By - FancyNewMe
I don’t like this. I’ve always had way worse luck with jobs where you apply to their HR platform like they’re describing than ones where you submit a resume and an actual person reads it.
probably because those things just scan any transcripts and turn the ones with a grade average below A- into toilet paper for the managers
They still have the worst interview process I've ever been in, so whatever.
I remember seeing a job posting from them for a Software developer. My friend ended up getting an interview for that role and it turned out to be a tech support job at the stock exchange. What a joke.
Tech at banks is a dismal job.
This is pretty standard now. I'm in entry level tech and almost half of my friends (almost all of whom have some sort of engineering or CS degree since it was "required") are working in roles that involve little to no actual development work or technical expertise, we're just messing around with APIs or no-code platforms or excel.
Even Shared Services Canada had an extended hiring pipeline and coding test for a job that is writing SQL queries and attending meetings all day. All the government departments want technical degrees to do basic IT support.
Is it worse than Shell's, where you can't even get an interview unless you pass their "pre-assessment" of basically a bunch of corporate bullshit that you have no choice to agree with or else you get immediately dropped from consideration?
No, worse. I got an interview by walking into a physical branch and passing along my resume (very Boomerish of me). So then they passed me to the video interview, which was pre-recorded questions, which I don't have a problem with. They then had me do an interview with a lady in person, which went like this (and this was in 2019, btw):
Lady: So what were you doing in 2009? Were you working?
Me: Well, I worked in the summers as a counsellor in training at a camp-
Lady: Why weren't you working full-time?
Me: Well, I was in high school.
Lady: Okay. What were you doing in 2010?
That was basically the pattern for the rest of the interview. Just asking you what you did every year for the past 10 years...for a basically entry-level role. And all stuff they could have found on my resume, which they had. No deeper questions, just that bullshit.
I do interviews where I work, and I don’t GAF what candidates were doing more than 6-7 years ago. I’m interested in their recent experience and their recent jobs. Educational background is important and I want to see something at least somewhat relevant, but I’m most interested in whether they can do the job. What they were doing in 2009 is of no relevance to me.
Honestly, when I look at resumes, I don’t look at any job experience from before 2014-15.
Apparently, Scotiabank cares a lot about what you were doing 10 years ago, even if you want to be a bank teller.
* Canadians eyeing internships, co-op placements and graduate positions at Scotiabank no longer have to submit their resumes.
* “We are taking away any bias, which would be where did someone go to school, what jobs did they have before and what opportunities did they have or not have based on their upbringing or circumstances,” said James Spearing, Scotiabank’s vice-president of talent acquisition.
* Its new hiring processes has expanded to include the bank’s recruiting team using Plum’s platform to determine which requirements are most important for jobs they are looking to fill.
* Applicants then complete a Plum assessment with problem solving, personality and situational questions targeting those requirements.
* Applicants receive information on their talents, work style and preferences, while recruiters see a “match score” indicating each candidate’s potential fit with the role they are hiring for and other openings.
* But assessments can also be lengthy – Plum’s takes about 25 minutes \_ and sometimes software can have difficulties picking up on how transferable some skills are.
*My thoughts: Not everything on resumes is there because of privilege. Often, applicants have worked long and hard and shown initiative to achieve it's contents. i don't believe it should be excluded entirely from the hiring process.*
Just what I want when it comes to handling my money.
This is for internships and coop placements. The whole POINT of internships and coop placements is to provide an environment where people can get job skills. They are SUPPOSED to have no clue about how banking works and only an interest and passion for it at this point.
And given they aren’t real employees they presumably will not handle your money until CIBC has given them on the job training.
In short, Reddit complains about job ads that require 8 years of job experience for an entry level minimum wage role, yet when a company actually puts a program in place to give on the job training for an INTERNSHIP, the Reddit hive mind shits on them.
My 2 cents: Investment banking internships are extraordinarily competitive processes. For those roles, students will join clubs and seek mentorship just to get their foot in the door. I think it's wrong to say that those who have a genuine interest & take steps to chase it should be put on the same footing as some rando.
Most of the disinterested people at the bank I worked at left for consulting, PE, etc. That's not a bad thing, but there are students that would have killed for that same chance and not "wasted" the opportunity.
If you think IB is using this bogus hiring methodology then you’re mistaken lol
Not like Scotiabank just offers investment banking internships. In fact I bet most of the internships they offer aren’t investment banking.
Also, applying for the internship and passing some tests in itself shows interest and a base level of aptitude. They aren’t drawing names out of a hat. They are just recognizing that there may be people out there who just need a foot in the door to prove their worth and for whom society is more used to shutting the door on these people.
My 2 cents: what I read is, if we don't have pre-requisites that people with privilege have a much easier access to and are more likely to succeed at, we'll need to admit that none of these are really important in determining whether or not you'll be successful in this field.
I agree with everything youve said here except your last point. Reddit is made up of very different people with different views. In all likelihood, the people complaining about the experience requirements for entry level positions and the people bitching about programs like this or "kids with no work ethic" are very different groups, not part of a hive mind.
Yeah, but there is a side effect where resumes reveal basic skills like ability to spell or convey information succinctly. There is a real possibility that this will result in more unfair discrimination, not less.
They have to complete tests
My thoughts exactly. Youre going to get a bunch of kids with no work ethic. Having a job, really any jobs matters for experience. The number of employees that just suddenly stop showing, or decide they dont feel like working on a given day is alarming. One position I work with requires a degree and certification. There are maybe 12 permanent positions in the department and over the year and a half 4 of the new grads just ghosted us or got fired for things like taking an hour for your 15 min break or no call no shows or just leaving mid shift unannounced.
Yep. When people walk out of a job mid-shift, there are problems at the workplace that need to be addressed.
Its a unionized hospital job
Don’t worry, this process is only for the shit not important jobs. No way they’d use this for anything remotely close to their IB division. Not even back office.
Yes, it's extremely hard to believe. IB roles will still probably only hire from a few elite target schools i.e. Ivey, and Queen's in Ontario, i.e. only those students will be considered, above a certain grade threshold.
Also, IB is only front office.
I mean I’m doubtful they’d drop resumes for the back office guys that just process the paperwork for the ones moving size.
Mainly common sense. Too much money on the line. They can’t put a dolt without the appropriate prerequisites in change of millions.
Also, a simple search Google search shows that even an internship in the IB division has a long list of requirements.
This sounds like any government position, in that it seems great on paper, but when you get down to it, so many qualified candidates are passed over in order to be "inclusive".
Certain things like previous jobs, education and overall general experience are essential to be successful, and efficient. Standardized testing of people will result in...less than desirable results.
Resumes are pretty stupid though. A person whose better at bullshitting will produce better results than someone who merits the position but is terrible at bullshitting due to honesty
>But assessments can also be lengthy – Plum’s takes about 25 minutes
Such a hardship in pursuing a job...25 long minutes gone!
This from the bank that fired my wife for being pregnant. Screw them!
Edit: To those asking, yes we know it’s illegal. We started to fight it, but given the fact my wife was both pregnant and has anxiety issues she’s on meds for, she ultimately decided to just take the severance they offered because the idea of dealing with lawyers and court was too much.
As for the back story, my wife became pregnant shortly before starting a job with Scotia. Her boss (who was also a woman) decided to pile on work on her when she found out that my wife was pregnant. Basically created an increasingly stressful work environment for my wife. Who’s pregnancy was making day to day life hard with nausea and various join swelling.
My wife was actually excited about this job and was planning on sticking it out with the company long term. But then this happened. Took her sometime to get over this.
Unless they explicitly said they are letting her go for being pregnant, in writing, it’s almost impossible to prove. OP mentioned his wife being given an increased workload, that is not illegal, no matter what the perceived underlying intentions are.
Unfortunately there's a lot of things in Ontario that are illegal, but almost impossible to get enforced. And enough employers get away with it that little change occurs.
My wife made the mistake of telling the company we were expecting 2 months before her annual review. Despite smashing her KPIs the company said it’s just not the right time for her promotion
I mean, that does make a little more sense doesn't it? If there are two people up for a promotion, and one is going to be away for months due to an upcoming mat leave, you would naturally want to give the promotion to someone who's going to be there.
Missing out on a promotion because you're going to be away is much different than straight up getting fired for being pregnant.
Usually employers don’t fire someone for being pregnant. Probably more to the story.
Especially not as big as an employer as Scotia. The legal costs far FAR outweigh the costs of keeping on a pregnant employee.
Wife has anxiety issues she's medicated for. OP, is your wife a scene-maker? Be honest.
Nah, I've been in closed-door meetings where the boss straight up has instructed managers to pile on work to so-and-so, or scour through all their work to find mistakes in order to find that they missed something so they have a reason to fire them. Usually it's so they can hire someone cheaper for the position (hooray imported labour!) but he was also pretty vocal about wanting to use that system if someone got pregnant.
It's a shitty situation all around. Scotiabank's behavior was poor in how they handled letting her go but it's also shitty to deal with someone who is pregnant getting a job to exploit the mat leave shortly after starting.
I understand the person exploiting is also just trying to get by likely so it's not that I don't understand that position. However all this does is remind employers why they need to be vigilant and cautious hiring women. If they need to hire women it's better to focus on 40+ age as the chances of this happening are much lower.
So I wasn't going to respond to anything beyond the edit I made, but this is such a shitty take that I feel compelled to respond.
Based on your response, you're assuming my wife got this job to exploit what? Getting EI? Getting paid not even a quarter of what she was making while working? Never mind it was a job that she made a lateral move from another bank where she did the same job for over a decade with no such issue. Or never mind the fact EI is considerably less than Cerb, where if we're talking about a system to exploit that was is a lot easier to do (which I add my wife I followed the rules and didn’t apply, because we aren’t ones to cheat the system).
So here's some more information you didn't know about but really illustrates on how shitty of a take yours is. The bank knows our address, knows my wife commutes 140 km daily to get to work, and despite having severe pregnancy issues, and did all this because she was excited for the long term opportunity of the job and she liked her team. She did all this up until the day she was let go, which was 2 weeks before her mat leave was supposed to start. Considering all that, and considering the fact her boss purposefully singled her out and increased her work load, how can anyone come to a conclusion that she was there to exploit making fucking less than minimum wage.
This is all ignoring the fact my wife wanted to and let them know she was looking forward to staying with them long term, because she liked the team she was working with. My wife after this shitty situation, and after her maternity leave was done, went back to work and started a new job, which the job required her to study and pass a certification in order to work in that job. Real exploitive person there, working hard to start a new career, that’s a great way to cheat the system.
I'm all for ensuring companies not getting fucked over by unnecessary burdens due to over regulation and exploitive bad actors. But women getting pregnant to start a family isn't a fucking reason to be let go. Women my wife included put their bodies through hell for this. Are there some who get pregnant for bad reasons. Sure. But to blanket include all women, when you don't know the full story is asinine and ignorant. Not to mention it punishes husbands like myself who wanted to start a family. Having children is not cheap, and EI doesn't even cover the necessities to raise a child, never mind profit from it.
It's fortunate for us I'm making enough to help mitigate that cost, but we still made the conscious decision to go into a little debt with a plan to get rid of it when my wife got back to work. This of course was all before she was let go. But we made it work and she worked her ass off after to show the bitch who let her go and people like you that she’s not popping babies out to take advantage of the system.
It's takes like yours that honestly make it easy to assume women are being attacked for wanting to start families and that the system is against them. Maybe actually fucking think about what the fuck your saying and believing in. Jesus.
Your original comment made me believe she interviewed knowing she was pregnant and didn't let them know (which is her right as they can't ask that anyway). Seeing that she took a lateral job move and I reviewed your comment once more it's possible she didn't even know she was pregnant until after interview but before job start. Ultimately me saying she exploited is a poor choice of words as it may not even be her intent. Taking your words at face value I apologize for that.
I also am not debating that how Scotiabank conducted themselves was any good. It was shitty on their end.
I do have a general problem of how mat leave is handled, especially because I've routinely seen women get themselves new positions while hiding pregnancy only to go on mat leave shortly after. For small businesses or departments that really sucks not just because of the money involved but because that position is tied up and either filled by someone temporarily (who would also love to get a full-time gig but even if they ended up doing great they can't replace the person on mat leave) or other employees are stressed with the additional workload while waiting.
It's so common it's why there's difficulty for young women trying to get hired.
I'll stop here. I don't have a solution to the problem and ultimately it's irrelevant to the conversation at hand. Your wife isn't a contributor to this and that's that.
Doesn't surprise me.
Scotia has been bleeding bodies for about a year now, primarily because of low pay and awful work environment.
They need anybody with a pulse right now because the turnover is crazy
I'm positive that using bots to analyze on-line questionnaires and tests to hire low wage "customer service reps", will make banking at Scotia so much more enjoyable that we'll all want to open accounts there.
To any recent grads or the ones still in school, I wouldn't work for any of the big 5 banks. Outdated tech (but improving), working environment/micromanagement, and extremely outdated salary structures.
You can meet all the requirments for a role somewhere down the line but your application will be ignored because your current internal salary band is three levels lower than the role you are applying to. They treat that as the ultimate deciding factor.
The good thing is you will have security since they didnt have a single layoff suring the pandemic. Record profits IIRC
I worked there as a financial advisor for almost a year
Dont do it
They're doing away with the resume but banking is one of the most relationship/network driven careers out there. Guarantee this won't help Joey who went to Lakehead get a job at BNS as an investment banker.
Doing away with a resume for INTERNSHIPS. Key distinction.
Where do you think they recruit their permanent junior positions out of?
Get "better" interns and end up with "better" junior staff. Better junior staff turn into better middle management in 10 years.
What’s your point? If the intern sucks, they don’t hire them. If they are great then that’s amazing, they just found a great employee they’d have never found through traditional methods.
Bit of an urban myth. The business has *considerably* changed over the last three or four decades. I worked for three investment dealers, including Scotia’s capital markets sub, and achieved it entirely on my own merits. Same goes for most of the people I worked with. I can’t even think of people who were hired *into* the business as the result of some personal connection, although it does happen, much as it does in a whole host of businesses. Relationship-driven movement tends to be poaching.
As it stands, the competition on both sides of Bay St. is so intense, company’s can ill-afford to recruit and hire anything less than the best candidates they can get their hands on.
It's too bad, and I say this as a current customer, YOU SUCK ScotiaBank. My local one has only gotten worse and worse almost like they don't really want to do it anymore. The are only open Monday - Friday, 930 to 4. So any working folk can not go to the bank you need to take time off work or rush in on a lunch break. But guess what they take lunch too so even fewer staff around that time. The whole thing is a shit show and maybe they have noticed my money slowly getting lower and lower, might be able to find it all at the local Credit Union where they don't suck. Sincerely, ticked off customer.
Smells like an excuse to hire under qualified non-citizens and receive subsidies from the government.
> “We are taking away any bias, which would be where did someone go to school, what jobs did they have before and what opportunities did they have or not have based on their upbringing or circumstances?”
I work in banking IT and see co-op students in various teams.
It's mostly Chinese or Indian and they go through process that really picks best of the best and solid 80% of them usually are. Good number of them get a job as soon as they graduate.
So, can someone explain to me what's the issue exactly?
Is this whole thing specifically designed to hire black students?
The hardest part of getting hired anywhere is getting your resume seen by a real person. Pretty much every company uses ATS software that ranks resumes based on keywords. It’s not a good way to do hiring for new grad and internship positions because you aren’t expecting those hires to know anything when they start. The new process will probably be identical except for the first step where it will rank applications on traits like problem-solving, adaptability, etc instead of keywords in a resume.
For example, if you’re hiring for an internship aimed at 2nd year students and get the following 2 applicants:
1. Goes to U of T business, doesn’t have to work while in school so they’re treasurer of a couple clubs
2. Goes to U of S business, has been working part-time at McDonald’s to pay for their degree.
Applicant 1’s resume would hit a ton more keywords for a job in banking because of their treasurer roles and location. Applicant 2’s resume would never actually get looked at even though they might be a significantly better worker. Both will be equally clueless when they get hired and won’t contribute anything meaningful during their 4-8 month term. It’s just a way for managers to identify hard-workers that they’d like to have on their team.
Simple. If you are a rich or middle class kid you probably have an impressive resume of jobs or extra curricular. If you are a poor kid you won’t. If an internship is truly supposed to be an opportunity for people to learn a new skill than a resume shouldn’t matter at that stage. If the kid sucks, than internship manager doesn’t need to give a reference. Simple.
> If you are a rich or middle class kid you probably have an impressive resume of jobs or extra curricular. If you are a poor kid you won’t.
Seems to me the one with the impressive resume of job or extra curriculars is the good choice.
It seems to me this perpetuates a cycle of poverty and that a kid that had to take care of his young brother because his single mom was working 18 hour days and so couldn’t join the robotics club or the band might benefit from getting a shot.
And if he sucks at his internship? Simple. Don’t give him a recommendation.
I wonder when the bastions of progressivism, universities, will start following a similar procedure for admittance to their programs.
I feel like you are confusing Canada with the US. When I applied to university no one gave a fuck about my extra curricular (and I had some impressive ones).
Canada is “what’s your grade average?” It’s an A or high B? OK you are in.
True enough. I suspect that if we looked at the resumes of teenagers, the poor ones would have plenty of job experience because they have to work so much, and maybe can only get like a B+ The rich ones would have lots of music and dance lessons, expensive sports achievements, etc., and lots of time to study so they can easily get an A My wife's room mate in university was a classic example. Her first and only job ever was going to be "doctor", never had one before that in her life.
“We are taking away any bias, which would be where did someone go to school, what jobs did they have before and what opportunities did they have or not have based on their upbringing or circumstances?” said James Spearing, Scotiabank’s vice-president of talent acquisition.
Oh good the company that leaves me on hold for 2 hours is hiring more people to leave me on hold for 2 hours.
Scotia is an absolute shit bank.
I bet that hiring pool is wider, but not as deep.
… not that new hires fresh out of school bring much depth these days, anyway.