Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Is this spiteful? Interview situation.

208 replies

ThrowAwayQP · 01/10/2019 13:20

So...

Situation at work where we are interviewing for a post tomorrow. Person A is already doing the post on a temp basis; and was one of the people being interviewed tomorrow for the full time post.

A discussion had taken place where it was agreed that even if unsuccessful they have proven themselves and so will be involved in the future development of the department in some capacity.

They have now withdrawn at the last minute.

Would it be spiteful, if another appointment is made tomorrow for them to be completely removed from the department, despite all the work they have done?

Thanks

OP posts:
Tanith · 01/10/2019 14:07

So the offer of a second, lesser post isn't even a firm offer: they might create one... maybe.

They're not showing the temp much commitment, are they? Why should they expect total loyalty and commitment from her?

NearlyGranny · 01/10/2019 14:09

Beta blockers for interview nerves! Tell her. I've never used them but a stressy family member has, and has got past needing them after several successes!

Doingtheboxerbeat · 01/10/2019 14:12

I agree with pp that the candidate / temps spidey senses kicked in and they got the fuck outa there basically.

ChicCroissant · 01/10/2019 14:13

I think the company are right here.

She should interview along with the others. Withdrawing makes her look like she is not committed to working there.

Doingtheboxerbeat · 01/10/2019 14:13

Oh ignore me Blush.

MoonbeamBonnet · 01/10/2019 14:14

She’s not exactly making herself look reliable by not turning up for an interview for a job she wants due to nerves. She needs to go to the interview, even if she will perform terribly due to the nerves.

Dyrne · 01/10/2019 14:15

After your update I actually agree with the manager - what they are doing isn’t spiteful - they can’t give a position to someone who isn’t willing to interview for it! Especially, barring some sort of severe MH issues, for something like “nerves”.

You should encourage your friend to interview for it - seriously, even if it’s a complete disaster the managers will take her previous history of competence into account when making the decision!

Rachelle11 · 01/10/2019 14:16

So her supervisor is basically prepared to go to bat for her but she pulled out due to nerves? That sends a pretty bad message. I think the company is fine then.

Damntheman · 01/10/2019 14:17

Oh honey no.. encourage your friend to interview anyway! Nerves are temporary but she's got the chance to make a job she loves permanent!

Dyrne · 01/10/2019 14:17

In a way it’s pretty poor of your friend to throw the offer back in the manager’s face - the manager has pretty much said “nudge nudge wink wink you’re basically guaranteed the job” but she can’t even play the game by turning up to the interview?!?

SirVixofVixHall · 01/10/2019 14:20

Agree with posts above, try and persuade your friend to do the interview, nothing ventured, nothing gained and all that.

northerngirl2012 · 01/10/2019 14:22

I think its a unprofessional conversation to have had prior to an interview. Makes a mockery of the rest of the candidates not yet interview and also her and her abilities.

Don't get quite where they were coming from to start with. Not sure they can look good in any outcome in this?

She did what she thought best on the information available.

beestripey · 01/10/2019 14:22

They paid her a week's notice and dismissed her from her temporary contract, saying that she evidently wasn't interested in working for the company any more.

This is spiteful. Just because someone does not want promotion or is too nervous to interview does not mean they aren't very happy and committed to continuing in the role they have. Very short sighted (and mean) of the company to make such cynical assumptions.

TatianaLarina · 01/10/2019 14:24

The update is fair enough.

If she’s not up to the interview she may not be up to the job. I would have major reservations about someone who funked an interview.

HUZZAH212 · 01/10/2019 14:25

I think she's shot herself in the foot tbh. They clearly thought very highly of her and that she's capable of the job. However, the job obviously needs to be opened up for recruitment (probably from the company legal employment standpoint - in house recruitment isn't always an option). So they've basically said if she didn't get the role they want to keep her on (she's a shoe in for it), but they can't say the job is hers for the above reason. As she's now backed out for reasons that weren't say child care related/different contract hours. She's left them with no where to go to support her, she's basically said nope I'm not even willing to try. They then can't bend any further to accomadate.

Flywheel · 01/10/2019 14:25

I would imagine the interview process itself is crucial to making the case for the alternative role. There will be scoring sheets etc. and it would be easy to use these to justify holding on to her. She really should just do the interview. It sounds like they are in her corner and it is unlikely there will be any surprises in the interview.

Drogosnextwife · 01/10/2019 14:26

@Piglet89

Yes, because it isn't more likely that "incase" was a typo but thanks Grin

Dyrne · 01/10/2019 14:29

But beestripey maintaining a Temp role is actually really expensive for a company (at least twice what the Temp is actually getting laid, usually). It may be that they can not justify maintaining a Temp role with the Permanent role being filled; but could have potentially justified an additional permanent part time role based on outstanding performance of multiple candidates at interview? (It may be they have 0.6 headcount floating around elsewhere they could have justified, for example)

Piglet89 · 01/10/2019 14:29

No, frankly: it’s not. People always blame “typos” when they just don’t know something is incorrect.

curiousierandcouriser · 01/10/2019 14:30

*I’m a friend of person A.

She was told that if she came second in interviews then the department head would make a case to the senior team for her to continue part time as extra capacity. She loves the job but has pulled out of the interview due to nerves.

The department head spoke to her and said that she should reconsider as she is a strong candidate; but also he added that if she does not interview then the part time post would not materialise; and if we were to appoint she would be surplus to requirement.*

Ok, with this update, I agree with your department head. It sounds like they really wanted to keep her but had to open up the permanent position to external applicants. The fact that they were willing to create a position for her if she was unsuccessful is quite generous but its hard to go to bat for someone who doesn't show up. How strong a case could the department head make for someone who refuses to be interviewed?

Speak to your friend and encourage her to interview.

Belfield · 01/10/2019 14:30

I think it is fair enough. A has to apply for the position. If she doesn't do the interview then she can't get the job. the offer of the other role was if she came second so still interviewed and then a panel is created wherein she is second (this is common in civil service and large companies). How can A really say that she can't do the interview. Did she not do an interview for the original job in the Company. Sure if we all took that stance, nobody would work. Everyone has to do an interview. If A loses her job it is on her own bat. If I was A's friend I would tell her to pull herself together as she is going to have to do an interview for her next job if she doesn't do this one. I'd forget about blaming the company. It all makes sense to me.

Drogosnextwife · 01/10/2019 14:31

@Piglet89
Oh and FYI, it wasn't a dig at the person. I regularly make mistakes while typing due to being dyslexic, so I have to really pay attention to what I write. Sometimes I don't have time or just can't be arsed. I just thought it would be nicer to point out that pp was using completely the wrong phrase, to save any embarrassment in future.

Coralfish · 01/10/2019 14:33

Right, in that case not spiteful at all. They need to interview her to give her the role. It sounds like they think she is a strong candidate and they would like to give her the role, but if someone else is better management will do their best to give her another role. But if she doesn't interview at all, they can't give her any job. She needs to do the interview!

Drogosnextwife · 01/10/2019 14:34

I didn't disagree with what they said, I didn't point it out to be a smug bitch.

Piglet89 · 01/10/2019 14:34

Well, I’m pointing out you made a mistake to save you any embarrassment in the future - because there are people out there who will judge you for not knowing that “in case” is two words.

Absolutely no need to correct the OP’s use of English here apart from to try to look smart and sounds to me you can dish it out but can’t take it.