Do companies need to advertise jobs internally by law?

[heisthegaffer]

Morning all

My wife has worked somewhere for a number of years and a few years ago a peer was promoted to team leader with resultant pay rise.

At the time my wife was a little miffed but got on with things but commented that the person did absolutely nothing that she was supposed to do team leader wise.

That role wasn't advertised and it simply meant that one day they did the same role and the next they didn't. This lady then came back from maternity leave but in the same position as my wife.

Fast forward to now and this has happened again with no opportunity for my wife to apply and my wife noted that her peer and the manager responsible for them both are extremely close to each other.

I don't know a huge amount of what companies can or can't do hence the question but are they allowed to just give people new roles without giving others a fair crack of the whip?

Thanks in advance.

[anothernameitist]

No, I think would be the answer.

In the circumstances of a company having a vacancy in Department A and somebody in Department B under theat of redundacy no need to advertise.

[Countdown]

heisthegaffer said:

I don't know a huge amount of what companies can or can't do hence the question but are they allowed to just give people new roles without giving others a fair crack of the whip?

Yes. It's a bit like the boss promoting his son to Deputy Chief Exec. He can do what he likes.

[vsonix]

I don't think so, conversely I think it is mandatory to advertise positions externally as well as internally - which is why very often even after very positive interview experiences one often loses out to an internal candidate at the last minute. I've seen this happen a lot, from both sides of the process.

[Countdown]

vsonix said:

I don't think so, conversely I think it is mandatory to advertise positions externally as well as internally - which is why very often even after very positive interview experiences one often loses out to an internal candidate at the last minute. I've seen this happen a lot, from both sides of the process.

You don't have to advertise positions externally as well as internally. You don't have to advertise them at all. Especially in an owner-manager firm the boss can appoint whoever he wants however he wants.

[rog007]

There are some subtleties between private and public sector. More room for manoeuvre in private sector; less so in public.

Ultimately, a hiring manager should be looking for the best candidate. If they compromise that, in whatever way, then they have to live with the consequences.

[Countdown]

In terms of Public Sector the Unions tend to have a lot of control over the Recruitment Policy.

I worked in one organisation where the rule was to always advertise internally first as this encouraged staff loyalty/retention/development UNLESS it was a Support services role in which case the job always HAD to be advertised externally (even if there were good internal candidates).

Their argument was that Finance/HR/IT were relatively small and specialised and therefore advertising internally meant that only one or two candidates would be able to apply. In other words the hiring manager would be able to appoint whoever he or she liked and this meant that it wasn't fair or transparent.

The real reason was that hardly anybody is support services was a member of the Union so they didn't give a monkeys about giving them an advantage.

[heisthegaffer]

Thanks all.

Very frustrating for her.

[vsonix]

Countdown said:

vsonix said:

I don't think so, conversely I think it is mandatory to advertise positions externally as well as internally - which is why very often even after very positive interview experiences one often loses out to an internal candidate at the last minute. I've seen this happen a lot, from both sides of the process.

You don't have to advertise positions externally as well as internally. You don't have to advertise them at all. Especially in an owner-manager firm the boss can appoint whoever he wants however he wants.

OK but in large institutions like universities, local government etc, I am fairly sure they are legally required to make positions open to external candidates.
I imagine a one or two-man band internet startup isn't bound by the same strictures!

[Countdown]

vsonix said:

OK but in large institutions like universities, local government etc, I am fairly sure they are legally required to make positions open to external candidates.
I imagine a one or two-man band internet startup isn't bound by the same strictures!

Not sure about Universities but definitely not in local government. Obviously if they cant recruit internally for any reason they HAVE to advertise externally but there's no reason for them not to do it as a two-stage process (i.e. advertise Internal only first and, then if that fails, go external).

Nowadays with all the redundancies that have been happening,the Unions have made it even more selective; any vacancies HAVE to be offered to those "At Risk" first, before being offered to the wider pool of "internal" candidates before then going external.

[anothernameitist]

Local Government rule at our Council is Internal first.

External with exemption or if role is not filled internally

[lyonspride]

I thinks it's like with most things employment wise, there's a bunch of things they should do, but in the real world there's no way to prove anything and nobody enforces it. There's also nobody to complain to........

As for the promotions, these days it's idiots promoting those who are not a threat to their own job (ie bigger idiots), and the only way for an idiot to look competent enough for promotion is basically making everyone else look bad, be that through malicious gossip, or producing false stats, or sabotaging colleagues work, or a combination of underhand tactics. I've seen it countless times over the last 20+ years.......

The biggest lie we are ever told is that "hard work pays off". It's not about how hard you work, it's about how hard other people say you work and who you know or are related to.

[vsonix]

Countdown said:

vsonix said:

OK but in large institutions like universities, local government etc, I am fairly sure they are legally required to make positions open to external candidates.
I imagine a one or two-man band internet startup isn't bound by the same strictures!

Not sure about Universities but definitely not in local government. Obviously if they cant recruit internally for any reason they HAVE to advertise externally but there's no reason for them not to do it as a two-stage process (i.e. advertise Internal only first and, then if that fails, go external).

Nowadays with all the redundancies that have been happening,the Unions have made it even more selective; any vacancies HAVE to be offered to those "At Risk" first, before being offered to the wider pool of "internal" candidates before then going external.

I was an agency worker in various North London boroughs for a few years in the early 00s mostly Haringey and Islington with a bit of Hackney for good measure. I didn't particularly fancy a long future in local government IT but if you managed to go permanent after temping for a bit the workload basically halved and the wage basically doubled. On one occasion I was told I was a shoe-in for a certain job and the line manager was 'championing' me etc etc but then I ended up getting ignored in favour of someone from elsewhere in the council who needed to gain some experience in team management or working with a certain system, as part of getting groomed for a senior role. This resulted in me ending up with some ignorant oik as a direct superior with literally no knowledge of the department, systems, processes etc, to add further insult to injury I had to train him up in all the stuff I knew about which qualified me for the job to begin with. The line manager said she had 'pressure from above to recruit internally' - even though I had been working at the borough far longer than this upstart.
This hacked me off enough to make me quit a couple of weeks later. Having to train a person how to do 'your' job because they got picked to do it over you has to be about the biggest workplace insult going.

[Countdown]

lyonspride said:

As for the promotions, these days it's idiots promoting those who are not a threat to their own job (ie bigger idiots), and the only way for an idiot to look competent enough for promotion is basically making everyone else look bad, be that through malicious gossip, or producing false stats, or sabotaging colleagues work, or a combination of underhand tactics. I've seen it countless times over the last 20+ years.......

With respect I have to disagree. if what you are saying was true the logical outcome would be that the "Company" would end up with several layers of idiot management, resulting in the company going broke or being taken over. Nobody is denying that sometimes idiots get promoted. But it's rarely (if ever) in the manager's interests to knowingly promote an idiot, because the "Manager" would then end up effectively carrying them. Why on earth would i want to double my workload by employing an idiot as my direct report? Because if he was incapable of doing it either I'd have to do it OR employ somebody else in his place

lyonspride said:

The biggest lie we are ever told is that "hard work pays off". It's not about how hard you work, it's about how hard other people say you work and who you know or are related to.

Possibly you'be nee exceptionally unlucky. At most places where i worked the management were good at recognising and rewarding hard workers. As i said above the main person to benefit from a brilliant worker is their immediate line manager.

[lyonspride]

Countdown said:

lyonspride said:

As for the promotions, these days it's idiots promoting those who are not a threat to their own job (ie bigger idiots), and the only way for an idiot to look competent enough for promotion is basically making everyone else look bad, be that through malicious gossip, or producing false stats, or sabotaging colleagues work, or a combination of underhand tactics. I've seen it countless times over the last 20+ years.......

With respect I have to disagree. if what you are saying was true the logical outcome would be that the "Company" would end up with several layers of idiot management, resulting in the company going broke or being taken over. Nobody is denying that sometimes idiots get promoted. But it's rarely (if ever) in the manager's interests to knowingly promote an idiot, because the "Manager" would then end up effectively carrying them. Why on earth would i want to double my workload by employing an idiot as my direct report? Because if he was incapable of doing it either I'd have to do it OR employ somebody else in his place

lyonspride said:

The biggest lie we are ever told is that "hard work pays off". It's not about how hard you work, it's about how hard other people say you work and who you know or are related to.

Possibly you'be nee exceptionally unlucky. At most places where i worked the management were good at recognising and rewarding hard workers. As i said above the main person to benefit from a brilliant worker is their immediate line manager.

Your forgetting those who jump ship every 2 years and don't really care about the company at all. I've also worked for my fair share of insecure managers who think that good employees make them look bad, and despite what you say (which is perfectly logical) bad management love nothing more than a witch hunt, so if the company is infested with poor management, then talented staff just get kicked down until they get the message. These same managers are the type who basically don't really do much, and who when about to take time off, deliberately make sure that everything is going to fall apart in their absence.

Now i've only worked in the electronics/engineering sector and perhaps this industry is a good place for these fools to hide? I think perhaps there is a level of insecurity in a manager who doesn't understand what this very technical job entails, constantly trying to wade into something they don't understand and getting their fingers burned.