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.
1. Here's the rub. She isnt being asked to meet the team. She isn't being asked to truly shadow someone, I.e. tat person demonstrates aspects of the job and takes an assessment, or otherwise does much of the wrk and she watches. No, by the OPs post, she's being asked to do eight hours, or a shift, of "job duties".
2. It's like she did a drive by post. Whats up with that.
What's up with that is a whole mess of assumptions.
Here's the rub. She isnt being asked to meet the team. She isn't being asked to truly shadow someone, I.e. tat person demonstrates aspects of the job and takes an assessment, or otherwise does much of the wrk and she watches. No, by the OPs post, she's being asked to do eight hours, or a shift, of "job duties". That really does seem to mirror an employer employee relationship to mea no what she appears to be doing is termed labor. Also, I've worked for free, in the sense that I didn't submit for overtime, but it was my choice and there was a clear employer employee relationship in place. So, yeah, I have done my good deed for the day. But this circumstance is clealy different..by not formally entering into an employer employee relationship, his company is skirting the responsibility of having to pay her by law. My issue is that a. She's giving up money and the prospective company is too unreasonable to accommodate her and B. they refuse to have her believe that she is basically a shoe in for the job. Frankly I've never heard of such an arrangement in all my years, and it does not matter if I make above or below 80k.
Yes, I agree with te latter part of your post. From her description, it doesn't appear to be a meet and greet. But yes, she should provide more detail.
agreed. It's like she did a drive by post. Whats up with that.
I have a hard time believing anyone could walk into any office on day one and get busy. If it were that easy there would be an example outlined, but there is not.
I keep reading these threads, about big companies demanding up to 5 interviews, and take a couple of tests that take hours. What the CEO is proposing, is a test, t o see if t he applicant is up to the job. If you think that a one day shadowing an employee to understand the job is going to give the employer any benefit from any work the applicant does that day you are nuts.
It will actually cost the potential employer money, for that day as it will disrupt the work done by the person that she is to shadow.
It is a test, to see if the person wants the job, and to see if she will be able to do the job. It is a test for both of them. The employer is willing to spend the money due to the time the present employ is spending with the prospective new hire.
If the potential employee is not willing to do the same by being there as an unpaid job shadow, then she should not complain she cannot find a good job. It is a two way street.
Too many on these threads, are so unwilling to really work to get a job, and then they complain about how they have gone months without a job.
The reason that the employer will get into wage and benefit negotiations after she successfully passes the test, is this is the way things are done in the real world. After the company knows they want you, is when they negotiate the specific salary and benefits the individual will get. This is the way it has always been, unless the salary is fixed and there is no flexibility available.
I keep reading these threads, about big companies demanding up to 5 interviews, and take a couple of tests that take hours. What the CEO is proposing, is a test, t o see if t he applicant is up to the job. If you think that a one day shadowing an employee to understand the job is going to give the employer any benefit from any work the applicant does that day you are nuts.
It will actually cost the potential employer money, for that day as it will disrupt the work done by the person that she is to shadow.
It is a test, to see if the person wants the job, and to see if she will be able to do the job. It is a test for both of them. The employer is willing to spend the money due to the time the present employ is spending with the prospective new hire.
If the potential employee is not willing to do the same by being there as an unpaid job shadow, then she should not complain she cannot find a good job. It is a two way street.
Too many on these threads, are so unwilling to really work to get a job, and then they complain about how they have gone months without a job.
The reason that the employer will get into wage and benefit negotiations after she successfully passes the test, is this is the way things are done in the real world. After the company knows they want you, is when they negotiate the specific salary and benefits the individual will get. This is the way it has always been, unless the salary is fixed and there is no flexibility available.
Yes it is a two way street. Yet when the OP asked if they could come in on Tuesday because they're scheduled to work at their current job, the employer said no it had to be Monday.
Rather than the perspective employer understanding and admiring the OP for showing loyalty to their current employer(you know the one who actually pays them) he is totally UNFLEXIBLE.
Just an FYI, Monday is never a good day to even schedule an interview never mind a "job run".
I would be willing to bet Tuesday is a no because he already has someone else coming in on Tuesday.
I could see asking someone to come back and meet their potential coworkers and stay for a couple of hours, but not for a whole day.
If the only way that you can see if a person is a fit is by asking them to work for free all day, than perhaps you shouldn't be running a company or making hiring decisions.
Yes it is a two way street. Yet when the OP asked if they could come in on Tuesday because they're scheduled to work at their current job, the employer said no it had to be Monday.
Rather than the perspective employer understanding and admiring the OP for showing loyalty to their current employer(you know the one who actually pays them) he is totally UNFLEXIBLE.
Just an FYI, Monday is never a good day to even schedule an interview never mind a "job run".
I would be willing to bet Tuesday is a no because he already has someone else coming in on Tuesday.
I could see asking someone to come back and meet their potential coworkers and stay for a couple of hours, but not for a whole day.
If the only way that you can see if a person is a fit is by asking them to work for free all day, than perhaps you shouldn't be running a company or making hiring decisions.
Ok, but he is the one making the hiring decisions and running the company. I think it's likely that he may have someone else coming in on Tues and if that person hits it off with them that person will get the job.
oh please...it's a racket to get a free day of work out of the OP. it's not a "test." please please PLEASE.. it's not an internship or work for class credit arrangement. it's not "shadowing". Tuesday he probably has another person lined up, and Wednesday, and so on. OP has another paying job. He refused to give her a day that would not take away from the paying job. That's seriously messed up. I would rethink about giving an extra minute to this employer, let alone a free day of work. This is like something out of Henry James or Dickens - "free day of work to see if you're a fit." We're not living in the 19th century. You wanna play, you gotta pay.
What's up with that is a whole mess of assumptions.
Well if the OP doesn't deign to give anyone more information, what else is there to do? At that point a topic usually goes down the road of assumption. The income assumption kinda made me laugh, I have to admit.
Who's right? Who's wrong? I suspect there is validity to both arguments. But the whole scenario involving the OP just doesn't jive, especially with her second post. I suggest she continue interviewing and move on.
I have a hard time believing anyone could walk into any office on day one and get busy. If it were that easy there would be an example outlined, but there is not.
And she did not explicitly state that it would be a meet and greet either. She did state that she would be doing "job duties" (whatever that entails).
I will say that the first day that I was hired, I had to hit the ground running.
... what else is there to do? At that point a topic usually goes down the road of assumption.
Ask before firing all assumptive barrels? I've made no assumptions on this thread - simply responded to those who have, and given examples of the procedure I've followed for years in having someone stop in for a few hours to get a feel for the job and make sure that it's suitable for all involved before the die is cast.
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.
