It was no secret in my work and time/place, there were two shops from which only short-term employees or real contractors would be considered (for the consulting business).
Especially if that shop was the only experience on the resume.
Yes, it happens.
In my experience (20 years in a research department comprised of many types of engineers and scientists), yes, the department or PI makes the decision of who is the best candidate, but it’s HR’s responsibility to extend the offer. They know the hiring laws and what can actually be paid. The whole thing sounds to me like someone extending an offer he didn’t really have the right to extend.
I used to contract and was converted several times, but I never did that. I would not leave a job unless I had another one lined up, and I wouldn’t back out of a job I had accepted (well, not without a really compelling reason).
If I was offered a permanent position after giving notice, I assured them I would have been happy to stay, but that it was unfortunately not possible after having accepted another position.
Sounds like it may be another difference between US and Canadian employment law then.
I’m just going to note that this move can also backfire. I had been in talks to convert from temp to perm with a company for several months – the company was waiting until I’d hit the threshold of total hours worked that would allow them to pay a lower finders fee to convert me, and I was fine with that, but the discussions where always WHEN, not IF. Also keeping in mind I’d already been working there six months, so they knew well what they were getting with me and were still willing to make that offer. So I finally hit the threshold, and they offer me – an $8000 pay cut. Oh, plus more required hours per week. I told them they weren’t giving me any incentive to change our current arrangement, BUT if they are interested in saving money, I would be willing take some non-cash perks instead.
They suddenly didn’t need me anymore.
No, I’m not talking about the interview process or even the final decision. It should go without saying that the hiring manager is heavily involved in that.
I’m talking about actually making the phone call to inform the candidate that the company would like to make them an offer of employment and then carrying out that process until a name is signed on the line that is dotted. That is the part that is always, in my experience, and should always be, in my opinion, handled by HR.
There’s a point I just don’t get so I hope someone can clarify it for me. A lot of people in the thread are coming up for scenarios to excuse the company’s behavior like after the interview they decided to drop benefits or HR decided based on money that they could only offer $30/hr.
Why wasn’t all of this settled by the company viz. HR / hiring manager / direct supervisor / department head (anyone associated with the new hire) BEFORE the company contacted him. I mean, has anyone ever been offered a job where the hiring terms were disapproved by HR after the offer was made? My experience is that the offer is approved by everyone associated with it and then it is up to the candidate to decide to accept, reject or counteroffer.
All I can say is that doesn’t match my personal experience, either being hired or on the hiring committee.
In my opinion, a phone call from the person who did the interview, or from the team leader where the new hire will be working, is a much warmer way to welcome someone to the group.
It did not happen to me, but I watched my company do it; we lost the only candidate over so little money …
I have had the hiring manager call me to say HR would be calling me with an offer, but never make the offer directly.
Nobody is defending the company’s behavior. Explaining possible mix-ups is not a defense. It’s an explanation of what might have happened.
It wasn’t settled because either a mistake was made or they’re pure evil and think pissing off someone helps the hiring process. Personally, I’ve watched companies eat a multi-million dollar mistake so on the scale of one to 10 I’d give this one a 1.
The op will eventually get a job somewhere/someday. Might be better, might be worse.
What was brought to the discussion by the op was:
-just out of college with no experience
-an industry in lean times
-disappointment with the offer process
I’m older and my generation is known for it’s work ethic. How that plays out in today’s market I don’t know but if it were me I’d take the job and see where it leads in a year.
Did HR sign off on an offer only to later change their minds - or did the offer get made before the signoff?
That’s reasonable, and is more or less how we do it. The details of the offer are in the offer letter, which is too complicated to say over the phone. But unless the manager is a real putz I’d say calling to tell the candidate an offer is coming is pretty much making the offer.
When I got into college I got a think envelope saying I was in and the details would follow. I considered myself admitted before the details arrived. Same kind of thing.
I’m of your generation at least, but I don’t consider a good work ethic a reason to let a potential employer jerk you around. And a year is a long time in a job you hate.
Whereas, I would take the job with the idea of finding something else. Making some money and gaining experience is still better than being out of work.
After the offer was made HR found out the signing bonus was outside the allowed range for the salary or the grade, I forget which. The candidate countered - split the difference - and the hiring manager just said, no, forget it, then.
ETA: HR had agreed to the offer before it was made; HR makes all the offers, not the hiring manager.
We never filled the position, and the department was reorganized, loosing some of the functions.
The position probably wouldn’t last a year; the group will be re-organized, get “lean”, and the newest hire - or two - let go. Less than a year in your first job, or a rocky company, or both, just looks bad. Hiring managers do not think, “probably a great candidate, just caught in the down turn”; the resume sorting software sees less than a year and automatically rejects the resume.
It’s not like it was when we were kids, when talent and hard work really were enough to get a start.
It’s not my field and I have nothing constructive to add, beyond what’s already been said. But I would like to say: congrats on your freshly minted engineering degree!
While I agree your scenario is quite possible it didn’t work in this case. The op had zero time and got 2 interviews. I have to admit I’m biased because I spent 26 years in the same industry and went 6 years between major jobs. I’m too old to take the risk of turning down a decent job. I suppose one of the factors to consider here is the financial needs of the op. Are there student loans to pay off or is there parental housing to get through the hiring process.
Nobody seems to understand that post WW-II was a one time economic “gift”. The United States had something like 75% of all the heavy manufacturing facilities in the world.
The days of loyal employees working for a loyal employer are dead, buried and the subject of study. I’ve worked for some great companies and also great groups within a company. that’s probably as good as anyone can expect in this time period.
I don’t see the connection. The OP reads likes the expectations and budget were rapidly decreasing already, and that could have continued. I also am still surprised by the length of the gaps between interviews. However, after 26 years, you’re probably right.
And the US had more than the manufacturing facilities, we had the workers - skilled, well compensated workers (half of whom we kicked to the curb at the end of the war, and told to go home to the kitchen, but I digress). We should have listened to Demings instead of giving him to Japan.
So HR screwed up, and you lost the candidate. I bet the hiring manager was pleased.
I agree about the probable fate of that job. Our resume sorting software doesn’t kick out anything. It is pure keyword matching. Not nearly smart enough to figure out dates. Anyhow, it would probably decide that someone promoted after 9 months had changed jobs …
As for kids today, in my field they are in high demand and get immense amounts of money. When I look at resumes from MIT, I think holy shit, I’m glad I went there 45 years ago because today I wouldn’t be able to compete. And the interns I get are damned smart.
S/he was very displeased. With the candidate.
In my admittedly somewhat limited experience (not in O/G), these are not comparable. “Fresh out of school” applicants are examined solely in terms of the school and the internships/practicums/recommendations that go along with it. However, applicants with any time in the field are examined differently, and that time is scrutinized. Somebody who has worked somewhere for only a few months likely means that s/he 1) has unrealistic expectations and won’t stick around here either, or 2) is about to get fired there. Sure, there could be other explanations, but those are the most common, and either means this candidate is a risk. HR drones don’t like risks, particularly when there are so many applicants who don’t have flashing neon warning signs on their resumes.