Dismissed from interview - so humiliated

[Littleblackcatandabow]

So I applied for a job which was perfect for me. Very industry specific and I had my interview today.

The role had “part time would be considered” in the description and I applied. In my covering letter I explained that the role was ideal due to extremely specific experience and industry knowledge but is also perfect for me due to being a 5 min walk from home and I can commit to 30 hours a week. (Husband travels one day a week so I need to be around for school!)

In the interview I was told that they were flabbergasted when my CV landed on the desk because of my unusual experience in the industry. The admin manager then goes onto say that it’s a full time role only.

To which I said “oh but the advert said part time would be considered. I am looking for a 4 day week role”

One interviewer - he said they would come up with a solution
2nd interviewer - she said “No thank you. Full time only. It was lovely meeting you though, goodbye” and dismissed me.

I’m just looking for reassurance that this is an unusual experience? I came home and had a little cry. I’m getting on a bit (am 36) and worried I’m unemployable.

I was employed right up until March as I was made redundant.

You are lucky! I moved to a huge city from the country. I had an interview with a large religious organisation which went from my suitability for the role to me stopping my partner from going to their church. After 10 minutes of being put through the religious wringer, I left telling them they could stick their job up the dark place... The male had been on the phone to my partner when I was getting the bus home, nasty piece of toilet paper!

Wow she sounds like an utter arsehole.

I'm really pleased you called them out on the misleading advert and rude treatment. Companies that can't be flexible in this day and age are going to miss out on really good candidates. Their loss, not yours.

And it sounds like potential discrimination to me, particularly if the ad said they would consider part time. It does sound a bit as though this woman felt threatened by you, professionally.

If you think you’re “getting on a bit” at 36, there’s no hope for the rest of us is there? 😉

I went for a job a couple of years back, advertised as 'school hours, suit returning to work parent '.

During the interview they said 'this is a new role, IF it's successful it'll go full time in six months'. So, not school hours then. Pretty much a six month trial & if the candidate proves themself, they'll be rewarded with being forced to go full time. I couldn't call them out because the company works with DH's & it could cause issues.

It makes me angry because in the city my SIL / BIL have more opportunities & just demand their conditions, like WFH. In our regional area, companies are backwards, like DH's boss refuse WFH because 'they like to just pop into someone's office'. I.e. like to control their staff. And boy do they!

Seems like the age old problem of a useless, self-serving HR department posting a job advert without fully understanding the business.

I went on a pre redundancy course years ago and they advised never to discuss hours/days at interview unless they specifically ask even if it’s advertised as part time. When you are offered the job then is the time to negotiate the possibility of a 4 day week, later start time or what you would like.

I really am a lone voice

I interpret this as….

”part time considered” was only included so as not to rule out any truly outstanding candidate (and also to show board / shareholders how they are trying to encourage returners to work)

in actual reality the job was not really suitable for part time. The woman did not want to waste the OP’s time when she knew that they were never going to hire her.
The man however was prepared to lead her up the garden path with a woolly promise to “try to find a solution” (showing he’s given bugger all thought to part time previously).

I do not see the woman in this scenario as the “baddie”!

I have held many many interviews

and during the interview, if part time, we always stipulate that the following days and hours are necessary for the role.

To not do that during the interview, would be a potential waste of the company and the candidate’s time

Wow you dodged a bullet there - you wouldn't want to work with that interviewer believe me. The first sentence she said to you was rude, unprofessional and arrogant. Just be glad you didn't get the job I think :)

And hey never think that you're unemployable - there is always time to start again. I lost my whole career after having my boy (long story) and had to start again from scratch. You can do whatever you put your mind to, but your mind has to be in the right place to be able to do it. I got so bad that I decided on anti anxiety meds and have now been able to think clearly enough to come up with a new plan and make it work. Don't give up on yourself because of someone else's shitty and weird behaviour. You did nothing wrong.

What a pair of idiots. It sounds like their loss.

I found applying for jobs when unemployed soul-destroying, because there is more at stake.

Hope you can put it behind you and not take it personally 🙃

I think if you replace the word 'jealous' with 'threatened' they may have a point actually.

Think about it - the OP said she could offer 4 days a week which could easily be turned into a full time role as the other interviewer said. The woman seems like she felt threatened by your skills some way and wanted to see you off at the door before you had chance to stir up trouble for her or make her feel inferior. It was a very odd thing to do to ask you to leave an interview - did she not even read your application? Why would you even interview someone you had never read their application? So strange. I really would not want to work with this woman and it's really annoyed me for you OP. Getting all worked up for an interview to be turned away would have been distressing.

I'm wondering if they thought you were overqualified and might be competing for their jobs in a year or 2 or telling them what to do. My mum was once turned down for a job because she was more qualified than the boss.

In my experience when there are specific days/hours they have been referred to but the first job I applied to after redundancy when the job was offered I negotiated a later start time and the job I started in March was advertised as full time but I work Monday to Thursday, again I asked when offered the job whether it was possible. I’m not saying that it’s always the case but if you disclose in interview you can come across as demanding what you want and you haven’t even got the job. If the OP hadn’t said anything when the full time working was mentioned and had been successful the 1st interviewer who sounded more amenable may have made the call and something agreed. Maybe not, we’ll never know but it’s worth keeping schtum until offered the job.

I work in the recruitment section of HR, totally unacceptable and inappropriate. Please complain, this person should not be allowed on interview panels. Not only was it unprofessional / even bordering on discriminatory, but as you said, ‘part time would be considered’ was written on the advert so that should be honoured x

But we would explicitly state the days if part time as invariably specific dates required ie job share
If candidate said - yes fine but then tries to negotiate post offer…. Then we would not be happy.

In a “part time considered”, it means just that. If the candidate ticks every box, then yes we would consider BUT the very clear preference when “part time considered” means “full time actively preferred”

I’m 48 and this is not my experience at all. I’m certainly not ‘over the hill’ and I hate that expression and other ageist, sexist phrases. I’ve only found my age to be an advantage in the work place and it has brought a level of respect and gravitas that I didn’t have in my 20s + 30s 🤷🏻‍♀️

Bloody sexist insulting nonsense for a 36 yr old woman to comment that she’s ‘over the hill’ FFS

The cynic in me says at least one person on that interview panel has already got someone in mind for that job. Your turning up with better credentials and experience has put their favourite in jeopardy. So they latch on to a handy go/no-go point - i.e. preferring a full-timer. As others have said, you may well have dodged a bullet. This does not sound like a totally professional outfit. Don't worry - somewhere there is a person who will leap on your CV and experience with glee. AFAIK most employers realise that happy people who put in a solid life-balancing 4 day short week get just as much done as full-timers. And as for being 36? Now if you were edging 50 you would be nearing the "she's probably brain-dead" attitude. At 36 you are in the well-experienced, quick-starter, good career path zone.

I guess at least they didn't take you on then tell you it's full time.
I started a new job, I told them at interview, that I wanted full time, I was never told that was a problem. I left another job for this job, as it was in closer to where I lived. Turned out it wasn't full time all the time. At times I got full time hours, but only occasionally.
I wasn't the only one who had been told it was full time, so there was 4 of us, who thought they would get full time hors, but were only getting part time.
It was very frustrating, when I had given up another part time job. I wouldn't have, if I had been told, at interview it was only part time, with the occasional chance to work more in busy times.
So you have dodged a bullet.

I have always been quite employable due to very good degree and industrial training and work experience, but had to be persistant in applying for jobs as offers were still about 1 per 100 applications in my 20's. When I was a bit older, I got an offer about 1 in every 2 applications.
However, much later in life I ended up getting some pretty rubbish jobs, in sales and so forth and eventually experienced the dead artificial work market.
The local papers and Job Centres used to advertise hundreds of suitable jobs, but they did not actually exist. Some of them cited empty business premises. Some for private houses where the occupents seemed to be cagy or confess no knowledge of the vacancies offered. Sometimes they insisted you 'phoned first' before applying for the job, and when you did they kept adding extra necessary qualifications (Doctorate in Bio-Chemistry, for example) or dreamt up something else.
I know now that Job Centres pressure their employees to surf the media for vacancies and come up for content to publish, and if they cannot find any they just make them up. Much of this was all a political sham.
The best way to land a position is to canvas people you know in the industry, and ask about vacancies in your area of interest. A well-prepared application to the HR department of a suitable employer on spec can also work; particularly if you can get it to the right hands.
Do not be too disheartened by your rejection. Try again, the 'Admin Manager' seems a bit of an idiot. By the way, 36 is a very employable age, and someone just up the road with appropriate experience is definitely a desireable asset to be considered. You can be guarenteed to be at work on time despite adverse weather and bus and train stoppages. It may be that the job HAD to be advertised but a particular favoured person had already been promised the job.
(Local Goverment particularly fall into this category.)

I'm really sorry this happened to you, I am an HR Director and this type of treatment to candidates just pains me.. I have also been a long advocate of parents part time working and have been part time, compressed and a job share in the past and been lucky enough to support lots of my team to do the same, with rising childcare costs its madness to not flex your policies to allow great candidates in the door..... although to be honest 30 hours is hardly part time... I wouldnt put a review on glassdoor, I would calmly email the Nice Interviewer 1, or the HR department directly and explain your experience outlining what the advert said. I doubt they will offer you the jobnow but feedback to companies directed to those that might actually be able to stop that happening again, or clear up the advert/parameters of the job etc before the interview might make you feel you have at least played your part of it happening again (and with any luck someone will pull up Interviewer 2 on her behaviour)... they were probably envious of your skill set, so yes probably dodged a bullet but doesnt make it any less painful at the time. You sound MORE than employable, take your talents and find somewhere that deserves you...Good Luck.