To think they should pay for expenses

[broichehead748]

I was rejected for a job.

It involved:

a first stage interview made up of 10 questions and a 30 minute presentation (remote on Teams)

a second stage interview that was not mentioned in the original job listing. This entailed:

another 30 minute presentation
with follow up questions

The second interview interview gave me one weeks notice to take a full day annual leave, organise childcare, travel by car then train to a city 3 hours away, stay overnight in advance for an early interview time.

In total the interview prep took me two full days of my time. The original application took a day. Travelling to and from took two days. The cost of travelling and staying over was £300.

I was given the feedback that the successful candidate had more experience in terms of years in the sector then I did. Which they knew before asking me to the second interview. I’m so gutted that it cost me so much in time and money for a no based on something they already knew about me in advance. It would have hurt less to have not made second stage considering the stress and anxiety of travel and leaving my children to do the interview.

There are no expenses refunded. Is this unreasonable of them?

This is all lovely but she hasn't actually asked for them to pay expenses. The other candidates may well have been paid. You can't blame a lack of social mobility on corporates when the individuals are not showing any common sense.

Send them an invoice. Absolutely i would expect expenses to be covered for interviews.

The fact that you know asking is an option shows you are in the club. Many aren’t and don’t know asking is a reasonable thing to do. Having these advantages is one thing, denying you have the advantage is just not cricket.

I knew in advance they wouldn’t pay it. It was listed on many glassdoor reviews so I knew they wouldn’t pay. I felt I had to take the gamble because better paying jobs where I live are very few and far between. A few posters have said I don’t have common sense and/or I didn’t take the initiative. I did but it didn’t change the fact that to have a chance at throwing my hat in the ring, I’d have to go into debt to do it.

If you knew in advance then what is the point of this post? To ask if they should change their policy? To ask how people feel in general? That's not the vibe of your first post and in fact knowing that they are non-reimbursers should have been right up there in your first post.

I would ask for the hotel and travel expenses. It’s disgraceful that you had to pay that much.

Particularly given the reason you were rejected - they could have seen the other candidate’s experience on paper and not wasted your time.

"The other candidates had more experience" is one of the generic lines that you use when sending out a rejection letter. It a bit like the "it's not you, it's me" line in relationships. It means you don't have to put anything overly critical about the candidate themself, and be quite polite. In addition because the rejected candidate doesn't know what the candidates experience is they can't counter argue.

No one forced Op to go to the interview

If they are expecting all interviewees to travel to a city that is not where the role is based, then yes, absolutely, they should be open to reimbursing expenses.

whether that stretches to overnight accommodation would depend on the time and distance, but transport costs are a a yes at a minimum.

The role is for remote work so the chances are the interviews aren’t going to be in everyone’s home town. If they are willing to travel or not is on the people being interviewed. Don’t go to the interview if you’re not happy about travelling and the cost involved

No but the cost of living crisis did

It’s a very small sector - I will know exactly what the winning candidate’s experience is once they take up the post. It will be visible to see. Without being too outing.

I was interested in people’s general view of this. Whether it is seen as quite a sh*t thing to put people through or not. The voting is quite interesting. A general 60/40 split.

Yes, this. We recently interviewed 2 candidates who were equally good, so we chose the one who was available most quickly. We knew their availability beforehand but the one who could join straight away might not have been as good.

I’d like to add that this was a final stage interview with a 50:50 chance of getting it. It was only me against one other. At that stage, I’d beaten over 120 people to get to the final stage. So despite knowing the large costs incurred to attend, I took the risk in a desperate attempt to finally be earning something decent. The risk didn’t pay off clearly. But I think for two candidates asked to travel miles away, they could have at least chucked in the train ticket. But most people are telling me I need to suck it up. I’ll now stay at the bottom of the ladder (no social mobility for me) because I can’t afford to take this risk again. Ah well.

Risks aren't guaranteed pay offs. You decided it was worth taking the risk knowing you might lose the money. You win some, you lose some. You lost this one 🤷

That's not how recruitment works. They were not wasting her time. They, like every other recruitment process, we're giving the strongest candidates an opportunity to prove they are the best. Not everything is as black and white as you and the OP claim.

Why are you still peddling this nonsense. You admit you haven't asked for your expenses.

I'm furious that they didn't give me the job. I didn't apply for it but still, I'm furious. Do you get the point now...?

You're being a bit extra OP. You can't really be suggesting you'll never progess in life because you once had to spaff 300 quid on an interview.

Dust yourself off, try again and next time either ask re expenses or negotiate a better iv time/date so you don't have to overnight.

This changes it for me. I don’t get having to turn up for a fully remote role, especially somewhere far away. I think they should acknowledge that and pay the travel, and that’s not what I was planning on saying. I read the op and thought hiring process has second stage interview and expects an in person interview - well no shit Sherlock.

But you didn’t “have to” did you?
ita 3 hours away. You could easily have asked for your interview to be arranged early afternoon giving you plenty of time to drive there and back in a day.

It also could be that that was the deciding factor but not, in itself, an insurmountable barrier. So, the other factors had to be seen/tested.

I think the question of expenses does slightly depend on where you live. I once managed someone (in a remote role) who lived in a notoriously remote part of Scotland. Not the islands but very similar. They refused to drive and it took them 5+ hours to get to the nearest large city to pick up other transport connections for any onward travel.

They were fine at the job but, as some face-to-face contact was needed, it was always disproportionately costly and time-consuming for them to carry out those parts of their role. We were a small organisation and it wasn’t ideal. I didn’t recruit them so the original decision had been nothing to do with me!

So if I were recruiting I would give a fixed contribution to expenses but expect the candidate to eat some of those costs if they lived a long way away.

There's nothing wrong with a second interview but I'd have asked if it could be done via Teams again!