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.
What is a "conditional job offer"? Everything about it indicates that it is no where near a "job offer"; i.e., there are no legal rights or privileges that can be relied on. Is this true? Why is it called a "conditional job offer"? Is it legal? Shouldn't it be more accurately called, "waiver to allow second level of interviewing" or "waiver to your privacy" or something? Furthermore, these offers seem to provide an enormous amount of power to your potential employer; i.e., they can now perform a background check, finger printing, psychological testing, physicals, and of course they are now allowed to contact your friends, family, and previous employer with/without your permission. And they are under no obligation to you. No obligation to pay you. If they get you fired because of their prying, they are not required to compensate. In fact, they can have you perform hundreds of hours of testing, not pay you, and then finally decide on another candidate.
Story:
I was given a conditional job offer, "congratulations, you have been given a conditional job offer". Hence, I was under the impression that I get "a job" if I full-fill "conditions" (makes sense, right? no, too logical.). So, I ask the logical question,
"Does this mean I am no longer in competition with other candidates?".
"Umm...of course not silly, you are competing with many other applicants that have also been given a conditional job offer for this one position."
"Congratulations?". For what, allowing you to perform more tests for a "maybe" job?
If conditional job offers are legal, why not go one step further and force all employees to sign an at-will employment agreements. Then no company would ever have to be subjected to employment laws. Right? Or how about, all companies simply start hiring under "conditional jobs offers" which state 6 months of successful training must take place and be graded. Failing of course would just result in not being hired, no unemployment consequences. Plus they could contact your previous employer without your permission or perform a extensive background investigation into you while you are working (errr...training).
How can laws be put in place to protect employees and employers, but then simply be waived, "with your permission of course"?
Obviously, I have no idea what is legal or not legal. I don't know why the "conditional job offer" was invented or what it means. But one thing is becoming apparent, a "conditional job offer" is not a conditional job offer.
Applicants for jobs have whinnied, moaned and groaned about their privacy when employers want to do background checks and verification before they are hired or have to go through some form of testing. As a result of this, some state enacted laws that prohibit a prospective employer from doing these checks/verification/testing unless an offer is on the table. However, employers are not going to bring you on board and pay you before they know for sure your background is good or you can successfully pass other test. So, you will see much more use of "conditional offers" which is a actually a job offer but with conditions that can cause the offer to be rescinded. It's more a legal necessity in response to irresponsible legislation.
However, nothing has changed for you; your RIGHTS to decide you don't want to deal with this is still in place and you can turn the conditional offer down and just keep hunting for another job.
Thanks for the response, except I think you missed my point. It is not a "job offer" at all; if you are still competing with other candidates then you have been "offered" nothing. In particular, fulfillment of the "conditional" part, does not entitle you to the "job".
I guess my point is:
If you are given an "offer" and act on that offer, but then the company decides (after the offer) to rescind, then you are entitled to damages.
However, if you are given a "conditional offer"; i.e., "job offer if A is completed successfully" and you complete A successfully, then there is no "job offer". If you act after fulfilling A and the company rescinds, then you are not entitled to any damages. In fact, the company can go further and ask you to "act" in the conditional job offer and still not pay damages (or even pay you at all), if they decide not to hire you.
For example,
My brother was given a conditional job offer for a government position. This particular HR department looked to see that he had two other applications with other government positions. Hence, in their "conditional job offer" was a requirement that he pull his other applications off the market. My brother asked, "and if I do this, I will then get a 'job offer'?". Answer, "No, of course not...you pull your applications and then we will look into your background, and then have you do more tests, and then we will interview you again (along with other candidates), and then we will decide if we want to hire you?"
"Conditional Job Offers" are not Job Offers with Conditions, they seem to simply be "waivers" that allow companies (or government agencies) to ask candidates for additional items. Why not simply call them that? Is there a reason they are called "conditional job offers"? Why not call them "waivers"? Is there a legal definition?
Can a company simple say, "to apply here, you must waive your right to privacy"? Or is that illegal? If that is legal, why don't companies simply say, "to work here, you must waive your right to unemployment (or insert some other law)"?
I have never heard of a conditional offer where the candidate is still competing with multiple other candidates for the same position. Nor have I heard of companies demanding that you stop looking for other positions, nor any job application that requires 'hundreds' of hours of additional testing.
Something seems very wrong with your post. It's as if you are trying to come up with a reason to blame companies for nefarious behavior, but you don't actually have any direct experience in the job market so you are just making things up.
Simple rule, don't commit to them until they commit to you.
I once had a hiring manager conditionally offer me a job roughly two weeks before the start date... I asked how long the background and drug checks would take as I wanted to give my employer as much notice as possible. She was indignant "you should give them notice NOW" which made me feel a little uneasy about the whole affair. That particular hiring manager had previously made a poor impression on me by waltzing into the room during first round interviews and encouraging us interviewees to cheer for her as she announced the pay for the position, as though she was Oprah handing out a free car. I got bad vibes and withdrew.
Whoa, fishbrains, sorry I offended you. I don't know why you are making assumptions about me and I am sorry you haven't experienced these things yourself...but they do happen. I don't really know you, hence I find it odd you attack me personally. How do you know that I don't have more job hunting experience than you?
In fact my inspiration for the post was for the very fact that I recieved a "conditional job offer" today and I emailed the HR department and specifically asked, "does this mean I am still in competition?" and I was told "yes, most definitely". I thought that odd, strange, and thought that should not be legal. Moreover, I am not applying to some small buissness or something, I applied to a very large corporate six figure position. I thought that if anyone has their legal stuff in order it would be them.
At least your post is confirming my assumption that what they are saying may not be legal. Although, I am not very confident in your experience, so am unsure of your response.
I also have never heard of a conditional offer in which you are still in competition. From my experience, a conditional offer is essentially an offer pending a clean background/reference/education/etc check.
The 'conditional offers' you describe sound more like typical steps/requirements in the process.
I have never heard of a conditional offer where the candidate is still competing with multiple other candidates for the same position. Nor have I heard of companies demanding that you stop looking for other positions, nor any job application that requires 'hundreds' of hours of additional testing.
Something seems very wrong with your post. It's as if you are trying to come up with a reason to blame companies for nefarious behavior, but you don't actually have any direct experience in the job market so you are just making things up.
I think he is scared of the background check myself lol
New to the professional/corporate world, back when I was 22, I accepted a verbal job offer over the phone on a Friday morning. He insisted I start Tuesday morning, come in on Monday to fill out the paperwork, etc; had to leave my current job with 3 days notice. Not a great job, but at the time, jobs in California were scarce. So, I did it - it was a leap into my chosen profession, big raise, benefits, etc.
So, Monday morning I called to let him know I was on my way in.
Friday afternoon, he quit. The new manager taking his place informed me that he wanted to choose his own person for the position and would be going back over the resumes left in his new office. He assured me that since I got through the pile the first time, surely I would the second time (the "pile" was a stack of more than 100 prequalified resumes from HR).
The first time the process took 6 weeks. I now had no job, but I did learn something.
I get every offer in writing now before giving notice and when they balk, I explain what happened "way back when". Most hiring managers are human beings and laugh but then send out a letter or email detailing the job offer. Never had one refuse. Try that
I've been in the workforce nearly 30 years and I have never heard of a conditional job offer contingent on the candidate withdrawing job applications or stopping talks with other employers, nor have I ever heard of a conditional offer made simultaneously to several candidates for one job opening.
I have had conditions placed on passing background checks, medical exams, certifications, and education requirements. Very strange.
Last edited by jaypee; 07-07-2015 at 10:06 AM..
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.
