Interview Etiquette

ResilientRed

Hi Guys,

Just looking for an opinion on this.

I had an interview recently with a fairly large privately owned company. There was 4 people interviewing me and about 10 mins in, one guy - the owner - just got up and walked out without saying a word when I was halfway through answering a question. He then came back in after about 10 mins and proceeded to ask me a question which one of the other guys had already asked me when he was out. As I was answering this the phone which was next to him rang! He of course answered this which left me completely lost. The rest of the interview was a disaster after this.

I am just wondering is this just some daft interview technique he was using or is he really that ignorant. In my own opinion its a complete lack of respect on his part. It took me more than 1 1/2 hrs to get to the interview.

I have done many interviews before and nothing like this has ever happened. I am obviously fairly p****d off over this. Am I overreacting??

Thanks

dixiefly

I have attended many interviews over the years, both private and public sector and have never encountered this.

Unless someone has specific evidence I would assume that this was just the boss doing his own thing (which is possible)

Disgraceful behaviour imo. Did they even offer you expenses?

ResilientRed

No offer of expenses, but I wasnt bothered about that. It was the fact that I took about 3 1/2 hours out of my time and despite inviting me for an interview, he didnt have the courtesy to give me 30 mins of his. Given his behaviour, I would be surprised if I even got a response back, though Im 99% sure I didnt get it!

A fairly demoralising experience in all honesty.

road_high

But imagine what they could be like to work for then if that is anything to go by! Dodged a bullet there

davo10

30 mins for you plus another 30 for all the others who interview is a lot if time for the head guy to be tied up in a room. If there was just the owner interviewing I suspect you would have got his undivided attention but he is paying three other people (who were in the room) to advise him on whether you are right for the job.

While it was not ideal he left the room, the fact that the owner was there along with three others is a good sign, the fact that you lost your rhythm because he left the room is not. It may have told the other three that you are easily distracted.

Unfortunately busy work places cannot come to a standstill when an interview is ongoing and I would understand how the owner would have to leave the room to take an important call or if there was a problem which needed a decision, he was after all leaving three others to interview you.

NipNip

The cheek of him! :pac:

Lord bless us, have you ever worked in a busy environment?

Morgans

davo10 wrote: »

30 mins for you plus another 30 for all the others who interview is a lot if time for the head guy to be tied up in a room. If there was just the owner interviewing I suspect you would have got his undivided attention but he is paying three other people (who were in the room) to advise him on whether you are right for the job.

While it was not ideal he left the room, the fact that the owner was there along with three others is a good sign, the fact that you lost your rhythm because he left the room is not. It may have told the other three that you are easily distracted.

Unfortunately busy work places cannot come to a standstill when an interview is ongoing and I would understand how the owner would have to leave the room to take an important call or if there was a problem which needed a decision, he was after all leaving three others to interview you.

Think there is truth in that but I do think that the individual should apologise for interrupting the interview and do what he had to do. How the boss acts when under pressure is something that you often dont get to see when in interview. To me it exhibits a lack of understanding of the person doing the interview and something that would be repeated should you get the job in the company. Had the interviewee done the same it would have been seen as rude. The best managers would at least treat an interviewees time as precious. OP may still get the job but think that should have learned what his boss is like. I think OP has a genuine grievance but dont think there is anything can be done other than sucking it up.

davo10

Morgans wrote: »

Think there is truth in that but I do think that the individual should apologise for interrupting the interview and do what he had to do. How the boss acts when under pressure is something that you often dont get to see when in interview. To me it exhibits a lack of understanding of the person doing the interview and something that would be repeated should you get the job in the company. Had the interviewee done the same it would have been seen as rude. The best managers would at least treat an interviewees time as precious. OP may still get the job but think that should have learned what his boss is like. I think OP has a genuine grievance but dont think there is anything can be done other than sucking it up.

Owner left the interview, three of his managers were still there. Let's be fair, he was interviewing someone of whom perhaps he had already formed an opinion, to tend to something you can only assume was important. If the interviewee leaves during an interview to take a call, everybody leaves the room.

Morgans

Yep. How it was done would be the peek at his character. If it was stated upfront that he may be leaving, or was just taking a back seat to see how things were going, but was expecting to be interrupted, or apologised for it, fair enough. These things happen.

The impression i got from reading the OP is that the interview was something would like to sit in on in between more important matters. Without any other knowledge it reflects poorly on the employer. The best managers/employers those treat their employees with the respect they would like to be afforded. An interviewee answering a phone in an interview would be viewed as a lack of respect - rightly.

davo10

Morgans wrote: »

Yep. How it was done would be the peek at his character. If it was stated upfront that he may be leaving, or was just taking a back seat to see how things were going, but was expecting to be interrupted, or apologised for it, fair enough. These things happen.

The impression i got from reading the OP is that the interview was something would like to sit in on in between more important matters. Without any other knowledge it reflects poorly on the employer. The best managers/employers those treat their employees with the respect they would like to be afforded. An interviewee answering a phone in an interview would be viewed as a lack of respect - rightly.

Ok fair enough, owner took the call, interviewee annoyed, owner deals with issue on phone, interviewee leaves, life goes on. Most employees do not interact with employers of big companies on day to day basis. The owner is involved in making decisions that effect the business and keep it going so that the employee has a job. It may say something about the owner, it also says something about the interviewee who loses their way because of this. If it was an interview for a position which requires being able to adapt to changes in a situation then .........

Duckjob

davo10 wrote: »

30 mins for you plus another 30 for all the others who interview is a lot if time for the head guy to be tied up in a room. If there was just the owner interviewing I suspect you would have got his undivided attention but he is paying three other people (who were in the room) to advise him on whether you are right for the job.

While it was not ideal he left the room, the fact that the owner was there along with three others is a good sign, the fact that you lost your rhythm because he left the room is not. It may have told the other three that you are easily distracted.

Unfortunately busy work places cannot come to a standstill when an interview is ongoing and I would understand how the owner would have to leave the room to take an important call or if there was a problem which needed a decision, he was after all leaving three others to interview you.

"I'm sorry, I need to take this call..."
"I'm sorry, I need to pop out. I'll leave you in X, Y and Z's capable hands for the moment..."

Manners and and basic human interaction skills 101. Costs nothing, and the absence of them tells a huge amount IMO.

davo10

Duckjob wrote: »

"I'm sorry, I need to take this call..."
"I'm sorry, I need to pop out. I'll leave you in X, Y and Z's capable hands for the moment..."

Manners and and basic human interaction skills 101. Costs nothing, and the absence of them tells a huge amount IMO.

Ok, if OP is offered the job, he should turn it down because the owner took a call. The search for a nice boss goes on. Or, OP should take the job and grow a thicker skin.

Morgans

I agree. Interviews can be stressful and getting through them unscathed can be tough. The best managers can do their business with respect. Think its the crucial ingredient into a lasting working relationships. I can remember the worst interview I did where I made a complete bags of it, and got a very respectful interviewee who gave fulsome feedback regarding why I didnt get the job. Still remember the company and would have no qualms of interviewing there again, given the impression they made.

davo10 wrote: »

The owner is involved in making decisions that effect the business and keep it going so that the employee has a job.

The line above may be technically true but its often the reason given by bosses who feel respect and courtesy isnt required from them. That all the respect that is needed for employees is in your paycheck. I fully believe that the attitude from the owners/senior management transfers down, and what causes most of the manager/employee breakdowns.

davo10

Morgans wrote: »

I agree. Interviews can be stressful and getting through them unscathed can be tough. The best managers can do their business with respect. Think its the crucial ingredient into a lasting working relationships. I can remember the worst interview I did where I made a complete bags of it, and got a very respectful interviewee who gave fulsome feedback regarding why I didnt get the job. Still remember the company and would have no qualms of interviewing there again, given the impression they made.



The line above may be technically true but its often the reason given by bosses who feel respect and courtesy isnt required from them. That all the respect that is needed for employees is in your paycheck. I fully believe that the attitude from the owners/senior management transfers down, and what causes most of the manager/employee breakdowns.

I agree for the most part, I would completely agree if it was just the owner and the interviewee. But three other managers were there, owners of big companies do not often sit in on interviews unless it is for a senior management position. I know it was not nice but if that was a call from an important client or about a problem then I understand him leaving, his managers just carry on. But I also think that an able interviewee would not be so thrown by this that the interview goes disastrously wrong, surely the employer would be looking for someone who would not crash because a situation suddenly changes.

ResilientRed

First of all the other three people were not managers, they were just three other staff within the department who the candidate would be working alongside.
Also, he walked out without being called and when he returned, he took a call, not the other way around. As far as I could tell, there was no emergency.
I have worked in fast paced environments before where stringent deadlines have to be met etc. But I personally don't believe this is an excuse for a lack of courtesy. As Duckface mentions previously a simple explanation that would take no more than 5 seconds of his time would have done and would have reflected far better on him. I'm sure he would'nt have walked out of a meeting with a client in the same manner.
Fair enough, I agree that I should'nt have let it distract me. If this happened in the workplace I really would'nt give a s**t, but this happened in an interview which I travelled to at my own expense and I believe a certain amount of courtesy should be shown. I have worked in and had interviews for other busy large organisations where the owners/directors were able to show basic courtesy.

davo10

ResilientRed wrote: »

Fair enough, I agree that I should'nt have let it distract me. If this happened in the workplace I really would'nt give a s**t, but this happened in an interview which I travelled to at my own expense and I believe a certain amount of courtesy should be shown. I have worked in and had interviews for other busy large organisations where the owners/directors were able to show basic courtesy.

If the owner did not value the opinion of the other three, they would not be there. How far you had to travel is not really a consideration as you could also live across the road. I know you are peeved but at the end of the interview, you are unhappy with the employer and they may be unimpressed that you lost your way because one of the four interviewees left the room, they have no proof of your claim that it would not bother you in the workplace. Did the interview cease while the owner was out or did the other three continue?

I appreciate you are not happy about this but both parties learned something valuable, you may not want to work for this man and it is better to know that now, they now know you are easily distracted and possibly unable to adapt to changing situations. As a previous poster said, you may have dodged a bullit, but equally, so may have they.

markpb

People are making lots of assumptions about the size of the company or the involvement of the owner in interviewing. I've worked for small companies where the owner sat in on all interviews, regardless of how junior the position.

If the owner genuinely can't spare 30 minutes per interview, there's nothing's stopping them letting their staff do a full interview and, if they feel a candidate is a potential hire, having the owner do a short interview after to decide.

Instead the owner sat in on an interview that they either didn't have time for or didn't care about. They showed no respect for the OP and no faith in their staff. I'd have strong reservations about working for someone like that. Basic politeness costs nothing, even in business.

davo10

markpb wrote: »

People are making lots of assumptions about the size of the company

I had an interview recently with a fairly large privately owned company

If the owner genuinely can't spare 30 minutes per interview, there's nothing's stopping them letting their staff do a full interview and, if they feel a candidate is a potential hire, having the owner do a short interview after to decide.

Instead the owner sat in on an interview that they either didn't have time for or didn't care about. They showed no respect for the OP and no faith in their staff. I'd have strong reservations about working for someone like that. Basic politeness costs nothing, even in business.

I disagree, the fact that he brought in three others who would be working alongside the interviewee to get their opinion and allowed them to continue the interview while he stepped out suggests the places a lot of trust in their opinion.

I think the OP is getting really hung up on this, three other interviewers remained in the room.

ResilientRed

Again, the main reason I am p****d off over this is the fact he walked out WITHOUT saying a word. A simple " excuse me I have to step out for a moment " and " sorry I just have to take this call " would have done, not so much with the fact that he walked out. Basic courtesy.

davo10

ResilientRed wrote: »

Again, the main reason I am p****d off over this is the fact he walked out WITHOUT saying a word. A simple " excuse me I have to step out for a moment " and " sorry I just have to take this call " would have done, not so much with the fact that he walked out. Basic courtesy.

Grow up, and stop being so precious, if you had interviewed well you would not be on about this.

CatFromHue

ResilientRed wrote: »

Again, the main reason I am p****d off over this is the fact he walked out WITHOUT saying a word. A simple " excuse me I have to step out for a moment " and " sorry I just have to take this call " would have done, not so much with the fact that he walked out. Basic courtesy.

I agree with you.

If you're in a group meeting it's best practice to either flag at the start that you may have to leave or at least say you have to leave when you do. It's not very professional to just come and go as you like no matter how high up the chain you are.

markpb

davo10 wrote: »

Grow up, and stop being so precious, if you had interviewed well you would not be on about this.

Expecting basic courtesy and politeness is being precious now?

Julia Carmichael

I wouldn't say this is normal interview behavior however, they may have been testing your ability to maintain your train of thought etc. Persevere and should this occur in the future just proceed to answer the question and let the remaining panel tell you whether you need to repeat your answer. All the best for your future interviews!

davo10

markpb wrote: »

Expecting basic courtesy and politeness is being precious now?

No, blaming it for doing a disastrous interview is. Again, three other interviewers stayed and continued the interview, three people whose opinion the owner trusts, three people the OP should have been able to continue the dialogue with, three people who now know he wasn't able too, both parties were unimpressed by the sound of things.

Tarzana

davo10, I find your views in this thread at odds with those of yours in the referee thread. Here, it's fine for the bossman to walk out of an scheduled interview without a world because he's far too busy for common courtesy, and potential employees should feel graced by his presence.

In the referee thread, you think that people who only at the applicant stage should feel free to put down the contact details of their referees, making them open to being contacted without warning when they may have many much more important things to be doing.

markpb

davo10 wrote: »

No, blaming it for doing a disastrous interview is. Again, three other interviewers stayed and continued the interview, three people whose opinion the owner trusts, three people the OP should have been able to continue the dialogue with, three people who now know he wasn't able too, both parties were unimpressed by the sound of things.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I've been on the other side of the table to the OP when a senior manger walked out of the room like that and I found it rude and disrespectful to the candidate and embarrassing for me. And to make matters worse, their reason for leaving wasn't a business crisis that couldn't wait - they just had no courtesy.

davo10

Tarzana wrote: »

davo10, I find your views in this thread at odds with those of yours in the referee thread. Here, it's fine for the bossman to walk out of an scheduled interview without a world because he's far too busy for common courtesy, and potential employees should feel graced by his presence.

In the referee thread, you think that people who only at the applicant stage should feel free to put down the contact details of their referees, making them open to being contacted without warning when they may have many much more important things to be doing.

Each situation is completely different and the opinions are not at odds with each other, they are not even remotely connected. If I rang looking for a reference, I very much doubt the receptionist would put me through while the referee was busy, it would not be important enough.

davo10

markpb wrote: »

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I've been on the other side of the table to the OP when a senior manger walked out of the room like that and I found it rude and disrespectful to the candidate and embarrassing for me. And to make matters worse, their reason for leaving wasn't a business crisis that couldn't wait - they just had no courtesy.

I agree it was impolite, but OP said he performed disastrously because of this despite there being three other people in the room. If he had done well, would he be on here complaining? A thicker skin is required and the ability to cope with a change in circumstances would certainly help.

I've been at the employers side of the table where I wanted to get up and leave after 10 mins (I never have) because it's obvious the applicant is a waste of my time.

markpb

davo10 wrote: »

Each situation is completely different and the opinions are not at odds with each other, they are not even remotely connected. If I rang looking for a reference, I very much doubt the receptionist would put me through while the referee was busy, it would not be important enough.

I actually agree with you, your opinions are consistent. In both cases, you believe that the employer has free reign over the interview process and can ring people without notice or wander off to the toilet mid-sentence without worrying about the person being interviewed.

I guess you're right but thankfully only in lower-paid or lower-skilled industries. In plenty of other areas (especially in IT) the candidate has as much, if not more, power than the employer right now. If I interviewed with a company who acted like that, I'd be looking elsewhere. If the people I deal with at interview stage are like that, I can't see myself wanting to work for them and thankfully there are plenty of other companies out there that I would be happy to work for.

davo10

markpb wrote: »

I actually agree with you, your opinions are consistent. In both cases, you believe that the employer has free reign over the interview process and can ring people without notice or wander off to the toilet mid-sentence without worrying about the person being interviewed.

I guess you're right but thankfully only in lower-paid or lower-skilled industries. In plenty of other areas (especially in IT) the candidate has as much, if not more, power than the employer right now. If I interviewed with a company who acted like that, I'd be looking elsewhere. If the people I deal with at interview stage are like that, I can't see myself wanting to work for them and thankfully there are plenty of other companies out there that I would be happy to work for.

Actually I interview for places in a highly skilled industry. I doubt you realise how many applications employers get for all types of jobs in all industries, how difficult it is to reduce the applications to a manageable number and how important it is to employ someone who is capable and not going to start whinging every time they feel their colleague/manager/employer has not shown them the utmost courtesy. The owner didn't stop the interview, he left the room while other people he trusts continued with it, big deal.

By the way, the employer does have free reign over the interview, he/she is the one offering the job, if he/she needs to go to the loo or take a call from a client, well as the owner he has the right to do that.

I know you feel you have more power than the employer, you don't, you may feel that you are the only one who can do that job, you aren't, that is the reality if the situation. And if you feel obliged to turn down a job because of a situation like this, fair enough, the next applicant may be better, neither party will know so there are no regrets.

Morgans

davo10 wrote: »

Actually I interview for places in a highly skilled industry. I doubt you realise how many applications employers get for all types of jobs in all industries, how difficult it is to reduce the applications to a manageable number and how important it is to employ someone who is capable and not going to start whinging every time they feel their colleague/manager/employer has not shown them the utmost courtesy. The owner didn't stop the interview, he left the room while other people he trusts continued with it, big deal.

By the way, the employer does have free reign over the interview, he/she is the one offering the job, if he/she needs to go to the loo or take a call from a client, well as the owner he has the right to do that.

Tbe idea that the employer can do what they want cos its their company is true, but you live by the sword and you die by the sword. The less respect shown the more people (especially good people) who will leave. If the "respect as an optional extra" attitude is one displayed by the employer (in the interview or not) it is more likely that their workplace will be antagonistic and require more interviews in the long run.

Showing basic respect (recognising that interviews are stressful for interviewees even) will ensure that the employer doesnt havent to do so many interviews. Its my game and I can do what I want, everyone else needs to get in line attitude, leads to greater turnover and a greater number of interviews.

davo10

Morgans wrote: »

Tbe idea that the employer can do what they want cos its their company is true, but you live by the sword and you die by the sword. The less respect shown the more people (especially good people) who will leave. If the "respect as an optional extra" attitude is one displayed by the employer (in the interview or not) it is more likely that their workplace will be antagonistic and require more interviews in the long run.

Showing basic respect (recognising that interviews are stressful for interviewees even) will ensure that the employer doesnt havent to do so many interviews. Its my game and I can do what I want, everyone else needs to get in line attitude, leads to greater turnover and a greater number of interviews.

I agree with you, but isn't it equally important that an employer takes on capable people? At interview you are assessing the persons ability to cope with as well as their knowledge of, the tasks of the job. Yes the owner should have excused himself, but they have now seen that the OP cannot cope with alterations in situations, that information is invaluable to the company , better for both to find that out now rather than later.

Morgans

davo10 wrote: »

I agree with you, but isn't it equally important that an employer takes on capable people? At interview you are assessing the persons ability to cope with as well as their knowledge of, the tasks of the job. Yes the owner should have excused himself, but they have now seen that the OP cannot cope with alterations in situations, that information is invaluable to the company , better for both to find that out now rather than later.

The two things are unrelated really. Yes, the OP shouldnt have let it upset him to the extent that it ruined the interview. However, I dont believe for one second that it was in any way a planned test of the interviewee adaptability or ability to cope in a testing situation.

It was an unplanned display of bad manners and a taster of the owner's personality. My guess is that the employers will not contact the OP, not cos they are so busy, but that they have a certain view of how much respect is owed to employees and prospective employees. Plenty more of them on the dole queue, you know.

bee06

davo10 wrote: »

I know you feel you have more power than the employer, you don't, you may feel that you are the only one who can do that job, you aren't, that is the reality if the situation. And if you feel obliged to turn down a job because of a situation like this, fair enough, the next applicant may be better, neither party will know so there are no regrets.

I don't think the balance of power necessarily rests with the interviewer. The interviewer has a lot of pressure to pick the right candidate as a wrong decision can cost the business in many different ways.

If it was the case that the owner just wasn't interested in hiring the OP and had already made his decision not to hire him then why not end the interview there and then rather than acting disrespectfully.

Morgans

bee06 wrote: »

I don't think the balance of power necessarily rests with the interviewer. The interviewer has a lot of pressure to pick the right candidate as a wrong decision can cost the business in many different ways.

If it was the case that the owner just wasn't interested in hiring the OP and had already made his decision not to hire him then why not end the interview there and then rather than acting disrespectfully.

Those who think that the power is with the interviewer are those who will end up doing a lot more, and complain about the amount of time they are having to spend recruiting the right staff.

davo10

bee06 wrote: »

I don't think the balance of power necessarily rests with the interviewer. The interviewer has a lot of pressure to pick the right candidate as a wrong decision can cost the business in many different ways.

If it was the case that the owner just wasn't interested in hiring the OP and had already made his decision not to hire him then why not end the interview there and then rather than acting disrespectfully.

I agree with you, perhaps he left the other three there to finish the interview. In a lot of cases, employers know after a couple of minutes if this is the person they are looking for.

davo10

Morgans wrote: »

. Plenty more of them on the dole queue, you know.

Not necessarily, many are people employed in other jobs and new graduates.

davo10

Morgans wrote: »

Those who think that the power is with the interviewer are those who will end up doing a lot more, and complain about the amount of time they are having to spend recruiting the right staff.

Those that employ people who are unable to adapt to changing situations, or get upset easily often end up having to go through the recruitment process again anyway. Who knows.

Morgans

davo10 wrote: »

Not necessarily, many are people employed in other jobs and new graduates.

I am referring to the attitude of some employers towards interviewees. Plenty more fish in the sea.

Tarzana

davo10 wrote: »

Each situation is completely different and the opinions are not at odds with each other, they are not even remotely connected. If I rang looking for a reference, I very much doubt the receptionist would put me through while the referee was busy, it would not be important enough.

If it was his/her personal number, there would be no receptionist. A referee might be senior but not enough to have a receptionist.

davo10

Morgans wrote: »

I am referring to the attitude of some employers towards interviewees. Plenty more fish in the sea.

That's the reality of the situation and the stakes are high. I know in this case the employer was a bit of an ass, but again he did leave three more people to conduct the interview and by the OPs own admission this threw him so much that he fell apart. There are more fish in the sea, even employers who people think are the very best know this, there will always be multiple times more employees than employers so unless your employment/retention is absolutely essential to a company, employers can afford to be choosy at interview.

lajoie

I echo what others have said. I can understand if he was busy and couldn't stay for the whole thing, but simple decency and manners is to apologise/excuse yourself.

As for the "oh well, they'll find someone else if you won't do it" line.. the fact is, NOBODY should be treated like they're not worthy of basic respect. I don't care if you're applying for the top or the lowest paid in the company, you still deserve respect.

davo10

Tarzana wrote: »

If it was his/her personal number, there would be no receptionist. A referee might be senior but not enough to have a receptionist.

Ah c'mon, what applicant is going to be stupid enough to give their employers private mobile number?

davo10

lajoie wrote: »

I echo what others have said. I can understand if he was busy and couldn't stay for the whole thing, but simple decency and manners is to apologise/excuse yourself.

As for the "oh well, they'll find someone else if you won't do it" line.. the fact is, NOBODY should be treated like they're not worthy of basic respect. I don't care if you're applying for the top or the lowest paid in the company, you still deserve respect.

The interview continued, with three other interviewers present, crickey is there a quota of interviewers that must be present before an interview is deemed decent and respectful?

lajoie

davo10 wrote: »

The interview continued, with three other interviewers present, crickey is there a quota of interviewers that must be present before an interview is deemed decent and respectful?

If you reread my post, you'll see I never mentioned how many interviewers should be there. I said leaving the room in the manner that the OP has described is, in my opinion, disrespectful.

Tarzana

davo10 wrote: »

Ah c'mon, what applicant is going to be stupid enough to give their employers private mobile number?

Not having a receptionist = giving out personal mobile number? O-kaaay.

davo10

Tarzana wrote: »

Not having a receptionist = giving out personal mobile number? O-kaaay.

Confused? Perhaps this would simplify matters, most businesses have a business number, O-kaaay?

Tarzana

davo10 wrote: »

Confused? Perhaps this would simplify matters, most businesses have a business number, O-kaaay?

They do indeed. My last few bosses haven't had receptionists but gave their personal office extensions to be used.

davo10

Tarzana wrote: »

They do indeed. My last few bosses haven't had receptionists but gave their personal office extensions to be used.

Ah, then that is the business number, on which they accept business related calls, what has this got to do with the thread?

Tarzana

davo10 wrote: »

Ah, then that is the business number, on which they accept business related calls, what has this got to do with the thread?

Gawd, you're meat-headed. Totally worth an infraction to say that. Over and out.

Morgans

davo10 wrote: »

That's the reality of the situation and the stakes are high. I know in this case the employer was a bit of an ass, but again he did leave three more people to conduct the interview and by the OPs own admission this threw him so much that he fell apart. There are more fish in the sea, even employers who people think are the very best know this, there will always be multiple times more employees than employers so unless your employment/retention is absolutely essential to a company, employers can afford to be choosy at interview.

Yes, and the best employees will gravitate to the best employers. Those employees who are good enough - those who have the wherewithall to change companies - will not stay long working while being disrespected. Using the fact that there is a large dole queue out there as an excuse to treat employees with disrespect is another bad sign of an employers.

Just because employers can be assholes, doesnt mean that they should, or is there long term best interest to be.