?

Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile Previous Previous Next Next
give me a rope, I'll take it gladly - shadows of echoes of memories of songs — LiveJournal
j4
j4
give me a rope, I'll take it gladly
After all the celebrating over the Shiny New Job, it looks like I'm not going to get it after all. They only offered me the job "subject to references", and my reference from my current employer told them how much sick leave I'd had recently.

I explained the situation, and while they did say that they appreciated me being honest with them (more fool me, yes, but they phoned me out of the blue to ask about this and I didn't have time to think of a good lie, and I did think honesty would be the best policy) they pointed out that plenty of other people are stuck in jobs they hate and they don't take sick leave.

They're waiting until they get my second reference before they make a decision (presumably because if they offer a job "subject to references" they're legally obliged to wait until they've seen both references until they turn me down). So at this rate I'll probably get the final "no thanks" decision on the day of my birthday party.

(Please, no one-word "hugs" responses or equivalent. I know it's well-meant but it's really not helping.)
Read 4 | Write
Comments
(Deleted comment)
j4 From: j4 Date: April 28th, 2003 07:57 am (UTC) (Link)
write to them

Wouldn't help. They basically closed off the conversation by saying that there was absolutely nothing they could do until they'd got my other reference. That point would still stand if I wrote to them, and I'd just piss them off by pressing the issue.

You just need to remind them that you have suffered from workplace-induced illness and nothing more.

Yes, but like they said, lots of people hate their jobs and they don't suffer from "workplace-induced illness". Everybody else just copes.

A letter from your GP might assist here also..?

I offered that, but apparently it costs them money to get a GP's reference (I offered to pay, but they weren't interested); also, they say it's not much use, as doctors have so many things they're not allowed to say. Or something.
purpletigron From: purpletigron Date: April 29th, 2003 12:10 am (UTC) (Link)
This smells fishy to me. I would try and get some advice from a union - even if I didn't currently below - or other professionals (Citizens Advice? Talk to your doctor?) and fast. This could count as illegal discrimination: trying to blame you and ignore a medically recognised condition, by trying to completely dismiss it as your fault for not being able to stick in a difficult job.

That said, an employer with their heads in the sand about the reality of illnesses caused by work-related stress might turn out to be a bad employer.
bopeepsheep From: bopeepsheep Date: April 28th, 2003 09:10 am (UTC) (Link)
Shit. (Well, it's not "hugs".)

It seems very odd that they would ring you about this, TBH. What were they expecting to hear? Or were they really just warning you, rather than expecting an explanation? Is your other reference likely to have anything similar they might use to tip the balance against you?

Don't know what else to say right now, but you can be sure you can wibble at me via email or on Friday if you want to, I'll understand (having had to be in a rather similar position last summer: although in the end it was my decision not to take up the job, it kind of vacillated around this position you're in for a while).
wintrmute From: wintrmute Date: April 28th, 2003 12:48 pm (UTC) (Link)
Just a thought:

Explain the upside of this - you have received a workplace-induced illness, but you have been treated and are better now. You can now deal with stressfull/shitty workplaces. Other people who haven't yet been through this may be just about to breakdown, requiring their own therapy, etc.
So, it is to their advantage to employ you, rather than an unknown other person.


Well, its worth a try?
Read 4 | Write