Would you lie to be able to send an application?

Flyonthewall

AP007 wrote: »

I have seen at least 5 jobs that have turned me down for interview in the last year re advertise the roles after 3 mths so that must be because they took on someone who couldn't do the job or they never filled the role! They still wont interview me though and others have the cheek to ask 'why aren't you working'! :mad::mad::mad:

Ah dear

I'm always seeing roles being re-advertised. I never know whether to bother re-applying or not. Makes me wonder why some are listed again as I can sometimes scroll though a few pages and see the same job listed 3+ times all on different dates.

AP007

Flyonthewall wrote: »

Ah dear

I'm always seeing roles being re-advertised. I never know whether to bother re-applying or not. Makes me wonder why some are listed again as I can sometimes scroll though a few pages and see the same job listed 3+ times all on different dates.

Oh I always re apply but still nothing.

Flyonthewall

AP007 wrote: »

Oh I always re apply but still nothing.

I re-apply for some, but not all. Depends on the job and when I last applied. Some jobs are also posted two or three times within two or three days so they can't possibly have found and lost someone in that time, but do you apply for each advert or assume they're putting all applications in one big list?

AP007

Flyonthewall wrote: »

I re-apply for some, but not all. Depends on the job and when I last applied. Some jobs are also posted two or three times within two or three days so they can't possibly have found and lost someone in that time, but do you apply for each advert or assume they're putting all applications in one big list?

If its on the same site in a few days its the advert that is still active. Lots of sites re post adverts till they expire. I am talking new adverts with a different posting date and new ref number etc but its the same job

Flyonthewall

AP007 wrote: »

If its on the same site in a few days its the advert that is still active. Lots of sites re post adverts till they expire. I am talking new adverts with a different posting date and new ref number etc but its the same job

I'm sure most I've seen have had new ref numbers and dates but been the same job even though it's only been a few days since the last listing. Then I see the same job listed on multiple websites which even more annoying than one site reposting.

Sometimes I wonder if rather than being reposted until they expire whether the agency is too lazy to reword an advert for a very similar job so just posts the same thing again.

beckysbobbles1

No I wouldn't lie. These are screening questions that an employer has a right to ask, if you don't meet the criteria why should you get an interview/job with them?

However, slightly concerning is the fact that most of these criteria questions that are asked before I apply for jobs tend to ask whether I am eligble to work in the UK or whether I have any criminal convictions or if I have been declared bankrupt.

By lying on any those questions would be pretty stupid.

Just start applying for jobs you are more quailified for.

InA

AP007 wrote: »

I have seen at least 5 jobs that have turned me down for interview in the last year re advertise the roles after 3 mths so that must be because they took on someone who couldn't do the job or they never filled the role! They still wont interview me though and others have the cheek to ask 'why aren't you working'! :mad::mad::mad:

Flyonthewall wrote: »

Slightly off topic, but about two years ago having a years experience was fine and I had none. Then I got a years experience and they all started asking for two. And now they all want at least three. At this rate next year they'll want four and there's no way I can gain three or four years working in a year.

If the questions ever become more popular on job adverts I'll never be able to apply for any without lying...

I dislike the practice of agencies or HR departments filtering candidates on length of experience. You cannot compare the demands of a job based on length of service in a particular role.

Hypothetically, if it takes six months to be fully up to speed in any given role, why insist on candidates with more than that?

IMO aptitude and attitude are more important when assessing if a candidate is suitable.

I'm sure we all know an incompetent blame shifter who's managed to hold on to his job for decades or the keen enthusiastic new-starter who has a drive for doing a good job.

It's hardly surprising that the wrong people end up in these jobs.

AP007 wrote: »

You would think more would be better then less but they see it as a threat for the rest of the team who have say 2 or you are going to leave when you get a better offer. I say I have the right to take a job as a stop gap but these co's obviously want people who can only just do the job

Another perfect example of why the experience criterion only serves to put everyone in the same box with regards to what motivates them.

IMO, an employer should not presume an overskilled employee is only looking for a stop-gap. Some people might take lower skilled work with the intention of staying in that role because they want a less stressful job, have experienced a change in their personal circumstances or just want to carry on working for reasons unrelated to earning money or advancing their career (such as a bored retired person).

Blanket filters have the potential to exclude candidates who would otherwise be a perfect match.

On the flip-side, some people can be over-confident when matching the skills they think they have with the requirements of a role which is completely different to anything they have done before. This results in an influx of applications from people who don't stand a chance. Hence the need to request experience of previously working in a similar role. IMO, filters are intended to remove these sorts of applicants but of course some of the wheat is removed with the chaff.

For this reason, if you truly have the skills that do make you the perfect match, then apply for the job with covering letter which explains all of this. If you genuinely have something to offer then your application will be judged on its merits and you will proceed to the next stages. If you don't then you will have lost a little time and perhaps some hope but nothing more.

The only other complication is lack of knowledge of the job on the part of an agency or HR department (resulting in the rigid application of the filtering criteria) which means your application does not get passed on to the person who can properly assess your suitability.

With that I would conclude that you win some, you lose some, but you've got to be in it to win it.

SuzyZ

Flyonthewall wrote: »

While I understand the questions are there for a reason because they want to prevent just anyone applying for the job when they are not at all suitable some are just annoying.

Like you must have 3 years admin experience to do a filing job. I don't have that 3 years but I can do filing perfectly well. However, due to them questions I can't apply without lying.

Normally if I am ever asked that sort of question I either tell a white lie (say I can do it and explain away afterwards this is ONLY if I have experience of doing what they want me to do, and I think I could do it in the job) or call the recruiter (you can normally ring them as well as do the test and ask them what levels of filing etc they need.

The vast majority of recruiters can tell by my CV and test results (Kenexa etc) what my typing speed is, if I can spell etc and they normally advise me otherwise if best to embellish the truth or not.

SuzyZ

AP007 wrote: »

I have seen at least 5 jobs that have turned me down for interview in the last year re advertise the roles after 3 mths so that must be because they took on someone who couldn't do the job or they never filled the role! They still wont interview me though and others have the cheek to ask 'why aren't you working'! :mad::mad::mad:

Sorry to ask but have you ever asked them why they've not interviewed you?

Are you over-qualified? Seen your posts a few times and it baffles me sometimes re employers/recruiters who won't/can't interview people.

Are you over qualified maybe?

AP007

SuzyZ wrote: »

Sorry to ask but have you ever asked them why they've not interviewed you?

Are you over-qualified? Seen your posts a few times and it baffles me sometimes re employers/recruiters who won't/can't interview people.

Are you over qualified maybe?

Yes they say I am over qualified mainly or out of work and then they still cant fill the post.