Job offer - advice

[jimharri]

I’m going to have to see some pics of the lovely lady in question before I can offer my expert opinion on the matter in question .

Thank f***. Someone who cuts through the bullshit and actually addresses the important issue here. Sir, I doff my cap to you. OP; get on with it.

 

[Coatigan]

I don't mean to be critical and it's not just aimed at you, OP, but how have we come to the situation that people can't just accept decisions and move on. Everything seems to have to be challenged these days.

Is it a generational thing?

I put it down to education. When I was at school there was no such thing as querying your exam result. You passed or failed and occasionally heard of people re-sitting exams due to exceptional circumstances.

Why would you think it would be a generational thing? genuine question btw.

 

[117 M34]

. Hours weren’t discussed at the interview

And there is the source of the problem.
If she wanted particular hours, she should have made it clear at interview

 

[chaddblue]

And there is the source of the problem.
If she wanted particular hours, she should have made it clear at interview

Absolutely not. You would never do that in an interview. You would be damaging your chances of being successful. Any expert on interview techniques etc would tell you that. If they asked you directly in the interview that’s different but colleagues I work with who interview on a regular basis have told me they’re not allowed to ask that

The crux of the issue is that the advert said part and full time roles and now they’re saying they can’t accommodate part time

She’s spoken to third party HR people this afternoon who have told her she’s got a very strong argument and it’s very likely they’ll have to back down and offer her the part time role that she thought she was going for

 

[PragueBlue]

My missus has been offered a job after interview for 1 of 20 posts which clearly said in the advert full and part time roles

They clearly said full AND part-time vacancies. They have offered her a full-time one. Unless it stated that the employee could choose full or part-time, then I don't see that they have done anything wrong here.

 

[chaddblue]

They clearly said full AND part-time vacancies. They have offered her a full-time one. Unless it stated that the employee could choose full or part-time, then I don't see that they have done anything wrong here.

Yeah I can see what you mean. There is the added issue that there are fairly new employment laws that businneses have to
Allow employees to work hours around their family commitments. Unless they can prove it will harm the business they have to do it

 

[PragueBlue]

Yeah I can see what you mean. There is the added issue that there are fairly new employment laws that businneses have to
Allow employees to work hours around their family commitments. Unless they can prove it will harm the business they have to do it

I didn't know that. It seems a bit of a minefield employing people in the UK these days!

 

[chaddblue]

I didn't know that. It seems a bit of a minefield employing people in the UK these days!

Definitely. It’s virtually impossible to sack people these days without getting bogged down in a long drawn out process of reviews, verbal / written warnings etc

 

[117 M34]

Absolutely not. You would never do that in an interview. You would be damaging your chances of being successful. Any expert on interview techniques etc would tell you that. If they asked you directly in the interview that’s different but colleagues I work with who interview on a regular basis have told me they’re not allowed to ask that

The crux of the issue is that the advert said part and full time roles and now they’re saying they can’t accommodate part time

She’s spoken to third party HR people this afternoon who have told her she’s got a very strong argument and it’s very likely they’ll have to back down and offer her the part time role that she thought she was going for

She was 'successful'
How did that go?

Nearly every interview gives opportunity to ask questions or make a comment about the wider role.
If she said I would love the job but I can only really commit to a part time role because of...
She would have either been offered the part time hours that she wanted or not been offered anything at all if they weren't available - which I am presuming that is exactly what she is going to end up with anything I. E. She won't take the full time role.

 

[borassic]

It was clear in the job advert. Hours weren’t discussed at the interview

She should have probably stated in the interview to be honest or at least seemed clarification there and then.

 

[brummie blue]

Unless your good lady was offered the part time role, and supplied a contract which she accepted and signed, the employer can revise the job description at any time and offer whatever they want. Unfortunately the employer holds all the cards.

I had a similar frustrating experience recently, applied for a role, did the application online which was extensive and time consuming, had a phone interview for over an hour, attended first face to face interview at a location 60 miles from home, then a second face to face interview in the same location, to do a presentation that took a day to prepare with the required research, after all that time and some expense I was advised I was over qualified for the position and wouldn't be considered!

Sometimes things just turn out a bit shit.

 

[Vialli98]

I don't mean to be critical and it's not just aimed at you, OP, but how have we come to the situation that people can't just accept decisions and move on. Everything seems to have to be challenged these days.

Is it a generational thing?

I put it down to education. When I was at school there was no such thing as querying your exam result. You passed or failed and occasionally heard of people re-sitting exams due to exceptional circumstances.

I really don't see how "just accepting a decision and moving on" is a good and healthy way to live in this world. As with all things, it really depends on the situation. I don't think being inquisitive and sort of a cynic is by no means a negative thing. Obviously this case the OP describes is a bit different as they're considering legal action (I presume that is what is meant 'taking it further'), but generally speaking, I'd always encourage people to question things, demand answers etc. You may not always get it, but more often than not, you'll realise people can't slip one past you and take you for a mug.

As an example, a young lad, many moons ago, worked an office job on about £21k when management began expanding his team - all his new teammates, doing exactly the same job as he was, were brought in on £24.5k. He took it up with his manager who told him he couldn't get a raise because 21k was the going rate when he was hired and the circumstances are now different. He accepted it, and kept to himself for another year or so, still earning less wages than all of his colleagues, until someone suggested to him that he should put his foot down and take it up with HR - a little over 2 weeks later he was offered a new contract giving him parity with his colleagues. That young lad was me and I learned a valuable lesson - know your rights, and never accept anything at face value without at least making sure you have done your due diligence.

 

[TheRemainsOfTheDave]

I really don't see how "just accepting a decision and moving on" is a good and healthy way to live in this world. As with all things, it really depends on the situation. I don't think being inquisitive and sort of a cynic is by no means a negative thing. Obviously this case the OP describes is a bit different as they're considering legal action (I presume that is what is meant 'taking it further'), but generally speaking, I'd always encourage people to question things, demand answers etc. You may not always get it, but more often than not, you'll realise people can't slip one past you and take you for a mug.

As an example, a young lad, many moons ago, worked an office job on about £21k when management began expanding his team - all his new teammates, doing exactly the same job as he was, were brought in on £24.5k. He took it up with his manager who told him he couldn't get a raise because 21k was the going rate when he was hired and the circumstances are now different. He accepted it, and kept to himself for another year or so, still earning less wages than all of his colleagues, until someone suggested to him that he should put his foot down and take it up with HR - a little over 2 weeks later he was offered a new contract giving him parity with his colleagues. That young lad was me and I learned a valuable lesson - know your rights, and never accept anything at face value without at least making sure you have done your due diligence.

As you say, it depends on the situation. I'm not suggesting not to query things, but I feel this example was one where it's just one of those things and you move on. A lesson in life.

Now your example raises more questions in my mind. We never used to know what everyone else was earning, that was between you and your boss. Those that let on what they were earning were told to be quiet by the senior employees - I'm being serious. Mind you, unions and all that! I do remember that people got paid more if they'd done the job for longer even if the duties were the same.

 

[Coatigan]

Absolutely not. You would never do that in an interview. You would be damaging your chances of being successful. Any expert on interview techniques etc would tell you that. If they asked you directly in the interview that’s different but colleagues I work with who interview on a regular basis have told me they’re not allowed to ask that

The crux of the issue is that the advert said part and full time roles and now they’re saying they can’t accommodate part time

She’s spoken to third party HR people this afternoon who have told her she’s got a very strong argument and it’s very likely they’ll have to back down and offer her the part time role that she thought she was going for

On the first part, i disagree. they are there to attract you as a new employee, as much as you are there to impress them. I personally would ask anything i wanted to know, any detail. no point guessing. It shouldn't and i believe doesn't affect your chances.

Interesting re the HR response, i wouldn't have thought it, do keep us posted then, be interesting to see. good luck.

Yeah I can see what you mean. There is the added issue that there are fairly new employment laws that businneses have to
Allow employees to work hours around their family commitments. Unless they can prove it will harm the business they have to do it

Is that true though? never come across that. Unless your company offers flexi time (even that won't cover most needs), your hours are your hours. with exception of minimum parental leave etc. If there IS such a right, very few know about it, if you could add anything concrete to the thread, im sure some would appreciate it.

Definitely. It’s virtually impossible to sack people these days without getting bogged down in a long drawn out process of reviews, verbal / written warnings etc

That is just not true. That is conjecture typical of today's society of arm waving blame. It is easy enough to sack anyone for anything. Piss easy if under 2 years of employment, a little bit tougher after, but as long as it is under 20 employees at once, still easy.

 

[Coatigan]

As you say, it depends on the situation. I'm not suggesting not to query things, but I feel this example was one where it's just one of those things and you move on. A lesson in life.

Now your example raises more questions in my mind. We never used to know what everyone else was earning, that was between you and your boss. Those that let on what they were earning were told to be quiet by the senior employees - I'm being serious. Mind you, unions and all that! I do remember that people got paid more if they'd done the job for longer even if the duties were the same.

On first paragraph, i agree broadly, i'm probably that type.

On the second, do you think that is the right thing? not arguing one way or the other really. Where i work is like that, wouldn't say i mind it. there is a company similar to one i work for, they make their wages of all staff know to all on a list. I'm not sure how i feel about it, but a friend there says it works for them, and the peer competativeness and productivity is much higher than anywhere he has worked. Folk feel they need to either justify their wage, or prove they are worth more. In mu mind, it must increase animosity below the surface too, but that also surely depends on how grown-up or petty folk are. If that transparent, maybe not, who knows.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

Unless your good lady was offered the part time role, and supplied a contract which she accepted and signed, the employer can revise the job description at any time and offer whatever they want. Unfortunately the employer holds all the cards.

That's not entirely true. There have been cases where an email of a job offer can be used as proof in court that there was an agreement when an employer tries to change things later, so you don't necessarily need to have a signed contract. I don't know of any examples of where the advert itself could be binding though. Although it's definitely out-of-order. Applying for a job and preparing for an interview takes quite a lot of time, so to make someone go through all of that and then suddenly change the job afterwards is definitely a shitty thing to do. Obviously sometimes it's unavoidable. I've prepared for an interview in the past only to then be told the day before that the job is no longer available. If you don't already work for the company, there's probably not a lot you can do, but if this happened to me with a company I was already working for, I'd definitely kick off about it, because it's exactly the sort of thing that creates discontent in a company. You might have no legal rights, but going over the heads of those making a poor decision within the company can definitely work. If the HR department can clearly see that she's been fucked over, they may force them to change their minds.

 

[blueinsa]

Absolutely not. You would never do that in an interview. You would be damaging your chances of being successful. Any expert on interview techniques etc would tell you that. If they asked you directly in the interview that’s different but colleagues I work with who interview on a regular basis have told me they’re not allowed to ask that

The crux of the issue is that the advert said part and full time roles and now they’re saying they can’t accommodate part time

She’s spoken to third party HR people this afternoon who have told her she’s got a very strong argument and it’s very likely they’ll have to back down and offer her the part time role that she thought she was going for

They don't have to offer her fuck all mate, sorry.

She has been offered a role and it's up to her to accept it or not.

Christ the entitlement these days is off the scale.

What next? You going to sue them?

 

[sir baconface]

How many of the 20 posts were part-time?

Maybe they had 2 part and 18 full-time, and have already filled the part-time ones.

She has no case at all on the face of it.

 

[hammocity]

Absolutely not. You would never do that in an interview. You would be damaging your chances of being successful. Any expert on interview techniques etc would tell you that. If they asked you directly in the interview that’s different but colleagues I work with who interview on a regular basis have told me they’re not allowed to ask that

The crux of the issue is that the advert said part and full time roles and now they’re saying they can’t accommodate part time

She’s spoken to third party HR people this afternoon who have told her she’s got a very strong argument and it’s very likely they’ll have to back down and offer her the part time role that she thought she was going for

The Employer could start your wife on a part time contract to avoid any legal challenge over the positions offered but would have up to two years to terminate her employment on the grounds she wasn’t suitable. In effect they could let her work a month and then sack her. If they give a specific reason they would are liable to be challenged but they don’t have to hence the “unsuitable” criteria being applied.
There’s fuck all to challenge, your Mrs should either take the full time job or walk away and look for something else.

There are so many people miserable in their work I often wonder why they continue, like the saying which wasn’t really about employment “make the best of a bad job” or alternatively just fuck off and save everyone the hassle.

 

[TheRemainsOfTheDave]

On first paragraph, i agree broadly, i'm probably that type.

On the second, do you think that is the right thing? not arguing one way or the other really. Where i work is like that, wouldn't say i mind it. there is a company similar to one i work for, they make their wages of all staff know to all on a list. I'm not sure how i feel about it, but a friend there says it works for them, and the peer competativeness and productivity is much higher than anywhere he has worked. Folk feel they need to either justify their wage, or prove they are worth more. In mu mind, it must increase animosity below the surface too, but that also surely depends on how grown-up or petty folk are. If that transparent, maybe not, who knows.

That's interesting and possibly suggests my perception of it is wrong. I do, however, think it could create a glass ceiling for some. The old "We can't give you more because it breaks our wage structure". The company has to ensure they are paying market rate and of course to an employee it's not just about wage anyway. When I worked in a team, I honestly didn't care what another person in that team was earning. I knew my market value and if I was around that then I was fine with it. Someone earning more than me might need more money because of people they were financially responsible for or someone earning less might just love the job, live next door and be completely content. Boiling it down to just the job and salary isn't the full picture for me. I prefer the independent approach of negotiating the best for oneself but perhaps my confidence in my own ability to do so clouds my view of those that aren't as able. In summary, I'm happy for companies to do this sort of thing, but it might not attract me.