 Murphy  | 04 Nov 2009 7:45 a.m. PST |
Readers will (hopefully) remember the post I made: TMP link About the job intereview at the "suits" office. Okay…so I didn't get it.
Seems the standard old 'interview but we know who we want already" schtick again. She had told my recruiter that she wanted someone VERY knowledgeable on MS Office…Fair enough….
So he stresses that.
I go to the interview. And she asks me TWO questions about MS Office:
(Well to be honest 4 questions), but the first two were:
A: Have you ever worked with MS Office?
(Ummm…yeah…did you read my resume?)
B: How much experience did you have with MS Office…
(Ummm…years…did you read my resume?) And no, that wasn't how I answered the questions, but it was what I was thinking…
The next two questions had to deal with
a: Outlook
b: Word Documents
Each question was horribly simple to the point of me wanting to say, "Ummm…and exactly HOW MUCH are you offering again???"
So I answered them, professionally and correctly. She then told me "Excellent answers!"…we talked a little more about the firm, the clients, the job, etc…All sounded good… I contacted my recruiter, he said that this was "just the first of three interviews", and that "Don't be upset that she didn't ask you more MS Office stuff. That usually comes on the 2nd interview…"
Okay… So today my recruiter calls and says that "They aren't proceeding with me for a second interview because she wanted someone with MORE MS Office experience…" !?!?!?!?…Whiskey Tango Foxtrot???? Ah well…it's a position I didn't want anyway…. And they seem to have problems keeping people at that job…. Submitted respectfully… Murphy |
| ming31 | 04 Nov 2009 8:21 a.m. PST |
It's most likely your police record of shooting Dogs :) |
| The Nigerian Lead Minister | 04 Nov 2009 9:51 a.m. PST |
Been there. They should just post on the job listing "Primary requirement: Named Bob Jones who already works for us in the IS office." Or at our company, "Applicants must be female and/or minority to be sure of getting the job. Others might be considered." I was laid off from a job before I was even hired too! |
| Buff Orpington | 04 Nov 2009 11:18 a.m. PST |
Murphy,
you should have tried getting into the British railway industry at the ground level. The primary qualification for getting an apprenticeship was to be related to someone who already worked there. Crewe Works had about 3000 staff, three people from ethnic minorities and one female in an engineering job, she had family here. |
| Company D Miniatures | 04 Nov 2009 12:00 p.m. PST |
In the U.K. a lot of jobs are advertised when in reality they are either earmarked or taken. I am sure the only way to get a job these days is 'word of mouth' Never mind Murphy -its their loss. |
 Parzival  | 04 Nov 2009 12:21 p.m. PST |
In the U.S., many public institutions are required to list "open positions" even if a current employee is already a lock for the job. It's not unusual for the "requirements" for such positions to be listed in such detail that only the individual being promoted could possibly meet the list. The idea behind requiring public listings is political— "maybe there's a better candidate," "we must avoid any appearance of nepotism," "equal opportunity," blah, blah, blah. It's sort of stupid, really. Unfortunately, large private institutions tend to adopt the same idiotic bureaucratic mindset. They ought to just say, "We like Jane (or Joe), she/he can do the job, we're gonna promote her/him anyway, so let's just save ourselves time, money and hassle and do it." But no, one must follow "policy" even when policy makes no sense. :-P Hang in there, Murph. Something better will come along. |
| Space Monkey | 04 Nov 2009 12:33 p.m. PST |
At least you got an interview… the last several jobs I've applied for have vanished without anyone being interviewed or hired. The companies were just window shopping I guess. |
| UltraOrk | 04 Nov 2009 1:39 p.m. PST |
Never mind Murphy -its their loss.
Are you kidding? It's our loss! Imagine the Tales from Work stories that would have come from that job!! Murphy you gotta get hired! Somewhere! Soon! I'm having withdrawls!! |
| napthyme | 04 Nov 2009 1:54 p.m. PST |
Murp the answer to A and B is always X years, and I helped beta test the software before its release… None of us remember when it was released anyway, so there not going to ask… |
| GoodBye | 04 Nov 2009 1:56 p.m. PST |
See Murph you are familiar with MS Office, they want someone familiar with the rules of Ms Office, there is a big difference there. Ever wear an evening gown or swimsuit to work? I didn't think so; clearly this wasn't the job for you. Something better is wings I'm sure. |
| quidveritas | 05 Nov 2009 12:26 a.m. PST |
Not to be nosy Murph but how old are you? Over 40 or 45? How old is the new hire? There are laws against age discrimination. mjc |
| cfielitz | 05 Nov 2009 7:00 a.m. PST |
Sounds too much like my 4-year review interview with the former president of my college. |
| Skeptic | 05 Nov 2009 4:20 p.m. PST |
@Parzival: It's said to be like that in much of the Canadian federal government, too, especially when the hiring process is with respect to one position… |
| Ditto Tango 2 1 | 06 Nov 2009 7:21 p.m. PST |
@Parzival: It's said to be like that in much of the Canadian federal government, too, especially when the hiring process is with respect to one position… That is true, but it is also very true of many non-public environments where there is a strong union presence and collective agreements include provisions for posting all openings.
--
Tim |
| JackWhite | 09 Nov 2009 3:00 p.m. PST |
It's no different in warehousing. A friend of mine, over a three-year period, applied for a job that he saw in the paper every day five different times. He was never hired and the add was never taken out of the paper. Used to be, you'd walk in the door, they'd talk to you for five minutes and put you to work the next day. Now, it's what excuse can we give not to put you to work. And how can we pester you to death until you say something back so that we get to fire you. JW |
