I'm looking for someone, someone I can get an email from confirming
their opinion for presenting a standard for deleing employees in an HR
database.
The issue is we have thousands of workers and hire several each day,
some of whom we make an offer but they fail to show. Once the offer
has been made we open a record for them even though they may not show.
We want to, and and IS dept. to convince that these records must not
be deleted.
I need a solid opinion form an HR database person who can state their
views on this.
Does anyone out there know of such as scenario?
Thanks!!
paul c - 21 Mar 2008 05:06 GMT
> I'm looking for someone, someone I can get an email from confirming
> their opinion for presenting a standard for deleing employees in an HR
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> Thanks!!
The purpose of HR depts is to make employees think they are happy even
when they really aren't. As far as HR is concerned, the purpose of mgmt
is to make the HR dept's employees people think they are happy even when
they really aren't so as to fulfill the first purpose. By this
definition, no HR person, database or otherwise, will ever state his own
view, nor should he be expected to. Sensible shareholders know and
expect this.
So you have a couple of thousand new phantoms every year. If you want a
binding answer, don't ask the HR dept, go see the big noise. From what
you wrote, I'd say you have too much time on your hands.
Cimode - 21 Mar 2008 11:31 GMT
> > I'm looking for someone, someone I can get an email from confirming
> > their opinion for presenting a standard for deleing employees in an HR
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> The purpose of HR depts is to make employees think they are happy even
> when they really aren't.
Hi paul,
Quite franly, I think the situation is much worse for IT HR
department: they have no purpose anymore and they slowly
disappearing.
One of the HR traditional roles was also to find the best match for a
specific job. The late Internet *Revolution* (which is nothing but an
economical phenomenon catalized by a technology ), saw tons of
untrained and most of the time unemployed people get into IT HR
departements with poor or unadapted skillset to evaluate technical
proficiency. As a consequence of their unability to determine precise
profiles for profile job description, the limits between typical
candidate profiles you would usually have in the IT department is
getting blurrier and blurrier: By lack of competence, HR current
people are forced to set up *put-all-technical-jargon-in-one* job
descriptions and interviews to find out candidates by trial-and-error
method. Nowadays, it is not uncommon to see job descriptions where HR
people would ask all at once programmer, DBA ,analyst profiles...Of
course, most of the time they fail and feed the IT labor force with
technical people at their image: *unskilled and unaware of it* (after
the name of the study posted on F PASCAL dbdebunk).
In fact, IT HR departments are getting poorer in all senses of the
word. As a consequence, IT corporate culture is now favoring
outsourcing entire HR departments and prefer working with lucrative
head hunting agencies that are doing even worse than the latter
because motivated by productivity criterias.
HR are a part of the equation that explain the decay of IT industry in
general and database industry in general.
mAsterdam - 21 Mar 2008 10:45 GMT
slinky schreef:
> I'm looking for someone, someone I can get an email from confirming
> their opinion for presenting a standard for deleing employees in an HR
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Does anyone out there know of such as scenario?
IANHDP (not a HR database person).
Revisit your definitions of offer and employee.
Make sure to record the offer as such.
Now there are no reasons anymore
for stating that someone is an employee who is not,
so no reasons anymore to delete non-employee employees.
-CELKO- - 22 Mar 2008 00:06 GMT
>>I need a solid opinion form an HR database person who can state their views on this. <<
Talk to a labor relations lawyer about the legal requirements. This
is not a RDBMS question. The RDBMS question is haw to design a schema
so that when the law changes, the database gets minimal impact.
Ideally, we just change a few CHECK() or CREATE ASSERTION things and
are good to go.
paul c - 24 Mar 2008 04:59 GMT
>>> I need a solid opinion form an HR database person who can state their views on this. <<
>
> Talk to a labor relations lawyer about the legal requirements. This
> is not a RDBMS question. ...
He wants an answer from one kind of technocrat and you tell him to go
see another kind of technocrat. Either way, it's BS. If he feels
strongly about it, he should go over the heads of Human Remains, to an
executive who is high up enough to understand the ulterior purpose of
that department (which likely no one in HR knows as canny management
will make sure that no one capable of knowing is hired into that
department).
Brian Inglis - 22 Mar 2008 21:45 GMT
>I'm looking for someone, someone I can get an email from confirming
>their opinion for presenting a standard for deleing employees in an HR
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
>Thanks!!
IMHO IANAL IANAHR you only have a candidate, not an employee, until they
turn up on the premises, start work, and sign an employee contract, at
which point you have an employee, whose record should have a reference
to their candidate information.
These situations are often dealt with using contact or history tables,
which say what happened when and give a follow up date.
HR may want to keep some candidate information around, in case that
person ever applies again to the company.
Legal limitations may restrict what information may be kept, and for how
long, about candidates who do not become employees.

Signature
Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Brian.Inglis@CSi.com (Brian[dot]Inglis{at}SystematicSW[dot]ab[dot]ca)
fake address use address above to reply
Bernard Peek - 23 Mar 2008 15:21 GMT
> I'm looking for someone, someone I can get an email from confirming
> their opinion for presenting a standard for deleing employees in an HR
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> We want to, and and IS dept. to convince that these records must not
> be deleted.
I'm not an HR person but I do recruit people. I would like to know about
these no-shows so that I can avoid offering a job to them in future. But
in the UK there are strict regulations that require any personal data to
be purged when it is no longer useful.
> I need a solid opinion form an HR database person who can state their
> views on this.
It's not a database issue, it's a business issue. If the business is
willing to pay someone to delete the records and the project sponsor
will sign a piece of paper to authorise it then the business has spoken
and IS should execute the decision.
In general I am in favour of the UK approach where the business has to
have a justification for holding personal data, and is required to
review its decisions regularly. In this case the business doesn't appear
to be able to justify retaining the data and I'm curious about why you
want to influence the decision. It's not really a database theory issue
so feel free to take this to email if you prefer.
> Does anyone out there know of such as scenario?
>
> Thanks!!

Signature
bap@shrdlu.com
Gene Wirchenko - 24 Mar 2008 01:17 GMT
>> I'm looking for someone, someone I can get an email from confirming
>> their opinion for presenting a standard for deleing employees in an HR
>> database.
Opinions are a dime a dozen or cheaper. See a lawyer.
>> The issue is we have thousands of workers and hire several each day,
>> some of whom we make an offer but they fail to show. Once the offer
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>in the UK there are strict regulations that require any personal data to
>be purged when it is no longer useful.
You have just described a use, so what is the problem? Having
said that, the law might forbid you to do so. See a lawyer.
>> I need a solid opinion form an HR database person who can state their
>> views on this.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>will sign a piece of paper to authorise it then the business has spoken
>and IS should execute the decision.
Unless illegal.
The area of law has people who are expert in it, much as the
computer field does. See one of these experts.
>In general I am in favour of the UK approach where the business has to
>have a justification for holding personal data, and is required to
>review its decisions regularly. In this case the business doesn't appear
That sounds fair.
>to be able to justify retaining the data and I'm curious about why you
>want to influence the decision. It's not really a database theory issue
>so feel free to take this to email if you prefer.
Quite.
[snip]
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.