Recruitment

Also from Answers.com... Home First Aid/Health at Home What every household needs to be safe.

(physiology) A serial discharge from neurons innervating groups of muscle fibers.

Act of seeking prospective new employees or members for an organization. Recruitment is a vital function for an organization to maintain its personnel.

Recruitment (from Old Fr.: recrute) originally meant reinforcement, but came to mean any enlistment of personnel for military purposes. This is one of the few immutable factors in warfare. To initiate any type of large-scale conflict, be it on the basis of ideology, religion, nationality, or even financial gain, a leader must first muster a force sufficient to execute his plans. When an armed force is divided according to how its personnel was recruited, we may expect to find career soldiers, volunteers, and conscripts, while the proportions of each may be expected to vary greatly depending upon the purposes, nature, and scale of a war.

The success of any campaign to induce volunteers or force conscripts into an army will be decided, to a large extent, by circumstances. The recruitment of professional soldiers is less variable. The factors involved have changed very little since the medieval mercenaries, and centre on pay. Yet this alone has rarely been enough, other than to attract those seeking to escape destitution. Beyond this, the recruit may hope to develop a career within the armed forces, or he may expect to enjoy the lifestyle provided. It is not uncommon to read of young men joining the army or navy in the hope of seeing the world. The case for those receiving a commission has generally been a little different. Career development is a common goal for professional officers, and this has often been closely linked to social standing. The practice of purchasing commissions, which was widespread in the 18th and early 19th centuries, was very much a reflection of this link.

The distinction between career soldiers and volunteers is not always clear. After all, most professionals choose their career; they act under their own volition. Moreover, in some cases, soldiers have volunteered on the understanding that they will share in whatever spoils are won before returning to civilian life. The Vikings are perhaps the best example of this volunteer mercenary. More recently volunteers have joined the colours for more altruistic reasons than plunder and booty, although ‘proffing’ remains an attraction. This kind of recruitment is often at its height in the first months of a war, particularly if men feel their nation, ideology, or community is threatened. Such motivations are, nevertheless, further exploited in most cases. Before more technologically oriented media became available, those attempting to recruit soldiers might make inspiring, patriotic speeches in a town square. In the medieval period the church was sometimes used as a means both to transmit information on political developments and to direct the response of the population to those developments. The Crusades are the most obvious example of this, but the link between Church and State was often sufficiently close that the Church became involved in national wars.

As technology has become more advanced, more avenues of recruitment have opened up. In the 20th century newspapers, radio, television, and posters have all served to aid recruitment. Perhaps the most famous single image in this regard is the poster featuring the face and pointing finger of Kitchener, which invited British civilians to enlist in 1915-16, with the words ‘Your country needs you.’ News coverage supplemented such propaganda with details of alleged atrocities and aggression. Posters and newspapers have effectively advertised modern wars in the opening months of a conflict, and induced thousands to enlist. Such recruitment plays upon existing motivations in the minds of recruits, primarily, nationalism, patriotism, and certain ideologies. During the Cold War these factors blended together in support of recruitment to the armed forces of both sides.

Whatever the motivation that brings a volunteer into the ranks, the military authorities must be prepared to deal with the practicalities of recruitment. The authorities are expected not only to accept those who have agreed to fight, but also to provide uniforms, equipment, and training facilities. Since these cannot be created immediately, the actual recruitment process commonly stretches over several weeks, the volunteer being ordered to report at a certain place and time when facilities will be available to begin the process of training him as a soldier. From the point of view of the authorities, mobilization involves very much more than simply inviting men to join up, but even the recruitment side of it involves a great deal of logistical work to provide the volunteers with uniforms and equipment, to feed them, and to move them to training camps.

In prolonged wars, such as the world wars or Vietnam, the early willingness to volunteer eventually dries up or, a particular problem during the US wars of the 19th century, they fulfil their term of enlistment and wish to return home. This leaves any armed force with a major shortage in personnel, particularly if the war expands. It is at this point that even those governments who have shunned it in peacetime resort to the third method of recruitment, conscription.

Conscription, defined as the forced recruitment of men into the military, has long been established as a means of supplying troops. The Roman army included large numbers of auxiliares, men drawn from conquered territories. In order to promote loyalty among such troops, the promise of promotion and possibly even Roman citizenship was provided as an incentive, thus blurring the distinction between conscription and professional soldiering. Such blurring may be found in other periods in history. For example, feudal recruitment depended upon the relationship between suzerain and vassal. Thus a monarch might ask his leading nobles, who held land from the Crown in return for providing military service, to furnish him with troops; these noblemen would then require knights, who held land from them, to provide military service, usually for a specified period. At the local level landowners might effectively coerce their tenants to join them in arms. The element of outright coercion was often intermingled with ties of loyalty and obligation and, increasingly, reinforced by the prospect of pay and plunder. Even in 17th-century England these old bonds still proved enormously strong. In 1642 the Royalist Sir Bevil Grenvile raised a fine regiment of foot (whose men wore the Grenvile blue and silver and fought beneath colours emblazoned with the family's griffin badge) from his hardy Cornish tenantry. He made it clear, however, that any tenant who chose not to follow the griffin would have no roof over his head.

Conscription became more formalized in modern armies. Frederick ‘the Great’ conscripted a proportion of the Prussian male population (and made wide use of mercenaries) in order to offset the numerical advantages held by his enemies and diminish the demographic cost of the war. The French Revolutionary government, and later Napoleon, conscripted vast numbers of unwilling troops when volunteers became scarce. Indeed, the levée en masse introduced by the French Revolutionary government in August 1793 established the practice of large-scale conscription which set the stage for the large scale of warfare in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Conscription appeared again during the American civil war. Both sides conscripted a significant proportion of their armies despite the antipathy for conscription among both soldiers and civilians. In the South, where manpower problems were acute, the government was forced to conscript men to war-related industries as well as to the army, and by the latter stages of the conflict the Confederacy was moving towards some form of national mobilization. Conscripts were often reluctant soldiers, of course, and desertion rates climbed following the introduction of conscription in both North and South, just as it had done in France. The North was able to introduce conscription while exempting those involved in vital economic activities (or with the money to hire a substitute), but for the South, even with slaves to perform much of the agricultural work, there was a trade-off involved that was never satisfactorily resolved. The highly divisive issue of exempt status in wars involving conscription continues to dog the heels of today's US politicians, many of whom found some way of not being sent to Vietnam.

In the generation before 1914 large, conscript armies had replaced smaller, professional forces in most of Europe. Since 1870 France, Russia, Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy had collectively doubled the strength of their forces through short-term, mandatory military service for adult males. We can see the emergence of a symbiosis between war planning and mass conscription in the development of the Schlieffen plan, both made conceivable by greater numbers and at the same time demanding more. Schlieffen's fulcrum was that the German armies ‘would have to secure a quick victory and would therefore have to attack. Otherwise the absence of so many able-bodied men from productive occupation … would cause economic collapse’. Events proved him wrong, but by then the damage arising from this false postulate was done.

Of the major European powers, only Britain did not maintain a large conscript army in the years leading up to WW I—primarily because the British did not expect to become involved in a continental war and were prepared for colonial conflicts instead. Yet the expansion of the war in its first two years, and the horrific casualties taken by both the British Expeditionary Force and the French army in 1914-15, prompted Britain to introduce conscription in 1916. The last two years of the war then saw manpower being stretched between domestic and military demands in all of the major European nations. The difficulty of balancing manpower resources gave a tremendous fillip to those who believed in central planning, which indeed proved necessary for full mobilization during the world wars. Men were subtracted or added to industry, agriculture, or the armed forces on the basis of skills and experience. Oddly, even at the very end it cannot be said that Nazi Germany was fully mobilized: for example, the Nazis failed to mobilize women to anything like the extent that the Allies did, and in terms of quality control or outright sabotage their use of slave labour may well have substantially diminished overall productivity.

What is likely to remain as the clearest example of how mass recruitment—for all purposes—can enable a smaller nation to defeat one that, on paper, should crush it flat, was the Vietnam war. The North Vietnamese, having already defeated the French, developed into a true nation in arms, in which there was no line between volunteer and conscript because even small children had war work to do. By contrast the US ‘draft’, riddled with classist and political exemptions, divided the nation, while by refusing to declare, still less mobilize, for war, Pres Johnson unleashed major inflation. The contrast between the morale of the even more corruptly conscripted South Vietnamese army and the all-volunteer Vietcong guerrillas was stark enough, but when the former came up against the North Vietnamese army without overwhelming US air support, the results were predictably humiliating. That the dedicated and ruthless Marxists who won the war subsequently proved unable to deliver prosperity to their long-suffering people by using the same methods is another matter. For the singular purpose of waging total war, their doctrine was the stronger.

Bibliography

• Milward, Alan, The German Economy at War (Cambridge, 1965).
• Strachan, Hew, European Armies and the Conduct of War (London, 1993)

— Andrew Haughton/Hugh Bicheno

The military manpower policy of the United States has been marked by sharp contrasts between principles and realities. Universal service has often been the ideal, but the militias and conscript armies have never been equally representative of society.

America's early military traditions were heavily influenced by Great Britain's, and included a predisposition toward militia organization and a distrust of centralized standing peacetime forces. The militias—military organizations composed of civilians enrolled and trained as defensive forces against invaders—developed from medieval notions of the duty of all free men to help the king defend the realm. The colonists, threatened by Native Americans and rival colonial powers, organized as citizen‐soldiers in order to protect themselves and their interests.

When troops were needed for a campaign, legislatures assigned quotas to local militia districts. Local officials then called for volunteers and could draft men when necessary. Thus, the militia—in theory composed of all able‐bodied free white men—served as the mobilization base for the colonies, with volunteers, usually called provincials, providing the troops for campaigning. A considerable proportion of the citizenry was exempted from service by over 200 militia laws. For instance, the Massachusetts Militia Act of 1647 exempted officers, fellows, and students of Harvard College; church elders and deacons; schoolmasters; physicians; surgeons; captains of ships over twenty tons; fishermen employed year‐round; people with physical problems; and many others. When the militia failed to produce a sufficiently large number of volunteers, or when legislative calls for additional volunteers failed to expand the force sufficiently, men could be drafted, or impressed. During the colonial period, impressment was rarely successful, and avoided in most provinces because of its potential to create desertion or even riot. For this reason, impressed men were always given the option of paying a fine or hiring substitutes to serve in their stead.

During the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress allocated manpower quotas for the Continental army to the states, and left conscription policy up to them. At the conclusion of the war, George Washington urged Congress to accept the principle of universal national military obligation and establish a small peacetime army backed by a national militia. Congress declared that standing armies in times of peace were inconsistent with the principle of republican government, and discharged virtually the entire Continental army.

This tug‐of‐war between national military need and national thought on standing armies has influenced the whole of military history. One day after it had dismissed the Continental army, Congress requested that the states of Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania recruit a total of 700 militiamen for a year of service on the frontier. The term of frontier service was extended to three years, and then the militiamen were replaced by regular soldiers.

With the adoption of the Constitution, the federal government acquired the power to raise and support armies, to provide and maintain a navy, and to make rules for the regulation of the land and naval forces. The right of the states to control their militias was confirmed, and the state forces were to be the country's major land force in the event of a crisis.

A standing army did not fit naturally into the ideological landscape of the new republic. Necessary or not, the armed forces were typically kept small and often suffered from neglect. Soldiers were often untrained, poorly housed and fed, and not always paid. In 1812, as America faced a war, the regular army consisted of less than 7,000 men and was dispersed throughout the expanding country. Older regiments were commanded by aging revolutionary veterans, training was lax, and supply and staff were inadequate even in peacetime. The war effort was built upon volunteer companies and the amorphous state militias behind them. Congress approved enlistment bounties totaling $40 for regular recruits plus three months pay in advance and 160 acres of land. The next year, Congress invited members of volunteer militia organizations to join the regular army for one year. The actual turnout was disappointing. In order to raise necessary manpower in wartime, Congress created the U.S. Volunteers, locally raised troops for national service for the duration of a conflict.

Recruitment suffered from all the impediments to men leaving their homes for war. Popular indifference always hampered raising and supporting troops. In the early years of the republic, there was strong opposition to any exercise of armed force on the part of the United States—opposition that arose from the fear that the government would come to depend upon the force and from disagreement over whether the Constitution actually allowed it. Historically, the quality of men who would sign up with the army, in a country of expanding economic opportunities, was poor. Until the turn of the nineteenth century, visitors to army posts spoke of the men's low intelligence, loose morals, and habitual drunkenness, and described frontier posts as dirty, dusty, and remote. Desertion was common. The army was barely growing, promotion prospects were dismal, and there was no retirement system.

The patriotic angst that brought the Civil War fueled its armies as well, composed primarily of U.S. and Confederate volunteers. In a few weeks, nationalism produced the first mass armies in American history. The U.S. Army grew to twenty‐seven times its original strength in the four months following the capture of Fort Sumter (1861). Both Federal and Confederate forces swelled with volunteers in the early months—and both turned to conscription to augment their mass armies.

Conscription was rationalized on the grounds that the rights guaranteed to the individual by the government implied an obligation upon him to defend his rights by defending the government that assured them. Exemptions were commonplace and the hiring of substitutes remained lawful.

In 1916, with eyes on the war in Europe, Congress passed the National Defense Act, which provided for an expanded peacetime regular army—the National Guard—a reserve force, and a volunteer army to be raised in time of war. That summer, mobilization of the National Guard failed to recruit the Guard to full strength. This convinced the Wilson administration of the inadequacy of voluntary enlistments to raise an army for the Great War. A conscription bill, the Selective Service Act of 1917, was passed immediately after the declaration of war. The regular army and the National Guard continued to recruit volunteers, and the draft was held to remedy any deficiencies.

Having learned lessons from the Civil War, for World War I there were no substitutes and no bounties. Students under the age of twenty‐one, however, were able to defer service by enrolling in the Student Army Training Corps for three years. Otherwise, each eligible person was required to register as an obligation of citizenship or residence in the United States. Conscription was based on the principle of universal obligation to service. The World War I draft supplied close to 67 percent of the total force. It acted as a spur to voluntary enlistment, and the enlistment rate fluctuated with conscription policy. The draft lapsed at the end of the war, and precedents were set not only for a national draft and for student deferments but also for those deferments to expand into exemptions from service.

Although distinctly concerned by the onset of World War II, the Roosevelt administration hesitated to ask for conscription before a declaration of war for fear of arousing isolationist sentiment. In the summer of 1940, however, public and congressional sentiment outran President Franklin D. Roosevelt and conscription was enacted. Later that summer, a joint resolution called for mobilization of the National Guard and reserves.

With the end of World War II and the onset of the Cold War, the whole landscape changed. Neither life nor war would ever be the same again. Many Americans, including some in the armed forces, believed that an atomic monopoly had brought an end to the era of mass armies. Demobilization proceeded at great speed: by 1948, the army's combat effective strength was reduced to two and one‐third divisions. In June 1948, however, in response to growing tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union, Congress passed a new Selective Service Act, with a two‐year limit. The revival of the draft encouraged voluntary enlistments among men who wished to choose service and branch rather than to leave themselves at the mercy of local draft boards. The act was extended for the Korean War. As voluntary enlistment increased, inductions under Selective Service dropped, from more than a third of accessions during the mid‐1950s to less than 10 percent during the early 1960s.

Had it not been for the Vietnam War, the draft might have been phased out a decade earlier than it was. Opposition to the war and the draft, and the perceived inequities of Selective Service, contributed significantly to the advent of the All‐Volunteer Force in the early 1970s. Critics of the force warned that it would weaken patriotism, attract the economically disadvantaged, and attenuate the relationship between the armed forces and civilian society. In January 1973, peacetime conscription ended in the United States.

The resulting All‐Volunteer Force has surpassed all national concerns. Solely dependent upon volunteers, the force has attracted recruits from across a broad social spectrum, is well trained, well equipped, and well led. To paraphrase a contemporary recruiting slogan, it is all that it can be.

[See also Militia and National Guard; National Defense Acts; Naval Militia; Reserve Forces Act; Selective Draft Cases.]

Bibliography

• Jerome Johnston and Jerald G. Bachman, Young Men and Military Service, 1972.
• John K. Mahon, History of the Militia and the National Guard, 1983.
• John W. Chambers, To Raise an Army, 1987.
• Christopher Duffy, The Military Experience in the Age of Reason, 1988.
• Mark J. Eitelberg, Manpower for Military Occupations, 1988.
• David R. Segal, Recruiting for Uncle Sam, 1989.
• Martin Binkin, Who Will Fight the Next War? 1993.
• Mark J. Eitelberg and Stephen L. Mehay, eds., Marching Toward the Twenty‐first Century, 1994

n. 1. the action of enlisting new people in the armed forces.

2. the action of finding new people to join an organization or support a cause: the recruitment of nurses.

See the Introduction, Abbreviations and Pronunciation for further details.

The enlistment of different numbers and types of muscle fibre during the contraction of a whole muscle. Recruitment follows a set pattern: slow-twitch fibres are brought into action first, then fast twitch a fibres (fast oxidative glycolytic FOG), and finally fast twitch b fibres (fast glycolytic or FG fibres). The level of recruitment is generally determined by the force demanded of a muscle. However, even during maximal efforts, the nervous system does not usually recruit all the available fibres. Normally, only a fraction of muscle fibres are stimulated at any specific time. This prevents damage to muscles and tendons which would probably be torn if all the fibres in a muscle were active at the same instant.

Recruitment
(Click to enlarge)

For other uses, see Recruitment (disambiguation).

Recruitment refers to the process of screening, and selecting qualified people for a job at an organization or firm, or for a vacancy in a volunteer-based some components of the recruitment process, mid- and large-size organizations and companies often retain professional recruiters or outsource some of the process to recruitment agencies. External recruitment is the process of attracting and selecting employees from outside the organization.

The recruitment industry has four main types of agencies: employment agencies, recruitment websites and job search engines, "headhunters" for executive and professional recruitment, and in-house recruitment. The stages in recruitment include sourcing candidates by advertising or other methods, and screening and selecting potential candidates using tests or interviews.

Contents 1 Agency types 1.1 Traditional Agency 1.2 Headhunters 1.3 In-House Recruitment 1.4 Passive Candidate Research Firms / Sourcing Firms 2 Process 2.1 Job Analysis 2.2 Sourcing 2.3 Screening and selection 2.4 Onboarding 3 Internet Recruitment / Websites 3.1 Job search engines 4 See also 5 References

Agency types

The recruitment industry has four main types of agencies. Their recruiters aim to channel candidates into the hiring organizations application process. As a general rule, the agencies are paid by the companies, not the candidates.

Traditional Agency

Also known as a employment agencies, recruitment agencies have historically had a physical location. A candidate visits a local branch for a short interview and an assessment before being taken onto the agency’s books. Recruitment consultants then work to match their pool of candidates to their clients' open positions. Suitable candidates are short-listed and put forward for an interview with potential employers on a temporary ("temp") or permanent ("perm") basis.

Compensation to agencies take several forms, the most popular:

• A contingency fee paid by the company when a recommended candidate accepts a job with the client company (typically 20%-30% based and calculated of the candidates first-year base salary), which usually has some form of guarantee (30-90 days standard), should the candidate fail to perform and is terminated within a set period of time (refundable fully or prorated)
• An advance payment that serves as a retainer, also paid by the company, non-refundable paid in full depending on outcome and success (eg. 30% up front, 30% in 90 days and the remainder once a search is completed). This form of compensation is generally reserved for high level executive search/headhunters
• Hourly Compensation for temporary workers and projects. A pre-negotiated hourly fee, in which the agency is paid and pays the applicant as a consultant for services as a third party. Many contracts allow a consultant to transition to a full-time status upon completion of a certain number of hours with or without a conversion fee.

Headhunters

A "headhunter" is industry term for a third-party recruiter who seeks out candidates, often when normal recruitment efforts have failed. Headhunters are generally considered more aggressive than in-house recruiters or may have preexisting industry experience and contacts. They may use advanced sales techniques, such as initially posing as clients to gather employee contacts, as well as visiting candidate offices. They may also purchase expensive lists of names and job titles, but more often will generate their own lists. They may prepare a candidate for the interview, help negotiate the salary, and conduct closure to the search. They are frequently members in good standing of industry trade groups and associations. Headhunters will often attend trade shows and other meetings nationally or even internationally that may be attended by potential candidates and hiring managers.

Headhunters are typically small operations that make high margins on candidate placements (sometimes more than 30% of the candidate’s annual compensation). Due to their higher costs, headhunters are usually employed to fill senior management and executive level roles. Headhunters are also used to recruit very specialized individuals; for example, in some fields, such as emerging scientific research areas, there may only be a handful of top-level professionals who are active in the field. In this case, since there are so few qualified candidates, it makes more sense to directly recruit them one-by-one, rather than advertise internationally for candidates. While in-house recruiters tend to attract candidates for specific jobs, headhunters will both attract candidates and actively seek them out as well. To do so, they may network, cultivate relationships with various companies, maintain large databases, purchase company directories or candidate lists, and cold call prospective recruits

In-House Recruitment

Larger employers tend to undertake their own in-house recruitment, using their human resources department, front-line hiring managers and recruitment personnel who handle targeted functions and populations. In addition to coordinating with the agencies mentioned above, in-house recruiters may advertise job vacancies on their own websites, coordinate internal employee referrals, work with external associations, trade groups and/or focus on campus graduate recruitment. While job postings are common, networking is by far the most significant approach when reaching out to fill positions. Alternatively a large employer may choose to outsource all or some of their recruitment process(recruitment process outsourcing).

Passive Candidate Research Firms / Sourcing Firms

These firms provide competitive passive candidate intelligence to support company's recruiting efforts. Normally they will generate varying degrees of candidate information from those people currently engaged in the position a company is looking to fill. These firms usually charge a per hour fee or by candidate lead. Many times this uncovers names that cannot be found with other methods and will allow internal recruiters the ability to focus their efforts solely on recruiting.

Process

Job Analysis

The proper start to a recruitment effort is to perform a job analysis, to document the actual or intended requirement of the job to be performed. This information is captured in a job description and provides the recruitment effort with the boundaries and objectives of the search. ^[1] Often times a company will have job descriptions that represent a historical collection of tasks performed in the past. These job descriptions need to be reviewed or updated prior to a recruitment effort to reflect present day requirements. Starting a recruitment with an accurate job analysis and job description insures the recruitment effort starts off on a proper track for success. a

Sourcing

Sourcing involves 1) advertising, a common part of the recruiting process, often encompassing multiple media, such as the Internet, general newspapers, job ad newspapers, professional publications, window advertisements, job centers, and campus graduate recruitment programs; and 2) recruiting research, which is the proactive identification of relevant talent who may not respond to job postings and other recruitment advertising methods done in #1. This initial research for so-called passive prospects, also called name-generation, results in a list of prospects who can then be contacted to solicit interest, obtain a resume/CV, and be screened (see below).

Screening and selection

Suitability for a job is typically assessed by looking for skills, e.g. communication, typing, and computer skills. Qualifications may be shown through résumés, job applications, interviews, educational or professional experience, the testimony of references, or in-house testing, such as for software knowledge, typing skills, numeracy, and literacy, through psychological tests or employment testing. In some countries, employers are legally mandated to provide equal opportunity in hiring. Business management software is used by many recruitment agencies to automate the testing process. Many recruiters and agencies are using an Applicant tracking system to perform many of the filtering tasks, along with software tools for psychometric testing

A British Army etc. recruitment centre in Oxford.

Onboarding

"Onboarding" is a term which describes the introduction process. A well-planned introduction helps new employees become fully operational quickly and is often integrated with a new company and environment. Onboarding is included in the recruitment process for retention purposes. Many companies have onboarding campaigns in hopes to retain top talent that is new to the company, campaigns may last anywhere from 1 week to 6 months.

Internet Recruitment / Websites

Such sites have two main features: job boards and a résumé/curriculum vitae (CV) database. Job boards allow member companies to post job vacancies. Alternatively, candidates can upload a résumé to be included in searches by member companies. Fees are charged for job postings and access to search resumes. Since the late 1990s, the recruitment website has evolved to encompass end-to-end recruitment. Websites capture candidate details and then pool them in client accessed candidate management interfaces (also online). Key players in this sector provide e-recruitment software and services to organizations of all sizes and within numerous industry sectors, who want to e-enable entirely or partly their recruitment process in order to improve business performance.

The online software provided by those who specialize in online recruitment helps organizations attract, test, recruit, employ and retain quality staff with a minimal amount of administration. Online recruitment websites can be very helpful to find candidates that are very actively looking for work and post their resumes online, but they will not attract the "passive" candidates who might respond favorably to an opportunity that is presented to them through other means. Also, some candidates who are actively looking to change jobs are hesitant to put their resumes on the job boards, for fear that their current companies, co-workers, customers or others might see their resumes.

Job search engines

The emergence of meta-search engines, allow job-seekers to search across multiple websites. Some of these new search engines index and list the advertisements of traditional job boards. These sites tend to aim for providing a "one-stop shop" for job-seekers. However, there are many other job search engines which index pages solely from employers' websites, choosing to bypass traditional job boards entirely. These vertical search engines allow job-seekers to find new positions that may not be advertised on traditional job boards, and online recruitment websites.

See also

• Human resources
• Recruitment process outsourcing
• Firing
• Referral recruitment
• Candidate Submittal
• Sourcing (personnel)
• Human resource management
• Onboarding
• Executive onboarding

References

1. ^ http://www.staffing-and-recruiting-essentials.com/Hiring-Checklist.html

v • d • e Employment Classifications Casual/Contingent • Full-time • Part-time • Self-employed/Independent contractor • Temporary Hiring Application • Background Check • Cover letter • Drug testing • Contract • Employment agency • Executive search • Interview • Job hunting • Job fraud • Probation • Referral • Recruiter • Résumé • Work-at-home scheme • Selection criteria Roles Internship • Job • Numerary • Permanent • Permatemp • Supernumerary • Supervisor • Volunteer Attendance Break • Leave of absence • No call, no show • Sick leave • Workers' compensation Schedules 35-hour workweek • Eight-hour day • Flextime plan • Four-day week • Overtime • Retroactive overtime • Shift work • Telecommuting • Workweek • Working time Wages Living wage • Maximum wage • Minimum wage • Overtime rate • Paid time off • Performance-related pay • Salary • Salary cap Benefits Annual leave • Sick leave • Health insurance • Life insurance • Disability insurance • Take-home vehicle Health & safety Ergonomics • Industrial injury • Occupational disease • Sick building syndrome • Work accident (Occupational fatality) • Workplace noise • Workplace stress • Workplace wellness • Work-life balance Infractions Employee handbook • Evaluation • Sexual harassment • Sleeping while on duty • Workplace bullying • Workplace surveillance Willingness Job satisfaction • Workaholic • Work aversion disorder • Work ethic • Working poor Termination At-will employment • Constructive dismissal • Firing • Layoff • Letter of resignation • Resignation • Retirement • Severance package • Types of unemployment • Unemployment • Unemployment benefits • Wrongful dismissal Miscellaneous Overqualification • Underemployment

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)