Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai General Chat

or Bachelor of Science is not clearly a term for everybody that one is a uni graduate? same for MBA, PhD...

sometimes I faced this question - is that a uni or a course?- at interviews and it really got me surprised...

and no, those interviews were not in karama coffee shops

I guess the interviewer was not a graduate themselves! Believe me, I'm working as recruiter and even in Iran we use these english words for graduates. this must be a misunderstanding or really not qualified interviewer!

melika969 wrote:I guess the interviewer was not a graduate themselves! Believe me, I'm working as recruiter and even in Iran we use these english words for graduates. this must be a misunderstanding or really not qualified interviewer!

Most likely the second - unqualified. Well rather than feel your time was wasted, you can always interview the interviewer and find out how much more your know than the one who already has the job!!!

attended one like that yesterday. its amazing how sometimes really big companies with god knows how many offices have totally unqualified people in key roles. put a little karama girl or very good sir boy in the interviewer seat and than scratch ur head why new joiners are useless and try to leave after a few month.

and i just "love" these questions about how much is my current package, am I single or not and would I be able to provide my passport

all some do is ask these questions but have no clue how to evaluate you.

the other type is the uptight one, walking and talking as if there is smthing stuck up in the arse. they opened an office 6 month ago, but they are leading in their field

just amazing

that's where I should work, instead of nonprofessionals!

raidah wrote:attended one like that yesterday. its amazing how sometimes really big companies with god knows how many offices have totally unqualified people in key roles. put a little karama girl or very good sir boy in the interviewer seat and than scratch ur head why new joiners are useless and try to leave after a few month.

and i just "love" these questions about how much is my current package, am I single or not and would I be able to provide my passport

all some do is ask these questions but have no clue how to evaluate you.

the other type is the uptight one, walking and talking as if there is smthing stuck up in the arse. they opened an office 6 month ago, but they are leading in their field

just amazing

That is why I love my country!! They can't ask anything personal, as personal is irrelevant to one's ability to do a job. No photos or personal details are on (as we call them) resumes. All interviews are based on past work experience and qualifications. If interviewers cross the line and go into the personal area, the company can be sued. But having said that, it wasn't always that way.

I doubt employment laws here will ever reach that level. The only changes in employment laws here are to favor the locals.

well according to labor law they should not ask personal questions. don't know the exact rules there, but I suppose they don't take laws serious.

melika969 wrote:well according to labor law they should not ask personal questions. don't know the exact rules there, but I suppose they don't take laws serious.

There are no such laws here. They won't even look at a CV that doesn't provide certain personal details. All personal information is subject to question without repercussion. I remember when adverts who specify certain "qualifications": under the age of 30, single, specific nationality, etc. The only thing they didn't specify were measurements of female candidates. I have to say, that has stopped, but it's not to say that they don't provide those details to recruitment agencies.

comin from the states and being in HR myself i was surprised at how backwards it is here. in the states they have EEO laws but all that is outta the question here. they just want to hire based on passport photos. it's no wonder i can't find a job now, as they want "yes" men/women who can come in and do as ordered instead of what's right.

nuzbim wrote:comin from the states and being in HR myself i was surprised at how backwards it is here. in the states they have EEO laws but all that is outta the question here. they just want to hire based on passport photos. it's no wonder i can't find a job now, as they want "yes" men/women who can come in and do as ordered instead of what's right.

I was in HR myself at one time in the States. Those practices were referred to as "discrimination". Its amazing how Americans, in any job they hold here, revert to discrimination, even in "American" companies.

And let's not talk about sexual harrassment! They wouldn't dare pull the crap they do here while in the States, even in the most subtlest ways!

Bora Bora wrote:

nuzbim wrote:comin from the states and being in HR myself i was surprised at how backwards it is here. in the states they have EEO laws but all that is outta the question here. they just want to hire based on passport photos. it's no wonder i can't find a job now, as they want "yes" men/women who can come in and do as ordered instead of what's right.

I was in HR myself at one time in the States. Those practices were referred to as "discrimination". Its amazing how Americans, in any job they hold here, revert to discrimination, even in "American" companies.

And let's not talk about sexual harrassment! They wouldn't dare pull the crap they do here while in the States, even in the most subtlest ways!

well i'm not sure bout all americans but i know for myself i worked here like it was the states, and made managers interview people and base hiring decisions on compentence vs anything else.

i've just found that hiring people based on US standards lead to better hires than the process they use out here.

nuzbim wrote:

Bora Bora wrote:

nuzbim wrote:comin from the states and being in HR myself i was surprised at how backwards it is here. in the states they have EEO laws but all that is outta the question here. they just want to hire based on passport photos. it's no wonder i can't find a job now, as they want "yes" men/women who can come in and do as ordered instead of what's right.

I was in HR myself at one time in the States. Those practices were referred to as "discrimination". Its amazing how Americans, in any job they hold here, revert to discrimination, even in "American" companies.

And let's not talk about sexual harrassment! They wouldn't dare pull the crap they do here while in the States, even in the most subtlest ways!

well i'm not sure bout all americans but i know for myself i worked here like it was the states, and made managers interview people and base hiring decisions on compentence vs anything else.

i've just found that hiring people based on US standards lead to better hires than the process they use out here.

I wasn't referring to ALL Americans, just those I observed/worked with. I know of two sexual harrassment/discrimination cases - a slap on the hand, whereas in the States you would have been out the door.

And yes, if you apply the standards that are in place in the States, you will hire (or hope to hire) the better candidate. I too used those standards for hiring, but as you know there are no guarantees anywhere that the choice you make is the best choice. They could be very qualified, but it isn't until they are in the work place that you find out what kind of an employee they are, aside from qualifications.

Bora Bora wrote:I doubt employment laws here will ever reach that level. The only changes in employment laws here are to favor the locals.

It's not the law that has to be changed, it is the attitude of the racist companies. Well, on the second thought, I agree that the law must be changed that all employers must provide equal opportunities regardless of nationality, skin color, religion, etc. All job ads mentioning those must be banned. Any misconduct on interview or at work can be an issue. I care less about law on locals. As long as I can get the same opportunity than "the favoured ones", I don't care if locals earn 100K Dirhams a month.

Bora Bora wrote:I remember when adverts who specify certain "qualifications": under the age of 30, single, specific nationality, etc.

They should've mentioned in the ads "we want young candidates without much of experience who we can pay cheaply (no family benefits). and we prefer talking in our local language/dialect at work."

Today, I was called by one of big recruitment company. Despite that I don't have one mandatory skill (they should've known by reading my CV anyway!), they asked if I have UAE driving license and a car! Even I have both, how the heck non-sales/marketing role has to do with license/car and becoming a crucial point on an interview?

Bora Bora wrote:And yes, if you apply the standards that are in place in the States, you will hire (or hope to hire) the better candidate. I too used those standards for hiring, but as you know there are no guarantees anywhere that the choice you make is the best choice. They could be very qualified, but it isn't until they are in the work place that you find out what kind of an employee they are, aside from qualifications.

Speaking of interview process, especially for technical, I still believe that HR should be in the last step after interviews by to-be-direct-superior or some other person who understand well the skills & experience.

There are many cases where people can't express clearly or having not a perfect communication skills. Meanwhile the HR has no idea anyway what the candidate is talking about. But the candidate has actually more to offer in the work and probably could communicate fluently when speaking with "the same language" (to interviewers who understand the skills/experience/requirements in detail).

Once, I hired one staff for my team who can't communicate well (limited English), but since we talk "the same language" he in fact could deliver the works fast and higher than expectation. He's probably the best in the team. If HR was involved when interviewing, he would've failed in the first place. We're small technical team/company, HR was only for paperworks.

I'm not saying HR is not required, at least in technical field. But attitude, personality, etc (soft-skills) have no relevant anymore these days. People lies, make BS, and kiss-up. The right interviewers ("the same language") will know if he's really skillful or just plain BS. If the candidate is full of BS, then don't bother to be interviewed further by HR. In that case, HR jobs will be much easier

xty wrote:

Bora Bora wrote:And yes, if you apply the standards that are in place in the States, you will hire (or hope to hire) the better candidate. I too used those standards for hiring, but as you know there are no guarantees anywhere that the choice you make is the best choice. They could be very qualified, but it isn't until they are in the work place that you find out what kind of an employee they are, aside from qualifications.

Speaking of interview process, especially for technical, I still believe that HR should be in the last step after interviews by to-be-direct-superior or some other person who understand well the skills & experience.

There are many cases where people can't express clearly or having not a perfect communication skills. Meanwhile the HR has no idea anyway what the candidate is talking about. But the candidate has actually more to offer in the work and probably could communicate fluently when speaking with "the same language" (to interviewers who understand the skills/experience/requirements in detail).

Once, I hired one staff for my team who can't communicate well (limited English), but since we talk "the same language" he in fact could deliver the works fast and higher than expectation. He's probably the best in the team. If HR was involved when interviewing, he would've failed in the first place. We're small technical team/company, HR was only for paperworks.

I'm not saying HR is not required, at least in technical field. But attitude, personality, etc (soft-skills) have no relevant anymore these days. People lies, make BS, and kiss-up. The right interviewers ("the same language") will know if he's really skillful or just plain BS. If the candidate is full of BS, then don't bother to be interviewed further by HR. In that case, HR jobs will be much easier

If HR managers knew every aspect of every job they would own the world!!! They are and should be the initial entry to an interview. When it comes to the specifics and technical end of a position, most definitely the person who would be supervising them should have the final decision.

Unfortunately there are two many so-called HR managers who can't make a proper evaluation within the scope of what should be their job, which is a general assessment and review previous employment with the candidate. Obviously there should be some basic knowledge of the position, as the HR manager cannot be expected to have indepth knowledge of every position with an organization.

It's like an HR Manager making a decision on a candidate who is applying for an aerospace position - is that candidate really capable of meeting the expectations required of that position? Only the person or persons he or she would be working directly for can make that decision.

But hey, we're in Dubai, and isn't everybody an expert here???

If the HR is at the first step of interview, then the keyword to them should be "recommending" not "filtering out". Otherwise they could probably losing the best candidate only because one two irrelevant thing. Unfortunately most HR practices the latter one.

Bora Bora wrote:

xty wrote:

Bora Bora wrote:And yes, if you apply the standards that are in place in the States, you will hire (or hope to hire) the better candidate. I too used those standards for hiring, but as you know there are no guarantees anywhere that the choice you make is the best choice. They could be very qualified, but it isn't until they are in the work place that you find out what kind of an employee they are, aside from qualifications.

Speaking of interview process, especially for technical, I still believe that HR should be in the last step after interviews by to-be-direct-superior or some other person who understand well the skills & experience.

There are many cases where people can't express clearly or having not a perfect communication skills. Meanwhile the HR has no idea anyway what the candidate is talking about. But the candidate has actually more to offer in the work and probably could communicate fluently when speaking with "the same language" (to interviewers who understand the skills/experience/requirements in detail).

Once, I hired one staff for my team who can't communicate well (limited English), but since we talk "the same language" he in fact could deliver the works fast and higher than expectation. He's probably the best in the team. If HR was involved when interviewing, he would've failed in the first place. We're small technical team/company, HR was only for paperworks.

I'm not saying HR is not required, at least in technical field. But attitude, personality, etc (soft-skills) have no relevant anymore these days. People lies, make BS, and kiss-up. The right interviewers ("the same language") will know if he's really skillful or just plain BS. If the candidate is full of BS, then don't bother to be interviewed further by HR. In that case, HR jobs will be much easier

If HR managers knew every aspect of every job they would own the world!!! They are and should be the initial entry to an interview. When it comes to the specifics and technical end of a position, most definitely the person who would be supervising them should have the final decision.

Unfortunately there are two many so-called HR managers who can't make a proper evaluation within the scope of what should be their job, which is a general assessment and review previous employment with the candidate. Obviously there should be some basic knowledge of the position, as the HR manager cannot be expected to have indepth knowledge of every position with an organization.

It's like an HR Manager making a decision on a candidate who is applying for an aerospace position - is that candidate really capable of meeting the expectations required of that position? Only the person or persons he or she would be working directly for can make that decision.

But hey, we're in Dubai, and isn't everybody an expert here???

Well. that's what I'm coming for. expert in recruitment!

biggest problem with HR from how I see it, is that most people in this field think they are the allmighty. you walk in and they look through you, you turn to them with a question and next day everybody knows. I recall with a previous company, I called up the HR to ask what the procedure was in case I presented my resignation. next morning my boss called in to ask why I wanted to resign.

HR should be the heart of a company, the balance keeper able to represent company interests but create in the employees a feeling a confort and confidence to approach them.

raidah wrote:biggest problem with HR from how I see it, is that most people in this field think they are the allmighty. you walk in and they look through you, you turn to them with a question and next day everybody knows. I recall with a previous company, I called up the HR to ask what the procedure was in case I presented my resignation. next morning my boss called in to ask why I wanted to resign.

HR should be the heart of a company, the balance keeper able to represent company interests but create in the employees a feeling a confort and confidence to approach them.

Raidah, scoring points is more important than confidentiality.

Bora Bora wrote:

raidah wrote:biggest problem with HR from how I see it, is that most people in this field think they are the allmighty. you walk in and they look through you, you turn to them with a question and next day everybody knows. I recall with a previous company, I called up the HR to ask what the procedure was in case I presented my resignation. next morning my boss called in to ask why I wanted to resign.

HR should be the heart of a company, the balance keeper able to represent company interests but create in the employees a feeling a confort and confidence to approach them.

Raidah, scoring points is more important than confidentiality.

you can score points without kissing as.s, or you can kiss as.s in a smart way, so you don'd smash your own credibility in the process. I'm not being naive, you do need to be a player in this field, question is, how smart you play. and that girl I mentioned wasn't too smart.
see, in such a small place like dubai one cannot afford to be too much of a jerk because it takes very little to meet the people you fcked up in different circumstances.

raidah wrote:

Bora Bora wrote:

raidah wrote:biggest problem with HR from how I see it, is that most people in this field think they are the allmighty. you walk in and they look through you, you turn to them with a question and next day everybody knows. I recall with a previous company, I called up the HR to ask what the procedure was in case I presented my resignation. next morning my boss called in to ask why I wanted to resign.

HR should be the heart of a company, the balance keeper able to represent company interests but create in the employees a feeling a confort and confidence to approach them.

Raidah, scoring points is more important than confidentiality.

you can score points without kissing as.s, or you can kiss as.s in a smart way, so you don'd smash your own credibility in the process. I'm not being naive, you do need to be a player in this field, question is, how smart you play. and that girl I mentioned wasn't too smart.
see, in such a small place like dubai one cannot afford to be too much of a jerk because it takes very little to meet the people you fcked up in different circumstances.

So true. The thing here is that when they go looking to score points, they aren't thinking about the problems they can create in doing so. You made a inquiry, nothing more. For her to read into it as being more was dead wrong. Drawing a conclusion and acting on it without any reliable information can cost one their job. Do you think that had anything to do with you being made redundant??

Bora Bora wrote:

raidah wrote:

Bora Bora wrote:

raidah wrote:biggest problem with HR from how I see it, is that most people in this field think they are the allmighty. you walk in and they look through you, you turn to them with a question and next day everybody knows. I recall with a previous company, I called up the HR to ask what the procedure was in case I presented my resignation. next morning my boss called in to ask why I wanted to resign.

HR should be the heart of a company, the balance keeper able to represent company interests but create in the employees a feeling a confort and confidence to approach them.

Raidah, scoring points is more important than confidentiality.

you can score points without kissing as.s, or you can kiss as.s in a smart way, so you don'd smash your own credibility in the process. I'm not being naive, you do need to be a player in this field, question is, how smart you play. and that girl I mentioned wasn't too smart.
see, in such a small place like dubai one cannot afford to be too much of a jerk because it takes very little to meet the people you fcked up in different circumstances.

So true. The thing here is that when they go looking to score points, they aren't thinking about the problems they can create in doing so. You made a inquiry, nothing more. For her to read into it as being more was dead wrong. Drawing a conclusion and acting on it without any reliable information can cost one their job. Do you think that had anything to do with you being made redundant??

ah nono, nothing like that. this was before that. I was considering very strongly to resign and there she goes running to my boss with the word. so he calls me in asking why I want to resign. I'm like I see news travels fast, either way I didn't say I wanted to resign, all I did was ask what if. but since she made sure the subject comes up before due, I'll take the opportunity and resign . for a week they were training to talk me out of it...

and ur right, in a normal country spreading rumours can cost one the job and so it should

raidah wrote:

Bora Bora wrote:

raidah wrote:

Bora Bora wrote:

raidah wrote:biggest problem with HR from how I see it, is that most people in this field think they are the allmighty. you walk in and they look through you, you turn to them with a question and next day everybody knows. I recall with a previous company, I called up the HR to ask what the procedure was in case I presented my resignation. next morning my boss called in to ask why I wanted to resign.

HR should be the heart of a company, the balance keeper able to represent company interests but create in the employees a feeling a confort and confidence to approach them.

Raidah, scoring points is more important than confidentiality.

you can score points without kissing as.s, or you can kiss as.s in a smart way, so you don'd smash your own credibility in the process. I'm not being naive, you do need to be a player in this field, question is, how smart you play. and that girl I mentioned wasn't too smart.
see, in such a small place like dubai one cannot afford to be too much of a jerk because it takes very little to meet the people you fcked up in different circumstances.

So true. The thing here is that when they go looking to score points, they aren't thinking about the problems they can create in doing so. You made a inquiry, nothing more. For her to read into it as being more was dead wrong. Drawing a conclusion and acting on it without any reliable information can cost one their job. Do you think that had anything to do with you being made redundant??

ah nono, nothing like that. this was before that. I was considering very strongly to resign and there she goes running to my boss with the word. so he calls me in asking why I want to resign. I'm like I see news travels fast, either way I didn't say I wanted to resign, all I did was ask what if. but since she made sure the subject comes up before due, I'll take the opportunity and resign . for a week they were training to talk me out of it...

and ur right, in a normal country spreading rumours can cost one the job and so it should

Reminds of the time when I was very friendly with a colleague and we went out for a few drinks. She asked me what a coworker's salary was because they had the same position. My response to her was: Would you like me to reveal your salary to other workers? You pretend that you didn't ask that question and I'll pretend that I didn't hear it. As a sidenote, don't ever think you can take advantage of our friendship and put my job in jeopardy. It never happened again.

Not_Sure wrote:http://www.answers.com/topic/bachelor-s-degree

Bachelor:

An academic degree conferred by a college or university upon those who complete the undergraduate curriculum. Also called baccalaureate.

hm, back home baccalaureat is the high school diploma you get after taking the exams at the end of 12th grade.

bachelor is the uni diploma after graduating from the 4-6 years of uni

I think sometimes maybe it's different of their countrys' culture

Bora Bora wrote:

melika969 wrote:well according to labor law they should not ask personal questions. don't know the exact rules there, but I suppose they don't take laws serious.

There are no such laws here. They won't even look at a CV that doesn't provide certain personal details. All personal information is subject to question without repercussion. I remember when adverts who specify certain "qualifications": under the age of 30, single, specific nationality, etc. The only thing they didn't specify were measurements of female candidates. I have to say, that has stopped, but it's not to say that they don't provide those details to recruitment agencies.

That is utter rubbish lol. Yes, it is applicable in some cases but in NO WAY is that the general attitude of employers here. Ever since I came back to Abu Dhabi 3 years ago ive had 3 different jobs and countless other interviews, and my CV has no picture, no marital status, no birthdate, and no mention of a citizenship.

Oh and by the way, you mentioned that 'your country' has laws that prohibit recruiters from asking such questions. That is good and all, but the money you make here is more than what you would make but in 'your country' so its balances out. Im sure if you were such an avid opponent of this blatant discrimination (and I do agree that its a form of discrimination), you would not be here.


But we should be honest about all this; in a country where people from 200 nationalities can be found, we all know and 'accept' that certain passports and certain backgrounds will 'cost' certain things to the employer; so why not find those out at the screening stage instead of wasting everyone's time?