Interview scheduling conflict gone bad 3

[ischgl99]

I sent my resume in to a local company unsolicited and they called very quickly for an interview saying they were planning on looking for someone with my qualifications for a new position. I had to reschedule due to an unexpected meeting time change for exactly the time for the interview that I could not get out of. I gave the company three days notice and the HR manager said they would try and reschedule for the following week and would call me back once she had checked schedules. I left a voicemail and sent an email over the next couple weeks asking when they can reschedule and never heard anything back. Needless to say they are no longer interested in me.

I was a hiring manager in a past position and there were times interviews needed to be changed on my side and I was always flexible with the interviewees since I know things can come up that are unavoidable, so I am a bit confused they would lose interest so quickly. To make it more interesting, I work for a company that is potentially a very large customer to this company, to my knowledge we do not buy anything from them now, and was looking forward to seeing their operation since there is a project where I could recommend their product. I would have thought they would have wanted me in for the interview at least to get some info from me about my company and to show off their company.

After this long winded tale, my question for the hiring managers out there, is having to reschedule an interview really that bad even with several days notice?

 

[jmw]

When completing a CV/resume it is usual not to include references.
You give references only when asked and usually this would only be if they contemplate offering you the job.

So I would try not to give references until asked.
I would not wish to give out references until other aspects had been resolved. Plus, I would get to choose the references and they would have to agree to act.

HR surprisingly seems to either want to talk to every man and his dog or to no one.
My last company (after I left so it is hearsay) managed to hire an illegal immigrant who was using a stolen identity and claiming education and experience he did not have.
He got the job, which speaks volumes.
HR plainly had not investigated a single thing from his resume. They only twigged when he failed to appear for work one day and instead they were visited by Border Force or whatever they were called then.

Of course, you can't avoid listing previous and current employers.
But it has to be the height of stupidity to contact the current employer because, as always, you may be fed false information and you risk the employee's position to no advantage.

It is certainly not a good idea before a potential employee is to be interviewed, to ring up his employer and ask them about him.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[patprimmer]

A prospective employer asking for a reference from your current employer is of doubtful value anyway as they have a strong motive to lie.

Also two employers conspiring to restrict your employment options is probably in breach of anti trust type laws in many jurisdictions. I doubt any legal system would take it seriously, but technical it is restriction of trade.

Regards
Pat
See FAQ731-376 for tips on use of eng-tips by professional engineers &

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm

for site rules

 

[ischgl99]

I work in a close knit industry where many of the people know each other, or know someone that knows someone, etc. This happened several times recently with people I have worked with, either me being asked what I thought of them or hearing about others. It is entirely possible someone or several people at the target company knows people I work with, or even common vendors. At first I hadn't thought about that being a cause, but now I'm wondering who they talked to if that is the case. I imagine I will find out eventually since those things tend to come out in conversation at my company.

MacGyver, there is technically nothing wrong about contacting people I may know about me, but it is a bad idea to do so if that is likely to get back to the present employer. The interview process is expected to be kept confidential. The other problem with that is you have no way of knowing if that is an accurate reference or not and a good employer would still interview the person and probe more to find out if what they found out was true or not.

 

[MacGyverS2000]

The interview process is expected to be kept confidential.

I see no such expectation... a hope and/or desire, yes, but I don't walk into one blindly expecting them to keep it confidential. I will specifically request it if they ask for references. Just as I expect the company to do whatever it takes to make their bottom line for the quarter, I expect they will do whatever they deem necessary to determine if the candidate in front of them is viable (valuable?) for the position.

Dan - Owner

http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

 

[tz101]

So many fickle companies and HR personnel these days. One can only guess which of the multitude reasons they may have had for dismissing you from consideration. In a way, be thankful because they sound like a company where you would be expected to kiss boot. Basically, "Our way or the highway" mentality. So many mind games go on these days in the interviewing process that I am always thankful when a game player does not hire me. Also, be thankful that, like me, you did not drive an hour one way for two separate interviews just to be dropped from consideration for who knows what mind-game reason. Much less gas and wear and tear on our vehicle.

 

[jmw]

It appears from an article the other day that interviewers are now very keen on the sort of questions I hate and see no relevance for e.g. you have a 4 minute hourglass and a 3 minute hour glass. How can you measure nine minutes and not take more than nine minutes.
Or something like that.
This is a fad.
I have no idea if these people have any idea what value questions like this have or what weight they give them. I think they just want to be seen as trendy and up to date on all the latest fads from HR.
Or maybe they are more interested in you for a pub quiz team than doing a useful job.


JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[casseopeia]

Not just stupid questions are the fad now. Be prepared to put up with,

personality tests
psychological tests
proficiency tests
criminal background checks (even for non-security jobs)
consumer information checks and
multiple interviews


"Gorgeous hair is the best revenge." Ivana Trump

 

[MacGyverS2000]

The hourglass question is a good one for engineering types... but HR?

Dan - Owner

http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

 

[tz101]

And credit checks. I personally think it should be illegal for a prospective employer to check a person's credit. For one, it is a hit against that person's credit report score, plus it is an invasion of privacy, and there is no good reason that can be made up to justify it. So why is it allowed?

 

[casseopeia]

Credit checks are not allowed here in California as of Jan. 1 this year. What I have run in to though is the 'work-around' with HR types saying that they will use your birthdate and SSN to only do 'Consumer Information Checks', not for a credit check. Right.

In order to get a temporary contract job I finally had to give up the information. We'll see what it turns up.

"Gorgeous hair is the best revenge." Ivana Trump

 

[MacGyverS2000]

For one, it is a hit against that person's credit report score

This has been discussed before... most credit checks like that do not affect the score at all, and checks made for the purpose of adding credit only affect the score by a few points (like, 5).

BTW, in many cases a credit score is a very valid check. There's something like 100k+ people in the D.C. area (MD and VA, included) alone that have clearances... those require credit checks. Can't have people passing on state secrets because they were hard up for cash. Poor financial state is also a good indicator in most cases of poor financial maturity... that leads to embezzlement, theft, etc.

Dan - Owner

http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

 

[jmw]

It also leads to people trying to get a job and failing.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[casseopeia]

Having cash does not automatically mean that you are principled enough NOT to pass on secrets. Looks to me like a lot of those caught selling secrets to the Chinese back in the day weren't exactly dumpster diving to find a meal.

"Gorgeous hair is the best revenge." Ivana Trump

 

[patprimmer]

I can see this evolving into a tinfoil hat type discussion.

Regards
Pat
See FAQ731-376 for tips on use of eng-tips by professional engineers &

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm

for site rules

 

[debodine]

I am not an HR type and have no experience in that department, and the same with legal. My guess is that someone, somewhere decided that credit checks (along with whatever else HR does) would tend to reduce the number of "problem" hires.

We can argue all day long (thx to patprimmer for the "Tin Foil Ahead" warning) but the bottom line is that companies are always seeking to reduce risk and limit liability.

I am sure each of us knows people who have credit issues but are still stellar employees. But I think company legal departments, just like insurance companies, play the odds.

 

[casseopeia]

People with financial problems or bad credit can get there for any number of reasons, including many factors not under their direct control. That is why many states have banned the practice except for specific types of jobs that require handling large amounts of money.

Equating people with money problems to people who are bad employees came out of the same thought process that established homosexuals as blackmail risks.

"Gorgeous hair is the best revenge." Ivana Trump

 

[berkshire]

One company I know of, started doing credit checks and background checks after one of their employees went postal, and showed up one morning with an AK47 looking for the production manager.
Luckily the police arrived and carted him away before he could do any damage.
I still wonder if that type of screening can sort out problem employees, or whether it just makes HR feel good.
B.E.

The good engineer does not need to memorize every formula; he just needs to know where he can find them when he needs them. Old professor

 

[casseopeia]

Then why not give HR the power to eliminate any employee with too much stress at home, like someone suffering through a break-up or getting divorced, or someone with a serious medical condition. How about firing anyone who looses a parent, child or spouse because they might to postal?

If you really want to cut down on problem hires, test for substance abuse. And make it a hair test, not just a urinalysis.

"Gorgeous hair is the best revenge." Ivana Trump

 

[patprimmer]

I am sure we can associate any problem to any parameter if we look hard enough and long enough for just one example of the match.

Virtually everyone would have an attribute that genuinely statistically increases their risk of being a problem at some time if we look hard enough. We all have our moments under certain circumstances.

Regards
Pat
See FAQ731-376 for tips on use of eng-tips by professional engineers &

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm

for site rules

 

[jmw]

If they can not hire based on such things we are not that big a step from locking people up before they do something bad.
I can see that coming.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com