We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Any rights
Comments
-
Council interviews are competency based and the position offered purely on the results on the interview.
Or based on my experience being interviewed for council jobs and contracts as well as being one of the interview panel for council jobs, the results were irrelevant and you hired the person you knew would be hired before you held the interview.0 -
Or based on my experience being interviewed for council jobs and contracts as well as being one of the interview panel for council jobs, the results were irrelevant and you hired the person you knew would be hired before you held the interview.
Hence why I said the rules can be bent a little.
Lets be honest, they know who they want in what roles before any interviews take place. The interviews are largely irrelevant and just a tickbox exercise. However how they actually present the interview is as I described above. My point was the OP can't really complain or pursue this because they didn't bend the rules for him.
The truth of the matter is they simply didn't want him in the job. Only the OP knows why this is.0 -
Hence why I said the rules can be bent a little.
Lets be honest, they know who they want in what roles before any interviews take place. The interviews are largely irrelevant and just a tickbox exercise. However how they actually present the interview is as I described above. My point was the OP can't really complain or pursue this because they didn't bend the rules for him.
The truth of the matter is they simply didn't want him in the job. Only the OP knows why this is.
Money. I now have 100% proof they fudged the interview process to pick the external candidate so they could put them on the lowest of the band. If they'd picked me, they'd have had to put me at the top of the band.
:mad:
Doesn't help they have the most incompetent HR I've ever known.
Never mind. Now in a new role at a different company on better pay. So they ended up doing me a favour.0 -
Money. I now have 100% proof they fudged the interview process to pick the external candidate so they could put them on the lowest of the band. If they'd picked me, they'd have had to put me at the top of the band.
:mad:
Doesn't help they have the most incompetent HR I've ever known.
Never mind. Now in a new role at a different company on better pay. So they ended up doing me a favour.
And they managed to get someone to do the job for less money. Win win all round by the looks of it.0 -
Money. I now have 100% proof they fudged the interview process to pick the external candidate so they could put them on the lowest of the band. If they'd picked me, they'd have had to put me at the top of the band.
:mad:
Doesn't help they have the most incompetent HR I've ever known.
Never mind. Now in a new role at a different company on better pay. So they ended up doing me a favour.
Which they are perfectly entitled to do! As I said earlier, unless they discriminated on one of the few grounds prohibited by law ( race, gender etc ) they can appoint who they like on whatever salary that person will accept providing is is above the national minimum wage.
Why do people find this so hard to understand!0 -
Undervalued wrote: »
Why do people find this so hard to understand!
Because its the truth and they don't want the truth.0 -
Money. I now have 100% proof they fudged the interview process to pick the external candidate so they could put them on the lowest of the band. If they'd picked me, they'd have had to put me at the top of the band.
:mad:
Doesn't help they have the most incompetent HR I've ever known.
Never mind. Now in a new role at a different company on better pay. So they ended up doing me a favour.
Congrats. Happened to me once. Got screwed over by a company and ended up moving to another place a week later on 25% more. Enjoy it. 0 -
Money. I now have 100% proof they fudged the interview process to pick the external candidate so they could put them on the lowest of the band. If they'd picked me, they'd have had to put me at the top of the band.
:mad:
Doesn't help they have the most incompetent HR I've ever known.
Never mind. Now in a new role at a different company on better pay. So they ended up doing me a favour.
Public sector organizations are under enormous pressure to significantly cut their budgets. If they can find someone cheaper who they can perhaps train up, then credit to them. I took over from a public sector contractor about four years - she wanted to leave. If she did not want to leave then they would of kept her on. I earn a quarter of what she did - she was open about how much she earned.
If you were truly indispensable then they would of kept you on whatever the cost. I would just wish them well and move on. If they have made a mistake and you are as indispensable as you think then they may be in touch in future. I would not want to burn my bridges so would leave on good terms.0 -
Undervalued wrote: »Which they are perfectly entitled to do! As I said earlier, unless they discriminated on one of the few grounds prohibited by law ( race, gender etc ) they can appoint who they like on whatever salary that person will accept providing is is above the national minimum wage.
Why do people find this so hard to understand!
Because they aren't allowed to fudge the results of an interview or the score system to make it look like the external candidate won, that's the problem.
And in reply to the "they got someone to do the same job cheaper, it's a win win". No it's not. It's a false saving. The company now has to pay all over again for training for that individual. It will take them a year to get used to all the bespoke systems and there is no real evidence they will be reliable. If it was my company, I know who I'd have chosen. The one that had already been doing the job for several years, is reliable and needed no additional training. And that's not being biased, that's just common sense.0 -
Public sector organizations are under enormous pressure to significantly cut their budgets. If they can find someone cheaper who they can perhaps train up, then credit to them. I took over from a public sector contractor about four years - she wanted to leave. If she did not want to leave then they would of kept her on. I earn a quarter of what she did - she was open about how much she earned.
If you were truly indispensable then they would of kept you on whatever the cost. I would just wish them well and move on. If they have made a mistake and you are as indispensable as you think then they may be in touch in future. I would not want to burn my bridges so would leave on good terms.
But that's the problem. Budget cuts are no excuse because the cost of the "training". They'd be no saving due to the cost of retraining the new candidate.
Not worried about burning bridges, its a company I'd never want to work for again the way they have treated their staff.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards