Lotus People Charity Day – Wesley Mission Homeless Food Challenge

Lotus People and one of our sister agencies, SustainHealth, spent the morning with the Wesley Mission who visited our offices to teach us about homelessness in Sydney. It is scary to think that over 115,000 people in Australia are experiencing homelessness, six in ten people experiencing homelessness are women and people aged 12 – 24 make up 32% of homeless people.



Unfortunately, the issue is rife but with the help and support of organizations like the Wesley Mission, we as individuals can make a difference.


Today, we took part in the homeless food challenge, where we had to spend $10 each to feed a homeless person for three days. We took to the streets of Sydney to buy food and also asked stores, restaurants and pharmacies to donate to the cause and in the space of 30 minutes, we had obtained over $400 worth of free produce – it was amazing to see such generosity from people, and it was a really eye opening experience.

The charity are always seeking toiletries for the homeless so we have now set up a permanent collection box in our office to allow team members to donate.


It was a really insightful morning working with a really great business – a huge thanks to our own Martiza for taking the lead with this and coordinating the day.

#payitforward #homelessfoodchallenge @welseymission

You may also like...

March 5, 2026
A conversation with Hayley Martin, Executive Search Practice Lead at Lotus People As Lotus People formally launches its Executive Search practice, we sat down with Hayley Martin to talk about what separates a great senior hire from a costly one, what mid-market businesses consistently get wrong, and why she chose to build this here . 
March 5, 2026
A natural next step for Lotus People - Lotus Executive Search , an organic evolution of work we've been doing for years, now delivered with the rigour, discretion, and partnership it deserves.  Leading this practice is Hayley Martin who brings over 20 years of executive search experience, including deep expertise in the not-for-profit sector, membership organisations, and corporate leadership appointments
By Michelle Barrett February 25, 2026
In the ever-evolving world of talent acquisition, reference checks remain a standard practice. However, I've recently asked my network a question: Is bringing two candidates to the reference check stage a fair and ethical practice? The overwhelming consensus from HR professionals, recruiters, and hiring managers is a resounding no . While companies might justify this approach to ensure they make the best hiring decision, the practice has significant drawbacks. The Candidate’s Perspective: False Hope and Strained Relationships For candidates, reference checks often represent the final hurdle before an offer. Being asked to provide references is a hopeful moment—only to discover later that they were simply a “backup” candidate. This leads to: False hope : The process feels misleading if references are strong, but the candidate still doesn’t secure the role due to a small deciding factor. Professional risk : Candidates hesitate to repeatedly ask the same referees for endorsements, fearing it may strain professional relationships or cast doubt on their credibility. Frustration and wasted time : Candidates invest considerable effort in securing references, only to walk away empty-handed. The Referee’s Burden: A Drain on Time and Goodwill Reference checks aren’t just a candidate inconvenience; they also affect referees—often senior professionals taking time out of their busy schedules. Many commenters noted: Referees have limited patience: If a former manager is repeatedly asked for references for the same person without a job offer, they may be reluctant to vouch for them in the future. - A one-sided burden : The hiring company benefits from this additional insight, but referees get little in return other than expecting a favour. The Hiring Manager’s Responsibility: Why This Practice Undermines Decision-Making Some employers argue that reference checks help finalise a tough decision between two equally qualified candidates. However, many experts push back against this rationale: Hiring decisions should be based on direct assessment, not external opinion : As one commenter put it, “You should never put the decision of who best to hire in the hands of someone you don’t know and doesn’t work for your business.” Reference checks are not selection tools : Traditionally, references are a due diligence step , not a deciding factor between multiple candidates. It’s an outdated practice : With many companies now limiting references to basic employment verification, the value of this process is already diminished. So, What’s the Alternative? If reference checks shouldn’t be used to choose between candidates, how should they be utilised?
More Posts