Not turning up to Interviews

heretolearn_2

I also dont understand people coming in for a job they simply can't do and then asking you to change everything for them, it's happened to us. Why waste everyone's time. Yet I see it being advised here on this forum - go and ask, they can only say no. Well, yes, they probably will say no.

Some jobs are possibly flexible, but people just aren't always sensible about it. One of our jobs included working on reception and someone at interview asked if they could start an hour and a half later and work later. Yeah...right...we'll just totally change our opening hours shall we?

We have a number of part-timers and they are usually mums with young kids, true. But we've also had people that do other jobs, or are studying part-time, and someone who also worked self-employed/freelance and just wanted something regular and 'safe' to back it up with. I did that myself a few years ago, left a full-time job for a part-time one and freelanced the rest of the time.

SueC_2

bristol_pilot wrote: »

the only people that would possibly be interested are those that need to fit in with school hours. No wonder no good candidates turn up.

Eh? So no-one who needs to fit their hours around school hours is a 'good' candidate?

teabelly

It amazes me how much of a one way street employer flexibility is. They want you to stay late, work extra time at the drop of a hat yet when you want to alter your hours a bit to make your life easier they're suddenly an immovable force. People have lives. They might need to be an hour late here and there to pick up dry cleaning, go to the dentists or whatever. If you're 9 to 5 M-F you can't get access to quite a few services on weekends and most families are already busy enough then anyway.

Quite a few jobs I have applied for do not mention start and finish times. Just weekly hours. As far as I am concerned if you don't mention specific start and finish times then you have a degree of flexibility. If there isn't much then put in the hours and say they can't be varied. Don't wait until the interview to mention them!

loobs40

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

What makes you think that us IT people would have people skills??

It's just as vital as technical skills. We are a small team that have to work as a team and provide support over the phone/email/face to face to real customers in the outside world

if you don't have communication skills, you don't get the job

bristol_pilot

SueC wrote: »

Eh? So no-one who needs to fit their hours around school hours is a 'good' candidate?

My post was specifically about applicants for a job that couldn't be fitted around school hours. Didn't you do 'comprehension' at school?

qetu1357

teabelly wrote: »

It amazes me how much of a one way street employer flexibility is. They want you to stay late, work extra time at the drop of a hat yet when you want to alter your hours a bit to make your life easier they're suddenly an immovable force. People have lives. They might need to be an hour late here and there to pick up dry cleaning, go to the dentists or whatever. If you're 9 to 5 M-F you can't get access to quite a few services on weekends and most families are already busy enough then anyway.

Quite a few jobs I have applied for do not mention start and finish times. Just weekly hours. As far as I am concerned if you don't mention specific start and finish times then you have a degree of flexibility. If there isn't much then put in the hours and say they can't be varied. Don't wait until the interview to mention them!

I see your footer "Minimum wage paid = minimum effort made"

Or maybe "Minimum benefit to the employer = Minimum wage offered"

teabelly

I started out life as a starrey-eyed doormat that put the needs of my employer and loyalty to them above myself. All that did was lead to a total breakdown as I ended up doing 3 people's jobs.

It's quite simple. Employers aren't charities. They do not care about your welfare unless it affects their bottom line or they think they'll be caught breaking the law. If an employer offers NMW that is the *least* legal amount of money they think they can get away with. Now, does that sound to you like the employer values that role? Nope. If they dropped the NMW do you think they'd drop salaries? Yes. Employers want to squeeze out as much as possible from any employee. That's fair enough. But out of me they'll get the most they deserve. The less they pay and the worse they treat people the less effort goes into the job as far as I am concerned. If they want that extra effort then they have to deserve it. Quid pro quo.

While workers don't train employers out of bad behaviour then it will continue. If all the actual bottom level workers left a company how long would it function for? If the senior management disappeared instead how long would it last? The irony is the senior managers think they're the important ones.

CPJames19

Kez1983 wrote: »

This perhaps should be on the vent board but just had to let this go!

I have been interviewing all day today and I had more people not turn up than actually did!! Why would you say yes to an interview on the phone, then confirm by email on Friday/Saturday then not turn up!!

I am so annoyed! :mad: I have wasted time waiting around for people that I could have made more productive!


Sorry about that. I feel better now!

Interviewer take note of this point; for those interviewees that do turn up to the interview and get rejected, if they ask for feedback please do it. It's annoying when one takes time to apply for a job filling out a lenthy application form, thinking about a capturing answer to questions like 'why are you applying for this role?' then being accepted for an interview and then being rejected. It has all amounted to nothing and been a complete waste of time, energy or money (or all three) if interviewers are not prepared to give feedback.

qetu1357

teabelly wrote: »

I started out life as a starrey-eyed doormat that put the needs of my employer and loyalty to them above myself. All that did was lead to a total breakdown as I ended up doing 3 people's jobs.

It's quite simple. Employers aren't charities. They do not care about your welfare unless it affects their bottom line or they think they'll be caught breaking the law. If an employer offers NMW that is the *least* legal amount of money they think they can get away with. Now, does that sound to you like the employer values that role? Nope. If they dropped the NMW do you think they'd drop salaries? Yes. Employers want to squeeze out as much as possible from any employee. That's fair enough. But out of me they'll get the most they deserve. The less they pay and the worse they treat people the less effort goes into the job as far as I am concerned. If they want that extra effort then they have to deserve it. Quid pro quo.

While workers don't train employers out of bad behaviour then it will continue. If all the actual bottom level workers left a company how long would it function for? If the senior management disappeared instead how long would it last? The irony is the senior managers think they're the important ones.

Both senior management and workers are obviously needed.

But the level of skill required to be a senior manager is far in advance of a worker.

It is classic supply and demand. There are fewer people capable of being a senior manager than being a worker hence that is why they are paid more.

If all a person is capable of getting is the NWM they really have to look in the mirror and ask themselves "why I am valued so poorly?"

stevsand

Proc wrote: »

I would imagine a lot of it depends on the industry. Could you imagine somebody who has worked their way up to a Director position, simply not turning up to an interview for a £300,000/year role? Or an Architect doing a no-show? A trainee-dentist? It just wouldn't happen.

However, some 16 year old who likes to drink White Lightening down the local park, well, he may or may not turn up to his interview for his measly £12/hour at Tesco.

Quite a stupid post.