The resources involved are minimal. It simply means noting a couple of lines per candidate in a spreadsheet. The smart employer could just include these lines in the mail-merge response letter, so candidates get the information and don't have to bother making a request.Reasonable has nothing to do with it. Its simply not worth the effort and most places wouldn't have the resources to do it. The public sector shouldn't be wasting resources on it either.
It'd probably take at least three hours to set this up. Think of a letter, set up a mail merge and spreadsheet. Then print the letters, put them in envelopes, stamp them (more money) and bring them to the post box. Easily half a working day for someone.The resources involved are minimal. It simply means noting a couple of lines per candidate in a spreadsheet. The smart employer could just include these lines in the mail-merge response letter, so candidates get the information and don't have to bother making a request.
Have you heard of the new and emerging technology called 'email'?It'd probably take at least three hours to set this up. Think of a letter, set up a mail merge and spreadsheet. Then print the letters, put them in envelopes, stamp them (more money) and bring them to the post box. Easily half a working day for someone.
How much do you get paid a day, gross? - would you be willing to flush half this money down the toilet?
The resources involved are minimal. It simply means noting a couple of lines per candidate in a spreadsheet. The smart employer could just include these lines in the mail-merge response letter, so candidates get the information and don't have to bother making a request.
The discipline of having to think through these few lines will help to ensure that those doing the shortlisting will get their thoughts clear.
A sign of the times.
What goes round comes round.
I know a person who was sitting on an Interview Board in 1997/1998 for Civil Service and Public Service positions.
He said it was a daily occurrence for applicants not to turn up for interviews and not inform the Interview Board.
Many of these applicants went for so called well paid jobs in the priviate sector.
Would you entertain calls from dole inspectors asking if Mr. X applied to your company?
I currently know of one inspector that is phoning employers asking if people have applied to them.
How hard is a 2 line thanks but no thanks email to send. It would save more hassle in the long term.
...common courtesy to send a quick response seeing as the applicant has gone to the trouble of showing interest in working for your company.
2-3 seconds per email, more like. MS Outlook users can set up a standard signature to contain an appropriate response (maybe telling the applications that you don't accept speculative applications), and then it takes four keystrokes to reply to any email choosing that signature. It doesn't take an IT dept, or a technical genius, just someone who is prepared to use the technology at their fingertips. I'm frequently amazed at how many of those who claim to "no good at 'puters" don't seem to have any difficulty booking their Ryanair tickets online.I
Anyone who says the time involved is minimal obviously has not worked in recruitment at this level before! Even if it only takes 2 or 3 mins to reply to an email, this all adds up when you are constantly receiving these applications!!!
I can understand that it would be frustrating to have to respond to large numbers of speculative applications, though I'd guess there will be more and more of those applications as the economy worsens. It is probably safest for all concerned if an immediate 'no thanks' response is sent and the application is deleted. This avoids any data protection or confidentiality issues.Common courtesy?
We regularly get emailed, badly worded "applications" for jobs that do not exist from people with completely irrelevant backgrounds who then follow up their email a couple of days later demanding to know why we have not responded - I wouldn't call that a courteous approach, it's just sloppy, unprofessional and rude IMO. To hell with those kinds of people - life is too short and they never get responses from us.
For actual advertised jobs - we always respond.
For speculative applications we would generally respond if the applicant would have been appropriate - I think that's enough.
It's not hand-holding, just simple good manners. Saying 'thanks' to a customer takes a few seconds too, but let's not use the credit crunch as an excuse to be rude.The days of hand holding are gone.
...It's not hand-holding, just simple good manners. Saying 'thanks' to a customer takes a few seconds too, but let's not use the credit crunch as an excuse to be rude.
Not in my experience. I've always got some response/acknowledgement/PFO any time I've applied for a job.Its got nothing to do with the credit crunch. Its been like this for decades. Its the norm not to reply unless your shortlisted or its a very senior position.
Wrong. It has value for both the applicant and the employer. It tells the applicant that the application has been received and declined. No doubt, no wondering. It brings clarity. For the employer, it reduces the likelihood of further queries, particularly if it gives some explanation as to why it was declined.Unless you are going into to detail, a stock reply isn't worth a fig.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?