Is this acceptable behaviour from an interviewer in a job interview?

Blatchford

[Deleted User] wrote:

You really need to calm down.

You really need to have a better hobby than stalking me across this board and having a go. Try doing something like, I don't know, giving some useful advice? Or not having several avatars?

GDB2222

Smodlet wrote: »

I resent having to put, "British" on forms instead of "English" but, as far as I know, "English" has not been a nationality since we first entered the Common Market. No doubt someone will be along to correct me.

OP, perhaps a little more attention to detail might serve you well in future interviews.

I think British is a good, non divisive description. Otherwise, why stick at English, and not at least go down to county level? So, under nationality you might see Yorkshireman, or Cornish?

Mind, you have to be careful about which bit of Yorkshire.

Smodlet

GDB2222 wrote: »

I think British is a good, non divisive description. Otherwise, why stick at English, and not at least go down to county level? So, under nationality you might see Yorkshireman, or Cornish?

Mind, you have to be careful about which bit of Yorkshire.

I have no problem with that...

GDB2222

Smodlet wrote: »

I have no problem with that...

There’s a power in words. That’s why, when they take blood in hospital, they say 'Sharp scratch', rather than 'Little pr1ck'.

cm00

Blatchford wrote: »

I am correct in this matter. But I seriously doubt the posters version is accurate, given the histrionics about Trump and so on. There's actually no evidence, even by the posters version of events, that anything happened. So an interviewer commented on the fact that a certain surname is of Welsh origin, commented that they themselves were Welsh, and.... what exactly??? They were "triggered"? What does that mean? They insisted that someone who is not Welsh put their nationality down as Welsh? Exactly how did they do that? And this interviewer deliberately picked them? How do they know? Sorry, but even if the posters version of this is accurate and correct, which isn't in evidence, then has anyone any idea how insane it sounds? And so it's being suggested that they go to HR making allegations which, accurate or not, sound insane, and with no evidence. Seriously? The only thing that ensures is that there's a file note that says "never shortlist this person again".

There is nothing histrionic about me using what Trump did as an example. It's because of the response Trump got that I realised I wasn't in the wrong to say that I am English.


You want evidence that something happened? Why do you argue for the sake of arguing? I've explained the scenario. I''ve told you how the interviewer made me feel. If you claim not to believe me and want to argue about that you are wasting your time. From your other responses on here, you seem to enjoy picking meaningless arguments.


This won't ever be reported to HR. It happened too long ago. There's no point. I made this post because I want to hear opinions on if this sort of thing is acceptable during an interview. Feel free to disbelieve me, it doesn't matter. The scenario I've asked about, if you believe me or not, is a perfectly valid situation to ask about.

theoretica

Blatchford wrote: »

The insanity on this thread appears to be contagious. Really????

The first British passports were issued in 1915. Setting aside all British history before that point, how the hell do you get to "it's all Europe's fault I'm British not English"?????

This is not true. The first British passports to have a photograph were indeed issued in 1915 which is perhaps where your fact came from, but British passports without photographs existed before, such as these:

https://www.passport-collector.com/british-passport-1792-fitzgerald-lord-robert-stephen/

https://www.passport-collector.com/british-passport-1818-for-sir-william-hamilton/


Surely the 1707 Act of Union is more relevant than Europe?

ThemeOne

Blatchford wrote: »

And so it's being suggested that they go to HR making allegations which, accurate or not, sound insane, and with no evidence. Seriously? The only thing that ensures is that there's a file note that says "never shortlist this person again".

On the face of it, I probably wouldn't bother myself, as these things are usually !!!!-up rather than conspiracy, but if the OP feels that strongly, then it's up to them.

All we know is what the OP has told us. There's no evidence their story is not accurate.

cm00

GDB2222 wrote: »

I think British is a good, non divisive description. Otherwise, why stick at English, and not at least go down to county level? So, under nationality you might see Yorkshireman, or Cornish?

Mind, you have to be careful about which bit of Yorkshire.

I agree, putting British would be the safe option. It was a mistake to write English. Just inviting trouble for nothing.

duchy

The OP subsequently posted this happened a while ago so it may be too late if more than a couple of months have passed.
That said I’d have sent a very factual account of the encounter to HR (without speculation or Trump references) whether I’d got the job or not.

GDB2222

cm00 wrote: »

There is nothing histrionic about me using what Trump did as an example. It's because of the response Trump got that I realised I wasn't in the wrong to say that I am English.


This happened quite some time ago. I can't recall all of the details of what was said long ago. I remember him giving me a hard time about describing myself as English, when I have a Welsh father.


You want evidence that something happened? This isn't a court case, it's a forum. I'm telling you how the interviewer made me feel. If you don't believe me and want an argument you are wasting your time.


This won't ever be reported to HR. It happened too long ago. There's no point. And not being able to remember sufficiently in detail makes it even more pointless.


I made this post because I want to hear opinions based on my explanation, about if this was acceptable from the interviewer.

I certainly believe you. In particular, you felt uncomfortable during the interview, which resulted in your performing below par. That’s very poor interview technique. What you honestly cannot know is whether the interviewer was biased against you or just very clumsy.

Either way, the end result for you was unfair, and I sympathise.