This Job Interview Was A Joke

[Bartmanhomer]

Hey everybody. Today I went to my job interview for the MTA position for inventory and it's was a joke. I got to the interview early and he started the interview anyway. He told me that the job starts at 7:00 AM in the morning and I go to work by all five borough in New York City. 700 AM is too early even in my standards and I'm not going to travel all 5 borough in New York City. So I didn't get the job. :mad:

[Razade]

Good luck finding a job then. Seven is pretty standard working hours and while that's a lot of travel I suspect you wouldn't be doing it alone. And starting an interview early is great, not sure why that put you off. Better than sitting in a room waiting. What'd you expect really?

[AMFV]

Hey everybody. Today I went to my job interview for the MTA position for inventory and it's was a joke. I got to the interview early and he started the interview anyway. He told me that the job starts at 7:00 AM in the morning and I go to work by all five borough in New York City. 700 AM is too early even in my standards and I'm not going to travel all 5 borough in New York City. So I didn't get the job. :mad:

If you're looking for that sort of work (transportation, electrical, labor), generally they start earlier so that they aren't as impacted by traffic. Electricians and a lot of the trades love to start at 6 (which is nice because you're done at 2 or 3). As far as the travel thing, that's a more reasonable issue, particularly if you don't have reliable transportation. I would sit down and make a list of the things that you're okay with and aren't, that way when you're looking at the postings you can have a really good idea what's worth applying to.

All warehouse work is going to start early, since you have to do work before the people actually get there to get whatever they're getting out of the warehouse.

[AmberVael]

So I didn't get the job. :mad:

You have not described not getting the job. You have described being offered a job and turning it down.

[Aedilred]

As the others have implied, I think it might be worth re-examining your attitude towards your start time. 7am is an early start, but not absurdly so, especially in certain lines of work. Although I don't know about this job specifically, often jobs which start early also finish early, which means you get more of the evening and so if you can stomach the early start it actually works out pretty well.

If a 7am start is unfeasible because of transport (getting to one of my 7am jobs was a right pain for a while because some of the public transport I needed didn't start early enough, and a 6.30am start would have been nearly impossible) then that's unfortunate, and might be worth turning down a job over. If on the other hand it's just that you don't like the idea of getting out of bed at 6am, then that's down to you, and is probably just something you need to suck up and get on with.

Getting to the interview early and his starting isn't inconsiderate on his part. The expectation is that once you arrive you're ready to be interviewed, and that if you've got there early you're keen to get started. In fact it could easily be argued that he was doing you a favour, in not keeping you hanging around before getting started.

[Bartmanhomer]

Oh no. Arriving on the job interview wasn't the problem for me. It was the schedule and traveling in multiple locations that I turn it down. First it means that I had to go to bed real early and wake up at 4:00 AM which make it real difficult to do. And traveling at all 5 borough which includes Staten Island is just too much for me. I rather work at 9:00 AM and only at one location.

[Lethologica]

Sounds like the job interview did its job perfectly. You weren't a match for the job for logistical reasons, and you don't have the job.

[AMFV]

Oh no. Arriving on the job interview wasn't the problem for me. It was the schedule and traveling in multiple locations that I turn it down. First it means that I had to go to bed real early and wake up at 4:00 AM which make it real difficult to do. And traveling at all 5 borough which includes Staten Island is just too much for me. I rather work at 9:00 AM and only at one location.

That's not so bad, you didn't have to take off work and fly someplace to find out you didn't want a job, which has happened to folks I know.

[Keltest]

Oh no. Arriving on the job interview wasn't the problem for me. It was the schedule and traveling in multiple locations that I turn it down. First it means that I had to go to bed real early and wake up at 4:00 AM which make it real difficult to do. And traveling at all 5 borough which includes Staten Island is just too much for me. I rather work at 9:00 AM and only at one location.

Why does it take you three hours to get to work? Is it that far away?

[AtlanteanTroll]

Oh no. Arriving on the job interview wasn't the problem for me. It was the schedule and traveling in multiple locations that I turn it down. First it means that I had to go to bed real early and wake up at 4:00 AM which make it real difficult to do. And traveling at all 5 borough which includes Staten Island is just too much for me. I rather work at 9:00 AM and only at one location.

As others have said, the interview wasn't a joke. You're just a poor candidate for the job in question.

[Bartmanhomer]

Why does it take you three hours to get to work? Is it that far away?

Yes and I'm afraid that I might get lost at the location.

[SaintRidley]

Starting a meeting or interview early when all parties are present and accounted for early is not a bad thing. It's a good thing that lets everybody get back to actually interesting things earlier. Likewise, being told the daily start time is hardly some kind of joke.

Honestly, it sounds less like the interview was a joke and more like the interviewee was not at all fit for the job.

[Knaight]

As people have said 7 AM isn't that bad a start time, and while there's a bit of a commute it's through a city which has a subway system - you know, those handy things which allow you to completely avoid the surface traffic.

[Peelee]

Sound like a pretty fun job, actually. Make sure to give me a recommendation. If they cover commute costs, I'm set.

[AMFV]

This is a good thing to note, Bartman, for every job you don't like there's somebody who will love it. I can tell you that the goal is to find a job you love, so there's nothing wrong with having standards.

If you don't like waking up in the morning, you can look for jobs that start later, but your options will be somewhat limited by that, but limiting your options here isn't necessarily a bad thing. If you can handle it financially you're better off waiting and winding up with something you absolutely love.

[Scarlet Knight]

This is a good thing to note, Bartman, for every job you don't like there's somebody who will love it. I can tell you that the goal is to find a job you love, so there's nothing wrong with having standards.


Unless you like to eat....

Remember, loving your job is more of a thing for the wealthy & well educated. The vast majority of people don't have jobs they love, they have jobs that pay the bills and feed the people depending on them. I've never heard of a coal miner say he loved getting in touch with his inner dwarf.

Take for example a restaurant. The owner may love his job, maybe a chef or two. Sommelier if they have one? But not the rest, not the waiters, busboys, kitchen staff, diswashers, valets, or bartenders that outnumber the happy workers 10 or 20 to 1. They like having a paycheck, but not their job.

[Peelee]

Yeah, but if the waiter is still getting good tips, he can still afford to turn down other jobs that wouldn't improve his situation much while holding out for something he thinks can be a good fit.

[Quiver]

How long have you been unemployed for?

For perspective. I'm not overly fond of my job. I work 12 hours a day, at minimum wage, starting at six in the morning.

But after three years of unemployment, I'm damn grateful for it.

I wish I had something better, sure, but...well, it's a start.

[AMFV]

Unless you like to eat....


I don't think Bartman is starving, or he wouldn't have turned down the job.



Remember, loving your job is more of a thing for the wealthy & well educated. The vast majority of people don't have jobs they love, they have jobs that pay the bills and feed the people depending on them. I've never heard of a coal miner say he loved getting in touch with his inner dwarf.


I know a few people who love coal mining. I know a lot of people who enjoy manual labor jobs. You still should be looking for a job you'd love. Remember being unemployed is not as bad as being unemployed and having been fired from your last job.



Take for example a restaurant. The owner may love his job, maybe a chef or two. Sommelier if they have one? But not the rest, not the waiters, busboys, kitchen staff, diswashers, valets, or bartenders that outnumber the happy workers 10 or 20 to 1. They like having a paycheck, but not their job.

Then they should find a job they like... There are enough jobs that you should be able to find one you like. I'd rather be temporarily unemployed than working a job I absolutely hate.

[5a Violista]

Then they should find a job they like... There are enough jobs that you should be able to find one you like. I'd rather be temporarily unemployed than working a job I absolutely hate.
...and I'd rather be employed at a job I dislike than living on the street, because there's some gratification in making my own way, depending only on myself, and being able to pay for both classes and food so that at some point in the future I can get a job that I love, even if right now I need to work at a job that I don't really like.

It's probably just the way you phrased your sentence, but you've implied that you can only like or hate a job (not dislike or be indifferent to it). I believe Scarlet Knight was meaning that all these other workers don't like their job, but are overall indifferent to it because it gives them what they need.
(But, "There are enough jobs that you should be able to find one you like"? I like pretty much everything, so that could be true for me, but I've got friends fresh out of college who have been trying to get any job over the past year, and would be happy even with one they dislike. Some people are supernaturally lucky when it comes to job-finding; other people aren't.)

[lio45]

Sounds like the job interview did its job perfectly. You weren't a match for the job for logistical reasons, and you don't have the job.

Exactly...

[Peelee]

Then they should find a job they like... There are enough jobs that you should be able to find one you like. I'd rather be temporarily unemployed than working a job I absolutely hate.

I think you have either an unrealistic expectation of how difficult it can be to find a job sometimes, or the loss of a job temporarily would not have a meaningful impact on your life. If my wife or i were out of work for so much as a month, it's not like we'd lose our house or anything, but we'd be in a pretty severe crisis mode.

[Knaight]

It's probably just the way you phrased your sentence, but you've implied that you can only like or hate a job (not dislike or be indifferent to it). I believe Scarlet Knight was meaning that all these other workers don't like their job, but are overall indifferent to it because it gives them what they need.

There's also different reasons to hate a job. I've had jobs I hated because I had to deal with unreasonable jerks all the time, but that's workable. I've also had access to a job that I felt was basically a pyramid scheme that I would have hated for being unethical, so I turned that one down. I suspect most people have the skills necessary for any of the numerous jobs that basically involve scamming desperate people out of their money with lies, but the vast majority of people who have horrible jobs still won't do that.

[pendell]

Unless you like to eat....

Remember, loving your job is more of a thing for the wealthy & well educated. The vast majority of people don't have jobs they love, they have jobs that pay the bills and feed the people depending on them. I've never heard of a coal miner say he loved getting in touch with his inner dwarf.

Take for example a restaurant. The owner may love his job, maybe a chef or two. Sommelier if they have one? But not the rest, not the waiters, busboys, kitchen staff, diswashers, valets, or bartenders that outnumber the happy workers 10 or 20 to 1. They like having a paycheck, but not their job.

Aaand this is why being poor sucks. It's not just the lack of material goods (thankfully, few Westerners starve these days); it's the lack of opportunity.

When you are swimming in money, you can do what you want.

When you are poor, you do what you must.

I don't know very many people who can skip to the end stage ("Fulfill your dreams! Be all that you were called to be!") without making it through the intermediate stage ("acquire a ton of money which allows you to stop working and start fulfilling dreams") first. Our society gives us unrealistic expectations, I think.

Heck, a lot of times it's not something you can do in one generation; I know my grandfather worked almost all of his postwar life in a sanitation plant so his children and grandchildren could have the opportunities he didn't.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[AMFV]

...and I'd rather be employed at a job I dislike than living on the street, because there's some gratification in making my own way, depending only on myself, and being able to pay for both classes and food so that at some point in the future I can get a job that I love, even if right now I need to work at a job that I don't really like.

This is certainly true, the issue I'd have is that "disliking a job" and hating a job are different. I don't mind getting up at four AM, I've done it for more than one job, there are people who absolutely could not do that regularly, even if they wanted to. They'd turn into nervous wrecks and the job would ruin their health, and then they'd be fired. There are people with family obligations who cannot get up at 4 AM and leave the house. Now I'm not sure if Bartman is exaggerating in his claim that he'd have to get up at four or five to be there on time. But not being willing to get a job because it starts early isn't that big a deal, it's a pretty common restriction, in fact that's why being able to get up early will help you get other jobs.

The other issue is that settling for jobs makes it infinitely harder to get the jobs you want (like being out of an industry for a long period of time), so having criteria is important. For example I might say, "I'm willing to work for less money if it's in the field I want", or "I'm willing to wake up at 4 for X amount of dollars." The key is not to give away suffering for free. If somebody wants me to do something I dislike or something in demand, I make them pay for it. The more I dislike it, the more I'll expect them to pay. That's what you need to do, I suspect to sort jobs.

For example: For 12/hour I would not be willing to get up at four, unless I got a ton of overtime and had consistent work. The job would also have to be something unskilled that I enjoy. For 19/hour, I would be willing to get up at four and do something I disliked, although it would have to be unskilled work. That math changes as well for labor that's skilled, or if I'm getting into a field where there's advancement.

The job that Bartman was looking at, we don't know if there's advancement if there's not advancement and it's a sucky job, and it's not a hugely awesome resume bullet, then it might be worth waiting to try to get something else. Or look at relocating to get something else. I would not work in a job I hated, that wasn't advancing my life, unless I absolutely had to, and then I would be trying to get out of that circumstance as rapidly as possible.


I think you have either an unrealistic expectation of how difficult it can be to find a job sometimes, or the loss of a job temporarily would not have a meaningful impact on your life. If my wife or i were out of work for so much as a month, it's not like we'd lose our house or anything, but we'd be in a pretty severe crisis mode.

I think that has to do with what kind of work you're willing to do. If I lost my job today, and was in really poor shape, I could have another by the end of the week. Admittedly it would be manual labor and wouldn't pay well, but that's life. What I do have is a pretty good idea of what it's like to have to quit a job because you hate it and how much that sucks (and also how badly that can hinder your search.)
Edit:


There's also different reasons to hate a job. I've had jobs I hated because I had to deal with unreasonable jerks all the time, but that's workable. I've also had access to a job that I felt was basically a pyramid scheme that I would have hated for being unethical, so I turned that one down. I suspect most people have the skills necessary for any of the numerous jobs that basically involve scamming desperate people out of their money with lies, but the vast majority of people who have horrible jobs still won't do that.

Very much this. And different people are going to have different thresholds as to what they find unreasonable. Knowing yours is absolutely critical. If getting up in the morning is something unbearable, then you should move on to find a job where you don't have to (as in the OP's case). Or in yours ethics would be a sticking point (as I imagine it would for many).

[Scarlet Knight]

I know a few people who love coal mining. I know a lot of people who enjoy manual labor jobs. You still should be looking for a job you'd love. Remember being unemployed is not as bad as being unemployed and having been fired from your last job.

I do not live in coal country, so if you know miners who love their job ( not white collar workers for Coal Corp) I shall defer to you. From what I've read mining is maybe the most dangerous job, with terrible working conditions; people usually work in mines because of the lack of alternatives.

I agree being fired is real bad, and that if you can, you should choose a job you love. If you have a spouse or parent to keep a roof over your head until you find one, great. But things get dicey when you're the one providing the roof and that is the majority of workers in the world.

[AMFV]

I do not live in coal country, so if you know miners who love their job ( not white collar workers for Coal Corp) I shall defer to you. From what I've read mining is maybe the most dangerous job, with terrible working conditions; people usually work in mines because of the lack of alternatives.


It is VERY dangerous, and the working conditions are awful. But the pay is amazing... Typically if you're doing hard arduous work that nobody wants to do then you should be being paid accordingly. If you are doing that and not being paid accordingly, you should jump ship because there are others who will pay accordingly for your willingness to do difficult, dangerous work.



I agree being fired is real bad, and that if you can, you should choose a job you love. If you have a spouse or parent to keep a roof over your head until you find one, great. But things get dicey when you're the one providing the roof and that is the majority of workers in the world.

Right, but there's a difference between taking ANY job, and being overly picky. There are jobs that would not be ideal for me, for a variety of reasons. If I am offered one of them, I'd say no, unless circumstances were very dire indeed. Partially because those jobs are going to be things I'll hate, but mostly because it won't help me in the long run. In the short run (in the developed world), it's difficult to starve, although not impossible, it's unwise to take short term comfort over long term success.

[Knaight]

Right, but there's a difference between taking ANY job, and being overly picky. There are jobs that would not be ideal for me, for a variety of reasons. If I am offered one of them, I'd say no, unless circumstances were very dire indeed. Partially because those jobs are going to be things I'll hate, but mostly because it won't help me in the long run. In the short run (in the developed world), it's difficult to starve, although not impossible, it's unwise to take short term comfort over long term success.

Even with outright starvation being limited, malnutrition and hunger are still pretty prevalent, and both of them make one more inclined to illnesses, with medical care while out of work being the sort of thing that can cripple one financially for life in places - and that's just one example. Sometimes you need to take pretty much any job you can get even in the developed world.

[AMFV]

Even with outright starvation being limited, malnutrition and hunger are still pretty prevalent, and both of them make one more inclined to illnesses, with medical care while out of work being the sort of thing that can cripple one financially for life in places - and that's just one example. Sometimes you need to take pretty much any job you can get even in the developed world.

Certainly that is sometimes the case. But I don't think it is often so. Also taking any job you can get is going to wind up without you being able to pay your bills anyways, in most places. You have to be somewhat selective, and the more specialized your skillset, the more selective you can be.

[Peelee]

Certainly that is sometimes the case. But I don't think it is often so. Also taking any job you can get is going to wind up without you being able to pay your bills anyways, in most places. You have to be somewhat selective, and the more specialized your skillset, the more selective you can be.

I'm afraid this will be easy for someone to politicize, but again, i get the feeling that you do not have a realistic idea of daily life for the lower classes of society. Where taking any job is done because some money is better than no money, and being forced to take food stamps because if you don't, is either dinner for a month or rent.

[AMFV]

I'm afraid this will be easy for someone to politicize, but again, i get the feeling that you do not have a realistic idea of daily life for the lower classes of society. Where taking any job is done because some money is better than no money, and being forced to take food stamps because if you don't, is either dinner for a month or rent.

If you take ANY job you won't have enough money for dinner, or rent either. That's why you need to be selective. I have a very realistic idea about how things are for the lower class of society (I've had to on more than one occasion decide between paying bills and buying food). And I would STILL not advise somebody to take a job where they are going to fail, possibly spectacularly.

This is for several reasons, first because it won't look good on your resume, for example if you go from Technician to Office Manager, or from Engineer to Associate at McDonalds. People are going to look on that very negatively, you'd be better off without having any other jobs (of course you could avoid putting that on), but you should be looking for things that advance your career rather than push it down.

Again, there is nothing wrong with saying "This job is going to be worse for me than not having a job at all", that happens. If a job is bad for my mental health, to the point where I can no longer function, it'd be better off not to have it. If a job is going to make it impossible for me to advance in my chosen career, then it's a bad move.

Yes, necessity is very much a real thing, and there are times when you have to settle, but you can still have job related deal-breakers. If I knew that I wouldn't be able to get up on time to get to a job, I wouldn't take said job, because I would fail, and then be where I was previously, but in worse shape. If I knew that a job was likely to leave me permanently injured, I might not take it (unless it was something I wanted, or something that compensated me adequately).

Or for example, I could have a job where I'm required to stay on-payroll, and respond quickly (preventing me from taking another job), and where they give me not enough hours to afford to live. That's my big dealbreaker, jobs where suddenly (without warning) there aren't any hours available and I'm suddenly in a financial craphole, if it's seasonal, then I'd understand it (and plan for it), but not seasonal lapses in hours for longer than a few weeks is unacceptable to me.

It's important for me to know what I'm willing to tolerate in order to find work. Am I willing to move? Many people aren't, many people can't. I personally have done that for work, and would do it again. Am I willing to work shift work, where the shifts aren't consistent? Am I willing to work in the elements? Those things are important to know about yourself. Because accepting a job and then being unable to do those things, is worse than not having one, since now you've had a job and were fired from it (and even if you can omit that from your resume, it'll show up on the background checks that folks do).

Edit: Another big one for many folks is commission work, sometimes working on commission can be very advantageous for other people it can result in more severe poverty than when you started.

Also, skirting politics, if you are on food stamps or many similar programs, and you do get work, you may no longer qualify for those programs. Which means that you could be worse off with a job, in many circumstances, which is something you would probably be aware of if you'd lived in the real lower class for any length of time.

[Peelee]

If you take ANY job you won't have enough money for dinner, or rent either. That's why you need to be selective. I have a very realistic idea about how things are for the lower class of society (I've had to on more than one occasion decide between paying bills and buying food). And I would STILL not advise somebody to take a job where they are going to fail, possibly spectacularly.
Yeah, but still you're assuming that people in general have the luxury of being selective. For instance, say someone has a terrible back, or atrocious knee problems, most kinds of manual labor are out of the question. This is narrowing the potential number of available, low-level jobs that are available. Selectivity becomes less viable the fewer opportunities exist.


Also, skirting politics, if you are on food stamps or many similar programs, and you do get work, you may no longer qualify for those programs. Which means that you could be worse off with a job, in many circumstances, which is something you would probably be aware of if you'd lived in the real lower class for any length of time.

Fun fact: For most of my working life, I've qualified for food stamps. I didn't even know until I was near the point that wasn't the case anymore, because I could always get by, but I think you'd be surprised at how much one can make and still be viable for socialized welfare programs. I mean, it's still in the "dirt poor" range of income, but I think it's higher than you might expect.

Also, I admit I kind of started it myself, but I vote we move away from the "you haven't lived in real poverty" contest that looks to be getting going here. I think there'll be no winners here if that breaks out in earnest.

[AMFV]

Yeah, but still you're assuming that people in general have the luxury of being selective. For instance, say someone has a terrible back, or atrocious knee problems, most kinds of manual labor are out of the question. This is narrowing the potential number of available, low-level jobs that are available. Selectivity becomes less viable the fewer opportunities exist.


I agree completely. What I was getting at was more that not being able to get up in the morning or needing to take a three hour commute, might be a fine thing to use for narrowing your job search. If you're desperate or if you need that job yesterday, that equation changes. Also having preferences isn't necessarily that bad, if you have the ability to afford to be selective, which our OP might have.



Fun fact: For most of my working life, I've qualified for food stamps. I didn't even know until I was near the point that wasn't the case anymore, because I could always get by, but I think you'd be surprised at how much one can make and still be viable for socialized welfare programs. I mean, it's still in the "dirt poor" range of income, but I think it's higher than you might expect.

Also, I admit I kind of started it myself, but I vote we move away from the "you haven't lived in real poverty" contest that looks to be getting going here. I think there'll be no winners here if that breaks out in earnest.

Seconded, also I think that's probably the sort of thing that's going to end in a draw. It's worth noting that socialized welfare programs vary a lot state to state, and city to city. So that's actually moving towards a valid point that the OP should consider, is that he should research what support systems he has in his city and see how his decisions may affect them. For some of them after all, turning down a job offer results in instant disqualification.

Edit: Mostly the Welfare thing comes into play with dwindling hours type jobs. Where some of the time you make a lot of money, but you don't always make a lot of money, and since it takes a long time to get those sort of things processed that can really throw you in a bind.

[MannHugo]

As others have said already, it just seems like you were not the right fit for the job. This is no knock against you as a person but every job has the right candidate that fits their criteria and in this situaition it just so happened that you were not it. Hopefully you find something that is better suited to your schedule and the way you prefer to move around New York. Rooting for you, goodluck.