| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Media Issues > Topic: Employer Cancels Interview? |
Topic: Employer Cancels Interview?
| Author | Message |
| JCB | Posted – 6/27/2007 8:03:41 PM | show profile I wrote on another thread about a job opening that paid far less than what might reasonably be expected ("Unbelievable!") and got plenty of responses. Some people told me it was insulting and I should pass, but I was seriously considering the job, given a dearth of options in my location. Well, the employer has behaved bizarrely since then. When the ME first called to set up the interview she told me the pay rate and said it was final. I was surprised and I think a little speechless but told her I wanted to interview anyway and get a feel for the job and company. I was in no way ruling it out. That's when I posted the thread. Right before the interview HR called me and said the ME had to cancel the interview and was concerned I wouldn't want the job because the pay was so low, and they were having second thoughts about interviewing me. I said no, I am seriously considering this job and I would very much like to interview! He said he'd call back with an appointment date and time. When I called to follow up and HR person said, "We decided to go another way." Meaning they're hiring someone who had already freelanced for them. WTF? Without even MEETING me first? Who conducts business that way?! I mean, there was really no risk to them in just INTERVIEWING me, for god's sake. And then they could have made an INFORMED decision. This just REEKS of something fishy. Makes me think they read my thread, but SO WHAT? I said nothing that would indicate that I would not have done an outstanding job had they hired me. This Internet thing is truly frightening. It is T.M.I. to the nth degree for employers. Is it possible they read the thread and that influenced their decision, or are they really just amateurs or what? |
| mad fingers | Posted – 6/27/2007 8:44:56 PM | show profile As much as it sucks and whatever the reality is, let it go if you can. I'm in a really challenged market, too. I second-guess and over-analyze anything that even hints at rejection (pot calling kettle?). I am no Pollyanna (sp?), but as my mom says (and she's rarely wrong), "Everything happens for a reason." Hopefully, something better will come along, and yes, they are probably total feebs. |
| WordyBird | Posted – 6/27/2007 8:58:47 PM | show profile If they listed the job here, it's entirely possible they read your thread. Or, they could have sensed your hesitation in the beginning. Or, they could have found someone who thought they were offering a lot of money. Or, they hired someone who already freelanced for them for any number of reasons, including that they already know him or her. Does it matter? Probably not. Looking in from the outside, I suspect you might not have been happy there. |
| Marie | Posted – 6/27/2007 9:04:57 PM | show profile It's really not that odd. They decided to hire someone they'd already worked with, probably knew this was a big pay cut for you and so you probabaly wouldn't take the job, and didn't want to take the time to interview when they already made a decision. They probably figured they wrere saving you time. |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 6/27/2007 9:14:43 PM | show profile It's possible that your original hesitation made the ME wary to such an extent she didn't want to interview you. No one really wants to hire someone who is taking a job at a salary they think is unbelieveably low. Even if you took the job and did well, they might have a legtimate concern that you would leave quickly if another opportunity came about. If the ME somehow stumbled on your thread it, and was already wary, I can understand why she would have cancelled the interview. She must have already sensed you were overqualified. |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 6/27/2007 9:22:34 PM | show profile Also, I think people forget that public bulletin boards like this are, well, public. A discussion here isn't a private chat between friends. Even though this is anonymous, I am careful about any information I post here. If I talk about a client, I never do so by name and always change important details so they cannot be identified. --Makes me think they read my thread, but SO WHAT? I said nothing that would indicate that I would not have done an outstanding job had they hired me. This Internet thing is truly frightening. It is T.M.I. to the nth degree for employers. -- |
| JCB | Posted – 6/27/2007 9:31:01 PM | show profile I understand that they may have their reservations, but personally I feel that it's just unprofessional to cancel an interview. I've been a hiring manager and would NEVER think to do that. You're making a decision based on hunches and fears, all of which could very easily be confirmed or dispelled by simply meeting the person. If they're going with someone they already know (which is the case here), it is still inefficient to have gone through the search process only to reject candidates before meeting them. Because you just don't know what you're rejecting. I would never cancel an interview I had already scheduled. There's no compelling justification for it, in my view. The time expenditure is minimal, and you might just find a GREAT employee (more valuable than the one you already know). Acting purely on fears and hunches without attempting to reality-test them is just amateurish. And so much for having a forum where you can SAFELY, anonymously, air grievances or seek advice. |
| JCB | Posted – 6/27/2007 9:33:32 PM | show profile Addendum: Making hiring decisions based on Internet chat forums makes for very bad policy, I would say. Jeez. |
| candylilacs | Posted – 6/27/2007 9:36:58 PM | show profile No, it's not cool, but they could also have thought, "Why bother? In the end she's not going to take it because of the pay." That doesn't make it right, but maybe they don't like conflict or haggling, so this was less scary for them. And yes, more people than you would like will read your thoughts. Keep that in mind! ------ http://www.mswritesguide.blogspot.com |
| cornfrost | Posted – 6/27/2007 10:13:04 PM | show profile | email poster JCB, I understand your annoyance, but I the employer's viewpoint makes more sense than yours. It sounds like you were considering the job only because you had no other options. If you gave any indication at all the salary was very low, no way would they continue considering you. You made the fatal mistake of telling them you would be dissatisfied from the get-go. Even if you had an interview, you would never be able to persuade them to hire you. Once I interivewed for a copyediting job. I did better than anyone on the test and was in the final stage of interviewing with the ed-in-chief. I made the mistake of asking what the opportunities might be for doing stuff for other departments. (In truth, I didn't want the copyediting job.) The tenor changed immediately, and the ed made clear they wanted someone to copyedit, not to eye another department. And that was that. A job interview is like an arrest. Anything you say can and will be used against you. |
| seeattleme | Posted – 6/27/2007 11:03:45 PM | show profile A poster totally insulted another poster on one ofthese boards, and while I didn't follow it too carefully, there was a post from one that ntin=mated that "you forget what information is available to those employed here", and intimated that her cover was blown, that she knew who this poster was and would share the information with those whoworked for the publication the first oster--the rude one--was inquiring about pitching. It was very bizarre, but spooky. Because maybe I'm being naive, but I post here under a screen name, not my own name. Most others post under screen names to. I like being able to give and get information without revealing my identity and thus the indentities of those I work for, with, etc. The incident on this other subject has me considering cancelling my AG membership and MB altogether. What if our identities ARE disclosed? I mean, how would we know if high ups are freindly with MB employees and when a post hits a nerve call up and ask for names? Maybe that sounds a little paranoid, but just because your paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you, to quote Woody Allen. (yeah yeah I know, but still...) I dount anyone read the post and recognized you, that's a lot less likely than, well, I don't even want to think about it, frankly. |
| JCB | Posted – 6/28/2007 2:38:45 AM | show profile Just to clarify, I did not express dissatisfaction about the pay. I was greatly surprised but still very interested in the job, for other reasons (it was only long-term temp, so the money issue wasn't as huge a deal as it would have been had it been perm). And EXPLORING the issue on this site, with other media folk, in a PRESUMABLY "safe" environment, is NO different from hashing it out with your friends, saying all sorts of things, but then ULTIMATELY arriving at a positive decision. No HR person would follow you home at night to listen to you bitch and moan to your friends and then base a decision on that. I can tell you firsthand that if employment decisions were made based on people's OFF-TIME bull sessions, a hell of a lot of extremely talented, competent, and valuable professionals would be out of a job. What people say outside of the office has little bearing on how good an employee they are. Sometimes you just have to VENT, and you use all sorts of language to do so. But then you go into work and do your damnedest out of pride and personal performance standards. I've always been great at what I do, and I would've been willing to take the pay cut short-term and I would have done a kick-ass job for them, and NONE of what I've posted here would have had ANY bearing on my performance OR attitude. Some of the best and brightest people I've worked with have bitched outside of work, but that did not in ANY way affect their performance on the job. It's human nature to vent. People need to wake up and realize that Internet musings (especially "anonymous" ones) are just like late-night bull sessions and have NOTHING to do with actual performance!. This spy-vs.-spy bullshit is just going too far, and employers are losing their minds with this stuff. Get a grip. (The whole practice of holding people's Facebook or Myspace pages against them is just as ludicrous--again, highly talented and valuable workers can go home and fool around on their own time, but that has NOTHING to do with their job performance! Before the Internet, no one would have CARED, as long as you did a kick-ass job. This is just Soviet-style invasiveness as far as I'm concerned. These HR people have the CHOICE to not look at Myspace or Facebook--how is it relevant? Give me a break.) |
| candylilacs | Posted – 6/28/2007 2:52:13 AM | show profile I hear you, JCB, but not everyone is as evolved as you when it comes to Internet content. Someone e-mailed my blog (not the current one, but another) where I made one slightly snarky comment about a job interview I had. And they basically told me I wasn't considered for the position because of that. It turns out that a person from my former place of employment sent it, and the job didn't consider what I had to say on my own free time. Yes, they were small-minded and petty, but hell, I needed a job. People can get very judgmental about things others say, even to the extent that they pretend no one else ever says them or that they never have. So, while you don't like it or it seems unfair -- people still do it. ------ http://www.mswritesguide.blogspot.com |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 6/28/2007 3:14:19 AM | show profile I think it's more like calling a radio psychologist and asking for advice. It's going out to the public at large and you are never certain who is listening. We are in an age when people get googled, and opinions you post online are there in cold print forever. As a repoter, I've certainly googled email addresses and come across online postings that I used in stories. And legally, that is just as permissible as quoting a comment someone says on the radio or at a public gathering. It's really pointless to try to dictate how people should evaluate what they read online; they'll come to whatever conclusion they wish. --And EXPLORING the issue on this site, with other media folk, in a PRESUMABLY "safe" environment, is NO different from hashing it out with your friends, saying all sorts of things, but then ULTIMATELY arriving at a positive decision....People need to wake up and realize that Internet musings (especially "anonymous" ones) are just like late-night bull sessions and have NOTHING to do with actual performance!. -- |
| seeattleme | Posted – 6/28/2007 3:39:56 AM | show profile JCB has a point that people take these web postings much too seriously. What people post here does not reflect --for the most part--how they behave on the job or even how they write. He/she is right--these are bull sessions and people do need to vent from time to time. I wouldn't do it here though. I'm having serious doubts. |
| bjoconnorfla | Posted – 6/28/2007 8:55:43 AM | show profile Most people in this business do a frankly LOUSY job of hiring on all levels, and many conduct themselves horribly in the process. I think part of it is that most managers hate the process as much as we do, so they spend as little time, money and effort as possible on finding the right person. The result is situations like this. Obviously, they sensed that salary would be a problem and, from your posts, it was for you, too. Most small-time outfits like this are very, VERY uncomfortable hiring someone at less than that candidate is used to getting. They fear an attitude problem and that the candidate will leave quickly for more money elsewhere. On another level, I think these places also are intimidated by someone with high-quality experience. Most publishers and editors in this situation are used to doing what they want, the way they want. Many of them are control freaks who love being a big fish in the very small pond they've built for themselves. They hire kids, inexperienced people, locals and friends of friends who won't challenge them. The last thing they want is an established professional who might push them to behave ethically, get organized, stop cutting corners, etc. They fear you'll want to spend more money to, say, hire a competent photographer, push their freelancers to do a third rewrite (this time in English, pls) and raise questions about why all the features only cover advertisers. Another thing -- I often find that a highly qualified "outsider" is interviewed only to bolster a decision that's already been made to hire someone else, often an internal candidate or friend. I've seen this happen at major newspapers and local lifestyle magazines many, many times. The publisher can interview you and say, "She's not that much better than XX, and certainly not for the extra $10k we'd have to pay." They drag you through the entire process only to use you to rationalize what they already want to do, which is stay in their comfort zone, hire somebody they can ?control.? They want to do what's best for them, but not necessarily for the publication. Don't obsess. It wasn't meant to be and probably wouldn't have been a good move for you. Best to develop other options. |
| reporterwriter | Posted – 6/28/2007 9:45:54 AM | show profile They probably said WTF over you, too. Interviewing you under the circumstances you've described here would have been ridiculous. It isn't all about potential job performance, it's about potential job attitude, too. You very well could be the best thing since sliced bread, but you very possibly sank yourself by catching your breath saying you wanted to interview "anyway." People who feel they're underpaid typically do not make good employees. And think about it: If you'd gone for the interview and *not* been offered the job, you'd be back here posting that something reeked of fish. |
| foodlit | Posted – 6/28/2007 11:08:49 AM | show profile The employer's behavior is not at all 'bizarre'. In fact, it's quite commonplace. It sounds like you made it very clear that the salary was far lower than you expected or realistically would consider...and although you said you'd interview, what that really amounts to is a complete waste of time for you and them, even if you did decide to take it. Why? Hiring someone who is unhappy from the beginning on salary is simply not a good business decision. Interviewing you would not have changed what they could/would pay, and if you took the job can you honestly say that you wouldn't jump if a better paying job came along? Most people would, and that's why hiring someone who is overqualified and taking a huge paycut is almost always a lose-lose for both parties. Plus, it sounds to me like they found someone who was in their range, so of course they'd go in that direction, and cancel the interview. It's the considerate thing to do, rather than waste your time if they have someone else they are going to hire. Let it go, and focus on finding a job that is a better fit. Pam (the hr person) :) |
| WordyBird | Posted – 6/28/2007 11:22:02 AM | show profile Just say a potential employer DID see your thread. Well, then yes, I couldn't blame them for not wanting to interview you. It may be a "late-night bull session" to you, but to them, it's how you're already talking about them and you haven't even met them yet. I don't think any HR manager in his or her right mind would want to hire someone who is already complaining, and complaining so publicly. Besides, people have gotten fired because of blogs--you know, dooced--so how would not hiring because of grousing on an industry board be any different? Heck, it could have even been the way you phrased it. This may sound harsh, but you did sound a little, shall we say, indignant? If diplomacy is a cornerstone of editing, well, they probably weren't seeing any in the thread. My thought is that on-line late-night bull sessions are best reserved for IMs with buddies you know. Better yet, go out and grab a cold one. Just my two cents. |
| writesonwater | Posted – 6/28/2007 12:42:27 PM | show profile Echoing what Foodlit and other posters have said, most employers know better than to tangle with someone who thinks a salary range is freakishly low or who want to know what the chances are to work your way up the editorial ladder. Which is why, as interviewees, we need to keep our guards up. Brutal honesty is not the best policy in the job search, any more than in dating. And regarding posting your heart on your sleeve, I'm always amazed at people who put threads on here: "I've just interviewed at Fish and Game magazine for a copy editing position, and I'm wondering if anyone knows what kind of opportunities there are for advancement there?" Signed, NewMexicoGirl (the same one who has other threads saying she takes office supplies from the worksite and thinks it's her right) Assume that media types (who know other media types) read this site. |
| questoo1 | Posted – 6/28/2007 1:10:58 PM | show profile maybe you need to do some serious self assessment. Your posts wreak of negativity. Lets assume they did read your post. Do you think there is nothing you said that could turn off a potential employer? Maybe you didn't out and out call them cheap assholes, but the tone and many of your statements were CLEARLY enough to turn away anyone who might have been interested. |
| Homer | Posted – 6/28/2007 3:14:09 PM | show profile I'd have to agree with others here that the company read your posts and formed an opinion of you based on them. And/or their interpretation of your initial reaction to the salary sent them in another direction for all the logical reasons posted by others. As it's been said many, many times here, it's a supply and demand market, there are more writers/editors/artists than there are jobs. Don't give them the tiniest excuse to pass you over. Live, learn, move on. And to doglady and others who think this is a "safe" environment to vent, uh, nothing could be further from the truth. BBs are like postcards. And a BB frequented by HR people and reporters who are trained to sniff out information is more dangerous than most. The only way to avoid being judged in a bad light - and possibly passed over for a job - is to measure your words very, very carefully before you post. They speak volumes about you. |
| JCB | Posted – 6/28/2007 4:02:00 PM | show profile To be honest, I have not been to this site in many years. In the past, there was a VERY different atmosphere here and it was a safe place to air grievances and look for support and advice. Now it's more like a high school cafeteria, with all the gossip and mudslinging and backstabbing that that implies. The Internet has changed in my absence. As I said, some of my most BRILLIANT and talented coworkers said ALL SORTS OF THINGS in PRIVATE, but as far as work performance and job ATTITUDE--they were the BEST I've seen. Their venting and grousing OFF-HOURS had NOTHING to do with their actual JOB. As I said, using Internet postings as part of the hiring process is simply IDIOTIC--it is EXACTLY akin to following a candidate home and listening to her grumble to her friends and family and basing a decision on THAT. I would not have had a negative attitude toward the company or job, because it was SHORT-TERM. There would have been NO DANGER in my jumping ship for something higher paying because there was a definite endpoint that I would have accepted. If indeed they were considering my posts in their decision, they were using untested fears and assumptions. It's like a damned witch trial. Making a decision BEFORE meeting someone who has SAID they are still VERY interested is just amateurish. I don't know any professional who would do that. Everyone I've ever worked with would give the person a FAIR CHANCE. Reading an Internet board and basing a decision SOLELY on that is the OPPOSITE of a fair chance. And any interpretation of my supposed "tone" from these hastily scrawled posts is HIGHLY subjective. We come from different backgrounds and geographical regions and subcultures and we express ourselves differently in such a CASUAL forum as this. If anyone were to meet me professionally in person, I am certain their assumptions about me would be disproved. It's like reading someone's e-mails or IM's--it has VERY LITTLE to do with actual performance OR JOB ATTITUDE. However you slice it, it is just preposterous to factor in a person's Internet posts in a hiring decision. These "anonymous" posts are PRIVATE thoughts, and if there were a machine that could read people's PRIVATE thoughts, HALF of the country's BEST and BRIGHTEST employees would lose their damned jobs. HR people are way off the mark on this one. Yes, I know that it is routinely done, but it's lazy and misguided. It's like when they pull your credit report--it's invasive and irrelevant. Again, some of the most brilliant people I have worked with have had bad credit due to an array of circumstances. SO WHAT??? And again, to refuse even to MEET someone based on untested SUSPICIONS is amateurish, NOT efficient. I MUST disagree with the posters siding with HR on this one. This whole Internet/Myspace/Facebook snooping thing has gotten WAY out of hand, and it's unnecessarily weeding out great people in favor of narrow-minded, in-the-box, paranoid thinkers who have far less to offer a company overall. |
| rulebook | Posted – 6/28/2007 4:18:44 PM | show profile #1: Your caps locked key appears to be broken. #2: It's incredibly naive and borderline idiotic to think that the way you communicate on a static, permanent discussion board is not a reflection of you. This is not a "late night bull session" with close friends who are communicating verbally and are able to re-clarify and shape their points in real-time, nor is it an IM session with someone you know (which is akin to verbal communication, with all of its fleeting nuances). This is a static, permanent forum for discussion among strangers. Does that mean that you need to perform 3 drafts before posting? Nah. It does mean that at the very least, at the bare freaking minimum, you are expected to have a think about what you are trying to say and the best way to say it. If you are even semi-intelligent, this should happen within ten seconds- we?re not talking about a pre-post brainstorming session. You came off as dismissive and a little unprofessional, which was either an accurate representation of how you approached the job, or it illustrated that you didn't bother to activate your innate filter mechanism when it came to permanent, open-for-interpretation online discussion. Either way, if I'm an employer, I've soured. |
| rulebook | Posted – 6/28/2007 4:20:59 PM | show profile PS- I am not suggesting you posted anything over the top in this thread- it was all pretty tame. I'm just refuting your thoughts on the disconnect between you the person and you the screen name. |
