Options
Job offer received... but should I have mentioned this at the interview?
![[Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/f2a7307e84dd26b24186bcc5ac467216.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 3 Forum Member
So I recently found out that I got offered a job, despite knowing at the time of applying that I wouldn’t be able to do the exact hours that are required for the role (this was stated on the job description). Didn’t think I would get it in all honesty but now I feel a little guilty for not having told them about it earlier, especially as they mentioned the hours again at the interview. Essentially, the difference is that I would need to start slightly later (half an hour) than the shift start time on both days, due to other commitments in the morning.
The reason I didn’t mention it, despite obviously being aware of the hours, was because I wanted to see how I would fare on the basis of my performance at the interview alone; I didn’t want my need for flexibility to be a reason for them not to consider me for the role. In short, I wanted to see if I could get the job offer without that being a factor and probably also thought that I could possibly negotiate the hours in the event of an offer.
Of course, I didn’t lie but is omitting or neglecting to divulge information that may be critical to the decision-making process tantamount to dishonesty? Or is it just ‘playing the game’? I mean that in the sense of: now that I know they ‘want’ me, I’m going to test the extent of that by seeing how flexible they’re willing to be, or how much of a compromise they’re willing to give. At the same time, I don’t really like this business of gaining leverage over people in the balance of power.
Apologies if any of this sounds naïve on my part. Just wanted to ask for some advice as getting a job offer on these terms doesn’t sit too comfortably with me.
The reason I didn’t mention it, despite obviously being aware of the hours, was because I wanted to see how I would fare on the basis of my performance at the interview alone; I didn’t want my need for flexibility to be a reason for them not to consider me for the role. In short, I wanted to see if I could get the job offer without that being a factor and probably also thought that I could possibly negotiate the hours in the event of an offer.
Of course, I didn’t lie but is omitting or neglecting to divulge information that may be critical to the decision-making process tantamount to dishonesty? Or is it just ‘playing the game’? I mean that in the sense of: now that I know they ‘want’ me, I’m going to test the extent of that by seeing how flexible they’re willing to be, or how much of a compromise they’re willing to give. At the same time, I don’t really like this business of gaining leverage over people in the balance of power.
Apologies if any of this sounds naïve on my part. Just wanted to ask for some advice as getting a job offer on these terms doesn’t sit too comfortably with me.
0
Comments
WIthout knowing the job, it is hard to say, but
How would you make up time?
How does it fit with the rest of the team - could they do their jobs one down?
What happens when they finish and the next lot start?
I really wouldn't advise that you tell them the truth about always knowing that you couldn't do the hours. It really won't make them want to take you on because rightly or wrongly they will have doubts about your honesty.
However it works out well done on being offered the job. Good luck :-)
As far as changing the hours it would depend how much they want you and if its practical to work different hours.
For most people the company will simply find someone that can do the hours.
Where i work i take over from someone and as we work alone me not being able to do the hours they advertised would then have a knock on effect to the next person and the next etc
If they were advertising for a certain shift then you might find they cannot accommodate this, If they are advertising for a new person in general they may give you some manoeuvring room
I would not turn up and then just tell them. Depending on the exact job it might be that they just can't accommodate you. Or maybe they'll have no problem.
Me personally as an employer I would immediately fire you unless this is a specialist position and blacklist you for wasting company time.
Why? you have been offered a job on their terms not yours.
They are in the balance of power, they have offered a job under their terms not yours.
You really believe you can force their hand, good luck with that. You have no bargaining power.
New user and first post
OP posted at 22.35
Desperation is not a good look.:cool:
Well I've not actually accepted the offer yet. If I had accepted the offer knowing that I couldn't have done the agreed shift times and not disclosed this information, I appreciate that would be worse and I would understand if they were to withdraw the offer in those circumstances.
Also, it's not a commitment that I've recently taken on either. To give a bit of context, I'm a student with a part-time job that I've had since last year, which involves working mornings and I'm looking to carry on working in this job so compromising on this is out of the question. The experience from that job is quite relevant to this job so naturally, I did mention this job at the interview. However, I wasn't sure whether the 2 people interviewing me had actually read my CV; it seemed like the HR people did the initial shortlisting for the interview and then the interviewers just had a list of pre-set questions to ask on which to base their decision. They would surely have questioned me on my ability to do the exact hours given what I'd mentioned about my current job in the interview and the fact that it would have been obvious from my CV that I'm still doing that job.
Anyhow, they said they would get back to me yesterday regarding a decision and I'm still waiting so I guess they might see the situation as some of you are seeing it.
It's not up to them to question you about whether you are able to work the hours. Assuming you were aware what the hours were at the time of the interview, THEY would expect that you had taken that into account when applying for the job.
As others have said, this is not necessarily the case. When I interviewed for my current job, I had difficulty attending the second interview because I was relocating from 200 miles away. They were keen on me, so were flexible to ensure they got me. Shift work doesn't necessarily mean an employee is doing a job anyone could do with dozens of replacements waiting in the wings who is as good as the person they want.
When I came on here asking advice about negotiating a payrise, a few people unhelpfully decided that I was an expendable cog in the company and said any negotiation would mean I was out on my arse - as it happens, my boss said I was immensely valuable to the company and gave me a payrise in excess of what I would have negotiated for without me even asking!
Back to the actual advice - OP, I think it was disingenuous to complete the interview process, whatever that entailled, without informing them of your circumstances. I understand your wish to have honest feedback from them as to your suitability for the role regardless of your circumstances, but not informing them at any stage is a risky game to play if you are actually genuinely interested in taking the role itself.
If you are genuinely invested in the role, you need to say now that you've had an unfortunate change of circumstances and that you can't make that half hour. Then draw a line under any further dishonesty and treat with them fairly and openly. If they are unable to be flexible for you that's something you have to accept as a risk you took, and if they are unwilling to be flexible you have to consider that you brought it upon yourself to a certain extent.
A big part of asking people to be flexible is being prepared to be flexible yourself.
Were you perhaps unconfident of securing a job 'honestly', perhaps if you're returning to work? I'm afraid your working restrictions are part and parcel of the package, and you need to address them confidently in future rather than hiding away then negotiating.
My firm sees working parents (for example, if these are your circumstances) as a boon because 1) they usually need the money and want a longer-term commitment than somebody career building and 2) they won't want to work school holidays, and since most of our work is direct with schools we don't need them during the holidays.
It would have indeed been obvious from your cv that you currently had a job, many (if not most) people applying for a job already have a job but they want to change it. The natural assumption is that if you offered them a job they would hand in their notice on the one they currently had. It would be an extremely unusual event for an interviewer to go out of their way to ask "just to check will you be leaving your other job when you get this one?".
Job descriptions generally come with a description of how many hours and when and where you'll be working. Anyone sending in an application for the job is basically saying that they can meet all those requirements. If they can't they should at least mention it during the interview. After being offered a full time job in London with one Saturday a month is not the time to suddenly mention that you have no transport and your village has rubbish public transport, you can't work mornings and have a permanent Saturday job you intend to keep.
As well as seeing the above myself I've also seen it several times in the case of women who have "unexpectedly" become pregnant a month or two after securing a new job or a promotion. The immediate comments of their new managers aren't of joy and happiness but that they "knew damn well" that they were already pregnant or were trying their hardest to become so when they were interviewed.
To be fair in one case they were right, because she told me.
Funnily enough, I've recently applied for a job that I sincerely was interested in, but I knew that my boyfriend might be losing his job soon. The job I applied for wouldn't pay as much as my current job, so if he had lost his job, I'd have stayed for the better wage until he was back on track (not that they offered it to me
OP - Rorschach is entirely right about the interview process - forgive me, but you seem a little naive about how these processes work? Or did you perhaps mean that you made your intention to stay in your current role clear to the HR people and expect them to pass it on to the final interviewers? And were you explicitly clear? Did you for example say that you were staying in your current job, but not make clear that the hours clashed? Or is a degree of flexibility a standard component of the type of work you're in?
When we recruited a few weeks ago, we stated the potential flexibility in the job advert and requested information as to what hours each candidate would be able to do when we interviewed them, but we opened the dialogue by putting the flexibility into the advert. There's no reason to suppose that a company posting specific shifts in their adverts will be flexible and their default assumption will be that you can do the hours if you've applied for them.
As a recruiter these sort of things don't sit comfortably with us. Also the other employees will see a new joiner getting what they could see as preferential treatment which won't go down well.
You went on a fishing trip to see if you could get the job, you did and had the option to turn it down.
I think this response is too harsh. I have often found on forums that people react in a bizarrely extreme manner - it seems people have to be very polarised in their opinions sometimes on the internet rather than looking at things from a normal, rational, and reasonable perspective.
The OP hasn't even accepted the offer yet, and no-one has been robbed of anything. Even if the OP accepts the job but then the hours cannot be accommodated, the panel will most likely go to their first reserve and offer them the job. There's a chance that candidate may have been offered another job in the meantime, but there's also a high chance they haven't and would still be delighted to accept.
Whatever the other employees might have issues with is no concern to someone new; you negotiate/accept the terms of your role directly with your line manager/higher up and if other employees have problems with that it's up to them to raise an issue (or indeed to have [already] asked for flexibility in hours if that's what they wanted, for example).
OP: I am slightly confused as to your circumstances but may not have read your posts thoroughly enough. You already have a very part-time role in the morning that you don't wish to give up. The job you've been offered overlaps by half an hour. Plus you are a student, so presumably the rest of your time is spent on classes/studying. Was your intention always to get another job in the afternoons to supplement your morning wage? Or is all of this somehow tied in to your studies? How important is the afternoon job (the one that's been offered) to you in terms of the content/type of job - is it only the start time that's problematic?
As people have said I think it will be highly dependent on the nature of the role (e.g. whether it's an office job where a start time can more easily be moved versus a centre where you have to clock in/out at specific times with the rest of your shift). There are lots of other options for flexible working as people have mentioned - e.g. making the time up at lunch, staying late, or perhaps just reducing your contract overall - but all of these are dependent on other factors (e.g. cover needed) and again the type of role/organisation.
Personally I do think flexibility should be a key factor in the workplace and there is normally always a way around someone's other commitments, but I am looking at this from my HR perspective in a large organisation whereas a smaller and more operational company may find it harder to implement.
Recruiters are the biggest liars in business (other than estate agents and football agents). The guaranteed bonus that isn't, the on call that is not mentioned, the job that is a 'perfect match' and wastes your time as a candidate etc.
On the candidate side, many people seem to turn down a new role after extorting more from their current employer - but with 2 year interviews (you can be sacked without repercussion within this period as I understand it) to an extent I understand the dog eat dog world of recruitment on both sides.
Remember the 2 years and the probation period mind you if you take this role.
Is not blacklisting highly illegal ?
Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010