Why I don't bother

hubb

Oh dear, what can of worms have I opened ?
:eek:

jdturk

dpassmore wrote: »

Please have a look again and read carefully!

I have responded to your post and the quotation you placed on it.

You "AGREE" that ONLY interviewee's deserve a compulsory reply which contradicts your numerous postings that suggests applicants should also receive replies - irrespective of the number of applicants.

This thread is now becoming personal and we can go on playing on line tennis. Maybe I am an idiot, but you have your opinions - I have mine - let others judge!

Hey Dpassmore, why have you quoted me....I've not even had a discussion with you on this and I agreed with you on the whole that interviewees are the only ones that should be a guaranteed reply but I also in the end agreed that writing an email to say no thanks is not time consuming whereas I would still not send a letter out to each person.

dickydonkin

hubb wrote: »

Oh dear, what can of worms have I opened ?
:eek:

Don't worry about it!:D

westv

dpassmore wrote: »

Please have a look again and read carefully!

I have responded to your post and the quotation you placed after it.

You "AGREE" that ONLY interviewee's deserve a compulsory reply which contradicts your numerous postings that suggests applicants should also receive replies - irrespective of the number of applicants.

Again, the thread is (was) related to lack of responses from job applications - not interviews.

This thread is now becoming personal and we can go on playing on line tennis. Maybe I am an idiot, but you have your opinions - I have mine - let others judge!

Highlight were I have indicated that all applicants should receive a reply.

Personal? Hardly! :rotfl:
Just normal debate about a subject that now it seems we agree on.

cbsexec

I am going to jump in here and say people should always get a reply of some sort to job applications and more importantly to interviews. It is only polite and at least makes someone feel that their application has been read. They have taken the time to apply or attend an interview so why shouldn't a firm take the time to send a reply. A standard letter is easy to set up on a computer! (same time as an e-mail)

Thats my opinion anyway.

BOB_A_H

BOB_A_H wrote: »

hubb wrote: »

I can understand your feelings, I honestly can. I have maintained for years that there should be certain prerequisites in place when an employer
advertises a vacancy.


Firstly, they should be obliged to reply to applicants whether sucessful or not. This is just basic common courtesy.

Secondly, they should be bound by law to state the salary.
This " negotiable " or " " competitive " spiel is nonsense for most jobs.
As for " meets national minimum wage " Well what exactly is that telling you? They have to pay at least that!



There has been a huge response as to whether or not replies should be compulsory to all job applicants. However not one comment made on my second point about wages. After all, Is this not the main reason for working?

jdturk

Not everyone works for wages, some people do it for the love of the job. I'm not bothered either way whether its advertised or not.

mattcanary

An employer replying to job applicants is basic common courtesy. As alreay mentioned, if someone makes the effort to apply for a job, then the comp-any should make the effort to reply to let them know the outcome. Obviously, the reply does not need to a War and Peace essay....
Everyone who feels it is not necessary; it is often said that people who don't offer basic courtesies to other people on the seemingly unimportant things in life, are the type of people to stab someone else in the back about something that is really important....

BOB_A_H

jdturk wrote: »

Not everyone works for wages, some people do it for the love of the job. I'm not bothered either way whether its advertised or not.


Are you for real? What percentage of people do you think come into this category?

Also you state that you aint bothered whether the wages are specified or not. Therefore if you make the effort to get ready for an interview, then embark on a long and costly journey only to find out that the wages are half of what you may have expected, you would not be just a teensie weensie bit annoyed. Honest answer please!

jdturk

BOB_A_H wrote: »

jdturk wrote: »

Not everyone works for wages, some people do it for the love of the job. I'm not bothered either way whether its advertised or not.


Are you for real? What percentage of people do you think come into this category?

Also you state that you aint bothered whether the wages are specified or not. Therefore if you make the effort to get ready for an interview, then embark on a long and costly journey only to find out that the wages are half of what you may have expected, you would not be just a teensie weensie bit annoyed. Honest answer please!

Of course I would be annoyed but I would at least do some research in that area if there wasn't a wage band and work out what I would roughly expect it to be and go from there....

The other side of it is that if there wasn't a wage band I probably would look elsewhere for jobs.

As for the love of the job how about

Paramedics
Care workers
Nurses
I would say teachers but they are well paid

they are just a few that have employees that have higher principles for doing the job than money

EDIT: Just to say out of the two things if I were an employer I would not be bothered bout having to put a wage band down but I would object to replying as I have stated before to numerous letters for a job applicant (however as said before I would probably send a blanket email out if emails were provided)