Thousands of Resum

When is spam a crushing burden? When you're required by law to keep and file it all.

Comments

[Jim]

It's not nothing for those companies getting 50,000 a month - it probably consumes quite a bit of resources. Even if the technology that enables such results can also be used to field it, it's still and unnecessary regulatory burden that costs us all money on some level.

I think the solution, for companies that post positions on services like Monster, is having the web service pre-screen them before sending any to the customer company. Or, they will have to manually search such databases for the resumes they are interested in. Again, although this would work it will take extra time and/or money for someone to do this.

[Madog]

We get thousands of resumes a week in our three HR Offices at Yale. We have a great system though, they get scanned, the originals are destroyed, and an automatic thank-you letter is generated and mailed with almost no human interaction. We store the digital copies in a database (Resumix). If you have the right system, then it's not that big a deal. It also helps that they have to specify the exact requisition number of every job they want to apply for or else they just sit in the database until the computer decides they qualifications match a search a recruiter is doing. 🙂

[Andy]

They *could* store resumes in two places if they wanted, the good ones on a searchable system and the bad ones in the basement. It's even easier for emailed resumes. They could even
burn them to CD and stash them in a filing cabinet somewhere.

If they were complaining about having to read them all or generate reports based on them I could understand the complaints, but this is just whining about nothing.

[Tuning Spork]

Nowhere in the article is there even a clue to why businesses are federally required to save all resumes for a year. So, my question is, why are businesses required to save all resumes for a year? Why should Big Bang save the resume from someone that they will never have any use for, and why does the government give a rat's ass if they do or don't??

[Andy]

I'm not arguing about the cost of sorting, that's a necessary and important part of recruitment. Saying you want good resumes but not the bad ones is ridiculous!

The only cost that seems unnecessary is that of storage, and sticking them on a CD a month and filing it really isn't much effort. Of course it's also pointless, but that's government for you...