No, the employer and the potential hire are of the same importance. Employer has something the individual is interested in (a job) and the individual has something the employer is interested in (a skill set). The interview process makes sure that skill set matches job - but there is a lot more to having a good match than just “do you meet the requirements.” To keep an employee in a job (and I’ve been on both ends) its often the intangibles that really matter. Do the employees values match the corporate culture? Are the personalities involved a good fit?
The employer does not offer the job immediately. He evaluates all his candidates. He usually does not talk salary and benefit information until the offer is actually made. When the potential employee gets the offer he may want to evaluate the offer against several.
Now, the employer certainly has a right to demand an answer right now or pull the offer, but the individual has a right to ask for time to think it over, or turn down the job. I’ve turned down plenty of jobs because they didn’t seem to be the best fit at the time. I also am currently in a job (seven years and counting) that I interviewed for simply as a favor to a friend - I wasn’t looking when I interviewed and went in fairly sure I wouldn’t take the job if it was offered. The interview changed my mind.
But how can you truly know if you want the job until the offer, with the salary and benefits, is made? Asking for 24 hours notice isn’t unreasonable to consider the financial implications. A company demanding an answer immediately (for anything but a low-level job) would make me quite suspicious.
Sorry, I disagree here, strongly. I’ve had prospective employers fail the job interview. That is, after talking with the person who would have been my supervisor I realized that there was no way I wanted to be paid for taking this idiot’s orders.
When I applied for the job in question I had the idea, if not the precise thought, that if they satisfied me, I’d be willing to take the job.
As it was, it was a late night contract security company - and I decided that while being an armed guard isn’t necessarily a bad thing, being an armed guard for someone who couldn’t answer questions like, “How often do your guards have to use their weapons?” was not going to work for me.
Similarly, I’ve job hunted and gone through a three interview six week long hiring process. Since the job was with ConEd, and I was living here in Rochester at the time, to get to any of the interviews, I had to travel on my own dime to make them. If the company could insist on three interviews for a long distance candidate (and I agree they’re fully within their rights to do so.) I don’t see why it’s a huge imposition for me to say, at the end of the process that I need a 24 hours to think over the firm offer I just got.
If it takes the company six weeks to choose their preferred candidate, and only then give the candidate the firm details of renumaration and benefits, why is it unreasonable to ask for 24 hours to consider the offer, or even gasp shake other offers out of the tree?
You should already have a minimum salary and benefits package decided upon. If the employer doesn’t hit those marks, you say no. What is there to think about? I have all my calculus already done. Then the offer either fills my criteria or it doesn’t. There’s nothing to ponder.
So you take absolutely no new information from the interview other than benefits and salary? You would also never give a current employer the chance to negotiate?
When companies start interviewing only one applicant, then I’ll stop negotiating with multiple companies.
Sure there is: Relocation allotment, vs. better package than you expected? Lower pay, but better benefits? Or higher pay and really crappy benefits? Finally getting the answer to how much expected mandatory OT the job would involve? (Something that I didn’t get until the offer was actually made.)
As an HR professional, my experience has always been that candidates can have a reasonable amount of time to consider the offer. 24 hours would be reasonable for just about any position. Requesting the offer in writing is also reasonable. Longer time periods depend on what the applicant has to consider. A week could be reasonable for a professional position, perhaps even longer for senior professional/executive/with relocation.
It is really naive HR to think that applicants aren’t applying elsewhere or looking for counteroffers. Note: I don’t condone applying *just * for the counteroffer (plus, many employers have a policy of not countering, or only countering until they can replace you). But when I am on the hiring side, I would rather wait a day or two, than get ready to onboard you, then have you call back because your other offer came through.
If the decision and start date are a huge rush for some legitimate reason, that should be made clear during the interview process. The only time I’ve heard of “give me the answer now” is when someone is being roped into an MLM scam. Honestly, it sounds like it may have been that HR person’s first day, or maybe her last? Maybe she forgot to call you earlier and was covering her *ss?
We’re not talking about deciding immediately after the interview but after the offer. For anything but a Burger King type job an offer isn’t going to come during the interview. There shouldn’t be much new information from the offer except a specific salary (benefits should have been discussed during the interview), and you should already have your numbers decided.
No one ever said the employer has an obligation to give that time. They certainly don’t. However it is VERY unusual, not very smart, and even suspicious, not to offer (or allow if asked) a time to consider.
It is YOUR position that it is “astonishingly condescending to expect to be given time to mull over an offer”. That is TOTAL bullshit.
And you might address my cites in Post #50 that having time to consider a job offer is SOP in the business world.
Again, I would like to see any cite you can offer that suggests what you advocate is normal or reasonable in a hiring process.
Well not even that. The OP made it plain that her only concern was the commute, the employment package was made plain and had no room for negotiation anyway. I can’t see how the length of the commute changed from the time the interview process started.
Why hadn’t she thought about the commute already? The commute is information she already had before the offer ever came. That data should have already been computed and a decision made as to what salary number would make the commute worthwhile. There is very little calculus that can’t be done before the offer comes.
ETA, on a second reading, I can see you’re basically agreeing with me, so I apologize if I sound argumentative.
Exactly, this is a question of business etiquette, and unlike ethics, etiquette is decided by current practices. In theory, yes, OP could have had a decision ready to go. But OP had no reason to expect that they’d have to answer that very second, because this is not commonly done. Unless someone can say that this is common practice in their industry, company, or region, arguing that the OP was unprepared doesn’t really change the answer to the original question.
If you’re in the market for a new home, you search the listings for the home that has the features you want, such as a pool, a garage, or good schools nearby. Would you immediately sign for the first home you are shown, regardless of the offer? Wouldn’t you look over other homes as well? And even if the first home you are shown has everything you want, do you make a decision there in the driveway, or do you mull it over for a few days?
A job isn’t a product. You’re not buying it. Nobody’s marketing it to you. It’s something that you’re asking someone else to GIVE you. If you don’t want it, don’t ask for it.
I can totally understand where you’re coming from. But like buying a house, a job is a life-changing event. It affects every aspect of your life, financially, socially, and so on. If the house is perfect but costs $20,000 more than you wanted to pay, you’ll think it over for a few days and decide you’ll either pay extra or look elsewhere. Likewise, If the job you’re applying for is offering $5,000 less than the salary you expect, it’s natural to want a day or two to decide if the job is worth the lower pay.
Of course, this is IMHO and you’re perfectly entitled to your opinion. I respectfully disagree.
That’s even crazier than your other claim. I have never seen an ad that tells me so much about a job and the people I would work with that I could tell for certain that I would accept the job. And yes, they ARE marketing it to you. They call them want ADS.
Thanks for continuing to ignore my posts about what constitutes a business norm about these issues.
I don’t understand this attitude at all. When I’m interviewing for a job I’m usually interviewing for multiple jobs. I’m selling myself to them, they’re selling themselves to me. I’m asking them to make me an offer; the job without those details isn’t a job yet.
Until they give me a firm offer with salary and benefits spelled out in detail I’m not giving them an answer. Once they give me that info, I will evaluate that against other existing or potential offers, plus my wants and needs. This takes time.
Really? You must not be in much demand. I get recruited. Companies market themselves to me. Not as much as they used to - I’m out of circulation. You should see the marketing Brainiac4 gets. He has headhunters begging him to “just talk to them.”
Methinks you’ve never been in a position where you hold the cards.
They force you to send them your resumes and go to interviews? We are not talking about situations where a company has reached out to you but where you have reached out to them.
An of course I get “recruited.” I get the same flyers on my windshield offering me big $$$ to work at home that you get. It’s not that special.