Previously turned down a job in favour of another. Previous applicants need not apply?

DullGreyGuy

Wyndham said:

I think there are limits under GDPR for how long you can keep records for people who applied but you didn't employ. I'm not sure how long it is, but would be surprised if it was 6 years (I'd think somewhere around the 12 month mark would be right?)

GDPR is not that prescriptive, like most legislation it works on principles. A business cannot keep any personal data longer than is "necessary" but it is up to the business to justify why they feel its necessary to keep application data for whatever period of time they hold it. 

It would be up to the regulator (ICO) or Courts to opine on the balance of the business' justification against an individuals rights around others not hording their information/right to be forgotten etc. You may find that for highly regulated industries they can justify a longer retention period to identify application fraud  -v- a fast food restaurant or it may be deemed that the referencing process should be sufficient to identify if someone "drops" a job from their CV and changes their surrounding jobs end/start dates to hide the fact they got sacked. 

MalMonroe

Adamc said:

Are bridges burnt if you exercise the option to turn down a job? For instance, I stated at interview what my ambitions are and they said they I would not achieve them in this role and I turned it down (despite the add sounding promising). Does either party have the right to be offended at the others choice? 

Hi, I would have been in the 'apply for it anyway' camp, had it not been for what you said - in bold. ^^

Have your ambitions now changed? If I were that employer I would have responded to you but I would have explained that the position you turned down six years ago has not changed and so they may assume that since it didn't fit with your requirements then, it won't fit with them now.

Anyone can be offended at anything but when you're running a business you want to hire enthusiastic employees, it has nothing to do with emotions.

It looks as if this company and their job just are not a good fit for you. I'd leave it and look elsewhere, if it were me. 

Don't be offended, they're just looking after their own best interests. 

PS I'd bet five bob that they DO have records from six years ago. I would. (Although I'm just a small one person band business.)

Own_Worst_Enermy

Thanks for thread, I always thought previous applicants need not apply meant something else entirely and was actually pretty bad/derogatory.  I couldn’t really understand a small GP practice doing it, but every couple of months a new vacancy appears same hours, same role always with no previous applicants to apply status line but I wonder how that works with one not willing to travel to a rural area, I can’t see Londoners applying and that the talent pool must be limited, why all the need for need not re apply sentence. Funny when you beat applications in their 100’s but not 20-30’s. 

DullGreyGuy

Own_Worst_Enermy said:

Thanks for thread, I always thought previous applicants need not apply meant something else entirely and was actually pretty bad/derogatory.  I couldn’t really understand a small GP practice doing it, but every couple of months a new vacancy appears same hours, same role always with no previous applicants to apply status line but I wonder how that works with one not willing to travel to a rural area, I can’t see Londoners applying and that the talent pool must be limited, why all the need for need not re apply sentence. Funny when you beat applications in their 100’s but not 20-30’s. 

The fact they keep needing to readvertise given they clearly dont have hundreds of these people should be a red flat to anyone thinking of applying anyway.

Have to admit that was once hiring for an analyst, saw a bunch of people, hired a good person but thought most of the others were fairly poor. 5 months later decided to expand the team so readvertised and whilst HR should have filtered out any reapplicants one slipped through the net and again his CV was great and the name didnt click so arranged an interview with him but when he turned up... instantly recognised him as a terrible candidate. Awkward to say the least, he was just as bad the second time and really didnt get the hint that we werent interested. 

Grumpy_chap

DullGreyGuy said:

 Awkward to say the least, he was just as bad the second time and really didnt get the hint that we werent interested. 

From the candidate's perspective, they may have assumed there was some value in being invited to the second interview and, perhaps, concluded, they were so close the time before it was a shoo-in.

DullGreyGuy

Grumpy_chap said:

DullGreyGuy said:

 Awkward to say the least, he was just as bad the second time and really didnt get the hint that we werent interested. 

From the candidate's perspective, they may have assumed there was some value in being invited to the second interview and, perhaps, concluded, they were so close the time before it was a shoo-in.

Fully understand that, he said he was very excited about being back again!

We did initially give him a fair shot too, asking similar questions to the last time on the areas he did really badly on (data analysis and SQL) but he still couldnt say how he'd approach tasks or say how a query should be structured in the presented scenario but still waffled on for 20 minutes about how he's done things like these for decades. 

After asking just 3-4 questions we said we'd all we needed and if he had any questions.. he had at least 20-30 and even giving closed answers to something that normally would be elaborated on he pressed on with his list