Comment On The Easiest Interview Ever & More

Got Tales from your interviews? Then send 'em on in! [expand full text]
« PrevPage 1 | Page 2 | Page 3Next »

Re: The Easiest Interview Ever & More

2009-08-18 09:10 • by deekay (unregistered)
Regarding the first story, I've been in a similar situation where I was offered the job based on the fact I was the only applicant that bothered to show up (lazy Gen Y'ers)

Oh and I posted the first comment too :)

Re: The Easiest Interview Ever & More

2009-08-18 09:11 • by mcfly (unregistered)
Q: THIS WILL BE THE QUESTIONS FOR THE INTERVIEWER777777

Re: The Easiest Interview Ever & More

2009-08-18 09:12 • by Booboo (unregistered)
Does Brian Gould really want to advertise that about his company?

Re: The Easiest Interview Ever & More

2009-08-18 09:12 • by Anonymous (unregistered)
Chris needed bodies.

Namely, yours.

Re: The Easiest Interview Ever & More

2009-08-18 09:12 • by Jemmy (unregistered)
The "Work Hours" story makes me cringe. It's not only that working grueling hours seems to be par in many companies nor that working from home, however immensely good it often is for the productivity and morale of knowledge workers, but it's especially that the story is apparently told by a C?O-type person who (equally apparently) thinks the joke/WTF is on the interviewee.

Brian, please let us know what company you're the CTO for so we can avoid working there.

Re: The Easiest Interview Ever & More

2009-08-18 09:16 • by pjt33
Surely romance between people who work in the same building are intra-office relationships, and inter-office relationships would be those between people who work in different buildings?

Re: The Easiest Interview Ever & More

2009-08-18 09:18 • by Griphon (unregistered)
282469 in reply to 282468
FTA:
Whatever the case, when they called me back to extend an offer, I politely declined.


Wise, very very wise.

Re: The Easiest Interview Ever & More

2009-08-18 09:20 • by Anon (unregistered)
The husband and wife one, that wasn't the same company as the nude interview a few weeks back, was it? If so, I can see what the problem might be.

Re: The Easiest Interview Ever & More

2009-08-18 09:25 • by Anon (unregistered)
282472 in reply to 282470
Anon:
The husband and wife one, that wasn't the same company as the nude interview a few weeks back, was it? If so, I can see what the problem might be.


This one: http://thedailywtf.com/Comments/The-Winds-of-Recession,-A-Doomed-Interivew,-and-Oops!.aspx#270938

Re: The Easiest Interview Ever & More

2009-08-18 09:27 • by Steve H (unregistered)
Wouldn't that be "intra-office"?

Re: The Easiest Interview Ever & More

2009-08-18 09:33 • by amischiefr
"I still haven’t had the guts to tell Christopher what really happened. "

I think you just did.

Re: The Easiest Interview Ever & More

2009-08-18 09:34 • by valetudo (unregistered)
282475 in reply to 282473
Steve H:
Wouldn't that be "intra-office"?

Ye-es... That's right.
Or is this some sort of policy issue that if people are "enjoying each other's company" they should at least stay inside a room?

Re: The Easiest Interview Ever & More

2009-08-18 09:36 • by Justice
I can't tell if Brian Gould's story is serious or a joke. I'd get a chuckle out of it, and could imagine pulling that one on a candidate, but if they're serious, that's the WTF.

Also ,I wonder about turning down a job based on the warning about employee fraternization. They could have had a problem between two people who are no longer with the company, or there was an incident at one of their former workplaces that made an impression on them, or something. Though the fact that they weren't forthcoming with information suggests a larger problem with the company culture.

Re: The Easiest Interview Ever & More

2009-08-18 09:36 • by Dan (unregistered)
WTF is the WTF with the office hours? The fact that she asked the question or the answer that was given? From the write-up, it sounds like it's supposed to be the question. If that's the case, then I'm with Jemmy. Somebody post the company name so I'll be sure never to send a resume there way.

Re: The Easiest Interview Ever & More

2009-08-18 09:39 • by Dan (unregistered)
282478 in reply to 282476
Also ,I wonder about turning down a job based on the warning about employee fraternization. They could have had a problem between two people who are no longer with the company, or there was an incident at one of their former workplaces that made an impression on them, or something. Though the fact that they weren't forthcoming with information suggests a larger problem with the company culture.

The other employee besides the married couple was going on maternity leave. My guess would be that the father of the baby used to work there...

Re: The Easiest Interview Ever & More

2009-08-18 09:40 • by amischiefr
282479 in reply to 282476
Justice:
Though the fact that they weren't forthcoming with information suggests a larger problem with the company culture.

No it doesn't. I am no lawyer but I am willing to bet that there are laws about divulging specific information about past employees to future employees. Some kind of privacy act or something. The fact that they didn't want to talk about it doesn't make them suspect.

Re: The Easiest Interview Ever & More

2009-08-18 09:43 • by Dan (unregistered)
282480 in reply to 282477
Somebody post the company name so I'll be sure never to send a resume there way.


Not sure if it's the same person or not, but this may be relevant:

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/brian-gould/a/680/3a4

Re: The Easiest Interview Ever & More

2009-08-18 09:44 • by Anonymous Coward #53432538 (unregistered)
The real wtfs:

1) The CTO who thinks "This noob thinks we get BREAKS FROM WORK. What a noob, right guys?". Still not sure what the joke here was.

2) The fact that everyone frowns on having relationships with co-workers, but sees nothing wrong with employing spouses/children/significant others, when there is already a relationship (of at least one sort) in those circumstances.

Re: The Easiest Interview Ever & More

2009-08-18 09:48 • by Adrian Brody (unregistered)
Thanks, jerk. I needed that job.

Re: The Easiest Interview Ever & More

2009-08-18 09:50 • by Kermos
282483 in reply to 282479
amischiefr:
Justice:
Though the fact that they weren't forthcoming with information suggests a larger problem with the company culture.

No it doesn't. I am no lawyer but I am willing to bet that there are laws about divulging specific information about past employees to future employees. Some kind of privacy act or something. The fact that they didn't want to talk about it doesn't make them suspect.


Doesn't stop someone from giving a general explanation of what happened without mentioning specific (former) employee names.

Re: The Easiest Interview Ever & More

2009-08-18 09:52 • by Me (unregistered)
Met my wife at my first job. And her cousin was CEO of the company. Did not get rich, thought.

Re: The Easiest Interview Ever & More

2009-08-18 09:55 • by campkev
282485 in reply to 282483
Kermos:
amischiefr:
Justice:
Though the fact that they weren't forthcoming with information suggests a larger problem with the company culture.

No it doesn't. I am no lawyer but I am willing to bet that there are laws about divulging specific information about past employees to future employees. Some kind of privacy act or something. The fact that they didn't want to talk about it doesn't make them suspect.


Doesn't stop someone from giving a general explanation of what happened without mentioning specific (former) employee names.



You're right, they could have said, "One of our previous employees got another employee pregnant and then disappeared." Interviewee would NEVER have figured out who was involved in that one.

Obviously there was some sort of problem with it in the past and it is not allowed at this point. That's all he needs to know. Everything else is just gossiping.

Re: The Easiest Interview Ever & More

2009-08-18 10:02 • by SCB (unregistered)
282486 in reply to 282484
Me:
Met my wife at my first job. And her cousin was CEO of the company. Did not get rich, thought.


"Met wife at first job.
Her cousin was CEO.
Did not get rich though."

FTFY.
Now it's a proper Haiku.

Re: The Easiest Interview Ever & More

2009-08-18 10:07 • by BBT (unregistered)
There will be NO office relationships allowed...except ours, of course.

Re: The Easiest Interview Ever & More

2009-08-18 10:08 • by Chris (unregistered)
282488 in reply to 282467
Jemmy:
The "Work Hours" story makes me cringe. It's not only that working grueling hours seems to be par in many companies nor that working from home, however immensely good it often is for the productivity and morale of knowledge workers, but it's especially that the story is apparently told by a C?O-type person who (equally apparently) thinks the joke/WTF is on the interviewee.

Brian, please let us know what company you're the CTO for so we can avoid working there.


wait? wha?

Re: The Easiest Interview Ever & More

2009-08-18 10:10 • by xnotabotx (unregistered)
282489 in reply to 282481
The fact that everyone frowns on having relationships with co-workers


In my experience this much less the case in the UK than the US. My current company always celebrates office marriages with gusto, for example.

Re: The Easiest Interview Ever & More

2009-08-18 10:17 • by Shinobu (unregistered)
I agree with A. Coward's note 2). A lot of romances start in the office and I know quite some people who would still be lonely were it not for a work relation that blossomed into something more.

Re: The Easiest Interview Ever & More

2009-08-18 10:20 • by SCB (unregistered)
282491 in reply to 282489
xnotabotx:
The fact that everyone frowns on having relationships with co-workers


In my experience this much less the case in the UK than the US. My current company always celebrates office marriages with gusto, for example.

At a bank that I worked at in the UK, if two co-workers got married then one of them would have to resign. It was part of the bank's "anti-fraud" policy or something.

Re: The Easiest Interview Ever & More

2009-08-18 10:24 • by Harrow (unregistered)
@Forbidden Inter-office Romance

The founder is frustrated because he can't shtupp his wife as long as she works there.

-Harrow.

Re: The Easiest Interview Ever & More

2009-08-18 10:34 • by SAMO (c) (unregistered)
I accidentally a female subordinate. Is this a problem?

Re: The Easiest Interview Ever & More

2009-08-18 10:36 • by HopelessIntern (unregistered)
I am currently working for an american IT company in the UK. A colleague of mine is dating another, one colleague is married and has two kids with a coworker, and one guy just got married to his coworker.

So needless to say it is not frowned upon here in Blighty.

Re: The Easiest Interview Ever & More

2009-08-18 10:38 • by cfreak (unregistered)
The first one sounds similar to what happened with my current job. The "technical director" called me and discussed a few things on my resume for a few minutes and then asked me to come in the next day. I showed up and sat down and he offered me the job on the spot, then spent 2 hours telling me how great it was. (I didn't accept right away mostly because I was going to weigh the other options I had)

I ended up taking the job and within two months they fired the "technical director" for having too little "technical" and far too much crazy. I ended up with his job, sans the title.

Everyone agrees about the only thing the guy got right was hiring me.

Re: The Easiest Interview Ever & More

2009-08-18 10:41 • by campkev
282496 in reply to 282489
xnotabotx:
The fact that everyone frowns on having relationships with co-workers


In my experience this much less the case in the UK than the US. My current company always celebrates office marriages with gusto, for example.


Never been my experience that it is frowned on much here in the U.S. either. Other than when I was in the military, never had an employer make a big deal about it. And even though the military paid a lot of lip-service to fraternization being against the rules, it happened all the time and unless you were a complete dumbass about it, nothing ever happened to you.

Re: The Easiest Interview Ever & More

2009-08-18 10:42 • by Some Wonk (unregistered)
Bah. It's not an intra-office romance, if it is just sex.

Re: The Easiest Interview Ever & More

2009-08-18 10:48 • by DWalker59
282498 in reply to 282478
Dan:
Also ,I wonder about turning down a job based on the warning about employee fraternization. They could have had a problem between two people who are no longer with the company, or there was an incident at one of their former workplaces that made an impression on them, or something. Though the fact that they weren't forthcoming with information suggests a larger problem with the company culture.

The other employee besides the married couple was going on maternity leave. My guess would be that the father of the baby used to work there...


No, obviously, the father of the baby is the guy who is half of the married couple. Even though it's not his wife who is pregnant!

Re: The Easiest Interview Ever & More

2009-08-18 11:01 • by The Interviewee (unregistered)
Funny interviews:

When I decided to leave my first company after 11 yrs, I did a lot of searching and lots of phone calls with companies.

(As an aside: I wanted to get into real consulting, and many of the companies were merely body shops with no real career opportunities).

Anyway, one of the companies I talked to on the phone flew my wife and myself out to North Carolina to talk with them as well as the customer where I'd be working. Mind you, aside from a few emails and a phone call with the "consulting" company, this is the first face-to-face interview. Meanwhile my wife was taken around town to see different places where we might want to move... they really seemed to be trying to sell me on the job opportunity.

After the customer interview they brought us back into their offices and, essentially, made me a job offer. This took both my wife and me completely by surprise - typically this isn't done until after the 2nd interview. We really weren't prepared to make a decision that fast, particularly with 4 of them staring us down while we considered our options.

When I basically rejected the offer, they were openly offended. We explained that we thought this was just a first interview and never expected an offer at this point. I also pushed a little harder to find out more about a "career path" for consultants within their company, and it was clear that none existed. They wouldn't even pay for training to keep my skills up-to-date (and thus marketable).

Ah well, at least they did reimburse me for the travel expenses - we were kinda worried that they might not considering how the conversation went.

Re: The Easiest Interview Ever & More

2009-08-18 11:06 • by Mr. Romance (unregistered)
I worked for a consulting organization which went through an office "romance" issue once.

It seems one of the consultants had a good time with one of the customer's female employees. And then the project ended. Not much later the consultant quit and moved his home.

A couple of months later my manager gets a call from the female employee's boss asking for the forwarding address for our ex-consultant - which said manage respectfully declined to give (you know, legal regulations and all).

The woman's boss complained that the consultant got his employee pregnant and got pretty indignant with my manager. He demanded "What are you going to do about that!"

To which said manager replied: "Maybe get her a gift for the baby shower?"

Re: The Easiest Interview Ever & More

2009-08-18 11:10 • by Anonymous coward (unregistered)
Mr. Brian Gould,

you are a dick

Re: The Easiest Interview Ever & More

2009-08-18 11:12 • by American Citizen (unregistered)
282502 in reply to 282491
SCB:
xnotabotx:
The fact that everyone frowns on having relationships with co-workers


In my experience this much less the case in the UK than the US. My current company always celebrates office marriages with gusto, for example.

At a bank that I worked at in the UK, if two co-workers got married then one of them would have to resign. It was part of the bank's "anti-fraud" policy or something.


At my company it's against the rules for two married people to be in the same department/division. So if you marry a coworker one of you has to move to another department/division or resign.

Supposedly the thought process is the concept that one day one of you might become the other's supervisor/boss and there would then be a conflict of interest. I suppose they could just enforce the rule whenever that happens but it's just simpler to have a hard and fast rule and be done with it.

Re: The Easiest Interview Ever & More

2009-08-18 11:12 • by silver lining (unregistered)
We tell all of our potential hires that it is company policy to work half days EVERY day of the week...a mere 12 hours a day (do the math). We don't have any good people just the desperate ones.

Re: The Easiest Interview Ever & More

2009-08-18 11:35 • by Art Metz (unregistered)
When the day finally came, I wore my best suit

I'm surprised no one has caught the WTFs here:

1. The guy wore a suit to the interview.
2. The guy has more than one suit.

Re: The Easiest Interview Ever and More

2009-08-18 11:37 • by Yep (unregistered)
282506 in reply to 282495
cfreak:
I ended up taking the job and within two months they fired the "technical director" for having too little "technical" and far too much crazy. I ended up with his job, sans the title.

Everyone agrees about the only thing the guy got right was hiring me.


Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.

Re: The Easiest Interview Ever and More

2009-08-18 11:43 • by irish pedant (unregistered)
282508 in reply to 282506
Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.

Not if it's an LED one.

Anyway, your use of 'even' implies that you think that a working clock is correct at least twice a day. Which is clearly false.

Re: The Easiest Interview Ever & More

2009-08-18 11:48 • by JohnB (unregistered)
282509 in reply to 282505
Art Metz:
When the day finally came, I wore my best suit

I'm surprised no one has caught the WTFs here:

1. The guy wore a suit to the interview.
2. The guy has more than one suit.
Technically, at least 3 suits. If he had only 1 suit, he would have said he wore his suit; if he had 2 suits, he would have said he wore his better suit.

Re: The Easiest Interview Ever & More

2009-08-18 11:48 • by Justice
282510 in reply to 282485
campkev:
Kermos:
amischiefr:
Justice:
Though the fact that they weren't forthcoming with information suggests a larger problem with the company culture.

No it doesn't. I am no lawyer but I am willing to bet that there are laws about divulging specific information about past employees to future employees. Some kind of privacy act or something. The fact that they didn't want to talk about it doesn't make them suspect.


Doesn't stop someone from giving a general explanation of what happened without mentioning specific (former) employee names.



You're right, they could have said, "One of our previous employees got another employee pregnant and then disappeared." Interviewee would NEVER have figured out who was involved in that one.

Obviously there was some sort of problem with it in the past and it is not allowed at this point. That's all he needs to know. Everything else is just gossiping.


Of course they'd need to use discretion, but the interviewer really should have been prepared to field any questions. He could have said "we had an ugly incident in the past that we don't want to repeat" or even just "I've seen it turn ugly at other companies and don't want that here." The response he gave raises the sorts of questions that our hero Joe Barnum thought of, and if you're serious about bringing someone on as an employee, it's not a good idea to leave them with a bunch of ambiguous discomfort.

The main issue for me is that he mentioned it specifically (which I've never had happen in an interview) and then clammed up when asked about it further. I don't think I'd turn down a job based on that one factor, but I can see how it might raise concerns about openness of communication.

Re: The Easiest Interview Ever & More

2009-08-18 11:54 • by A Nonny Mouse
282511 in reply to 282499
The Interviewee:
I also pushed a little harder to find out more about a "career path" for consultants within their company, and it was clear that none existed. They wouldn't even pay for training to keep my skills up-to-date (and thus marketable).

so, you wanted a career path (as a consultant??) AND you wanted them to pay to keep you marketable? sounds like they dodged a bullet there

Re: The Easiest Interview Ever & More

2009-08-18 11:58 • by The Interviewee (unregistered)
282513 in reply to 282511
[quote user="A Nonny Mouse"][/quote]
so, you wanted a career path (as a consultant??) AND you wanted them to pay to keep you marketable? sounds like they dodged a bullet there[/quote]

Maybe there's a communication problem, but typically, if they want to keep your skills marketable, then yes, they do pay for your education. It demonstrates how much they value you as an employee and are less likely to treat you as a simple "resource" that they can discard when they no longer find you useful.

It would make no sense whatsoever for them to have a consulting career ladder, but not provide you the means of achieving that growth.

Re: The Easiest Interview Ever & More

2009-08-18 12:02 • by SR (unregistered)
282514 in reply to 282475
valetudo:
Ye-es... That's right.
Or is this some sort of policy issue that if people are "enjoying each other's company" they should at least stay inside a room?


GET A ROOM!

Re: The Easiest Interview Ever & More

2009-08-18 12:03 • by SR (unregistered)
282515 in reply to 282491
SCB:
At a bank that I worked at in the UK, if two co-workers got married then one of them would have to resign. It was part of the bank's "anti-fraud" policy or something.


This is similar thinking that made UK banks require IE for online banking. No wonder this country's screwed!

Re: The Easiest Interview Ever & More

2009-08-18 12:07 • by GalacticCowboy
282516 in reply to 282495
cfreak:
The first one sounds similar to what happened with my current job. The "technical director" called me and discussed a few things on my resume for a few minutes and then asked me to come in the next day. I showed up and sat down and he offered me the job on the spot, then spent 2 hours telling me how great it was. (I didn't accept right away mostly because I was going to weigh the other options I had)

I ended up taking the job and within two months they fired the "technical director" for having too little "technical" and far too much crazy. I ended up with his job, sans the title.

Everyone agrees about the only thing the guy got right was hiring me.


Huh... I worked for a company recently where the exact same thing happened. Do I know you?
« PrevPage 1 | Page 2 | Page 3Next »

Add Comment