Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Right...get a job offer first, then discuss hours/vacation/benefits/pay/etc. Start those negotiations after they have made the first move and offered you something.
BS, it's a waste of time for the interviewer and the interviewee. State the terms of the job up front so you don't lose what seemed to be viable candidates due to dealbreakers that you should have disclosed up front. I hate that bait and switch crap from companies whose corporate line values work/life balance but who actually expect you to work 60 hours a week and be on-call around the clock.
No, they are not. If the question were "what is the median hours expected"? as opposed to minimum, perhaps.
But the first interview is hardly the place for it. One wants to show the employer why they are the best person for the job, not the worst. He did the latter.
The word "minimum" was a terrible choice of words....but employers being evasive about the work hours happens all too often in interviews. Just be upfront if you expect people to work to a certain time and arrive by 7:30am
My little rant turned into an 11 page thread on the second day...I'm impressed.
Quote:
I am honestly sickened by people like you, the op, bobtn, and all the others that toe the company line and fight against your fellow workers. This is why unions are going to have to make a return so employers cannot abuse and maltreat their employees. This isn't a damn charity. These people have a right to know what their job will entail. You are not doing them any damn favors with the job. It is a labor contract and it is mutual. Deal with it!
This whole post represents the modern attitude of employers towards their employees as job overlords.
I had to respond to this post in particular. First of all, I'm not fighting against my fellow workers and frankly I'm in the business of making money for my company so the company can PROVIDE high-paying and skilled jobs to young people. The person who I interviewed was applying for a position directly under my supervision on a team that I manage and direct. I'm looking for a candidate who is committed to being a team player and committed to doing what it takes to meet deadlines and stay on budget and on task. Do I expect him to work 100 hours a week and never take a vacation? Hell no, I understand everyone has lives outside of work and I do as well! But when you're at work, that's what I expect my team members to be doing...WORKING. I don't want someone who is going to put the minimum effort possible in each day and want to take off on vacation at the drop of a hat.
Secondly, this job isn't some $20K/ year job flipping burgers. It's a professional engineering liaison position that starts at $80K/ year, I have high expectations for potential candidates as this isn't a job you can just learn in a week.
Third, I had 9-10 candidates for this position who I was seriously considering, all were talented and all have different skill sets which could be beneficial. An interview is an important step and I guess when someone leaves me with a bad impression and I have other qualified candidates looking at the position, I have no reason to give him any further consideration.
BS, it's a waste of time for the interviewer and the interviewee. State the terms of the job up front so you don't lose what seemed to be viable candidates due to dealbreakers that you should have disclosed up front. I hate that bait and switch crap from companies whose corporate line values work/life balance but who actually expect you to work 60 hours a week and be on-call around the clock.
And people on this forum wonder why they can't find work.
Were you actually the most productive (your boss made that claim), or did you just think you were the most productive? If you got laid off instead of your co-workers, I find it hard to believe you were adding the most value to the company.
A boss would never tell you that you are the most productive employee. However, the sheer volume of work compared to others is enough. Also, customers taking the time out the actually email you telling you are the most effective person in the spot they have ever dealt with, that helps too.
By the way, perceived value and actual value can be two grossly different things. Im sure my former employers...in about a month, are going to figure out how much I actually meant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq
This is very untrue, and just shows how ignorant you are of what goes into the day to day job of "suit types"
Part of my job at TWO of my jobs was reporting productivy of front line employees. So, yeah, I know exactly what goes on.
However, it seems I also struck a nerve.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq
We have done those calculations, and we know what costs more. This is obviously part of the decision of what to pay someone.
Yeah, I dont think you have done those calcs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq
This is also why formal processes and systems are in place. You don't give that low level employee the option to do fiscal harm.
You've got to be kidding me right? Every retail service on the planet gives the lowest of low level employees the chance to "do fiscal harm".
At minimum they could simply cost 100's or thousands of dollars in customer business, at most, they could cause lawsuits. This is without destruction of equipment or merchandise.
Now, moving on, I used to work for a waste disposal firm, the requirements to drive a garbage truck were no more then having a CDL. That is fairly minimal requirement that can be achieved in a few weeks by any idiot off the street. That idiot was in charge of a couple hundred thousand dollar machine that would pulverize everything in its a wake, and in just 1 year I saw one run into a house, several power lines damages, a telephone pole knocked over, and a parked car practically destroyed.
I also used to work for a television company, placing commercial traffic. Just two people (neither much experienced or very old, and in probably the lowest job in the building), were responsible for placing millions of dollars of commercial traffic, as well obeying federal laws doing so. Fines for just one mistake were 10's of thousands of dollars. That huge responsibility was entrusted to people making less then 30k a year.
My wife works for a property managment company, and a "leasing agent" which is a basically a low end salesman, was fired for altering contracts having to do with the Fair Housing Act. Those alterations could expose the company to MILLIONS of dollars in lawsuits.
It doesnt remotely end there. Low end construction workers could put up thousands of dollars of faulty work before anyone ever caught it, low end warehouse workers could seriously injure or damage things with lifts and other equipment, even workers in fast food could start fires, break equipment, or seriously injure other coworkers.
Location: Huntersville/Charlotte, NC and Washington, DC
26,700 posts, read 41,753,896 times
Reputation: 41381
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDGeek
BS, it's a waste of time for the interviewer and the interviewee. State the terms of the job up front so you don't lose what seemed to be viable candidates due to dealbreakers that you should have disclosed up front. I hate that bait and switch crap from companies whose corporate line values work/life balance but who actually expect you to work 60 hours a week and be on-call around the clock.
Let's not even mention recruiters who have to search through thousands of resumes. If applicants knew more about what they were getting into, you could bring the number of applicants down which may make it easier to find applicants who are qualified who mostly accept the terms of employment.
Last edited by The Dissenter; 05-22-2012 at 03:53 PM..
If applicants knew more about what they were getting through you could bring the number of applicants which may make it easier to find applicants who are qualified who mostly accept the terms of employment.
Just put a bad taste in my mouth how it was worded and how he came off. Nice guy, smart, but I think he's lacking in professional conduct.
Why are you going to let a question keep you from hiring a guy who YOU admit is smart and has a great skill set?
There are many people who know how to interview really well, but you hire them and they turn into employees from h*ll! Is that what you are looking for? A great interviewee? Or do you want a great employee?
The guy didn't use the best words when phrasing his question, but that should not be the focus of your decision. Instead, look at what he has done for the company during the past 8 years. If he has been a slacker, then don't hire him. But I don't think that is the case - otherwise, he wouldn't be there for 8 years and I doubt you would be interviewing him.
Listen, we all misspeak at times. Focus on the guys record, not on a few poorly chosen words.
Location: Huntersville/Charlotte, NC and Washington, DC
26,700 posts, read 41,753,896 times
Reputation: 41381
Quote:
Originally Posted by 313Weather
Did anyone else understand that?
Corrected it. Stupid IPad spellcheck.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He did the latter.
.
