To think employers want applicants to bend over backwards

[jobhunter25]

During the recruitment process? I'm currently searching for a new job and can't believe how many hoops some companies expect people to jump through, for shitty pay/benefits might I add. I left my last role around a month ago (unhappy for years, toxic environment) and luckily I had some savings I was able to live off but I'm now ready to get back into work. I've applied for around 15-20 jobs and I've realised that employers don't just invite candidates in for an interview if they like their C.V anymore. It's so long winded. For example, a role that I applied for (pay is between 18-22k btw) wanted me to take a 45 minute test, and if I passed they would call me for a pre-screen chat and if they thought I was suitable they'd invite me in for an interview. I actually emailed them back this morning saying I'd been offered another job as I really couldn't be arsed with the hassle, not for 22k anyway. I understand companies being more thorough with a high paying role though. AIBU?

I'm a freelance writer and the number of "freelance" jobs that expect you to a) work set hours/times b)work from their office and report to a certain person is crazy. That's called a part time contract not a freelance contract.

There's also a rise in people looking for freelancers and wanting them to write a test piece for free before they decide if they want to proceed. I keep calling this out - why should I provide you with content for free? These businesses could be asking any number of people to do these test pieces, and essentially getting an entire content strategy for free without paying anyone!

A few years ago I applied for a job in a large inward bound call centre. It wasn’t a difficult job, all that was really needed was a nice telephone manner and common sense. The recruitment process however was a telephone interview, which if you passed that would be followed by a recruitment day where you’d be expected to complete personality tests and role play games with other candidates. If you were lucky enough to get past that you’d then get a proper face to face interview. I fell at the recruitment day despite having worked in offices and answering telephones professionally since I was about sixteen 🙄

@lieselotte you are able to request that any test is reviewed by a person. Automated ones that will reject someone from a process tend to have very clear pass, a very clear fail and a manual review of any that fall between.

Wouldn't you consider it more of a waste of your time to prepare for and do an interview if you're not able to do some basic parts of the role.

It’s not like it’s a risk employing the wrong person as usually there is a probation period where they can fire you for no reason with a weeks notice plus few employment rights under 2 years employment.

This is not necessarily true. Hiring the wrong person can be immensely risky. It's true that your employment rights are limited during the first 2 years, but we still have to follow due process and that takes time. Then you have to tread extra carefully if employees have any protected characteristics, as their only legal option in response to failing probation is to go down the route of claiming discrimination... and that includes people with mental health problems which are so widespread these days. It is very rarely just a case of simply letting someone go as soon as you realise that they are unsuitable. Then, even once you have got rid of someone, there is the delay that ensues while you recruit again to fill the role, and the question of how that work is going to get covered in the meantime.

I do get that it's frustrating to have to jump through all of these hoops - I have been on the other side of the process as well - but we wouldn't bother doing any of it if we didn't feel that it was necessary. And having been burned previously as a result of recruitment errors, even in very junior roles, we invest a lot of effort now in getting our recruitment right. If you can't be arsed to walk through that process with us, then we will assume that you aren't that interested in the job, and frankly, we can do without you.

@MrsBennetsPoorNerves is absolutely right.

I've just switched jobs into a specific role, and I'm praising the skies that by accident I've chosen one that has a super simple application process as standard.

You just need evidence that you've performed the relevant tasks and qualifications on your CV, a cover letter describing you experiences, and it's all one stage interviews.

I've had four interviews off the EXACT same CV and cover letter, no tweaking required.

Bliss.

LOL, I've thought this since about 1996, when I was 18 and looking for a summer job before uni!

I don't think the owners of shops in Croydon Whitgift centre appreciated my blunt spec of "Got any jobs going here?"
Not sure why as it had worked for me in Ireland! I didn't understand about the excessive politeness in the UK back then!😆

I mean, protected characteristics includes if you are a man or a woman. Or have a sexuality. Or an ethnicity. So EVERYONE has a protected characteristic.

I broadly agree with the rest, but that point is an odd one for HR to make!

They're not going to be able to recruit 🤷‍♀️

There's ONE MILLION vacancies at the moment

I agree, I don't like this current trend of not advertising the salary either. So I have to spend ages on an application only for them to tell me the pay isn't enough for me to live on.

I'm so jaded with the whole thing, I don't even apply for a lot of roles now as I know I'll be rejected.

Well, that's the point, though, isn't it? Most people could probably claim discrimination on the grounds of something, so it isn't as simple as saying that people can simply be let go during the probation period if they aren't good enough.

As it happens, I can't think of a single case in my career where I have raised significant concerns about someone's performance at work when they haven't cited some kind of mental health issue as a factor in this. That then typically means having to make various reasonable adjustments and giving them lots of chances to improve their performance. None of that necessarily changes the fact that they aren't very good at the job, but typically it stretches out the process, especially if they go off sick at some point along the way, submit grievances that need to be investigated etc. It's a lot of time and stress for everyone involved, so it is much better to get the recruitment process right in the first place.

I completely agree that employers should advertise the salary very transparently so that nobody wastes their time. Though we did interview a candidate recently who wanted £10k more than the maximum range that we had advertised!

You want to pay minimum wage, hire a trainee and train them. If you want me to come fully skilled then pay more than minimum wage. Every essential skill on the advert should take the pay 50p higher than minimum wage, professional qualifications a couple of quid at least.

I can't be doing with jumping through ridiculous hoops either.

If there's no salary, too much jargon or ridiculous expectations on your time- must be available mon-sun 8am-10pm then forget it.

I am or perhaps I should say was a professional person but I am winding down to retirement now and am applying for basic office / finance roles, paying not much over minimum wage. I got a six month contract last year after one telephone interview. I have just been offered another role after one in person interview and well actually they did give me a little test at the end of the interview, I was asked to draft a letter and also interpret a spreadsheet but I didn’t think either were unreasonable for the level of the role and it took me no more than ten minutes.

The cost of interviewing, hiring and getting it wrong is very high so we do a first chat with an agency, then a video interview with the hiring manager, then one with hiring manager plus another manager, then once we've decided we want someone, normally a five minute 'saying Hi' call with the CEO.

For a recent digital marketing job, we asked applicants to write a LinkedIn post.

From the employer's point of view, I get fed up with people arranging and confirming interviews, and then not bothering to show up. So I guess it works both ways.

If the demand for a role is high then why shouldn't an employer set a high bar/hoops for applicants?

Well, exactly. As long as they are acting within the law, employers can choose to implement whatever recruitment practices they see fit. If they find that they are unable to recruit, they will presumably change their strategies.

Likewise, candidates can choose to reject employers who make them jump through what they perceive to be unnecessary hoops. If they find that they are unable to secure the kind of job that they want, they will presumably change their strategies.

There are choices on both sides. You don't have to apply to a specific employer for a specific job. You can choose to walk away.

The problem is that anyone can buy a CV and covering letter so easily now. They have obviously have problems with literacy or numeracy skills, so I can understand why they want to do that.

But expecting people to go to multiple interview is not on especially for entry level jobs.

I’m going third @MrsBennetsPoorNerves post. Bad hires are expensive. This is coming from a US hiring manager. Nobody wins with a bad hire, the employer, the employee, or the customers.

As an employer I understand the risks in hiring the wrong person. I also experience the frustration when applicants don't bother turning up for a face to face interview they have confirmed, not to mention the disappointment when a new appointee just doesn't turn up for day 1.

As the mother of a jobhunting 20-something graduate I also see companies advertising an entry level job that requires 2 years experience, and the endless portal style applications that don't even send an acknowledgement of the application let alone a 'sorry not this time' message.

From the other side: I’m currently recruiting for a finance role paying £30k.

I invited 5 people for interview based on their CVs.

3 were utterly unappointable. I wasted a full day and their time too.

If I’d pre-tested them and had a 15 min zoom I’d have saved us all a lot of bother.

Going forward I will be definitely be testing and screening.

What gets me is the prospective candidate having to provide details of all employers, job titles and salaries since starting work but the employer doesn’t extend the courtesy of telling you what the salary range is beforehand.
….and just sod off if the employer is on a trading estate miles from any public transport but has very few parking spaces (as too tight to rent them from the trading estate) so you have to double-park and endlessly move your car all day or park illegally…and you have to sit in your car to eat your packed lunch too!

I agree!! I applied for a job I met all the E and D criteria for, got through the first ‘stage’ (written application) then had to sit a ‘remote’ interview where I had to record myself responding to questions that came up on the screen in a set time, then send video off. So awkward!

I didn’t do my best, and I didn’t get through to the next stage which would have been an in-person presentation to 8 people and formal panel interview. This was a 35kpa job….

What was wrong with them?

They couldn’t write a letter (required for the role), had really poor verbal communication skills (essential for the role) and their basic accounting ability was non-existent despite having AAT qualifications (didn’t know what an accrual was).