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.
In defense of the employer, even when a hire is made, they know in the back of their mind that things might not work out as planned. That last part of actually hiring someone, getting them before they sign on with someone else, or before their spouse talks them out of changing jobs, or whatever, can be very tricky. It's understandably frustrating anytime someone has to deal with this dragging on, but I would never take something like this personally. You'd be wise to deal with this as gracefully as you have dealt with the first stages of the interview process. Do anything else and you'd just be giving them proof that you weren't the right person for the job, and word of 'interesting' applicant behavior can travel beyond their office rather quickly.
let's hope that YOU don't need HER in a few months, or down the road!
congrats on the job!!!
Why would the OP ever need her????? The OP isn't going to use her as a reference...LOL. The OP was treated poorly and went on to say she heard this woman is difficult to deal with. There is no situation where the OP will need her. Even if something happened(and I hope it doesn't) at the new job, I would bet money the OP wouldn't contact this woman for work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas
In defense of the employer, even when a hire is made, they know in the back of their mind that things might not work out as planned. That last part of actually hiring someone, getting them before they sign on with someone else, or before their spouse talks them out of changing jobs, or whatever, can be very tricky. It's understandably frustrating anytime someone has to deal with this dragging on, but I would never take something like this personally. You'd be wise to deal with this as gracefully as you have dealt with the first stages of the interview process. Do anything else and you'd just be giving them proof that you weren't the right person for the job, and word of 'interesting' applicant behavior can travel beyond their office rather quickly.
Well that is why someone who is a professional follows up with the other candidates and informs them the position has been filled and thank them for their time, not leave them dangling.
Because they know in case the person selected doesn't work out they treated the other candidates in a professional and respectful manner, so they can contact them again and see if they're still interested.
Not so easy when you never got back to them.
Someone who takes the time to interview and than never hears back doesn't think much of the person/company they interviewed with. But if they're show a little consideration and even though they didn't get the job they feel better knowing what their status is.
Well that is why someone who is a professional follows up with the other candidates and informs them the position has been filled and thank them for their time, not leave them dangling.
Because they know in case the person selected doesn't work out they treated the other candidates in a professional and respectful manner, so they can contact them again and see if they're still interested.
Not so easy when you never got back to them.
Someone who takes the time to interview and than never hears back doesn't think much of the person/company they interviewed with. But if they're show a little consideration and even though they didn't get the job they feel better knowing what their status is.
yep, exactly.
it's not like candidates are just waiting breathlessly until you hire or reject them. if they're smart, they've continued to follow other leads and apply and interview for other jobs, and whether or not you reject them has no bearing on whether they're available if you need them later. failing to reject someone in no way keeps your options open with them. unless they're a dingus who drops everything waiting for one company to get back to them, it's not going to make a difference.
but on the other hand, not rejecting them shows that you have no respect for the time they spent applying and interviewing. and that leaves a bad taste in their mouth, especially when they find out that you made a hire and couldn't be bothered to tell them. say forever blue was considering another similar offer at the time that this woman called.... they might end up going with the company that treated them better.
showing applicants some basic respect and professionalism really doesn't take much effort, and wouldn't you want people to think well of your company instead of being frustrated and angry at it, whether or not you will ever want to hire them? it just seems like a no-brainer.
Well that is why someone who is a professional follows up with the other candidates and informs them the position has been filled and thank them for their time, not leave them dangling.
He wasn't left dangling; he had enough information to reach his own conclusions, as any reasonable person would have. I'm not disagreeing that she could have handled it better - that's obvious. But I don't think this is really a big deal. I've had employers not get back to me until weeks later, even two months later. In fact one wrote me back so long after the interview that I had almost forgotten about the job. Business is business. I don't take it personally.
Quote:
Because they know in case the person selected doesn't work out they treated the other candidates in a professional and respectful manner, so they can contact them again and see if they're still interested.
Not so easy when you never got back to them.
I can't really disagree with this.
Quote:
Someone who takes the time to interview and than never hears back doesn't think much of the person/company they interviewed with.
That's true, but if someone just sits around and waits for weeks and doesn't follow up themselves, maybe they don't think much of the job, either.
The OP didn't burn a bridge. What do you think there is a nationwide blacklist that goes out with your name on it like the list the airports have on their "no fly" list of names...LOL.
The OP never wants to work for this person, and this unprofessional phone message just proved it. No bridges were burned.
It's nice to hear a story like this. All the OP wanted was a status in regards to their interview.
Sounds like they dodged a bullet and got a better job in the interim.
Exactly!
Quote:
Originally Posted by caligirlz
let's hope that YOU don't need HER in a few months, or down the road!
congrats on the job!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by groar
It sounds like forever blue handled the request professionally and politely, so I don't see why you say this.
Even if I did need her, I have nothing to be ashmed of because I was very nice to her when I declined.
I'd say, "I make X right now" (when X is really just 15% more than you do now).
I really would like to work there, it fits me better and the opportunity has now arisen. Can you guys beat that?
lol. Why not? Get out there and hustle.
Does this actually work? For most positions, the dates of employment and your previous salary are among some of the things that potential employer can confirm. I believe that some won't bother checking, let alone hold it against that you if you inflated your current salary (especially since you've been extended an offer), but still..
yeah, don't lie about your salary. many employers verify past salaries and if they find out you lied to them, they very well might rescind the offer. lying on the application is one of the most common reasons that offers fall through. that's the kind of thing that is checked after an offer is made and accepted, so you may have given notice and then have the rug pulled out from under you. and really, would you want to hire a liar?
i've talked about this before, but here is what i did when i worked for a small nonprofit that posted jobs in the local paper and on craigslist.
when i got an application, by e-mail or mail, i entered the person's name and e-mail address in a spreadsheet, and a yes or no depending on whether they were going to come in to interview.
once interviews were conducted and hiring decisions made, i updated the spreadsheet accordingly, filtered out the people who were hired and did an e-mail merge with a generic rejection e-mail to the rest. you can also just copy the e-mail column from the spreadsheet.
we usually got around 100-150 responses to each ad. the most time i spent was typing e-mail addresses into the spreadsheet when we got a paper resume, which took abour 10-15 seconds per applicant.
so at maximum, assuming 150 paper resumes, which never happened, that was 37.5 minutes spent doing data entry, spread out into little bits over a couple of weeks. then let's say 3 minutes to write one e-mail and 2 minutes to do a mail merge. not exactly a huge drain on our resources. companies that have hr software at their disposal can subtract the data entry from that equation.
i've talked about this before, but here is what i did when i worked for a small nonprofit that posted jobs in the local paper and on craigslist.
when i got an application, by e-mail or mail, i entered the person's name and e-mail address in a spreadsheet, and a yes or no depending on whether they were going to come in to interview.
once interviews were conducted and hiring decisions made, i updated the spreadsheet accordingly, filtered out the people who were hired and did an e-mail merge with a generic rejection e-mail to the rest. you can also just copy the e-mail column from the spreadsheet.
we usually got around 100-150 responses to each ad. the most time i spent was typing e-mail addresses into the spreadsheet when we got a paper resume, which took abour 10-15 seconds per applicant.
so at maximum, assuming 150 paper resumes, which never happened, that was 37.5 minutes spent doing data entry, spread out into little bits over a couple of weeks. then let's say 3 minutes to write one e-mail and 2 minutes to do a mail merge. not exactly a huge drain on our resources. companies that have hr software at their disposal can subtract the data entry from that equation.
You are referring to 'cycle time', rather than 'process time'. Cycle time is idealized and rarely met in the real world. Process time, which includes interruptions, opening and closing your spreadsheet, printing, etc is usually much longer.
Think about it in terms of thought intensive activities. Have you ever had a project that really needs to get done by a certain time, and you simply make no headway on it? An entire week goes by, and you have only partially dealt with it. You decide to go in on Saturday and spend 10-12 hours knocking it out. Saturday morning you sit down at your desk with a big sigh and a cup of coffee and get to work, with no interruptions. By noon you are done. Start to finish, 2 1/2 hours.
Sending out rejection emails can be interrupted, and in turn will interrupt other tasks, lengthening process time.
This is not to say that an employer should not do this, employers should. But you should be aware of the real time taken, as we do not work at 100% efficiency.
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.
