News: IT'S THE 2ND ANNUAL GUATEMALA LIBRARY PROJECT BOOK DRIVE!    LOOKING FOR DONATIONS OF SCIENCE BOOKS THIS YEAR.    Check it out in the "Extending the Hand of Kindness" folder or here: http://www.etiquettehell.com/smf/index.php?topic=139832.msg3372084#msg3372084   

  • November 22, 2017, 01:40:43 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74  (Read 3711567 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

CrochetFanatic

  • Member
  • Posts: 736
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #2940 on: November 08, 2012, 09:58:17 PM »
I'm only on page 3 of this thread, but I've got one.  At my first cashier job one of the managers was arrested for stealing.  I was working the front register when a uniformed police officer came in and asked me where this particular manager was, and I said that I thought she was probably in the stock room.  He thanked me, and went back.  I didn't think anything of it until I heard from another employee that she had just been led out in handcuffs.  It turns out that she had been stealing money from the safe for some time, and one of the other managers had finally caught her in the act and called the police. 

Needless to say, she was fired.  She was actually the one I got along the best with, which had me questioning my instincts.

greencat

  • Member
  • Posts: 3899
  • Trap...Neuter...What was that third thing again?
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #2941 on: November 08, 2012, 10:17:27 PM »
Not sure if this was PD or just a near miss for me.     It's Friday (where I am!) and I had a new employee due to start Monday.  It's an entry level admin role with great career progression, for which I had literally 100s of applications.   So it was a hard call eliminating candidates to select one.     However, select a candidate we did - she accepted gladly, and was working out her notice period due to start Monday.   Everything is in place ready to go.  I've been in contact with her throughout the process.

Then out of the blue I got an email from her today saying she's been accepted into university to do her post-graduate studies so has decided  to decline the role.

The reason I think it's a little PDish is this:   our industry is hard to break into, and she expressed a really strong desire to build a career in the industry.  There are actually no specific qualification requirements (although of course they help, particularly at senior level) but getting your foot in the door?  Yep, that's priceless.   All of her experience so far is as a receptionist at a 1 man business, so basically she's going to end up as a receptionist with an MBA.   I wish I could tell her how many degree and even post-grad qualified candidates we turned down for this role!!   I value education highly, but when recruiting it simply is no match for relevant skillsets and experience, so she had an edge JUST because she had some working experience.   However, her working experience is still junior so even if she gets a higher qualification she will still need to start at the bottom, however by then she'll have been out of the workforce for a few years and honestly lost her edge in terms of what we are looking for.   The stupid part is if she'd just called me, I would have happily offered her a part-time role instead if she was interested.   Basically, I could have given her the entry into the industry while she still could have pursued her higher education.    Maybe she was lying all along and didn't really want the job.  It seems unlikely though as her reasons for wanting to work in the industry were good ones.   I wish her the best but I really, really believe she is making a big mistake for her own career.  (The job market is flooded with over-qualified but inexperienced candidates at the moment!!)    Good news for me is I have 100s of other people to choose from - I never send my declines out until I have the person commence (unless it's a long delay) because it's too risky.  Still, I am surprised at this candidates decision and it's a shame she couldn't have been more honest about her personal goals etc.

I would have done the same thing in her shoes - although she might have a hard time breaking into your particular industry after a few years out of the work force, getting the education may open the door to her in other industries that she'd equally like to work in.  She may have a scholarship or some other support that will allow her to focus on school instead of trying to juggle school and work.

Ceallach

  • Member
  • Posts: 4490
    • This Is It
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #2942 on: November 08, 2012, 11:03:02 PM »
Not sure if this was PD or just a near miss for me.     It's Friday (where I am!) and I had a new employee due to start Monday.  It's an entry level admin role with great career progression, for which I had literally 100s of applications.   So it was a hard call eliminating candidates to select one.     However, select a candidate we did - she accepted gladly, and was working out her notice period due to start Monday.   Everything is in place ready to go.  I've been in contact with her throughout the process.

Then out of the blue I got an email from her today saying she's been accepted into university to do her post-graduate studies so has decided  to decline the role.

The reason I think it's a little PDish is this:   our industry is hard to break into, and she expressed a really strong desire to build a career in the industry.  There are actually no specific qualification requirements (although of course they help, particularly at senior level) but getting your foot in the door?  Yep, that's priceless.   All of her experience so far is as a receptionist at a 1 man business, so basically she's going to end up as a receptionist with an MBA.   I wish I could tell her how many degree and even post-grad qualified candidates we turned down for this role!!   I value education highly, but when recruiting it simply is no match for relevant skillsets and experience, so she had an edge JUST because she had some working experience.   However, her working experience is still junior so even if she gets a higher qualification she will still need to start at the bottom, however by then she'll have been out of the workforce for a few years and honestly lost her edge in terms of what we are looking for.   The stupid part is if she'd just called me, I would have happily offered her a part-time role instead if she was interested.   Basically, I could have given her the entry into the industry while she still could have pursued her higher education.    Maybe she was lying all along and didn't really want the job.  It seems unlikely though as her reasons for wanting to work in the industry were good ones.   I wish her the best but I really, really believe she is making a big mistake for her own career.  (The job market is flooded with over-qualified but inexperienced candidates at the moment!!)    Good news for me is I have 100s of other people to choose from - I never send my declines out until I have the person commence (unless it's a long delay) because it's too risky.  Still, I am surprised at this candidates decision and it's a shame she couldn't have been more honest about her personal goals etc.

I would have done the same thing in her shoes - although she might have a hard time breaking into your particular industry after a few years out of the work force, getting the education may open the door to her in other industries that she'd equally like to work in.  She may have a scholarship or some other support that will allow her to focus on school instead of trying to juggle school and work.

When I refer to the over-qualified part I don't just mean my industry, it's well documented that it's an issue everywhere right now here.  There are lots of graduates coming through, but they're finding employers don't value the qualification (except in specialist industries where the qualification is required).   For entry-level roles they think the candidates are over-qualified, and for higher level roles they think they're under-experienced.    I don't know any industries at the moment who are looking for receptionists with an MBA - she will have to start at the bottom no matter where she wants to go.  And the longer she puts it off the harder she'll find it.   But more to the point, it's incredibly unprofessional to aggressively pursue and accept a job opportunity without giving any indication of other potential opportunities or priorities.    And yes, I probed deeply into all of those things with her - so I can only assume she was lying to me.  And no, there's no scholarship or anything like that.   
"Nobody can do everything, but everybody can do something"


Amara

  • Member
  • Posts: 2134
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #2943 on: November 09, 2012, 10:39:41 AM »
Well, better to find out now than in two months. Plus, your not having rejected the other candidates yet still gives you all those options. I am sure you will find the perfect fit.

Jocelyn

  • Member
  • Posts: 2013
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #2944 on: November 09, 2012, 06:45:24 PM »
    But more to the point, it's incredibly unprofessional to aggressively pursue and accept a job opportunity without giving any indication of other potential opportunities or priorities.    And yes, I probed deeply into all of those things with her - so I can only assume she was lying to me.  And no, there's no scholarship or anything like that.
I think it's a bit much to expect a candidate will say, 'I've got a few things I'm considering- some other job opportunities, or maybe I'd go to grad school if I were accepted. Really, my first choice will be whichever one comes through with a concrete offer first.'
Would you have seriously considered her if she'd said she had other possibilities? I can see how that would be in your best interest, for her to admit that, but I don't really see how it would be in hers.

Shoo

  • Member
  • Posts: 15855
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #2945 on: November 09, 2012, 08:45:03 PM »
    But more to the point, it's incredibly unprofessional to aggressively pursue and accept a job opportunity without giving any indication of other potential opportunities or priorities.    And yes, I probed deeply into all of those things with her - so I can only assume she was lying to me.  And no, there's no scholarship or anything like that.
I think it's a bit much to expect a candidate will say, 'I've got a few things I'm considering- some other job opportunities, or maybe I'd go to grad school if I were accepted. Really, my first choice will be whichever one comes through with a concrete offer first.'
Would you have seriously considered her if she'd said she had other possibilities? I can see how that would be in your best interest, for her to admit that, but I don't really see how it would be in hers.

I agree.  There's absolutely no benefit for someone to admit that to a potential employer.  In fact, I think it would be downright foolish.

PastryGoddess

  • Member
  • Posts: 6372
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #2946 on: November 10, 2012, 01:31:13 AM »
For me the issue was in her explanation of declining the job.  If she had simply said, that she had found another position that suited her better or that she was considering other offers, then I'm sure that would have been more palatable than the explanation she gave

I'm assuming that Cellach knows her job field pretty well and understands the job market as well.  This girl allowed the process to move forward until the company was at the point of having her start on Monday full time.  The time for her to send an email was when she was initially offered the job.  Maybe the company could have worked around her schedule maybe not.  But by waiting until the last moment, she has put Cellach's company in a bit of a bind and they may have to reschedule the training she was getting ready to undergo, thereby wasting company resources and time.  She burned bridges in the very industry she wants to work in.  That's not good

Everyone has to do what's best for their situation, but that doesn't mean you get to make choices without consequences either.

camlan

  • Member
  • Posts: 9273
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #2947 on: November 10, 2012, 01:33:52 PM »
It could be that the woman was lying about really wanting a job in Ceallach's field. I can easily imagine someone who really needed a job saying whatever they thought would get them that job, including taking a mild interest in the field and exaggerating it to a positive love for and passion for everything field-related.

It all depends. If her graduate studies are in the same field, then that's odd. But if she's studying something else, she was probably just trying to get the job.
Nothing is impossible, the word itself says, “I’m possible!” –Audrey Hepburn


nutraxfornerves

  • Member
  • Posts: 1677
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #2948 on: November 10, 2012, 01:41:03 PM »
Posting racial slurs and hopes for assassination about the US President on Facebook, and then telling a TV interviewer that "I didn't think it would be that big of a deal," might not be a good career move.

Obama threat gets Turlock woman fired, reported to Secret Service

Nutrax
The plural of anecdote is not data

blue2000

  • It is never too late to be what you might have been
  • Member
  • Posts: 6172
  • Two kitties - No waiting. And no sleeping either.
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #2949 on: November 10, 2012, 02:59:26 PM »
Posting racial slurs and hopes for assassination about the US President on Facebook, and then telling a TV interviewer that "I didn't think it would be that big of a deal," might not be a good career move.

Obama threat gets Turlock woman fired, reported to Secret Service

I can see where she would think that. She is far from being the only nutjob on the net right now - in fact she's one of the milder ones.

Still perfectly fair of them to fire her, though.
You are only young once. After that you have to think up some other excuse.

Iris

  • Member
  • Posts: 3252
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #2950 on: November 10, 2012, 03:32:24 PM »
Posting racial slurs and hopes for assassination about the US President on Facebook, and then telling a TV interviewer that "I didn't think it would be that big of a deal," might not be a good career move.

Obama threat gets Turlock woman fired, reported to Secret Service

If I'm honest I don't have a massive issue with the 'threat' part of her post. It is clearly not serious and just exposes her as a hateful person by its vehemence. I don't think the secret service will lose too much sleep over it. I am astounded, though, astounded that in 2012 a white person can call a black person the "n word" in a public forum and not realise that people are going to take offence. That's what really got me. Her SURPRISE that people thought she was racist.  ???

I'm not really surprised that they sacked her but I think it's probably more to do with racism than politics.
"Can't do anything with children, can you?" the woman said.

Poirot thought you could, but forebore to say so.

AngelicGamer

  • Member
  • Posts: 4188
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #2951 on: November 10, 2012, 03:37:04 PM »
Posting racial slurs and hopes for assassination about the US President on Facebook, and then telling a TV interviewer that "I didn't think it would be that big of a deal," might not be a good career move.

Obama threat gets Turlock woman fired, reported to Secret Service

If I'm honest I don't have a massive issue with the 'threat' part of her post. It is clearly not serious and just exposes her as a hateful person by its vehemence. I don't think the secret service will lose too much sleep over it. I am astounded, though, astounded that in 2012 a white person can call a black person the "n word" in a public forum and not realise that people are going to take offence. That's what really got me. Her SURPRISE that people thought she was racist.  ???

I'm not really surprised that they sacked her but I think it's probably more to do with racism than politics.

Yes, but they still have to investigate it.  So, that means time, money, and making sure it really isn't serious.  I think they'd rather do something else with their time and resources but they can't because of people like her.



Twik

  • Member
  • Posts: 28866
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #2952 on: November 10, 2012, 04:00:36 PM »
I am astounded, though, astounded that in 2012 a white person can call a black person the "n word" in a public forum and not realise that people are going to take offence. That's what really got me. Her SURPRISE that people thought she was racist.  ???

I'm not really surprised that they sacked her but I think it's probably more to do with racism than politics.

I agree, it's astonishing, but it's the way some people seem to think. I'm surprised she didn't come out with "but some of my best friends are ... that is, they're African American."
My cousin's memoir of love and loneliness while raising a child with multiple disabilities will be out on Amazon soon! Know the Night, by Maria Mutch, has been called "full of hope, light, and companionship for surviving the small hours of the night."

Iris

  • Member
  • Posts: 3252
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #2953 on: November 10, 2012, 04:02:07 PM »
Posting racial slurs and hopes for assassination about the US President on Facebook, and then telling a TV interviewer that "I didn't think it would be that big of a deal," might not be a good career move.

Obama threat gets Turlock woman fired, reported to Secret Service

If I'm honest I don't have a massive issue with the 'threat' part of her post. It is clearly not serious and just exposes her as a hateful person by its vehemence. I don't think the secret service will lose too much sleep over it. I am astounded, though, astounded that in 2012 a white person can call a black person the "n word" in a public forum and not realise that people are going to take offence. That's what really got me. Her SURPRISE that people thought she was racist.  ???

I'm not really surprised that they sacked her but I think it's probably more to do with racism than politics.

Yes, but they still have to investigate it.  So, that means time, money, and making sure it really isn't serious.  I think they'd rather do something else with their time and resources but they can't because of people like her.

Do they? Can they really not just say "Obviously a whack job" and leave it at that? Still, I come from a country where the only Prime Minister to die in office did so while having a swim at the beach  ::) so we tend to be a bit more relaxed about things. I believe I've told the story of the time that the Prime Minister was (unexpectedly) walking past and my brother and I were having an idle (and entirely joking) chat about running over and poking him in the eye and discussing the difficulties that his glasses would pose and wondering if that's why he wore glasses - to avoid eye-pokes. We looked up and realised that a very senior police officer was well within ear-shot of us and indeed holding back giggles, whether at our conversation or amusing double take I will never know.
"Can't do anything with children, can you?" the woman said.

Poirot thought you could, but forebore to say so.

Iris

  • Member
  • Posts: 3252
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #2954 on: November 10, 2012, 04:02:42 PM »
I am astounded, though, astounded that in 2012 a white person can call a black person the "n word" in a public forum and not realise that people are going to take offence. That's what really got me. Her SURPRISE that people thought she was racist.  ???

I'm not really surprised that they sacked her but I think it's probably more to do with racism than politics.

I agree, it's astonishing, but it's the way some people seem to think. I'm surprised she didn't come out with "but some of my best friends are ... that is, they're African American."

rofl
"Can't do anything with children, can you?" the woman said.

Poirot thought you could, but forebore to say so.