Comments are closed. Related posts:No related photos. Previous Article Next Article LettersOn 18 Dec 2001 in Personnel Today This week’s lettersHR must do best job at all times Am I am missing something in your news story “Quality of staff slips asHR cuts cost of hiring” (News 4 December). Why is this news? The surveyfindings are worrying and as an HR professional who considers herself business-focused,I don’t want to be tarred with this brush. Cost cutting should not be a reasonfor quality cutting. Surely all HR professionals should be constantly seeking to cut costs inboth good times and bad, and finding ways of improving their recruitmentmethods every time they recruit. It is part of reducing overheads andincreasing the bottom line in whichever organisation you work. HR is a direct overhead for most organisations. The benefit of maintainingthat overhead should be quantifiable – making tangible savings is a part ofthat. The fact that 40 per cent of those surveyed are not doing this does notsay much about us as a profession. Also ask the fundamental questions – is using recruitment agencies the onlymethod you can adopt in your industry sector? I work in the IT sector and havedone for 15 years. It is a tough market and you have to be creative – in somecases recruiting overseas has been the answer. If HR is to be a business-focused profession and rid itself of the”cardigan and Kleenex” image, cutting costs while maintaining anever-improving quality should be a constant activity – otherwise it’s not doingits job. Helen Carless MCIPD Why gloss over PC hypocrisy? The news story “Decent lip gloss a career essential” (News, 27November) encapsulated perfectly the tyranny that society exercises overwomen’s appearance at work. I’m 24, a graduate from a good university, a size 12, with long blonde hair,and, yes, I wear make-up. How could I not, being all too aware of the prejudiceand vilification that going bare-faced in today’s business world attracts? How intriguing it would be to see how willingly the company directors (who Isuspect are male) questioned would wake up half an hour earlier to make uptheir faces if it seemed their career prospects depended on it. If theyresisted, how meekly would they bear the accusation that it looked as though”they cannot be bothered to make the effort”? I disagree with Khalid Aziz’s assertion that this survey is an issue of”political correctness”. It simply reveals an alarming level ofhypocrisy, lack of integrity, and bad manners at the top of Britain’scompanies. Surely, we should be approaching each person we meet with an open mind anddetermination to consider them on their merits, not on some nebulously unknownquantity of what amounts to beauty. Sarah Lougee Remuneration strategy, DLO Human Resources Pick your victim for cushy number It is ironic isn’t it? We rail against the Taliban while at the same timeforcing girls to experiment with make up against their will. Then, when theygrow up and throw off these shackles, men discriminate against them –absolutely typical. Still, the legal item “Pregnancy offers no bars to fixed termcontracts” (Legal 27 November) is excellent news for women. If Iunderstand it correctly, a pregnant woman will now be able to apply for atemporary position, lie about her condition, and, if she times it cleverly,will not have to do a day’s work. Further to this – providing the company has a contractual maternity payscheme in place not dependent on minimum length of service – she will receivefull pay for the duration of the contract. Come on girls, what are you waiting for? Just a word of caution, ensure youpick a company with a commitment to a good gender equality programme.Opportunity Now will be only too happy to provide you with a list of theirmembers. S Jette Westminster House, Winchester Editor: Would S. Jette care to reveal his true identity? After all,he couldn’t possibly be afraid of “make-up wearing girls”.