do i have the job

timetogetfit

I did an interview last week for a big multinational company they called me 2 days later and now I have to go have a medical and they want 2 refs off me too?

aidan_walsh

Not necessarily. The medical and references are likely being used to weed out the last candidates.

colly10

timetogetfit wrote: »

I did an interview last week for a big multinational company they called me 2 days later and now I have to go have a medical and they want 2 refs off me too?

Ye you have the job providing your references arn't bad

giveth

I asked the exact same question here 4 years ago. And I did get the job!

timetogetfit

[The medical and references are likely being used to weed out the last candidates/QUOTE]

so what if all or most the canditates pass the ref check and medical

pow wow

It's more likely you have it than you haven't. If they are putting other people through medicals etc then the final decision would be based on your interview etc. You could very well be the only one, I can't imagine they are in the business of mass medical testing at their expense.

MIN2511

You have the job, Congrats!
Most times these companies don't bother to check your refs tbh. I would say the medical is all you need.

ArthurDent

MIN2511 wrote: »

You have the job, Congrats!
Most times these companies don't bother to check your refs tbh. I would say the medical is all you need.

that's a fairly sweeping statement - lots may not check out references - but lots do and if they don't pan out or if something shows up in medical you may not be offered job - not 100% till you've signed contract.

still being asked for ref and to do med if very positive and all things being equal you'll be offered job.

Lux23

Im wondering the same thing too. I recently did a fone interview, then on site interview and then I was called back again to speak with the Head of Department in what was called an informal coffee meeting. Now I was told I would hear early on in the week and its nearly 4.30 on tuesday and not a peep.

veryangryman

Good topic. Heres my experience...

Couple of years ago i applied for a job in April. Heard nothing back for 6-7 weeks. Then a call to interview. I couldnt do it on the days they wanted cos i was off to Paris for the week. I was like "fukc" cos i really wanted this job.

Thankfully they agreed to reconsider the date of interview and put it forward to the Friday prior to my trip. I did a decent interview and they seemed impressed. A few days later, while in EuroDisney watching The Lion King in the theatre, i got a call asking about refs/medical. I was like "WOW". I asked the woman on the phone if it meant i got the job, and she formally said "This is the next step of the process. I cannot say any more at this time" or something like that...

So, when home again, did the medical, gave reference contact info (they DID call them cos one of the referees let me know). Weeks past and i had chewed my fingernails through even more so than normal! I rang their HR who said "Well, im not allowed say, but just between you and me, id be optimistic". Few days later, job confirmed.

The whole process took 14 weeks. To cut a long story short, i dont think that a company would waste money sending people on a medical if they didnt deem them suited for the job. Reference checks are reference checks - if you impressed your referees then theyd have no reason to knock you. If i was a bookie, id offer odds of 1/100 that you got the job.

Hope you do. This thread brings back some happy memories!

Good luck!

mikeruurds

My experience would be that them paying for you to go for a medical is a fairly good indicator that the formal offer will follow shortly.

Most companies won't waste time and money checking medicals for the whole shortlist.

How Strange

I'd agree and say its 98% in the bag. For my job my references were checked and then I went for a medical and got a call first thing the next morning offereing me the job. When I am recruiting I wouldn't send a candidate for a medical if I didn't want them for the job.

BossArky

Unless you are joining a Premiership football team I'd say the medical is merely a formality.

From my own experience: I have always had the obligatory medical when starting a new job. Most of the time they are merely a screening process to see what type of people are joining and if any are disabled in not so obvious ways. This ties in with eqaul opportunities employment.

Congrats!

timetogetfit

it looks as though I didnt get the job .Its been 2 weeks since the medical and I havent heard anything.I sent the hr person an email last tuesday and she replied saying she was still waiting one one of my references and would get back that evening or wednesday.Do you think I should give here a ring?

MIN2511

First thing tomorrow morning, RING her.

stepbar

HR people are a useless pile of cnuts, the equivalent of workplace "politicans" - promise plenty but deliver fcuk all. Back on topic, there's are fairly good chance that you are going to get the job. How in ever, nothing would suprise me. Keep looking for jobs in the meantime because at the end of the day these people wouldn't hesitate to drop you like a hot potato.

timetogetfit

I just found out I did not get the job. I was just sent an email stating that they had found a stonger candidate.This is very soul destroying and I am very disapointed.I mean who puts someone through a medical and checks references and then turns around and says sorry we have found a stronger candidate I mean shouldnt the recruitment process be over before a medical and ref checks are done.And to top it off I had to chase them down to get feedback.I am half thinking of writing to the hr manager and letting them know how I feel

cronos

timetogetfit wrote: »

I just found out I did not get the job. I was just sent an email stating that they had found a stonger candidate.This is very soul destroying and I am very disapointed.I mean who puts someone through a medical and checks references and then turns around and says sorry we have found a stronger candidate I mean shouldnt the recruitment process be over before a medical and ref checks are done.And to top it off I had to chase them down to get feedback.I am half thinking of writing to the hr manager and letting them know how I feel

Thats seriously bad form of the HR like. If the candidate was stronger in the interview then you should have been let know then. If they had better references you should have been let know at that stage. The only reason I think you should not get the job in this case is if their was an issue that arose within the medical. Did they give you any more feedback than "we found a stronger candidate". Id say something to the HR people myself, but remember you could be burning bridges. But by the sounds of it that isnt a bridge you should be looking to use anyway.

MIN2511

Deepest apologies, i thought you got the job. They shouldn't have put yu through all of that if they were considering someone else. I think a polite email asking for feedback is in order

timetogetfit

all they said was that they had found a stonger candidate and would not be progressing with my application

stepbar

Nothing suprises me with HR.

leeroybrown

I could understand using a reference check and medical to help decide between two candidates when an interview panel are unable to decide but coming back to say that they had found a stronger candidate is a little much. Surely if they had a 'stronger' candidate then they wouldn't have put someone through a medical and particularly a reference check where they will probably contacted the candidate's current employer.

colly10

Thats really bad form, id be surprised if your references were good. Personally id be pretty annoyed if someone contacted my references if the result did not depend on me getting the job. You don't want people hassling your references for no reason, but as said, HR tend to be jokers

kravmaga

timetogetfit wrote: »

it looks as though I didnt get the job .Its been 2 weeks since the medical and I havent heard anything.I sent the hr person an email last tuesday and she replied saying she was still waiting one one of my references and would get back that evening or wednesday.Do you think I should give here a ring?

I would not ring her again, give your referees a shout outlining that you have applied for a position and the potential employeer may be in contact with them. Then you may find which one has or has not been contacted by th epotential employeer.

If you ring the HR department again it shows desperation, keep a cool head in this.

Keep up job hunting in the meantime..........

MIN2511

blueeyedboy wrote: »

I would not ring her again, give your referees a shout outlining that you have applied for a position and the potential employeer may be in contact with them. Then you may find which one has or has not been contacted by th epotential employeer.

If you ring the HR department again it shows desperation, keep a cool head in this.

Keep up job hunting in the meantime..........

I guess you haven't read the posts.... he didn't get the job!

Dudess

"Found a stronger candidate"? So there were more interviews held after the medicals? That's the only way they could have found a stronger candidate. It seems pretty unlikely. Is there no way a reference could have gone against you?

Lux23

I was going through something similar just recently although I have gotten the job, ive signed a contract although it still says its a conditional offer but they also sent me all the pension and healthcare stuff so i assume they are just covering themselves.

Its a bit ****ty of them to put you through all of that and then say your not good enough and without your prompting you may have heard nothing from them which is terrible practise.

Degsy

Sounds like he flunked the medical and they were trying to to be diplomatic about it.

GoneShootin

I'd ring em and quiz them more about it. It's true that you may burn the bridge, but what you could learn from trying to get the reason would benefit you for your next job application.

tbh

no, it was the OP's fault for assuming he had the job in the first place, sorry OP. I do a few interviews, and sometimes the strongest candidate doesn't want the job at the end. Rather than start the round of interviews all over again, we'd have a shortlist of say five, assuming all medicals and ref's checked out, we'd offer to the first, and if they didn't want it, the second etc. I'd say that's what happened in this case. OP, if you had rung the hr dept, they wouldn't have told you how likely you are to get the job, and this is why. Take anecdotal evidence with a pinch of salt in future.

leeroybrown

tbh wrote: »

no, it was the OP's fault for assuming he had the job in the first place, sorry OP. I do a few interviews, and sometimes the strongest candidate doesn't want the job at the end. Rather than start the round of interviews all over again, we'd have a shortlist of say five, assuming all medicals and ref's checked out, we'd offer to the first, and if they didn't want it, the second etc. I'd say that's what happened in this case. OP, if you had rung the hr dept, they wouldn't have told you how likely you are to get the job, and this is why. Take anecdotal evidence with a pinch of salt in future.

I've normally have quote a lot of sympathy for employers given the difficulty of recruiting but putting five people through the hassle of a full reference check and medical just to make life easier is a little shítty.

tbh

maybe, but it's also a good indicator as to whether they really want the job or not. We obviously don't force them to go through the process, they can withdraw at any time. And we make it clear to them that this doesn't mean they have the job. I can see your point mind you.

Dudess

Degsy wrote: »

Sounds like he flunked the medical and they were trying to to be diplomatic about it.

Why the need for a lame cover-up excuse though? Although "we've found a stronger candidate" just seems like a really implausible, cop-out type line.

Degsy

Dudess wrote: »

Why the need for a lame cover-up excuse though? Although "we've found a stronger candidate" just seems like a really implausible, cop-out type line.

MAybe they didnt want to hurt his feelings..

timetogetfit

Sounds like he flunked the medical and they were trying to to be diplomatic about it.

When you were born I wonder did your mother feign keeping the baby and actually keep the afterbirth

nesf

timetogetfit wrote: »

When you were born I wonder did your mother feign keeping the baby and actually keep the afterbirth

If you want to behave like a child do it elsewhere. This forum is for the adults to talk in. Your username is naturally going to draw such comments, you should expect it and get over it.


Degsy, quit baiting him.

eth0_

timetogetfit wrote: »

When you were born I wonder did your mother feign keeping the baby and actually keep the afterbirth

Banned for a week for abusing another poster.

DublinWriter

timetogetfit wrote: »

I just found out I did not get the job. I was just sent an email stating that they had found a stonger candidate.This is very soul destroying and I am very disapointed.

That's really odd.

Normally you're home-free if they ask you to do a medical and want to do a reference check.

Don't name names, but what size/type of company were they?

The only plausible explanation I can come up with is that something was seriously red-flagged by the GP who did the medical.

Normally these types of company medicals are just the standard fare, as long as you walk into the surgery and out again, you've passed.

Two things spring to mind, either they've taken a sample of your urine and found a trace of something naughty or the GP stated that you're morbidly obese. Could 'yes' be the answer to either of those points?

Degsy

DublinWriter wrote: »

the GP stated that you're morbidly obese. Could 'yes' be the answer to either of those points?

The OP stated in another thread that his GP had told him he needed a gastric band to control his weight.Presumably another GP would've come to the same conclusion and thus considered him,by reason of health,ineligible for the job.Thats the most likely reason wouldnt you say?

germurphy

By rights the company must provide you with more information than that. It's important to know if there was somehting that was highlighted in your references or medical for future applications. The company also must provide you with a copy of your file, including interview notes taken if you request them.

timetogetfit

The OP stated in another thread that his GP had told him he needed a gastric band to control his weight.Presumably another GP would've come to the same conclusion and thus considered him,by reason of health,ineligible for the job.Thats the most likely reason wouldnt you say?

Again as usual degsy you try and twist my words in an effort to put me down.What I actually said was the docter said if I didnt control my weight I was heading in the gastric band category.The doctor was wrong by the way

And my aim was to expose the BMI system of measurement as a very rigid method of measuring ones health in relation to there weight.

im 280lbs and 29% bodyfat if I was to get down to 5% bodyfat without gaining anymore muscle I would be 217lbs.But at 217lbs and 5% bodyfat which is contest bodybuilder shape under the BMI guideline I would still need to lose weight for my height.There is no distinction between what weight is fat and what weight is muscle

Now take a guy thats 200lbs and 29% bodyfat.He is as out of shape as the guy thats 280lbs but without the muscle but because his weight is within BMI guidelines than under BMI rules he is unhealthy

Does everyone see the point im making

timetogetfit

[By rights the company must provide you with more information than that. It's important to know if there was somehting that was highlighted in your references or medical for future applications. The company also must provide you with a copy of your file, including interview notes taken if you request them./QUOTE]

Where can I get more info on my rights on this issue

Supercell

germurphy wrote: »

By rights the company must provide you with more information than that. It's important to know if there was somehting that was highlighted in your references or medical for future applications. The company also must provide you with a copy of your file, including interview notes taken if you request them.

Ger, I really don't think that's the case, in my experience as long as they don't say anything derogatory and explain that they found a "better" candidate that that's all they need.

In this case where the potential employer has paid for a medical and then not offered the job ..I dunno, is a bit suss especially when the OP admits he's pretty overweight.
Good luck proving the weight was the deal breaker though, I think the OP should just chalk it down to experience and keep applying for other roles.
I assume from the nickname that he's working on the weight side of things already anyhow (not that that's a valid reason to not hire someone unless the role involves heavy work or a high standard of fitness by nature) and fair play to him if he is.

Degsy

timetogetfit wrote: »

Again as usual degsy you try and twist my words in an effort to put me down.What I actually said was the docter said if I didnt control my weight I was heading in the gastric band category.The doctor was wrong by the way

And my aim was to expose the BMI system of measurement as a very rigid method of measuring ones health in relation to there weight.

im 280lbs and 29% bodyfat if I was to get down to 5% bodyfat without gaining anymore muscle I would be 217lbs.But at 217lbs and 5% bodyfat which is contest bodybuilder shape under the BMI guideline I would still need to lose weight for my height.There is no distinction between what weight is fat and what weight is muscle

Now take a guy thats 200lbs and 29% bodyfat.He is as out of shape as the guy thats 280lbs but without the muscle but because his weight is within BMI guidelines than under BMI rules he is unhealthy

Does everyone see the point im making

So everybody is wrong but you?

watna

Just to put my 2C in. In my old job a few candidates failed their medicals beacuse they were classified as obese. The jobs required 75% travel so I think it had something to do with that. So it does happen.

nesf

Take it to PM you two.

As for obesity, yeah I can see how it would screw you in a medical.

Degsy

nesf wrote: »

Take it to PM you two.

As for obesity, yeah I can see how it would screw you in a medical.

Of course it would.It would have a knock-on effect with blood-pressure,heart rythm,blood sugar,breathing,circulation,mobility and general health.Hiring somebody morbidly obese would be detrimental to the company owing to far more time spent sick as well as problems performing certain tasks.

nesf

Degsy wrote: »

Of course it would.It would have a knock-on effect with blood-pressure,heart rythm,blood sugar,breathing,circulation,mobility and general health.Hiring somebody morbidly obese would be detrimental to the company owing to far more time spent sick as well as problems performing certain tasks.

The same argument (though different problems) applies to people with disabilities, such as physical ones and "hidden" ones, like bipolar, depression etc.

Degsy

nesf wrote: »

The same argument (though different problems) applies to people with disabilities, such as physical ones and "hidden" ones, like bipolar, depression etc.

Thats covered by equality legislation,obesity aint as its considered self-inflicted.

timetogetfit

So everybody is wrong but you?

Docters of sports medicine all agree that BMI is a very rigid method of measuring ones health in realtion to ones weight.

Bodyfat measurement using calipers is a much more accurate system of getting a clearer picture

nesf

timetogetfit wrote: »

Docters of sports medicine all agree that BMI is a very rigid method of measuring ones health in realtion to ones weight.

Bodyfat measurement using calipers is a much more accurate system of getting a clearer picture

Sure, but only if the person using those calipers is trained in how to use them, and even then there are problems with the system. Unless you are very tall, or extremely muscular, then weighing in at 280lbs is not healthy. I'm a relatively large, broad guy with a decent of muscle (for someone who doesn't work out/train) and at just under 6'1" I'm still overweight and carrying a belly at 210lbs. And that's with me being one of those people who are unusual in build who have a heavy bone structure (if you met me you'd understand).

If you're trying to convince yourself that you're not obese because you've a bodyfat of 29% and your BMI says otherwise then you're deluding yourself. And I'm not trying to be cruel here, I was obese for a while (admittedly due to medication I was on) so I know it's not easy or fast to drop the extra weight. It's just that the arguments you're making miss the point by a long way.


This conversation is far more suited to Fitness btw.