So, who's appyling for a new territory?

Quote
Anonymous said:
This is why I made the post in the first place. To try to figure out who's applying where. I knoow that nobody wants to post names here or whatever, but I'd love to get some insight on this process. Right now, I know of one rep that was displaced and he now has a new territory.

Anyone else?
Click to expand...

Why do you want to know do badly?
 






Because I have friends that lost their jobs last week and are applying for new territories. I'd like to know what they're up against, and to have an idea how the process is working itself out. I'm sure they do as well.
 






Anonymous said:
This is why I made the post in the first place. To try to figure out who's applying where. I knoow that nobody wants to post names here or whatever, but I'd love to get some insight on this process. Right now, I know of one rep that was displaced and he now has a new territory.

Anyone else?
Click to expand...

I know of one zone where the ZD is hand picking reps. I promise that's true and the process isn't legal.
 






Anonymous said:
Because I have friends that lost their jobs last week and are applying for new territories. I'd like to know what they're up against, and to have an idea how the process is working itself out. I'm sure they do as well.
Click to expand...

Why don't you worry about you and let your "friend" worry about the IV process. If you would like people to post names, why don't you start first with posting your name, your friends name and the territory they are applying for. People lost their jobs. The last thing they need is someone on here posting their names and making comments on who should get what vacant territory.
 






Anonymous said:
I know of one zone where the ZD is hand picking reps. I promise that's true and the process isn't legal.
Click to expand...

Interviews will take place. All of the placements will take place Wed-Friday. No one is hand picking any reps. There was some thought on using the same number generated by Z Associates and placing them in that order, but RD's wanted to interview and HR agreed that was a fair way to decide.
 






Anonymous said:
I know of one zone where the ZD is hand picking reps. I promise that's true and the process isn't legal.
Click to expand...

What do you think an interview process is? Its Hand picking an employee.
If you were running a business, wouldnt you want to hire the people that you feel give you the best opportunity to succeed? That doesnt mean that they dont have compassion for those displaced-they just may not want them on their team.
Obviously they have to follow anti-discrimination laws, etc, But beyond that, the way I see it-it does come down to the preference of the hiring manager or ZD. Welcome to the world of interviewing.
 






Anonymous said:
What do you think an interview process is? Its Hand picking an employee.
If you were running a business, wouldnt you want to hire the people that you feel give you the best opportunity to succeed? That doesnt mean that they dont have compassion for those displaced-they just may not want them on their team.
Obviously they have to follow anti-discrimination laws, etc, But beyond that, the way I see it-it does come down to the preference of the hiring manager or ZD. Welcome to the world of interviewing.
Click to expand...

There's more to it than the obvious that you stated...hot shot!

There is a situation with a rep I know that isn't legal.

However, thanks for typing your elementary 101 hiring policy. You should run for President!
 






Anonymous said:
There's more to it than the obvious that you stated...hot shot!

There is a situation with a rep I know that isn't legal.

However, thanks for typing your elementary 101 hiring policy. You should run for President!
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I have to agree with the other poster. A interview is all about taking a bulk of qualified candidates and the hiring manager or zone director hand picking the candidate they think will best fit into the position. There is nothing illegal about that. Every displaced rep would be qualified. Now it comes down to managers preference. This is how interviews work in the real world. You don't need a reason for not hiring someone. I use to be a sales recruiter. I have seen several great reps that I thought were sure things, walk out without the job because the manager and the rep just didn't "hit it off". I have also seen several reps that I thought would just be time fillers, get the job because they "hit it off" with the hiring manager.

The resume gets you the interview, but the rep gets the job. I don't see how this situation would be any different. If you think you are guaranteed a job for any reason, you will be disappointed. No matter how good your numbers are, how much tenure you have or where you live, you will have to compete for the job.
 






Anonymous said:
Are the RDs doing the right thing- looking at performance and tenure? Understanding reps got a raw deal and giving it to who has given the most to Shire? Or is this a beauty pageant based on one phone "interview" like you guys are straight out of college? I hope they treat you like the professionals you are in the relocation process because we all were treated like shit last week! I hope ranking and tenure come in to play for you now because SHIRE LOST SOME DAMN GOOD REPS LAST WEEK!
Click to expand...

TOTAL BEAUTY PAGEANT AND UNFAIR
 






Anonymous said:
Sorry, but I have to agree with the other poster. A interview is all about taking a bulk of qualified candidates and the hiring manager or zone director hand picking the candidate they think will best fit into the position. There is nothing illegal about that. Every displaced rep would be qualified. Now it comes down to managers preference. This is how interviews work in the real world. You don't need a reason for not hiring someone. I use to be a sales recruiter. I have seen several great reps that I thought were sure things, walk out without the job because the manager and the rep just didn't "hit it off". I have also seen several reps that I thought would just be time fillers, get the job because they "hit it off" with the hiring manager.

The resume gets you the interview, but the rep gets the job. I don't see how this situation would be any different. If you think you are guaranteed a job for any reason, you will be disappointed. No matter how good your numbers are, how much tenure you have or where you live, you will have to compete for the job.
Click to expand...

I 100% agree with this post. If there are more displaced reps than there are vacant territories then yes, each rep should have to interview and compete for the job based on their qualifications, rankings, references and whatever else they have working for them. Unfortunately, sometimes other factors come into play and it comes down to how well you click with the person making the decision. Nothing different if you were interviewing for any position anywhere.
 






Anonymous said:
There's more to it than the obvious that you stated...hot shot!

There is a situation with a rep I know that isn't legal.

However, thanks for typing your elementary 101 hiring policy. You should run for President!
Click to expand...

I think I am reading in between the lines with this poster.

While other posts are correct in the hiring process, I think this poster is possibly referring to whomever not being considered because of a "reason" that is non compliant in the HR process. This situation happens during lay-offs. It is very risky letting managers on the ground floor talk when trying to fill territories. They often let something "slip" that is non compliant. This is one reason the displaced reps were offered severance packages...and while you are only given 14-21 days to sign. They want that piece of paper back as quickly as possible. The faster time reduces the chance of the company being held liable for non compliant matters during a chaotic lay off.
 












Anonymous said:
I think I am reading in between the lines with this poster.

While other posts are correct in the hiring process, I think this poster is possibly referring to whomever not being considered because of a "reason" that is non compliant in the HR process. This situation happens during lay-offs. It is very risky letting managers on the ground floor talk when trying to fill territories. They often let something "slip" that is non compliant. This is one reason the displaced reps were offered severance packages...and while you are only given 14-21 days to sign. They want that piece of paper back as quickly as possible. The faster time reduces the chance of the company being held liable for non compliant matters during a chaotic lay off.
Click to expand...

If you think you may not be considered for a job in general for "non compliant" reasons you are mistaken. It happens every day in every industry. Unless you have proof of being discriminated against, you have to just move on.
 










































Anonymous said:
And you know that how exactly?
Click to expand...

People talk.

Before anyone says..."nobody's gonna talk and lose their job"...let me add that this is an unordinary circumstance. It has affected many people's livelihood. In times like this, certain people with a heart tend to say things they normally wouldn't say. You just always have to have your ears open no matter what is going on.
 






Top Bottom
Back
Quote