IQ Test

[HR Solutions]

Teco
I am not going to get into a flaming war with you. But with the labour laws being so onerous on the employer they have to do a lot more screening before they hire anyone. Now you say some tests are illegal that may be. But if more obstacles and hoops to jump through are put in front of the the employer the less people they are going to employ. That is from my perspective.

I hope I write for everyone on this thread that we accept that you say IQ tests are illegal, lets move on from that and give constructive ideas on how to screen new employees.

Teco one trait which you show is tenacity which is good for a sales job, for your next job I suggest you look in that direction.

Thanks Ian - yes you do definitely write for me as well. And yes I agree, we have had the flaming war already with tec, but he insists on carrying it on. Move on man, if you would like to think you are right then so be it !

[adrianh]

HR - you did prove the need to use IQ tests as a measure of reasoning ability beyond a reasonable doubt - just think of the cost savings on flame suits!

[Citizen X]

Right:
Clearly you wish to implement some tests to see if people are capable or not but you have no intention as seen here to do it the right way.

Now when this “testing is done” your customers will be provided with a list of possible employees. Thus you are preforming a “service” and your customers are paying you for this service. Now they may or may not be aware of your selection process but it doesn't change fact that by administering the tests that you are performing a service.

This is not the same as giving an employee a practical challenge to see if they can do the job or not.
The employer/customer can do that to see if the person is combatant but is not the same as the IQ test. It is NOT.

All I am saying is think about what was stated here on this thread. Is this really the right way to do it? Is this the type of service you wish to give your customers?

Believe it or not I am actually trying to help you. Can you not see that what you are planning to do may not be ethical nor legal unless you do it the right way by enlisting the correct companies to do the job properly correctly.

Good morning gentlepeople,

Trusting that you well on this rather nippy second day of Spring(here in the South at least). You guys all defend your positions with passion, that’s commendable!

Call it academic curiosity or test by ability in practice, then, I think Tec0 makes a pretty good as well as damning case.

I simply must give him due on the points he has raised and the manner in which he then motivated his position. I also admire his ability to provide well-reasoned arguments.

One can at times do a stunning thing in the moment and turn an argument towards a complete different trajectory!

The grass roots of it is that one has many a misconception when the term ‘Marxist,’ is used, it associated with no regard for religion[Even Stalin legalised Churches and other religious organisations during the war], status and money. This is further confused by the manner in which the erstwhile Soviet Union implemented its understanding of communism. They were privy to the writings of Karl Marx, but could never comprehend that Marx himself would have been disgusted at the manner in which they implemented a system based on true equality and common good.

It’s actually his influence which led to labour movements and eventually statutory provisions regarding all aspects of the employee. The State acknowledged that they too are a contender in that they too have staff! It has become common cause that this our current South African economy requires a vast labour force and do any other similar economic system.

Marx unfortunately never left a plan for an ideal Marxist State. He focused extensively on what he called ‘division of labour,’ and ‘specialisation.’ Besides his many other writings, though impressive but not practically useful as he was a philosopher, and thus done a stunning job of looking at a society from the perspective of its many millions.

Our South African labour history is very fascinating, the ‘employee,’ has demonstrated the great lengths he is willing to go to in in-order to make his dispute of right or socio economic demand known. Our South African labour force have demonstrated something that no one, including the Unions, could have ever anticipated in time or even close to the time, that is, how powerful in practical this energy among such a large number of people would flow. Many unions members have revoked their very own Union’s mandate towards them and embarked unprecedented levels of labour unrest.

The pivotal thing though that makes all our Labour Laws so entrenched is the very existence of our Constitution of 1996. Our Constitution is the supreme of our land and any law and/or conduct which is inconsistent with it will be declared invalid.
The Constitution endorses our various Labour Legislation and promotes its implementation.
Discrimination was at the heart of our previous system so both the interim and the final Constitution sought to rid our society of this plague.
The central idea was not to actually discriminate on any arbitrary or frivolous ground.


The question is not actually whether communism worked, its more one of: is capitalism working? We must concede to economic implosions in the last 100 years and the impact , including the last one has had on the world.
My final position is that if it were not for Marx, one could possibly even have a current situation where a woman to allowed one day off to give birth and report diligently to work to next day or face summary dismissal.
The latest amendment to the Labour Relations Act speaks to this move to entrench the Constitutional supreme stipulation to the right to fair labour practices, the right not to be discriminated against, and the right not to be unfairly dismissed.

By mere fact that an ‘applicant for employment,’ now enjoys so many commonly held rights with commonly utilized legal remedies and how the South African Human Rights Commission is reacted to matters of similar nature, I can see how our everyday South African now has the right to voice his disregard for certain conduct and bahaviour

[HR Solutions]

I simply must give him due on the points he has raised and the manner in which he then motivated his position. I also admire his ability to provide well-reasoned arguments.

Oh do you ?? So calling people ass**holes in previous threads is ok ? Personally it loses all credibility and people then just ignore the individual !

[Citizen X]

Oh do you ?? So calling people ass**holes in previous threads is ok ? Personally it loses all credibility and people then just ignore the individual !

I can only reasonably comment on what i'm currently seeing or what is currently at hand in this thread. To cross reference with any other trend will be an exhaustive exercise for anyone!

[HR Solutions]

I can only reasonably comment on what i'm currently seeing or what is currently at hand in this thread. To cross reference with any other trend will be an exhaustive exercise for anyone!

lol ...That is very two faced don't you think ? Because you do exactly that when it suits you !

[tec0]

Oh do you ?? So calling people ass**holes in previous threads is ok ? Personally it loses all credibility and people then just ignore the individual !

Yes I did get angry, partly because I couldn't get trough to you and partly due to your arrogance and attitude. You just want to do whatever you want to do and for the most part that doesn't bother anyone.

The reality however is you are not undeserving. You really did push it this time. But I digress, as explained before this is not about evaluation every company has the right to do so that is why it is called a "probation period" if you Google it you will find that the CCMA does allow for it as long as it is within reason. So really this was never the argument.

Example: A bookkeeper comes to you and you hire them only to find out that they are not legally registered. Obviously you will be upset and may even take legal action. The same is true if a bogus college certify people with bogus papers. There is simply no justification to do any type of testing or provide any service illegally. Any employer have the legal right to give an employee a "probation period" thus allowing for proper evaluation both on there skill and mental capability.

However if you wish to test people beforehand then you need to do it the right way. I understand you only want to deliver the best for your customer. But you must understand that you also have a responsibility towards your customers. If they asked you how the tests was done? How can you look them in the eye and answer them?

And for the record you called me far worst things then just an "a$$hole"

So really HR you are not innocent. The truth is these people don't know you as I know you.

Right I am done now.

[HR Solutions]

"Right" so BYE then ...

[Dave A]

Nope not wasting money on formal stuff. My tests are fantastic...

I took that part as made pretty much with tongue-in-cheek, actually. But it's a molehill that has grown into a mountain, by the looks of things.

The latest amendment to the Labour Relations Act speaks to this move to entrench the Constitutional supreme stipulation to the right to fair labour practices, the right not to be ??? discriminated against, and the right not to be unfairly dismissed.

I think you left out "unfairly" - the Constitution does, after all, provide for "fair" discrimination (the precise definition of which is, of course, in the eye of the beholder - and is ultimately in no small part the cause of this fracas).

I have to say my initial reaction to the presence of a piece of legislation that describes IQ tests in employment screening practices as unfair discrimination was that it was probably first proposed by a moron. That definitely was thought tongue-in-cheek in case anyone's wondering - but it did lead me to wonder:

What's the average IQ of the members of our national parliament at the moment?

[adrianh]

I would think that the average IQ of a member of parliment today would somewhere between that of an eggplant and a raddish.

[tec0]

I took that part as made pretty much with tongue-in-cheek, actually. But it's a molehill that has grown into a mountain, by the looks of things.

I think you left out "unfairly" - the Constitution does, after all, provide for "fair" discrimination (the precise definition of which is, of course, in the eye of the beholder - and is ultimately in no small part the cause of this fracas).

I have to say my initial reaction to the presence of a piece of legislation that describes IQ tests in employment screening practices as unfair discrimination was that it was probably first proposed by a moron. That definitely was thought tongue-in-cheek in case anyone's wondering - but it did lead me to wonder:

What's the average IQ of the members of our national parliament at the moment?

What I was trying to get at before I got so angry I couldn't think was this. You cannot provide a service as a service if you are not qualified to do so. This was never about employer employee discrimination. They have nothing to do with this.

This is about offering a service and within that service the service provider acts unlawfully to complete the task. A simple example would be if a car mechanic pretends to be a doctor. Obviously it is not going to end well nor does the mechanic have the right credentials.

Now I tried to communicate this fact over and over again. But all is lost. See mister HR believes he has the right to screen Individuals even before they get to the interview stage. Now the tests as far as I can tell was downloaded so in that respect how legitimate is the test? Does he or his personal administer the test correctly? Is the test even up to standard? Was the individuals informed what the test is and what will happen if they fail the test? Lastly but most importantly how credible was the test to begin with?

I know it sound stupid but his customers are paying him a sum of money. Now I would imagine these customers expect him to act lawfully in his respective processes? Where the customer informed to begin with?

That is my argument...

I am well aware that any employer have the right to give the new employee some tasks to proof themselves. This is only fair and I understand why it is necessary because any employee is an investment and must be able to preform there duties.

But if companies wishes to condone this type of behaviour, then really there is nothing I or anyone can do. However that said what is the point then of any grading system?

Now I know I pushed this to far but in my defence HR knew exactly where to hit me and he knew that I would eventually react.

[HR Solutions]

You should really go into consulting. You could advise companies how to run their businesses and how to do things because you seem to know it all.

[adrianh]

I am well aware that any employer have the right to give the new employee some tasks to proof themselves. This is only fair and I understand why it is necessary because any employee is an investment and must be able to preform there duties.

What part of: No employer wants to test 100 prospective employees don't you understand. The agent is hired to weed them out to 3 or so. If the employer wanted to waste his own time he would not hire an agent in the first place.

damn dude....is it so hard to understand?

[Dave A]

This is about offering a service and within that service the service provider acts unlawfully to complete the task. A simple example would be if a car mechanic pretends to be a doctor. Obviously it is not going to end well nor does the mechanic have the right credentials.

Now I tried to communicate this fact over and over again. But all is lost.

Oh - I'm pretty sure the message got through. I certainly got it, and I'm sure many more besides. That's probably why no-one is arguing against your point.

However, the point itself doesn't prove that HR Solutions is "a mechanic pretending to be a doctor." And repetition of the point isn't going to change that either.

What HR related qualifications exist within the HR Solutions organisation?
How do they administer these tests?
What process have they followed in developing these tests?

Fact is, you don't know. At best you are making assumptions based on your personal experience of employment practices elsewhere, and a few lines of text posted on a website, all of which is very far from providing a complete picture.

I'm afraid the news gets worse before it gets better.

Even if you are right in your assumptions, you need to understand the harsh realities of influencing change, and lean into them if you wish to be a meaningful change agent.

No-one enjoys being told they are wrong (or doing it wrong etc.).
It is, however, tolerable to discover you are wrong.

When you are told you are wrong, it is perceived as an attack and the kneejerk reaction is to defend what you are doing.
When you discover that you are wrong, people are far more likely to proactively make changes.

So what are you trying to achieve here?
I don't need an answer - I just would like you to really think about it.

Of course we all love being recognised when we're right. Again, the bad news is in life most times you are not going to get any recognition. In fact most times you get no feedback at all.

This is not a problem. When people are silent, there's a fair chance they're thinking.
And when they're thinking, there's a fair chance of change.

Or they don't understand, but enough going down this rabbit hole already

[HR Solutions]

What part of: No employer wants to test 100 prospective employees don't you understand. The agent is hired to weed them out to 3 or so. If the employer wanted to waste his own time he would not hire an agent in the first place.

damn dude....is it so hard to understand?

lol ... Adrian, its like when your mother used to nag you and carry on when you were young - you would just say yes Ma...
So I don't even read some of the long posts and just agree and say "whatever" , "sure you're right" ,"if you say so"

Oh - I'm pretty sure the message got through. I certainly got it, and I'm sure many more besides. That's probably why no-one is arguing against your point.

As Dave just said

What HR related qualifications exist within the HR Solutions organisation?
How do they administer these tests?
What process have they followed in developing these tests?

Fact is, you don't know. At best you are making assumptions based on your personal experience of employment practices elsewhere, and a few lines of text posted on a website, all of which is very far from providing a complete picture.

Thank You so much Dave