Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Recruiters Are Still Complaining About No-Shows At Interviews (kyma.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the disinterested-in-interviews dept.

An anonymous reader quotes CNN Money: Chandra Kill had scheduled face-to-face interviews with 21 candidates to fill some job openings at her employment screening firm. Only 11 showed up. "About half flaked out," said Kill.... "A year or two ago it wasn't like this." With the U.S. unemployment rate at its lowest in 18 years, and more job openings than there are people looking for work, candidates are bailing on scheduled interviews. In some cases, new hires are not showing up for their first day of work....

While there's nothing wrong with accepting another job offer, bailing on an employer without notice could have lasting effects. "The world is small," said Johnny Taylor, president and CEO of the Society for Human Resource Management.... He added that he's heard of a candidate being flown out for a job interview only to skip that part of the trip. "I expect that if I send you a plane ticket and block off two hours to meet with you, you will show up." As a result, he said some companies are having candidates agree to reimburse for travel costs if they take the trip but flake on the interview.

In an effort to curb the problem, recruiters have been changing their tactics and moving through the hiring process faster. If they have a qualified candidate that seems like a good fit, they work to get them in for an interview the next day.
Inc. magazine once blamed the problem of no-shows on the low unemployment rate and "the effects technology have had on the communication style of younger generations." But leave your own thoughts in the comments.

And have you ever been a no-show for a job interview?

10 of 477 comments (clear)

  1. Don't no-show by Spazmania · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've never been a no-show period. If I won't make it somewhere I've promised to be, I contact the folks I was to meet with and let them know as soon as I know. Basic courtesy folks.

    I've been on the other end of this too. Seen candidates not show up and then submit an application to a different job 6 months later. Guess who doesn't get considered for the job?

    --
    Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    1. Re:Don't no-show by Freischutz · · Score: 5, Informative

      I've never been a no-show period. If I won't make it somewhere I've promised to be, I contact the folks I was to meet with and let them know as soon as I know. Basic courtesy folks.

      I've been on the other end of this too. Seen candidates not show up and then submit an application to a different job 6 months later. Guess who doesn't get considered for the job?

      Well that has to work both ways. Quite a few HR people and recruiters have this arrogant tendency to consider themselves entitled to treat applicants like trash. I've applied for jobs with certain recruiting agencies and companies and never heard from them again. I've been sent (at my own expense) considerable distances to be interviewed by people who clearly hadn't even read my CV. A recruiter will do that to me exactly once. After that, guess whose job adverts are ignored and whose e-mails and messages go straight into the waste basket? Recruiters should just get used to the idea that if they reserve the right to ghost job applicants, give them the run-around or send them on bogus interviews, applicants are going to treat them the same way. Respect is a two way street.

    2. Re: Don't no-show by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Headhunters just need to be eliminated from the process. My experience has been that third parties 'selling from the middle' will disrepresent the situation to both sides, the employee and the employer. They just need to go find a real job. (for themselves)

    3. Re:Don't no-show by StormReaver · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is very clearly a case of a worker's market.

      Which is very clearly a temporary abnormality. I've been at the same job for over 17 years. It pays decently, and is enough to support a family of four with mine as the only income, but I could make substantially more if I went somewhere else.

      I won't though.

      The current job market balance may be tilting in favor of employees at the moment, but that will inevitably change in the near future. And when it does, the, "last in, first out" rule will kick in. Secondly, I left my job once for higher pay, and I quickly regretted it. The bosses sucked, the technology sucked, and the people sucked, so I went back to my old job within a week. Most jobs suck, but mine strikes a great balance between responsibilities and job satisfaction that is very hard to find.

      Thirdly, I watched how my employer handled its people during the Great Recession. When major cuts had to be made, "things" were drastically cut to preserve jobs. Retirees were't replaced when they retired, and some employees who wanted to retire early were given early retirement with full benefits, but not a single person was laid off. I have a job where my employer actually does value its employees, and that's very hard to find.

  2. My peers by darkain · · Score: 5, Informative

    From what I've seen from my peers, they submit applications to 20+ jobs at once. Two or three will get back to them and schedule an interview (sometimes without even asking if the day/time works). The person applying then weighs which jobs seem like the absolute best fit for them from the offers, and go for that, ignoring the others. That's just basically how things are nowadays.

    1. Re:My peers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you get scheduled for a day/time that you cannot make, you ask for a reschedule. If they deny a reschedule, tough luck for them. If you can't, you can't and an potential employer that don't understand that is not an employer you would want to work for. But then that employer should at least get a "sorry to have to say no thanks, I really cannot make that specific time for an interview, but thanks for considering me for the position".

      Ignoring an interview, or even worse, ignoring an interview you explicitly agreed to (and they possibly even paid tickets for you come to) is just showing how little you care. I hope you get blacklisted from any future work within that enterprise.

      And "just basically how things work nowadays" should not be an excuse for being a poor interviewee. If it is it will reflect show shitty employees these people will be. If you give your word, I trust you. If you break your trust, you are useless to me, whether you are my employee, co-worker or boss. And you will see that in order to be successful in your career, you need to be able to trust other people around you. When you can't, GTFO as quickly as possible. That is a litmus test that shows you a toxic environment.

  3. I still remember how it was by johannesg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When you sent in a resume and didn't even receive a reply telling you that you weren't selected. If you hear nothing, we weren't interested. Must be painful to find the shoe's on the other foot now...

  4. Turnabout is fair play by asackett · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's just been routine in the last decade or so, as I understand it, for employers to say things like "If you don't hear from us you didn't get the job." Or for recruiters to post jobs that aren't available, or to interview folks just so they could say that they did so before promoting internally.

    Folks learn the rules of the game by playing it.

    --

    Warning: This signature may offend some viewers.

  5. Re:Unconvinced by Frobnicator · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you follow news sites, economists agree with you. There is not yet a real general labor shortage.

    Just like so many other recent labor shortages, and just like the H1B visa debacles, the shortage is in people wanting to work for the rates offered. Companies can create hundreds of job postings for less than people are willing to work, but that doesn't mean the company has a true shortage. It does mean that if the companies keep scraping the bottom of the employment barrel they're finding fewer people willing to take those jobs. Last year the consumer price index (inflation) went up almost 3%, and for the first time since about 1969 have wages increased slightly faster than inflation for multiple years in a row.

    Businesses have enjoyed the benefits of wage stagnation for too many decades. The last time purchasing power consistently went up across the nation ran from the end of the Great Depression in the 1930s all the way through the 1960s. The ratio hit a peak in about 1969, stabilized a little lower through the decade, fell sharply at the end of the 1970s, and the ratio has been flat ever since. For a half century the relative purchasing power for nearly everybody has been stagnant. Wages have gone up, but generally on par or less than inflation. Occasionally an industry will have a shortage and wages will trend upward, but it hasn't been broad.

    As the better workplaces have known for ages, raise the salary offers and you'll have no shortage of willing workers. Even at the low end, locally we've got stores with great reputations, they visibly post wages they pay, and they've got no shortage of workers. One great chain of gas stations posts that all cashiers start at $12/hr (regionally other places have ads for $8 or so). A fast food restaurant has similar $12 or $12.50 rates with no experience. When I looked in to them they all said they've got strict rules including drug testing and background checks, and no visible tattoos, but workers get a >50% pay increase over what they get elsewhere and the company gets a much better wage slave.

    If we see true labor shortages then wages will increase more broadly. This might be happening, and since we're seeing wages outpace inflation (by a fraction of a percent) for multiple years now there is some hope for those who otherwise work in low-skill jobs.

    --
    //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
  6. Re:This is GOOD! by aix+tom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The interesting part is, that our company still has no problem finding new people. We put our finger in the air, and get enough people that we then can qualify in 6-12 month on-the-job training.

    Companies just need to forget the fairy tale that a recruiter can get them a 100% qualified person. They need to create those people themselves, if they want them.