Deleted
Joined: Oct 11, 2024 21:22:41 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2015 18:53:07 GMT -5
Do I think it's a bigger imposition on me than the candidates? No, but it is still an imposition on not only myself, but two other professional staff in my department. We stand to get nothing out of the process while the candidates stand to get something (even if it is just keeping interview skills sharp).
It's a sucky situation all around. I would happily have just given the job to my staff member if I had been allowed to. But those pesky laws about state jobs and union regulations, combined with College policy, prevented me from doing so.
I did everything in my power to indicate via the job announcement that this wasn't really an open position (without coming right out and saying so, because that would have caused legal issues). It was an internal only posting, posted for the shortest possible time.
Isn't the reason that this is a legal requirement is so that other people will have a (supposedly) equal chance at the job? That includes internal candidates from other departments.
Our district has to post openings on the state's website for a certain period of time. They meanwhile hire whomever . . . often on Day -2 of the fourteen day period.
There have been a few times when I wanted to report them. It is such a farce. There is a reason why they are required to post, and they are just ignoring the reason.
Ever thought about the reason? I promise you that it isn't so you have a back-up candidate. Lol.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,544
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 4, 2015 19:06:19 GMT -5
That's fantastic, Firebird! Do you have daycare lined up for Babybird? Or is your mom staying on? My mom went home on Saturday, and Babybird started at a great Montessori preschool on Monday. Some tears on the first and second day- then today she all but shoved me out the door when we arrived So things are shaping up pretty nicely. Don't worry about the tears. I shed them too on the first days of pre-k through 12.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,452
|
Post by Firebird on Mar 4, 2015 22:30:44 GMT -5
Well, DH did indeed receive a better offer from B after their dinner. He just got back. He's got two offer letters and a tough decision to make, but it's a nice position to be in
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,884
|
Post by NastyWoman on Mar 4, 2015 22:34:40 GMT -5
For Mr. firebird. And here is hoping tomorrow will turn out just as good for you
|
|
Formerly SK
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 27, 2011 14:23:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,255
|
Post by Formerly SK on Mar 5, 2015 0:10:40 GMT -5
Do I think it's a bigger imposition on me than the candidates? No, but it is still an imposition on not only myself, but two other professional staff in my department. We stand to get nothing out of the process while the candidates stand to get something (even if it is just keeping interview skills sharp).
It's a sucky situation all around. I would happily have just given the job to my staff member if I had been allowed to. But those pesky laws about state jobs and union regulations, combined with College policy, prevented me from doing so.
I did everything in my power to indicate via the job announcement that this wasn't really an open position (without coming right out and saying so, because that would have caused legal issues). It was an internal only posting, posted for the shortest possible time.
Isn't the reason that this is a legal requirement is so that other people will have a (supposedly) equal chance at the job? That includes internal candidates from other departments.
Our district has to post openings on the state's website for a certain period of time. They meanwhile hire whomever . . . often on Day -2 of the fourteen day period.
There have been a few times when I wanted to report them. It is such a farce. There is a reason why they are required to post, and they are just ignoring the reason.
Ever thought about the reason? I promise you that it isn't so you have a back-up candidate. Lol.
Yes, this is all union bullsh*t. I've applied for three jobs in the union and two of them were mine before they were even posted. But they *had* to interview others as a cover. It's such a waste. But don't get me started on unions in public education. I'll rant and rave until I have a coronary and you all will want to jump out a window.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,452
|
Post by Firebird on Mar 5, 2015 0:36:26 GMT -5
|
|
TheHaitian
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 27, 2014 19:39:10 GMT -5
Posts: 10,144
|
Post by TheHaitian on Mar 5, 2015 6:32:37 GMT -5
Well, DH did indeed receive a better offer from B after their dinner. He just got back. He's got two offer letters and a tough decision to make, but it's a nice position to be in Details? Salary difference between the two? Personal/vacation time? 401k benefits? Insurance coverage? And it is a good time to negotiate between the two!
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,100
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Mar 5, 2015 10:01:08 GMT -5
Isn't the reason that this is a legal requirement is so that other people will have a (supposedly) equal chance at the job? That includes internal candidates from other departments.
That's what my former boss told me as the reason the university gave him when he was looking for my replacement. He already had a person in mind but the university required he interview X number of internal candidates, X number of external candidates and have the job open X number of days before he could hire her.
He was told the reason is so potential candidates cannot come back and try to sue for discrimination. The university can claim that everyone had an equal chance of getting the job. He was in a pretty foul mood and said that on numerous occasions he wanted to tell the person in front of him the truth because he felt terrible letting them think they had a shot but he had no intention of hiring them.
At least while you are sitting there you know you already have a candidate to fill the position, you don't need to worry.
Meanwhile I still don't have a new job lined up. You lose nothing but a few hours of your time. I'm SOL and my employment clock is winding down.
The only people the whole farce benefits is HR who can sleep soundly knowing their behinds are covered.
I think it's patronizing to tell me how hard it is for you but hey at least I got some interview experience, that's a good thing right. Gee thanks, pretend interviews don't pay my bills.
|
|
Cookies Galore
Senior Associate
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 18:08:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,892
|
Post by Cookies Galore on Mar 5, 2015 10:11:36 GMT -5
I used to work for a university and had to go through this farce. My job title/description was changing slightly and HR required it be posted, even though it was my job and I wasn't leaving. I had to sit at my desk and listen to my boss interview people who had no chance of getting hired for a job I had already been doing for three years. It's incredibly patronizing to try to justify university-BS as getting interview practice. Ugh. Everyone knows it's bullshit and it doesn't help the job seeker.
|
|
chen35
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 19:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,312
|
Post by chen35 on Mar 5, 2015 11:02:37 GMT -5
I had an open position in the fall, and I KNEW I was re-hiring someone who used to work for me. He had already put his notice in at work. HR tried to pull the 'You have to interview other people' card. I just said no, I wouldn't do it. I said it was rude to have someone get dressed up and nervous for an interview when I knew I wasn't going to hire that person. I knew I had the upper hand though, they didn't have any teeth to do anything about me refusing. If I didn't have the pull I had at the time, it would be harder to take a hard stand.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 11, 2024 21:22:41 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2015 11:07:28 GMT -5
HR's butt isn't covered if an obviously better qualified candidate applies. The company can still get sued. Our job openings have to be posted internally and only if there is no one qualified internally it has to go to public posting. Personally I'm pretty open when there is a preferred candidate for a position. Some people still choose to interview so that they are familiar to us if another position becomes available. But they have had the choice.
|
|
chen35
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 19:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,312
|
Post by chen35 on Mar 5, 2015 11:10:46 GMT -5
That's true. In my situation, my argument would be that this guy already knows all of our systems and business practices. That automatically puts him above anyone who applies with similar, but not identical, experience.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,100
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Mar 5, 2015 11:21:06 GMT -5
Some people still choose to interview so that they are familiar to us if another position becomes available. But they have had the choice.
That I am okay with. They strongly encourage hiring internally here and anyone who has the minimum qualifications automatically gets an interview.
So I know any job I apply for now could be a throw-away mandatory interview. We both know going into the interview what's going on behind the scenes.
My former boss wasn't allowed to disclose he had a candidate already. In fact he was warned he'd get in big trouble if he disclosed that. He had to keep his mouth shut the entire time and pretend all these people had a chance of becoming employed. THAT I don't agree with. I understand that it was university procedure and he had no choice but let's not pretend it was somehow worse for him than all those people he interviewed. At the end of the day he got what he wanted/needed. The other people he interviewed still don't have a job.
Interview skills are great and all but don't toss that at me as a consolation prize.
|
|
8 Bit WWBG
Administrator
Your Money admin
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 8:57:29 GMT -5
Posts: 9,322
Today's Mood: Mega
|
Post by 8 Bit WWBG on Mar 5, 2015 14:36:36 GMT -5
Later makes a good point... If I can prove that my qualifications blow the person you hired out of the water, then just because you interviewed 20 other candidates, I can still sue and at the very least cause some trouble.
...:::"In my situation, my argument would be that this guy already knows all of our systems and business practices. That automatically puts him above anyone who applies with similar, but not identical, experience.":::...
I've had mixed experience with this logic. I'm totally with you as it can take months or even years to amass the institutional knowledge and relationships necessary to be effective. It is not fun having to wait while someone amasses that. At the same time, it CAN be learned -- and much like YM investment philosophies, a better candidate who learns the knowledge could return far more in the long run.
Sometimes there are politics at play. If senior leadership is trying to show that it doesn't play favorites and its all open and transparent, it might totally order hiring from outside despite the loss or lack of knowledge.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,452
|
Post by Firebird on Mar 5, 2015 18:22:02 GMT -5
DH accepted B's offer earlier this morning. I had hoped to announce that I'd gotten my own offer and we BOTH found jobs today, but alas, I'm not sure how my interview went and haven't heard anything yet. Oh well, at least DH is now employed It's a great package- $57k base plus bonus, 3 weeks vacation, insurance for everyone (A didn't offer dependent coverage, and this is important since I'll probably be contracting without benefits), 401k match, etc. They expect him to advance very quickly. I'm very excited for him. He starts Wednesday.
|
|
TheHaitian
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 27, 2014 19:39:10 GMT -5
Posts: 10,144
|
Post by TheHaitian on Mar 5, 2015 19:15:01 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 11, 2024 21:22:41 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2015 19:20:34 GMT -5
Firebird that's AWESOME!!! Aren't you glad he accepted to meet with them?!
I hope you will have your own awesome news very soon!
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,452
|
Post by Firebird on Mar 5, 2015 20:03:44 GMT -5
I hope so too
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,884
|
Post by NastyWoman on Mar 5, 2015 21:54:22 GMT -5
I hope so too You WILL!!!
|
|
techguy
Junior Member
Joined: May 1, 2013 15:59:05 GMT -5
Posts: 172
|
Post by techguy on Mar 6, 2015 11:18:29 GMT -5
DH accepted B's offer earlier this morning. I had hoped to announce that I'd gotten my own offer and we BOTH found jobs today, but alas, I'm not sure how my interview went and haven't heard anything yet. Oh well, at least DH is now employed It's a great package- $57k base plus bonus, 3 weeks vacation, insurance for everyone (A didn't offer dependent coverage, and this is important since I'll probably be contracting without benefits), 401k match, etc. They expect him to advance very quickly. I'm very excited for him. He starts Wednesday. I'm shocked, shocked I tells ya!, that he would take an offer with these unethical types As always, Money talks....
|
|
Bonny
Junior Associate
Joined: Nov 17, 2013 10:54:37 GMT -5
Posts: 7,459
Location: No Place Like Home!
|
Post by Bonny on Mar 6, 2015 11:43:57 GMT -5
DH accepted B's offer earlier this morning. I had hoped to announce that I'd gotten my own offer and we BOTH found jobs today, but alas, I'm not sure how my interview went and haven't heard anything yet. Oh well, at least DH is now employed It's a great package- $57k base plus bonus, 3 weeks vacation, insurance for everyone (A didn't offer dependent coverage, and this is important since I'll probably be contracting without benefits), 401k match, etc. They expect him to advance very quickly. I'm very excited for him. He starts Wednesday. I'm shocked, shocked I tells ya!, that he would take an offer with these unethical types Firebird thought the unethical person was the recruiter not company B.
But I think it's a great lesson as to being very careful about "tattling" on someone who could help you down the road. AKA not burning bridges.
|
|
bean29
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 22:26:57 GMT -5
Posts: 10,208
|
Post by bean29 on Mar 6, 2015 12:15:40 GMT -5
I think this thread is very useful.
I definitely am not as honest as FB and FBDH, but I also would feel for the most part that once I accepted a job I should stay a year or two, after reading this thread, I agree that if the employer has a "probationary period" then so does the employee.
I always felt that if you had not already started working, then the employer's investment in you was limited, so it was not unethical to rescind your acceptance.
Congrats to your DH Firebird, and good luck on your own job search.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,452
|
Post by Firebird on Mar 6, 2015 13:17:23 GMT -5
DH never thought Company B was unethical, just what the recruiter asked him to do. He initially felt they should know about that. I believe there's a huge difference between tattling to get someone in trouble and calling out something you see as truly unethical/bad practice in the hope that it's corrected. I don't even plan to use the word "tattling" with my daughter, and I don't use it with my nieces now, because I would rather they tell me if someone is bothering them than keep it to themselves at the risk of being called a tattletale. I think it's a really negative phrase that encourages kids to keep harmful things to themselves more often than not. HOWEVER, I didn't realize this was such a gray area when I started this thread. DH and I were both pretty surprised that so many of you thought what the recruiter asked him to do was kosher, and we still disagree on that point. But I also realize there are some matters, with this clearly being one of them, that are not definitively right or wrong. And how you feel about them is a matter of personal ethics. It's not like the recruiter asked him for a bribe or something else that obviously should have been reported. So I agree that telling B what she did would probably have fallen closer to the tattling side in this case. And of course I'm glad he didn't do it. I'm equally glad he didn't violate his personal ethics to get this good result, even though it would have been okay with YM if he had
|
|
Bonny
Junior Associate
Joined: Nov 17, 2013 10:54:37 GMT -5
Posts: 7,459
Location: No Place Like Home!
|
Post by Bonny on Mar 6, 2015 15:35:42 GMT -5
Firebird, I don't think what the recruiter told your DH to do was right. But I really thought your DH telling the company was she was doing wasn't wise. Those are two separate actions with two very different outcomes.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,452
|
Post by Firebird on Mar 6, 2015 16:31:36 GMT -5
Agreed, Bonny.
|
|
shanendoah
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 19:44:48 GMT -5
Posts: 10,096
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0c3563
|
Post by shanendoah on Mar 6, 2015 16:43:21 GMT -5
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,452
|
Post by Firebird on Mar 6, 2015 17:41:05 GMT -5
I just got another interview (same company, same location, similar position but not the same one as yesterday) for Monday at 9:00. I'm very encouraged by this, since yesterday's interview was not my best ever (it was the first time in an interview I've ever been thrown off by a question, and I think I recovered okay but...).
Anyway, now I have another shot. Yay!
|
|
muttleynfelix
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:32:52 GMT -5
Posts: 9,406
|
Post by muttleynfelix on Mar 7, 2015 7:52:48 GMT -5
[quote\don't even plan to use the word "tattling" with my daughter, and I don't use it with my nieces now, because I would rather they tell me if someone is bothering them than keep it to themselves at the risk of being called a tattletale. I think it's a really negative phrase that encourages kids to keep harmful things to themselves more often than not. /quote]
I think this is one of those things that depends on the kid. When DS comes crying to me or DH 10 times a day that DD growled at him, we have used the term tattletail. He has to learn to deal with someone who is deliberately trying to get under his skin. She does it because he does cry about it. Now it is just his sister. He hasn't had problems at school or with friend. I would probably feel a little differently then, but with DD he picks on her but can't take it when she picks back. I don't have much patience for that.
|
|
muttleynfelix
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:32:52 GMT -5
Posts: 9,406
|
Post by muttleynfelix on Mar 7, 2015 7:54:18 GMT -5
Congrats to your DH Firebird.
|
|
Formerly SK
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 27, 2011 14:23:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,255
|
Post by Formerly SK on Mar 7, 2015 11:34:51 GMT -5
DH never thought Company B was unethical, just what the recruiter asked him to do. He initially felt they should know about that. I believe there's a huge difference between tattling to get someone in trouble and calling out something you see as truly unethical/bad practice in the hope that it's corrected. I don't even plan to use the word "tattling" with my daughter, and I don't use it with my nieces now, because I would rather they tell me if someone is bothering them than keep it to themselves at the risk of being called a tattletale. I think it's a really negative phrase that encourages kids to keep harmful things to themselves more often than not. HOWEVER, I didn't realize this was such a gray area when I started this thread. DH and I were both pretty surprised that so many of you thought what the recruiter asked him to do was kosher, and we still disagree on that point. But I also realize there are some matters, with this clearly being one of them, that are not definitively right or wrong. And how you feel about them is a matter of personal ethics. It's not like the recruiter asked him for a bribe or something else that obviously should have been reported. So I agree that telling B what she did would probably have fallen closer to the tattling side in this case. And of course I'm glad he didn't do it. I'm equally glad he didn't violate his personal ethics to get this good result, even though it would have been okay with YM if he had In schools there's a difference between tattling and talking to an adult about a concern. The former is when the main goal is to get a kid in trouble. The latter is when there's a problem you can't solve and need a grown up to help. We try to help kids recognize the difference, rate their issue from a 1-10 (lower number is tattling) and figure out on their own what option is best for the situation. Kids should ALWAYS feel OK about coming to an adult for help, but ultimately we want them to learn the skills to solve problems on their own.
|
|