Interview query

[montysma1]

I live in a remote area. I am currently self employed in a role which takes me way from home and family, so it's not ideal.
Saw a council job advertised within my remote area, which would suit me fine. Not what I am currently doing in my self employment but I am qualified for the job and do have experience albeit a while ago.
I applied and got an interview.
Today I discovered (being a small place), that the person who had been in the job had after 15 years, been made redundant due to "staff review and change of working conditions". This person has been invited to interview (for what is really their job) and will be attending.

I do feel a bit meh!

Its probably a waste of my time and my referees time as I suspect the job will go to the person who has been doing the job all this time.
(Other than me there won't be many applicants, due to remote location, commuting/and or accomodation difficulties and relatively low pay as its part time)

On the off chance that I did get the job, it would feel really awkward if this person has been forced out of their job (small community, this stuff matters)

On balance I think I will just pull out of the interview as it all seems so odd. But just wondering if anybody knows why a council would require somebody to reapply for their own job, and why they wouldn't just advertise as an internal vacancy so that folk aren't wasting their time.

It may be a requirement for them to open the job up, but they intend to keep the other person. Total waste of applicants time, but policy none the less. Up to you if you want to go for it.

Personally, I would see it as interview practice without expecting to get it. Always good to see what’s out there, package, development etc. Good to have a refresh.

Find out what’s going on with the department, ask questions about strategy and the role etc.

But yes, I think you’re right, they will probably keep the person.

However, if you got it, it’s not your fault if the other person is made redundant. It may be they aren’t performing and that isn’t on you. Gauge the reaction of other team members. You’ll get a vibe and know how you’re received by colleagues.

Good luck!

I'd still go for it, you don't know unless you go. It may be that they're genuinely hoping for a new outsider to step up?

Don’t assume the other person wants it, it might be more hours or less pay and they want the 15yr redundancy pay out!

It could be a way of getting rid of them , they may prefer an outside candidate

I’m a Civil Servant but not with local government, there may be a difference in their procedures but the principles should be the same:

On restructuring the current job descriptions are compared to the new job descriptions.

If any changes to jobs are very minor then existing staff automatically map over

If there is a reduction in the number of jobs then existing staff map into a group that is then competed (they effectively apply for their own job)

If there are more changes to the role making it sufficiently different then they don’t map, become potentially redundant and apply/interview for the jobs and only become redundant if they don’t get that job, another role or cannot work elsewhere

These interviews should be limited in scope at first (to those effected), then widened internally and later externally

There may be applications opened for multiple categories of applicant at the same time to speed up the process but with categories getting a different priority.
If they have not actually been made redundant then they will have priority over you as a new external applicant

If they have already been made redundant then if they get the job they may need to pay back some of their redundancy pay (this may depend on department policy - but bear in mind it’s funded by the taxpayer, so often does have time restrictions)

If they have been made redundant due to the changes then they have already been somehow deemed unsuitable.
However if they were made redundant due to a need for reductions etc and the situation has changed meaning their is a job again then employers aren’t obliged to reemploy the same people, but can

I would say to go for the interview, it’s experience and it also shows your face and interest to the interviewers should there be other jobs later
The other person might not get (or actually want) the job. How will you feel about having dropped out if someone else gets it?

It’s not a really a waste of time for any referee - they are likely to only be consulted when you’ve got to a stage, and will just have some questions about you - do they actually know who you are, do they have reasons that you’re unsuitable etc

Thanks for the replies.
Being a small place remote everybody eventually knows everything!. I know that the person is definitely attending interview. The phrase used was "made redundant after 15 years due to review and change of working conditions".

I have already had to contact one referee, it's the candidates responsibility to get them to do the form and return it.

Its a fair point that it's good practice, but it's also stressful and time consuming. Would need to do a fair bit of revision as I have been out of the field for a while and it's all just a bit oh ffs!
Also, in the unlikely event that I got it....... Can you imagine going in to work with their colleagues after the person has been shunted out of their job?

I suspect that they didn't expect many/any other candidates. It's part time, lowish wage, not commutable and rental accomodation is like hens teeth here and very expensive.
If this was a big anonymous place, a/ I wouldn't have found this out! And b/ would probably have gone for it anyway.
It just feels a awkward in this smallish community.

If they must advertise these things, I wish they would just leave it at that, and not bother with charade interviews.