Standard recruiting practice?
-
@mike-davis said in Standard recruiting practice?:
I must have missed something in the details. Looking at what the OP wrote nothing tells me it was a blatant scam.
They called him for an interview for one position. Didn't tell him that the position was not available up front. Then after the interview only offered a different, lower position. <- This is the blatant scam.
There are loads of conditions where the position he had wanted might have been filled, but none of them in an honest scenario would have resulted in the situation that arose here. And the crazy outlandish scenarios that could be contrived to try to explain it would have resulted, reasonably, in the recruiter mentioning it as it happened, not ignoring that it happened.
I don't see any reasonable grey area here. It's as clear a scam as it gets.
-
What we have no reason to believe:
- That the L2 position ever existed.
- That the L2 position was filled already.
Are those things possible? Of course. But even if there was one, and it was filled, that should not result in the situation that arose here.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Standard recruiting practice?:
What we have no reason to believe:
- That the L2 position ever existed.
- That the L2 position was filled already.
Are those things possible? Of course. But even if there was one, and it was filled, that should not result in the situation that arose here.
Nothing in that post makes me assume the position does not exist, you are making assumptions yourself.
-
@jaredbusch said in Standard recruiting practice?:
@scottalanmiller said in Standard recruiting practice?:
What we have no reason to believe:
- That the L2 position ever existed.
- That the L2 position was filled already.
Are those things possible? Of course. But even if there was one, and it was filled, that should not result in the situation that arose here.
Nothing in that post makes me assume the position does not exist, you are making assumptions yourself.
I never said that it didn't. Never insinuated anything of the sort. I made no assumption. The assumption here is one you made of something you think I said but did not.
I only said that the situation was a bait and switch, I've never suggested that the position never existed or even doesn't exist currently.
-
@scottalanmiller yes you did.
@scottalanmiller said in Standard recruiting practice?:
@mike-davis said in Standard recruiting practice?:
I must have missed something in the details. Looking at what the OP wrote nothing tells me it was a blatant scam.
They called him for an interview for one position. Didn't tell him that the position was not available up front. Then after the interview only offered a different, lower position. <- This is the blatant scam.
Right there. Emphasis mine.
You have no idea that his is the fact that you are stating it is.
It is a fact that they did not offer the position he thought he was applying for.
-
@jaredbusch said in Standard recruiting practice?:
@scottalanmiller yes you did.
@scottalanmiller said in Standard recruiting practice?:
@mike-davis said in Standard recruiting practice?:
I must have missed something in the details. Looking at what the OP wrote nothing tells me it was a blatant scam.
They called him for an interview for one position. Didn't tell him that the position was not available up front. Then after the interview only offered a different, lower position. <- This is the blatant scam.
Right there. Emphasis mine.
You have no idea that his is the fact that you are stating it is.
It is a fact that they did not offer the position he thought he was applying for.
That was based on Mike's assumption that it was no longer available as an excuse for giving him the interview anyway.
-
@mike-davis said in Standard recruiting practice?:
It's kind of like a rental car place. They rent out their smallest cars first. Then if someone shows up with a reservation for a compact and you don't have any left, you know you can "upgrade them for free" in to a mid sized car.
He was trying to suggest that maybe the position was gone, and that they could give him an interview anyway. My point was that if that were true, they should have told him up front, not done the interview and act like he was getting considered for a different position.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Standard recruiting practice?:
That was based on Mike's assumption that it was no longer available as an excuse for giving him the interview anyway.
I don't see where I made that assumption. I think I did the opposite of making assumptions. I tried to come up with different scenarios in which the events could have played out where it wasn't a bait and switch.
-
@mike-davis said in Standard recruiting practice?:
@scottalanmiller said in Standard recruiting practice?:
That was based on Mike's assumption that it was no longer available as an excuse for giving him the interview anyway.
I don't see where I made that assumption. I think I did the opposite of making assumptions. I tried to come up with different scenarios in which the events could have played out where it wasn't a bait and switch.
Maybe assumption was the wrong word. Suggestion?
The problem is, every scenario comes down to bait and switch - there are several pathways to get there, but they all lead to the same thing. They all have one position advertised, and another offered to be considered after the fact. None of them were up front at the start of the interview that the position was filled, or didn't exist, or wasn't what they had brought him in for. All scenarios involve him being lured in and applying for one position, interviewing for that position, then being told he'd be considered for another with no excuses or mention of the position that they had just interviewed for until they were called on it.
-
There are several options as to how this happened that are plausible, which is what I was saying with me "what we don't know."
- The L2 job never existed and was entirely fake to lure people to the L1.
- The L2 job did exist at some point, but got filled after being advertised and they went along with it until after the interview.
- The L2 job did exist and still exists, but they were not considering him for it but let him think that they were to get him to do the interview.
Three reasonable options that are all totally plausible. But all result in some degree of bait and switch.
-
The non-B&S scenarios seem unreasonable...
- The position was open at the start of the interview, but closed during the interview and they felt bad so considered him for a lower position: but didn't mention that this happened and were going to ignore such a huge thing having happened. Physically possible, but completely unreasonable to assume.
- They did the interview for the L2, but the non-technical person decided to change the tech level without talking to a tech person. Also not reasonable, and possibly still B&S even if this is what happened.
Is there a scenario where someone applies for too senior of a position and could legitimately get offered something more junior? Yes, but it would be discussed, it would be open and honest, and it would happen at a technical level not a recruiter screening. It's insanely unlikely in the real world, but could happen. But it would never happen like this, where it was done by an unqualified person, silently with no one discussing it until called on for it.
