to refuse to travel from London to Warrington for an first round interview?

[Fillybuster]

I run the risk of outing myself here....but I work in a sector that tends to be quite geographically spread across the UK (and beyond). I live in London but over the past 15 years have spent lots of time travelling abroad and within the UK. For several years (post dcs) I even managed a team based in Glasgow and Manchester, and spent 2-3 days every 2 weeks with them.

All this is just to explain that I don't have a problem with travel for work!

I was recently approached by a headhunter to apply for a role with a company based in Warrington with offices all over the UK. Apparently the role could be London based as long as I was willing to travel to Warrington 1-2 days/week. No problem.

I've just been called for a first round interview....in Warrington next week. I have refused to spend a whole day travelling (and invest the money required) for a first round....maybe I'd do it for a third round, but it seems barmy to expect candidates to invest that level of time and money this early in the process.

Apparently the other 2 candidates were quite happy to do so. The recruitment consultant clearly thinks I'm a nutter for suggesting we do it by videoconf or investigate whether the hiring manager is going to be in London any time soon.

AIBU?

I get the train from Warrington to Euston about twice a week (and back again), get the direct train that runs every hour - 1st stop from Euston is Warrington. Off peak single ticket £33.odd

But they should pay your expenses - I do when I interview!

I don't think you are unreasonable at all. Your priority is to your current employer and taking a whole day off for a first round interview isn't fair to them. Any future employer should recognise and respect this.

The cost is a separate issue. If your job was based in London full time and didn't require travel to Warrington I would say your cost to attend the interview in Warrington should be covered by them. However, from what you have said here the cost of travel to and from Warrington would be covered by you if they employed you. If this is the case then they shouldn't be paying for your travel.

If the job involves being based in Warrington 1-2 days a week it's not unreasonable to expect candidates to travel there for an interview imo.

But it's up to you how much you want the job. Fine to ask whether a VC is possible and/or about travel expenses but then it's your decision.

"I had a potential employee who was recommended by a mutual acquaintance. I sent an email saying 'Pop in to see me tomorrow after you've finished work for an initial chat'. She replied AND I QUOTE 'I'm rather busier than that! Can we make it next week'. Bear in mind I am the MD of the company and rather busy myself! So I told her, very politely, that I would find a candidate through other means."

Jesus, if anyone looking to hire me took that kind of peremptory tone with me I wouldn't be terribly upset that they decided to find a candidate through other means.

You think you get to summon people to your office after work with one day's notice when they don't even work for you?!

I'm sure she'll find a better employer if she's good at what she does.

I agree with AThingINYOURLife as I really can't see what was so offensive about "I'm rather busier than that!" Your name certainly suits you Proudandscarey.

I dunno... I don't find that kind of abrupt, inappropriate bossiness scary, just embarrassing and intensely annoying.

Oooooooh, "I'm the MD of a company" :o

Go and pull rank with one of your lackeys. I don't work for you and now thankfully, after your display of dickishness, I never will.

"Pop into see me tomorrow after work." Ummm, no.

Would you even want to employ someone at such a loose end and so desperate to please that they'd drop everything to make that happen?

@ thing

This is the attitude that infuriates me, that you must be so desperate to work for someone that you will drop everything and run like a panting dog begging for the job.

What most people seem to forget (and I always remind myself before an interview) is that an interview is a TWO WAY process, you are interviewing them too to see if the job suits you and whether you want to spend the best part of your day/week/year working there.

When the whole process starts with this inflexible attitude of you should be thankful we will even speak to you and we don't care you have another job etc. I immediately think, is this the sort of inflexible employer I want to invest my valuable time and energy into??

I think it's notmal to be interviewed in the cenral office where ever that be. You could always ask if you could have a phone interview instead to save time/petrol.

I think exactly that Light - I had an interview with a company that approached me and wanted me to travel to Leeds (job was based in Birmingham). I refused, because if they're going to be that inflexible right from the start it isn't a good sign. They did my interview in Birmingham and I got the job.

YANBU - it's not a case of nipping down the road, it's not the kind of journey you can make comfortably in one day, taking into account getting to the train station from home.

Regarding the video conference, you've said "I can't do this but how about this?" To me, you are offering a solution without them having to come up with an alternative (ie they can sit at their desk and talk to you in person or via video call)

They don't have to interview you, but why wouldn't they? They don't have anything to lose. If they are inviting candidates from as far afield as London, I'm sure they must expect some people to come back with this kind of request.

Sorry but I think YABU. I am from NW England and when looking for a job I often had to come down to London for 1st round interviews, yes expenses should be reimbursed but if you want the job you should make the effort.

There are many people who regularly commute 2hrs each way every day, its only Warrington not New York.

YANBU, it's a lot of time and money on a first round.

YANBU. Its good for them to think they need you more than you need them and if youre well qualified for the job, then make them work for you.

That is unless youre desperate for the job

AThing/Bluebell - The fact that I said 'pop i for an 'initial chat' made it clear it was just that. An initial chat. No big interview that needs time to prepare for. We had a mutual acquaintence so it was very informal.

She was working in the same building at the time. I forgot to say that when I posted upthread. But even if she hadnn't been, we both work in central London so it's perfectly do-able.

'I'm rather busier than that!' is an extremely rude response and I'm surprised you can't see that!!

'pop in' sorry

The word you forgot was "can".

"Can you pop in for a chat tomorrow after work?"

"Sure, I'll see you around 6.30."
"Not tomorrow, but would any other day this week work for you?"

"Pop in for a chat tomorrow after work."
...I don't even work for you and you're already bossing me around? No thanks...
"I'm rather busier than that."

You were rude to her.

I imagine her reply was calculated to piss you off but in a way that would not estranged her from the person you have in common.

Proudnscary - totally see where you are coming from and I think had the girl said she had a deadline or a prior commitment you would have been fine with her stopping by another time. I think sometimes the tone of email can really rub people up the wrong way. That might have been what happened there.

As a general rule I like to focus on working for my employer and if I looking for another job I don't want it to interfere with my current job that pays my bills. Afterall, should I not get hired I will have to continue working where I am at. I got a very well paid job for an investment bank because I told the CEO that I couldn't meet with him because I had a prior commitment. He asked what it was and was understanding when I told him it was a meeting with a regulator which I had spent a month preparing for. Some stuff you can't reschedule around. I was 26 when I turned him down and after he hired me he said I was the only person in the interview process who didn't tell him they were loyal but demonstrated it.

Well proud I am afraid that you sound incredibly pompous and presumptuous and deserved that reply. You are the MD of your company, not her life! I wouldn't have been that polite tbh, I would have told you to stuff it!

Once again, thanks for all the feedback. It's reassuring that this isn't quite as cut-and-dried as some of the initial posters suggested :)

I have gone back to the recruitment consultant and laid it out as follows:

1. I'm still interested, was a bit thrown by "can you be available for interview next week...oh by the way, it's in Warrington", so not instantly positive.

2. I cannot get to Warirington next week (in FT employment at the moment, can't just ditch existing commitments, and I wouldn't want to emply someone who did...) so perhaps we could do first round by video conference next week?

3. Happy to go to Warrington, following week - could make that a first round if necessary, or do 1st round by VC (see above) and then move fast to 2nd round face-to-face if we all like each other.

He seems fine with that. I have double-checked, and he seems convinced that they will not cover expenses, so I'm definitely keen to avoid incurring loits of expense this early on.

FWIW, travel expenses to Warrington would obviously be covered by expenses if I were to get (and accept) the role.

Anyway, thank you all...AIBU is really helpful for those situations where you genuinely can't figure out whether your own response is R! :)

Good luck Filly.

If I've understood correctly, THEY have called you. They have employed a search firm to go into the market and proactively contact people who are not actively looking to leave their roles. If this is the case it is beyond unreasonable for them not to be offering to pay expenses. I would rule this company out on that basis alone.

Very different if you are asking the agency to find you a job (although I still think the employer should offer to help with a hefty train fair) it does materially shift the power balance in the recruitment process. This reminds me of clients who start interviews with headhunted candidates with "So, why are you looking to leave your current role?" and then get baffled when the candidates explains that they aren't looking to leave, they have been approached and want to hear what the potential employer has to say.

Good luck Filly, hope they sort out the video conferencing for you.

YABU - especially if the job involves weekly journeys up to Warrington. If you can't be bothered to drag your sorry arse up to Warrington for the interview, it smacks of a total lack of commitment (especially when two other candidates are prepared to travel!) It doesn't take much imagination to work out who's going to get culled first.

It will just come across 'I don't really want this job, you stinking little people are lucky that I am even considering giving you a few moments of my time via videolink.'

Just tell them you can't travel for family reasons and see what they say

Yeah, that'll give a great impression. It won't reinforce negative stereotypes about women in the workplace not being able to do their job 'cos they are too concerned with looking after their kids.

The only two worse excuses I can think of are 'I can't travel because I have PMT' or 'I can't travel because I need to be back in time to make my husband's dinner'

YADNBU if they're not paying. It's shockingly expensive to travel from the NW to London and they're after you, not the other way round.