And you wonder why people just give up!

heretolearn_2

wuckfit - I think the salary range you gave them was probably too far above what they have budgeted for the role. Even though you said it was flexible, flexibility only goes so far, and to interview people who won't be interested wastes everyone's time. We are advertising a job right now and asking for salary expectations - everyone within about 2-3 grand of our maximum is being considered (as most people can be flexible around that much) but we've had people asking for 20k more than we are budgeting. Their applications have gone into the 'no' pile.

onlyforboards_2

That is pretty much par for the course, I don't really see anything to complain about. Changing the interview line-up, an unexpected format, no big deal- just gives you opportunity to show how flexible you are. Not informing you of the job outcome immediately or by a form other than letter, normal practice (if you are indeed lucky to ever hear from the company again)! Telling HR to re-run an ad as soon as the last interviewee has left the room, again no big deal.

You had contact with them throughout the entire process. I understand it is frustrating but for most people out there the situation is far worse, believe me! I don't think your experience has been enough to name and shame the company.

dickydonkin

onlyforboards wrote: »

That is pretty much par for the course, I don't really see anything to complain about. Changing the interview line-up, an unexpected format, no big deal- just gives you opportunity to show how flexible you are. Not informing you of the job outcome immediately or by a form other than letter, normal practice (if you are indeed lucky to ever hear from the company again)! Telling HR to re-run an ad as soon as the last interviewee has left the room, again no big deal.

You had contact with them throughout the entire process. I understand it is frustrating but for most people out there the situation is far worse, believe me! I don't think your experience has been enough to name and shame the company.

I have certainly named them - others will decide if their actions are shameful.

Not informing you of the job outcome immediately or by a form other than letter, normal practice

So it is 'normal practice' after a second interview to be told that I will be informed at the close of business on that day of their decision BY PHONE OR EMAIL - then fail do it?

Telling HR to re-run an ad as soon as the last interviewee has left the room, again no big deal

No big deal? Finding out that you have not been selected for a position by discovering by chance on a website that the job had been readvertised?

You had contact with them throughout the entire process.

No I did not - that is my gripe - there was no immediate contact (as promised) after the second interview until I initiated it two days after. I was also lied to as I was informed that the letter I eventually received was supposedly sent out on the 30th March - the day of the second interview. On receiving the said letter,the internally franked postmark on the envelope quite clearly indicated the letter was posted on the 31st and would have had no chance of reaching me prior to the job being reposted on their website.

Is it 'normal practice' to send out the same standard letter for the two unsuccessful candidates in a second interview that was posted to the hundreds of applicants who did not reach the interview stage following the initial application, the wording of which was totally out of context with the situation?

It is hardly time consuming to telephone the only two candidates informing us we were both unsuccessful before reposting the position on their website.

They managed to do that when they informed us when we were selected for second interview - so even as a matter of courtesy, why could they not just do the same after the second interview? It would have taken 5 minutes at the most.

If all of the above seems 'normal practice' to you, I just hope that you are not a recruiter, business owner or HR person.

onlyforboards Below are a couple of your quotes from this forum last year - there seems to be a change of perspective as you seem to be defending the company I dealt with while criticising others for similar actions.

I am amazed at what kind of companies no longer treat interviewees with respect enough to inform them that they are not successful.

If a company cannot find the time to send a generic letter/email/ make a phonecall to interviewees then they are a company in trouble. In the current climate it sends out bad signals.

As others have posted on this thread, I may have had a lucky escape as I think very bad signals were 'sent out' - or not - whichever way you look at it.

wuckfit

heretolearn wrote: »

wuckfit - I think the salary range you gave them was probably too far above what they have budgeted for the role. Even though you said it was flexible, flexibility only goes so far, and to interview people who won't be interested wastes everyone's time. We are advertising a job right now and asking for salary expectations - everyone within about 2-3 grand of our maximum is being considered (as most people can be flexible around that much) but we've had people asking for 20k more than we are budgeting. Their applications have gone into the 'no' pile.

It's possible, but I did a fair amount of research to arrive at the number I gave, and I believe that the figure was certainly not ridculous given the role description and responsibilities. If you're right, then I had a lucky escape, since if they only want to pay peanuts, then they've pretty much guaranteed that they're only interviewing the monkeys.

I've since been for an interview elsewhere where I was asked my salary expectations, but was told that his boss would ultimately decide what they were offering irrespective of what someone said their ideal salary would be.

My main concern would not be going way above what their budget was, but to come in a good way below - as I think it might make an employer think that a candidate has less ability/experience and the candidate has, therefore, undersold him/herself.
Say a budget is £20k, and one candidate's expectations is £15k and another expects £25k, which would you think has a better self-belief in their abilities?

heretolearn_2

I know, it's a tricky issue, and I hate asking for expectations as on a personal level, I can see it's a rather unfair question and very hard to answer!

Sometimes it just shows that the employer isn't too sure of a fair rate for the job - we looked at similar roles being advertised for this vacancy and found a massive variation in offered salaries. Hence we are asking for applicants' expectations, knowing ourselves what the max our budget will be, but that it may not be necessary to pay the max. But if you've offered that much, it's hard to then offer someone less.

We'd also wonder about anyone valuing themselves at a lot less than everyone else though, as you've pointed out. We are not looking for the cheapest person but the best person for that role.

Unfortunately these days we get so many applicants who are over-qualified and used to earning a lot more than is realistic for the lower level jobs we are advertising. Asking for expectations also weeds them out now. (i.e. the lady who came for an entry level admin job, who was a graduate, and was quite indignant at not being offered a graduate salary. I felt like asking her if she'd apply to work on a supermarket checkout and still expect to get 30k just because she had a piece of paper irrelevant to that!). Another time we advertised with a stated salary, interviewed and appointed someone, only for him to turn around and say he was currently earning 15k more than that so we'd have to match it. Clearly didn't live on this planet. Offer retracted. What small business can suddenly find that much extra money?

So now we get people to be upfront with us. If we can't match their expectations, none of us waste our time. It's just a way to weed out some people. When it comes to the offer, we might even offer someone more than they asked for originally...

Emmzi

the H&S community is a small one.

this site is huge with a huge readership.

so, they know who you are (last 2), they know you'll badmouth them at the drop of a hat.

I'd say naming and shaming may be burning bridges you don't even know exist. Possibley with current employer too. Small world.. people gossip...

dickydonkin

Emmzi wrote: »

the H&S community is a small one.

this site is huge with a huge readership.

so, they know who you are (last 2), they know you'll badmouth them at the drop of a hat.

I'd say naming and shaming may be burning bridges you don't even know exist. Possibley with current employer too. Small world.. people gossip...

And quite possibly many potential employees of that company may now be aware of how they treat candidates which hardly bodes well for their future employment.

I use my proper name in this forum as I have nothing to hide and I don't feel the need to have a user name that hides my identity - so they will certainly be aware of who I am - should people gossip.

This company have hardly conducted their recruiting in a manner that deserves respect. I was truthful and professional in my interviews - it is not too much to ask that those gestures were reciprocated.

There are many companies on this forum that are 'named and shamed' whether it is through selling bad products, poor customer services, fraudulent dealings etc etc..... so what is the difference when a company is named for treating interviewees like $hite?

I anyone feels I have 'burnt my bridges' then that is my problem - I can live with that.

they know you'll badmouth them at the drop of a hat.

Not quite correct - I will 'express my disappointment' when a company treats people with utter contempt.

Emmzi

dpassmore wrote: »

Not quite correct - I will 'express my disappointment' when a company treats people with utter contempt.

Same event, different perceptions. Glad you are mellow with it, and good luck in your pursuit of the perfect job.

getmore4less

wuckfit wrote: »

My main concern would not be going way above what their budget was, but to come in a good way below - as I think it might make an employer think that a candidate has less ability/experience and the candidate has, therefore, undersold him/herself.
Say a budget is £20k, and one candidate's expectations is £15k and another expects £25k, which would you think has a better self-belief in their abilities?

The important thing for most roles is that there are ways for employees to progress.

In this case for a role that is £20k ish someone asking £25k would need to be near perfect but you would always have the where do they go next issue, if you expected a role or early promotion then you could consider the candidate but likley to be crossed off early.

With a £15k ask, you focus on the potential of the candidate, if a clear under performer then no but if there is growth potential then you have room for pay rises and a longer term employee that you can nuture into a good employee with the correct support.


If a particular type of job has a very wide range of Ask salaries in the market that indicates that the roles catagory is too wide.

onlyforboards_2

dpassmore wrote: »

I have certainly named them - others will decide if their actions are shameful.



So it is 'normal practice' after a second interview to be told that I will be informed at the close of business on that day of their decision BY PHONE OR EMAIL - then fail do it?


No big deal? Finding out that you have not been selected for a position by discovering by chance on a website that the job had been readvertised?




No I did not - that is my gripe - there was no immediate contact (as promised) after the second interview until I initiated it two days after. I was also lied to as I was informed that the letter I eventually received was supposedly sent out on the 30th March - the day of the second interview. On receiving the said letter,the internally franked postmark on the envelope quite clearly indicated the letter was posted on the 31st and would have had no chance of reaching me prior to the job being reposted on their website.

Is it 'normal practice' to send out the same standard letter for the two unsuccessful candidates in a second interview that was posted to the hundreds of applicants who did not reach the interview stage following the initial application, the wording of which was totally out of context with the situation?

It is hardly time consuming to telephone the only two candidates informing us we were both unsuccessful before reposting the position on their website.

They managed to do that when they informed us when we were selected for second interview - so even as a matter of courtesy, why could they not just do the same after the second interview? It would have taken 5 minutes at the most.

If all of the above seems 'normal practice' to you, I just hope that you are not a recruiter, business owner or HR person.

onlyforboards Below are a couple of your quotes from this forum last year - there seems to be a change of perspective as you seem to be defending the company I dealt with while criticising others for similar actions.




As others have posted on this thread, I may have had a lucky escape as I think very bad signals were 'sent out' - or not - whichever way you look at it.

You misunderstand me. I have the same attitude towards how potential employers should behave as I always have. I am just stating that the experience you have had is not particularly bad in the current work market. In my experience and the experience of people I know this company is ok!