The Student Room Group
Discovering Higher and Degree Apprenticeships with UWE Bristol, get free advice >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Discovering Higher and Degree Apprenticeships with UWE Bristol, get free advice >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Juggling an offer and an interview you haven’t heard back from

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20
Avatar for Ybsy75
Ybsy75
OP
12
Original post by shadowdweller
It is a large company yeah - I would agree that it's more common for longer waits with large companies :yep:


Some people say with some larger companies, not hearing for a while is a good sign.
Reply 21
Avatar for Ybsy75
Ybsy75
OP
12
Now the question becomes do I accept the offer I have or turn it down and continue applying? The interview I had is a lot better paid (about a 30% difference in salary). The offer would most likely make my application more competitive if I decide to apply for similar roles in future.
Original post by Ybsy75
Now the question becomes do I accept the offer I have or turn it down and continue applying? The interview I had is a lot better paid (about a 30% difference in salary). The offer would most likely make my application more competitive if I decide to apply for similar roles in future.


Do you need to make a decision on it now, or can you wait longer? I'd sit down and weigh up whether it's a role you'd actually want to take in terms of the pros and cons, and work it out from there personally.
Original post by threeportdrift
No you can't get 'blacklisted' - you won't be applying for another job for at least 2 years, by which time everyone will have moved on - and that's only if you apply to exactly the same team as before. Organisations don't keep job application data forever.


It can get you blacklisted in teaching ....
Original post by Muttley79
It can get you blacklisted in teaching ....


It really can't. While strictly speaking, black listing is only illegal in cases where the list is based on union membership, the allied regulation on keeping data (DPA etc) and the reputational damage that would be greated is such that any organisation 'blacklisting' would a) have whistleblowers creating a chorus and b) generate such reputational damage they would inevitably cease to function or clear out the whole management level. The Headteacher, the head of HR and the Chair of Governors would all be out of a job in a school. Teachers are generally too left wing and unionised for blacklisting to be a safe or effective strategy.
Original post by threeportdrift
It really can't. While strictly speaking, black listing is only illegal in cases where the list is based on union membership, the allied regulation on keeping data (DPA etc) and the reputational damage that would be greated is such that any organisation 'blacklisting' would a) have whistleblowers creating a chorus and b) generate such reputational damage they would inevitably cease to function or clear out the whole management level. The Headteacher, the head of HR and the Chair of Governors would all be out of a job in a school. Teachers are generally too left wing and unionised for blacklisting to be a safe or effective strategy.


Well I know that teachers that have broken contracts are 'known' to the LA ... it may not be legal but it happens.
Original post by Muttley79
Well I know that teachers that have broken contracts are 'known' to the LA ... it may not be legal but it happens.


How does the LA influence and explain why a candidate should be recruited to the interview panel then? How well do you think the LA would do explaining to a Head of Department in a school that they shouldn't hire X because despite X being the best candidate, X had withdrawn from a previous appointment a couple of years ago and so wasn't suitable for the role?
Original post by threeportdrift
How does the LA influence and explain why a candidate should be recruited to the interview panel then? How well do you think the LA would do explaining to a Head of Department in a school that they shouldn't hire X because despite X being the best candidate, X had withdrawn from a previous appointment a couple of years ago and so wasn't suitable for the role?


Heads talk to each other .... it would be discarded before the HOD was involved.
Original post by Muttley79
Heads talk to each other .... it would be discarded before the HOD was involved.


You are scaremongering. Heads do not carry around lists of applicants for all teaching positions in their schools and then go around to systematically check with all other Heads in the commutable area to confirm that none of the applicants, or even the first choice candidate has never withdrawn from a contract.

Sure, a complete throbber with a reputation gets a reputation across a few schools and might find it harder to get a job in that local area. But blacklisting does not happen in any systematic way. You will not get blacklisted for making a standard professional decision and withdrawing from a contract.
Original post by threeportdrift
You are scaremongering. Heads do not carry around lists of applicants for all teaching positions in their schools and then go around to systematically check with all other Heads in the commutable area to confirm that none of the applicants, or even the first choice candidate has never withdrawn from a contract.

Sure, a complete throbber with a reputation gets a reputation across a few schools and might find it harder to get a job in that local area. But blacklisting does not happen in any systematic way. You will not get blacklisted for making a standard professional decision and withdrawing from a contract.


Look I can assure you it happens - I'm not going to name schools but you can be assured I am not scaremongering. I've known it happen.
Reply 30
Avatar for Ybsy75
Ybsy75
OP
12
Original post by shadowdweller
Do you need to make a decision on it now, or can you wait longer? I'd sit down and weigh up whether it's a role you'd actually want to take in terms of the pros and cons, and work it out from there personally.


I can wait a week. The absolute worst thing about this offer is that the contract states that the absolute minimum hours is 47.5 hours a week (on paper) but often more will be required, they try to keep it at 60 but more may be required. And this is excluding lunch.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Ybsy75
I can wait a week. The absolute worst thing about this offer is that the contract states that the absolute minimum hours is 47.5 hours a week (on paper) but often more will be required, they try to keep it at 60 but more may be required. And this is excluding lunch.


That seems pretty high? :erm:

What are the hours for the other role you're waiting to hear from?
Reply 32
Avatar for Ybsy75
Ybsy75
OP
12
Original post by shadowdweller
That seems pretty high? :erm:

What are the hours for the other role you're waiting to hear from?


35. Long hours is a part of the industry I’m going for but 47.5 excluding lunch just seems ridiculous.
Original post by Ybsy75
35. Long hours is a part of the industry I’m going for but 47.5 excluding lunch just seems ridiculous.


35 sounds a lot more reasonable - personally I'd be put off by 47.5 hours a week without lunch, I don't think I'd be able to manage it long term :redface:
Reply 34
Avatar for Ybsy75
Ybsy75
OP
12
Original post by shadowdweller
35 sounds a lot more reasonable - personally I'd be put off by 47.5 hours a week without lunch, I don't think I'd be able to manage it long term :redface:


It’s not that I can’t manage it. But to me, 47.5 hours a week (and from job reviews and the general impression I get from them)- over 12 hours a day working for money grabbing shareholders with no overtime pay at the basic salary I’ve been offered is unacceptable and exploitative.
Original post by Ybsy75
It’s not that I can’t manage it. But to me, 47.5 hours a week (and from job reviews and the general impression I get from them)- over 12 hours a day working for money grabbing shareholders with no overtime pay at the basic salary I’ve been offered is unacceptable and exploitative.


It definitely sounds very exploitative in my view - have you had any more luck hearing back from the first role as yet?
Reply 36
Avatar for Ybsy75
Ybsy75
OP
12
Original post by shadowdweller
It definitely sounds very exploitative in my view - have you had any more luck hearing back from the first role as yet?


Unfortunately no, but I sent an email to HR asking for an update and whether it will be possible to get feedback if I’ve been unsuccessful.
Original post by Ybsy75
Unfortunately no, but I sent an email to HR asking for an update and whether it will be possible to get feedback if I’ve been unsuccessful.


Sounds very sensible - I really hope you hear back soon :redface:
Reply 38
Avatar for Ybsy75
Ybsy75
OP
12
Original post by shadowdweller
Sounds very sensible - I really hope you hear back soon :redface:


Thanks. Although after nearly 4 weeks I’m not getting my hopes up so have applied for others too.
Reply 39
Avatar for wa5ted
wa5ted
9
Original post by shadowdweller
I'd add a counter to this that it took me 3 weeks to hear back for my current role, and I've had a very good experience with the company so far, so I wouldn't dismiss a job outright on this basis, personally! :smile:


Hi,

I am in a similar position to the OP in the sense that I haven't had any job offers yet but I am waiting back from an interview that I attended a month ago.

After my interview with the company, the HR contact told me that I would hear back from them after a week. After 3 weeks or so, I emailed them and asked them for some feedback to which they sincerely apologized and said that I would hear back from the next day. It's been a week since I heard from them and still nothing. Chased another HR contact today and he said that I would know by tomorrow

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you