...to think these job interview expectations are unfair?

[throwawayinterview]

Applied for a job with a government agency - the ad said that they were recruiting 'Nationwide' (I live in NE England). The agency in question has offices all over the country and I confirmed before applying that I would be expected to work from the one in the nearest town to me for a minimum 2 days a week in the office with the rest done from home. All fine by me, quite keen to get back into an office environment as I'm currently 100% WFH.

I received an invitation to interview for the job - great! Except the interview has to be done in person in their offices in London on a specific day next week, and (crucially) travel expenses will not be reimbursed. I have explored with the agency whether there is an option to do the interview remotely via Teams but no dice. I'd be happy to attend the local office to interview in person but from their response I know that's not going to be an option either.

Getting to London at comparatively short notice during peak times will cost me £££ and will be a pain to arrange between putting in a last minute full day annual leave application at work (without it being too obvious what I'm up to) and sorting childcare for the start and end of the day due to the travel times.

I'm not desperate to leave my current job and the money is pretty much the same so I'm probably just going to turn down the invitation, but AIBU to think that, with advances in technology these days, it's a bit ridiculous to expect someone to attend an interview for a job hundreds of miles away from where they'll actually be working and to expect them to fund it themselves?

I would turn down the 'opportunity' too.

Definitely unreasonable for a first round one (not sure if there are further rounds, but it would be ok with notice and expenses to do that for later rounds) - I would have thought teams would be fine, and the local office even better. Odd. I'd be saying no as a peak time ticket is ouch at short notice.

It’s not the travel, it’s the failure to reimburse that’s the issue. Unless it was an absolutely fantastic opportunity or desperately needed the job, I’d be withdrawing my application.

Travel expenses for interviews in the public sector haven't been paid for a few years now. It's one of the many cutbacks you have our current government to thank for.

But I agree that they should be interviewing locally or by video call. If you're not that bothered about the job and it's not any more money, withdraw and tell them why. It probably won't cause anything for change, but at least the local management will probably add the reason to their long list of why they can't recruit or retain staff.

Yes this. Standard in the civil service now.

YANBU. I would fully expect travel costs to be repaid in full or, if not, for there to be an option to attend a local office or to do the interview by video call.

I agree. Private sector you would expect reimbursement of travel expenses as standard. I get that government agencies have to make cutbacks but it seems unreasonable to not accommodate this. I assume this is a first round interview so not essential to be there in person.

It points to a penny pinching mentality and a mindset that has no awareness of the challenges working parents face. If the money's no better I'd swerve it.

That’s ridiculous. I’d go back to the hiring manager and appeal again for them to do the interview virtually. If they won’t relent then I’d ask for contact details for the central recruitment department as you’d like to provide them with feedback on how they can make recruitment practises more inclusive for all candidates including those on low incomes and those with disabilities

I would hope that expenses aren’t paid by the tax payer. A load of money going to people who knew the distance and the cost, took the risk of an interview, wasn’t good enough to get the job, but we pay their costs anyway.

relieved that common sense prevails

Agreed, that's the bit that's really annoyed me - frankly I don't have room in my budget to shell out £150+ of my own money for a job I'm by no means guaranteed to get. Likewise, I can understand that the public sector might not want to fund that - which is fine, just let me interview remotely and they won't have to!

I should also say this is not for a particularly senior or important position - it's an HEO post, so mid tier.

For my entire working life, I have expected to get myself to an interview for a job no matter where it is, at my own expense. I expect this of candidates when I've been employing too. I've only ever worked in private sector though.

In this instance, I would have expected that the first round be undertaken by phone, or video call, and it would have been nice to have more notice. From an employing perspective, I always prefer to have interviews in person as you can tell so much more about candidate responses when they are sat in the same room.

I recruit regularly in the civil service and first round always had a teams option now, including tests/assessments (they have to log on and be watched while they do it so you can make sure they're not cheating).
The exception is for more senior roles. What level are you applying at?
We haven't paid travel expenses for recruitment for years. Christ we don't even pay for teabags/milk for staff and they have to bring in their own mugs.
For the PP saying it indicates penny pinching, well yes, that's what happens when you're spending an increasingly restricted amount of the tax payers' purse. That's exactly what the public sector is like.

It's ridiculous, and discrimination against people on low incomes (more likely to be women), people with caring responsibilities (much more likely to be women) and people with disabilities who may need to arrange support.

@HappiestSleeping but the interview location is not even where she’d be contracted to. She’d be contracted to the NE office so fair enough if they insisted she interview in person at the local office but it’s seriously unfair to expect her to bear the cost and inconvenience of travelling hundreds of miles to somewhere she wouldn’t even be working.

Yes, this is exactly it - obviously if I were applying to work in London I'd fully expect to get myself there for an interview if needed. I'm not going to be working in London though - I'll be working in the office 20 minutes down the road. I'd be happy to go there for an interview but that's not an option - HR function have confirmed all interviews are being done in London as this is the 'most convenient' office for the pool of candidates who have applied (who also include candidates in Wales and Scotland according to her - I'm sure they feel a trip to London is super convenient).

Anyway, I've said my piece to them and declined the invitation, so onwards and upwards into the weekend!

Yeah does seem unfair unless its a standard thing now to get everyone to london

is the money worth it

And to be honest, if it's a government department job, they'll probably give it to someone internal but have been forced to list it online and "consider external applications".

I'd be withdrawing my application and providing feedback as to why.

First round of interviews are normally virtual now. Makes much more sense. Subsequent interviews are face to face, but by then you stand a better chance of being offered the job. It does seem very unfair.

I don't think there would be much scope to influence them on the lack of payment of expenses as that is a widespread policy across public sector as other posters have said.

However, I do wonder if there is a challenge here around how inclusive their recruitment process actually is. It seems to me that it doesn't offer equally fair access to the process, it favours those nearer to London in terms of cost (so harder for people from a less well off background) and time (posing child care considerations for some but not all). This argument only holds because they are doing the recruitment a considerable distance away from where the job will be located.

What a load of nonsense. If you are recruiting nationally and you hold all interviews in London, of course you should reimburse. If you can't do that then virtual interviews are what you should be offering.

The public sector is struggling to recruit decent people due to the penny pinching attitude of "tax payers" like you and the governments you vote for.

The best thing is to get the best candidate for the job, not the one who can afford to show up to the interview.

OP, I would make it plain that the cost of attending an in person interview at relatively short notice in London from your base in the North East is not something you can afford at this time and move on.

I really wouldn't waste my time with the civil service at the moment, from all the contacts I know in there (I am public sector but not civil service) - it is a shit place to work. Morale is through the floor.

I would expect to be interviewed in the office where I would work - not many, many miles away without travel expenses offered. I'd explain that when you withdraw your application.

That's ridiculous, especially for a first interview. I'd expect a Teams/Zoom for the first one then if in person travel should be reimbursed. YANBU to turn down.

Not very inclusive of them and they're supposed to be good at that. This is a way that cuts out anyone who can't afford it.