Bad-mannered job hunters, hires spoil it for others
I've often noted that the most frequent beef from job hunters is that, particularly after having interviews, they don't hear back from employers.
There is, though, a similar — and justifiable — complaint from employers.
I've heard shocking examples from hirers who have been burned by no-shows — for interview appointments and by new hires.
Consider the real-world experience of James W. Randolph, a veterinarian, who responded to a recent column about the stresses of job searches. He wrote, in part:
Our practice has long had the policy of contacting every applicant to let them know where their application stood with us. Human decency works both ways, though.
When we mark off an appointment time for a candidate, and they lack the “human decency” to let us know they aren't coming to the interview, not only is it frustrating, it's expensive. I could have been seeing patients in that time slot.
Or we sign someone up for trial time, and they act eager to be here, then don't show up.
This past week, I hired a woman and asked her to arrive at 7:10 the next day. We still haven't heard from her (and, of course, don't expect to).
It would be bad enough if this were an infrequent syndrome, but it happens all the time.
Armchair quarterbacks can make all kinds of assumptions or excuses about why applicants don't hold up their end of the human decency contract.
Sometimes, it's true, they may have discovered undesirable or incompatible information about the workplace or had an emergency. But to just vanish without a word spoils the hirer/applicant relationship for people who are trying to do things the right way.
So, for job-hunting boors, here are the rules:
• If you have an interview appointment, show up or call ahead to explain why you cannot make it.
• If you are hired, show up when you're supposed to or call in advance with a good explanation why you won't be joining the payroll.
Diane Stafford is the workplace and careers columnist at The Kansas City Star; email@example.com.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- U.S. Steel puts 1,400 workers on notice to curb costs
- American Eagle closing Marshall distribution facility by July
- Hearing set on Highmark plan to put $175 million in Allegheny Health
- Union seeks labor board injunction over Wal-Mart store closings
- ‘Significant’ fine expected against Sunoco Logistics
- Car dealerships turn advertising, sales focus to women
- MedExpress bought by United Health Group
- Weak Appalachian coal market crimps supply chain
- Frederick’s seeks bankruptcy after closing lingerie stores
- Rebound of oil pushes up gasoline prices in Pittsburgh area
- Important robotic cameras used to find blockages, cross-bores in gas pipes