Anybody Actually Got A REPLY From An Employer?

podperson

I think unfortunately it is based on the number of applications employers are receiving now for jobs. I went to an interview last year for a part time position and the employer told me that he had received 200 email applications in 3 days and had had to take the advert down as he couldn't cope with any more - and this was a fairly basic, min wage job. At that volume it starts to be extremely time-consuming to respond to everyone.
If you get to interview however I do think it's a bit rude not to get back to people - I know I've had people tell me they will get back to me on a certain day and then never hear from them again. Would always advise though staying polite about it and even dropping them an email/letter saying thanks anyway. When I went for my current job they interviewed about a dozen people and emailed me to say that they had found it a hard decision as they'd liked four people, including me, but in the end had gone for someone with more specialised skills in the area. I emailed back to say I could appreciate that and thanks anyway - a week later they came back saying that the first person's references had come back badly and would I like to start. One of the managers told me after that they had offered to me first since they liked that I had emailed back to them.

Googlewhacker

NinjaSeb wrote: »

There is no more respect in this country.

Not providing a 'Thanks but no thanks' for people who have spent time, money and effort going to an interview is truly disgusting..

Not really, if they provide an email then yes they should but for an employer to get someone to reply to each and every letter it would cost hundreds of pounds which is just not worth it.

CCFC_80

BackOnTrack wrote: »

Sorry but including whether a company responds to a job application or not in supplier selection criteria is just rediculous. I'm guessing that you are not involved and never have been involved with supplier selection. I have been and in a previous role used to run the external auditing process for supplier selection. Your example is nonsense and I would probably have been sacked if one of my audit criteria had been do companies respond to all job applications.

As previous posters have already pointed out you can receive hundreds of applications for a single role to reply to all of them is not practical, especially for SME's.

1. Your guess is wrong B.O.T.

2. Disagree completely with you, customer service and reliability ( i.e in this case, not shown in responding to job applications by email) would be a factor for me in supplier selection if on a level playing field.

To reiterate if I owned a company and lost a substantial order due to shoddy customer service, I would soon want to put it right.

BackOnTrack

andy46 wrote: »

1. Your guess is wrong B.O.T.

2. Disagree completely with you, customer service and reliability ( i.e in this case, not shown in responding to job applications by email) would be a factor for me in supplier selection if on a level playing field.

To reiterate if I owned a company and lost a substantial order due to shoddy customer service, I would soon want to put it right.

Job applicants are not customers and to try and to include the recruitment process of a company in an appraisal of customer service seems ridiculous to me.

katkim

I understand not replying to the intial application, especially if there were hundreds. That's just not realistic in terms of time and cost. Most of the adverts I see these days say 'if you haven't heard from us within x days, please assume you were not shortlisted' anyway. If I don't hear anything, it's discouraging, but I don't think it's rude.

However, I do think it's rude not to contact an applicant after an inteview. I've had to chase two potential employers after an interview this month to confirm what the outcome was (after the silence, I assumed it was a no, but still needed to check). There is just no excuse - they have contact details and they can't have interviewed hundreds. I know it's an employer's market at the moment, but still it doesn't hurt to adopt good practice or basic manners.

Emmzi

lots of reasons for not hearing back from an interview

- finance dept review before final sign off
- first candidate being appointed subject to references and you are the reserve candidate and will hear if first drops out - but you may not be aware they have dropped out as company wants you to think you were first choice
- key person in contracts on hols/ off ill
- having an arguement over fees with the recruitment company

in my experience the second one is most common.

Truegho

That's terrible. You must be feeling really demoralised. You have my sympathies.

Hope something turns up for you soon.

redheadedwoman999 wrote: »

Been sending off c.v. by email for 13 months and not one acknowledgement yet ... and its a good c.v. aaargh

Sambucus_Nigra

redheadedwoman999 wrote: »

Been sending off c.v. by email for 13 months and not one acknowledgement yet ... and its a good c.v. aaargh

It be a good CV but if it doesn't match the actual skills needed then no wonder you aren't getting a response.

For each job - the CV should be rewritten to match what they are looking for. You don't just apply willy nilly attaching your CV in the hope that they can pick out all your skills when shortlisting.

Gordon_Hose

I got a response today, but that was through networking. Should hear either way next week.

wantsajob

BackOnTrack wrote: »

My inability to empathise with your plight is that you come across as negative and you seem paranoid as if these employers who do not respond have it in to you and pyschometric testing is there to stop you getting a job.

Psychometric testing does discriminate against people with certain disabilities, including Asperger's syndrome. Most questions relate in some manner to social skills and abilities, which if people with the condition answer truthfully set them in a negative light compared with other candidates. Employers using psychometric testing normally try to use it to get "the type of person the employer wants to work for the company" rather than "the type of person needed for the job". If everyone used Psychometric testing and the tests were largely similar, a great number of people would remain unemployed as test after test rejects them. People should be seen on merit of their ability to do the job, rather than some test. The respondent is asked to answer truthfully, so as you suggest asking for help answering it could under most contracts lead to dismissal from the position - and at the very least would make them wonder if an interview suggests the psychometric test is incorrect.

As a Psychology graduate I have to agree that psychometric testing is a useful tool assuming the test is appropriate and well designed (most out there are not) - but it is nothing more than a tool. Making it the be all end all job/no job is a bit much.

I feel neurodiversity in the work place is as important as equality for different genders, races, sexualities and so on. Unfortunately psychometric testing destroy this and discriminates against certain people. It would not be too far fetched to ban psychometric testing under the Equality act IMO.