I am truly surpised by the rigidness displayed regarding Word docs. Limiting opportunities in your life because an HR department uses the most common document app in the world seems self-defeating. Why not rule out cmapanies that use a certain type of printer paper?
I have no problems with whatever document app the HR team is using. If they send me a doc file, I will read the information contained therein. In creating a document the author puts in more work than the reader; so as long as the format is not too onerous the author should be able to choose whatever tool is convenient to him/her.
I hope that you agree that txt and pdf files are just as convenient formats to read as doc ones. IMHO it is irritating when someone insists that any document you send them should be in the format of the application they write documents with.
Furthermore, these are no absolutes. If the State asks me to send a document in doc format, I will. Despite pretenses, these companies (and HR depts) are not Republic of Greater Timbuktu really - so I will skip, thank you. :)
Bayesian filtering that works both ways. In fact we currently take PDF/Word/txt/RTF at my job. I'd actual considering narrowing it down to just Word. The type of person who decides that they don't want to submit in Word is probably a type of person that's not a good cultural fit. And I guess we've already ruled out those that prefer to send their resume via smoke signals only.
As an employer it is more important to find good cultural fits than it is as an employee, since it is typically easier for employees to leave than it is to fire them.
My CV is a PDF because I made it in LaTeX. I did that because .doc is not a standardised format, does not make the promise to look right on any system, and doesn't support some of the nicer typesetting I have going on. In my opinion, forcing people to use a proprietary locked-down format is the kind of thing that should be fought. What really gets my goat is that most of these places still don't accept .docx, even though it is standardised, well-supported, and absolutely TRIVIAL to pull plaintext out of for indexing purposes.
However, because I took the initiative to teach myself an industry standard text markup language in order to make a CV that looks really nice and will always display and print properly (and is distributed in the most widely-agreed upon document format for that purpose), you want to exclude me? I'm not submitting in PDF to be difficult or to take a stance, it's a convenient, standardised and well supported format which I am using for its intended purpose.
Comparing smoke signals to PDF is completely disingenuous, as is bundling together "people who happen to submit their CV to you as a PDF" and "people who would flat-out refuse to submit their CV as a .doc".
I don't want to send my resume as a Word document because I wrote it in LaTeX, and it looks correct as a PDF. I don't understand why you wouldn't do me the courtesy of accepting the PDF.
This seems like a good cultural filter to me (on both sides).
I wouldn't rule out an employer for this, but it's annoying.
I use Ubuntu at home. As someone who will need to work with Ubuntu Server at work, I think that's a good thing for my employability. Using Microsoft Word in Ubuntu is not an option for me.
So it's a Giant Pain in the Butt to produce a Word-formatted resume (no, OpenOfice and Google Docs don't make it reliably look good), and there's no reason they need that because they're not going to edit it.
On the other hand, it's easy for me to produce a PDF, which will look better anyway, and it can be done using the OS I will be using at the job I'm applying for.
Being told, effectively, "we require you to install Windows so that you can submit a nice-looking resume for this job working with Unix" is annoying. It's a small factor in how interested I am in the job, but a factor nonetheless, because it shows (to me) that technical people are not running the company.