Trials of Finding New Job

[Chrishum]

I have had to do the job hunting thing recently too.

Utter nightmare with everything being online and many phantom jobs or not really what they seem jobs out there. It pays off eventually though I’ve just secured something that pays enough to keep me happy for a two/three day week, so decent jobs are out there.

[parabolica]

creampuff said:

Audicab said:

It seems to me recruitment is changing, neither side are particularly happy with it currently but nobody knows what else to do.

Seems pretty easy to me.

You have a vacancy.

Put up an ad.

Make sure ad describes the job in enough detail that qualified people will be able to figure out they are qualified.

95% of CVs will be a waste of time. Bin them.

Pick about 6 people who seem qualified. Call them.

Sone may not be available or suitable, so you might end up with three.

Interview them.

Offer one a job.

—-

Is there anything about that which won’t work? If it is a difficult role to fill, you could call more than 6 and interview more than 3. Or add a second interview.

I really don’t have much sympathy for employers complaining. It’s takes seconds to bin an unsuitable CV and from that point forward, nothing is different from the pre-internet days where you did not get so many applicants.

Put up an ad where, exactly? A newspaper, that no-one buys anymore? Or your company website, which candidates might not even know about? Or a national job website which is the first port of call for all the dossers looking to prove to their benefits officers that they're applying for roles? Or an agency, who are only after their commission? Recruitment ain't easy.

OP; I was looking for 8 months before something right came along; tons of applications and an ok hit rate for getting interviews. Key thing I found out was I wasn't just competing with the local London market, but also Paris, Berlin, Zurich etc as a lot of multinationals are hedging their bets because of brexit, so the competition was immense. The role I finally got, my line manager said I was 1 of 50 odd people they interviewed from London, Aberdeen, South Africa and Australia, and they probably had 200+ CVs submitted for the role.

Keep plugging away; you'll get something eventually. I just learnt not to take it personally and get on with it; no use dwelling on it.

Edited by parabolica on Tuesday 4th September 19:44

[mmmunch]

I was made redundant in August, and had to work my notice so I got in plenty of interviews- direct wth large companies (with internal recruitment teams) and agencies.

To be fair to both they are crap overall but in different areas.

I had a final interview with the Redional M.D. of a major UK QSR group who was based in Moscow- a particularly poor Skype interview session with poor internet their side. This was in June and I'm still waiting for feedback from both the Russian and UK hr teams!

Another more local UK co, had the first interview, second interview and nothing...

From a candidate perspective I think it shows the company in a poor light, and highlights that the internal recruitment process is poor, but as long as they get someone at the desk they have done their job.

Agencies, I could write a book on with the ones I have dealt with over the last few years- if you understand you are a commodity to them and that their sole interest is their commission then you'll be fine. Latest one couldn't be bothered to give feedback from a second interview- his reason being he didn't want to spoil my holiday. You'd think not hearing anything from them for 3 weeks after chasing constantly would tell you you haven't got the job!

Anyway, sorted now (an overseas posting) but just waiting on the internal team to confirm the final package etc.

J

[creampuff]

parabolica said:

Put up an ad where, exactly? A newspaper, that no-one buys anymore? Or your company website, which candidates might not even know about? Or a national job website which is the first port of call for all the dossers looking to prove to their benefits officers that they're applying for roles? Or an agency, who are only after their commission? Recruitment ain't easy.

A national jobsite, such as jobsite.co.uk

As said, 95% of CVs will be a waste of time, so you bin them. Having to bin 95% of initial applicants who waste your time is not an excuse for wasting the time of the remaining 5% of people applying for a job they should reasonably apply for.

You can use an agent which will weed out the 95%, if you are prepared to pay them. Nobody works for free, so I don't see the problem of paying somebody to do the initial screening which you don't want to do.

The ways which companies waste applicants time are:
- Advertising jobs which don't exist
- Advertising fake jobs where they just want to get an idea of the talent pool for some reason which even they aren't sure of
- Advertising for external applicants when they want to give it to an internal applicant
- Advertising for people for a new project which they have not even been awarded yet
- Multiple interviews with people who have nothing to do with the hiring process
- Time consuming online portals which ask you exactly the same information in your CV
- Having unrealistic expectations that there is a perfect candidate who knows everything who will work for slightly less than you would pay your office cleaner
- Not providing a response to people you have interviewed
- Having a recruitment process so long than the people you have had in for 3 interviews get sick of waiting and get a job somewhere else, so you have to start over again
- Not really having any idea what the job is, so during the interview process, the company suddenly realises that they are looking for a different skill set.

Companies get 95% of applicants who should not be applying on the initial ad. After that initial advertising process, I'd put close to 100% of the BS that goes on, on the employer and not the applicants.

[Jimmy Recard]

I started a long reply to that and then lost it, but it really doesn't work for every organisation or role. Trust me on that.

[MitchT]

The OH has been looking for over a year. She has no trouble getting interviews but they all end the same way - just pipped to the post by someone slightly closer to the brief. She usually sniffs around on LinkedIn to see who ended up in the position and - lo and behold - it's always either someone who was already working there or someone who has worked with the hiring manager at a previous company. Jobs for the boys (or girls) then.

If they already know who they want they should simply give the job to that person instead of advertising it and, as a result, having numerous people waste time and money preparing an application, preparing a bespoke CV, preparing for an interview and using a day's leave to attend said interview.

My story is a little different. I can't get interviews full stop!

The impression I get is that networking is the way to go. Forget applying for jobs. Go to networking events and get to know the people at the top. When they need someone they'll think of you.

[ToothbrushMan]

had another thought first thing this morning and maybe others "of a certain age" can see similarities? Please read on and let me know if this is starting to ring tru or whether I am just a bit para.

about 6 weeks back I had a great (in my eyes) 2 hour interview (which flew by) with a major global company household name etc handled their 8 competency based questions well IMHO didnt really stutter or mess up on them and the answers were solid and relateable to the role. it was all going great guns and then about 5 or 10 mins from the end the main interviewer ( it was 2 hander) said that when applying did I see they needed some ID to verify who you are and that you are entitled to work here etc? I said yes (not even thinking at this point of anything remotely untoward as it was a simple request) . she asked if I had brought this with me as it "helps speed things up later" ( you hear that line and you start to get your hopes up as it sounds like a buying sign). I had the exact qualification they required. I had the "minimum 5 years experience" in that field and more and clearly knew what I was talking about - hell, when can I start!

i had my man bag and so pulled out my wallet and handed them my driving licence and a copy of a professional certificate and deed poll name change and birth certificate. I made a point on my CV and in my applications not to reveal my age/DOB (Lets just say I am under 50 but over 45). Off she went and took ages to photocopy the documents. came back and it was like "OK" thats its then. We did the small talk as I was escorted off the premises and I've heard diddly ever since.

Now I am thinking hang on a minute it was'nt a driving job so really they did'nt need my driving licence at that early stage. Obviously right there on your licence is your DOB! so straight away they can work out my age. Now who truly knows but I've read lots of stuff on the internet suggesting that if you are over 35 years of age these days companies think you are past it and place you in the No Hire bin.

Now I am thinking well there was nothing they could fault me on at the interview so have I been a victim of ageism? Thinking it and proving are two different things. I dont see that I can pursue them for this only to ask them for feedback as I had heard nothing since the interview 6 weeks back. Is there any way I could trip them up into coming back to me and have them unwittingly incriminate themselves if I was indeed a no hire because they felt I was too old?

What I am wondering in future though is whether to refuse to hand over any documentation again like this reasoning with the interviewer that I am happy to supply it upon receipt of a written job offer but that at this stage my ID has nothing to do with the role. If I was driving a van then fair enough they might want to see my DL.

Is there a chance Ive been shafted here after handing over my DL/birth cert docs? Anyone had similar thoughts after interviews?

Edited by ToothbrushMan on Wednesday 5th September 06:58

[StuTheGrouch]

Doesn't seem likely to be honest. There could be other reasons for the delay, such as budget cuts or a few more boxes need to be ticked by those in HR.

At 'between 45 and 50' years of age, you realistically can work for another 20 years. I doubt they needed your DOB from your driving licence to estimate your age, unless they were blind.

Edit to add- from all of your posts in this thread, you seem to take the view that interviews have all gone well and that the right signals come from the panel. Perhaps you need to be a bit more self-critical to try and identify anything you may or may not be doing in interview. The recruitment process isn't entirely about getting the best qualified individual, sometimes they might take the view that you are not someone they could work with or wouldn't fit into the team.

I interviewed someone a few years ago who had the right formal qualifications, several years of experience in a relevant field, but was extremely arrogant and thought they knew everything. Can't work with people like that, so no offer was made to them. (Not suggesting you are arrogant, but there are other traits people tend not to favour).

Edited by StuTheGrouch on Wednesday 5th September 08:36

Edited by StuTheGrouch on Wednesday 5th September 08:37

[Jimmy Recard]

It's possible, I don't know if it's likely or not. Unfortunately it'd be impossible to prove I think - they can always claim that they simply had someone they liked a bit more or this or that.

Don't let the thought of it get you down, I don't think that 45-50 is an age that would bother many employers. If anything I think it sounds good - old enough to have experience but not young enough to be fickle and quit after five minutes at the first hitch and not old enough that you're likely to retire in six months

I bet it's just an industry with plenty of competition at the moment and you've unfortunately got to wait for the right thing to land at your feet

[MitchT]

Pretty sure I've experienced ageism. Applied for a job at a well known "betting and gaming" company. Had all the prerequisite skills - could do the job standing on my head, blindfolded with my hands tied behind my back - plus a bunch of other skills on top that would give me a useful skills overlap with the kind of people that I'd be working with. Perfect fit for the role. Six weeks after applying a got a cookie cutter response saying I'd been unsuccessful. I replied and asked for feedback and, after another six weeks, received the same cookie cutter email that I'd received the first time. Clearly they couldn't give me a good reason for not interviewing me as they'd simply worked out from my CV what sort of age I must be and that I didn't fit the tattooed, pierced, bearded millennial demographic they were obviously trying to attract. Either it was ageism or the person screening the applications is woefully unfit for purpose and needs sacking. Might sound like sour grapes, but it's not. I've applied for many jobs over the years - had many knock-backs - happy to roll with it and move on, but this one left me feeling particularly aggrieved as I was so suitable for the role. Ironically someone, at some point, took a chance on the muppet who rejected my application! The whole sorry experience reflected very poorly on them as a prospective employer.

[parabolica]

I'm 35 and got told straight out that, despite a good interview, my application wasn't going forward because "we only hire 18-30 year olds as we wish to foster a youthful working environment in the long term" For them to be so brazen in their ageism (and this was for a legal job specializing in employment law!) is almost admirable, however they don't seem to understand how time works because their job spec demanded 10+ years of experience and at least a Masters degree. Kind of glad I dodged that one to be honest; sounds like a st company if that's their main hiring criteria.

[Hoofy]

ToothbrushMan said:

But it really does annoy when you come out of an interview thinking that went as good as it could have gone and I want that job then you get absolutely no word back not even a thanks for attending our interview.

Unprofessionalism and a sign of the times. I couldn't give a st if they're busy. We're all fking busy but some people are courteous.

[Hoofy]

parabolica said:

I'm 35 and got told straight out that, despite a good interview, my application wasn't going forward because "we only hire 18-30 year olds as we wish to foster a youthful working environment in the long term" For them to be so brazen in their ageism (and this was for a legal job specializing in employment law!) is almost admirable, however they don't seem to understand how time works because their job spec demanded 10+ years of experience and at least a Masters degree. Kind of glad I dodged that one to be honest; sounds like a st company if that's their main hiring criteria.

I think you might be able to make a few quid out of this. They deserve a punishment for their thicksttedness.

[parabolica]

Hoofy said:

parabolica said:

I'm 35 and got told straight out that, despite a good interview, my application wasn't going forward because "we only hire 18-30 year olds as we wish to foster a youthful working environment in the long term" For them to be so brazen in their ageism (and this was for a legal job specializing in employment law!) is almost admirable, however they don't seem to understand how time works because their job spec demanded 10+ years of experience and at least a Masters degree. Kind of glad I dodged that one to be honest; sounds like a st company if that's their main hiring criteria.

I think you might be able to make a few quid out of this. They deserve a punishment for their thicksttedness.

Really wouldn't be worth it; it was a media/"design creative" start up that hadn't been around long (a few months I think) and I doubt will be much longer. I was interviewed by the CEO, who was like 22. I can still remember wearing my a suit whilst sat in a beanbag chair in his office (his cats were asleep on the the strange, crescent-moon shaped seats suspended from the ceiling). It was honestly like a scene from W1A; his assistant appeared halfway through the interview, wearing a pair of sunglasses that made her look like La Forge from Star Trek.

[Hoofy]

parabolica said:

Hoofy said:

parabolica said:

I'm 35 and got told straight out that, despite a good interview, my application wasn't going forward because "we only hire 18-30 year olds as we wish to foster a youthful working environment in the long term" For them to be so brazen in their ageism (and this was for a legal job specializing in employment law!) is almost admirable, however they don't seem to understand how time works because their job spec demanded 10+ years of experience and at least a Masters degree. Kind of glad I dodged that one to be honest; sounds like a st company if that's their main hiring criteria.

I think you might be able to make a few quid out of this. They deserve a punishment for their thicksttedness.

Really wouldn't be worth it; it was a media/"design creative" start up that hadn't been around long (a few months I think) and I doubt will be much longer. I was interviewed by the CEO, who was like 22. I can still remember wearing my a suit whilst sat in a beanbag chair in his office (his cats were asleep on the the strange, crescent-moon shaped seats suspended from the ceiling). It was honestly like a scene from W1A; his assistant appeared halfway through the interview, wearing a pair of sunglasses that made her look like La Forge from Star Trek.

Oh. It's quite funny because they clearly don't know much about discrimination laws and yet would get very upset if I said I was only recruiting someone who was 30+.

There was an interesting case discussed on LBC a while ago. I think it was a semi-deaf person who had applied for a job only to be told by the interviewer that they didn't employ deaf people. The manager was advised to retract the statement but was adamant that she wasn't going to employ deaf people. You can imagine what happened next. (Recruiting manager was from NZ btw so clearly no clue about UK law and disability discrimination law etc.)

[Brainpox]

Sometimes I think the best thing to do is find someone you would want to work for and ask them directly if they have any opportunities. There are lots of vacancies around but like someone else said, putting them up on a national website or via an agency just gives the employer lots of st to sift through (and they have to pay for the privilege).

Similarly applicants have to jump through umpteen hurdles (maybe to put off people who aren't really that bothered), and will likely get cut out by some admin/HR person looking for specific criteria/key words in the application, rather than an expert making a decision off the full application.

Cutting out the middle man and approaching them directly might be more efficient - and whether you get a yes or a no at least you won't have wasted too much time.

[ToothbrushMan]

On the flip side to my earlier thoughts about ageism I just got word about a lady I used to work with (we were all made redundant together ) that she has got a job now and she is 58!

i was gobsmacked when I found out as she did'nt strike me as the sort of person that knew quite where to start with writing a CV or putting herself out there or networking around the industry so how wrong can you be about somebody - good for her. Its possible she got referred by a friend but I don't know the detail.

Anyway no ageism there at 58......

Jimmy - I have sent you a PM.

[Gargamel]

Leonard Stanley said:

In my experience, only the personal network bears fruit. Punting CV's off to shiny suited 'consultants' is a total waste of time.

And yet 'recruitment remains an £8bn industry, curious no? given that in your opinion its a total waste of time.

I work as an in house recruiter in a large FMCG. Line managers aren't always consistent. I do get 400 - 500 cvs for most roles, I respond to all of them, and read all of them. However it is fair to say that most people with 60% of what we are looking for, will consider themselves '"perfect"' for the job.

You need that confidence, and I am fine with it.... but it is very competitive. We also always give verbal feedback to anyone wqho comes in and interviews in person.

It is not easy to do, and time consuming, but we are a consumer brand, and people that apply to come here, are also our current consumers !

[Klippie]

It took me eight months to find a job in the engineering sector, soul destroying would be a good description, I had my CV looked over and polished up but that seemed to make no difference, the biggest issue was the lack of response from companies.

I was told there is a concern with the number of experienced over 50's being unemployed which suggests ageism is happening in companies preventing people being considered for employment.

Thankfully I have found a decent permanent job which hopefully will see me till I retire...I don't want to ever go through that again.

Good luck to all that are seeking work...hang in there it will come.

[chunder27]

I have spent years doing contract work and I think people overlook it at times especially in certain sectors for older people. Yes you don't get the security, but you might find work, and surely its better than doing nothing.

IN my experience if you have good enough relevant experience you won't find trouble getting work if you are older. if a company overlooks you be cause of age, their bad, they are probably doing it coz they want to pay some snipe 5 grand a year less, their loss, they are not worth working for and it tells you a lot about their outlook on their staff actually.

I recently was interviewed by a time served fella at a massive company who wanted me FOR my experience, needed that, wanted to use it and was interested in it.

Some employers just are not worth working for, it is worth keeping that in mind too, all they are interested in is keeping their wage bill down.

That is fair enough, but what you gain in wages you lose in potential vale elsewhere.