The Bait N Switch Blow Off
I have done that a few times. The individual will apply for a specific job and have all the skills needed, will certainly be qualified, has passed all the tests given, reference and other checks have come back favorable. I rally like that person. BUT, he/she does not have the "years of experience" requirement that Corporate is so inflexible on. What do I do? Well, since this is a multi-office firm in several states and I hire (among other things) for three of those states (Used to be two states, but somebody left with no forwarding address), I offer the person a job in a "lower" position for the few months it will take to reach the years of experience requirement. Once it is a fact, I will then move her into the position originally applied for. The firm does not have a hire turn-over rate, but because we are always expanding and hiring new attorneys, we always need legal secretarys and legal assistants.
I have found out that this is a common practice in other branches that I do not hire for as well. Why? So, that we can get the best worker for the job. It also gives us the added benefit to observe how that person interacts with co-workers.
Often we don't have a position in the branch that was originally applied to, but since every major city of the states we are in has two to four branches (depending on city size), there is a chance that person will be asked to work at another branch. OR a person from the originally applied at branch could want to work at the other branch and we just make a little transfer.
The most common type of "bait and switch" that I have come across has been with temp agencies and recruitement agencies who advertise a specific job and then tell you that they never had that job available, they just want to have a list of people to call in case they do come across that position.
Has anyone ever experienced a bait and switch type of situation?
___________________________________________________
You see an ad. Apply for the ad. Interview for the job and this is the standard line you get : After reading your resume' skills and qualifications, we would like to consider you for something else.
Knowing all along they have no intention of pursuing your application any further than you walking out the same door you walked in.
I mentioned before about this but never really found a perfect way to articulate it.
I think it's a new complex ( once you figure out what happened to yourself in the application process ) way of getting rid of an applicant without actually having to do it face to face, by phone or e-mail for fear of a backlash.
Bait, Switch, Blow Off.
I submit to you : all of what you described you do is the reason most employees nationally when given a survey to describe their employers, it usually comes back negative.
It's just one more thing thrown ontop of the pile of reasons why people dislike the occupational political enviorment.
Employers wimper about having their time wasted with certain applicants? Guess what, it works both ways as well. What applicant wants to waste their time applying for a job only for that employer pull a bait n' switch routine? One person says they got the alternative job they were considered for, but I suspect that simply does not happen often enough. If anything, probably astronomical.
The opening line I normally give to guard against that is :
I came across your advertisement and would like to apply for the position advertised if it remains available, otherwise please disregard this message.
A clear message not to waste my time unless you're absolutely dead sure when reading my resume' and cover letter you want to give me a job comparable to pay and benefits of what I'm looking for in any job.
You talk about ( in your message ) giving someone something lesser in employment.
When you emphasize it by putting quotations around the word : " "
I take it it's a far lesser position in terms of pay and benefits to the job they applied for, isn't that a cheap low-ball move? I'm surprised the person you speak of, or anyone would take you up on such an offer when they should have withdrawn it. ( unless they were desperate )
If they say they have a different position available for you, why not interview for it and find out more instead of making assumptions that it's a "bait and switch" and that they're against you? If they wanted to "blow you off," they would have said so -- they would have said they had no positions available and thanks for your time, good-bye. Take the fact that they did not blow you off as a positive.
If they want you for a different position and they offer it, why not take it? Many companies have a probationary period that runs anywhere between one and three months or so. At the end of the probationary period usually comes a salary review. During the probationary period is when you show them what you can do. If you show them that you can do a great job, you would probably get a raise.
When I went in for my current job, I didn't have any experience in litigation whatsoever. I went in as a temp-to-hire (which was basically my probationary period). After three months, I met the hours requirement from the employment agency and it was up to the employer if they wanted to hire me or not. They did hire me permanently and I received a $3 per hour raise. So that just shows that a salary does not stay low or stagnant if you show them you can excel.
So don't pass by an opportunity on incorrect and misplaced assumptions. Stop making excuses and just go for it. What have you got to lose?
If you read carefully to what that member ( I was responding to ) was saying, they admit employers often pull the bait n' switch routine if for nothing else ( as I suspected all along ) to be that alternative pool of subpar candidates presuming the ideal candidate they want isn't there.
That member says she offered a " lesser " position.
Going so far as to purposely put the word in quotes. That says something significant.
I take that as a dirty low-ball move on someone who sincerely thinks they are as deserving of the job as anyone, otherwise they wouldn't waste their time applying.
Putting the word " lesser " in qutoes means ( to me ) lesser pay, lesser benefits, I almost would expect any applicant to take that as a direct insult, and as I said in my last message, any applicant should withdraw on the spot. ( unless desperate )
Being out of work for quite some time now and going into debt farther and farther, if you're not desperate, you should be. So what do you have to lose?
You don't have too much to offer to go for a higher position, so why not take a position that is a bit lower and show the employer what you can do and move up. Salaries don't stay low if you show them that you can excel. You are obviously too scared to do that.
And just because you would be making a bit less than someone else does not mean you will have less benefits. Most hourly employees in a company regardless of their salary will have the same benefits (i.e. health, dental, tuition reimbursement, etc.). Exempt will usually have more benefits.
BTW, the poster said that the person who is told about a different position lacks one thing that the other person has -- experience. It shouldn't be an insult to you because you don't have a lot of that thing they call experience. Get some more of that thing they call experience and then you should be able to get the higher level position you desire.
Employers wimper about having their time wasted with certain applicants? Guess what, it works both ways as well. What applicant wants to waste their time applying for a job only for that employer pull a bait n' switch routine
First, I have never wimpered about an applicant wasting my time. If I didn't believe that applicant was worth interviewing then I wouldn't call them in.
Second, If there is a LISTED requirement and the applicant knowingly ignores this requirement and sends his/her resume to me, then who is potentially wasting their time. The applicant is. If you know you don't meet requirements and send your resume in anyway, you are taking your chances.
Third, when calling the applicant I am up front with them and tell them that they don't fulfill all the requirements but, based on thier resume and other qualifications which do meet requirements, I am willing to interview them and POSSIBLY hire them to fill another position until they meet whatever is missing. The applicant can either accept the interview on those terms or not. If the applicant accepts the interview, I offer a postion and then the applicant declines because it is not "what they applied for" who has wasted whos time? The applicant has wasted my time and his/her own time.
Therefore, by saying that the practice is a bait and switch is incorrect. If I saw an application that stated what you claim you put in your cover letters, I wouldn't give you a second thought. Your opening line tells me that you are a very hard person to work with and will only do things in your own time and in your own way. If you come across an advertisment that you don't meet the requirements for then don't go running to the boards or anyone else else because the employer wouldn't let you have your way.
Your point being that working will provide the experience needed to move up in an organization? I get it! Interestingly, many of us whose qualifications vastly exceed what jobs require are willing to enter an organization at the lower level in order to have income, the opportunity to advance in the future, eat, pay bills, I hear some people even enjoy social activities when they can afford to pay a little money. Wow, novel concept, isn't it?
My difficulty, and that of many others, is convincing employers we will happily take the job at a lower level and pay.
One has to start somewhere, many of us have to start over a few times. Yes, it really sucks, but anyone based in reality is willing to do what it takes. You may lose a few rounds, but unless you enter the ring and try, there is no chance of winning.