I'm going to be honest, all of this best resume writer, employers not wanting the best candidate and bosses not even wanting the role filled is just pure **** that's got no basis behind it whatsoever and reeks of somebody who's just horribly jaded by how the hiring process typically works so I don't see a lot of value in me trying to argue differently.
I will note that you seem to have this extraordinary misunderstanding of how much time and work needs to be devoted to properly vetting candidates through face-to-face interviews and by calling referees, often when job postings receive dozens of applicants. You seem to think that these are tasks that take only a few minutes where they can holistically take several hours. You seem to think that employers actually have 100 free hours in a couple of weeks to actually perform these tasks, as if those weirdos that work in HR literally do nothing else all day except manage the recruitment of one role. Hell, most small businesses don't even have a dedicated HR person, so you're expecting an employee to stop acting in their own role for a week while they do nothing but call referees and do interviews. If businesses actually allocated all of these man hours to hire one person, they'd go broke.
Just to give you some perspective, it costs $40,000 in overheads for my company to fill a vacancy. $40,000 in devoting company employees to being a part of a process with generally 100+ applicants, of which 10 go to a short list for interviews.
The flip side is that if you can't be ****** to spend half an hour creating a proper resume and a relevant, role-specific cover letter for the job you're applying for, something that's purely for your own benefit and nobody else's, then why on earth would anyone think you're ever going to put in an acceptable level of effort at work? This is the same attitude you see with grad students who average D's at university and don't understand why graduate employers care that they've only ever produced work at 50% standard. You can expect that if you put 5 minutes into sending a generic CV and cover letter riddled with grammatical errors that you have barely updated since you were 21, they'll probably only read it once. Stuff like that isn't being bad at resume writing, it's ******* laziness that any employer will see right through.
Either the applicant wants the job, or he doesn't. Either put the time into your application so the employer knows you're capable of doing things to a high standard or stop wasting resources on the other end.
Nobody said that.
You sound like an employer.
If it takes so much time to vet applicants, can how come some employers can find time to look at a potential employee's facebook page or social media accounts, prying into personal business, to determine their "character"?
Why call all referees and past employers? One of my past employers died, so there would be little point in calling him. Employers who you worked for years ago may not remember you as much, or may have retired, gone broke or not be working there anymore. Maybe call one or two random past employers who you can contact, and get a feel of it. Calling everyone on the list is not necessary if the employer doesn't have enough time.
How many people work in HR? If there were ten people working in the department, and each of them read ten resumes a day (most resumes are two or three pages, so it shouldn't take long) over ten days, you have looked at the resumes of 1,000 candidates. So in a week and a half, you have read the majority of resumes that hit your desk. Unless there are a massive amount of sexual harrassment complaints that HR have to deal with, I don't see why they don't have the time to look at resumes.
Or here's an idea. Why not hire more people to read over the resumes? There you go, you have employed more people. Oh, I forgot, you would have to call up their referees first and check every job they claim to have worked at, in order to do that.
Besides, aren't there software programs that eliminate resumes that don't contain key words? So, when they use software and care if you use insider terms or not, then don't tell me full consideration is being given to resumes.
I've worked in small businesses, and there aren't over a thousand candidates applying for the one small business, so it is manageable. Also, small businesses are usually more desperate for someone, so they are happy just to have someone who knows the job, shows up and works with customers.
You say about the cost of hiring. If it takes so much time, and costs so much to fill a position, then why do you even want to hire someone anyway? Wouldn't it be better to just do the work yourself and save on a wage and all the hassle of hiring, and you probably know the job better than anyone else anyway? Many employers are workaholics, and would rather do the work themselves, and save money, than hire someone else. Why not do this, and let the unemployment levels grow?
Like I said, I wouldn't be surprised if many employees advertise a position to "cast their net and see if there is anyone out there", but if they can't find anyone, he will just do it himself.
Also, how do you test some of the intrinsics of a potential employee? How do you know that they won't constantly show up late, steal from you, or be disrespectful to you, other employees or customers? And once you hire someone, because of "unfair dismissal laws", you are most likely stuck with this person. Candidates can lie in resumes, or "puff themselves up" and even may be able to get through the interview stage, through charm and saying all the right things. But the most experienced candidate who had a great CV and performed excellent in the interview, can drop the act once they are hired and display bad habits, even behind the employer's back. Some candidates know how to beat the system and skate through, while others who would be better workers are held back because of lack of experience, or because they failed to use key terms in their resume.
You say either the candidate wants the job or not. Well, that cuts both ways, and either a company wants the position filled or not. Employers shouldn't go on free sites like "Indeed" and "Seek" unless they are desperate to fill the position, and so will be flexible if a great candidate shows up who didn't use key phrases or follows every step of the process to the letter. Resumes don't tell the whole story.