The discord for our subreddit can be found here: https://discord.gg/JjNdBkVGc6 - feel free to join us for a more realtime level of discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/recruitinghell) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My favorite is when I get hit up on LinkedIn by a recruiter who already had me interview before, like they never met me. Dude, there's a chat log of our discussion from last year.
I had that experience early last year but ended up getting ghosted. Then 6 months later they reach out, like nothing happened.
Turned the screw on them this time, shared the screenshot of the conversation (which just would have taken 2 scrolls up to see, but seems oblivious to that recruiter). Guess what, they ghosted again.
I'm inclined to believe that their 1st choice (i was the 2nd choice as final interview had only 2 people) left before their confirmation was due and they were scrambling to find a replacement quick as it was quite an important role.
They restarted the whole hiring process (which previously itself took 4 months from the job posting date) and this year, job was reposted again. Lol
They will use your response as a way to low-ball another candidate. "We have people lined up to interview. I know the position says $50/hr but we are going to offer $26.50 on a 1099."
The retaliation would be to tell them all the time you will change and then you don't and ghost. This will bring a bit wirl into the situation, if everybody tells them "yes, yes, yes" and is a bogus afterwards. They do it, I do it.
I thought this was how it worked with how often that occurs. Before reddit I just thought they were all incompetent. Now I just think that they are all
What most people don't realize is that recruiters work for many companies. They usually have a job at a firm that provides recruiting services as a business. In other words a recruiter named Bob works for 12 companies this week. In most cases they are not a direct employee of the company we are applying to. They are a third party service. A vendor.
You're describing an agency recruiter. There are also in-house/ corporate recruiters, executive recruiters, and now since recruiting market is slowing up a little bit, reverse recruiters.
In-house / Corporate recruiters work for one company (most of the time unless that company uses RPO) and typically "own" a part of the process (certain hiring managers' needs, the engineering department, a specific production plant, etc) and are responsible to get hires to fill the needs of their business unit / HMs. There is a perception that they are less good recruiters (as it typically pays less than agency) but an agency recruiter may hire 4-10 / month, where a corporate recruiter can hire 4x or more that many if the process is unencumbered.
Executive recruiters typically hire Director level and above jobs. Usually firms make $60-100k+ for hiring one executive for an organization. If a recruiter in this domain makes 10 placements a year, they are typically considered good.
Reverse recruiting is charging candidates to help get an individual a job. They apply on your behalf, do up your resume, interview prep, salary negotiations, etc. From what I have seen, they require a $2-4k retainer and then charge a percentage of your first year salary (seems to be between 8-15% from what I have seen.) There are zero garuntees in this model, other than they will keep trying a few times, typically. This dances in the career coach territory and outplacement services arena.
Agency recruiters can be broken down into contract, direct hire, and full desk. Contract would only work on temporary/ contract jobs, direct hire would be day 1 employee of a company, and full desk would be sales and marketing beyond candidate presentation. These folks can range making $0 in pure commissions roles to $1M+ if they are really good at what they do.
No way, the exact same thing happened to me a couple months ago lol. Recruiter texts me, I agree to an interview, she's meant to call me the following Monday for some further questions before the interview, never calls, I text on linkedin to find out what happened, she reads the message but never responds...
I’ve had this experience with a particular southeast Michigan printing company that I’ve interviewed with in 2018, 2021 and 2023.
I always get pulled into noon interviews, they last a strict 30 minutes, always subtly try to get me to take a off shift position (which I won’t no matter how much money plus a shift premium is offered - long story), and they say they’ll follow up in a couple of days and never do. The last time after interviewed I *followed* up and was told “I haven’t been contacted by anyone to reach out to potential candidates as of yet and I cannot tell you when that’ll be.”
I pulled my application within seconds of this last phone call and every review I’ve tried to leave highlighting their interview tactics gets taken down or rejected.
If I get an interview with them again, I’m calling them out.
Glassdoor, indeed, and linkedin? You can appeal the removals with the companies too. I only did that once with indeed back when they had chat support for this and it was restored.
Sounds like an op to create a new workplace review platform that under NO CONDITION will remove reviews under any request unless they fill out a questionnaire and provide valid evidence the review is fake.
"It hurts our business" is not this site's problem or a valid reason to have a review removed. The response looks something like this:
After careful consideration, we have determined that the review you requested be removed is valid, and violates no rules of our platform. Here's our suggestion to maintain a good rating:
1. Address the workplace issues.
2. Your interview process, based on reviews, appears to be negative.
3. Don't ghost potential employees during any aspect of your interview process.
I think you get the idea, the list would be automated based on the areas they're receiving negative feedback/reviews.
They don’t have a real enough presence on Indeed (where I’ve consistently applied to them from) to leave a review so I have up there. I’ve appealed my Glassdoor review to no avail and I am never logging into my LinkedIn account again (long story short - I used to work in financial for a Detroit based mortgager and a smaller firm tried to bring me back into financial with some real bullshit offers and I was having none of it)
Leave a Google Maps review, be clear of what the review is about. One thing to note, it won't be as anonymous as some others. You can also do it with a throw away account.
I'm starting to believe the recruiters mark that kind of interaction like quota.
Good luck out there!
Dealt with this today and the company is sus, to begin with. They are in the gambling/gaming industry (oh boy).
Recruiter: Can I get your website URL?
Me: It's on my resume I gave you last week?
Recruiter: Oh sorry, seems I missed that (posts the URL and my email to confirm..uhm...)
Recruiter: The client is requesting the password to your locked work.
Me: Because I knew this would come up, I posted a message about that above. I already explained how the process typically works, and that I have more unlocked than locked work in my portfolio.
Recruiter: Sorry again for missing that...
Recruiter: The client is saying they need to see those case studies to see how you think.
Me: Several unlocked projects in my portfolio go beyond the problem-solving skills required for this role, including two when I was a Lead and managed a team of 5 UX Designers.
Recruiter: The client is saying they have to see the locked work or you can't be considered for the role.
Me: Can you withdraw me as a candidate for this role? Thanks in advance.
I've done this long enough to know a company that lacks comprehension, does not respect NDAs and the ability to be flexible is going to end up being a TERRIBLE environment to work in. Mind you, not posted above is the fact I explained to this recruiter I have a strict policy about NDAs, I've had an associate in Chicago sued for sharing too much work/insights into a company's process and what they were releasing, and worst of all I've had my work stolen multiple times, including just recently seeing OpenSea release a newsletter where one of the article graphics was my reworked MetaMask logo I did in 2022, along with the background. Zero shame.
I don't think they respect anyone. It's all a sham and a scam. They post job applications, and they're the ones who see it. They ask for qualifications, which you can fulfill, but then they magically decide you're not suitable because you're missing one thing that's not super important.
Or they just want to make you angry, so they never get in touch with you.
I had this happen to me literally a week after I was rejected. The same recruiter who had told me I didn’t pass the interview then reached out again for the same position as if they didn’t know who I was. Fucking moron.
I actually forwarded our entire email chain to their head of HR and told them to get their shit together.
Oh thats just their spambot again. Recruiters always use those tool to mass-sent people their bs. I once had some lazy recruiters who didn't even bothered checking if my profile fitted their company and their chat-template didn't even mentioned my name but {firstname}.
I’ll see you this and raise you a Jobspring/Workbridge/Robert Half “we remember you but you need to come in and meet everyone because the whole place turned over and all our notes were offered to the volcano god”
Just last week a software consultancy approached me with "we seem to have misplaced your information, could you inform us of your rate and availability for a possible role?"
So... somehow you are able to locate my contact information, and only misplaced the job offer with a undeniably cool salary from last year. The one you kept emailing me for few months after i rejected it?
This probably had nothing to do with the fact that you were aware of my changed circumstances, and had this brilliant idea to check if i'm desperate?
It's nice to get the shitty feeling you had about a company confirmed later on. (I responded with the same salary they offered before -> got replied "not a fit for this role in an instant)
I applied for a job once as a travel writer for a website called WorldAtlas. I got a response on Indeed from the job recruiter and our conversation was basically along the lines of, "if you're interested, I can set you up for a two-week trial." I said yes. Then I just waited, and waited, and waited. Nothing happened. I sent follow up messages. Nothing.
I looked later, and I saw that my application was pulled, yet I could still see the job listing on Indeed. I have a feeling I was juked or something because they were asking for my PayPal rather than my direct deposit. I looked on their website, and it seemed legit, but I couldn't find any of the people who supposedly wrote the articles, like they didn't exist or something. There is definitely something sketchy about it.
I've read elsewhere on r/jobs that it's better to apply directly on company websites and send an email about your interest in a role rather than use job boards. I think there's something to that because I emailed a website that did science fiction book reviews about submitting book reviews for Planet of the Apes, and I actually got a response back, even if it was to turn me down. Job boards never send me notifications. I'm just silently rejected, like there's an AI involved. I'm convinced a human being isn't even looking at my application.
They're using outreach programs which send mass mails based on criteria. The recruiter may not even control that aspect of the process, which isn't unusual. A corporate program created by a VP of nonsense is most likely the culprit. One of that VPs staff is probably responsible for the outreach which then gets counted as a success.
Someone replies or interacts with the mail then that VP makes slides for their execs showing how much activity they generate.
Recruiter doesn't get a candidate, candidate doesn't get a job, VP gets some stock for increasing shareholder value.
It’s all automated. I’m not sure they even use LinkedIn’s website. They do not operate from the same reality and you are not a person but merely a product.
Do you think these staffing recruiters message you and then take your profile or resume and paste some other candidate who is willing to work at less and then reject you saying you don’t meet the criteria?
Last year someone reached out to me said great things, took my profile and then said I don’t meet criteria. This year she reached out again, did the same thing and rejected stating the same thing. I wonder.
This is exactly my take
There's probably a few recruiters and this one consulted with another who said "Oh yeah, we rejected them last year because of x, y"
I’ve interviewed the same person twice and didn’t remember till she mentioned this at the end of the interview. I was horrified and so embarrassed.
Had a very stern discussion with the internal recruiter afterwards.
it's a fake job ads. They want to interview you to legitimize their role. Simply wasting your time while completing their task. ✅ interviewed candidate today.
As scary as it is, I was told it's somewhere in the ballpark of 50%, at least in the gaming industry. It's something to do with giving stakeholders the illusion of growth.
Of course this only what one person told me though. I have no reason to doubt them but take it with a grain of salt
that's one of many other reasons, one of them which always strike me, if an employee with recruiting power hires their relative/friend, they have to post the job through the usual means like indeed, Linkedin etc. And what striking the most, even the hiring manager and their HR team don't know that the job is secured before it was tasked. In other words, the job is fulfilled before it was advertised and the hiring manager including the HR and the org staff have no clue.
I think that sometimes it's the company. Having a lot of job listings makes it look like they're expanding and on the up and up to prospective clients and investors.
If memory serves, forbes posted this or something similar earlier:
[Why Do People Post Ghost Jobs](https://www.edvisors.com/blog/ghost-jobs/#:~:text=To%20Create%20a%20'Warm'%20Talent,resources%20in%20the%20recruitment%20process)
The AI companies seem to be using job postings to get fodder for the AI. I got a very weird request from one of them that couldn'tmake sense unless they were planning to use AI, and when I asked for an accomodation to do it differently their response couldn't have done more to confirm my suspicion.
The most useful piece of work reform legislation would be to force company HR departments to motivate why they haven't hired candidates and provide proof of interviews and process. This bullshit wastes everyone's time and money, and I can't believe executives haven't hardlined HR to cut the shit more. There's no way this shit benefits the bottom line, or optics. Wtf is the point of this exercise except HR jerking themselves off?
Many job seekers are being inundated with "ghost jobs" or "fake jobs" advertised by companies that will never be filled. Here's an article explaining why that's happening: [https://qz.com/companies-posting-fake-job-listings-resume-builder-1851556777](https://qz.com/companies-posting-fake-job-listings-resume-builder-1851556777)
There's also a subreddit here that is designed to expose "ghost jobs" or "fake jobs". You can share any job postings that you suspect are fake and search for fake jobs posted by others in order to avoid wasting time in your job search: [https://www.reddit.com/r/FightFakeJobs/](https://www.reddit.com/r/FightFakeJobs/)
Some highlights from the article:
* More than 60% of those surveyed said they posted fake jobs “to make employees believe their workload would be alleviated by new workers.”
* Sixty-two percent of companies said another reason for the shady practice is to “have employees feel replaceable.”
* Two-thirds of companies cited a desire to “appear the company is open to external talent” and 59% said it was an effort to “collect resumes and keep them on file for a later date.”
* 85% of companies engaging in the practice said they interviewed candidates for the fake jobs.
I can not understand collecting resumes to have them on file. Why not just post a job listing when you need them?
I always secretly suspected companies of doing this sort of thing. Why bother keeping all that information unless they can make some money off it?
Just a thought. Maybe I'm wrong.
Yup. And even if they didn't, posting a job with no intention of hiring technically falls in the category of posting a ghost job EVEN IF YOU MENTION THE INTENTION (or lack thereof).
There’s a couple reasons you might post to collect resumes.
The only one that makes sense to me is for what are called “Evergreen” reqs. These are basically positions the company is almost always hiring. They just stay up even if one isn’t open right at this minute they expect a position to come available relatively soon.
Some companies may post roles they don’t hire often but have been historically hard to fill in the past to collect resumes.
As to the why do companies do this? There’s a few practical reasons and note I’m not defending the practice but explaining why some find it appealing.
Sometimes you post a job and you don’t get a flood of 600 applications it’s a trickle and it takes time to fill the position and generally if it’s open they want someone as soon as possible.
If you have kept this role open and now suddenly need to hire for it you have this backlog of candidates you can reach out to day one (maybe you even interviewed some and can skip the first or second step) moving the process quicker. Basically, you have pre-sourced candidates who are even interested enough in your company to submit a resume at some point in the last x amount of time.
Sourcing tools are very expensive LinkedIn Recruiter seats are very expensive. If you can build your own database to look for candidates from and shave on other sourcing costs sometimes you do that. This is especially relevant for smaller companies who don’t have the budget for it.
Well… you’re assuming a lot of things to even make that claim. You’re assuming one that the job is hard to fill which on your side you would have no idea about. You’re assuming that it’s a ghost job that they intend to circle back around on and you’re assuming that you are a fit for this hard to fill role.
That’s a lot of assumptions for an anecdote.
No - because how many people do you know? And how many do you talk to about how they got a job? And then how the hell would they again know if it was A. Hard to Fill or B. A ghost job.
How is it fair or acceptable for companies to create these fake jobs and waste everyone's time, get their hopes up, cost them all types of money for getting a suit, getting it cleaned and pressed, taking transportation or driving to the interview (money), wasting time interviewing, crossing your fingers hoping you get the job, only to realize the job was fake from the beginning...
But if we don't respond to an email right away about an interview we're wasting the company's time and are disqualified?
The rules are clearly slighted here in the company's favor
You need to move on. You gave them WAYYY too much information when you asked your question. In the future, AVOID DOING THIs. There was no reason to let them know you interviewed already.
They rejected you once already, and then you reminded them that they rejected you. If anything, you can ask for feedback on your previous interview, but honestly you need to move on from this company. They clearly aren’t interested in hiring you.
So... they lied? Could you just call/go down to their HR and speak with them in person? "Hi, I want to make sure that this wasn't the wrong template being sent. Also, if you hired someone, your post is still on indeed, and linkedin and..."
Yeah, best thing is to engage in an argument with the company over a job listing. Showing them it was 100% the right call not to go ahead with him, after being rejected a year ago, then some passive aggressive questions, and then following up as to why the job hasn't been taken down. LOL. Great advice. Get the hint and move on, they dont want you.
It's not reasonable to interview ALL candidates for a role who applied. Some roles get hundreds of applicants who are perfectly qualified.
It is, however, poor form to cancel an interview that's already been scheduled.
They clearly didn't hire someone they just don't want to hire you and gave the blanketed response that they "moved forward with another candidate at this time."
No I mean if you decide to interview three people out of whatever applied I'm going to insist on doing that before deciding who moves on.
Anything else just makes it look unprofessional.
Yes I agree. Whenever you decide to interview, always follow through. I agree that it's unprofessional to cancel an interview and not follow through. You never know if that last candidate is the true Rockstar Candidate. And could be doing your company a disservice as well by losing out on potentially the best candidate.
They are cancelling you because you interviewed with them last year. She replied if you are still interested after your questions, then went to look up the notes from your previous interview and decided you were not a good fit then and not now either.
This is a fact. I don’t know why anyone would give unsolicited information when you ask a question. Pretty much shot themselves in the foot. Never give them any additional information especially if they didn’t ask. Ask your question but that’s it.
It’s a food safety quality technician. I’m sure their turnover is about the same as McDonald’s. They just figured they didn’t need an attitude to begin with.
I interviewed for the same exact position within about 2ish years. Got the job the second time and it’s been an amazing job all things considered. Didn’t even mention it in the interview at all.
Some people just want to force failure and whine about it.
Looking at this person’s posting history, she seems to be a pain in the ass in general. The confrontational tone she exhibited in the emails comes across in her comments here too. I wouldn’t bring her in for an interview either.
Well, you mentioned that they interviewed you last year and did not offer you the role.
Now, maybe that was not on their radar.
Sometimes that can be a bad strategy, because some recruiters or hiring managers will never hire someone that was rejected previously, even if that was three years ago.
Okay I'm going to play devils advocate here, but when you mentioned that you interviewed with them previously they would have checked those previous interview notes, and whatever they found there most likely made them reject you. It could be anything, so not necessarily even experience related.
Also, job roles get reposted all the time. A company I'm working with is recruiting for the exact same position a year later, but that's simply because the last person they filled the position with got a promotion, and so now they need a replacement.
This right here. Also for other roles since they have a high turnover, lets say customer service job that is mininum wage, They keep posts up to get more people to hire once they let go or people leave the company
Sure their organisation sucks. But to be fair your reply was too aggressive for anything positive to come out of it. If you weren't interested in the position anymore and you just wanted to blow some steam, that's another story.
Don’t ever question. Not even subtly. If you don’t like the role, go somewhere else or go back to school or start your own business.
It is silly and stupid and I hate it too, but you as the employee have zero to little power. The only real power you have is to vote with your feet and go somewhere else.
At a company I previously worked for, we did periodically for a person on staff with a green card. The job was posted everywhere online and in papers, and the job was always miraculously filled by an in-house employee. The job offer would look normal but there was always the one random item in the job description that was catered to the employee.
I believe certain companies to meet certain regulations have to still post the job publically even if they have an internal employee lined up for the job. It's stupid but it happens as it is more along like someone from 1 department swapping to another it has to be open to the public for interviews as well. I could also be wrong but i have seen that stuff too
Funnily enough, I just got rejected after having the interview set up, they cancelled the interview a day before it was supposed to happen. They said that they are only hiring people with a full drivers licence, which was really dumb because the job is a static security position in one building, no need to go to other sites and the job is within a 20 minute walk from my home. It was the dumbest reason I'd ever heard of to cancel an interview.
except OP shot themselves in the foot here why tell a company you interviewed with them before. Companies keep data from interviews and saying that will prompt them to go back and see what was said and why you where rejected.
I always give this example and will share it again. If we get 200 applications and reach out to the 10 that actually qualify typically 3 will say sure let’s jump on a call and 2 will ask questions. Questions are not a bad thing. But if 3 get right on a call they are probably getting hired before I have to spend time being questioned before meeting you. I do agree with others that it can be a legit question. But the approach was condescending. You keep applying for a reason. So apparently want to work there. So, you have to play the game. Get on the phone. Have a strong call and then ask the tough questions. It could very well be that they promote quickly so the job is often open. Maybe they transfer people often? Maybe the job or company sucks and no one stays. But those are questions you get to know the before asking.
Maybe not. But you can’t know for sure. Heck maybe it’s high schoolers or college kids and they move on because of school. Who ever knows. But by speculating or insinuating there is an issue before getting in there you are shooting yourself in the foot. Stop applying if you don’t like it being reopened. lol
I am honestly not sure what level of experience that role requires. If it’s a tiny restaurant group I would assume not much experience is needed as they wouldn’t be able to pay well compared to their counterparts. But, I can’t know until I can get all of the details. So I would get on the call.
Noted. So no, not high school students. We’ve ruled one possibility out. It could also be the company sucks or their standards suck and any self respecting QC tech leaves. But, my point stands. You took yourself out of the running by questioning them prior to a call and it’s not surprising. I’m not judging you. It’s a legitimate question. You took the risk and it didn’t pay off. Or it did because you dodged a bullet!
I know it goes against the mindset here but I would have canceled too. I've filled positions where they didn't work out, transferred to a similar internal position, or had new positions created. All those instances would have caused the same position to be posted again. OP just comes across as confrontational and abrasive. Definitely not a good fit for a team
I agree.
While there's nothing actually \*wrong\* with that question, you're signaling you're a pain in the ass relative to the stack of resumes who are grateful to be receiving a call.
Speaking from experience. I got bounced from a role at a $500 MM Series E startup (many, many rounds of funding without an IPO or viable business) after asking their CFO if they were cash flow positive. That's akin to asking a sixth-year college senior whose been living off their trust fund when they're going to get a real job. Probably not a topic they want to discuss.....
Right question, by the way. They ran out of cash and had massive layoffs.
Nope. It's about how and when the question is asked. It could have been worded much better as someone else here mentioned. Also, that's a question to ask at the interview, not to whomever is managing the postings. There's no benefit from asking at that time or in that way before even getting a foot in the door.
That wasnt asking a question it was basically saying "I applied for this job last year and interviewed didnt get the job and it is still open did you actually fill the role?" OP didn't consider there could have bene an internal promotion the person quit because they got a better offer etc. Also mentioning you interviewed at a company you where rejected at prompted a look at interview notes and there could be something in that as a reason they rejected OP
I agree there is a time & place for that question, my instinct when i red it was me as yours.
But & it is a legitimate question, just one i would have covered at teh interview as it would allow for better context / tone. Messages don't always project / get picked up in the right way.
If this is considered 'confrontational and abrasive', then I seriously question the sensitivity of recruiters.
I've been interviewing with the same 'confrontational and abrasive' type questioning and still manage to get 6 figure jobs. Wild the type of label you put on this.
I find it rather alarming that the discrepancy of the hiring timelime OP expressed is overlooked and you decided to react to what are otherwise transparent questions.
The company is messing with you. Apply elsewhere. Anyone who treats their prospective employees like this is not worth the time and effort. I get rejections all the time but they're silent and never vocalized. What country do you live in, OP?
Where I live, the job market is crap, and so is the economy. Even with a Master's degree, I'm still having trouble.
"Decided to hire a candidate that more closely aligns with the needs of the position"
aka "Candidate is asking too many questions. Recind offer to interview! Independent thought alarm! 🚨"
I've seen many ideas about why recruiters post fake job ads and interview people for jobs that don't exist. One thing I haven't seen people talk about is recruiters interviewing candidates for jobs that don't exist in order to train entry-level recruiters. What better way to train new recruiters than interviewing candidates when there are no stakes involved.
I got an interview request and then a "it's not us it's you" email. Turns out they hit the wrong template and they called wondering where I was. Hopeful that this is you too.
You shot yourself in the foot there. Frankly I think in their position I would probably decide not to move forward either.
They don't need to explain their hiring policies to you. I understand the frustration and the sense that people are just doing bullshit interviews, But it's entirely plausible that somebody got hired, got fired, quit, who knows, or they need an extra person for any number of reasons, or somebody else in the team left...
And at this point I'm just thinking to myself " why am I going to bother to deal with this person, who's already raising problems, when I've got 15 other qualified candidates".
This isn't recruiting hell, this is you giving them an excuse to not bother with you.
I just had an interview at a small family owned large scale cow farm repair thing. During it he said there’s currently only 2 of them working and they could use another set of hands. They then never called back. Understandable it happens. But then 2 weeks later I see they are posting for a supervisor position. No way these guys actually are going to hire a supervisor. That’s when I knew the job I interviewed for was never going to get filled
I read just recently that a lot of job postings companies make a fake and just intended to gather resumes in case it is useful later. Apparently 70% of companies think that is completely ethical. I think it should be illegal to post a job that you are not actually intending to hire for. If found guilty you should have to pay EVERY person that applied for wasting their time.
>Strange. I've never seen a company reject someone without interviewing all their candidates first.
That happens all the time.
>Interviewer cancels interview after I ask them if they have hired anyone in the past year
I love this question, though. 😁
At this point this resembles more to Vicky's gimmicks aiming at manipulating you by threatening you not getting invited to her birthday... it's all petty: "I got my new best friend to take your place at my fabulous party."
Last year a recruiter hit me up and I had an interview for a job I knew I wasn’t quite up to snuff with qualifications wise. They told me they didn’t hire me because they unexpectedly ran out of budget. Okaaaay.
Next year a new recruiter contacts me for a similar sounding job in the same town. I ask if it’s the same place and told them I interviewed with them last year and I’m a lot more qualified now. Ghosted.
Should you just tell the recruiters you’ve never interviewed with their client before and see what happens? Are they just always going to drop you otherwise? What’s up with that?
Or they set up interview out of your travel range and job location have you show up interview and then ghost you recently this happened to me I’ve pretty much vowed to not travel outside of where the job is located for interviews anymore.
Happened to me a few months ago. I applied for a role, got an email invitation for an interview, on the morning of the interview I got a rejection email. They told me that the hiring team decided to hire someone else. I was like
WTF!!! It seems that recruiters are on one planet and hiring managers on the other. They have no idea what the actual fuck they’re doing.
I mean I just looked them up and they have 5000 employees so maybe JUST maybe they have more than one food safety tech? I don’t know that was a very self sabotage message you sent. Just take the interview next time?
Butt hurt recruiter or you actually sucked in your interview the first time around and recruiter wasn’t aware until you mentioned it that you’d already been interviewed for the role at a point previously
What were you even hoping to gain by asking that question?
> I've never seen a company reject someone without interviewing all their candidates first.
The whole process is an interview. Companies will drop you at any step if you become an undesirable candidate.
Maybe it is because instead of agreeing to an interview you questioned their methods, leaving a bitter taste in their mouth?
You already interviewed, you knew what you were going into and could have been a successful candidate this round - now you’ll never know.
Hey OP!
I believe it was the way that you responded to the initial email. You could sense she was a bit bothered by your approach with the way she responded to the inquiry. When I read your reply I was a bit taken aback as well because it seemed offensive to respond in such a manner. To question why the role is available and if they ever hired anyone to begin with added to the tone of your email was a bit obtuse. I wish you all the best in your employment search and urge you to be a bit more mindful when responding to emails; also save the additional inquiries for the in person interview once you have built a rapport and the interviewer asks you if you have any questions for them. Hope this was insightful and Good Luck!
She has the right to inquire. Interview questioning is NOT a one-way street. In fact, nothing is. Interviews are for BOTH candidates and employers to see if the other party is the right fit. Also, it's not like she wasn't going to figure out the answer to her questions if they gave her the job.
The person does, but it's the tone and approach taken that matters more. A simple question of "why is the job open?" should be enough without the need for referencing previous applications or questioning if they filled the role.
You can't accurately assume tone through text, so that's irrelevant. The semantics shouldn't matter either unless they're E.B White. This a food service company not a professional writers league.
It also makes sense to ask if the role had been filled so she can understand why the previous candidate failed and understand how she can do better than they did. They could've easily answered her questions a professional and informative manner rather than blatantly disregarding her.
Again there are better ways to ask about that without making it being perceived as bad.
Assuming that the role was filled and the person left or was fired an easy way to get that information is to ask the hiring manager "what do feel the department is lacking" and they tailor how you can assist the department with that need.
You may not accurately be able to assume tone through text but it’s absolutely not irrelevant. Also it’s not that hard to read through what you write and think about how someone else might perceive it. It’s not hard or time consuming (just annoying) to write something similar in a much more neutral tone or in a way that doesn’t come across as confrontational.
I agree that the candidate has the right to inquiry; it’s the method by which this is done that sets the precedence! The emails presented in my opinion showed OP in a less than favorable light and in my opinion the questions and the inquisition could have been saved for the after interview conversation once OP deemed they were truly the right fit. OP’s time to determine the company would be a right fit was during the application process. It’s just the way I saw the scenario play out.
I agree that the questions could have been asked later, but they're still the right questions to ask. Questions that they should be prepared to answer. If they felt put on the spot through an email and refused to answer, how are they going to feel or respond once she asks them later in person?
I just believe that this recruiting email exchange wasn’t the right time to have that dialogue but rather with the hiring manager that was conducting the interview! They would be better suited to answer this questioning but May did respond with we are adding an additional role so she didn’t not respond to the question. It just seemed to portray a sense of entitlement and passive aggression from the way I read it and it seems the HR generalist inquired within and management agreed based on the email. Just my take on it!
Not sure why this is getting downvoted. Thats likely what happened. He asks the questions, she then asks if he still wants to go ahead. She then obviously checked the interview notes, and considered the passive aggressive questions, and decided 2nd time around he is not a good fit.
The discord for our subreddit can be found here: https://discord.gg/JjNdBkVGc6 - feel free to join us for a more realtime level of discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/recruitinghell) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My favorite is when I get hit up on LinkedIn by a recruiter who already had me interview before, like they never met me. Dude, there's a chat log of our discussion from last year.
I had that experience early last year but ended up getting ghosted. Then 6 months later they reach out, like nothing happened. Turned the screw on them this time, shared the screenshot of the conversation (which just would have taken 2 scrolls up to see, but seems oblivious to that recruiter). Guess what, they ghosted again. I'm inclined to believe that their 1st choice (i was the 2nd choice as final interview had only 2 people) left before their confirmation was due and they were scrambling to find a replacement quick as it was quite an important role. They restarted the whole hiring process (which previously itself took 4 months from the job posting date) and this year, job was reposted again. Lol
I had a recruiter message me on LinkedIn and ask me if I would like to interview and after I said yes they just ghosted me… like bro?
They weren't inviting you for an interview, they were just polling you to see if you would want to or not 🤣
Gotta keep that talent pool warm I guess. 😏
They will use your response as a way to low-ball another candidate. "We have people lined up to interview. I know the position says $50/hr but we are going to offer $26.50 on a 1099."
Happens all the time. Those people are insufferable. And they lie to you if you ask them for a follow up...
The retaliation would be to tell them all the time you will change and then you don't and ghost. This will bring a bit wirl into the situation, if everybody tells them "yes, yes, yes" and is a bogus afterwards. They do it, I do it.
I thought this was how it worked with how often that occurs. Before reddit I just thought they were all incompetent. Now I just think that they are all
What most people don't realize is that recruiters work for many companies. They usually have a job at a firm that provides recruiting services as a business. In other words a recruiter named Bob works for 12 companies this week. In most cases they are not a direct employee of the company we are applying to. They are a third party service. A vendor.
You're describing an agency recruiter. There are also in-house/ corporate recruiters, executive recruiters, and now since recruiting market is slowing up a little bit, reverse recruiters. In-house / Corporate recruiters work for one company (most of the time unless that company uses RPO) and typically "own" a part of the process (certain hiring managers' needs, the engineering department, a specific production plant, etc) and are responsible to get hires to fill the needs of their business unit / HMs. There is a perception that they are less good recruiters (as it typically pays less than agency) but an agency recruiter may hire 4-10 / month, where a corporate recruiter can hire 4x or more that many if the process is unencumbered. Executive recruiters typically hire Director level and above jobs. Usually firms make $60-100k+ for hiring one executive for an organization. If a recruiter in this domain makes 10 placements a year, they are typically considered good. Reverse recruiting is charging candidates to help get an individual a job. They apply on your behalf, do up your resume, interview prep, salary negotiations, etc. From what I have seen, they require a $2-4k retainer and then charge a percentage of your first year salary (seems to be between 8-15% from what I have seen.) There are zero garuntees in this model, other than they will keep trying a few times, typically. This dances in the career coach territory and outplacement services arena. Agency recruiters can be broken down into contract, direct hire, and full desk. Contract would only work on temporary/ contract jobs, direct hire would be day 1 employee of a company, and full desk would be sales and marketing beyond candidate presentation. These folks can range making $0 in pure commissions roles to $1M+ if they are really good at what they do.
No way, the exact same thing happened to me a couple months ago lol. Recruiter texts me, I agree to an interview, she's meant to call me the following Monday for some further questions before the interview, never calls, I text on linkedin to find out what happened, she reads the message but never responds...
You are telling that story as if that doesn't happen to all of us a dozen times
I’ve had this experience with a particular southeast Michigan printing company that I’ve interviewed with in 2018, 2021 and 2023. I always get pulled into noon interviews, they last a strict 30 minutes, always subtly try to get me to take a off shift position (which I won’t no matter how much money plus a shift premium is offered - long story), and they say they’ll follow up in a couple of days and never do. The last time after interviewed I *followed* up and was told “I haven’t been contacted by anyone to reach out to potential candidates as of yet and I cannot tell you when that’ll be.” I pulled my application within seconds of this last phone call and every review I’ve tried to leave highlighting their interview tactics gets taken down or rejected. If I get an interview with them again, I’m calling them out.
Glassdoor, indeed, and linkedin? You can appeal the removals with the companies too. I only did that once with indeed back when they had chat support for this and it was restored.
Sounds like an op to create a new workplace review platform that under NO CONDITION will remove reviews under any request unless they fill out a questionnaire and provide valid evidence the review is fake. "It hurts our business" is not this site's problem or a valid reason to have a review removed. The response looks something like this: After careful consideration, we have determined that the review you requested be removed is valid, and violates no rules of our platform. Here's our suggestion to maintain a good rating: 1. Address the workplace issues. 2. Your interview process, based on reviews, appears to be negative. 3. Don't ghost potential employees during any aspect of your interview process. I think you get the idea, the list would be automated based on the areas they're receiving negative feedback/reviews.
They don’t have a real enough presence on Indeed (where I’ve consistently applied to them from) to leave a review so I have up there. I’ve appealed my Glassdoor review to no avail and I am never logging into my LinkedIn account again (long story short - I used to work in financial for a Detroit based mortgager and a smaller firm tried to bring me back into financial with some real bullshit offers and I was having none of it)
Leave a Google Maps review, be clear of what the review is about. One thing to note, it won't be as anonymous as some others. You can also do it with a throw away account. I'm starting to believe the recruiters mark that kind of interaction like quota. Good luck out there!
You're giving them too much credit by assuming they can read.
Dealt with this today and the company is sus, to begin with. They are in the gambling/gaming industry (oh boy). Recruiter: Can I get your website URL? Me: It's on my resume I gave you last week? Recruiter: Oh sorry, seems I missed that (posts the URL and my email to confirm..uhm...) Recruiter: The client is requesting the password to your locked work. Me: Because I knew this would come up, I posted a message about that above. I already explained how the process typically works, and that I have more unlocked than locked work in my portfolio. Recruiter: Sorry again for missing that... Recruiter: The client is saying they need to see those case studies to see how you think. Me: Several unlocked projects in my portfolio go beyond the problem-solving skills required for this role, including two when I was a Lead and managed a team of 5 UX Designers. Recruiter: The client is saying they have to see the locked work or you can't be considered for the role. Me: Can you withdraw me as a candidate for this role? Thanks in advance. I've done this long enough to know a company that lacks comprehension, does not respect NDAs and the ability to be flexible is going to end up being a TERRIBLE environment to work in. Mind you, not posted above is the fact I explained to this recruiter I have a strict policy about NDAs, I've had an associate in Chicago sued for sharing too much work/insights into a company's process and what they were releasing, and worst of all I've had my work stolen multiple times, including just recently seeing OpenSea release a newsletter where one of the article graphics was my reworked MetaMask logo I did in 2022, along with the background. Zero shame.
I don't think they respect anyone. It's all a sham and a scam. They post job applications, and they're the ones who see it. They ask for qualifications, which you can fulfill, but then they magically decide you're not suitable because you're missing one thing that's not super important. Or they just want to make you angry, so they never get in touch with you.
I had this happen to me literally a week after I was rejected. The same recruiter who had told me I didn’t pass the interview then reached out again for the same position as if they didn’t know who I was. Fucking moron. I actually forwarded our entire email chain to their head of HR and told them to get their shit together.
What was their response?
they are corporate zombies, they don't care
Oh thats just their spambot again. Recruiters always use those tool to mass-sent people their bs. I once had some lazy recruiters who didn't even bothered checking if my profile fitted their company and their chat-template didn't even mentioned my name but {firstname}.
I’ll see you this and raise you a Jobspring/Workbridge/Robert Half “we remember you but you need to come in and meet everyone because the whole place turned over and all our notes were offered to the volcano god”
Just last week a software consultancy approached me with "we seem to have misplaced your information, could you inform us of your rate and availability for a possible role?" So... somehow you are able to locate my contact information, and only misplaced the job offer with a undeniably cool salary from last year. The one you kept emailing me for few months after i rejected it? This probably had nothing to do with the fact that you were aware of my changed circumstances, and had this brilliant idea to check if i'm desperate? It's nice to get the shitty feeling you had about a company confirmed later on. (I responded with the same salary they offered before -> got replied "not a fit for this role in an instant)
this whole rigged fake scarcity 'job' market is to squeeze then lowball desperate employees
My favourite is when they ghost me and then when they call me up again they pretend that I ghosted them.
I applied for a job once as a travel writer for a website called WorldAtlas. I got a response on Indeed from the job recruiter and our conversation was basically along the lines of, "if you're interested, I can set you up for a two-week trial." I said yes. Then I just waited, and waited, and waited. Nothing happened. I sent follow up messages. Nothing. I looked later, and I saw that my application was pulled, yet I could still see the job listing on Indeed. I have a feeling I was juked or something because they were asking for my PayPal rather than my direct deposit. I looked on their website, and it seemed legit, but I couldn't find any of the people who supposedly wrote the articles, like they didn't exist or something. There is definitely something sketchy about it. I've read elsewhere on r/jobs that it's better to apply directly on company websites and send an email about your interest in a role rather than use job boards. I think there's something to that because I emailed a website that did science fiction book reviews about submitting book reviews for Planet of the Apes, and I actually got a response back, even if it was to turn me down. Job boards never send me notifications. I'm just silently rejected, like there's an AI involved. I'm convinced a human being isn't even looking at my application.
They're using outreach programs which send mass mails based on criteria. The recruiter may not even control that aspect of the process, which isn't unusual. A corporate program created by a VP of nonsense is most likely the culprit. One of that VPs staff is probably responsible for the outreach which then gets counted as a success. Someone replies or interacts with the mail then that VP makes slides for their execs showing how much activity they generate. Recruiter doesn't get a candidate, candidate doesn't get a job, VP gets some stock for increasing shareholder value.
Is it possible they deleted the chat on their end to keep their LinkedIn inbox a bit clean?
It’s all automated. I’m not sure they even use LinkedIn’s website. They do not operate from the same reality and you are not a person but merely a product.
I had a recruiter hit me up for a role I had just resigned from and was working out my notice period..
This happened to me too. I actually still get contacted about the same role with the same company...
Do you think these staffing recruiters message you and then take your profile or resume and paste some other candidate who is willing to work at less and then reject you saying you don’t meet the criteria? Last year someone reached out to me said great things, took my profile and then said I don’t meet criteria. This year she reached out again, did the same thing and rejected stating the same thing. I wonder.
Had that as well . Ridiculous
I had that experience TWICE this year, seems like they mass send messages to people
You reminded them that they rejected you already so they didn’t want to interview again
This exactly. She went back to check the interview notes and decided, yeah not this guy.
Yep. Not just that they rejected her, but also why.
This is exactly my take There's probably a few recruiters and this one consulted with another who said "Oh yeah, we rejected them last year because of x, y"
I’ve interviewed the same person twice and didn’t remember till she mentioned this at the end of the interview. I was horrified and so embarrassed. Had a very stern discussion with the internal recruiter afterwards.
it's a fake job ads. They want to interview you to legitimize their role. Simply wasting your time while completing their task. ✅ interviewed candidate today.
Malicious compliance.
man I do wonder how many HR managers out there just put out fake job ads just to look busy for their boss
As scary as it is, I was told it's somewhere in the ballpark of 50%, at least in the gaming industry. It's something to do with giving stakeholders the illusion of growth. Of course this only what one person told me though. I have no reason to doubt them but take it with a grain of salt
that's one of many other reasons, one of them which always strike me, if an employee with recruiting power hires their relative/friend, they have to post the job through the usual means like indeed, Linkedin etc. And what striking the most, even the hiring manager and their HR team don't know that the job is secured before it was tasked. In other words, the job is fulfilled before it was advertised and the hiring manager including the HR and the org staff have no clue.
So freaking incompetent!
As someone who just got his Master's in creative technologies with a bachelor's in game design, this terrifies me.
Welcome to hell!
But... I already did ten years in call centers. I don't want to go back! No!
I think that sometimes it's the company. Having a lot of job listings makes it look like they're expanding and on the up and up to prospective clients and investors.
If memory serves, forbes posted this or something similar earlier: [Why Do People Post Ghost Jobs](https://www.edvisors.com/blog/ghost-jobs/#:~:text=To%20Create%20a%20'Warm'%20Talent,resources%20in%20the%20recruitment%20process)
This isn't Forbes, just some wannabe pundit on an obscure website. Also, her solution is basically, "Use LinkedIn and pay attention".
The AI companies seem to be using job postings to get fodder for the AI. I got a very weird request from one of them that couldn'tmake sense unless they were planning to use AI, and when I asked for an accomodation to do it differently their response couldn't have done more to confirm my suspicion.
Keep the sheep workers working and telling them you just can't find anyone?
Legitimize their rule?
So very true!!!
The most useful piece of work reform legislation would be to force company HR departments to motivate why they haven't hired candidates and provide proof of interviews and process. This bullshit wastes everyone's time and money, and I can't believe executives haven't hardlined HR to cut the shit more. There's no way this shit benefits the bottom line, or optics. Wtf is the point of this exercise except HR jerking themselves off?
My man has KPI's to hit.
Many job seekers are being inundated with "ghost jobs" or "fake jobs" advertised by companies that will never be filled. Here's an article explaining why that's happening: [https://qz.com/companies-posting-fake-job-listings-resume-builder-1851556777](https://qz.com/companies-posting-fake-job-listings-resume-builder-1851556777) There's also a subreddit here that is designed to expose "ghost jobs" or "fake jobs". You can share any job postings that you suspect are fake and search for fake jobs posted by others in order to avoid wasting time in your job search: [https://www.reddit.com/r/FightFakeJobs/](https://www.reddit.com/r/FightFakeJobs/)
Some highlights from the article: * More than 60% of those surveyed said they posted fake jobs “to make employees believe their workload would be alleviated by new workers.” * Sixty-two percent of companies said another reason for the shady practice is to “have employees feel replaceable.” * Two-thirds of companies cited a desire to “appear the company is open to external talent” and 59% said it was an effort to “collect resumes and keep them on file for a later date.” * 85% of companies engaging in the practice said they interviewed candidates for the fake jobs. I can not understand collecting resumes to have them on file. Why not just post a job listing when you need them?
They collect resumes to get data they can sell to advertisers
I always secretly suspected companies of doing this sort of thing. Why bother keeping all that information unless they can make some money off it? Just a thought. Maybe I'm wrong.
More than likely the case
Yup. And even if they didn't, posting a job with no intention of hiring technically falls in the category of posting a ghost job EVEN IF YOU MENTION THE INTENTION (or lack thereof).
There’s a couple reasons you might post to collect resumes. The only one that makes sense to me is for what are called “Evergreen” reqs. These are basically positions the company is almost always hiring. They just stay up even if one isn’t open right at this minute they expect a position to come available relatively soon. Some companies may post roles they don’t hire often but have been historically hard to fill in the past to collect resumes. As to the why do companies do this? There’s a few practical reasons and note I’m not defending the practice but explaining why some find it appealing. Sometimes you post a job and you don’t get a flood of 600 applications it’s a trickle and it takes time to fill the position and generally if it’s open they want someone as soon as possible. If you have kept this role open and now suddenly need to hire for it you have this backlog of candidates you can reach out to day one (maybe you even interviewed some and can skip the first or second step) moving the process quicker. Basically, you have pre-sourced candidates who are even interested enough in your company to submit a resume at some point in the last x amount of time. Sourcing tools are very expensive LinkedIn Recruiter seats are very expensive. If you can build your own database to look for candidates from and shave on other sourcing costs sometimes you do that. This is especially relevant for smaller companies who don’t have the budget for it.
Yeeeeahhhhh, no to companies acquiring resumes for hard to hire for jobs. I've never had a company get back to me about a job like that. Never.
Well… you’re assuming a lot of things to even make that claim. You’re assuming one that the job is hard to fill which on your side you would have no idea about. You’re assuming that it’s a ghost job that they intend to circle back around on and you’re assuming that you are a fit for this hard to fill role. That’s a lot of assumptions for an anecdote.
In 15 years, this has never happened to anyone I know, including people with truly unique skillsets. Is that a better sample size?
No - because how many people do you know? And how many do you talk to about how they got a job? And then how the hell would they again know if it was A. Hard to Fill or B. A ghost job.
I hate fucking Capitalism…😩😮💨
How is it fair or acceptable for companies to create these fake jobs and waste everyone's time, get their hopes up, cost them all types of money for getting a suit, getting it cleaned and pressed, taking transportation or driving to the interview (money), wasting time interviewing, crossing your fingers hoping you get the job, only to realize the job was fake from the beginning... But if we don't respond to an email right away about an interview we're wasting the company's time and are disqualified? The rules are clearly slighted here in the company's favor
Update: Their job posting is still up even though they claimed to have hired another candidate.
You need to move on. You gave them WAYYY too much information when you asked your question. In the future, AVOID DOING THIs. There was no reason to let them know you interviewed already.
They rejected you once already, and then you reminded them that they rejected you. If anything, you can ask for feedback on your previous interview, but honestly you need to move on from this company. They clearly aren’t interested in hiring you.
So... they lied? Could you just call/go down to their HR and speak with them in person? "Hi, I want to make sure that this wasn't the wrong template being sent. Also, if you hired someone, your post is still on indeed, and linkedin and..."
Yeah, best thing is to engage in an argument with the company over a job listing. Showing them it was 100% the right call not to go ahead with him, after being rejected a year ago, then some passive aggressive questions, and then following up as to why the job hasn't been taken down. LOL. Great advice. Get the hint and move on, they dont want you.
Found the HR guy that likes to screw people over for funsies and doesn’t want to be held accountable for it
😂 You need to work on your Sherlock skills because you ain't very good at sleuthing. Ps, the guy screwed himself over.
I'd personally never commit to a decision until we had interviewed all our candidates as well.
It's not reasonable to interview ALL candidates for a role who applied. Some roles get hundreds of applicants who are perfectly qualified. It is, however, poor form to cancel an interview that's already been scheduled. They clearly didn't hire someone they just don't want to hire you and gave the blanketed response that they "moved forward with another candidate at this time."
No I mean if you decide to interview three people out of whatever applied I'm going to insist on doing that before deciding who moves on. Anything else just makes it look unprofessional.
Yes I agree. Whenever you decide to interview, always follow through. I agree that it's unprofessional to cancel an interview and not follow through. You never know if that last candidate is the true Rockstar Candidate. And could be doing your company a disservice as well by losing out on potentially the best candidate.
Take the hint !!
They are cancelling you because you interviewed with them last year. She replied if you are still interested after your questions, then went to look up the notes from your previous interview and decided you were not a good fit then and not now either.
You played yourself. Your passive-aggressive question promted them to look up information / feedback on your last interview.
This is a fact. I don’t know why anyone would give unsolicited information when you ask a question. Pretty much shot themselves in the foot. Never give them any additional information especially if they didn’t ask. Ask your question but that’s it.
Nothing worse than shooting your own food!
Edited lol thanks 😊
I think her question was a fair one
GoD I want to kill whoever came up with this wording on the rejection letters. 1000s of HR people and they use the same shitty letter
It’s a food safety quality technician. I’m sure their turnover is about the same as McDonald’s. They just figured they didn’t need an attitude to begin with.
Bingo
I interviewed for the same exact position within about 2ish years. Got the job the second time and it’s been an amazing job all things considered. Didn’t even mention it in the interview at all. Some people just want to force failure and whine about it.
Looking at this person’s posting history, she seems to be a pain in the ass in general. The confrontational tone she exhibited in the emails comes across in her comments here too. I wouldn’t bring her in for an interview either.
Well, you mentioned that they interviewed you last year and did not offer you the role. Now, maybe that was not on their radar. Sometimes that can be a bad strategy, because some recruiters or hiring managers will never hire someone that was rejected previously, even if that was three years ago.
JFC, recruiters are too inept to even use AI. It's still cut/paste with them.
Okay I'm going to play devils advocate here, but when you mentioned that you interviewed with them previously they would have checked those previous interview notes, and whatever they found there most likely made them reject you. It could be anything, so not necessarily even experience related. Also, job roles get reposted all the time. A company I'm working with is recruiting for the exact same position a year later, but that's simply because the last person they filled the position with got a promotion, and so now they need a replacement.
This right here. Also for other roles since they have a high turnover, lets say customer service job that is mininum wage, They keep posts up to get more people to hire once they let go or people leave the company
Why would you ask that before the interview instead of during?
"I've never seen a company reject someone without interviewing all their candidates first" - man applying for his first job
also they did interview him before, so maybe they checked their notes and realised why he wasn't hiored the first time so rejected him again
Sure their organisation sucks. But to be fair your reply was too aggressive for anything positive to come out of it. If you weren't interested in the position anymore and you just wanted to blow some steam, that's another story.
Don’t ever question. Not even subtly. If you don’t like the role, go somewhere else or go back to school or start your own business. It is silly and stupid and I hate it too, but you as the employee have zero to little power. The only real power you have is to vote with your feet and go somewhere else.
Nah! Voting with your feet requires knowledge. If one can't ask basic hiring or employment questions, then they're already & fully a slave...
At a company I previously worked for, we did periodically for a person on staff with a green card. The job was posted everywhere online and in papers, and the job was always miraculously filled by an in-house employee. The job offer would look normal but there was always the one random item in the job description that was catered to the employee.
I believe certain companies to meet certain regulations have to still post the job publically even if they have an internal employee lined up for the job. It's stupid but it happens as it is more along like someone from 1 department swapping to another it has to be open to the public for interviews as well. I could also be wrong but i have seen that stuff too
Well, Mya, Mya, Mya.
Or because they realized they already rejected you previously Either way it sucks And very odd company name
Wow those results are really messed up..i can’t believe so many companies do this crap
That’s why if they didn’t hire me the first time I’ll never interview there again
This is me. I black list that business. I have a list of do not apply companies. Never understood interviewing for the same company again.
not even an interview? they werent even looking then, just getting stats for kpi's
Funnily enough, I just got rejected after having the interview set up, they cancelled the interview a day before it was supposed to happen. They said that they are only hiring people with a full drivers licence, which was really dumb because the job is a static security position in one building, no need to go to other sites and the job is within a 20 minute walk from my home. It was the dumbest reason I'd ever heard of to cancel an interview.
Recruiters can ask us why we are unemployed but god forbid we ask them
except OP shot themselves in the foot here why tell a company you interviewed with them before. Companies keep data from interviews and saying that will prompt them to go back and see what was said and why you where rejected.
Yes, I agree..
I always give this example and will share it again. If we get 200 applications and reach out to the 10 that actually qualify typically 3 will say sure let’s jump on a call and 2 will ask questions. Questions are not a bad thing. But if 3 get right on a call they are probably getting hired before I have to spend time being questioned before meeting you. I do agree with others that it can be a legit question. But the approach was condescending. You keep applying for a reason. So apparently want to work there. So, you have to play the game. Get on the phone. Have a strong call and then ask the tough questions. It could very well be that they promote quickly so the job is often open. Maybe they transfer people often? Maybe the job or company sucks and no one stays. But those are questions you get to know the before asking.
It's a small company, so I highly doubt they promote or transfer people often.
Maybe not. But you can’t know for sure. Heck maybe it’s high schoolers or college kids and they move on because of school. Who ever knows. But by speculating or insinuating there is an issue before getting in there you are shooting yourself in the foot. Stop applying if you don’t like it being reopened. lol
You think high schoolers and college students are working as quality control technicians?
I am honestly not sure what level of experience that role requires. If it’s a tiny restaurant group I would assume not much experience is needed as they wouldn’t be able to pay well compared to their counterparts. But, I can’t know until I can get all of the details. So I would get on the call.
It requires a bachelors degree.
Noted. So no, not high school students. We’ve ruled one possibility out. It could also be the company sucks or their standards suck and any self respecting QC tech leaves. But, my point stands. You took yourself out of the running by questioning them prior to a call and it’s not surprising. I’m not judging you. It’s a legitimate question. You took the risk and it didn’t pay off. Or it did because you dodged a bullet!
I know it goes against the mindset here but I would have canceled too. I've filled positions where they didn't work out, transferred to a similar internal position, or had new positions created. All those instances would have caused the same position to be posted again. OP just comes across as confrontational and abrasive. Definitely not a good fit for a team
I agree. While there's nothing actually \*wrong\* with that question, you're signaling you're a pain in the ass relative to the stack of resumes who are grateful to be receiving a call. Speaking from experience. I got bounced from a role at a $500 MM Series E startup (many, many rounds of funding without an IPO or viable business) after asking their CFO if they were cash flow positive. That's akin to asking a sixth-year college senior whose been living off their trust fund when they're going to get a real job. Probably not a topic they want to discuss..... Right question, by the way. They ran out of cash and had massive layoffs.
Does "confrontational and abrasive" mean asking a question you don't want to answer?
That's exactly what it means.
Nope. It's about how and when the question is asked. It could have been worded much better as someone else here mentioned. Also, that's a question to ask at the interview, not to whomever is managing the postings. There's no benefit from asking at that time or in that way before even getting a foot in the door.
That wasnt asking a question it was basically saying "I applied for this job last year and interviewed didnt get the job and it is still open did you actually fill the role?" OP didn't consider there could have bene an internal promotion the person quit because they got a better offer etc. Also mentioning you interviewed at a company you where rejected at prompted a look at interview notes and there could be something in that as a reason they rejected OP
I agree there is a time & place for that question, my instinct when i red it was me as yours. But & it is a legitimate question, just one i would have covered at teh interview as it would allow for better context / tone. Messages don't always project / get picked up in the right way.
Agreed. It's definitely a question that should be asked but some things just work better face-to-face
If this is considered 'confrontational and abrasive', then I seriously question the sensitivity of recruiters. I've been interviewing with the same 'confrontational and abrasive' type questioning and still manage to get 6 figure jobs. Wild the type of label you put on this. I find it rather alarming that the discrepancy of the hiring timelime OP expressed is overlooked and you decided to react to what are otherwise transparent questions.
“NoT a GrEaT fIt” Sounds like the team is made up of massive pussies to be honest. Grow a pair
The company is messing with you. Apply elsewhere. Anyone who treats their prospective employees like this is not worth the time and effort. I get rejections all the time but they're silent and never vocalized. What country do you live in, OP? Where I live, the job market is crap, and so is the economy. Even with a Master's degree, I'm still having trouble.
"Decided to hire a candidate that more closely aligns with the needs of the position" aka "Candidate is asking too many questions. Recind offer to interview! Independent thought alarm! 🚨"
Do you not know how to reply to emails professionally? I would have cancelled the interview too
I've seen many ideas about why recruiters post fake job ads and interview people for jobs that don't exist. One thing I haven't seen people talk about is recruiters interviewing candidates for jobs that don't exist in order to train entry-level recruiters. What better way to train new recruiters than interviewing candidates when there are no stakes involved.
For future reference, this is a question I would save for the hiring manager.
Or at the very least just ask why the position is open. Don't reference anything from the past application.
Happy Cake Day!
Lmfao..."So what happened to the last guy" "Yeah you ask too much"
>Hi I actually interviewed with your company last year \[Congratulations, you played yourself\].gif
Kind of an aggro email. Why did you send it like that?
I got an interview request and then a "it's not us it's you" email. Turns out they hit the wrong template and they called wondering where I was. Hopeful that this is you too.
Great question!!! I’ll remember it!
You’ve never seen a company reject you without interviewing everyone first?
You shot yourself in the foot there. Frankly I think in their position I would probably decide not to move forward either. They don't need to explain their hiring policies to you. I understand the frustration and the sense that people are just doing bullshit interviews, But it's entirely plausible that somebody got hired, got fired, quit, who knows, or they need an extra person for any number of reasons, or somebody else in the team left... And at this point I'm just thinking to myself " why am I going to bother to deal with this person, who's already raising problems, when I've got 15 other qualified candidates". This isn't recruiting hell, this is you giving them an excuse to not bother with you.
🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩
Hr pretending to actually do some work.
Lmfao..."So what happened to the last guy" "Yeah you ask too much"
I just had an interview at a small family owned large scale cow farm repair thing. During it he said there’s currently only 2 of them working and they could use another set of hands. They then never called back. Understandable it happens. But then 2 weeks later I see they are posting for a supervisor position. No way these guys actually are going to hire a supervisor. That’s when I knew the job I interviewed for was never going to get filled
I read just recently that a lot of job postings companies make a fake and just intended to gather resumes in case it is useful later. Apparently 70% of companies think that is completely ethical. I think it should be illegal to post a job that you are not actually intending to hire for. If found guilty you should have to pay EVERY person that applied for wasting their time.
Damn that mysterious unicorn candidate always ruining things...
>Strange. I've never seen a company reject someone without interviewing all their candidates first. That happens all the time. >Interviewer cancels interview after I ask them if they have hired anyone in the past year I love this question, though. 😁
At this point this resembles more to Vicky's gimmicks aiming at manipulating you by threatening you not getting invited to her birthday... it's all petty: "I got my new best friend to take your place at my fabulous party."
wow that's a total dbag move.
Last year a recruiter hit me up and I had an interview for a job I knew I wasn’t quite up to snuff with qualifications wise. They told me they didn’t hire me because they unexpectedly ran out of budget. Okaaaay. Next year a new recruiter contacts me for a similar sounding job in the same town. I ask if it’s the same place and told them I interviewed with them last year and I’m a lot more qualified now. Ghosted. Should you just tell the recruiters you’ve never interviewed with their client before and see what happens? Are they just always going to drop you otherwise? What’s up with that?
Or they set up interview out of your travel range and job location have you show up interview and then ghost you recently this happened to me I’ve pretty much vowed to not travel outside of where the job is located for interviews anymore.
Dodged a bullet it sounds like.
Happened to me a few months ago. I applied for a role, got an email invitation for an interview, on the morning of the interview I got a rejection email. They told me that the hiring team decided to hire someone else. I was like WTF!!! It seems that recruiters are on one planet and hiring managers on the other. They have no idea what the actual fuck they’re doing.
I mean I just looked them up and they have 5000 employees so maybe JUST maybe they have more than one food safety tech? I don’t know that was a very self sabotage message you sent. Just take the interview next time?
The one in SF that I applied to only had around 50 employees.
Butt hurt recruiter or you actually sucked in your interview the first time around and recruiter wasn’t aware until you mentioned it that you’d already been interviewed for the role at a point previously
Which aspect of the content policy did OP violate?
What were you even hoping to gain by asking that question? > I've never seen a company reject someone without interviewing all their candidates first. The whole process is an interview. Companies will drop you at any step if you become an undesirable candidate.
What company is this? That's insane behavior. Help us steer clear of that shit pile.
It's in the screen shots. Flying Food Group.
Thanks Grandma Fupa. You may be going senile but your eyes are better than mine.
It is far from insane. It is pretty explainable. The guy was passive aggressive.
It's amazing these people are surprised they can't get hired.
You need to contact corporate and report that shit.
A red flag anyway
Maybe it is because instead of agreeing to an interview you questioned their methods, leaving a bitter taste in their mouth? You already interviewed, you knew what you were going into and could have been a successful candidate this round - now you’ll never know.
Hey OP! I believe it was the way that you responded to the initial email. You could sense she was a bit bothered by your approach with the way she responded to the inquiry. When I read your reply I was a bit taken aback as well because it seemed offensive to respond in such a manner. To question why the role is available and if they ever hired anyone to begin with added to the tone of your email was a bit obtuse. I wish you all the best in your employment search and urge you to be a bit more mindful when responding to emails; also save the additional inquiries for the in person interview once you have built a rapport and the interviewer asks you if you have any questions for them. Hope this was insightful and Good Luck!
She has the right to inquire. Interview questioning is NOT a one-way street. In fact, nothing is. Interviews are for BOTH candidates and employers to see if the other party is the right fit. Also, it's not like she wasn't going to figure out the answer to her questions if they gave her the job.
The person does, but it's the tone and approach taken that matters more. A simple question of "why is the job open?" should be enough without the need for referencing previous applications or questioning if they filled the role.
You can't accurately assume tone through text, so that's irrelevant. The semantics shouldn't matter either unless they're E.B White. This a food service company not a professional writers league. It also makes sense to ask if the role had been filled so she can understand why the previous candidate failed and understand how she can do better than they did. They could've easily answered her questions a professional and informative manner rather than blatantly disregarding her.
Again there are better ways to ask about that without making it being perceived as bad. Assuming that the role was filled and the person left or was fired an easy way to get that information is to ask the hiring manager "what do feel the department is lacking" and they tailor how you can assist the department with that need.
You may not accurately be able to assume tone through text but it’s absolutely not irrelevant. Also it’s not that hard to read through what you write and think about how someone else might perceive it. It’s not hard or time consuming (just annoying) to write something similar in a much more neutral tone or in a way that doesn’t come across as confrontational.
I agree that the candidate has the right to inquiry; it’s the method by which this is done that sets the precedence! The emails presented in my opinion showed OP in a less than favorable light and in my opinion the questions and the inquisition could have been saved for the after interview conversation once OP deemed they were truly the right fit. OP’s time to determine the company would be a right fit was during the application process. It’s just the way I saw the scenario play out.
I agree that the questions could have been asked later, but they're still the right questions to ask. Questions that they should be prepared to answer. If they felt put on the spot through an email and refused to answer, how are they going to feel or respond once she asks them later in person?
I just believe that this recruiting email exchange wasn’t the right time to have that dialogue but rather with the hiring manager that was conducting the interview! They would be better suited to answer this questioning but May did respond with we are adding an additional role so she didn’t not respond to the question. It just seemed to portray a sense of entitlement and passive aggression from the way I read it and it seems the HR generalist inquired within and management agreed based on the email. Just my take on it!
I did agree to an interview. We were scheduled for Tuesday, but they canceled.
Maybe they pulled up your old interview notes.
Not sure why this is getting downvoted. Thats likely what happened. He asks the questions, she then asks if he still wants to go ahead. She then obviously checked the interview notes, and considered the passive aggressive questions, and decided 2nd time around he is not a good fit.
You agreed to the interview after you played Sherlock Holmes and got shut down.
They still asked if I wanted to come for an interview after I asked why the position was still open, and I said yes.
Sounds like you played it perfectly 👍
People are pure evil. How can someone like that look themselves in the mirror?