Applied for a role I am overqualified for - found out it is an apprenticeship

Jox

The apprenticeship role should go to an eligible person not someone who is already qualified. I hope they have another relevant role for you. Good luck.

shortcrust

It doesn't work like that. If they've recruited for an apprentice then they want an apprentice, and they only want to pay for an apprentice. If they'd wanted to pay more for someone with experience then they'd have gone down that route when they recruited.

TELLIT01

Different line of work, but I applied for a job for which I was over qualified. At interview they said that I was over qualified but they had another job which might better suit my experience, and did I want to be interviewed for that? I got that job.
It's possible something like that might happen purely because they've seen your CV. I wasn't given any 'advance warning' of what they were going to say. I would suggest going for the interview and see how it goes.
If you're offered the job at the bottom figure you don't have to take it.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

dundermifflin wrote: »

From what I have found out, it is mentored on the job training combined with college days. I don't have a particular qualification, but I have over a decade of experience working in the same line of work having started at an entry level role in a previous company and working my way up a couple of levels.

Like I said, jobs are much fewer and far between where I have moved to (semi-rural area), so don't have much choice.

The employer knows of my qualifications and experience on my application. I'm already taking large cut in pay from what I was earning before (which I anticipated) so can't afford to drop much more.

I'm just a bit irritated that the apprenticeship side of it was not mentioned at all on the vacancy, and now I've been informed of it just prior to an interview, I feel like I'm worth more than the position is offering.

The job itself suits me, I just think I should be compensated at the "qualified" rate to reflect my experience, rather than the base rate of someone with zero experience.

Sorry, but the way I am reading this is that you were happy enough with the salary when you thought it was a straight job, but now that you've found the job includes training and working towards a formal qualification which you don't have and which will presumably be a benefit to you, you think you should be paid more? I can't see that this makes any sense at all; am I misunderstanding? Or did you apply thinking that the top rate might be payable immediately and are only interested in the job at that salary rate? If it's the latter, you just need to drop out - you've learned this before interview, so I can't see anyone has done anything wrong. I've applied for a lot of jobs and fond something out in the process that means I don't want it after all.

dundermifflin

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

Sorry, but the way I am reading this is that you were happy enough with the salary when you thought it was a straight job, but now that you've found the job includes training and working towards a formal qualification which you don't have and which will presumably be a benefit to you, you think you should be paid more? I can't see that this makes any sense at all; am I misunderstanding? Or did you apply thinking that the top rate might be payable immediately and are only interested in the job at that salary rate? If it's the latter, you just need to drop out - you've learned this before interview, so I can't see anyone has done anything wrong. I've applied for a lot of jobs and fond something out in the process that means I don't want it after all.

There is a big gap between the starting salary and the top pay point. Usually, when a salary is advertised like that, it is dependent on experience. I applied with the intention/assumption that I would be offered nearer the top end of the pay scale.

Anyway - I'll have an answer on Monday. I've got nothing to lose really, if I'm upfront about it and it gets me somewhere then great. If not, and there is no budging, then that's fine too as I'll look elsewhere.

dundermifflin

shortcrust wrote: »

It doesn't work like that. If they've recruited for an apprentice then they want an apprentice, and they only want to pay for an apprentice. If they'd wanted to pay more for someone with experience then they'd have gone down that route when they recruited.

Sure, but you're missing the point - it was never mentioned it was for an apprenticeship in the first place, it was only later when invited to interview and after a breif discussion it turned out that it was. I would definitely not have applied had it have been clear from the outset.

BrassicWoman

dundermifflin wrote: »

Sure, but you're missing the point - it was never mentioned it was for an apprenticeship in the first place, it was only later when invited to interview and after a breif discussion it turned out that it was. I would definitely not have applied had it have been clear from the outset.

So ask for compensation for the hour you wasted going to interview.

SomeRandomGuy

I don't see the issue here? Having found at more information you don't think this role is for you.... so why not cancel the interview or decline the offer (if it is made) after interview?