a problem for PSS when it is exposed?
I've heard you flap your lip about this list for better than a year. Still nothing.
Did your mommy and daddy not give you enough attention when you were a child?
Seriously, What's with your hostility towards a reasonable, rational post? It seems that you are just a little too wound up on this.
Go get laid or something ..
As a fellow asshole, I totally relate dude. If someone sucks as a person or even if they're just not very good or don't know their customers the way I do, they shouldn't expect to get rehired like I have been. Sometimes people are just fuckin dorks and that reason is more than enough. So what if it gets in the hands of recruiters outside of the company. Hell... I got a copy of the list a little over a year ago and shared it with some of my recruiter buddies and my manager has it to.
And what if this so called "documentation" was false and could be proven so?... What then? Are you going to keep maintaining that you're right because you felt threatened by the individual? You see someone that shines a little bit too much, so you start documenting bulllshit to make yourself feel better about fading out and not able to acquire the status you once had? How sad and somewhat common this scenario is. You see this so called "documentation" is just what it is defined to be...supposed "observations" made by someone who rarely has anything substantial to back their claim...so because they are in a position of authority, they kinda just start making up crap. It's just not very professional, but very common of people who resent that someone out there washed them down the toilet, so they attempt to do it to someone else. It's interesting to watch.
The DMs, HR and recruiters at this dump are all 4th rate incompetent losers and wash outs. I am not surprised that they created a black ball list and I am not surprised that they are not smart enough to realize that lawsuits would follow. This place is a complete clown show.
Wow - not sure if you are a chick or a dick, so I'll call you Negative Nancy-Nick. So, if as a manager/employee/stakeholder in the success of the company that signs my paycheck, I have firsthand experience about poor performance, poor behavior or other activity that has reflected in a negative way towards the client or the company, I should have a committee review my observations, then as a group we decide? You start from the premise that because they are in management, they 'make up crap'?? There's two sides to every coin, and if an employee is feeling that they are a victim of improper action by management, then they should follow the normal channels - HR complain, then NLRB or their own legal representation. There's bad managers, just like there's bad reps. Making a blanket statement either way is the sign of a lazy person's mind.
The existence of a list is both normal for firms that provide staffing to other companies - get over it. From the content of your response, you obviously feel wronged by a former manager; either pursue a formal complaint, or get over yourself and move on. It takes alot of energy to be in the place that you're in...and you could be spending that energy towards other things, like family, friends, or community.
Just realize this - being miserable as a person makes you undesirable to most, if not all of the people around you.
"I should have a committee review my observations, then as a group we decide?"
The answer to your question is no, well at least a committee should not have to over see anything if you told the truth instead of Putting a negative spin on information. That just makes you look like a "negative" asshole
whether you are a "negative-Nancy" or "Nick".
Yes... There are poor reps and poor managers and great reps and good managers. Being specific about a type of scenario doesn't mean someone has a"lazy persons mind". It means they are concise and get to the root an issue that sometimes occurs in this company.
Yes. I see your point. Going to HR will definitely strengthen your case, (for management only) so continue to tell your employees to go to HR. HR will simply state that their job is to ensure the happiness of the client company and will cover their ears if you tell them what they don't care to hear as they pretend to listen. Yes, the legal route is definitely the way to go when you have reports and documents that come directly from the partnering company whose data base and untainted reports speaks otherwise regarding what "documentation" has been produced. I think you know yourself how half-baked many observations are/have been. Having experience does not indicate honesty or integrity.
Oh, and just so you know...It really doesn't take much of my time or energy to comment and help out the community of other reps out there who have frustrations with regards to working with backward management that is a little too confident that they can get away with murder, while assuming that they have some sort of intelligence super powers while the reps are "stupid" and uninformed.
As for your comment about being a miserable person...LoL If it pleases you to think so, then keep telling yourself that, but the only poor miserable souls I see are the ones that make their life about lying and throwing others in front of the bus because they are lacking the strength within to possess morals and ethics! It really makes me wonder if that's the reason many of you have so many divorces, broken families, and think very little of your friends. You probably tell yourself how "desirable" you are when you are around people that may find you to be miserable. I don't know...I love my job, but I definitely have my priorities straight when it comes to friends, family, and community. Say what you will about me, but exposing the truth about corruption gives me more energy. For someone that claims they think I'm wasting too much energy, maybe you should stop posting and criticizing those who are trying to make a difference and setting a strong precedent for others to follow when abuse from power, corruption, and lies ensue... Just a suggestion.
The answer to your question is no, well at least a committee should not have to over see anything if you told the truth instead of Putting a negative spin on information. That just makes you look like a "negative" asshole
whether you are a "negative-Nancy" or "Nick".Yes... There are poor reps and poor managers and great reps and good managers. Being specific about a type of scenario doesn't mean someone has a"lazy persons mind". It means they are concise and get to the root an issue that sometimes occurs in this company.
Yes. I see your point. Going to HR will definitely strengthen your case, (for management only) so continue to tell your employees to go to HR. HR will simply state that their job is to ensure the happiness of the client company and will cover their ears if you tell them what they don't care to hear as they pretend to listen. Yes, the legal route is definitely the way to go when you have reports and documents that come directly from the partnering company whose data base and untainted reports speaks otherwise regarding what "documentation" has been produced. I think you know yourself how half-baked many observations are/have been. Having experience does not indicate honesty or integrity.
Oh, and just so you know...It really doesn't take much of my time or energy to comment and help out the community of other reps out there who have frustrations with regards to working with backward management that is a little too confident that they can get away with murder, while assuming that they have some sort of intelligence super powers while the reps are "stupid" and uninformed.
As for your comment about being a miserable person...LoL If it pleases you to think so, then keep telling yourself that, but the only poor miserable souls I see are the ones that make their life about lying and throwing others in front of the bus because they are lacking the strength within to possess morals and ethics! It really makes me wonder if that's the reason many of you have so many divorces, broken families, and think very little of your friends. You probably tell yourself how "desirable" you are when you are around people that may find you to be miserable. I don't know...I love my job, but I definitely have my priorities straight when it comes to friends, family, and community. Say what you will about me, but exposing the truth about corruption gives me more energy. For someone that claims they think I'm wasting too much energy, maybe you should stop posting and criticizing those who are trying to make a difference and setting a strong precedent for others to follow when abuse from power, corruption, and lies ensue... Just a suggestion.