It was the wrong thread

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Question: Is it fair play for a prospective employer to tell a candidate who is evaluating other offers “don’t accept any offers until you talk to me”, and then not extend any offer at all?

Imagine that the candidate in question was a finalist for two positions, neither of which is perfect, and with uncertain terms for compensation among other things. Employer #1 tells Candidate to hold off on accepting any offers from Employer #2 until he gets a chance to counter. Candidate gets pressure from Employer #2 to accept the offer, but agrees to wait because Employer #1 is still selecting. On the drop-dead Friday that Candidate gives for an offer, she waits until 3:00 pm without a call, so she sends an e-mail saying she will go with Employer #2. Employer #1 responds with an e-mail saying that he regrets he is unable to make an offer. This leads me to conclude Employer #1 was just trying to keep a fish on the line as long as possible, but doing so by implying that an offer of some kind was forthcoming. Which is surprising, since an answer that “Sorry you felt you had to take the other offer but we're still evaluating; we’re sorry we couldn’t meet the timeline but we understand” would have also been an acceptable answer (and seems safer from an EPL standpoint, FWIW). Only giving a “no” answer at that stage makes it seem like the answer was already no, making the “don’t accept elsewhere before talking to me” seem weird, unless it’s now something employers say just to string people along.

(I’m not asking because I’m on the market; this relates to a someone I’m advising. I’m mostly curious whether people on the demand side of the labor equation think this is fair play.)

What kind of position is this? Generic associate position as part of a mass hiring, or something later in the career, where there is likely one job and many candidates?

On my side of the table, the thing I always feel worst about is where we have an offer out but have to keep our number 2 and 3 choices alive in case the person declines. That is, frankly, a situation that sucks, where employers are assholes by nature and there is not much to be done about it, and it could well be what is going on here. We don't want to say, "we like you but you're not our number 1" when we may, a week later, be saying, "we love you the mostest now". I find it especially tough when I liked the number 2 or 3 choice better, but had to give way to a broader view on the first choice.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

What kind of position is this? Generic associate position as part of a mass hiring, or something later in the career, where there is likely one job and many candidates?

Non-legal. Teaching profession. Hard to know the size of the applicant pool but probably less than 10, for what they said they were looking for, which may have changed as the process went forward.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Non-legal. Teaching profession. Hard to know the size of the applicant pool but probably less than 10, for what they said they were looking for, which may have changed as the process went forward.

There's a lot of bureaucracy and politics in hiring teachers. I can believe they couldn't get their shit together for a deadline set by the candidate. Normal disfunction, not assholic behavior.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

There's a lot of bureaucracy and politics in hiring teachers. I can believe they couldn't get their shit together for a deadline set by the candidate. Normal disfunction, not assholic behavior.

Agreed, thanks. Had a bit of a vine of interrupting the person who is breaking up with you to say you’re breaking up with them first. It was the “don’t accept any other offers” part that added a weird, sleazy real estate broker twist to the whole thing.