...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?

It goes to show that all the lip service about decentralisation is bollocks. They are favouring those in easy reach of London. I bet their largest team is there and its a self perpetuating cycle.

It makes me angry because its costing more money for London weighting so its a false economy for the government to not facilitate regional recruitment. It'd also to the detriment of the regions to ignore job creation opportunities. If anything they should be blanket recruitment to regional locations and stop London recruitment.

you've probably dodged a bullet. You can bet all big meetings and socials will be in London if the recruitment has to be centralised there.

Thanks for explaining @MarnieCres I’m surprised that people would accept a teaching job without spending time the school itself and speaking to their proposed colleagues/head, but I guess you must get good candidates, or you wouldn’t do it!

Thanks!

During the pandemic we interviewed and appointed HT’s virtually, a two day process, similar to face to face - some had never set foot in the school. Some had managed to see the school from the outside.

Scary at the time but schools must have a head.

I'm not sure I would have taken the risk of being the new headteacher of a school where I hadn't visited and met staff face to face. However, the appointments have been a success.

This.

They'd probably also have far better staff retention and hence less recruitment to do if they got this right, as people will have a much better standard of living on £30k in Newcastle compared with £35k in London.

Bottom line is they don't want the best candidates for the job.

Now you can see why the country is going to shit.

Be curious if this policy disproportionately affects women (the OG flavour). Although on reflection it was probably designed to.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3383350-To-think-interview-expenses-should-be-reimbursed

Exactly the same situation

bit expected to travel to Birmingham

So it would appear not London centric

I have always worked in the private sector and other than when interviewing for graduate roles whilst still a student or just after, I have never known travel expenses to be reimbursed.

Interview travel expenses aren't a given in the private sector.

I haven't heard of private sector reimbursing travel costs either?? Public sector wastes enough money I am not surprised they used to reimburse costs but they absolutely should not be doing that now.

However I agree with the OP that virtual interviews shock have been fine for a first round.

I don't think travel expenses should be paid but there are other options - Teams, interview at local site, interview somewhere that isn't the most expensive place to travel to.

Interviews are a two way process. The candidate wants to get the job but the organisation wants to get the best possible candidate. Not many people are going to be willing to spend £150+ and a days leave (plus potentially childcare) for the chance of a job. My husband recently got a remote job. They'd been trying to recruit for 9 months (it's a niche skill set) and he was a strong candidate. The first round was by Teams and then they travelled to meet him - that impressed him and made him want to take the job.

Travel expenses are sometimes refunded in private sector - if they expect to recruit locally then no but if they are expecting someone will need to relocate to the job then yes they often are

Which is why we use teams a lot !

I’d withdraw on principle. How discriminatory! Not everyone lives and works close to London. We’re only an hour or so away and it’s still £80 return peak time. That plus a day off work to attend the interview means you’re already likely to be £250 out of pocket before you even start. If you need a hotel, you’re talking somewhere between £350-450 for the privilege. Not right at all!

the organisation wants to get the best possible candidate.

Well, only after certain careful criteria are applied ...

It depends on the level of the job.

Yes, this is normal for government. I had a job interview in London which was OK for me as I only lived an hour away, but I thought it was a bit off even then that they didn't reimburse travel expenses. It's such a small outlay for the sake of getting the right candidate.

Ive never had travel costs reimbursed, not sure when it ever happened