4 ms·

In retaliation to who? Not all employers are an amorphous blob who are responsible for each other, and ghosting Walgreens because CVS ghosted you doesn’t really

In retaliation to who? Not all employers are an amorphous blob who are responsible for each other, and ghosting Walgreens because CVS ghosted you doesn’t really make any sense. This arms race just degrades professionalism tbh

nonrandomstring 3y ago
> In retaliation to who? Exactly. This is a complicated psycho-dynamic. Prejudice against some member of group because another (perceived) member of that group wronged you is a road to ruins. As if "employers" were all of one mind. It's like kicking some random car in the street because the one ahead of it honked at you. However, behaviours are shared by example and through culture. (and lack of challenge). It becomes normal to simply lie to a jobseeker's face "We'll call you next week". And after a few experiences of that one cannot deny or begrudge negative expectations that emerge. What is needed is adaptation and robust challenge that calls out the lie (everyone now knows it's a lie). Something like: Interviewer: "Hey great. We'll call you next week", You: "So I didn't get the job?" Interviewer: "Errr. What do you mean? I said we'd call you next week" You: "Ah, but everybody knows what that means. You probably won't call me. Because you have 100 people to call. I can see you're a busy guy. If I agree to wait for your call, and you forget, that could make you look like a liar. And I don't want to think that about you." Interviewer: "......" You: "So how about I'll call you! If I still want the job. Plus that will save you money on the call. How about Wednesday morning at 10?" If they balk, you can walk and at least know the score. But if they agree, even tacitly, stick to it and call-in on time. When confronted with weak behaviour taking ownership and responsibility seems the only dignified way to avoid becoming jaded and prejudiced. Take away their ability to lie to you, and you won't have to suffer diasppointment,

nonrandomstring 3y ago

> In retaliation to who? Exactly. This is a complicated psycho-dynamic. Prejudice against some member of group because another (perceived) member of that group wronged you is a road to ruins. As if "employers" were all of one mind. It's like kicking some random car in the street because the one ahead of it honked at you. However, behaviours are shared by example and through culture. (and lack of challenge). It becomes normal to simply lie to a jobseeker's face "We'll call you next week". And after a few experiences of that one cannot deny or begrudge negative expectations that emerge. What is needed is adaptation and robust challenge that calls out the lie (everyone now knows it's a lie). Something like: Interviewer: "Hey great. We'll call you next week", You: "So I didn't get the job?" Interviewer: "Errr. What do you mean? I said we'd call you next week" You: "Ah, but everybody knows what that means. You probably won't call me. Because you have 100 people to call. I can see you're a busy guy. If I agree to wait for your call, and you forget, that could make you look like a liar. And I don't want to think that about you." Interviewer: "......" You: "So how about I'll call you! If I still want the job. Plus that will save you money on the call. How about Wednesday morning at 10?" If they balk, you can walk and at least know the score. But if they agree, even tacitly, stick to it and call-in on time. When confronted with weak behaviour taking ownership and responsibility seems the only dignified way to avoid becoming jaded and prejudiced. Take away their ability to lie to you, and you won't have to suffer diasppointment,