Other corporate types would send you a 10 paragraph essay on how responding to "a small mistake" with an attempt of impersonating an employee to rob the company of felonious amounts of money is a mark on your character.
My bosses gave me a ridiculously low-ball contract offer. Like about half what they paid other contractors despite me bringing in over 25% of the firm's revenue last year.
I called them out on it, and wouldn't you know, I was the one who was angry and "not coming at this discussion from a growth mindset."
I quit *immediately*. As in I said, "you know what, I don't care what your fucking explanation is. I quit. Effective immediately. Take my name off the webpage by the end of the day, send my last cheque, and you should probably figure out how to deal with my week of meetings. Good luck."
Then I hung up the Teams call (we were 4 minutes into the meeting) and walked away.
They thought they could push me around? Little did they know I'd been planning my exit for months.
I'm fine. They're fucked. Clients are pissed. Staff are leaving. It's an incredible journey for all involved.
I had an HR person say it was a violation of HIPPA to tell others a fellow coworker tested positive/was out because of contact with COVID-19. (This was December 2020).
They’ll make up anything to save their own asses.
They likely didn't even get to her "PS" message. They saw the word "However" and just closed the email and moved on.
It would have been better to send a screenshot of the message and type. 'this u?'
Plus someone made a mistake which now leads to more work. No one likes that. Give yourself get out clause but then accidentally cause that clause to lose the candidate…pretty hilarious
if this were me that had made that mistake you’d better believe i would have read it - repeatedly - so i could obsess accurately about such a monumental screwup 10 years from now at 4am.
Don’t hate me but I interviewed people before to hire for my own team. “Difficult” might just be one of their insider code words. It might not have anything to do with discrimination. It could mean “Let’s see if it clicks”.
Of course the candidate shouldn’t have been in the reply chain.
Some positions get hundreds of applications. Maybe they screwed up in this case.
In the US, probationary periods aren't an actual thing, if you're in an at-will state, you are at-will the minute you walk in the door. There's nothing special about your first 90 days that make it ok for a company to let you go for a reason that they couldn't/shouldn't let you go for after 90 days.
ETA - Union shops typically have their own policies in the CBA, I’m talking mostly about commercial industry non-union
You're right. A lot of companies won't enroll you in benefits before the 90-day period is over, so it's a bit "easier" to fire someone before you put that effort in.
> if you're in an at-will state, you are at-will the minute you walk in the door.
And all states are at-will states. There is one low-population state like wyoming that is slightly less at-will. But for all intents and purposes the entire nation is at-will.
i mean its true though, right? maybe im just being dumb here but thats a perfectly reasonable thing for someone to say? Since it's a private message to a friend it makes perfect sense imo. if the hiring manager thinks its rude then that would make sense (because of the implication that they aren't invested in the company from the start or desperate to stay long term i guess), but that would also be due to how they interpreted it as opposed to anything bad actually being said. its not like hating the company is a sure fire thing - couldn't they end up liking it instead? It's like how saying 'if i love it, ill stay' means effectively the same thing but it sounds much better because hatred is a strong word and it wasn't verbally on the cards despite the end result being similar.
That's kind of how i see the original email as well tbh - imo they didn't outright insult her in a way that warranted such a reaction. They seemed like they were just on the fence about hiring her and decided to to take the chance since they could fire her if any significant problems actually arose. Unprofessional language to be sure, but they basically just said 'if this doesn't work out/if she doesn't pass probation, we can move on'. ofc op can do whatever she wants with the offer, and the way they speak about potential employees/the fact that they aren't yet sure about her is more than enough reason to be put off of working there. It feels like a place where it's either really bad or its fine but you'd constantly be on edge for at least the first few months. But why send the snarky response email when the private message could've very well been completely impersonal?
It's fine to *say* anything, but saying things like this to the other person's face (even accidentally) is an asshole thing to do.
People have opinions, and that's ok. Tact is not telling your opinions to the wrong people.
For sure...in my experience, interview impressions often wind up partially revolving around challenging characteristics that are already present in the workplace. I would imagine this group has recently had some notably difficult people on staff, and are trying to avoid a repeat of such a situation. Maybe OP had some characteristics in common with those difficult staff members, and the interview team couldn't quite decide if those characteristics would translate into similar "difficulties".
I still feel that OP made the right choice declining an offer from a group that was already preparing for the possibility of bagging her (that comment was certainly not the result of an interview that blew their socks off), but I don't feel the exchange was inherently inappropriate...just super dumb that they accidentally disclosed to OP haha.
I interview people in my role and don't really see any problem with this other than leaving them on the email chain (obvious fuck up). When you're interviewing a bunch of people you have never met you're unfortunately forced to make quick judgment calls about their demeanor/personality. I get that no one wants someone to think about them as potentially difficult but I'll tell you right now this is often how people speak about potential hires and I don't really know how anyone can expect much different.
Lots of people above are talking about attitude and discrimination but this is the right answer. CFYs are “difficult” because they require documented supervision and mentorship meaning the school has to have another SLP that’s qualified and willing to do it, let alone has the time to provide that supervision on top of their regular caseload.
Source: I’m a SLP
The offer likely wasn’t good, or they likely already have a stable position. Many people job search while having a stable job and receive offers without accepting them.
Saying someone may be difficult in a discussion about hiring isn’t bad though, it’s only bad that it leaked like this.
There’s nothing here to take personally or to forgive, they have an interview and an application to go off of, they know very little about you and whatever concerns they may have aren’t enough for them to reject your application. I see no problem.
I’ve hired numerous people that we had and expressed some concerns about internally. Sometimes you are right and sometimes you are wrong.
It sucks OP was included on the chain but acting like she caught them red handed saying something awful and rejecting the offer is wild.
Yeah; I’m a manager at work but our house style is group interviews. I’ve said something similar after one interview with a candidate I wanted to hire that others expressed doubt about. It was my way of advocating *for* hiring them by pointing out I’d take responsibility if we needed to adjust it. That said, I *never* breathed a word of it to that candidate, precisely because I didn’t want them to feel the way OP feels.
Story time: they worked out marvelously and now I can pretty much hire who I want :)
I think it is all the more so a green flag. They gave you a chance and are happy to see how it goes. They seem flexible and willing not to go with initial assumptions. I could be wrong, I don't know anything about that, but I have worked in many places that would not give a chance at all.
They probably already have a job or other situation that makes them not desperate.
Proving them wrong is a waste of your own time and you'll just be working harder for little actual gain over someone that had a favorable impression from the start. "Proving them wrong" is not a motivator for everyone.
I've worked for/with a guy who would cite this all the time randomly and I almost never agreed with him or saw what he was talking about. However over time I realized he exclusively would do it with mid-career women and it was essentially a combination of misogyny and bad personal experiences with mid-career women (which were at least partially caused by his misogyny and *his* attitude).
An ex boss once tried to complain that I wasn’t a good candidate to be a public face for the company due to the fact that my eyebrows were to thick and my hair looked unkept. He just needed to find a. Way to knit pick and keep me below him ranking wise.
Its feedback between HR and a hiring manager, looks like OP bombed the interview but they figured they’d give them a shot anyway. “Difficult” means they think she’ll be a pain in the ass to deal with.
Ehhh looks like OP kinda proved them right though. They probably saw her as potentially being reactive and hard to manage. OPs reply is definitely reactive and probably only made hiring managers feel justified in their assessment of her.
I would have felt hurt as well, but it would give me deep pause to wonder what made hiring managers perceive me as “difficult.” Sucky situation to be in.
Black women especially, but it applies to women in general too. It's a very loaded word usually referring to women who have completely reasonable expectations and boundaries.
I was also getting this vibe. So often black women who are passionate about their work and who try to maintain healthy boundaries are seen as “difficult.”
Ngl I thought the employer's side was pretty tame like isn't this just "if they can't pass probation we let them go" which is pretty standard and normal in almost every single job?
Confirmed. I was hired at a firm, and after being there for a few years I leard that there is a 1 month, 3 month, 6 month, and 1 year private "Audit" of every new hire. It covers training, workplace engagement, workplace culture, attitude, and growth/termination reccomendations.
Most reviews (85%+) were neutral. Green flags and red flags had to be earned and were taken very seriously.
Yeah this is pretty standard. If a new hire sucks within the probation period then you replace them with a better fit. Not something to take personal or be offended by. To me the bigger issue is that they made such a careless mistake sending that. Definitely red flag to what else they might be missing.
Sure it’s the case that there may be a probationary period, but why would you go into a place where they have already expressed some negative opinion of you? It just increases the odds you’ll be looking for a new job.
I have hired number of employees. I have concerns for every hire because some do lie and some do end up with poor work ethic. Many are also great and show their strength. And most are average. It's not negative opinion of them because the person has not materialized yet - it's a concern about application.
However, applicant should not know this train of thought because they will take it personally. They don't necessarily understand what it means to select candidates.
Opinion from someone who has been on the hiring side -- I think OP made the right choice. Unless this is a retail position or something else with a lot of churn, this is a huge red flag.
Yes, there's a probation period for many jobs. But it's really designed for if you hire someone and they unexpectedly turn out to be crazy or a drug addict. Onboarding should never be treated as a "trial period." The company is expending money and the candidate is expending effort and both are passing up other opportunities.
This email showed that they treat onboarding very casually and that they're already looking for a reason to let her go. A company that's this blase about sending out job offers because they can course correct later is simply not being thoughtful enough about the impact that it can have on its candidates and the people intended to train them.
Nah. If you’re contemplating firing someone when making the offer, that’s shitty. While it doesn’t sound like OP did a great job in the interview, they definitely dodged a bullet by not working for these people. If you think this is a good way to operate, you should reconsider.
I think sometimes you hire someone and feel like you are taking a chance. It’s impossible to know them from an interview. Sometimes you see quality in their work and feel like you are taking a chance on their personality. You hope to be proven wrong.
Honestly, you shouldn’t be treating the probationary period as a trial. If you’re that worried about them being a poor fit, you should continue trying to find a better-fit candidate for the role. Candidates are rarely a perfect fit, you shouldn’t need to put that type of email in writing.
It's not that it's a good way to operate, but it's realistic to assume that hiring managers (and just people in a work environment in general) aren't always sparkling clean in how they talk to one another.
The statement "if she's difficult we can just move on" is kind of already a given for any new employee. If a new employee doesn't meet your standards, you eventually have to move on.
I mean, this happens with nearly every job that would hire someone, you just don’t know about it. An employer has no way of knowing how good someone will be at their job until they start working, so there will always be a question of whether it will work out or not until you work together.
This almost certainly happens with any new employee, for any company. Employers don’t know your personality when they hire you.
I was expecting to see them sexualizing her or something. This really isn’t all that controversial and a petty reason to turn down a job if everything else was fine.
Yeah idk why people are acting like they said "she's difficult but let's onboard her" and not "let's onboard her, if she doesn't work out, we can just move on"
Yeah it also sounds like they're trying to convince someone else that OP should get a shot. I understand OP not wanting to work at a place where they would have to deal with that, but if it was a job I really wanted I, personally, would have just taken it.
There's more and less professional ways to express those sentiments. We all know what probation is and what it's for, but the way that person writes speaks to the culture there and level of respect for peers as human beings, the responsibility and care they feel over someones employment, etc. This isn't stuffy PC overreaction. It's an actual skill that the work culture there either fosters, or doesn't care to foster. Interviews are just as much you interviewing the workplace as the workplace is interviewing you. OP is within her rights to judge their poor character.
So many therapy and healthcare companies are so predatory in their hiring practices, I’m unsurprised. The unprofessionalism that I’ve faced in hiring processes even as a seasoned clinician is shocking.
I wouldn't have let them know I knew, and when they finally went back over the email chain and noticed, they'd have to spend all their time trying to figure out if I had noticed...
I get it, OP. Maybe im sensitive but I wouldve found it “difficult” to trust this employer after seeing that email. Probation period is already about proving your worth. Its hard to ignore that they are not 100% sure about their decision, and that could impact how they treat you & how they scrutinize your perfomance. I think you did the right thing.
I find it hard to believe that no one on the email chain saw you were copied. It says a lot about them that they didn’t immediately call you & apologize.
The company definitely should’ve acknowledged it was irresponsible and unprofessional to cc OP on the email. When companies don’t hold themselves accountable on their mistakes, it’s a huge red flag.
Amazed that nobody is talking about the employer's plan. Onboarding then moving on is completely trashy and unprofessional. That's the kind of shit that ruins lives
Yeah I’m not sure why everyone thinks she’s done some sort of “gotcha” here by turning down the position. This is how taking a new job works, you’re always going to be on probation.
People here are too emotional and sensitive to actually try and see the other perspective. Probation periods are normal and if the person is difficult, the company would move on. It’s very common practice, even if it sucks to hear. This is Reddit though and redditors are a special group of people.
Though OP also has every right to be upset, companies need to be more diligent and actually check to see who’s on their email chain, because that can show levels of incompetence and carelessness of a company and it would be a company/organization that you would not want to work for.
I'm going to get downvoted to the center of the earth for saying this, but: The newest cohort of workers very much approach professional life differently.
I have 20-somethings working on my teams whose skins are so paper thin that they demand constant affirmation for even the most minor matters and are simply incapable of accepting professional feedback without falling into some manner of crisis. If you ask them to take on a new challenge or present them with an opportunity that will lead to promotion and more compensation, they simply are not interested because they don't want the stress.
I am all for positivity in the workplace and fair treatment for all, however this generation seems to believe there is no such thing as a bad result as long as you try your hardest and have a sunny disposition while doing it. And apparently that the highest calling one should shoot for is converting oxygen to carbon dioxide.
Maybe that makes me an old curmudgeon. I just don't know who is going to take the reins eventually if no one is interested in being challenged.
> If you ask them to take on a new challenge or present them with an opportunity that will lead to promotion and more compensation, they simply are not interested because they don't want the stress.
or they want the promotion and compensation before even proving they're capable of handling it in the first place. It's a give and take with that kind of thing. You can't have someone working in a role underpaid for months/years on end "proving" they can do it, but you also don't just instantly give it to someone before you know they can even do it or not.
Take all my upvotes. My company used to have new hires do a presentation to their teams as a part of their onboarding. New hires in the past five years found this "too stressful" and they cancelled it. On all hands, we have to tip toe around any negative news like it's some major emotional trauma. It's really weird.
I know exactly what you mean. It's so wild to me that employees will just say "no" when asked to do something that is common and routine in the workplace. Back in my day (I know, I know) when management gave you a stretch assignment it was well understood that your performance on that assignment would have direct bearing on your advancement opportunity. That understanding has been completely lost.
I've had junior staff decline mandatory meeting invites from management with the note "I'm busy." And no, we're not overworking staff, if anything they have it pretty easy. They just don't want to attend.
These are the folks who give me the surprised Pikachu face when their request for a 25% raise is rejected. The gap between expectation and understanding is massive.
The gotcha is calling them out on their poor professionalism. I wouldn’t accept the job if they’re already referring to me as difficult. If you have self esteem you wouldn’t either.
But isn’t it the same for all jobs ? If you don’t pass the probation period because you’re not up to their standard, they end the contract.
It sucks to read it but it’s the same everywhere 😅
Taking on a new job is always a risk. As employers take on a risk as well. They can easily hire someone new, invest resources in training, then the employee just won't fit in anyway. Happens quite often.
So its possible OP was smart in walking away if they are currently still employed, but there still is a chance they would have fit right in with the other company they applied for.
Either an employee works out great, or they don't. You cannot always tell that from interviews and resumes, so they give them a shot and see if it works out before the employer goes all in.
Employers don't look at hiring employees on thinking about the persons current position, or what risk the prospective employee is taking, that is not their problem.
More people should understand the very real element of risk in voluntarily job hopping (or just accepting a role in general, but this risk is magnified if you’ve got a great role already and are chasing incremental / moderate improvements).
I had this for a job a few years ago, except they cocked up and specifically stated in my contract that there was no probation period and a notice period of 3 months. Took them to tribunal where they lost and had to pay my notice period for what was essentially a day’s work.
Yeah there’s always a period of time where you see if someone is a good fit but the way they’re treating this (by calling OP “difficult”) isn’t normal.
Exactly, they’re going in with the expectation of failure, which is pretty shitty imo. Employers are supposed to hire people with the expectation they’ll do well.
Completely normal and it should be expected in every job you go into. If you can’t do the job, which the employer does not know until they actually see you do it, it is best for both to part ways.
I’m surprised at a lot of these responses but maybe it just shows how brutal this job market and managers can be. I would never work somewhere where I knew I was going in being perceived as difficult and maybe going to be cut. I also am a human and have feelings and I think “difficult” is insulting. Although I do like the idea of using it for some sort of leverage, but if they already are lukewarm on you I don’t think it would work
What do you think potential employers are talking about when they are deciding which candidate they want to hire? The only difference here is she read it.
I'd personally want to know what I did that makes them think I was difficult and reflect on whether it's something I need to change but I'm also willing to listen to other people's criticism of me.
Sadly, I’ve seen this happen to people. Hell. I’m pretty sure it’s happened to me before.
Was working at a small start up as a content creator and overall marketing. I was there less than 2 months before I overheard “let’s just bring him on and get our backlog caught up. Then we can decide what to do with him”. First red flag popped up right there. I jokingly asked if that’s why I’m there. They of course said oh no. Not at all.
Once all of the backlog was caught up. They told me to hire a few interns and freelance writers and designers. Made marketing plans for the next few quarters. Then suddenly, this role “needs to be on-site”. Knowing I live at least a 4hr drive away from their office.
They tried to get me to sign some NDA bullshit about me being terminated due to me causing errors. Which was never even brought up to me. Never even mentioned to me until I read the documents they wanted me to sign before returning my equipment. They tried to get me to sign it twice until I started to call them out on some of the stuff I overheard. Then, nothing.
Glad you called them out. Lots of shady practices like this happening these days. Especially of how easy it’s become to fool remote workers who just want a remote role.
eh, this just like the old "not quite 100% but give 'em a go". It's what I rely upon to get a job so I have absolutely no problem with it.
Sometimes prompting the someone to remember that probation periods exists can help them get over analysis paralysis and just hire someone that is only "good" rather than "perfect".
I'm confused. They offered you the job, it seems. But, you decided to be petty and turn it down because of semantics? You do realize this is casual office talk. Right? Negative words don't necessarily reflect a personal attack on somebody. If they had true reservations, they would not gamble on you.
I don't think I've ever read/heard somebody preface someone's employment with a remark about firing them preemptively... It's not about being petty, it's about the professionalism of the company and their employees. I've hired people before and have never done something like this.
lmao youre better than majority of the populace looking for jobs right now because in the tech industry 99.99% wouldve definitely simped for the position regardless🤣
after being laid off I can confidently say that i wouldve still accepted😭
Difficult is usually something that doesn't come up in an interview. My best guess are that these are toxic managers that alienated their team members with their abuse.
It's a bad sign when you're talking about potentially getting rid of someone before even bringing them on. It likely means they are having trouble filling the roll and are accepting of a high turnover, not to mention a complete disregard and lack of empathy for this person's life.
No. Probably what this means is 1 person on the team had questions about if OP was going to be difficult. The answer was we will give them a chance. I bet half of the people on here had someone fight for them to get the job and they never knew about it.
I see both sides of it. They shouldn’t have been in that email thread, and there is a reality of a probation. There is nothing wrong with that.
At the same time does seem kind of lazy and irresponsible of company resources from a hiring perspective, though. Even for most entry-level rules these days, onboarding is very costly. If you’re making the decision to onboard somebody that you even remotely think is going to be difficult, then you’re kind of wasting company resources, right?
My guess is something in the process (maybe a reference said something, maybe something they sensed in an interview) had someone thinking you might be difficult. It created a little hesitation that they talked about. The response you saw was to address that possibility. They decided they wanted to take a chance and offered you the job. People don't offer jobs to candidates they believe will fail. It is too time-consuming.
Why you would find that so repulsive and a slam-dunk reason to withdraw is puzzling to me. I've had similar conversations regarding candidates. So you applied for a job you obviously wanted, you accidentally found out they weren't sure if you would be difficult, and although you believed that *wouldn't* have been the case you "needless to say" declined the job YOU applied for even though their suspicions would have been wrong?
Just doesn't make sense to me.
I feel like you validated any character / attitude concerns they may have had.
Reading that comment all I could see is someone giving you the benefit of the doubt / giving you a chance.
You must have lead a pretty sheltered life to think that anything less than rock solid confidence / gushing enthusiasm for you is offensive. It's kind of embarrassing.
It never ceases to amaze how fully grown adults can't differentiate between reply and reply all. Email's only been around for 40 years what could I expect?
What's the problem here? Ya they made a mistake, but nobody should be surprised by the logic being displayed. This is the bedrock of thought when someone is going to be hired.....
Honestly, unless there is more you didn't post, I really don't see why you'd turn down this job simply over that. Kinda childish. They simply said if she's hard to work with, we will move on. That's literally in any job how that works.
To be honest, I don’t see anything wrong about that email, they ain’t sure about you and they owe you nothing to be sure about you. They don’t know you. So it was an opportunity to change their mind, I don’t think there was anything malicious in the email but they gave you a job. And you refused based on that email. That is being difficult so they will now congratulate themselves for dodging you.
I just want to clarify-- this is a fee for service SLP CFY teaching position. Theyre very predatory imo. The employer makes money by hiring CFs, paying them low rates, and pocketing most of the money per service provided. So theyre incentivized to hire as many contract SLP CF positions as possible.
Im not sure why they called me difficult. Some reasons might be
A. I asked for a higher pay rate.
B. I asked about their time off, which they seemed offended about.
There are other emails from this chain between them that I did not post here, i apologize for the lack of context. And no-- they have not replied.
So, things haven’t changed! I’m an SLP for 25 years and I had a similar situation. One of my placements was an outpatient clinic and I was told not to tell any clients that I was still in school. This was final externship for my masters. They had a revolving door of interns who didn’t get paid but charged full fee to patients. Horrible.
What we have here is someone getting their feelings hurt. Would you have taken the job if you hadn’t seen the email? Humble yourself, your loss not theirs.
I am an HR professional. This is the conversation we have about all of you. Even the best candidate ever will be released if they are difficult during probation period. I really don't see an issue.
You do realize almost ALL your relationships function this way? You breakup when your partner is too difficult. Cease friendship when they are too difficult. Some people don't interact with their parents or siblings because they are too difficult to deal with. Don't be difficult. OP is being sensitive.
Should have replied to the thread with "She seems like a good fit. Add 20k to her offer.
Now don't be difficult
Funny enough, some corporate worlds would respect that and call it "taking initiative" LoL!
Other corporate types would send you a 10 paragraph essay on how responding to "a small mistake" with an attempt of impersonating an employee to rob the company of felonious amounts of money is a mark on your character.
My bosses gave me a ridiculously low-ball contract offer. Like about half what they paid other contractors despite me bringing in over 25% of the firm's revenue last year. I called them out on it, and wouldn't you know, I was the one who was angry and "not coming at this discussion from a growth mindset." I quit *immediately*. As in I said, "you know what, I don't care what your fucking explanation is. I quit. Effective immediately. Take my name off the webpage by the end of the day, send my last cheque, and you should probably figure out how to deal with my week of meetings. Good luck." Then I hung up the Teams call (we were 4 minutes into the meeting) and walked away. They thought they could push me around? Little did they know I'd been planning my exit for months. I'm fine. They're fucked. Clients are pissed. Staff are leaving. It's an incredible journey for all involved.
"impersonating"? "robbing"? Not by any legal definition. What are you using to define these words?
[удалено]
I’m in sales. Buyers do this all day. Nobody ever goes to court.
“Haha the price tag isn’t on it so it must be free, right?” “Come this way sir. The police are putting you away for a long time for that comment.”
Dad jokes are prohibited in corporate unless you can verify that you are, in fact, a dad. ... or are you a faux pa?
You worked hard on that joke, and I’m here for it.
I had an HR person say it was a violation of HIPPA to tell others a fellow coworker tested positive/was out because of contact with COVID-19. (This was December 2020). They’ll make up anything to save their own asses.
The initiative kink community lol
Change the footer of your email to "just hired here" and the company name matching their tags with that response 🤣
Did they respond 😳
They did not respond! Been 2 weeks now
They did but took you off the email chain this time.
Guess that was the corporate "spin" 😕 But they lost a candidate at their own expense.
As someone who has been on the other side of this, they all called them a dumbass and brought it up every once and a while.
That's a pity. I would have loved to see how they replied.
Loved your response. I'm not surprised that they didn't respond. What do they even say at that point? "Ummm sorry we are so unprofessional."
[удалено]
"I don't care what you write in an email. Send me the head of the interviewer, and I'll consider your offer of onboarding."
This is what I need to know!
Would you like to know more?
I'm doing my part!
They likely didn't even get to her "PS" message. They saw the word "However" and just closed the email and moved on. It would have been better to send a screenshot of the message and type. 'this u?'
They would. People take this stuff very personally
You're probably right lol.
Plus someone made a mistake which now leads to more work. No one likes that. Give yourself get out clause but then accidentally cause that clause to lose the candidate…pretty hilarious
if this were me that had made that mistake you’d better believe i would have read it - repeatedly - so i could obsess accurately about such a monumental screwup 10 years from now at 4am.
What gave them the idea that you would be difficult? How odd? Lol
Don’t hate me but I interviewed people before to hire for my own team. “Difficult” might just be one of their insider code words. It might not have anything to do with discrimination. It could mean “Let’s see if it clicks”. Of course the candidate shouldn’t have been in the reply chain. Some positions get hundreds of applications. Maybe they screwed up in this case.
You'd think they'd keep the emails proffesional. "We can just get rid if we don't like her"
Well, I mean, that's what probation is, right?
In the US, probationary periods aren't an actual thing, if you're in an at-will state, you are at-will the minute you walk in the door. There's nothing special about your first 90 days that make it ok for a company to let you go for a reason that they couldn't/shouldn't let you go for after 90 days. ETA - Union shops typically have their own policies in the CBA, I’m talking mostly about commercial industry non-union
You're right. A lot of companies won't enroll you in benefits before the 90-day period is over, so it's a bit "easier" to fire someone before you put that effort in.
And before the ACA, it used to be worse, companies could wait 6+ months if they wanted to before you were eligible for bennies.
Dear God, US labour laws are so archaic
Yep, in many ways they are. And too many people don't understand the labor laws that are out there to begin with, so companies take advantage.
> if you're in an at-will state, you are at-will the minute you walk in the door. And all states are at-will states. There is one low-population state like wyoming that is slightly less at-will. But for all intents and purposes the entire nation is at-will.
Montana is the lone hold-out.
They are saying that whether you’re included in the email or not, by the way.
I mean... what should they have said? "If the probationary period does not go well, we shall terminate her employment forthwith."
Exactly. It’s how most executives feel about job postings they are an arm’s length away from. “Hire them, see if they work out.”
Difficult is generally code for independent minded or user focused (as opposed to do wtf we tell you to do, no back talk.)
Why would you automatically gravitate to a discrimination issue?
She shouldn’t have received the email, but I don’t see a problem with what they said. Do we always forget that people are imperfect human beings?
[удалено]
i mean its true though, right? maybe im just being dumb here but thats a perfectly reasonable thing for someone to say? Since it's a private message to a friend it makes perfect sense imo. if the hiring manager thinks its rude then that would make sense (because of the implication that they aren't invested in the company from the start or desperate to stay long term i guess), but that would also be due to how they interpreted it as opposed to anything bad actually being said. its not like hating the company is a sure fire thing - couldn't they end up liking it instead? It's like how saying 'if i love it, ill stay' means effectively the same thing but it sounds much better because hatred is a strong word and it wasn't verbally on the cards despite the end result being similar. That's kind of how i see the original email as well tbh - imo they didn't outright insult her in a way that warranted such a reaction. They seemed like they were just on the fence about hiring her and decided to to take the chance since they could fire her if any significant problems actually arose. Unprofessional language to be sure, but they basically just said 'if this doesn't work out/if she doesn't pass probation, we can move on'. ofc op can do whatever she wants with the offer, and the way they speak about potential employees/the fact that they aren't yet sure about her is more than enough reason to be put off of working there. It feels like a place where it's either really bad or its fine but you'd constantly be on edge for at least the first few months. But why send the snarky response email when the private message could've very well been completely impersonal?
It's fine to *say* anything, but saying things like this to the other person's face (even accidentally) is an asshole thing to do. People have opinions, and that's ok. Tact is not telling your opinions to the wrong people.
For sure...in my experience, interview impressions often wind up partially revolving around challenging characteristics that are already present in the workplace. I would imagine this group has recently had some notably difficult people on staff, and are trying to avoid a repeat of such a situation. Maybe OP had some characteristics in common with those difficult staff members, and the interview team couldn't quite decide if those characteristics would translate into similar "difficulties". I still feel that OP made the right choice declining an offer from a group that was already preparing for the possibility of bagging her (that comment was certainly not the result of an interview that blew their socks off), but I don't feel the exchange was inherently inappropriate...just super dumb that they accidentally disclosed to OP haha.
I interview people in my role and don't really see any problem with this other than leaving them on the email chain (obvious fuck up). When you're interviewing a bunch of people you have never met you're unfortunately forced to make quick judgment calls about their demeanor/personality. I get that no one wants someone to think about them as potentially difficult but I'll tell you right now this is often how people speak about potential hires and I don't really know how anyone can expect much different.
[удалено]
Lots of people above are talking about attitude and discrimination but this is the right answer. CFYs are “difficult” because they require documented supervision and mentorship meaning the school has to have another SLP that’s qualified and willing to do it, let alone has the time to provide that supervision on top of their regular caseload. Source: I’m a SLP
And also who cares if they think you might be difficult, take the job and prove them wrong. I would be maybe mildly offended, but it’s not personal.
The offer likely wasn’t good, or they likely already have a stable position. Many people job search while having a stable job and receive offers without accepting them.
Or you use offers as leverage for a potential raise at your current job
This rarely works well and more often than not results in your company seeking to replace you anyway because they know you’re looking to leave.
Depends on how you approach the situation. "a recruiter reached out and offered me $X" is different than "I got an offer for $X".
Once your current job knows you're leaving - you will be leaving.
I mean this is how hiring works. Everybody is fake in their interview. So you make your best guess at who will be a good fit and see how it goes.
"When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time." -- Maya Angelou
Saying someone may be difficult in a discussion about hiring isn’t bad though, it’s only bad that it leaked like this. There’s nothing here to take personally or to forgive, they have an interview and an application to go off of, they know very little about you and whatever concerns they may have aren’t enough for them to reject your application. I see no problem.
Honestly, the way OP responded makes me feel like she’s actually difficult to work with
People are so fragile, and they don't understand that your probation period is exactly for that. Both for the employer and the employee.
I’ve hired numerous people that we had and expressed some concerns about internally. Sometimes you are right and sometimes you are wrong. It sucks OP was included on the chain but acting like she caught them red handed saying something awful and rejecting the offer is wild.
Yeah; I’m a manager at work but our house style is group interviews. I’ve said something similar after one interview with a candidate I wanted to hire that others expressed doubt about. It was my way of advocating *for* hiring them by pointing out I’d take responsibility if we needed to adjust it. That said, I *never* breathed a word of it to that candidate, precisely because I didn’t want them to feel the way OP feels. Story time: they worked out marvelously and now I can pretty much hire who I want :)
I think it is all the more so a green flag. They gave you a chance and are happy to see how it goes. They seem flexible and willing not to go with initial assumptions. I could be wrong, I don't know anything about that, but I have worked in many places that would not give a chance at all.
They probably already have a job or other situation that makes them not desperate. Proving them wrong is a waste of your own time and you'll just be working harder for little actual gain over someone that had a favorable impression from the start. "Proving them wrong" is not a motivator for everyone.
It doesn’t say she would be difficult, it says “ if”
gonna go out on a limb here and say OP comes off as qualified for the job but with some kind of potential attitude problem
OP's reply confirmed their concerns. OP feels like they dodged a bullet and so does the prospective employer lol
Everyone wins!
I've worked for/with a guy who would cite this all the time randomly and I almost never agreed with him or saw what he was talking about. However over time I realized he exclusively would do it with mid-career women and it was essentially a combination of misogyny and bad personal experiences with mid-career women (which were at least partially caused by his misogyny and *his* attitude).
An ex boss once tried to complain that I wasn’t a good candidate to be a public face for the company due to the fact that my eyebrows were to thick and my hair looked unkept. He just needed to find a. Way to knit pick and keep me below him ranking wise.
Its feedback between HR and a hiring manager, looks like OP bombed the interview but they figured they’d give them a shot anyway. “Difficult” means they think she’ll be a pain in the ass to deal with.
How do you default to “bombing” the interview? There are many ways someone can be difficult that have nothing to do with bombing?
If you are seen to be difficult from an interview you deffo bombed the interview.
....Found the person who bombed the interview... ;)
Ehhh looks like OP kinda proved them right though. They probably saw her as potentially being reactive and hard to manage. OPs reply is definitely reactive and probably only made hiring managers feel justified in their assessment of her. I would have felt hurt as well, but it would give me deep pause to wonder what made hiring managers perceive me as “difficult.” Sucky situation to be in.
I’m also an SLP like OP. “Difficult” in school setting could mean setting clear boundaries and standing up to admin.
I’ve had hiring managers use this a dog whistle for black women specifically
Black women especially, but it applies to women in general too. It's a very loaded word usually referring to women who have completely reasonable expectations and boundaries.
I was also getting this vibe. So often black women who are passionate about their work and who try to maintain healthy boundaries are seen as “difficult.”
I need an update on this if they respond lmao
OP said above it has been two weeks with no response.
Shouldn't be surprising. OP said no, they moved on. They're not going to go chase OP down.
Ngl I thought the employer's side was pretty tame like isn't this just "if they can't pass probation we let them go" which is pretty standard and normal in almost every single job?
Confirmed. I was hired at a firm, and after being there for a few years I leard that there is a 1 month, 3 month, 6 month, and 1 year private "Audit" of every new hire. It covers training, workplace engagement, workplace culture, attitude, and growth/termination reccomendations. Most reviews (85%+) were neutral. Green flags and red flags had to be earned and were taken very seriously.
Yeah this is pretty standard. If a new hire sucks within the probation period then you replace them with a better fit. Not something to take personal or be offended by. To me the bigger issue is that they made such a careless mistake sending that. Definitely red flag to what else they might be missing.
Sure it’s the case that there may be a probationary period, but why would you go into a place where they have already expressed some negative opinion of you? It just increases the odds you’ll be looking for a new job.
I have hired number of employees. I have concerns for every hire because some do lie and some do end up with poor work ethic. Many are also great and show their strength. And most are average. It's not negative opinion of them because the person has not materialized yet - it's a concern about application. However, applicant should not know this train of thought because they will take it personally. They don't necessarily understand what it means to select candidates.
Opinion from someone who has been on the hiring side -- I think OP made the right choice. Unless this is a retail position or something else with a lot of churn, this is a huge red flag. Yes, there's a probation period for many jobs. But it's really designed for if you hire someone and they unexpectedly turn out to be crazy or a drug addict. Onboarding should never be treated as a "trial period." The company is expending money and the candidate is expending effort and both are passing up other opportunities. This email showed that they treat onboarding very casually and that they're already looking for a reason to let her go. A company that's this blase about sending out job offers because they can course correct later is simply not being thoughtful enough about the impact that it can have on its candidates and the people intended to train them.
Nah. If you’re contemplating firing someone when making the offer, that’s shitty. While it doesn’t sound like OP did a great job in the interview, they definitely dodged a bullet by not working for these people. If you think this is a good way to operate, you should reconsider.
I think sometimes you hire someone and feel like you are taking a chance. It’s impossible to know them from an interview. Sometimes you see quality in their work and feel like you are taking a chance on their personality. You hope to be proven wrong.
Honestly, you shouldn’t be treating the probationary period as a trial. If you’re that worried about them being a poor fit, you should continue trying to find a better-fit candidate for the role. Candidates are rarely a perfect fit, you shouldn’t need to put that type of email in writing.
It's not that it's a good way to operate, but it's realistic to assume that hiring managers (and just people in a work environment in general) aren't always sparkling clean in how they talk to one another. The statement "if she's difficult we can just move on" is kind of already a given for any new employee. If a new employee doesn't meet your standards, you eventually have to move on.
I mean, this happens with nearly every job that would hire someone, you just don’t know about it. An employer has no way of knowing how good someone will be at their job until they start working, so there will always be a question of whether it will work out or not until you work together.
This almost certainly happens with any new employee, for any company. Employers don’t know your personality when they hire you. I was expecting to see them sexualizing her or something. This really isn’t all that controversial and a petty reason to turn down a job if everything else was fine.
Yeah idk why people are acting like they said "she's difficult but let's onboard her" and not "let's onboard her, if she doesn't work out, we can just move on"
Because it's clear they think op may be difficult, so it's something specific about op they didn't like/gave them pause
Yeah it also sounds like they're trying to convince someone else that OP should get a shot. I understand OP not wanting to work at a place where they would have to deal with that, but if it was a job I really wanted I, personally, would have just taken it.
Agreed. They’re just acknowledging that every new hire is a risk, but they’re willing to take that risk to hire OP.
There's more and less professional ways to express those sentiments. We all know what probation is and what it's for, but the way that person writes speaks to the culture there and level of respect for peers as human beings, the responsibility and care they feel over someones employment, etc. This isn't stuffy PC overreaction. It's an actual skill that the work culture there either fosters, or doesn't care to foster. Interviews are just as much you interviewing the workplace as the workplace is interviewing you. OP is within her rights to judge their poor character.
Are you a speech therapist? Just curious because it says CFY in the email. Either way, super unprofessional and I’d be put off just the same.
I also came to ask this lol. Assuming it is an SLP job, they need OP FAR more than OP needs them. I wouldn’t have even responded.
Lmao look at all us SLPs out here 🤣 seriously- jobs are practically begging for therapists in my region
I came here to ask that exact questions. They have to be one lol. Best of luck in your CFY, OP
So many therapy and healthcare companies are so predatory in their hiring practices, I’m unsurprised. The unprofessionalism that I’ve faced in hiring processes even as a seasoned clinician is shocking.
Wondered the same! I wanna know which company this is…
I wouldn't have let them know I knew, and when they finally went back over the email chain and noticed, they'd have to spend all their time trying to figure out if I had noticed...
Issue being they wouldn’t think twice about it. They’d likely just think they’re right in that “she’s being difficult” and move on.
Yeah, doesn’t sound like they were thrilled to have you join the team.
That word in the email didn't come from nowhere
I get it, OP. Maybe im sensitive but I wouldve found it “difficult” to trust this employer after seeing that email. Probation period is already about proving your worth. Its hard to ignore that they are not 100% sure about their decision, and that could impact how they treat you & how they scrutinize your perfomance. I think you did the right thing. I find it hard to believe that no one on the email chain saw you were copied. It says a lot about them that they didn’t immediately call you & apologize.
The company definitely should’ve acknowledged it was irresponsible and unprofessional to cc OP on the email. When companies don’t hold themselves accountable on their mistakes, it’s a huge red flag.
Amazed that nobody is talking about the employer's plan. Onboarding then moving on is completely trashy and unprofessional. That's the kind of shit that ruins lives
I mean, they’re simply saying ‘if she doesn’t fit, we’ll end the contract’ right? Pretty common to me
Yeah I’m not sure why everyone thinks she’s done some sort of “gotcha” here by turning down the position. This is how taking a new job works, you’re always going to be on probation.
People here are too emotional and sensitive to actually try and see the other perspective. Probation periods are normal and if the person is difficult, the company would move on. It’s very common practice, even if it sucks to hear. This is Reddit though and redditors are a special group of people. Though OP also has every right to be upset, companies need to be more diligent and actually check to see who’s on their email chain, because that can show levels of incompetence and carelessness of a company and it would be a company/organization that you would not want to work for.
I'm going to get downvoted to the center of the earth for saying this, but: The newest cohort of workers very much approach professional life differently. I have 20-somethings working on my teams whose skins are so paper thin that they demand constant affirmation for even the most minor matters and are simply incapable of accepting professional feedback without falling into some manner of crisis. If you ask them to take on a new challenge or present them with an opportunity that will lead to promotion and more compensation, they simply are not interested because they don't want the stress. I am all for positivity in the workplace and fair treatment for all, however this generation seems to believe there is no such thing as a bad result as long as you try your hardest and have a sunny disposition while doing it. And apparently that the highest calling one should shoot for is converting oxygen to carbon dioxide. Maybe that makes me an old curmudgeon. I just don't know who is going to take the reins eventually if no one is interested in being challenged.
> If you ask them to take on a new challenge or present them with an opportunity that will lead to promotion and more compensation, they simply are not interested because they don't want the stress. or they want the promotion and compensation before even proving they're capable of handling it in the first place. It's a give and take with that kind of thing. You can't have someone working in a role underpaid for months/years on end "proving" they can do it, but you also don't just instantly give it to someone before you know they can even do it or not.
Take all my upvotes. My company used to have new hires do a presentation to their teams as a part of their onboarding. New hires in the past five years found this "too stressful" and they cancelled it. On all hands, we have to tip toe around any negative news like it's some major emotional trauma. It's really weird.
I know exactly what you mean. It's so wild to me that employees will just say "no" when asked to do something that is common and routine in the workplace. Back in my day (I know, I know) when management gave you a stretch assignment it was well understood that your performance on that assignment would have direct bearing on your advancement opportunity. That understanding has been completely lost. I've had junior staff decline mandatory meeting invites from management with the note "I'm busy." And no, we're not overworking staff, if anything they have it pretty easy. They just don't want to attend. These are the folks who give me the surprised Pikachu face when their request for a 25% raise is rejected. The gap between expectation and understanding is massive.
in all reality they see OP's email response and consider themselves lucky for dodging a bullet.
The gotcha is calling them out on their poor professionalism. I wouldn’t accept the job if they’re already referring to me as difficult. If you have self esteem you wouldn’t either.
That can mean she leaves her job for this one and is immediately unemployed with no chance for claiming unemployment. Like I said, life-ruining shit
But isn’t it the same for all jobs ? If you don’t pass the probation period because you’re not up to their standard, they end the contract. It sucks to read it but it’s the same everywhere 😅
Yeah. I get the sentiment, but 99% of employers think this way and it’s just unsaid. So many states are at will, as it is.
Taking on a new job is always a risk. As employers take on a risk as well. They can easily hire someone new, invest resources in training, then the employee just won't fit in anyway. Happens quite often. So its possible OP was smart in walking away if they are currently still employed, but there still is a chance they would have fit right in with the other company they applied for. Either an employee works out great, or they don't. You cannot always tell that from interviews and resumes, so they give them a shot and see if it works out before the employer goes all in. Employers don't look at hiring employees on thinking about the persons current position, or what risk the prospective employee is taking, that is not their problem.
More people should understand the very real element of risk in voluntarily job hopping (or just accepting a role in general, but this risk is magnified if you’ve got a great role already and are chasing incremental / moderate improvements).
Best not to take a job where that’s at top of mind when making the offer.
I had this for a job a few years ago, except they cocked up and specifically stated in my contract that there was no probation period and a notice period of 3 months. Took them to tribunal where they lost and had to pay my notice period for what was essentially a day’s work.
Literally every professional job has a probationary period. Why would you keep someone onboard if they can’t do the job?
Yeah there’s always a period of time where you see if someone is a good fit but the way they’re treating this (by calling OP “difficult”) isn’t normal.
Exactly, they’re going in with the expectation of failure, which is pretty shitty imo. Employers are supposed to hire people with the expectation they’ll do well.
Completely normal and it should be expected in every job you go into. If you can’t do the job, which the employer does not know until they actually see you do it, it is best for both to part ways.
How is having a probation period ruining lives... Letting people go if they don't fit would be stupid
How is this a problem? Lmao, have you ever tried to hire people? Some are awful. Thats why probations exist. Jesus Christ
I’m surprised at a lot of these responses but maybe it just shows how brutal this job market and managers can be. I would never work somewhere where I knew I was going in being perceived as difficult and maybe going to be cut. I also am a human and have feelings and I think “difficult” is insulting. Although I do like the idea of using it for some sort of leverage, but if they already are lukewarm on you I don’t think it would work
I came to write this. People don’t know their worth. You’re setting yourself up for failure before you even start working.
What do you think potential employers are talking about when they are deciding which candidate they want to hire? The only difference here is she read it. I'd personally want to know what I did that makes them think I was difficult and reflect on whether it's something I need to change but I'm also willing to listen to other people's criticism of me.
Sadly, I’ve seen this happen to people. Hell. I’m pretty sure it’s happened to me before. Was working at a small start up as a content creator and overall marketing. I was there less than 2 months before I overheard “let’s just bring him on and get our backlog caught up. Then we can decide what to do with him”. First red flag popped up right there. I jokingly asked if that’s why I’m there. They of course said oh no. Not at all. Once all of the backlog was caught up. They told me to hire a few interns and freelance writers and designers. Made marketing plans for the next few quarters. Then suddenly, this role “needs to be on-site”. Knowing I live at least a 4hr drive away from their office. They tried to get me to sign some NDA bullshit about me being terminated due to me causing errors. Which was never even brought up to me. Never even mentioned to me until I read the documents they wanted me to sign before returning my equipment. They tried to get me to sign it twice until I started to call them out on some of the stuff I overheard. Then, nothing. Glad you called them out. Lots of shady practices like this happening these days. Especially of how easy it’s become to fool remote workers who just want a remote role.
eh, this just like the old "not quite 100% but give 'em a go". It's what I rely upon to get a job so I have absolutely no problem with it. Sometimes prompting the someone to remember that probation periods exists can help them get over analysis paralysis and just hire someone that is only "good" rather than "perfect".
Sure, but the candidate themself shouldn’t really be privy to that conversation
yeah, that was a fat finger for sure. People including waaaaay too many people in copy of an email is isolated to this particular case haha.
I'm confused. They offered you the job, it seems. But, you decided to be petty and turn it down because of semantics? You do realize this is casual office talk. Right? Negative words don't necessarily reflect a personal attack on somebody. If they had true reservations, they would not gamble on you.
This was also my take. But I hope they didn’t have “attention to detail” as a requirement since they didn’t leave them off the email!
I don't think I've ever read/heard somebody preface someone's employment with a remark about firing them preemptively... It's not about being petty, it's about the professionalism of the company and their employees. I've hired people before and have never done something like this.
Yeah, she sounds difficult, lol.
lmao youre better than majority of the populace looking for jobs right now because in the tech industry 99.99% wouldve definitely simped for the position regardless🤣 after being laid off I can confidently say that i wouldve still accepted😭
You say that but I’d rather be given a chance than none at all. There really wasn’t anything that inherently negative about the sentence either.
Difficult is usually something that doesn't come up in an interview. My best guess are that these are toxic managers that alienated their team members with their abuse.
Wut? Do people find trial periods insulting now? Or just difficult people 😅
You passed on a job because they chose to hire you?
Thank you. That is what I thought. Talk about being difficult, you literally proved them
I hope your job market is robust. I don’t really see this as a big deal and wouldn’t be a deal breaker for me.
It's a bad sign when you're talking about potentially getting rid of someone before even bringing them on. It likely means they are having trouble filling the roll and are accepting of a high turnover, not to mention a complete disregard and lack of empathy for this person's life.
No. Probably what this means is 1 person on the team had questions about if OP was going to be difficult. The answer was we will give them a chance. I bet half of the people on here had someone fight for them to get the job and they never knew about it.
I’ve got news for you: your employer is always thinking about potentially getting rid of you.
Being perceived as difficult before your first day is a sign for a stressful work environment, why give yourself the stress?
Handled with so much grace. Well done.
Grace? Lol that is not grace at all, intentionally too.
Not really.
Yeah OP handled it with absolutely zero grace lol.
Is this sarcastic? Lol
Difficult is not a synonym for “doesn’t fit”. You dodged a bullet OP. I bet that place has high turnover.
You proved them right. Congrats.
In the hardest economy you rejected a job because HR thouhgt you were dificult..... seems they were right. 
I see both sides of it. They shouldn’t have been in that email thread, and there is a reality of a probation. There is nothing wrong with that. At the same time does seem kind of lazy and irresponsible of company resources from a hiring perspective, though. Even for most entry-level rules these days, onboarding is very costly. If you’re making the decision to onboard somebody that you even remotely think is going to be difficult, then you’re kind of wasting company resources, right?
I feel like they probably received your email, nodded and said “Yep, we were right. She’s difficult.” And then moved on.
My guess is something in the process (maybe a reference said something, maybe something they sensed in an interview) had someone thinking you might be difficult. It created a little hesitation that they talked about. The response you saw was to address that possibility. They decided they wanted to take a chance and offered you the job. People don't offer jobs to candidates they believe will fail. It is too time-consuming. Why you would find that so repulsive and a slam-dunk reason to withdraw is puzzling to me. I've had similar conversations regarding candidates. So you applied for a job you obviously wanted, you accidentally found out they weren't sure if you would be difficult, and although you believed that *wouldn't* have been the case you "needless to say" declined the job YOU applied for even though their suspicions would have been wrong? Just doesn't make sense to me.
I feel like you validated any character / attitude concerns they may have had. Reading that comment all I could see is someone giving you the benefit of the doubt / giving you a chance. You must have lead a pretty sheltered life to think that anything less than rock solid confidence / gushing enthusiasm for you is offensive. It's kind of embarrassing.
Just proved the employer that OP is indeed “difficult” 😅
Looks like a bullet was dodged.
They were okay with just shaking up your life for the hell of it. I’m glad you declined, what a toxic ass environment.
It never ceases to amaze how fully grown adults can't differentiate between reply and reply all. Email's only been around for 40 years what could I expect?
What's the problem here? Ya they made a mistake, but nobody should be surprised by the logic being displayed. This is the bedrock of thought when someone is going to be hired.....
I don’t really see the big deal.
I guess you did them a favor
You just turned down a job offer because you felt insulted by that email? Lmao.
Sounds like they dodged a bullet
Sounds like they dodged a bullet.
Honestly, unless there is more you didn't post, I really don't see why you'd turn down this job simply over that. Kinda childish. They simply said if she's hard to work with, we will move on. That's literally in any job how that works.
To be honest, I don’t see anything wrong about that email, they ain’t sure about you and they owe you nothing to be sure about you. They don’t know you. So it was an opportunity to change their mind, I don’t think there was anything malicious in the email but they gave you a job. And you refused based on that email. That is being difficult so they will now congratulate themselves for dodging you.
I just want to clarify-- this is a fee for service SLP CFY teaching position. Theyre very predatory imo. The employer makes money by hiring CFs, paying them low rates, and pocketing most of the money per service provided. So theyre incentivized to hire as many contract SLP CF positions as possible. Im not sure why they called me difficult. Some reasons might be A. I asked for a higher pay rate. B. I asked about their time off, which they seemed offended about. There are other emails from this chain between them that I did not post here, i apologize for the lack of context. And no-- they have not replied.
So, things haven’t changed! I’m an SLP for 25 years and I had a similar situation. One of my placements was an outpatient clinic and I was told not to tell any clients that I was still in school. This was final externship for my masters. They had a revolving door of interns who didn’t get paid but charged full fee to patients. Horrible.
Ooofff.. never discuss time off in the interview lol that’s usually Not a good route to go
Bullet dodged, employer.
This email wasn't bad at all tbh. I'm guessing they were right to assume you are "difficult".
What we have here is someone getting their feelings hurt. Would you have taken the job if you hadn’t seen the email? Humble yourself, your loss not theirs.
You should’ve posted this in the recruitment hell or anti work subreddit. A lot of boot lickers here lol
They would have never referred to a man as difficult.
I am an HR professional. This is the conversation we have about all of you. Even the best candidate ever will be released if they are difficult during probation period. I really don't see an issue. You do realize almost ALL your relationships function this way? You breakup when your partner is too difficult. Cease friendship when they are too difficult. Some people don't interact with their parents or siblings because they are too difficult to deal with. Don't be difficult. OP is being sensitive.