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They have now withdrawn at the last minute.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:
Drogosnextwife · 01/10/2019 14:35

I can see how someone may think it was "despite" instead of "to spite", if they have only heard it being said rather than written down.

HUZZAH212 · 01/10/2019 14:36

Plus she needs to consider even if she'd been unsuccessful for the role and another position hadn't materialised. There would still have been the option to ask for a good reference from them. That bridge will also be burnt if she doesn't interview.

Piglet89 · 01/10/2019 14:36

I can see how someone may think it was "incase" instead of "in case", if they have only heard it being said rather than written down.

Drogosnextwife · 01/10/2019 14:37

Wasn't the OP so..... Also as I said, pretty sure it was a typo, but I've already thanked you for pointing it out. Once again, thanks Wink

SchadenfreudePersonified · 01/10/2019 14:37

The expression is "cut off your nose to spite your face"

Could well be an autocarrot problem.

If the poster has typed (say) "tospite" then autobastard could have made her mind up for her.

Drogosnextwife · 01/10/2019 14:38

Possibly. If not, now they know. Every day is a learning day, even for me.

Travis1 · 01/10/2019 14:38

Nothing spiteful in it, how can the dept head make a case for her if she doesn't follow through on the process. They'll see it as a lack of commitment so no justification to keep her on. She should do the interview. I know it will be hard for her but better to try and power through than walk away from a job.

Drogosnextwife · 01/10/2019 14:39

Jesus, the phrase "like a dog with a bone" comes to mind now.

SchadenfreudePersonified · 01/10/2019 14:40

If A is doing the job, and doing it well, I donn't know whether don't just offer it to her.

I've been in the position where I was expected to interview for a job I had been doing on a temporary basis, and I told them I wasn't prepared to - if I was doing a good job, they could give it to me, if I wasn't then I'd leave.

I was lucky - they weren't as snarky as A's employer and I was appointed to the post.

Drogosnextwife · 01/10/2019 14:40

Why are you taking such offence Piglet89?

Wheelson · 01/10/2019 14:42

What would have happened if she had never applied? Is she seconded from another department or did she take this temp role right off the street?

NoSquirrels · 01/10/2019 14:42

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.
Great, sounds supportive.

She loves the job but has pulled out of the interview due to nerves.
Why is she so nervous? It sounds as if her department head has been nothing but encouraging, and has even - indirectly - acknowledged her nerves by saying if she attends the interview she will get some form of result from it.

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;
This sounds absolutely fair enough - again, supportive (she is a strong candidate) and a little tough love, perhaps (if she doesn't interview then he can't recommend her for another post).

and if we were to appoint she would be surplus to requirement.
This was presumably the original status quo?

Butchyrestingface · 01/10/2019 14:43

Could well be an autocarrot problem

Autocarrots sound interesting. 🚗🥕

Bluntness100 · 01/10/2019 14:48

Your first post made it look awful
Your last post makes it look acceptable.

If she doesn't interview I think it's fair they don't offer her a role.

beestripey · 01/10/2019 14:48

Dyrne I didn't make it clear but my second comment was in response to TheSecretJeven's post re her friend;

Something similar happened to and colleague of mine. She applied for a permanent role but later changed her mind,
withdrawing as a candidate. 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.

But yes, of course costs of temping may come into it. In Jeven's case it sounds like it was pure spite though if those were the reasons given. Bringing in someone completely new would surely cost the company more money/productivity than someone already familiar and performing well. Assuming a lack of commitment when you have not asked the person for an explanation, says more about the person doing the firing than the person who withdrew.

I am assuming that the OP's friend had temporarily stepped up from her original role rather than being a new temp at temp rates. But who knows the ins and outs precisely! I can't speak to 0.6 headcounts etc, but obviously it would be sensible if people are told the genuine reasons that something can or can't be done to save anyone making wrong assumptions.

Hope your friend goes for it ThrowawayOP!

MilkTwoSugarsThanks · 01/10/2019 14:51

You were lucky Schadenfreude, most mid - large companies have company policies that prevent them from just giving a job without going through "the process".

C8H10N4O2 · 01/10/2019 14:58

They applied for the permanent post; and a verbal agreement was reached that if they came second they might be offered a smaller role going forward

Well if the smaller role exists (which it must do unless A was being lied to) why on earth would they not offer them the smaller role? They are interviewing other people anyway so this must have been one of the considered outcomes?

SchadenfreudePersonified · 01/10/2019 14:59

I was lucky Milk.

I was in a university, and have some quite specialised clinical skills - and (though I say it myself) I was bloody good at the job!

It's really insulting when someone is doing a good job, to put them in this position - I know that it's to stop cronyism etc, but I was very confident that I'd find somewhere at least as well paid very quickly, so I was able to effectively blackmail the department. This was many years ago - I don't know if I'd have succeeded today.

C8H10N4O2 · 01/10/2019 15:01

Sorry I missed the last update from the OP, about her reasons for pulling out. I still think the same though - if they have another smaller role they would be silly to replace her for the smaller role. If there isn't another real role they should never have suggested there would be.

StillCoughingandLaughing · 01/10/2019 15:03

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.

I wouldn’t consider this ‘spiteful’ at all. I would consider it encouragement to still apply, but coupled with a clear warning that, if she isn’t even prepared to do that, he can’t make any promises about offering her anything else.

It’s business, not the playground. ‘Spiteful’ is a very ‘but it isn’t nice!’, infant school word.

RantyAnty · 01/10/2019 15:15

Encourage your friend to interview. Can you help her practice?

StewDad · 01/10/2019 15:17

Depending on the reason for them withdrawing from the interview process, they haven't held up their end of the agreement?

On another note, were they always aware that they were, in essence, filling in? Ergo, were they aware that once a replacement was found then the role they were covering would be filled by a succesful applicant, whether it was them or not?

I would find out first why they don't want to interview for the role. If it is because they don't want to work for the company then it is fairly inconsequential if they are offered a different role or not.

Bluntness100 · 01/10/2019 15:19

In many companies and government organisations interviews need to occur. Candidates are then scored on various criteria by the interviewers to ensure a fair and transparent process with no favouritism . If she doesn't attend the interview she cannot expect to be given a role, she is pulling her self out of the recruitment process.

The factshe can't manage an interview due to nerves is something sh needs to manage.

The managers seem to be nothing but supportive and encouraging. But she can't expect to come second or first in a race she never ran.

NoTheresa · 01/10/2019 15:21

I loathe the stupid expression going forward as used by the OP.

Bluntness100 · 01/10/2019 15:24

I loathe the stupid expression going forward as used by the OP.

Eh, ok, thanks for sharing, 🤣