[Last One Mile Labor Union] CEO Makoto Watanabe's View of Employees Shown to the HR Department: "There Are No Emotionally Unstable People"

The role of the human resources department is not simply to hire people and calculate salaries. It is to create an environment where employees can work with peace of mind, understand organizational challenges, and appropriately handle hiring, placement, training, evaluation, and consultation support.

Information provided to our union by current Last One Mile employees reveals that during HR training at Last One Mile Inc., Chairman and CEO Makoto Watanabe repeatedly made remarks regarding employee satisfaction surveys, job interviews, and post-hire responsibilities that raise doubts about his suitability as an executive of a listed company.

Employee satisfaction changing every month is "emotional instability"

The HR representative explained that they are conducting an employee satisfaction survey to identify the fundamental issues in the work environment and lead to long-term improvements.

Every single month, you change your mind like that? There's no one as emotionally unstable as you.

There is no problem in discussing the necessity of conducting surveys every month. Based on the survey questions, tabulation burden, response rate, and improvement speed, it is also possible to decide to change to a quarterly or semi-annual frequency.

However, describing fluctuations in employee satisfaction in a short period as "emotional instability" is an attitude that blames the emotional state of individual employees for problems occurring in the workplace.

Workability changes daily due to a boss's remarks, workload, interpersonal relationships, evaluations, transfers, customer service, physical condition, and home environment. If these changes are frequent, rather than assuming "there is something wrong with the employees," you should investigate whether something is happening in the workplace.

Second interviews are unnecessary; we can just train them after hiring.

Basically, second interviews aren't necessary at all. Everything can be handled through post-hire training. As long as the person doing the hiring gives the green light, that's fine.

There is a logical rationale for streamlining the hiring process and delegating authority to on-site managers. However, if second-round interviews and HR background checks are to be eliminated, an alternative mechanism is needed to ensure consistency in employment terms, prevent hiring discrimination, verify the candidate’s identity, assess suitability for the position, determine appropriate salary levels, and manage information securely.

During the training, greater emphasis is placed on holding recruiters accountable after problems occur rather than on the institutional design itself.

If the hired person causes trouble, the interviewer takes full responsibility.

If the person we hire causes a problem, the interviewer has to take responsibility. All of it. That's why I'm telling you to interview with serious determination.

If a recruiter overlooks information that could have been verified during the interview, they bear a certain degree of evaluation responsibility. However, is it reasonable to hold the interviewer "entirely" responsible for actions taken by another person after employment?

People's behavior changes depending on post-hire training, supervisors, workplace culture, workload, and evaluation systems. It is impossible to predict all future behavior at the time of hiring.

Even if you place all the responsibility on the interviewers, the recruitment staff will no longer look at candidates' abilities or potential, but will instead choose only people who will ensure the staff themselves are not penalized. This may also lead them to eliminate applicants whom they perceive as presenting even the slightest risk based on age, background, disability, medical history, or family circumstances.

Even if we make a hiring mistake, it won't disrupt our management.

On the other hand, Makoto Watanabe also states that hiring speed should be prioritized, and that a certain number of hiring mistakes are acceptable as they do not disrupt company management.

Management tolerates hiring mistakes. However, if the hired person causes a problem, the interviewers take full responsibility.

In this combination, the problems in the recruitment system designed by management are passed on to the interviewers on the ground and the hired employees.

Public questions for Last One Mile, Inc.

1. Are there any cases where employees were evaluated as "emotionally unstable" based on the results of an employee satisfaction survey?
2. After the training, did you reduce the frequency or content of the employee satisfaction survey?
3. Are there any cases where an interviewer's evaluation, salary, or position was lowered because an employee they hired caused a problem?
4. Are there any departments that have eliminated the second interview or HR confirmation?
5. Is there any basis stated in the employment regulations or evaluation rules to hold the recruiter fully responsible?
6. Was the Human Resources Department structured in such a way that it could raise objections to Makoto Watanabe’s decision?

Employees are not a dumping ground for management’s failures.

If employee satisfaction drops, it is called "emotional instability." If a hired person causes trouble, the "interviewer takes full responsibility." On the other hand, when executives loosen hiring controls, it causes "no disruption to business management."

What is missing from this personnel philosophy is the natural perspective that humans grow, change, and are influenced by their surroundings within an organization.

The responsibility for training, placement, management, and creating a work environment after hiring someone does not lie with a single interviewer, but rather with the management and the company.