[King Kebab]

These days, there are many people trying to find employment. I currently have a job, but before I got my present job the idea occurred to me that government should introduce legislation to make firms reply to applications within a time frame after receiving the application.. Many people do not even get a reply from the firms. What do others think of this idea?

[tooosh]

Should it be the govt's responsibility to make sure this happens? I agree that it should be done though, somehow, almost all firms already have an email system set up so it would take a minute to write a macro for it. It'll cost all of 5 seconds per rejected applicant.

[brunettej]

Yes they should, it would prevent stress/anxiety related illnesses xD

[King Kebab]

I agree. The amount of stress I was under when I was waiting for replies to jobs was really bad. I preferred being told quickly that I was unsuccessful rather than waiting in limbo for months. They can easily set up standard e-mails and letters so that it is quick for them to get in touch with the applicants.

[MQ003C]

Its a good idea, the waiting and the expectation to hear something from firms especially from jobs people are fighting so hard for are not even given a second thought. Its understandable that large firms must get hundreds if not thousands of applications for certain positions, but whatever happened to the decency of just saying you weren't succesful? That way its easier to move on to the next thing, no calls to the company about the status of the application or any other communication, its final though not in a good way it gives closure on that application. As someone pointed out earlier, it wouldn't harm them to send out a generic email at least to unsuccessful applicants

[fluttershy]

It wouldn't be so bad, but for those who are on job seekers, the fact that companies don't even bother to reply can make it hard to even prove you are applying for jobs. I remember when I was signing on, whilst most would just check there were things in my job log, others would ask about jobs i'd listed i'd applied to and if i'd heard back, and then not seem convinced when told that I'd not heard anything. Some of them seemed under the impression that if you were really applying to 3 or 4 jobs a week you'd get at least a couple of interviews, when I found some times I could apply for 10 jobs and not hear from a single one. Of course the fact that some job centre staff are idiots also comes into it.

[Scumbaggio]

In my experience bigger companies are more likely to reply with a 'better luck next time' email.

In the past year where I have emailed a person directly instead of just filling out an application I have had exactly zero replies.

I don't think putting a time limit on responses would make it any easier to get a job.

[Martyn*]

I do not think that this idea will resolve the unemployment issue.

[meenu89]

(Original post by Martyn*)
I do not think that this idea will resolve the unemployment issue.

I agree with you. Blimey, I need a lie down.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by meenu89)
I agree with you. Blimey, I need a lie down.

A Tory agreeing with me! I must be in the Twilight Zone or something!

[King Kebab]

(Original post by Martyn*)
I do not think that this idea will resolve the unemployment issue.

It would at least let people to know where the stood in relation to their application which can be very stressful which is better than nothing.

[Norton1]

(Original post by King Kebab)
It would at least let people to know where the stood in relation to their application which can be very stressful which is better than nothing.

If legislation is the answer you're asking the wrong question.

Realistically this is not going to happen. That's point one. So you need to consider how to make waiting for applications less stressful. I would suggest doing more applications while waiting to hear back. I know a lot of people stop doing new applications while they wait to hear back from ones they've done previously.

[King Kebab]

(Original post by Norton1)
If legislation is the answer you're asking the wrong question.

Realistically this is not going to happen. That's point one. So you need to consider how to make waiting for applications less stressful. I would suggest doing more applications while waiting to hear back. I know a lot of people stop doing new applications while they wait to hear back from ones they've done previously.

I also know of people who apply for hundreds of jobs at the same time and still don't hear back from most of them.

[Norton1]

(Original post by King Kebab)
I also know of people who apply for hundreds of jobs at the same time and still don't hear back from most of them.

I think you've missed the point of what I said. The real point is about finding ways to make the wait less excruciating. I suggested one possibility to do this is applying for more. Sometimes there are no external solutions: the solution is internal and must come from yourself.

[King Kebab]

(Original post by Norton1)
I think you've missed the point of what I said. The real point is about finding ways to make the wait less excruciating. I suggested one possibility to do this is applying for more. Sometimes there are no external solutions: the solution is internal and must come from yourself.

Fair enough, I still think legislation would help even though it is very unlikely to be introduced.

[megan.c]

For my current job my manager had 100+ applications which were all handed in, not done online, so she would've had to manual reject all but the 7 people she felt right to interview.
There were cards given out saying that if after 28 days you wouldn't have been successful, but I actually got a call a week or so after those 28 days were up.
The sheer volume of applicants in some cases outweighs the need and possibility of contacting those who haven't fit the bill.

[ufo2012]

(Original post by megan.c)
For my current job my manager had 100+ applications which were all handed in, not done online, so she would've had to manual reject all but the 7 people she felt right to interview.

Which she should have done. If a firm is prepared to advertise a position, they should be prepared to let those know who were unsuccessful.

Remember that even in the future for the applicant it leaves a bad taste in the mouth and they may not bother to apply there again even if something fitting came up.

(Original post by megan.c)
There were cards given out saying that if after 28 days you wouldn't have been successful, but I actually got a call a week or so after those 28 days were up.

Again, ridiculous. Wouldn't rely much on anything they tell you if they can't even stick to their basic principles!

[megan.c]

(Original post by ufo2012)
Again, ridiculous. Wouldn't rely much on anything they tell you if they can't even stick to their basic principles!

They stuck to them as much as they could, there were literally that many applicants that it took them that long to get through them all. I trust my managers very much, they are great bosses to have and would only hire people they felt completely fitting to the job.

[billydisco]

Yeh lets introduce even more bureaucracy for firms at a time when they're struggling....

grow and pair and wait/keep applying!

[King Kebab]

(Original post by billydisco)
Yeh lets introduce even more bureaucracy for firms at a time when they're struggling....

grow and pair and wait/keep applying!

Go back to school and learn how to manufacture sentences which make sense.