Poll of the Day > Got told I basically got the job at an interview, now they're ghosting me

(+) Yeah! (+)

The hell? Just tell me if I didn't get the job, don't ignore me when I call.

Never had that happen (lol, as if I'd get anything close to an offer) but I interviewed with some place a month ago and basically told me during the interview that I'd be going to the next round. In my follow-ups they've said there were some delays but I kind of wonder if they're full of shit, they don't seem at all interested in in updating me of their own volition.

Basically, companies suck ass and don't give a shit about you.

Though on a related note, I hate when I'm interviewing and they say "You will" be doing this, working in this area, etc. Don't fucking make it sound like you're going to hire me if you aren't. Say "would", motherfuckers.

Chewster posted...

Though on a related note, I hate when I'm interviewing and they say "You will" be doing this, working in this area, etc. Don't fucking make it sound like you're going to hire me if you aren't. Say "would", motherfuckers.

That is actually grammatically correct. If they were to use "would," then the appropriate syntax would be to say "If you were hired, you would be...", and that wording suggests that they aren't hiring you. "If hired, then you will be..." is no less of a conditional statement, but it lacks the clear negative connotation.

Now, "We are looking for somebody to do..." is an even better choice for a neutral option. The true best practice would probably be to talk about the job that needs doing, rather than what the person who gets that job will be doing, since that doesn't imply one way or another that the person being interviewed will get the job. But that's not the most comfortable way to speak for many, and a big part of interviewing effectively is making the interviewee comfortable enough to get a good sense of their abilities, so sticking with the positive slant of "you will" does the job just fine.
---

What the hell is wrong with you

Not only is it one of your textbook pointless pedantic arguments, but you're wrong.

https://writingexplained.org/will-vs-would-difference

Will is a modal auxiliary verb, where it describes an action that is expected to take place in the future.

Would is also a conditional verb. It indicates an action that would happen if certain circumstances were met.

Not a super official source, I know, but there aren't any (that I know of) for this type of thing. But if you google will vs. would pretty much everything will tell you the same thing.

Well coincidentally the guy just called me. He had me confused for someone else and told me he tried to contact me for an in person interview but I never replied. I told him that I did meet with him and he told me to hang on and he would call me back. He sent me a text message five minutes later saying they filled the position.

So basically they were disorganized and mixed me up with another applicant and I got screwed out of a chance at this job.

Wow, that's extremely embarrassing.

ThickDaddy posted...

So basically they were disorganized and mixed me up with another applicant and I got screwed out of a chance at this job.

If they're that disorganized, do you really want to work there in the first place?

It would probably suck the first time they accidentally send your pay checks to the wrong address, or accidentally fire demote you instead of promote you because of an administrative snafu.


---

First women now your jobs who else is going to stand you up maybe Arv will next
---

Can we just all acknowledge that this is smokemasstree?
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

ThickDaddy posted...

So basically they were disorganized and mixed me up with another applicant and I got screwed out of a chance at this job.

If they're that disorganized, do you really want to work there in the first place?

It would probably suck the first time they accidentally send your pay checks to the wrong address, or accidentally fire demote you instead of promote you because of an administrative snafu.

This is true but I was only planning in working this job until my apprenticship started up in a couple months. Still sucks though, I was looking forward to working normal hours and being out the house during the day.

ArvTheGreat posted...

First women now your jobs who else is going to stand you up maybe Arv will next

Daddy has no problem with the ladies.
SunWuKung420 posted...

Can we just all acknowledge that this is smokemasstree?

I am not.

ThickDaddy posted...

I am not.

---

I've had it happen twice.

The first time it took them about 2 months. They were just so busy and not ready for a new person - but they never told me squat. Nothing came up - I still ended up there.

The other time they took so long I took another job. Once they came back with the offer it wasn't any better than the job I had taken so I had to basically tell them they took too long.

adjl posted...

Chewster posted...

Though on a related note, I hate when I'm interviewing and they say "You will" be doing this, working in this area, etc. Don't fucking make it sound like you're going to hire me if you aren't. Say "would", motherfuckers.

That is actually grammatically correct. If they were to use "would," then the appropriate syntax would be to say "If you were hired, you would be...", and that wording suggests that they aren't hiring you. "If hired, then you will be..." is no less of a conditional statement, but it lacks the clear negative connotation.

Now, "We are looking for somebody to do..." is an even better choice for a neutral option. The true best practice would probably be to talk about the job that needs doing, rather than what the person who gets that job will be doing, since that doesn't imply one way or another that the person being interviewed will get the job. But that's not the most comfortable way to speak for many, and a big part of interviewing effectively is making the interviewee comfortable enough to get a good sense of their abilities, so sticking with the positive slant of "you will" does the job just fine.

Bruh I have my degree in English and am studying law. Stop talking. Shut up. None of this would hold in a linguistical argument. You would be laughed out of court.

Also @ThickDaddy why your username not ThiccDaddy

ThickDaddy posted...

He sent me a text message five minutes later saying they filled the position.

lol what labor shortage this is what 3% unemployment looks like

CharlesBronson posted...

ThickDaddy posted...

He sent me a text message five minutes later saying they filled the position.

lol what labor shortage this is what 3% unemployment looks like

tbh, the "labor shortage" these days is often more a matter of employers not wanting to pay fair wages than actually not finding workers.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/11/news/economy/job-skills-gap-employer-pay/index.html
---

CharlesBronson posted...

ThickDaddy posted...

He sent me a text message five minutes later saying they filled the position.

lol what labor shortage this is what 3% unemployment looks like

You can have a labor shortage and still have unemployment. There can never be 0% unemployment.

You wouldn't hire someone who isn't qualified for the job. For example, you wouldn't hire someone to be an accountant if they don't have an accounting degree. So there could be a shortage of qualified accountants even with a 3% unemployment rate because those 3% aren't qualified to be accountants.

Ive had it happen at the interviews before amd never heard from them after. You don't get anything until you got an actual job offer

Same thing happened to me.
---