No, you don't get to do your self-promotion via a work-email, unless the link points to an official source provided / hosted by the organization you work for.

Since I use my work email to communicate with many clients and maybe potential future employers [...] Stop doing that immediately if the purpose is to seek / influence/ communicate from the viewpoint of "potential future employers".

As per law in most of the cases, you're supposed to use company provided resources (yes, your email is one of them) for official work purposes, and searching for another job is not "official" work (i.e., you don't get paid for that).

Existing client or not, for getting in touch with potential employers, use your personal email address.

Client communication is just fine as long as it is limited to working communication / collaboration.

Definitely not, using work resources for personal promotion is not a good idea.

But there's nothing wrong with including a link to your personal site on your LinkedIn profile.

Many companies have policies or guidelines regarding email signature blocks.

So start there.

I would expect that even one without guidelines would not like employees to include a link to a site not related to their company or your project.

Since I use my work email to communicate with many clients and maybe potential future employers, I would like to put a link to this website in my email signature for work.

Don't try and talk to future employers with a email address of your current employer.

They don't like that.

You also don't want to lose your only way of communicating with future employers on your last day of work.

There is one exception to firm no provided by Sourav Ghosh .

If, and only if you work not as employee, but as an one-person company on B2B (business to business) agreement with your "employer" you may be allowed, or even required by law*, to disclose it.

And link to your business website may be acceptable way to do it.

Always consult your contact in your "employer" company before doing it.

They may have specific rules or guidelines about it.

I am not a lawyer.

If you don't know how it is for you, in your jurisdiction, you need a lawyer.

This is a decent idea if you own your own company and the email address.

If you're not a business owner and you work for someone else, this is not the best idea.

No.

As an employer, the last thing I want to see is someone's personal website.

This indicates 'side projects,' which we all know are important and practical, but suggests (right or wrong) that the person is working on it during office hours.

I'm not a stickler, and hope everyone has a healthy work-life balance including keeping personal tabs during office hours, but don't put it on your office signature going out to my internal and external contacts.

Stop immediately is my advice to you as a member of an organization that is growing and supported by you.

Including anything more then your title(s) (PhD, etc) and perhaps certifications (CPA, etc) in your sig line is more then enough.

Nobody wants to see a hyperlink to your resume / projects ... and the folks that would (eg: internal team of researchers that collab on projects) would likely have alternate ways to go check that stuff out anyways.

It just seems lazy and unprofessional to have that included in the sig line on EVERY email sent from an account.

It's need-to-know information, and not every email will require that.

If I got an email from a person that had a link to a personal page that showed their CV or all the stuff they're working on in college.. and my correspondence with them required none of that..

I'd think the person was narcissitic or lazy.

Either they think they're so awesome they need to let everyone know how awesome they are.

Or, they're lazy and are using their email to pass along their resume to job hunts, and are just doing it for every email becasue

they're too lazy to take the 2 seconds to copy paste the link in ONLY on the emails to headhunters when needed.

I wouldn't need to see that stuff.

I just view this from a professional environment.

When I email people at work I don't have a link showing my resume and all the stuff I'm working on at my current job.

All my sig line includes is my name and maybe my job title and dept (depending on who I'm contacting).

In some situations I will purposefully not include job titles and dept just to see how forthcoming a person is with information, or to let the person know I'm making an informal inquiry (depends on what I'm doing at the company and what goal I'm trying to achieve).

You could also consider this detrimental to you if you fire off an email to someone you DON'T want to know that information.

And, including that kind of extracurricular info in every sig line of every email makes all recipients feel "unspecial".

Like, "Here's info about me, whether it's relevant to our correspondence or not...

I don't care about tailoring the message to you, it's all about me, me, me."

Question: I have a website that basically functions as a resume/project record where I list my various master degree research projects, personal projects, and work history.  Since I use my work email to communicate with many clients and maybe potential future employers, I would like to put a link to this website in my email signature for work.   Would this be considered professional?  Note: It isn't some sort of glorified MySpace page, it is a tasteful professional website to keep a log of my project history as an engineer.

Can I put the link to my personal website in my work email signature?

You should not do this if you have an employer as self promotion via work email is not a good idea. If you have your own business then this would be a good thing to do.

The general consensus is that this is not a good idea. But if you are going to insist on including a personal link in your company signature, it would be best to consult with your boss first.

This is generally viewed as a very bad idea.

If you do decide to include a personal link in your signature, you will probably want to check with your boss first.


Processing job applications is a high-volume job depending on your industry.

Three interviews is a drop in the bucket.

I wouldn't worry about it.

But you absolutely must pay attention to your technique, see what works and what doesn't, and refine as appropriate.

There isn't a lot you can do about being ghosted by a recruiter.

That's kind of the point.

If they stop reading your emails, you can't yell at them.

One thing you can do is to blackball these recruiters yourself.

Take note of the companies these recruiters work for, and the next time a recruiter from the same company contacts you, simply say, "Sorry, I've worked with your company in the past and been ghosted, I'm not going to waste my time talking to you a second time.

Thank you, goodbye".

I have done this in the past, and the recruitment company has come back to me practically begging me on their hands and knees to work with them.

Or sometimes they'll just go away forever.

In the former case, it's really up to you as to whether or not to give them a second chance.

Personally, I would give them a second chance, but make it known to them that they are my bottom priority in terms of my job hunt, something like "I'm willing to work with you, but be aware that due to my past experience, I don't entirely trust your professionalism.

As a result, I will consider recruitment work from my other recruiters more seriously than your work".

Basically, I am very passive-aggressive with these types of people; in my opinion, ghosting is basically the cardinal sin of recruitment, so I have little patience for these companies or the people who work for them.

In the latter case, you've just saved yourself a whole bunch of headache.

If they're not even ready to contest with you that they ghosted you and try to plead their case and fix their reputation, then screw them.

Count

yourself lucky they don't want to waste your time talking to them.

I wish finding a good job was as easy as 3 applications being done.

Agencies deal with a high volume of candidates, unless you strike a chord with your recruiter is is likely they wouldn't recognize you on the street if you had a sign over your head.

Do the following:

After an interview, phone or otherwise, send an email to the interviewer (if possible if not recruiter) thanking them for the opportunity of the interview, mentioning something about the interview that you liked (maybe something about the company which you have gone home to research), ask them for any feedback they may have and finish with "looking forward to working with you".

It reminds the person of the interview.

If it was a face-to-face interview, ask for a bussiness card if they have one so you can send the email.

If you received messages on Linkedin (that's how I got my current job), follow up on the messages a couple of days later.

Ask "Hi [person], is there some time today we can catch up on the phone regarding the position you messaged me about?".

Simple, no response=drop it and move on.

As mentioned above, try different things during interview, some techniques are better than others on the career that you are applying for.

And have fun!

If you walk into a building that gives you the feeling you couldn't be there 9-5 everyday, then try something wacky in the interview.

You are not wasting their time, both of you are looking for a perfect fit candidate.

Most likely those emails aren't from an actual person.

It's a mass email to get people to apply who meet some criteria they set in the app.

You shouldn't be waiting for people to come to you.

Go to these companies and apply!

How am I supposed to react to being ghosted?

It should not, but here in my country (Brazil)

being ghosted happens quite often.

It is an bad / irresponsible HR behavior not providing any kind of feedback regarding a job apply.

In general terms, as for my experiences here in Brazil, most company's HR staff are simply incompetent.

Believe me, in 90% of cases the problem is not you .

Stay cool and keep aplying.

I believe one of the symptoms of a bad company (the kind you should not consider working to) is the poor HR interactions with people being recruited.

I wouldn't bother with the ones who just messaged you and left you hanging, because they're as likely to be phishing as making genuine inquiries, but if someone took the time for an interview it's worth following up after a week or so.

They may have some feedback as to why your application didn't go any further, other jobs to put you forward for, or just some words of encouragement.

Sometimes it's good to know that you're doing nothing wrong, and just need to keep at it.

Question: So I've been ghosted by 3 recruiters in a row, that is to say, HR recruiters have messaged me on LinkedIn about interesting job opportunities than just not responded to me. One had a phone interview go well, said he would schedule another interview, then didn't reach out to me.   How would I go about figuring out what's going wrong? Bad luck? Something else?   How am I supposed to react to being ghosted?

Ghosted by 3 recruiters in a row

Don't worry about it. Think about your interview technique for future applications. Don't consider offers from companies that have already done this to you.

People would generally say that there is little you can do about this and you shouldn't let the experience bother you. However, you might wish to pay closer attention to your interview technique in future, and if the experience really has bothered you, simply inform those recruiters that have ghosted you that you do not wish to be contacted by them in the future.

Generally, people would say that there is little you can do and you shouldn't let the experience bother you.

If you're concerned about this, you may want to pay closer attention to your interview technique in future interviews.

You may wish to politely decline to speak to any recruiters that have ghosted you in the past.


suggestions on how to do this is a less offensive manner?

There is nothing offensive about declining a handshake because of a medical condition.

Just politely decline saying you have a sore hand if you don't want to go into nitty gritty details.

I'm going through this myself and straight up say that I can't shake hands because it's sore.

If asked I don't mind saying it's because it's a form of arthritis.

There's more of us out there than you might think

- I actually work with a couple of people in the same boat.

If he's not already done so, he should see a rheumatologist as there's some great medication out there.

This happened to me in college.

I had an autoimmune thing going on while I was trying to get a job and was at job fairs constantly.

It was an arthritic reaction that I was going though.

I wrapped my right hand in an ace wrap, and then carried a folder of resumes in my left.

This deterred most people from shaking my hand because it was injured.

If they asked about the nature of the damage, I explained it, but most didn't want to get into too much detail.

I'm sorry

, I'd like to shake your hand

but I'm dealing with a medical thing that makes it rather painful.

But I'm very pleased to meet you.

That's your basic script.

Explain why you can't shake hands with whatever words feel right to you, then add another short phrase to make it clear you're glad to see them.

Other phrases you could use are:

I'm sorry, handshakes can be painful for me

It's nothing major but

a handshake is very discomforting for me

I have an issue with my hands that makes shaking hands difficult You can do the same things when you've already met someone before, simply adding a " I'm not sure if I mentioned it when we met " and closing with a " nice to see you again ".

If this is a departure from your previous behaviour where you would just grin and bear it, it can be good to alert any co-workers or people you run into again.

Say something like:

I have a medical condition with my hands that's under control but which has made it sometimes painful to shake hands

so I'm going to avoid doing so in future.

Decades ago, this came up in a Dear Abby or Ann Landers column.

The advice given was to extend your hand palm up with the fingers slightly curled.

The other person should then just give a finger squeeze.

(Palm down, fingers curled and fingers squeeze fingers.

I think this was considered "the old lady handshake."

Polite people knew that this was a signal to be gentle.

This knowledge may have died out, but I encounter people who still do this.

Maybe the modern version is fist bumping.

I think there is enough pandemic awareness now that if someone extends their hand and you respond with a closed fist, then they think you're being germ-careful and will bump back.

The thought that you have a cold will probably pass through their minds, but it won't stay there long.

I face a somewhat similar issue - while I don't have arthritis, I've had enough hand and wrist injuries to make this problematic.

I can't remember exactly where I saw this, but I remember reading somewhere that Bill Clinton had a method for preventing people from squeezing when he had to shake a lot of hands.

You can try something similar.

I've tried a few different methods myself - e.g. 2-handed hand shaking.

Sometimes, gripping slightly around the knuckles can prevent them from squeezing too hard, too.

There are actually plenty of articles available demonstrating various other techniques for accomplishing this (or at least protecting your hand to some degree), such as this one .

I'd encourage you to look up a few of them and find one that works for you.

workplace.stackexchange.com/users/61906/EJoshuaS - Reinstate Monica

The usual practice in places I have worked has been to offer the forearm or elbow to be shaken.

Now I have worked in chemistry and in engineering and it is common for hands to be covered in gloves which are frequently contaminated (and this probably applies in other industries where hands must not be touched, such as food preparation) but it does seem to be common enough where I work to be understood, even without any explanation (though the fact that the person offering the arm usually has their hands visibly in an unshakeable condition helps with understanding.)

It is often (but by no means always) accompanied by a spoken apology for being unable to shake hands.

There is usually some brief touch of the offered part of the arm by the person with the free hand, so the physical gesture of hand to arm contact is completed without any need to de-glove.

If you work in an office environment, you could probably offer your arm like this (while apologising for being unable to shake hands as people in an office environment are perhaps less likely to understand the gesture.)

It's up to

you do decide if you want to explain, for example that your hands "hurt today" or enter into more detail about having arthritis.

There is no reason to be ashamed of a medical condition, but I do appreciate that you don't want to be referring to it all the time as I imagine it would be quite tedious for you.

I'm not entirely sure I understand why honesty is not the best policy here:

Sorry, I'd like to shake your hand, but I have an arthritic condition.

I don't mean to be rude, but I can't shake your hand.

This should be good enough for pretty much anyone.

Medical conditions can't be helped, and shouldn't be seen as rude by anyone reasonable.

Trying to dodge or lie your way around the problem (e.g. "I am working through a (unnamed) medical condition",

"I have a cold", "

I prefer to fistbump")

just comes off as lame.

Just say it flat out

: I have arthritis.

I can't shake your hand.

End of story.

Question: I "know someone" who has arthritis and because they are young most people never think of it when approaching them with a handshake. Sometimes a gentle squeeze is enough to bring tears. They are also private about their medical condition, but shouldn't be subject to pain or that awkward discomfort after declining a handshake from someone. Especially in a professional setting. Anyone have suggestions on how to do this in a less offensive manner?

Politely avoid/decline handshake due to arthritis and maintaining privacy regarding a medical condition

Explain simply that you have a sore hand and that you are pleased to see them anyway.

It is generally considered perfectly acceptable to simply explain that you have a medical condition and that you don't want to shake hands. How much detail you provide will be at your own discretion.


Short answer is... not a lot.

There's nothing you can really do if a potentially employer cancels your interview, whether it be last minute or way in advanced.

This is not fair.

Correct.

Sometimes these things happen.

Welcome to StackExchange and life!

Unfortunately not much you can do, if they decided to cancel your interview at least they won't waste your time with further interviews and no offer.

Last year I used a big portion of my holiday on interviews as the company I was working for was possibly going under.

Instead of taking a day off, try and arrange for "working from home" with current employer, or longer lunch breaks, leaving early and working the hours.

This will help you if your current employer is flexible enough, that will definitely save you some of your holiday.

Other than that, just enjoy your day off, take your time applying for better positions with the time you have off.

Edit on the "working from home":

Most places I've worked at if you required to work from home because of personal reasons or

otherwise, you would be given a task or goal to try to achieve.

You would be required to participate in meetings through skype and so on (when possible).

This allowed the use of some time during the day for the interview that you could make up the same day by working extra hours at the end and still achieve the deliverable you had set up as a goal.

You should definitely post your experience to glassdoor.com.

This will allow others to understand the unprofessional nature of the company before they get to involved.

Your review may not carry much weight but if they have a history of unprofessional behavior then their record will show that in time.

What should I do in this case?

Learn.

Any interview process involves a large amount of trust from both sides on all sorts of aspects, one of the most important of which is that the other party is serious and committed to seeing the process through.

The truth is that in the vast majority of recruitment processes, both sides are evaluating many options simultaneously.

When one option results in an acceptable offer, they cancel all the other processes in the interests of saving everyone's time.

When you go into interview processes, you have to know this and plan around it.

It does happen.

The odds of it happening depend on the company's recruiting strategy, and here you've come across a particularly extreme case where they did cast a wide net, weren't particularly committed to seeing the process through with you, and didn't mind wasting your time.

The 5 min cancellation is particularly annoying and unfair, yes, though at least they were honest about it!

So, what's the lesson?

You will always fundamentally need to trust the company when interviewing, but in future you should take steps to build and validate this trust before you make commitments like taking holidays to accommodate the interview process.

A few things you can do Ask plainly in initial communication what the process will be, what specifically will happen and when.

Don't begin the process until this has been explained.

If it's not already part of the official process, ask for a quick introductory call with the Hiring Manager before beginning it.

15 minutes is enough.

Introduce yourselves and talk about the role.

You can usually get a decent signal on if the other party is serious based on this.

Be more casual and flexible about early stages in the process.

Especially if it's a call, ask if it can be done before or after your usual working hours

so you don't have to take holiday.

Confirm 24 hours in advance, and then a couple of hours in advance, of the interview, that it's still going ahead.

These two time periods give them two easy 'get out' opportunities and if they do need to cancel really late on, at least you can somewhat salvage your schedule with a bit more notice.

All of the above will be looked on positively by anyone serious.

If you get cold or negative reactions to any of them, it's a red flag and you should be the one withdrawing from the process at that point.

You could call your manager and ask if he's happy that you cancel your holiday; or make it a half day depending on the time left.

This way you can recover some or all of your holiday, and I don't know any managers that will care about this odd day going wrong.

While it might seem harsh, at least they called to cancel rather than just not tell you.

Unless they asked you to take a holiday (in which case you might be able to get some compensation - ask a lawyer in your locale, potentially one in the prospective employers' country too), I don't see what you could do except tell them just that and maybe ask for a reimbursement.

Unfortunately you missed your ideal time window right when you had the interview lined up (they might have reconsidered and went on with the interview).

I assume they decided against you anyways after seeing other candidates applications.

But this and other possibilities are pure speculation, so Move on ...and enjoy your "holiday" This is not fair.

Sadly life is not fair, welcome to the world.

Question: I had an video call interview that was scheduled for a specific time.  5 minutes before the interview I got an email from them saying that they were cancelling my interview because there were many other candidates also waiting for the same post.  This is not fair. I took holiday from my current job for this interview.   What should I do in this case?

Remote job interview cancelled 5 minute before interview time

There's not a lot you can do about this. Think of it as a learning experience and post it on glassdoor.com. See if you can at least work half a day and cancel your holiday with your employer.

The general consensus is that there is little you can do about this situation. At the very least, you might want to try and recover the remainder of the work day so that you don't lose your holiday allowance. Otherwise, consider what you can learn from the experience and, if you feel it might be beneficial to others, post your experience on glassdoor.com.

The general consensus is that there is little you can do about this situation and it is unlikely that there are any legal avenues you can explore.

You could speak to your manager to see if you can work the remainder of the day so as not to waste your holiday entitlement.

You may want to think about what you can learn from this experience.

You might want to consider posting your experience on glassdoor.com so that other potential interviewees are aware.


The problem is that different people work better in different environments.

What you should do is have plenty of private spaces and a few usable public spaces for groups.

Your spaces will not effectively work at 15 people; try to design spaces for 6 or fewer.

I’ve worked in cubicles, a private office, a shared office, and a open area.

I disliked the open area because of a lack of privacy.

And basically all the open space pioneers backed away from the idea quite long ago.

EDIT; Here are some interesting reads: Harvard Study Chicago Tribune Forbes

Contrary to the original (claimed) intentions behind the open-plan office philosophy, namely the improvement of collaboration and communication research has shown that they actually cause a significant decrease in both face to face interactions and productivity.

They also appear to lead to a negative impact on employee health, one study showing a staggering 62% increase in the number of sick days taken by employees in an open plan environment vs having closed offices.

The only real benefit to open-plan is that it allows for reduced expenditure on office space, now in some locations where space is at a premium this trade off may actually make more financial sense: An approximation for the cost savings in using open-plan can be done: (Square feet per person saved via open offices *

# of employees * Cost/square foot of office space)

So as the number of employees goes up - so does the value of potential cost reductions.

If the lost productivity of the open-plan model results in lost revenue of less than the additional cost of having closed plan offices then it can still make sense.

4-15 developers..

that's a lot of variance, it's difficult to get something liked by everyone.

To add to what has already covered by UnhandledExcepSean's answer , I'd say, even for the same person, not everyday work requires same working condition.

Example:

In a design review meeting, I'd like a open workplace where I sit face to face and discuss.

Same me, would like to have a semi-private workplace when I'm trying to read, understand and debug someone else's code.

What I'd say, organize the available place into three categories

Open working space : For collaborative works Head-down cubicles : Semi-private space for small period of high-focus individual work. AV Room (Audio-Video Privacy Room)

: For Conference calls.

Even if you can't get the third one, it's okay.

Have spaces for both 1 and 2, and let people choose what they prefer.

This is just my experience about what I found worked best.

In one company we were in an old big house.

Each room was large enough for 6 people, so each team had a room to themselves.

The volume and "fun" were controlled for how busy each team were.

The team members could just ask a question to the room and the correct person could now answer.

Without disturbing other teams to who this question was irrelevant.

I now work in one room with the entire company, not a single sound barrier.

Everyone is sat with headphones on, so nobody can add their own information which is relevant but you didn't know existed to ask about.

But i guess they are cheaper for the company.

Anecdotally: I've worked at companies that have had shared offices (usually 2 people per office) and that have had an open office arrangement.

Ironically, I've found myself collaborating less in open office arrangements.

To deal with the extra noise created by open office layouts, many people end up wearing headphones all the time.

However, by wearing headphones, they provide a (possibly unintended) cue that they don't want to be disturbed.

I avoided talking to them.

I want to avoid disturbing bystanders, so I usually avoided talking to people in general.

In contrast, with private offices: There is a clear visual cue whether the occupants are okay with visitors or if the occupants don't want to be disturbed: whether the door is open or closed.

I worried less about disturbing others since if discussion in the office gets too loud, we (or the people disturbed) could close doors.

Question: I want to create a new workspace for a small software development team (4-15 developers).  Is there any research into whether open workspaces or small offices make for a better working environment?

Open space vs offices. Which one is better for a new team according to studies?

An open-plan office has been proven to decrease productivity face-to-face interaction.

Some research indicates that open-plan offices, despite their original intentions actually lead to reduced collaboration and productivity.


First thing is to be honest with him about the situation.

Jack, we have always been happy with the product you deliver and would love to work with you more.

Our biggest problem is that things are never delivered on time.

We can only agree to work with you if you can assure that you will be able to meet the deadline.

You also need to make sure that any deadline you are setting is reasonable to him and not just dictated by you.

The problem in the past may have been that you set deadlines that he is simply unable to meet.

(I don't know if this was actually the case for you, but it's still good practice in general.)

If we ask for a deadline that you think is unreasonable, then please let us know!

We would much rather know a realistic estimate upfront than have you just agree to what we ask and then be late.

You can even add an ultimatum if you want, assuming you can follow through with it.

If we get a late delivery from you again, we will not be requiring your services anymore.

If you give the ultimatum, he's late, and then you hire him again, then he'll know that he can be late with no consequence.

I also assume that you aren't paying him in full until you get the final delivery, otherwise there's no incentive for him to be on time at all.

Lastly, you can do a little preemptive damage control on your end by giving him a deadline that's earlier than when you actually need it.

If he's usually about a week late, then tell him you need it a week early.

If he successfully delivers to you on time, you can slowly move the bar back to normal, if you want.

Or just leave the bar early for when he inevitably relapses (and he will.

It's just a question of how much you can put up with it.)

I assume that the OP is in more or less good terms with the designer and therefore there should be a mutual understanding that work needs to be done.

In this light make him aware of the problem by sending him a mail detailing what needs to be done in order for him to get another gig.

In addition, if possible make a contract in the form of: Deadline : X $ Deadline + 5 working days: 75% of X Deadline + 10 working days: 50% of x Deadline + 15 working days: no payment and no further gigs.

"One condition, do it on time

or you get paid half".

If he has a track record for being late with work.

A "gentle" reminder isn't going to change the fact that he won't be rushing.

Simple as that.

One model that seems to work is not to decrease the pay for late BUT to offer a "bonus" for delivery by date

X...

If it arrives on time then pay the bonus...

A garage did similar, if you paid within 10 days you got a 10% discount - that quickly reduced the number of late payers...

As I see it, the person probably has some issue with organizing oneself and this would be the reason to deliver late.

I

don;t think you need to search for a gentle way to explain that.

Just be open and say that if you have a deadline, you must deliver in time.

As you like the designer's work, tell one that you appreciate his/her work and lot, but you can work together only if any deadlines set are met.

Question: I have a really talented designer working for me remotely. No complains with his work but he always delivers them late. I couldn't handle it anymore so I stopped sending him work.   Just a while ago I received his message asking if his services are required. I want to send him work but also want to let him know that I will only do so on the condition that he delivers them on time.  How do I do this in a gentle way?

How to tell my freelance designer to deliver on time

Be honest about your reasoning. Tell the designer that you can only work together if deadlines are met.

The best choice in this situation is probably just be honest and explain that they will need to meet deadlines in the future if you are going to continue working with them. You could add an ultimatum if you think it is necessary.

The best policy in this situation is probably to be honest and simply explain that you can only continue to work with them if they meet their deadlines.

If you think it's necessary, you could consider adding an ultimatum if you can follow through on it.


I don't know if your calculation is correct, but you are entitled to any leave accruing during a notice period.

(Think about it; what if you were on 6 months notice?).

Whether they pay for full months (normal) or calculate to the day will depend upon your employment contract.

Also, although you didn't specifically ask, YOU get to determine whether you take the leave, exchange it for £s, or just forgo it.

There are frequently stories on here of people being bullied out of it by aggressive management.

Theoretically yes, you will accrue holiday on the last month and you are entitled to it.

I have noticed before that HR seems to leave this out of the calculations sometimes as they calculate your holiday when you hand in your notice to work out whether your notice period is enough or not.

Depends on how much you can be bothered to push HR to calculate this on your leaving date rather than your notice handing date.

You are a fully fledged employee until your last day at work.

Yes.

As an absolute minimum you will accrue leave entitlement at the statutory rate, which based on the dates you gave (and assuming you work 5 days a week) means you will have accrued 6.3 days of leave by the time you finish, your contract can mean you get more than this but not less .

They can use bank holidays for some of those (again depending on contract) but the 3.5 days is an utter nonsense.

They're doubly wrong.

The only way I can come up with a number near 3.5 is to do both of two wrong things : Not giving you holiday for the last month (approximately) that you're working, and Regarding 1 January 2019 as [your] holiday and not [national] holiday

I usually go for Hanlon's razor -

it's more likely to be a mistake than intentional malice and, even if it isn't, approaching it that way is likely to give you the best outcome.

I would phrase it as a question, and send them the link in motosubatsu's answer.

Thanks for your advice about my remaining holiday entitlement.

I'm a little confused as [that link] suggests a different number.

Can you let me know how this was calculated?

If you need another link about accruing leave in the notice period, refer them to paragraphs 87, 88 and 89 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 .

But you might find that if they have to put their justification in writing, they'll have something of an epiphany.

In the UK it is usually pro-rata to the date of leaving.

Working this out by day of the year:22nd March is 81st day of year, so 81/365 * 21 = 4.66 days maybe rounded to 4.5 days Working this out by week of the year:22nd March

is the 12th week of the year so 12/52 * 21 = 4.85 which may round to 5 days depending on how generous they are.

Although they may work leave out by calculating number of work days in the year.

They could work out the total number of work days, and divide the 21 up for each, and then figure out how many work days you've had up to the 22nd March, which wouldn't be a common practice I've ever seen.

It's also unusual to have bank holidays taken out of your leave in the UK - more common to make you take 'closed days', eg between Christmas and New Year though -

but we've not had any bank holidays except for 1st Jan 2019.

How are they working our your pay for March?

Is it pro-rata 22/31 *

Monthly salary? Update: Are you working full time or part hours contract?

21 days is a bit low for full time contract...

Question: I am leaving my current position and working 4 weeks' notice. Last day of employment will be 22nd March.  Holiday year runs 1st Jan -> 31st Dec  Notice handed in 25th Feb  I have been told I will have accrued 3.5 days' holiday which equates to 2 full months (21 days total allowance). Should I be entitled to more, or are they within their rights to only pay me holidays for full months worked?

Will I accrue holidays whilst working notice?

You are entitled to leave accrued during a notice period. So you should be entitled to leave from 3 months instead of 2.

It is not clear exactly how much leave you should be entitled to, but it is generally agreed that you will continue to accrue leave throughout your notice period.


Check your contract.

As a fellow Canadian, usually when I've seen probation contracts, the probation period is set by a specified number of days, not by an evaluation procedure.

If that's what your contract looks like, then congratulations, you passed!

I have never had a formal meeting in any job to discuss passing probation; I have only had such a meeting when I failed it.

If you are confused, you should ask your manager, but your manager will probably think you're being silly (not in a bad way, just in a "isn't it obvious?

" way).

I have not been told if i passed it and have my evaluation early next week

should I assume that i have passed probation?

No.

Your evaluation will tell you whether you have passed probation or not.

Be patient.

Judging by the fact that you haven't been let go, I'd say you pretty much have

but I'd wait for an official word from your manager or someone higher up.

Usually you should be invited to a meeting to discuss your performance.

No you should not assume that you have passed probation.

You will likely be informed of the results of your probationary period during your evaluation.

It depends where you are and the applicable laws, as well as what may (or not) be stated in your employment contract.

In some places, you will likely need some confirmation that your probation period has been completed, in others it is the law that after a set number of days your probation has been completed by default.

In the latter case, you would now be a permanent employee and the termination process can become quite different.

If the company wanted to let you go but missed the deadline, too bad for them, they need to comply with the laws that apply to an employee who is not on probation.

This doesn't mean that they can't make your work life difficult, but the legal situation changes.

In most cases, it is clear long before the end of a probation period whether a person is a good fit to the position/company.

Sometimes companies try to exploit the probationary period as a short-term employment position by terminating on, or just before, the last day, because the requirements and remuneration are different (more favourable to the company) than employing a contractor.

In the former case, it would be usual to have the meeting/conversation some days prior to the end of the probation period, otherwise it is possibly "within some reasonable period of time" , and then your best option is probably to say something like,

*"hey boss, my probation was up last week," either before or at the evaluation meeting.

Never make any assumptions.

Talk to your manager, mention that the period ended, and ask if you need to fill out any paperwork, or if there is an official review involved.

I can't see why they would have that conversation with you now .

They're doing an evaluation next week, and that is the ideal place for that conversation.

I would expect them to tell you then.

In the meantime, bring your A-game.

workplace.stackexchange.com/users/66099/Harper - Reinstate Monica

Question: My probationary period passed three days ago, I have not been told if I passed it, and I have my evaluation early next week. Should I assume that I have passed probation?

Should I assume I have passed probation?

You should not assume anything and make sure you check your contract. However, if you haven't been let go already then there is a good chance you have passed your probation.

Whilst some people might consider this to be a good sign, many would say that you should never make any assumptions about this matter. You might find some useful information in your employment contract.

You should nevery make any assumptions that you have passed your probation.

Whether or not you have passed your probation may depend on what is said in your contract or where you are.

Some people would consider this a good sign that you have passed your probation period.


I've had managers that had little to no technical knowledge.

They were paid for the value they provided -- the ability to manage people.

That skill may not be as in demand as other skills, so they're paid accordingly.

I see no issue with a highly skilled person being paid more than the person they report to.

No, in fact I know people who make more than their managers.

It is important to remember that just because someone is a manager does not make them better or more valuable than the people that report to them.

It's just a different position, with different required skills.

Those skills could be more or less valuable than the skills of the people reporting to them.

Salary is nominally based on the amount of value created by the skills someone has and who hard they would be to replace, not by their position in the organizational structure.

I manage a technical group.

15 years ago I decided I liked managing people and enabling them to do great things more than I enjoyed doing research.

I’m quite happy to have technical people making more than I do.

It means they are doing great things, and that I’ve done my job well.

To expand on the other good answers here.

It shouldn't be a rule

but... Is there a certain rule that manager should have better salary than all of his subordinates?

Yes.

This rule/myth originates from managers but is believed by a significant number of people in all positions.

Even if it isn't a good rule you should be aware that it exists in parts of the real world.

Adherents to the rule are usually resolute and are not ready to be persuaded that anything else would be fair or even viable.

Therefore, if you meet someone who believes in this rule you should think about how you can work around it rather than trying to change their minds.

Sometimes the rule will be believed by a manager (work around them not against them) but sometimes it will be intrinsic to an organisation.

For example, the NHS has a pay banding structure predicated on the idea that managers are paid more than their employees*.

If you want sizeable long term pay rises and also want to work for the NHS then you should try to obtain a role and responsibilities that can have the word "manager" attached to them.

* with the sole exception of doctors (1% of NHS employees).

Doctors are valued differently but I don't want to get into details too much as the specifics aren't relevant to the question at hand.

Salary is usually based on two factors: Position Time at Company

There are engineers at my company who have been here for 20+ years and they make a lot more than engineering managers that have been here for half the time (or less depending on team).

While managers usually make more money than their subordinates because of the simple fact that you need to be at a company for a while to "work your way up"- newer managers will typically make less money than subordinates that have been at the company for longer and have top titles (and more time for those lovely raises/bonuses)

The question is how much you benefit the company and how replaceable you are.

If you are the only person in the world capable of doing your job, and there is a queue of people who could replace the manager, then there is no reason why you wouldn’t get paid more.

Yes, this is possible.

I am line manager in a investment bank.

I joined as a individual contributor.

I was given a responsibility to manage a team based on how i have performed, it was new team setup.

I can fairly say that i am running the show.

i am techno functional guy and a super star perfomer as per stakeholder and my line manger.

Now comes the twist.

I joined at lesser package wherein the thumb rule is you salary is dependent on negotiation skills.

Now since you joined at lesser package and now you need to perform to level things for you.

However when it comes to appraisal you would get to see the crunch in budget.

So effectively chances of salary getting normalise are thin.

Imagine a situation wherein you are getting 30 % lesser then your report.

However i would still suggest not compare and keep it secret.

Question: I wonder if someone more qualified than his/her manager can be paid more.  Is it customary/expected and/or a rule stating that a manager should have a better salary than all of their subordinates?  Edit : This is excluding contractors, and bonuses and other benefits.

Can an employee salary be more than their manager's

It is possible that a highly skilled person is paid more than their manager.

It is generally agreed that there is nothing preventing someone from being paid more than their manager and that, in fact, this does happen. However, some organisations may well be organised to ensure that managers are always paid more than their subordinates.

It is generally agreed that there is nothing preventing someone from being paid more than their manager and that this does in fact happen.

Some organisations are set up so that managers are always paid more than their subordinates.


If your diploma is in the same language as your resume is, then whatever it calls the degree is what you put on your resume.

If you were translating (because you're applying in a market where employers don't understand the language of your diploma) there would be some wiggle room, but not otherwise.

I don't think many employers would care

one whit whether the school you went to happens to call their program one or the other.

But if you call the degree something it isn't because you think that makes you sound better qualified than the truth would , then for that reason alone what you're doing is an attempt to deceive.

And employers certainly do care about whether your application is deceptive.

workplace.stackexchange.com/users/91654/hmakholm left over Monica

As the term can't be used interchangeably it can only impact you negatively.

I would not recommend you to do that.

In France, the Engineering diploma can only be delivered by accredited institutions.

Words have meanings, and a simple alteration may be greater than what you think.

You should definitely use the exact name of the degree.

That ensures that nobody can feel misled, and reduces the risk of verification problems.

If your particular "BS in Software Development" was more rigorous than normal, and you are early enough in your career for degree details to matter, you could supplement by listing some of the subjects you studied, and projects you completed.

Fact: You don't have a BS in Software Engineering.

If you claim it on your CV, you are lying.

If you lie on your CV, that can have dire consequences years later.

Say you stayed with the company for ten years, risen up in the ranks, and for some reason the company decides to get rid of you.

If they find you lied on your CV, you are gone.

The fact that you have a BS in Software Development doesn't change this one bit.

You also stated in your question that you wish to change the title to mislead people.

If you wanted to claim that you have a BS in Software Engineering, you should have taken a course that leads to a BS in Software Engineering.

It may strongly depend on what country you are submitting the resume in.

The Association of Engineers and Geoscientists in Canada regulates the usage of the term "Engineer" in both education and professional capacities.

You could find yourself at risk of misrepresenting yourself as an Engineer (or eligible for status as a Professional Engineer or P.Eng.), which carries weight.

In some immigration contexts, a mismatch in degree may render you ineligible for visa status (think Japan).

I suggest that you play it safe and only use language that you can prove (provide it as written on your degree).

The best way to check yourself, whether you can do that "slight modification" in your resume is to try to use the modified degree name and check it against your college / university whether they can produce any result against that query.

In case they return a result with successful candidate and degree certificate, you are probably OK to use the altered nomenclature.

However, if it fails to return any result, that means, your university does not recognize the altered name and you would be seen as lying in your resume.

Although both terms almost mean the same thing and are often used interchangeably,[..]

That's your perception (assumption), it may not be true globally.

Do you want to end up being seen as lying?

No.

TL;DR

- When in doubt, go by what is documented and can be proved if required.

FootNote:

However, many job opportunities mention that you need to have a certain degree or equivalent .

Given that the prescribed degree is similar to what you have, you are free to apply but make sure your resume mentions the degree in a way that can be supported with relevant documents (grade sheet, certificates etc.).

Whether the organization considers your degree to be eligible, is up to them.

At least, you wont be seen as lying.

No, it's not appropriate.

The ethical issue aside, if you get caught, it'll make it look like you're willing to stretch the truth to look better (which, according to your question, is exactly what you're thinking about doing).

Nothing good could come out of this, and plenty of bad could.

As an alternative, you might consider mentioning software engineering as a primary area of study in your description of the degree program.

This would have the advantage of actually being true, since I assume that you did study software engineering, even if it's not the "official" title of your degree.

workplace.stackexchange.com/users/61906/EJoshuaS - Reinstate Monica

Question: If I have a "BS in Software Development", would it be okay to change the name to "BS in Software Engineering" on my resume?   Could it negatively impact background checks or education verification if it is not 100% identical?  Although both terms almost mean the same thing and are often used interchangeably, "software engineering" sounds a bit more rigorous, and I prefer it more. The jobs I will be applying to will also have the "Software Engineer" job title.

Is it appropriate to slightly change the name of my degree?

It is not generally recommended to change the name of your degree on your resume. You should use the exact name of the degree as this is documented and can be proved. An exception would be if you are translating into another language and then you would have some flexibility.

Whilst it is not definite that this would bother a potential employer, many people would consider this to be inappropriate and that it could have negative consequences for you. The general consensus is that it is safer to use the official wording that appears on your degree certificate. However, if you are applying for a job in another country or in a second language, there may be more flexibility with regard to changing the exact wording.

Most people would generally say that it would be safer to use the official wording used on your degree certificate.

Many people would consider that this isn't appropriate and could have negative consequences for you.

There might be some flexibility to change the wording if you are applying for a job in a second language and have to perform a translation.

Some people would doubt whether or not the employer would particularly care.

The answer to this question may well depend on the country that you're applying in.


You need to check what's in your contract - but broadly speaking if this is overtime in the sense of being outside of your contracted hours then yes they can.

Yes they can do this.

I used to work at a company where some employees were purposefully doing unnecessary overtime work as a means to make more money.

The company took notice of this and required any overtime work to be first approved by a manager.

The extra hours that these employees were working was not worth the extra salary that the company had to pay them.

This is likely the reason why your company is allowing your coworkers that are currently making less money to work overtime.

It is a necessary overtime and they want to pay the least amount possible for it.

Unless you're covered by a contract that says otherwise, yes, they can do that.

The company is not under any obligation to grant you overtime (even if they've granted it in the past).

If they want people who get paid less to do it instead, that's their prerogative.

workplace.stackexchange.com/users/61906/EJoshuaS - Reinstate Monica

You haven't specified a location nor any relevant information from your contract, so we can't say if they can or can't.

But in most cases, yes they can, or rather you can't just work overtime unless specifically told to work overtime.

In the vast majority of situations whether or not to work overtime is not the employee's decision.

Think about it, does it make sense for someone to mow their neighbour's lawn and demand payment for it?

No, so then why should it be normal to do work outside your specified hours and expect to get compensated?

If nobody asks you to work more than your contractually obligated hours there's really no reason to expect that it's allowed or wanted.

No they can't.

(if you live in the Netherlands.)

If you work more hours then what's in your contract for a prolongued time, then after 13 weeks there's a legal presumption that your actual worktime is longer

then what's in your contract and the employer has to schedule you for the average of hours you made in the 13 weeks.

Something that is very common in the Netherlands is that in the Care industry a lot of women have 24 hour contracts, 3 days/week.

What often arises is staff shortage and you see people on a 24 hour contract working 32 or even 40 hours for years on end.

To protect those kind of employees from for instance punishment by employer (I will cut your hours for ....)

but also for unemployment benefits.

(If you work 40 hours for years but only 24 in your contract, you want to make sure unemployment benefits are calculated on 40 hours work.)

I made this answer because you don't specify where you live, and the law is wildly different from country to country.

So what you have to do is: consult a lawyer.

It's not "your overtime"

it is work required by the company for which someone might need to do overtime to complete.

So yes, they can allocate that work to whomever they want.

But more importantly you need to pay attention to why this is happening.

I've seen toxic management use overtime as a bonus for toxic behaviour (like spying on staff on behalf of management and being rewarded with overtime).

I've also seen toxic staff hold on to overtime and "hog it" not letting other staff have a chance of getting it for a bit of extra money.

When overtime is involved a lot of corruption can happen.

Your manager could be avoiding potential corruption allegations by sharing it around rather than let you have all of it.

Question: I have been doing the same overtime for several years, my company now want to stop me from doing this and let other people do it who earn less money. Can they do this?

Can my company stop me from working overtime?

Unless this is specified in your contract, they can allocate overtime to anyone they want.

The exact answer will depend on the terms of your contract or the local legislation. However, whilst some people may disagree, the general view is that your employer is perfectly within their rights to restrict your overtime hours.

Generally speaking, your employer is perfectly entitled to restrict your overtime.

Some people believe that this is not allowed.

The exact answer will depend on where you are and the details of your contract.


and I was late again for work last week

This is the real issue.

You need to leave early enough

so a train can be late without causing you to show up past your start time.

Your boss (and anyone else) can look up the publically available train times.

I'm not sure why your boss decided to point out he didn't believe your story about the trains being late.

What your boss should have said.

Part of the job is showing up ready to work promptly at 9 A.M.

You need to be sure you're here by 9 A.M. even if it means getting to work a little bit early.

Stop worrying if what your employer did was legal/ethical - it was.

Get to work on time or you likely will not be working there much longer.

EDIT

(in response to comments): Some commenters have pointed out that it may be more than a 15-minute wait between buses depending on where you live.

If you live in an outlying area, the bus may only come once an hour, or not be at all reliable.

If it's truly impossible to reliably show up for work at a set time, you need to change your transport or change your job so that isn't true.

If it's shift work, then you're likely making someone stay late to cover your tardiness.

Even if it's not, you're likely not the only person taking the bus and everyone else shows up on time.

If the bus comes every 15 minutes, just be prepared to catch the earlier one and bring a book or something to read while you wait to start work.

If the bus isn't reliable, you'll probably need to consider carpooling or buying a car.

Showing up late is going to get noticed at most jobs, so now is a good time to build this habit.

I work in a factory.

If

your late you get docked pay

I take the bus

and I get there a half hour early

and if the bus is late I still get there early

so you just need to take early trains

Are employers allowed to check your train times without your permission?

They don't need your permission to check train timetables.

If you claim your train was late and the website claims otherwise they can legitimately contest your claim.

What they can not do is follow or attempt to track you.

But since you have volunteered this information willingly (told them which train you were on and that it was late)

they have every right to check the validity of your claim and call you out on any discrepancies.

Take an earlier train or find a job closer to home.

I'm straying from your original question because many have already answered it.

Sorry

if this sounds harsh, but you are entirely missing the point.

You are trying to paint your employer as the bad guy rather than facing your continued failure.

It is your fault

you are frequently late, not the train's, not your boss'.

Don't try to blame him.

You broke his trust.

It's up to you to fix it.

The fact they even checked means your boss is fed up with your inability to be reliable.

I would suggest you figure out how you are going to commit yourself to being at work on time.

Then, especially after your new plan has started, talk with your boss.

Tell him you realized you were placing your responsibility on him, you're sorry and you have begun taking the earlier train to ensure this is not a pattern.

Your employer can check any kind of publicly available information for any reason, including to check whether there is merit to your reason for being late.

If it feels like an injustice, then that is because it feels as if your boss mistrusts you.

His feeling of mistrust is as real and valid as your feeling of injustice.

You are free to live wherever you live and to commute in whatever way you commute.

But you also made the decision to sign a contract with your employer, which carries an obligation.

You provide labour at the agreed-upon time and place and get a paycheck in return.

You are breaching that agreement on a frequent basis, which erodes your boss' trust in you.

Now, you should expect leniency from him when force majeure causes you to be late.

But force majeure implies that you have done all you reasonably can be expected to, in order to meet your obligation.

If you cannot change how you commute (earlier train,

Uber if the train has trouble), you may change how you live (closer to work), renegotiate the contract (different hours), or find a job that matches your situation a little better.

Take a camera with you (most likely a phone with a camera).

When your train is late take a few photos as evidence.

So the next time you are accused of making it up, you show your photos.

Some people are wondering how this would work.

I can easily take a photo of the station clock two minutes before the train is due, showing I wasn’t late, and another photo with the clock and the train arriving.

I would also ask some people to re-read the question.

The company DID NOT complain about him being late.

They complained that his explanation didn't ring true.

Question: My trains are pretty dire most of the time and I was late again for work last week - only about 10-15 mins but as always I send a message to my boss to say I’ll be a little late. I got called in and was told that they checked my trains and they seemed fine. To explain my situation, the internet webpage always says one thing as does the app, but reality is when you get to the station. Are employers allowed to check your train times without your permission?

Late for work because of trains

Your employer can check publicly available information on the trains to find out if your reason for being late was true.

Your employer is perfectly entitled to check train timetables without your permission.


Say that I had written and/or edited a few good Wikipedia articles.

As Wikipedia describe themselves as: the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

The mere fact of writing or editing a Wikipedia article itself is completely unremarkable.

It's kind of on a level of putting "I can tie my own shoelaces" on your CV.

Would it be appropriate to put this on my CV or mention it on job interviews?

If the job you're (hypothetically) applying for is one that: a)

Involves writing non-fictional content or, b)

Involves the subject matter of these articles

Then it may well be worth including as examples of said content or demonstration of your grasp of the subject matter.

But you'd have to be clear about what content in the article was yours - wiki articles aren't the same as published articles (e.g. blog posts) in that the content is ever-evolving and collaborative by nature and the last thing you want is to give the impression that you are claiming the credit for someone else's work.

If you can't satisfy one or both of the above criteria than it's a hard no IMO.

written and/or edited a few good Wikipedia articles Unless this is particularly relevant to where you're applying (say, you're applying for a position at Wikimedia itself) or you have a particularly compelling reason for doing so

(say you won some kind of prestigious award for your work)

then no.

This is nothing remarkable.

If I saw this on a CV, I'd assume that you were struggling for content and just padding it out - it'd work more against you than it would for you.

Resumes are sales tools.

You're selling yourself (your skills, experience, and capability to do work) to an employer.

Decisions about what information is included should always be made with this in mind.

You want to be able to show off your skills, but you also want to do so in a way that's predictable - which is where Wikipedia may be an issue.

Wikipedia articles can be updated, deleted, replaced, or otherwise edited after they're submitted.

Yes, you can look at an edit log and see the version you had submitted, but would you want to risk sending an employer a link to Wikipedia as an example of your work, only to find that someone else had edited the article before the employer got a chance to look at it?

Besides the concept of ensuring the content is stable, there's the question about whether writing about a subject online is really relevant to doing a specific job.

On the one hand, many jobs require skills and knowledge, and if you've got that knowledge, you may assume that writing about it is a good way to show off.

On the other hand, consider that the employer is probably not hiring you to write Wikipedia content - instead, they're probably hiring you to get work done - using your resume to talk about actual work you've done, problems you've solved, and projects you've completed is probably much more relevant than showing that you wrote an article about something.

The one caveat to that may be if you're actually applying for a writing job, writing reference material about a specific subject.

If that's the case, and you're convinced that your online writing is worth including in a resume, there may be better alternatives than Wikipedia.

For instance, if you're an expert in a specific field, you may have papers published in an industry journal that's accessible online, and you can use those instead of Wikipedia.

Or, a blog or website that you maintain personally.

I would not cite Wikipedia articles for no other reason than that it's not a professional forum.

Just like I wouldn't cite answers I've posted to forums on Stack Exchange.

But more important, you can't control Wikipedia.

so it's a double edged sword.

You could write a fantastic article on a pertinent subject, but anyone can later add, remove, or change it and mess it up.

Now when interviewers read the article, it's got misspellings, inaccuracies, etc.

I guess someone could even make your work better, instead of worse, but that is no longer your work, so it's a false representation.

If the sources you provide on your resume are not predictable, then leave them out.

Only if it helps you to demonstrate a particular skill that is appreciated for the position.

In my case.

English is my second language.

Many people in Spain have low level of English, so having high level is an advantage.

I never got around to obtaining official certificates, such as Cambridge's CAE.

So, I have to prove my long-term domain of English via other ways.

Making 30.000 edits to English Wikipedia is a quick way to show that I have a very high level.

However, I didn't put this on the resume and only mentioned on the interview .

If the interviewer had a different attitude, maybe I wouldn't have mentioned at all, or I would have mentioned instead my reading of books in English.

Think deeply of what skills you obtained by editing Wikipedia, how those skills are selling points for your employer, and how to showcase them in a short and impressive way.

Editing articles means nothing by itself, you need to be more specific.

Question: Say that I had written and/or edited a few good Wikipedia articles.  Would it be appropriate to put this on my CV or mention it on job interviews?

Appropriate to mention wikipedia articles on CV and in interviews?

Wikipedia is not a professional forum so you wouldn't normally it on a resume. You could use it to demonstrate a particular skill needed for the job.

Most people would discourage the mentioning of Wikipedia articles on a resume unless it was the only way to demonstrate a particular set of skills.

Most people would discourage the mentioning of Wikipedia articles as a demonstration of skills.

This could be useful if it helps you to demonstrate a specific skill.


You were invited for a team event and you should go unless you are not available for official or personal reasons during that time.

None of the reason can be "I do not know the person".

If you do not know him, this a chance for you to get to know him along with several other things about the company, culture and people.

Absolutely.

While there's one person going to this lunch who isn't going to be around very long, there are going to be a lot of other people who are going to be important to know and work with in your job, and it's a good way to meet people.

You're likely to not be able to make the best of the networking opportunity, but even just having people know that you're the kind of person who goes to these sorts of gatherings will probably help your career, even though many of these people won't actually get to know you.

Free food.

End of story.

Also, a chance to meet the rest of the team in an informal setting.

This just sounds like a great opportunity to get to know your whole team; not just to wish someone farewell.

Farewells are usually much more laid back than a typical lunch and you will be surprised at the stories that you get to hear.

Hiding behind the guise of "I don't know them" will paint a picture of you that you do not want to be painted.

Personally I think at the end of the day it's entirely up to you.

Don't feel obligated to go (you're not).

Don't feel like you're not wanted either

(you are!).

Some folks go to meet people or network or get a free drink or bite, other's don't go because they can't or don't want to

(it can potentially be and feel quite awkward if you're not very social).

It's all perfectly fine for a casual farewell lunch.

There will likely be more of them and sooner or later you'll likely find yourself going to hang out with some of the folks you know one way or another.

So don't sweat it.

Unless for some odd reason your manager tells you that you should be there, then make an effort.

But that'd be unusual in my experience.. Not that it matters but for what it's worth I've been working at all levels for 30 years.

Currently in senior management.

I don't know the correct etiquette to follow for whether I should accept or decline the invite, since I don't know the person at all.

You don't need to know the person, and in fact, this is your opportunity to meet them.

The invitation was sent to the team, you are a member of the team, unless you have a pressing personal or professional matter that would prevent you from going you should go.

It's understandable.

But this is a team lunch, not just a few guys hitting the bar after work informally.

I would accept it, and then perhaps express any concerns to my manager.

If you're concerned, ask if it's appropriate.

More than likely

he/she will say just as many already have that this is a teambuilding thing, and it's good for everyone to be there.

Probably the correct thing to do is to go, but what the other answers are missing is that it depends on the culture of your country/industry/workplace.

If it's a team lunch, being paid for by the company, then almost certainly you should go.

As other people have said, it's a good networking event with your colleagues who are staying.

One of the other alternatives is that the person who's leaving is buying everyone a round of drinks.

(This is common in a couple of companies I've worked for.)

Although they probably wouldn't mind buying you a drink, I guarantee it will make you feel awkward!

(Whether you get included on the round, or refuse and say you'll get your own, it's going to be socially awkward for you.

Some people wouldn't find it awkward, but by the very fact you've asked this question you're clearly not one of them.)

So, how to find out?

Ask someone you trust at the company.

This might be someone who was assigned to settle you in (show you where the kitchen is, tell you how to work the IT system), it might be your colleague who sits next to you, or it might be your manager.

If you ask them "Should I go to this event?

I don't know the person leaving

and I don't want to put them out at their celebration", you'll find out very quickly what the culture is like at your company.

And they won't be surprised by the question either, it's a very natural question to ask.

Go, so that you can get to know the person.

By doing so, you will end up making a connection.

The bigger your network connection, the better.

Besides, you never know, you might just run into him one day.

He might even help you get a job one day.

In this company, when someone leaves the secretary collects money for a leaving present.

Then you sign a card as well.

So go to the secretary (or whoever is responsible for this), cough up your share and sign.

Then you will be entitled to turn up.

Actually, since you are new no-one would bat an eyelid if you just came anyway.

Just don't eat the whole buffet.

If it’s free lunch yes!otherwise just send a polite farewell by email.

Question: I just started a new job and I was sent an invite to a farewell lunch for a coworker on my team. I don't know the person and haven't talked to/seen him yet. The invite was sent through an email with everyone in the team on it and NOT specifically to me.  I don't know the correct etiquette to follow for whether I should accept or decline the invite, since I don't know the person at all.

I just started; should I accept a farewell lunch for a coworker I don't know?

workplace.stackexchange.com/users/47500/a wee little worker

It would generally be seen as appropriate to attend, but it depends on the specific culture in your workplace. At the end of the day, it's up to you to decide if you want to go or not.

The appropriate answer to this question may well depend on the culture within your company, industry or country. However, whilst you're not obliged to go, most people would probably recommend attending, if only to meet colleagues and broaden your professional network.

Most people would probably say that you should attend, if only to get to know other people that you work with a build your professional network.

You are not obliged to go and your decision will be entirely up to you.

The answer to this question may well depend on the culture in your company, industry or even country.


It's probably not going to do any great harm, but I suspect you'll just get back another essentially template response along the lines of:

There were many good candidates for this role and we decided to go with a candidate whose skills and experience more closely matched the requirements at this time.

Thank you for your application and we encourage you to apply for further roles at the company in the future.

which doesn't really say anything either.

If the company didn't have time/want to give individual feedback, it probably still doesn't.

how professional it'd to ask for some feedback when you receive a template-based rejection email?

Very professional (Also depends on how you ask it) Or it'd be just a waste of time ?

It is not waster of time since you may actually get feedback.

(Though they are not into any obligation to do so as others have pointed out).

One of my interviewer in past actually gave a very detailed feedback on why they are not moving forward with my application. and would look amateur

No you wouldn't look amateur if you politely ask for it.

You might not get it

but there is nothing wrong with asking.

If I put working into the application, maybe there were code samples for example I would think it only fair that they put in a little work too.

Depending on the company or the type of position you may get a no

but I do not see a downside.

In fact if someone was rejected for a position, willing to take a little criticism and then reapplied some time later after addressing those concerns I would be somewhat impressed.

That said how you go about it is important.

Don't nag them, just ask for a little feedback on where your application or skills were weak.

It depends what stage you were at in the hiring process

Application

Only: Don't ask, they will most likely not want to give you feedback and the feedback would only be based off your resume/cover letter.

Phone Screen:

If you had a behavioral phone screen with a Recruiter, don't ask, you just need to practice your interview skills.

If it was a technical phone screen, feel free to reach out for feedback.

Interview:

Totally acceptable to ask.

The most effective approach would be to reach out to your Recruiter directly who can solicit feedback from those you interviewed with.

Reaching out to hiring managers directly may not always be perceived positively.

I haven't had any luck getting responses from asking after a rejection, mostly because the majority of jobs either never let me know my status

or it's a "no-reply" email address.

What I have had success with is at the end of the interview, while you're still in the Q&A phase, ask them something on the order of "Is there anything that makes you hesitate to hire me?"

I didn't come up with it, but it seems to work, as it was suggested on one of those "how to land a job" sites that actually had good suggestions.

Asking this not only gives you feedback, but you can also then rebuttal with experience or skills you may have accidentally missed mentioning previously.

I've had interviewers say that they can't specifically say there's anything, but "in my professional opinion, here's a list of skills to learn to help your career."

Take notes, learn the things (or not depending on your interests), and try to make yourself better for the next interview.

Maybe you'll actually impress the interviewer you asked with your willing to change/learn, so they decide to hire you even with your "missing" skills.

Question: I was wondering how professional it'd to ask for some feedback when you receive a template-based rejection email? Or it'd be just a waste of time and would look amateur?

Is it professional to ask for reasons of a rejected application?

The company probably wouldn't take the time to respond but it depends on what stage you were at in the hiring process. You might actually get some useful feedback and you wouldn't look amateur.

The answer to this question may well depend on where you were in the hiring process at the time. Asking for feedback generally wouldn't be viewed as amateur or a waste of time, however, that doesn't mean that you will receive any.

It might be a waste of time since, if you haven't received any feedback now, you're unlikely to receive any in the future.

The answer may well depend on the stage you were at in the hiring process.

Some people would consider it not a waste of time since you might actually get some feedback.

People would generally say that there is nothing amateur about asking for feedback.


I had multiple DUIs that happened 12 years ago all within the same time period.

I am going to an interview where the job requires a background check.

It is for an estate attorney's office.

Even if I'm not asked, do I disclose this information during the interview, being that it will probably be the only chance I have to defend my past?

Since you already know there will be a background check, and since many background checks would discover multiple DUIs, I think it makes more sense to be up front about it than to let the hiring company be surprised.

This would be particularly so for a law office.

If you get to the offer stage and are ready to sign consent for the background check, just start with "I want to mention something that might show up on the background check...".

Talk about what happened.

Explain why it won't happen again.

Finish with "I always believe it's best to be very honest."

When I'm hiring, I'd much rather the candidate be honest in the beginning than to try and "sneak one by me".

I'm sure we can all remember how we felt when someone grudgingly admitted an issue only after being confronted with the evidence.

This won't guarantee that you'll get the job, but in my experience you'll have a better chance (particularly in a law office) by being completely open and honest.

Even if I'm not asked, do I disclose this information during the interview, being that it will probably be the only chance I have to defend my past?

If you are not asked I don't see why you have to bring it up.

If they bring it up, answer honestly and defend it as you have planned by now.

If an employer cares about your criminal history, they will ask - formally, in writing usually, as part of an official, signed application.

In other cases, the background check authorization form you're presented with will include basic questions such as "have you ever been convicted of an X crime" and will typically allow you to write a description of what happened (which is your chance to defend yourself).

Often these official requests for information will be timeboxed (i.e. "in the last 10 years").

Generally, when considering if you should mention something in an interview, a good approach is to focus on the best but prepare for the worst.

In other words, when you have opportunities, bring up good things - be able to tie your skills and experience to the position they're trying to fill.

But, have a rehearsed answer ready if they ask about bad things such that you're not caught off guard if they do ask about them.

There's no reason to implicate yourself by bringing up parts of your past that don't paint you in a positive light.

Also, it's worth doing some research on laws in your jurisdiction.

For instance, in the United States, in some states at least, it's illegal to have a policy of rejecting candidates based on criminal history.

Other states provide explicit boundaries (i.e. you can reject a candidate if the criminal history is directly related to the job).

IMHO,Biggest question here, do you have a better explanation / defense for these convictions than will be gleaned from dry official paper?

If you want to defend it upfront and explain so it will not be an issue when received from background check, you can definitely do so.

But, if there is nothing more than - "it was 12 years ago

and i am different person

now" i would not volunteer this information unless asked specifically Good luck, would be nice to hear the result, please share when applicable

Even if I'm not asked, do I disclose this information during the interview, being that it will probably be the only chance I have to defend my past?

Please help.

I'm a nervous wreck.

It is not necessary to volunteer this information if they do not ask about it.

If they conduct a proper background check it will come to light regardless.

Obviously if they ask during the interview or any stage you should let them know

but there is nothing to defend.

You were convicted, it was 12 years ago, and you have presumably served your sentence.

If they are biased towards your conviction, there is no possible defense you can come up with you convince them otherwise.

But don't worry as most reasonable employers will understand and not be influenced by your conviction.

Answer every question put to you honestly.

"Have you ever committed a felony" is different from "

have you committed a felony in the last 10 years?"

There may be laws in your relevant jurisdictions about what you are required to disclose or legally protected from having to disclose.

Research them.

Regarding volunteering information, first find out if the background check has a time limitation on it.

Most background checks are limited to 10 years.

If it's not stated directly in the documents, then ask.

Once you know the background check's time parameters, volunteer whatever they are likely to find.

Overall, do what is honest and straightforward, without offering information needlessly.

Last

: look into getting convictions struck from your record.

It is possible this can be done.

It may only apply to misdemeanors, and not felonies, but it's still worth looking into it.

Question: I had multiple DUIs (Driving Under the Influence convictions) that happened 12 years ago all within the same time period. I am going to an interview where the job requires a background check. It is for an estate attorney's office.   Even if I'm not asked, do I disclose this information during the interview, being that it will probably be the only chance I have to defend my past? Please help. I'm a nervous wreck.

Multiple DUI convictions 12 years ago. Do I disclose if I know they will do a background check?

It is not necessary to bring up this information if you are not asked about it but if they ask you about it then you should definitely answer honestly. You could bring it up in the interview to save the company being surprised by it.

When approaching an interview, it's generally a good idea to have answers prepared for any worst-case scenarios. You're not obliged to answer anything that you're not directly asked, but if you are directly asked about something, it would be best to answer it honestly. However, some people would feel that it is best to mention this particular detail up-front so as to avoid giving the employer any surprises when they run a background check.

Some people would consider it wise to mention this in the interview stage so as to avoid surprising the company later.

Most people would say that if you are directly asked, you should answer truthfully.

Generally, it's a good idea to have answers prepared for the worst-case scenario.

Many people would say that you are not obliged to mention anything that you're not directly asked about.


You need to talk to your manager about this immediately.

You absolutely should not have done this.

This person is no longer an employee at your organization is not entitled to any company information.

It doesn't matter that they may have helped create the documents and probably know the content anyway, sharing it with them essentially makes it a public release.

Now, it may be that your manager says it's fine and would have told you to send it on, but you should absolutely not do this without written approval.

No, don't share internal company information with non-members of the firm except in the course of normal business.

Previous employees do not have a legitimate interest in non-public company information (unless they are doing business with the firm).

It doesn't matter how sensitive the information seems or if it is marked confidential - unless you have permission to share the information, keep it private.

You should alert your manager or a trusted leader in the company.

Previous employees asking for information may signal a larger issue.

At the very least, make an individual in a management position aware of the data leak.

Obviously you did the wrong thing, and the only question is whether you should own up to your mistake, or lie low and hope nothing bad happens.

The other answers tend to lean towards owning up, but I have to wonder: what planet are they on?

On planet Earth, the obvious and only course of action is to say nothing.

If you are found out, you can always plead ignorance; and if you are not found out, well then owning up would have been stupid, wouldn't it? PS

If you think this a question of ethics, ask yourself this: who stands to benefit if you own up?

Nobody.

Who stands to lose out if you own up?

You.

It's a no-brainer, if you ask me.

Any company I've worked in, your action would be reason to terminate your employment and take legal action against you for breach of confidentiality agreements, non-disclosure agreements, and document security regulations.

NEVER share information with people outside the company unless you are authorised to do so, and then only with people who are authorised to receive said information.

For example sending an updated installation manual to a customer for the product you're building for him is usually (but not always, there may be rules about who's allowed to communicate at all with customers)

ok, sending a design document for something to a random person outside the company, often even the customer for who you are designing that thing, hardly ever is.

Without going into your actions, its obvious you know you have messed up.

So, I would simply weigh up your options.

And you have 2 really: Own up, with a risk of getting sacked.

Keep quiet with a risk of getting found out, and sacked Personally

I think there is more at risk with option 1.

I have in the past kept several spreadsheets I worked on from previous workplaces, just so I can re-use functionality in the future.

Whatever you choose to do cease contact with your former manager.

It sounds like you don't know why they wanted it.

Some of the other answers assume their motivation was shady, which may be an appropriate assumption, or it may not be.

If they were really trying to do something shady, would they have asked you at all?

You should probably ask them why they wanted it, and ask them to keep the document confidential.

Best to have such conversation by phone or in person.

Their reaction will hopefully give you a better idea of what's at stake in the situation, if anything.

To answer the question as asked: you should not have forwarded any company document to a former employer, without approval.

Since you have done it, you now need to mitigate the effects: report the error in an appropriate manner.

There are few circumstances in which an employee will be sacked if they admit to a mistake.

In fact, even if the consequences are severe, most employers/managers want staff to feel safe about reporting honest mistakes that affect them.

A prompt report allows them to mitigate effects - in your case, determine why a former employee requested the document.

So you may get a talking-to, or even face some disciplinary action for a data breach (depending on how sensitive the document is, how well employees in your company are briefed about security concerns before starting a project, etc), but that is unlikely to be escalated to dismissal unless you build up a history of making the same sort of mistake repeatedly

- you are expected to learn from mistakes, not keep repeating the same ones.

The consequences will certainly be more severe - and more likely to include dismissal - if you don't admit to the problem, and your employer discovers it by other means - for example, during a data or security audit or if a manager is given a copy of the document by a competitor.

Question: My deputy manager who left 3 months ago is asking for a document that was shared with me and my team after they left, but they were part of the meetings that led to the preparation of that document. I have emailed it to them without consulting my manager. I was just thinking, was this okay to do?

Should I have shared a document with a former employee?

You should not have shared internal company information with someone outside the company.

It is generally accepted that this is definitely not something that you should have done.


It would be better to list the job.

You'll face questions in any interview about what you've been doing for the last ten years.

If you've left it off, your options will be to lie (which is bad - never lie in interviews), or tell the truth that you left the job off your resume (which is also bad - it will likely give the correct impression that you lied by omission on your resume to get into the interview room).

Additionally, if the new job requires a background check you'll need to list your old job for that (or lie again, still bad, and fatal to your application when the background check uncovers it anyway).

Depending on your area (this site has taught me that some locales expect a reference to be from "the company", but wherever I've worked it's been from individual people), it would be better to get a former manager there to supply a reference.

Someone you reported to at some point in the last ten years, preferably who has left the company so has no stake in the politics of why you were dismissed.

In the 10 years that you worked there do you not have a single person who could provide a good reference for you?

I'd mention the job on my resume and just use a current or former employee that I trust would say good things about me as a reference.

If you're asked why you're leaving or why you left you could just say something like "

I'm ready for a change of pace" or something.

Even if you were fired for cause, 10 years in the same company is a good indicator.

You were good enough for them to keep you that long, please acknowledge that.

By omitting the experience, you seem to say that it's a shame your job

there was so long.

It's not, it proves you were faithful to the company and are not a butterfly who changes jobs too often.

Besides, honesty is always you best card.

List the experience on your résumé and be honest about why you had to leave when asked in the job interview.

As others have said, you can surely find people who will say nice things about you if asked for reference.

It is very difficult to spin this without more information.

If you were let go for something that was your fault (and even worse it was very recent)

then you're not going to want to highlight that at all.

On the other hand people can be let go for things that are not their fault.

10 years is too big a gap to leave it blank on your resume.

It is one of the worst kinds of red flags you can have.

You're applications will get passed over every time by someone who doesn't have a gap.

Best bet is to put the job down and hope for the best.

as suggested you could put a colleague or someone you trust as a reference.

You could ask your old boss to see if you can gauge what kind of reference you might get but its hard to say without knowing what the cause was or what his/her temperament is like.

You can't hide something that was going on for 10 years by simply omitting it in the CV.

Even with a gap of two years the first question you will get will be "what have you been doing recently?"

List the job on your CV, and prepare answers to questions about your career there (and your termination), should they arise.

Answers where you admit your mistakes and which sound like you learned your lesson tend to work better than answers where you try to shift the blame.

You must explain those ten years.

If the HR department has to guess, they'll either make a worst-case assumption (like "10 years in prison, maybe?") or they will not bother to guess and discard the application.

Depending on your family situation, you might be able to imply family time without any outright lies, but even then a gap is probably worse than being let go.

I feel like you're conflating two different issues here.

First is employment history.

This will likely be a call to an HR department, and it consists more-or-less of three quick questions: Did Cathy work for you?

She said her employment dates were June 2009 to June 2019.

Is this correct?

Is Cathy eligible for rehire?

That's it.

The other is professional reference.

There's no rule that says this needs to be your old manager.

Talk to your other coworkers and get their permission to use them as a reference.

Question: I made a mistake and was let go from a job I held for 10 years.   How should I handle this on my resume? Do I omit my last 10 years of employment or list them when I think they will give me a bad reference?

Is it better to have a 10 year gap or a bad reference?

You won't be able to hide a job you had for 10 years. You should mention the job and trust that the former employer will give a good reference. Prepare some answers to potential questions and be honest about why you had to leave.

Whilst it's difficult to give a precise answer without more detail, most people would say that honesty is the best policy and you should mention the job on your CV.

The general consensus is that it would be much better to mention the job on your CV.

It is difficult to answer this question without knowing more information.

Most people would say that you can't hide 10 years of history by simply omitting it from your CV.