When applying for jobs I have always made a point of using the job description as my guide to tailor my cover letter specifically and adjust my resume' to also match with my relevant experience.
But after thinking that was good enough I ran some scans on both my resume' and my cover letter against the job I was applying for find interesting results.
Firstly my resume was only 60% match to an exact job that I am currently doing, My cover letter was 42%.
Both of these created over 53 errors that I would not have even considered.
Even though I had fully checked spelling and grammatical errors and both documents were 100%, the ATS could not find my keywords and even screwed up dates, times and job positions.
While there's no clear-cut answer, it's important for recruiters to be aware of potential bias and transparency concerns surrounding ATS.
Using ATS responsibly and alongside human review can help ensure a fair recruitment process.
To be clear after fixing all the ATS mistakes I finally got my ATS Scores into the high 90% with some tweaking and other software to help.
But I still have to tailor each and any application for a role manually for its to pass the ATS test, I also if I have a contact person and email I go old school and avoid "Quick Apply" at all costs.
But to the point is the ATS breaching any consumer laws in Australia or worse are they at the point of being discriminatory?
lets dig into it!
The use of applicant tracking software (ATS) by recruiters in Australia is a complex issue with no definitive answer on whether it breaches consumer law or fairness principles. Here's a breakdown of the conversation:
Arguments Against ATS:
- Bias: ATS can filter resumes based on keywords, potentially excluding qualified candidates who don't use the exact wording preferred by the system. This could be discriminatory, especially against those with non-traditional career paths.
- Transparency: Job seekers often don't know what keywords the ATS is looking for, making it difficult to tailor their resumes for success. This lack of transparency can be frustrating and disadvantageous.
Australian Consumer Law (ACL):
- The ACL protects consumers from misleading or deceptive conduct. It's possible that misleading job descriptions or a lack of transparency around ATS use could be seen as a breach of the ACL.
- However, the ACL generally applies to transactions between businesses and consumers. Since the recruitment process involves finding employees, it might not be directly covered.
Fairness:
- The concept of a "fair go" is important in Australian society. If ATS systems disproportionately disadvantage certain groups of applicants, it could be seen as unfair.
Potential Solutions:
- Human Review: Resumes should still receive human review alongside ATS screening to ensure qualified candidates aren't unfairly excluded.
- Transparency: Recruiters should be more transparent about their use of ATS and the types of keywords they're looking for.
Current Situation:
- There haven't been any major legal cases in Australia regarding ATS and its compliance with consumer law.
- The Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) offers guidelines for lawful recruitment practices https://www.fairwork.gov.au/.
Recommendation:
While there's no clear-cut answer, it's important for recruiters to be aware of potential bias and transparency concerns surrounding ATS. Using ATS responsibly and alongside human review can help ensure a fair recruitment process.
For more information, contacting the FWO or seeking legal advice would be recommended.
No, Applicant Tracking Software (ATS) cannot eliminate discrimination law requirements in Australia. Here's why:
- Legal Obligation: Australian anti-discrimination laws still apply regardless of the recruitment method. Age, sex, religion, and other protected characteristics cannot be used as a basis for excluding candidates.
- Software Limitations: While ATS can filter resumes based on keywords, it can't truly assess qualifications based on protected characteristics. Eliminating these details from resumes wouldn't guarantee a fair selection process.
Here's a breakdown of the issue:
- ATS and Bias: ATS can introduce bias if it relies on keywords that unintentionally exclude qualified candidates from certain demographics. For example, focusing on "recent graduate" might overlook experienced professionals seeking a career change.
- Human Review is Key: Even with ATS, human review of resumes is crucial to ensure qualified individuals from diverse backgrounds are considered. Recruiters need to be trained to identify and avoid bias in their decision-making.
What ATS Can Do:
- Focus on Skills and Experience: By focusing on relevant skills and experience keywords, ATS can help identify qualified candidates regardless of background.
- Reduce Implicit Bias: By removing names and other identifying information during the initial screening phase, ATS can help mitigate unconscious bias based on demographics.
Overall:
ATS is a tool, and like any tool, it can be misused. However, it doesn't eliminate the need to comply with anti-discrimination laws. Responsible use of ATS, combined with human review and awareness of potential bias, can help ensure a fair and legal recruitment process in Australia.
There's strong evidence to suggest irresponsible use of Applicant Tracking Software (ATS) is happening in Australia, raising concerns around fairness and potentially breaching consumer law.
Here's a breakdown of the situation:
Potential Issues:
- Bias: ATS filters based on keywords, potentially excluding qualified candidates who don't use the exact wording. This can unfairly target specific demographics or those with non-traditional career paths.
- Lack of Transparency: Job seekers often don't know what keywords the ATS prioritizes, making it difficult to tailor resumes and potentially hindering their applications.
- Deceptive Job Ads: Misleading job descriptions that don't accurately reflect the ATS filtering process could be seen as a breach of Australian Consumer Law (ACL) regarding misleading or deceptive conduct
- The ACL protects consumers from misleading or deceptive conduct.
- While the focus is on business-to-consumer transactions, some argue that misleading job descriptions related to ATS use could be a concern.
- The Australian value of a "fair go" comes into play. If ATS disproportionately disadvantages certain groups, it raises fairness concerns within the recruitment process.
- Clear Legal Precedent: There haven't been major legal cases in Australia definitively stating irresponsible ATS use breaches consumer law.
Recommendations:
- Human Review Alongside ATS: Resumes should still receive human review to ensure qualified applicants aren't unfairly excluded by ATS filters.
- Transparency: Recruiters should be more transparent about ATS use and the types of skills and experience they're looking for.
The Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) can be a helpful resource:
- The FWO offers guidelines for lawful recruitment practices https://www.fairwork.gov.au/.
Overall:
While there's no clear-cut answer on the legality of irresponsible ATS use, it's an ongoing conversation in Australia.
Recruiters need to be aware of potential bias and transparency concerns. Using ATS responsibly alongside human review can help ensure a fair and legal recruitment process.