To think that you should make sure jobs are there before conducting interviews

[ant3nna]

Found out last week that the job I interviewed for in June is no longer hiring.

The scheme I applied for was civil service and I was told that the hiring freeze didn't apply to it because it was generating skills the government need. The hiring freeze doesn't apply to civil service fast stream either. At the end of July I was told that I had passed the interview stage with flying colours, met all the criteria, they loved me and it now just had to be signed off by ministers and the successful candidates allocated to various departments across government. They've kept me hanging ever since saying that they were sure the scheme was going to go ahead.

AIBU to think that you don't interview unless you know that there are jobs there for the candidates?

[LIZS]

sorry you feel mislead. However atm I think priority is being given to those already employed and whose current roles are "at risk". The cutbacks hadn't been fully evaluated by June.

[LucyLouLou]

YANBU, but it sounds like there was a job available when you interviewed and throughout the process? I understand why you're upset, but could they have told you any sooner or was it the earliest chance they had?

[GetOrfMoiLand]

Well, yes, undertsnad that you re upset, however a lot has happened since June, and perhaps they assumed that their budgets wouldn't be cut then.

[ant3nna]

I don't know whether they could have told me earlier but I did ask several times if the cutbacks made the scheme unlikely to go forward. I was told that the hiring freeze didn't apply because the scheme was designed to save the government money by making sure that there were enough procurement specialists.

Just seems silly to me that they have spent lots of money interviewing people via outside agencies to then not hire people especially when I was told that they are hiring people via the scheme next year.