I really don't recommend this, mostly because it's rather unlikely to lead anywhere because unless the company is making it's hiring decisions purely on a race to the bottom on price why on earth would they hire someone who did poorly on a technical test over a candidate that didn't just to save a relatively small amount of money?

But also because working for any real length of time at reduced rate completely undermines any future negotiating power you have in terms of getting wage increases.

Realistically you need to accept that this one was not to be and move on - the only circumstances I would suggest doing otherwise would be if they come back to you with specific feedback about your performance in the technical interview and

they don't make it clear that they have hired another candidate.

In that case you haven't got a great deal to lose by explaining that you flubbed the test through nerves and asking if you could undertake an alternative interview or exercise to prove that you do in fact have the skills.

Asking for a lower salary almost always reflects poorly on you as a candidate.

Chances are that if they were going to hire you regardless of your test scores, they might decide to reject instead because of such a message.

It gives a vibe of desperation, which is not a good thing.

The company wants to make sure you are a good match for them; how much you want to work for them only factors into it a little bit.

How much they pay you, likewise, usually isn't the key deciding factor.

Offering to take a pay-cut before you even get an offer will make them think you are desperate to get the job and are begging them to take you.

You do not want to start a job from a position of groveling; the company is looking for a professional, not a lackey.

Should I ask for a lower salary during probation period after an unsuccessful interview?

No.

If the hiring company believes you are not capable of handling the technical aspects of your job (which seems to be your assumption), then offering to accept less isn't going to change that.

Companies don't want to hire the cheapest programmer, they want to hire the best programmer that fits within the role and budget.

Take this as a learning experience.

Practice interviewing until you aren't so nervous.

Go to your next interview more confident and ace the interview.

If your interview went badly, then lowering your asked salary is extremely unlikely to make them want to hire you anyway.

If you're dead-set on trying to salvage the opportunity at this particular employer, you might call them by phone.

As for what you should say during this call, it would be something along these lines.

Hello X.

During my interview I don't feel that I was adequately able to convey my technical skills, I was wondering if you had any questions for me on this topic?

Even if you have enough knowlegde but due to some reasons you failed to express your knowlwdge, an interviewer has no options other than the answers/skills you have presented in your interview OR how you express yourself.

Instead of asking for less salary, accept the fact and better start preparation on how to present the skills/knowledge that you have.

If you are 100% sure that you have really messed it up and you will fail to get selected and you could have done better, then One thing you can do is send a Thank You email for the opportunity they had provided and express the reason why you messed up in very short and request for another chance.

Because Here you do not have anything to loose.

But if are lucky, You may get another chance.

But never ask for less salary.

Question: I recently went to a tech interview. Because I was nervous, I forgot everything.The interviewer said they need a week to take their decision. I know that I am a good programmer, and this is a company I would like to work for. Is it a good idea to write a letter now (before they make a decision) to suggest giving me a lower salary during my probation period?

Should I ask for a lower salary during probation period after an unsuccessful interview?

This is not recommended and it would reflect badly on you as a candidate.

It is generally agreed that this would be a bad idea and that offering to work for a lower salary during your probation period will only reflect poorly on you as a candidate.


[Experience: US consulting and academia]

In general I would say no, but it depends a little on the context.

Having a (mostly) empty drink in front of you can highlight the fact that you arrived first and indicate how early you arrived.

If this is a situation where it would be embarrassing for you to have arrived significantly before the other person, don't do it (also, in such circumstances, don't arrive early).

If the meeting is specifically to get drinks, then it could be considered rude by some people.

This is similar to how it's rude to begin eating before everyone is seated at a table.

If it's a meeting that happens to be at a bar

and there's no expectation of drinking as a group activity

, I would think it wouldn't be considered rude.

I would avoid having more than one glass in front of you though.

That can give off the impression that you've been waiting for a long time which can embarrass the person who has made you wait, even if they aren't officially "late".

Is this considered rude?

That is dependent on the individual, but in general it's not rude.

But I normally apologise with some empty platitude such as "

Sorry, I arrived really early

so I've already ordered myself something.

What would you like?"

If they've arrived in a reasonable time, then excuse it as your fault for arriving early.

Here in Finland everybody drinks kahvi

(Finnish for coffee)

many times a day

and it is considered normal.

It is never considered rude to drink coffee before, during, or after a meeting.

Most programmers only survive with the power of kahvi, so if there were no coffee during a meeting there would be no work done!

Therefore don't worry, be happy, and enjoy many kahvi!

Very rude, at least in our culture (Europe).

If the meeting is at e.g. 6 pm there is no point in arriving early and enjoying the place without the other person nor in not waiting for the other person to arrive.

Do not do this, going thru the menu together, waiting in line etc etc is a good causal moment to spend together, no point in eliminating it to get you coffee 5 minutes early.

If this is your client, and you invited them to a meeting at a place like Starbucks, yes.

If this is a nice sit down place where the waitress brings you your drinks, and food with the bill at the end

it is much less of a deal.

The standard expectation is that you will wait for them and cover tab.

Also it conveys an image that you may have chosen to come there for the drinks rather than the meeting.

Since this is your client your best impression is made by waiting for them to get anything.

I would say the exception to this would be water.

If you arrive and need a drink get a glass of water, then order your preferred drink when they arrive.

How bad of a faux pas it is depends on your current relationship with the client.

If this is just a standard update meeting that happens every week or 2, then its not really a big deal.

If your client is not happy and you are struggling to retain their business

this could be one of those things that tips them over the edge.

If this is a new client it is not something I would risk as different people have different ideas on what is proper and what is acceptable.

You only have one chance to make a first impression, I would not want it to be that I value the drink more than my new client.

It depends on the setting of the meeting.

Since you said ordered a drink, I assume it is a neutral setting like a restaurant or a cafe.

If it were at your company or home, it would be rude if you did not offer them the same.

Otherwise, I don't see it as rude.

I am from the US for the record.

Question: Here is the situation:   I have a meeting scheduled with a client/stakeholder/co-worker at 12pm, and I arrive at 11:50am and order myself a drink before they arrive. They end up arriving at a reasonably prompt time (12pm - 12:05pm) and I have already 80% finished my drink.  Is this considered rude?

Is it considered rude to get a drink of mocha at a meeting before your client arrives?

In general this is not considered rude but it would depend on the client and the context. In some situations or cultures it might be considered rude.

The answer to this question is subjective, and in any case, will depend on the context and the relationship you have with the client. Many people would say that this isn't rude, but some people and cultures will see this as something of a faux pas.

The answer to this will largely depend on the context, setting and the relationship that you have with the client.

For many people, this would not be considered rude.

In come cultures and settings, this could be considered very rude.


The load may be heavy because of project state.

However, unless a replacement is found, you will be expected to bear it.

Once your replacement comes in, then you may offload a part of work to him/her, however the responsibility still lies with you unless your replacement is trained.

You are being paid full salary on notice period.

Then organization should also get full output.

Not working/ expecting a light workload just because you are in notice period is, in my personal opinion, unprofessional.

As long as you are on board the organization, you should give it your best, irrespective of if it's your first day or last day.

The world is a small place.

If you don't work well in your notice period, people will notice.

This can harm your chances of coming back to the organization in the future.

And who knows, someone senior or from HR from this organization may change to some other place where you are interviewing in the future.

A good reference can be lost by trying not to give 100% during notice period.

Since you have been promoted, sounds like you have spent sometime in the organization.

Would you like to give up all the good will you have earned just because you have some extra work during notice period?

Is it normal to have heavy work load during notice period?

In my experience when someone is taking a new position and working their notice, it is not un-common for the current team to get as much productivity from the person as possible.

Since you are leaving the company, there is no reason for you to work yourself to death as you are moving on.

Do your best while you are there, but there is no need for you at this point to work extra hours or extra hard .

There is no definitive "right" answer - it's totally dependent on the individual circumstances at the time.

I've known people that have had essentially nothing to do during their notice periods whereas my last three have all had me working flat out (and beyond) until almost the very end due to project state and the need to hand things over.

At my last perm role I was flat out until <30 mins before I was due to leave - I was even late to my own leaving presentation as a result!

As Rishi talks about in his answer

there's plenty of good reasons to stay professional and keep on working away during a notice period and to be honest

it's not that onerous to do so.

It's not uncommon, but the reasons vary.

Clearing the deck:

A mad rush to get everything done to give themselves some space to get the next person in Wrapping things up:

Make sure that everything you're involved in is finished Punative: Some companies DO get offended and will make you work to the very last second:

Business as usual Some companies just continue on until you're replaced.

It could be any one, a combination of, or none of the above, but a heavy workload on the way out is not unheard of.

It is not so strange if you had an important role that the company wants to make sure they are ready to handle that you are not there when you have moved on.

Therefore try and interpret it as a compliment and not as a punishment.

Question: I am in a management role, where I have accepted a new role at a new company and serving my notice period. The work-load is very heavy which can be stressful and high-pressured. I am quite unsettled right now, changing roles etc and subsequently losing motivation.  In my last role (non management - developer), this was not the case, the work load gradually decreased over the course of the notice period. Is piling on the work once someone is leaving normal practice?

Is it normal to have heavy work load during notice period?

This is not uncommon. The company wants to get as much productivity from you as they can and be ready to handle your absence.

The answer to this question is subjective and will depend on different factors. However, many people would not see this as strange since the company may well want to get as much productivity out of the employee before they leave.

The answer to this question will be subjective and depend on numerous factors.

It is not generally considered uncommon as most businesses will want to get as much productivity out of an employee as they can before they leave.


I would like to ask for it as soon as possible, but don't know how to approach my new boss in a professional and non-awkward manner.

You are seriously overthinking this one.

Something like "Hey boss.

I noticed that the women's bathroom doesn't have a sanitary bin.

Could we get one?

" would be fine.

If you would find that too embarrassing to suggest in person, make the suggestion via email.

You might even offer to pick one up and get reimbursed.

And as @Martijn suggests, you could even find one and order it online.

In small offices it wouldn't be unusual at all for folks to order things then get reimbursed.

It's understandable, but try not to be nervous about this sort of thing.

We've all gone through a "first job" experience.

It gets much easier with time and practice.

Just very casually.

Hey, I noticed that the trash bin in the ladies room is gone.

Who do I need to see to replace it".

Don't borrow trouble, just go in assuming that it's a normal, everyday thing because it is.

Update due to edit: Still make it "Hey, I noticed that we don't have a sanitary bin in the ladies room, who do I need to see to get one put in there?

I just don't want medical waste put in with the regular trash"

If you're uncomfortable talking about it face-to-face, email might be a better alternative.

You don't need to go into too much detail.

Something like this: Our ladies' room is missing a bin for sanitary products.

Can we order one?

Martijn made the excellent recommendation in his comment to do an internet search for one - you could include that in your email as well so that there is no confusion at all.

If you still feel too uncomfortable to ask directly, or you aren't familiar enough with the laws regarding sanitary bins in your region, consider enlisting the help of the older women in the office.

You may find they'll take care of the problem for you.

It is not stated what country you are in, but check if your company has a safety committee or health committee, or both.

In Ontario, Canada, employers of a certain size are required to have a "Joint Health and Safety Committee" (JHSC) with a mandate to identify health & safety issues, receive them from employees, and make recommendations to the company.

If you decide not to pursue this with your immediate supervisor, you may be able to report the missing bin to the JHSC or equivalent, and they'll be able to request that the company supply one.

It’s awkward to ask your boss for things like this.

So don’t.

Ask the person who cleans the restrooms at night.

The maintenance of the restrooms might not even be your company’s responsibility.

Suggested wording:

“the ladies’ restroom needs a sanitary disposal bin; can you please take care of that?

Thanks!”

(Among other things, the person who will be dealing with the mess if a flushed pad blocks the plumbing is a lot less likely to be embarrassed by the request.)

Question: I've recently started working in a small business (10-15 employees), and noticed that the women's bathroom lacks a sanitary bin. Since the team is mostly male, and the only two other female employees are both over 50, it was probably not a problem before.  How should I ask my (male) boss for a sanitary bin in the women's bathroom in a professional and,  ideally , non-awkward manner?

How to ask a male boss for a sanitary bin in the women's bathroom?

Address is casually over email if you are embarrassed to discuss it in person.

If you feel uncomfortable making this request face-to-face, consider writing them an e-mail. Keep it casual and don't go into too much detail - there's no need.

There is no need to be overly formal or go into too much detail.


Well these tests are part of their hiring process

so yes I'd say if you want to get hired by them you have to do them.

Certainly that's been the case whenever I've been giving tests as part of a hiring process.

I usually give some sort of coding test to prospective candidates (although I tend to keep them small 30 mins to an hour) and if a candidate refused and pointed me to their github or similar instead

I'd bin their application immediately because: 1)

It makes it much harder to compare code between multiple candidates 2)

The code they offer may not provide examples of the sort of thing I'm looking for 3)

It positively reeks of disinterest on behalf of the candidate.

If you aren't serious about being hired by me, I'm not serious about hiring you.

To me it also says "I can't follow instructions

and I'm going to do things my own way

regardless", not generally traits I'm looking for in an employee.

I have uploaded some code on my GitHub account,

all my code is publicly accessible, so if someone wants to access my account, he/she can review all the code I have written.

I can get someone else code and push into my repo,

having your code public doesn't help to hire a manager to hire you.

Why are these tests necessary?

It helps them filter good from bad, and I don't think anyone gives a really big test that is time-consuming unless you don't know it, if someone is good at something, they should welcome it

and it is a plus that you can add it to your repo, and your knowledge even if you get hired or not.

Is there a way to decline doing them without being disqualified?

Declining means, either you have an attitude or not a team player or too committed to give new company times, all which IMO are red flags.

Coding tests that last an hour or so are pretty much the norm when applying for coding jobs these days.

You can't really avoid them if you want a developer role without severely restricting your options.

You could refuse and point them to your Github profile, but this would almost always mean an outright rejection.

There have been times that my inbox was full of these tests

How many roles are you applying for?

If you constantly have an inbox full of these tasks, and it's only one task per company, that implies you have loads of applications on the go at once, and you're getting rejected from the vast majority of them (or turning them down yourself.)

If this is the case, then the real issue here isn't with the coding tests, it's with the number of jobs you're applying for and being rejected for.

If this is indeed the case, then you'd be better off screening the roles you apply for more carefully, and putting more effort into just a few applications, rather than mass-applying and trying to spend every evening of the week churning your way through coding tasks.

is it really necessary to do and the coding tests too?

If a company requests you to do such tests, then it would be expected for you to do them.

It is true that a test may not give all the aspects of a candidate, and that other things are also important when considering a recruit.

However, code test are in some cases the standard procedure of some companies, where the can't easily make an exception for your case and ignore such recruitment protocol.

You can surely try ask if you can do something else.

A nice way would be by politely asking " Is it possible to something instead of the coding test?

I can provide several Git projects to exemplify." , but it is not likely they will agree with you and do it.

If they insist on doing so

and you do not want, then I think you have no choice but to end the recruitment process.

If coding tests are really not something you like, try searching for jobs in companies that do not require such tests.

From an engineer's perspective who may be interviewing you...how am I meant to evaluate your skill or see how you solve problems if you refuse to do so in my presence?

Let's not mince words here.

I suck at interviews.

I was unemployed for about five months because my interviewing was so terrible (from my perspective; I know I'm a brilliant developer but interpersonal communication has always been a weakness of mine).

But that didn't mean I didn't do any coding exercises; quite the opposite.

I made sure that I met their coding exercise requests, and showcased what I had learned from past experience (including clear documentation of code, READMEs, unit tests, etc).

I wanted them to know what they were getting from hiring me; a diligent worker who regarded themselves as a professional and expert, and one who understands what it means to architect the solution, test it, and deliver it in a way that makes sense to everyone.

By you refusing or failing to do that, you miss the opportunity to really put yourself out there as a stand-out candidate.

I've not heard of many professional institutions hiring someone without asking them some kind of coding exercise.

Let's face it - as a developer, you're going to be paid a lot of money to solve problems, and if you don't showcase how you solve (or at least approach) problems, you're not showing me that you're worth what I'm willing to pay, or more.

Question: Almost every developer interview involves a coding test.  I don't really see the need for this, as I have uploaded some code on my GitHub account, all my code is publicly accessible, so if someone wants to access my account, he/she can review all the code I have written.  Why are these tests necessary? Is there a way to decline doing them without being disqualified?

Would declining a coding test disqualify me from the interview process?

This is a part of the hiring process and is not normally a big test. It is difficult for companies to make an exception. It is expected for you to do this test and you risk an outright rejection if you refuse.

For many companies, these tests are simply part of their screening and hiring process. They're unlikely to make an exception for you, and declining to perform a test will likely present a poor image of you to them. You can of course try to present them with examples of your work instead, but it is unlikely to do you any favours.

For many companies, these tests are part of their hiring and screening process and they are unlikely to make an exception for you.

It's not really possible to decline these tests unless you want to present a bad image to the company.

You could decline to do the test and present examples of your work, but it is unlikely that they'll hire you.


Part of your responsibility as a data analyst is to ensure that you have data of sufficient quality to work on.

You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear You've identified that you don't have data that's of adequate quality to work on, so you need to get back to your manager with that.

I'm sorry, but the quality of this data isn't good enough for me to work on with any degree of efficiency.

Give a few examples of why there's not enough data for you to perform the lookups needed and suggest the root cause(s), and state what the minimum requirements that you need in order to meet your objectives.

It's possible that there's been a communication failure and that you're only meant to deal with this sub-set of data in a specific fashion.

This seems unlikely, but it might be the case.

You'll soon get clarification when you report.

It's not likely that you'll get in trouble for reporting back to your manager with whatever's blocking your work as long as you clearly describe the issues and do what you can to identify the cause of the blockage.

I'm not sure how to tell my boss that the data is insufficient and still keep my job.

Any suggestions?

Short Answer:

Try your model with that data first , and if it fails after trying several times, then report the need of more resources or data.

You will still have to design the model, so you can start with that and add more data as needed.

Notify your boss about your worries before proceeding.

Longer Answer:

The best way would be to properly design and create your model.

Then proceed to evaluate and train it with your current data.

After this, you will be able to obtain some sort of correlation or effectiveness of your approach , which will probably be low due to insufficient data.

After this happens, you can approach your boss and say "Hey boss, I already built and tested the model.

However, seems we got a really low performance, and I suspect it is due to insufficient training data, as I have already tried [x,y,z]."

In other words, try your model first, and if it fails due to the few data report such findings , rather than saying it won't work without trying.

This way you are actually showing that you tried and this backs up your claim.

As a data analyst myself

this is often the case when building models from few data.

No matter how much effort and improvements you put to the model or algorithm, more data is sometimes the only way to improve your performance (specially on Deep Learning models).

One way to empirically demonstrate whether the data is sufficient for a particular analysis is to conduct a power analysis to calculate the minimum sample size necessary to discern an effect of a given magnitude.

Review the results of the power analysis with your manager, and ask for her/his advice on how to proceed.

Asking rather than telling puts you in a position of collaborating to solve a shared problem instead of a power struggle (pun intended).

As one of my former professors, Leland Wilkinson , wrote in Statistical Methods in Psychology Journals , "Even when not asking for money, think about power.

Statistical power does not corrupt."

First you tell your boss about the problem.

If he says to go ahead, you generate all your graphs and tables including confidence intervals.

That way, your results are correct and show how useful (or not) they are.

A second step, of course, would be to refine the acquisition process in order to produce better results next time.

For getting your foot in that door, an accurate show of what the current data set manages or fails to deliver will likely be essential.

Your job is to process the data.

Part of that is the confidence evaluation.

If you put tangible and interpretable results on that rather than a handwavy "not good enough", the recipients of your analysis will think that its their own verdict rather than yours desiring better data.

And if they don't, you are not to blame.

Sometimes you have to walk away from a contract.

But that isn't the most likely outcome here.

As a contractor and subject matter expert, it is your job to advise your customer what the best use of your time will be, in your professional judgement.

This may mean re-writing the scope of your contract part way through.

You will have to negotiate the new scope with your customer.

While disappointing and time-consuming, this is much more satisfactory than coming to the end of the contract and delivering a report that concludes that none of the hypotheses were proven.

Here is one example of a change to your scope of work: You might want to use your expertise to spend some time designing a better survey or experiment.

Then pause your contract while someone else gathers new data.

Finally, your customer hires you to come back later to analyse the new data (perhaps paying you a retainer or a premium to guarantee a particular timeslot or lead time.)

You can't guarantee that any dataset will ever be good enough for you to generate a satisfactory model, (and you can't guarantee that you will always use the most productive analyses), but you can take actions that make that outcome more likely.

Question: I recently got hired  as contract data analyst for a company and have been given their datasets.   The data that they provided me with is either not very well measured (via a poorly designed survey) or too few for formal statistical methods.  I'm not sure how to tell my boss that the data is insufficient and still keep my job. Any suggestions?  Clarification:  The relationship I have with my boss is good. I just simply don't have enough data to provide an accurate analysis.

How to tell your employer that you cannot work with the resources provided?

You could try working with the data first and then inform your boss of the findings. Review the results together and ask for advice on how to proceed.

You should simply tell you boss about the problem. However, an effective approach could be to attempt the analysis any way, perhaps several times, and then show your boss the problems that you're having so that they better understand.

One effective approach may be to still attempt your analysis and then approach your boss once you have failed so that they can see the problem that you're experiencing.

You may wish to simply tell your boss about the problem.


I would go and ask my manager:

I am interested in Task F

but it has low priority at the moment, can I commit one hour daily to work on it?

If he says no because of the low priority, I would follow up with:

Can I work on it in my own time?

Lunch, weekend, after working hours?

This way you are transparent, expressing interests and/but "following orders".

See what he says and good luck!

It is not unethical (to most people).

The more important question is would it be appreciated.

That would depend on your boss.

Some would think hey I got F for free.

Others may think not so sure A did not suffer here.

I would explore F and be sure you can do it in the free time you allot yourself.

If you are pretty sure you can get it done then ask your boss if you can work on it outside of work hours.

Tell him F is of interest to you.

If you have to ask the question trying to get around the rule, you already know what the answer is.

However, it is not unethical to make that proposal to do the work extra hours on the task.

If you want to do work out of order you should get managements approval first.

If it really is just a matter of priority then getting that permission should be as simple as asking.

It is also possible that it was put in the priority queue where it was because their are decisions to be made about the task, and putting the task at the bottom of the pile was easier than making those decisions.

In that case your manager may not want you working on the project.

A boss should be pleased that there is any aspect of your job that you would want to do in your free time.

Only a fool would discourage you from doing it.

Obviously, he may give the other tasks more priority and want those completed first, but when people do things they like, they feel better.

It should only help this project in the long-term.

An exception could be if this task is so far down the line in priority that it may get removed from the project.

Your boss should let you know that.

If it is going to upset you that this could be removed, he may suggest you don't do it.

Even though you're doing it on free time, it will still need to possibly be integrated in to the project and continuously supported in the future.

There may not be enough resources to maintain it.

I'd say it's not strictly unethical, but as you say it might give a bad impression to your boss, then why risk?

Also, doing company work on your free time is not necessarily advisable, as it may harm productivity during work hours.

A good thing to do would be to discuss your proposition with the boss, and see what feedback you get.

You can also put it as a form of exercise, that you will have to manage yourself and possibly bill for it (as overtime hours).

Take this as an opportunity to show initiative and interest, instead of being afraid of upsetting your boss.

Explain to him that you'd like to work on F (in your free time, if that's acceptable in the culture of your employer - otherwise, during a small percentage of the normal work day).

Make it clear that you already understand and follow the priority he has set, but that you think you can add value by solving F without impacting his priorities and F is a subject that you're already knowledgeable about.

It's fine to mention that you're personally interested, but I would also make sure there's a clear value-add for the employer, in order to give him incentive beyond just letting you work on a pet project of yours.

Question: I am currently working on Task A, which is currently estimated to end in 2 months.There are five other tasks in pipeline: B, C, D, E and F.   Task F is something I care very much about, because it is related to my previous work in the company. However, it is the least important one to my boss. I am planning to work after office hours and in weekend (unpaid) to complete task F.  How can I properly approach my boss about working on a low priority task?

How can I approach my boss about working on a low priority task?

Discuss with your boss about working on F in your free time and listen to their feedback. Make it clear that you understand the priorities they have set but that you think you can add value by completing F without impacting them.

The answer to this question will really depend on the relationship you have with your boss, but you may wish to simply explain how strongly you feel about the task. Make sure they see that you understand the set priorities and make it clear that you're intending to work out of hours on task F so that it doesn't affect your other work.

The answer to this question will really depend on your boss and the relationship you have with them.

When discussing this with your boss, simply explain that you understand the importance of the set priorities and that you are willing work outside of work hours on a low-priority task. Explain to him that you feel strongly about the task and can add value.


This is why it's best not to get a job organised by your parents or where your parents and the boss know each other well enough to do this.

It's actually a failing on both parts, possibly well meant but a failing nethertheless.

Your boss shouldn't be telling tales, and your parents shouldn't be listening to them.

All you can do is ask the boss to desist while you're looking for a new job.

Or just soldier on until you can leave.

This must be a frustrating and embarrassing situation for you, even without knowing any of the details as to why or how your boss is talking to your parents.

That being said, depending where you are in the world, it is highly unlikely that there will be any local laws to support your situation.

My recommendation is to calmly discuss this with your boss.

Explain how their "chats" are effecting your relationships at home negatively.

Depending on how this conversation goes and your boss's reaction, will determine your next move to either stay or look for other work.

Hope this helps.

Best of luck.

T

I am assuming you're American and your parents have classic American views on teen work.

That being said, it seems like a no-brainer to have your parents give you the easy job hook up.

Who wants to interview and risk rejection?!

As you can see, it comes with caveats.

I agree with others that this is a failing on behalf of both parents and employer.

They aren't giving you the respect of a young adult and encouraging you to be responsible for yourself.

There is another problem here too: you're vulnerable to abuse by your employer if your parents aren't respecting you as an adult.

I don't know your age or you're gender, but imagine a circumstance where your boss sexually assaults you: if you can't turn to your parents then who can you turn to?

The only way out is thusly (and this too will require you to have uncomfortable conversations but establish yourself and an adult):

To your parents: express your gratitude for their help and then bluntly tell them it's now your opportunity to lose.

The chatter between them and your boss is not giving you the room to learn to be an adult and it needs to end.

You will need to speak sternly but respectfully; assert your need to grow.

They may ultimately say really discouraging things like it's their reputation

and you're embarrassing them ( some parents are dicks like that).

Be ready to hear it.

Kids are always an extension of the parents even when you're grown.

But that doesn't mean they have a right to hurt you with it.

To your employer: be blunt and tell him the job is between him and you and no one else

and you need him to respect that.

If he can't you will need to move on.

Be ready to quit or be fired in some unceremonious fashion.

Be ready for all of them to ignore your request and continue to treat you like a child.

If they don't get in line, quit (with notice even if they send you packing on the spot).

You will feel humiliated.

Remember that sting and don't repeat the mistake.

I think you need to look at this from another angle.

In most work places, bosses would just fire you instead of talking to your parents.

I'm assuming that your boss is friends with your parents.

Perhaps he doesn't feel comfortable firing you

so he tries talking to your parents.

You said you get into trouble both at work and at home, so I'm assuming your boss is talking to you about the issues as well.

The way I see it, you need to ask yourself this question: "Do I want this job?"

If the answer is no, then quit.

Find something better, explain to your parents about your feelings, and (very important!)

thank your boss for giving you this opportunity.

If the answer is yes, then you need to figure out why you keep getting into trouble at work.

Your boss is likely talking to your parents because talking to you isn't getting any results.

Any other boss would likely have just let you go by now.

You need to figure out what you're doing wrong and fix it.

Sit down with your boss and talk to him about it.

I bet that if your boss can resolve those issues with you, he will not be going to your parents anymore.

Given that you are 18 and thus an adult...

I would say it is not wrong, it is illegal.

Your work contract has an expectation of privacy for work related matters and given that your parents are not priviledged anymore.

Internal Company Affairs are confidential by law - at least in most countries.

My advice is to not respond in any way.

Sure, you're parents may keep asking questions.

Just limit it to one word answers so you're not being disrespectful.

In no way can you let your employer know that this is the way to handle you at work.

It won't make things better.

Have a grown up conversation with your boss that you prefer to be dealt with directly if there is a problem.

That's it.

You can't make him do it.

Don't go into details about how it makes you feel or what it does to the relationship with your parents.

It's none of your boss's business.

Which is the entire point.

To keep your sanity, just keep imagining the look on your boss's face when you tell him you got a new job.

Question: My boss keeps telling my parents the things I do wrong at work so not only do I get in trouble at work I get in trouble at home too. Is there any way I can prove that this is wrong and that she can not tell my parents what goes on in the workplace? I’m also 18 by the way.

Is it wrong for my boss to tell my parents what I do wrong in the workplace?

This is wrong for both parents and employer but there are unlikely to be any local laws to support this.

Whether this is lawful or not is open to debate. Some people might feel that this is a breach of contract. However, regardless of the legal implications, most people would consider this poor behaviour on the part of both your employer and your parents.

The general consensus is that this is not good behaviour on the part of either your employer or your parents.

Some people may even consider this to be a breach of contract on the part of your employer.

It is unlikely that there are any specific laws covering this situation, although this would depend on your local legislation.


You should stick to a standard page layout, so no less than 10, probably slightly bigger to improve readability.

The point of keeping your resume brief, is to limit the amount of information that the person reading it will need to process.

To do so, tailor the CV to the position and include only the details that are relevant to the position you are applying for.

Some old or small experiences could be aggregated in a single item or even omitted.

Reducing the page count by shrinking the font and margins will make it harder to read on top of

it being long.

That is worse than using an extra page.

Seems that you commented:

It is already super cut down version.

I just had 8 jobs so even few lines about each makes it 1-2 pages.

It is important to remember that you should tailor your resume to better fit the job position you are applying for .

This means that you should prefer including relevant highlights of your profile that would be of interest to those specific recruiters, or that would be valuable in the role you want to fulfill.

You should also refrain from including not so relevant information that could lessen the positive impact your relevant features may have.

I'd say that if one has had several jobs in the past, including all of them could take away valuable space on your resume.

I suggest you include only your most recent jobs or those that are related to the job you seek , and try to leave the other out (or just list them or mention on a paragraph, without going into much detail).

This will give you extra space for interesting stuff that can boost your application.

Not a direct answer, just a suggestion that the "unbreakable" 2-page rule might not be.

With *cough* decades of experience, I have managed to keep my CV down to 6 or 7 pages (12 point font).

I have never had anyone complain of the length, and have no trouble landing contracts.

I got it down to 6 or 7 pages by leading with a summary, so that I don't need to repeat it on every job, and a cut-off about 10 years back, with "further details available on request".

It's tricky to judge.

Some might say that experience 10 years ago is stale, but if it reinforces more recent experience and underlines my subject matter knowledge, then I think it germane.

One thing that I have never heard anyone discuss is how prospective readers will know that it is longer than 2 pages.

I can't remember the last time that I got a CV from a prospective candidate which was not in electronic form.

That means that someone reading my CV reads the summary, and is either hooked, or moves on to the next guy.

If hooked, he can read further and stop whenever he has read enough to convince him.

If we wants to know lots, he can read to page 6 or 7; or he might just read the summary and the two recent jobs.

But he's not going to know that my CV is is 6 or 7 pages long unless he reads that far, and by that time it's too late to reject it for being too long.

Just stating what works for me.

YMMV

workplace.stackexchange.com/users/20979/Mawg says reinstate Monica

To directly answer the question - which no one has done yet.

Stick to a minimum of 10 Point

Anything less risks being hard to read to read and you can't assume that every reader has 20/20 vision and you risk getting your cv discarded especially if its being read by an older person

Don't get to hung up on exact numbers about the number of pages in a cv there is no magic trick here.

In my experience, I would never recommend going past 2 pages.

I have

many friends in the HR field and most won't read past page one .

My suggestion to you is don't go crazy small with the font ( keep it at 11 or 12 ) and stick with a standard page layout.

I would recommend that your attention is better spent by focusing on only including the important content and wording your message in such a way that the critical items are on page one.

If you send out a resume with tiny fonts I can assure you it will go straight in the bin.

You aren't making yourself more appealing by making your resume more difficult to read.

You are doing the opposite.

You can reduce the amount of information for jobs you worked that are older than, say, 2 years.

Most people don't care all that much about what your daily duties were 10 years ago using technologies that are no longer relevant.

Question: What is minimal acceptable font size you should use when building your resume outside of legal note? I would like to avoid expanding beyond 2 pages.

What is minimal acceptable font size on a resume?

Stick with standard, 10 or 11 point font and a standard layout.

The answer to this question is subjective, but people would generally recommend a font size no smaller than point 10 and possibly 11 or 12.


The particular solution this company is implementing is unorthodox, but you usually can not expect that your company email account is a private medium.

When you are using a company mailserver, then all mails you send and receive will be stored on it in clear text.

That means if management feels that they need to read your work email, then it is usually possible for them to do that.

A more savvy mailserver administrator would be able to silently forward all emails to that ceo_bcc mailbox automatically without requiring any actions from the end-user.

Having the end-users do this manually instead of implementing an automatic solution is dangerous, though.

People will forget that from time to time.

If the intention behind this policy are benevolent, then it might result in the management not being aware of something they should be, leading to wrong decisions being made.

If the intention is malevolent, then non-BCCed mails could be used as a pretext to sanction someone.

So what do you discuss with the CEO?

Tell them to ask the IT department to set up an automatic forwarding rule so you no longer need to do this manually.

I feel like this is too much and

it frustrating.

I think some employers are leaving company because of these type of strict policies.

Is it normal behavior of all companies?

How do I discuss this thing with CEO, without he thinking I am involving company policies?

This isn't something I've heard before.

Still, every company has quirks that some find frustrating.

It's hard to believe that people would leave just because they are asked to BCC all their outgoing emails.

I suppose it's possible, but usually there are a bunch of reasons leading up to a decision to leave.

You could talk with the CEO and calmly indicate that you think this requirement is excessive.

You might ask why the CEO feels this is necessary, so you can learn the thinking from their point of view.

Unless you know for a fact this an actual reason that some folks have left, I wouldn't bring it up.

Be prepared if the CEO hears what you have to say but indicates that you are required to do it anyway.

You mention "outgoing" emails so I am going to assume that means emails to people outside of your company such as clients.

You also specify that the BCC address is ceo_bcc@example.com

so this tells me that this is an unmonitored mailbox.

Based on my observations above the CEO is probably trying to achieve a few things: Get company employees to actually craft their emails and be respectful when communicating with people that affect the company's bottom-line.

In general, people act better when they think someone is watching.

Stay involved in the day-to-day information of the company as it runs in real time.

Maybe the CEO has his secretary write up a daily report of any important conversations.

Prevent a situation where something is called into question and have a readily available paper trail.

No more of "Oh, I can't find that email" or "I never got that!"

While I do understand that in a proper work environment the system administrator should be able to BCC the CEO automatically, I am led to believe that #1 could be the leading cause of this policy.

It is also possible that the company does not have administrative access to the email server such as when a hosting provider gives free accounts and everyone logs in via web browser.

It boils down to: If you are in a position to speak on behalf of the company then the company needs to know what it said.

How big is the company you work for?

In the relatively small company I currently work for, the project manager (who is a director in the company) has us CC him when we email the customer as he is involved very closely in many discussions and is daily queried by the customer C-level execs on any and all projects we are working on for them.

It could be that your CEO is in the same boat and needs to know what his team is doing in order to stay on top of customer queries.

Is it normal behavior of all companies?

How do I discuss this thing with CEO, without he thinking I am involving company policies?

No,

but you either abide by company policies or get sacked/leave.

Unless you are in a position to change policy there isn't much point in getting upset over something that small.

In theory if it's a company email they can do whatever they want including forwarding copies of all your mail to the CEO without you even knowing if they have it set up like that..

I feel like this is too much

and it is frustrating.

I think some employees are leaving company because of these type of strict policies.

Sorry but mind your own business.

People leaving or joining company for whatever reasons is not your headache.

If your CEO requires you to BCC him/her on each email that you send from company account then do just that, your boss decides what jobs you get.

If I were you i would go to my boss and ask him in an informal way to have the Email admin set it up in a way that each email is automatically sent to him as bcc every time its sent.

And if he asks why I would tell him i tend to forget sometimes

and I don't want to inadvertently break any rules.

This way the boss gets what he wants and employees get what they want, they don't have the inconvenience of remembering to bcc him every time and they can just focus on the content of the email.

Tomorrow if you join a new company, and your Senior / Mentor asks you to BCC him on all your outgoing emails, so he can monitor and guide you where required, would you still complain?

So what's different here?

Bigger companies have the liberty to hire auditors, email etiquette trainers etc.

etc.

, while the CEO wants to do it himself, this being a smaller company.

Chill, he's the CEO, he's micromanaging, so he could ensure quality and provide feedback where applicable.

This is not only saving his job but yours too.

- My Opinion.

Question: I work for a small company (less than 10 employees) in the Software Engineering field in Sri Lanka. We have a policy that all our outgoing Emails must be BCC'ed to ceo_bcc@example.com.  I feel like this is too much and it is frustrating. I think some employees are leaving company because of these type of strict policies.  Is it normal behavior of all companies? How do I discuss this thing with CEO, without his thinking I am overstepping my position?

Is it typical in small companies to BCC the CEO on all external mails?

workplace.stackexchange.com/users/73187/I am the Most Stupid Person

No, this is not normal. You should try to discuss with the CEO why they think this is necessary. Point out to them calmly why you think it is excessive.

The answer to this question is subjective, but this is not generally considered to be 'normal' behaviour. However, if you feel you need to raise this with your boss, consider asking them first for an explanation of why this policy is in place so that you also understand their point of view.

You could raise your concerns with your boss by asking them to explain why the measure is necessary so that you can take on board their point of view.


If it isn't in writing, it doesn't exist.

If you don't see it in the written offer, by all means mention it.

It is not impolite, it is being diligent and making sure all the terms agreed upon are met.

Yes, absolutely.

If it's not in writing, you'll have a hard time making a case for it if they "go weird" on you.

A reputable company never has an issue with putting a promise in writing.

A company that has an issue with it is probably not one you want to work for, anyway.

It would be very wise to put this in writing, however if this is tied to their subjective perceived opinion of you doing good, and not tied to any specific and hard metric easy to measure, the offer will not be worth the paper it is written on.

Actually HR tried to pull this one on me on a very well paid contract in the past, offering me less 20% than I was asking, and the rest be on condition on a positive evaluation 6 months in the future.

Fortunately I had the presence of mind to tell them, either they gave me the full amount, or I would not be interested in the position.

Much later on, through the grapevine, I found out they did that stunt to all people working for that company, only as a strategy to get the salary down, and never followed up on their promise.

It doesn’t matter if you have this in writing or not.

The company is not going to give you the raise.

This company is so cheap they are suggesting they will pay you less for two months.

They are either very tight cash flow or they enjoy playing mind control games with their employees.

There will be a reason in two months for not giving you the raise.

You shouldn’t accept the offer unless you you get the salary you want from day 1.

It is all about asking it politely.

Do not sceptically ask to put that promise in wirting Better

ask them for details on the promise (when it will happen and how it will be evaluated Or if you had enought details oraly: summarise them in writing and ask more details on what they consider to be a good performance.

First let me say I am all in favor of politeness, politeness is the grease that gets things done smoothly and efficiently.

But politeness is a method not a goal.

You want to do X politely, not be polite.

In your particular you seem to have three possibly conflicting goals, getting it in writing that you will get a raise shortly after being hired, getting a raise shortly after being hired, and of course getting hired.

You want a method of asking for the first goal that minimally impacts the third goal, in order to enhance your chances of achieving the second goal.

Politeness is obviously your go to tool in this case.

But you need to decide not whether it is polite to ask for it in writing, but whether asking will reduce your chances of achieving the other goals (and determine how that effects your desire to work there).

My advice would be to simply ask for it, something along the lines of "During our discussions X said that the starting salary would be reassessed after Y, could you please include that in the written offer?

Thanks"

Question: I got an offer from a company who just verbally told me "we will give you this much and after 60 days if you were doing well, we will give you a raise for a higher rate ." which they specified. So my question is; Is it polite to ask them to mention this in their written offer?

Is it polite to ask the company to mention the future raise -which we had discussed in interview -in their written offer?

You should absolutely ask for this. It is diligent to make sure the terms are met.

It is generally agreed that there is no issue with politeness in asking a company to confirm their offer to you in writing.


You should specify how much "local" you mean: same country ?

Same region ?

Same city ?

As a recruiter explained me a couple of years ago, in their specific case they request only local (here local means "same small city or the neighboring area") applicants for quality of life reasons.

The logic behind their decision was that the nearer the worker is to the office the better from a quality of life perspective: no long travels to/from work, maybe option to go home for lunch, possibility to take the children from school or to get through all the small tasks of the everyday life without any particular hassle.

Of course there is the other face of the medal, that they tend to not specify: you are near, so they have not to pay for travel (very rare where I live anyway) or for lunch (no tickets, no canteen) and maybe you can work some more time since being so near to home even if you work 30 minutes more in the evening you are home at a pretty decent time.

They do not want to have to pay for travel or relocation.

Even if a candidate made the trip on their own, what is to say they did not ask for relocation assistance once the offer is made.

Now you have an additional expense the employer was not expecting.

I personally worked around this by removing my address from my resume and replaced it with 'relocating to the DC area' when I was targeting Washington DC for jobs.

I can imagine that employees who have moved to the city extra for the job are at greater risk of quickly resigning - just because they realize they do not like the city - for whatever reason: too expensive, missing friends, different culture.

There is a number of reasons for the employer to post "local only candidates" offer.

In reality, it doesn't mean that company only considers local employees - I was leading a project in Frankfurt in 2015-2017 and most of my recruiters could only find people from London or Berlin, so I posted "local only", knowing that our recruiters will cover London and Berlin pool of candidates.

I can think of some other reasons:

They want to hire somebody really fast, maybe even interview within aweek.

They had a bad experience recently, and just want to avoid it.

For some reason they might think it's easier to get a culture fit.

Once colleague of mine was complaining that their hire spent 2 month trying to find a suitable apartment, and then just left.

If that happens twice in a row - I can imagine employer being a bit afraid for a period.

As in my example - they have other agents/recruiters lookingglobally.

Could be "Agency Experience Mentality" -

Employer mightbelieve that there is something about local people

, that will givethem specific perspective.

Usually ad agencies organisations forexample try to find people with "Agency experience".

Recently, I've noticed a couple job postings that say they'll only consider local applicants.

What is the motivation for this?

Some companies conclude (usually through experience) that hiring non-local workers isn't working out for them, and choose to avoid the hassle.

Sometimes the local market for talent is rich enough that there is no need for non-locals.

Sometimes they have been burned by applicants travelling long distances who later drop out of the running after several interviews.

Sometimes the company just wants to support the local economy.

Lots of reasons, lots of possible motivations.

Question: Recently, I've noticed a couple job postings that say they'll only consider local applicants. What is the motivation for this? It seems like it shouldn't make a difference if applicants are willing to travel for interview and/or relocate on their own budget.

Why do some companies only consider local applicants?

The company might have had bad experiences in the past with non-local employees resigning.  They might also want to hire someone fast and not have to wait for them to relocate.

The answer to this question is highly subjective and there are a range of reasons why a company might prefer local applicants. They could see local applicants as being lower risk as they wouldn't have to relocate or travel long distances. They may also feel that hiring local applicants is more likely to quickly provide them with an employee who fits in the company culture. Finally, they may simply feel strongly about supporting the local economy.

It could be that hiring non-local applicants carries a risk of needing to pay relocation costs.

They may see non-local employees as more likely to resign if they have to travel long distances or don't like the area after relocation.

They might believe that hiring locals will be a faster process.

They may believe that local applicants are more likely to fit in the company culture.

They may feel strongly about supporting the local economy.


Just block them if you can.

It is a bit rude, but so is ringing your personal number after hours.

There is no need to tell them you're blocking them.

I have several clients who can ring me any time.

Anyone who rings that isn't on that select list, I don't even answer.

Apart from blocking him, I would also try to find out how he got my private number.

If a colleague gave it to him, make sure this never happens again.

If it's listed somewhere on the website, it should be deleted.

Maybe the customer doesn't even know it's your private number.

Instead of blocking them - let the answering machine take a message.

They soon get the idea that it is not worth calling you after hours.

If you are in a position where a customer would contact you directly your employer presumes that you have the professional experience and demeanor to directly interact with them.

After all your interactions with that customer are a reflection of the company and have a direct impact on the customer relationship.

Even if the customer insists on calling you on your personal phone outside of business hours you must show the same level of professionalism and demeanor.

But, that doesn't mean that you have to automatically accept the intrusion into your personal life.

Blocking the number should be an absolute last resort and you shouldn't do it without having a discussion with the customer and your immediate supervisor.

Jumping to the last resort of blocking the number is extremely unprofessional regardless of the of the customers' actions.

Your first step should be to inform the customer that they are calling your personal phone and that it's outside of normal business hours.

Unless you are directly responsible for supporting mission critical operations simply instruct them to call your work number and leave a voicemail; obviously let them know that you'll follow up during business hours.

If these calls continue or if they refuse to follow your instructions then you should escalate the issue to your immediate superior and work with them to resolve the issue and manage customer expectations.

Give them your business number, tell them that it's your new number and your old number will no longer work.

Then block them from your personal number.

One could see it as slightly dishonest, but I think it's acceptable in this situation, as you're telling a white lie to protect your relationship with your client.

Something to think about is: Does the customer think your company is solving their problem or you personally?

It seems possible that higher-ups in your organization will think that this is you forming a business relationship with the customer outside of your company with the possibility that you will take this customer with you when you leave.

I would suggest discussing this with your management and, if necessary, prompting them to tell you not to have contact with the customer outside of official channels.

When the customer calls, you calmly and politely blame it on your boss and keep doing that until they get the message.

Question: I have a customer who somehow got my personal number instead of my work phone line. Since this individual has my number they believe that the office hours no longer apply to them. This person has been contacting me late (after 8pm) expecting me to pickup the phone, and will often call repetitively.   How do I tell the customer that it is not acceptable to contact me outside of the office, especially late at night?

How to handle a customer who has my personal number

You should inform the customer that they should call your work number and leave a message. You could even block them from calling you on that number. Discuss the issue with your management.

There are a range of options available to you, but your first step should probably be to inform that customer that this is your personal number and ask them to call your work number during work hours. If this fails, you may then wish to discuss the matter with your manager. Failing this options, there is always the choice of not answering the phone to them outside of work hours or even blocking them.

Your first step should probably be to inform the customer that this is your personal number and that they should call your work number during business hours.

You may wish to consider simply blocking them.

If you don't want to block them, simply don't answer the phone and let your voicemail record their message.

You may want to discuss this with your manager so that this can be handled in a professional manner.


They gave you exactly what you wanted.

Asking for more at this point would be counter-productive and probably not be a good way to start a working relationship.

I don't think a negotiation has taken place.

You can say that you put a middle-of-the-road number in the box and, now that you know more about the position, you think that $X is a more appropriate amount.

Also, check out the chart below.

It can help you decide how much risk you're willing to take — job offers do get pulled sometimes.

Here's the article the chart comes from.

Good luck!

You can negotiate salary at this point -

but I wouldn't recommend it.

They asked you for a number, gave it to you and unless there's been a significant change in the circumstances (either because you now know more about the job or something outside your control has changed) then going right back and asking for more will look bad.

Negotiating for salary is exactly like any other negotiation - usually the two sides state their preferred result at the outset and then meet somewhere in the middle.

You don't go to a car dealer and offer them 5k off the list price, then immediately turn around and offer them another 5k less because they agreed to the first offer.

I tend to agree with what @solarflare said .

It won't come off nicely for sure if you want to push for more after they already provided what you wanted.

Moreover, consider it a lesson learned.

If you 're not in a dire need of a job and you think you 're in demand next time aim at the higher range (or exceed it if it's not that realistic!)

and then you have leeway to play the counter game or who knows they might really like you/need you and even give you the higher range salary from the get-go.

If there's something you should keep from this, is to not be afraid to lose agreeableness, you won't receive something unless you ask for it and no company will turn down a good candidate just because they price themselves

highly(but still competitively for the market).

The company came back with an offer, the salary is exactly what I asked for.

Can I negotiate the salary at this point?

If not, would it be wise to negotiate other perks?

When you get exactly what you asked for, then asking for more may make you appear greedy.

That's not a great way to start a new job.

If you do decide to negotiate for additional salary, be ready to answer the inevitable question "Why are you asking for more when we are offering you exactly what you asked for?"

You could try for more perks.

But decide ahead of time what you want, what you will do if they meet your offer and what you will do if they decline.

They gave you what you asked for, which means they probably have a good impression of you.

Don't dent that impression by trying to negotiate now.

However, if you love the job and you've been in it 9 months or so (and you still think they have a good impression of you) then try to negotiate for a raise at that point based on your added value to the company.

Question: I received an offer from a company recently. The application had an expected salary field (it was required). I knew the range I was expecting, but the field didn't allow a range. I put in the middle of the range as the value. The company came back with an offer; the salary is exactly what I asked for.  Can I negotiate the salary at this point? If not, would it be wise to negotiate other perks?

If a job application has a fixed expected salary field (not a range) and the company offers that exact salary, can I still negotiate the salary?

You can still negotiate salary at this point but it might not give a good impression.

The answer to this question is subjective. Whilst some people will feel that you could negotiate at this point, others will feel that any attempt to get more benefits, perks or money from the company will only reflect badly on you as a candidate.

Some people would feel that it will only reflect badly on you to negotiate their offer given that you have already stated your salary expectation.

Some people believe that you can start to negotiate now, whether that be in terms of salary or additional perks.


Unless you are applying to a company which has a philosophy of using English as the company language, that request will likely get rejected.

The reason is that in today's workplace environment, social skills are even more valued than technical skills.

It doesn't just matter how well you do things.

It also matters how well you can explain what you are doing.

When you are working in a French company within a French team, for French customers and with French suppliers, then a very important part of your work will be to communicate in French.

They need to judge your proficiency in this skill.

If you are interviewing for a technical position in a country where English is not the first language, then there may be a preference or expectation that technical discussions be conducted in the local language, as opposed to English.

If that is the case, then you can make the request; however, you should be aware that it may not work to your advantage.

Is there any way to request this without sounding rude or too demanding?

As the other answers point out.

There is nothing intrinsically rude about asking, but it is a bit demanding however understandable and convenient it may be for you.

My addition would be that the best solution is to sidestep the whole problem and prepare as you would for any interview by studying the French terms.

If you get stuck, apologise and use the English term and clarify as you go.

While it will not be seen as rude to ask for the interview do be done in english, keep in mind the the interviewer might not be a fluent english speaker (if you are interviewing in a non english speaking country).

Since you probably don't want to make the interviewer unease, using his native language is probably better (specialy if you are fluent), but do not fear to fallback on the english technical word if needed.

I don't know in which sector you are searching job, but in software developpement, I will be surprise if the interviewer wouldn't know the english word.

And if need be, he can always ask for clarification.

Since you have done your studies in england it will balso e understandable that you are more fluent with technical english than technical french.

Even if you where to end up in a pure french environnement, just learning the technical vocabulary shouldn't be such a diffucult task (probably even easier than the firm internal jargon).

As a side note: in 10 years of software developpement in France (in both a small firm and a big international one), I have always code and work in english because: - you might need to share your code (or documentation) with not french speaker - online documentation and resources are mostly in english.

So I will probably have an easier time to explain thing in french using english technical words than doing the whole with only french words.

While I generally agree with the other answers that say you should be prepared to be interviewed in French if that's the language you'll be expected to use on the job, I don't think it would be unreasonable to ask for English.

Everyone knows that being interviewed is a stressful activity, much more so than conducting the interview.

While you might be able to converse in French in more casual situations, and even in professional situations, it may be hard for you to put your best foot forward at the same time.

In many organizations, you're likely to be interviewed by several different people.

You'll probably have to make this request to each of them at the start of the session, and should expect to get different answers, as some of them will be more fluent in English than others.

When scheduling the interview, I think you should ask the recruiter or HR representative whether such a request would be acceptable at all.

As to how to make the request, just ask politely, with a reason they should understand and that doesn't sound selfish or demanding.

You're being interviewed by ordinary people who want to hire eager candidates

(some will become your colleagues if you get the job), they're not generally out to get you.

Something like:

Would it be OK

if we spoke in English, I think I'll be able to answer more fully and clearly if we do.

Of course, you should make the request in French.

And hopefully they'll be able to tell from how you ask that you're proficient in French.

You could also offer to switch back to French after the technical portion of the interview, so they can see that you're fluent enough to conduct business.

It depends on the field your work will be in.

I am from the Netherlands and work in IT.

All courses from my university were in English as well.

Here it is completely normal and accepted to speak a mix of both.

It is actually preferred to use English for the technical terms and code is written in English by default.

It also depends on the colleagues you will be working with.

Here, if there is someone in the room who doesn't speak Dutch the conversation is carried out in English.

When I was applying for a job I sent out all my application forms in English since most technical terms don't translate to Dutch and I wouldn't want to work for a company where Dutch is enforced.

All this being said, I can imagine these points don't hold up in other fields or countries where English is not as dominant.

Question: I speak both English and French Fluently. Yet, Since, I studied in a British University and the whole structure of my course was in English, I find it easier to answer all the technical questions in English. Is there any way to request this without sounding rude or too demanding?

How to politely request for the interview to be conducted in English?

This is not rude but might seem a bit demanding. Ask politely and give your reasons.

The answer to this question is subjective and may well depend on the area that you work in. However, it is generally considered that asking such a question is not intrinsically rude, but you shouldn't necessarily expect a positive answer.

It is generally agreed that asking the question isn't intrinsically rude, though you should get too hopeful that they will agree to your request.

The answer to this question may well depend on the field you work in.


Yes and they should be.

They don't know you.

Probation periods are a standard in pretty much any industry.

The employer wants to ensure that you are good fit for the company.

This doesn't mean they doubt you, it just means they want to make sure.

Lets say you are a programmer with an amazing track record, but you frequently get into conflicts with a co-worker named Bob.

They may let you go.

Not because you can't do the job, but because they don't want to deal with that conflict in the work place.

Don't worry about it, everyone goes through a probation period at pretty much every job.

Just do your best.

Is it true?

I would say no , not exactly.

Usually, the main purpose of a probation period is to have a "look and feel" of the employee and the way they adapt to the Company .

That way, if the employee is not fit the work relationship can be terminated without much procedures or consequences.

This is also true the other way round

: It is also a good time for you to have a look and feel of the Company , to see if you both are a good fit, and for you to be able to resign without much procedures or consequences.

I always thought, that probation period means that, the employer is unsure about my qualities.

Is it true?

Yes,

but that's only part of it.

Most employers who use probation periods, use them for all new employees.

So the employer is unsure of your qualities, but is probably unsure of all new employees' qualities.

The other part is that a probation period is for you to be unsure of your employer's qualities.

During probation, both sides get to see if there is a good fit or not.

If there is, then you get signed on as a permanent employee.

If not, you both part ways amicably.

There is a general trend, especially in Western Europe (it depends on the country, so putting a country tag might be good; your profile says you're in Estonia, and I'm not very familiar with the culture there) for employment to be indefinite; not continuing to employ someone requires significant cause.

In some jobs, there is explicit tenure, but even in jobs without it, there's often "pseudo tenure" in the sense that laying someone off is a Big Deal.

This makes hiring a new employee a large risk, as even if they have experience, it's hard to know whether they'll work out.

Having a probation period allows a company to see how someone does in a position while giving the employee notice that the employment doesn't have this "pseudo tenure": the employee shouldn't consider employment after that period a sure thing.

Thus, they can evaluate the employee at the end of the period and lay them off if they want without it being as much of a violation of social norms.

This also allows a company to terminate the employment with less of an effect on other employees: if the other employees are past their probation period, and they see an employee in their probation period being laid off, that doesn't make them worry about their job security as much as seeing someone with the same employment status as them being laid off does.

Another factor is that companies often have perks that they don't want to give to employees until the employees have established themselves.

So there may be certain benefits that aren't available, or aren't fully available, until after your probation period.

The characterization "the employer is unsure about my qualities" is true in some sense, in that they are exercising caution about a new hire, but it's doesn't necessarily mean that they have concerns specific to you;

this likely is simply general practice.

It seems you have a quite limited perception of employer-employee dynamics.

Please let me help you a bit with that.

What is being tested is not so much "quality of employee" but "does this employee fit into our company and be able to produce for us".

This is not at all the same thing.

If you have had a few jobs you would know that there exist certain companies which would be automatic misfit for a quite wide range of employee personalities (to say the least ;)

These kind of relations are always two-way.

Don't forget that!

It's like the 'No questions asked 30 day return guarantee' you get on purchases.

You can return the item for no better reason than 'I changed my mind'.

Very sensible to have this on an employment contract.

In some territories Employment Rights virtually 'marry' employer and employee once the job is established.

A probation period is standard-fare for most companies.

You can only get so much information about what an employee will be like from interviews etc.

A probation period at the start of your employment is not reflective on your abilities (by definition

they can't be because they don't really know you by this point), and are not nearly the same as probation periods as a result of disciplinary action.

workplace.stackexchange.com/users/77409/520 says Reinstate Monica

Yup, but you may see it as evaluation period of the company culture and its ecosystem from your side.

Most companies within probation period allow you to leave immediately without notice period.

So if you don’t like the company, walk away.

Question: I have one year working experience. Recently, I joined a new company and started my career in the position which I have skills, and experience on it. But, the employer considered 4 month probation period for me.   I always thought, that probation period means that,  the employer is unsure about my qualities . Is it true?  My workplace is in Estonia, and I am a developer/tester.

Does "probation period" means the employer is not sure about the quality of employee?

The employer probably does this to all new employees. Think of it as a chance to evaluate the company culture from your side.

The answer to this question is subjective, but whilst some people don't believe this is true, many people would see a probation period as a sign that an employer has doubts about your abilities. Having said this, this is likely to be the case for all new employees, and you could even see it as an oppounity for you to evaluate the company.

Many people believe that a probation period is proof that the employer is unsure of your abilities.

The employer may be unsure of your qualities, but this is likely to apply to all new employees, not just you.

Some people do not feel that a probation period means that the employer doubts your abilities.

You could in fact see this as an opportunity for you to evaluate whether the company is right for you.


I'd suggest this is one of those "If you have to ask, don't do it" moments.

Even if someone might normally find things like this funny, the questions remain: What kinda of pressure are they currently under if sales are doing badly that might cause them to react badly?

If they're under a lot of stress this might make them feel very bad indeed.

What kind of impression will this give the rest of the company, if sales issues are well known - e.g. will everyone know it's meant to be a joke or will some people consider it a snub, and will everyone find it funny?

As others have said, it depends on the culture of the place... which to me means that none of us can tell you whether or not it would be ok as we don't work there.

And if you could tell whether or not it would be ok, you wouldn't need to ask us.

Normally I wouldn't think twice about this sort of thing, but it's been made apparent that sales haven't been doing too well this year.

Does that make a gift like this [Sales for Dummies] a little too 'on the nose'?

I think it entirely depends on the personality of the Head of Sales, but I recommend not rubbing salt in the wound here.

It's likely the Head of Sales is taking a lot of flak for sale's poor performance and getting a book that insults his poor wounded ego just doesn't seem like a good idea.

I recommend another gift.

This is not a very fun joke if it comes at someone else's expense and also attacks their professionalism.

Only do this if you know the Head of Sales will also laugh and not feel embarrassed.

As a gift you are not too far off, though.

If the book is a well regarded "must read" in the field then the receiver might actually like it and read it.

Not "for dummies" but a real book where you did your research.

Then if someone else makes a joke everyone can laugh (including Head of Sales), or you can make the joke in a friendly manner.

The difference here is that a real book on the subject would not belittle them.

Take this with a grain of salt, of course.

You know the person and the environment better than any of us.

Just be aware that these kind of jokes can get out of hand and turn into workplace bullying .

There are no rules as long as it is all fun and games for everyone .

Depends on the person's sense of humour, work atmosphere, your relationship to this person, their relationship to the rest of the company, whether they had an argument with their spouse this morning, planetary alignments, etc.

etc.

etc.

With the right person in the right circumstances?

Sure, it can be funny; perhaps even hilarious.

If you need to ask here however there's a decent chance

it's not, and probably wisest to avoid taking the chance.

I'd say first of all try to figure out if they take the bad sales personally.

If they think it's their fault or their problem and they're under a lot of pressure, it might not be a great idea.

However if they realize it's not just their fault and stuff like that can happen, they probably won't take offense from it.

Of course it'll still depend on their personallity and sense of humor.

But if you really don't know whether they will take it well, just don't do it.

A simple joke is not worth potentially insulting someone over.

To add to @Emil

Vikström's great answer

might I suggest a book which is related to sales at least in an abstract way.

It would be treasured by the head of sales rather than thrown away.

Malcolm Gladwell - The Tipping Point is a great read which looks in to the psychology behind what causes things to suddenly become popular, such as the Hush Puppies craze in the 90s in America.

Question: So it's secret santa time again at work, and I've drawn the Head of Sales. Secret santa is normally a jokey thing in our office, so I thought it would be amusing to buy him a 'Sales for Dummies' sort of book.  Normally I wouldn't think twice about this sort of thing, but it's been made apparent that sales haven't been doing too well this year. Does that make a gift like this a little too 'on the nose'?

Is a book on sales technique a bad idea for our head of sales in secret santa?

This might just rub salt in the wound. It depends on the person and the atmosphere in the company. Only do it if you think the person will find it funny.

The answer to this question will be subjective and entirely depend on the person in question and your relationship with them. There is a risk that this could be received rather badly, so you should only do this if you're sure that it will go down well.

There is a risk that this could be received rather badly. You may wish to consider a different gift.

The answer to this question will depend entirely on the person in question and your relationship with them.

You should only really do this if you're sure that it will be received well.


I think communication and mutual understanding is key here.

I don't know any place where you could legally forbid your employer from calling an ambulance.

On the contrary, the employer is bound to care for your physical and mental wellbeing, a fact that is often ignored.

You should have a serious talk with your manager and the people working near you most of the time.

If there are dedicated first aid workers in your company, invite them as well.

Explain to them what a typical seizure looks like, how they should react to prevent injuries to you and themselves, and how long to wait until they call an ambulance.

Be aware that telling them to never call an ambulance will most likely not work.

It would help them immensly if you told them how often you usually get seizures and for how long.

For an untrained person, seing someone having a seizure is very shocking.

The first instinct (and what every first aid training tells you) is to call the emergency number.

If you're aware that a seizure is imminent, try saying "no ambulance" or something like that

right before it starts.

Knowing whether it would be legal or not would be largely dependent on locale.

That said, even if it were legal for you to provide some sort of waiver or agreement to them that said not to call an ambulance, as an employer I'd be deeply uncomfortable with such an arrangement, and I expect many others would be too.

You say that it would "most likely be unnecessary" -

which implies that there is a chance it would be necessary.

I'm not sure I'd like to be in a position to explain to anyone - lawyers, employer's liability insurers, and least of all to an employee's grieving relatives why we didn't call an ambulance when they were seizing.

You cannot block an employer from calling an ambulance for a medical emergency.

I have diabetes, and even though a low blood sugar episode can be countered with orange juice, they will still call the rescue squad.

This is unfortunately, not your call, as it is an issue of liability.

All that you can do is refuse any and all medical aid when they come.

Unless your employer and colleagues are trained medical professionals that can diagnose a seizure where medical attention is not necessary, there is nothing you can do to prevent them from calling an ambulance

should you have any issue.

That being said, they will not be charged for calling an ambulance and neither will you.

I am not a lawyer neither I am HR, bu if I were HR, I would probably frown upon this "prohibition clause" and instructs coworkers not to comply (and call an ambulance if needed), unless there is insurance that there is no risk for the company.

Why ?

Imagine the following scenario :

You have a seizure.

Unfortunately, this is not one of your usual, or some nasty other thing happen in the same time coworkers can't tell the difference, ambulance is not called.

You lose your life or left with heavy / irreparable damage You or your relatives sue the company for non-assistance.

-> Company must pay heavy compensation (and may get some bad reputation) (and, as an off-topic side effect, it's also bad for you too)

I can imagine such a "play with employee's life" clause possible if, for instance there is a already recognized medical staff that could take the responsibility to not call the ambulance in the emergency situation.

In any case, if you still want to take this risk for yourself, you should go see a lawyer and / or your doctor.

They are the people who can have knowledge of similar legal situations and find a way to make such a clause possible and riskless for the company , if it is possible.

Question: Is it legal for me to prohibit my employer from calling an ambulance for me if I have a seizure? Because that would most likely be unnecessary and I wouldn't want to pay for it.

Can employees prohibit their employer from calling unnecessary ambulance services?

You can't stop an employer from calling an ambulance. Your colleagues are not medical professionals and the employer would be liable.

The exact legal implications will depend on the local legislation, but the general consensus is that you cannot prevent an employer from calling an ambulance in a medical emergency.

The general consensus is that you cannot prevent an employer from calling an ambulance for a medical emergency.

The legal implications of this situation will depend on local legislation.


What is in your contract?

If there is no written contract, no problem.

You just say thank you but

no, thank you, that's not the deal we had , and walk away.

Stress the part about meetings and completion date changes

certainly not being what you agreed to.

You have no obligation to respect deal you didn't make.

If the contract you signed does not say a thing about these meetings, you should say something like:

I'm sorry to hear about the night meetings.

My contract does not include such obligation and does not give you right to change completion date, and I do not agree to such changes.

We may proceed with my internship as contracted, or you may decide to break our contract.

If you want to withdraw from the contract, we may negotiate that.

Be sure that you will have it clear and in writing that it is their breach of contract / withdrawal, not anything that can be considered your fault.

If you needed this internship as part of your education, include someone from your school in the negotiations.

If this rule was in your contract, you need a labor law lawyer.

It depends on jurisdiction but it probably was illegal.

If it is part of your formal education, your school will probably provide you with lawyer help, and even if not - should be notified about the issue.

It's odd to have a completion date for a non-contractual arrangement (there being no compensation, it's hard to view this as a trade ).

You can amicably inform them that the position they have kindly offered you is no longer appealing to you, and you will not require access to their systems in future.

Obviously, you need to return anything which was lent to you (e.g. laptop).

It's an internship, legally speaking I would imagine they have literally no power to hold you to your contract.

You are working voluntarily for them.

If you were a paid employee and you walked away at this point you would lose your paycheque but since you're not being paid you will lose nothing.

Send them an email saying:

On reflection I cannot commit to attending a three hour meeting every day and for that reason I no longer wish to pursue this internship.

Thank you for this opportunity.

Focus on clear communication.

Before quitting, find out what the meetings are about.

The meetings may be training for interns.

Three hours of training could be wonderful.

If they are not training, try to find out the purpose of the meetings and why they think it is important they extend the internship if you don't attend.

Find out what they want to get out of the arrangement and explain what you want from it.

If they see the internship as free labor, you can politely explain that is not what you are interested in or what you promised and move on.

Don't burn any bridges; they are a young company and may have no idea how to handle interns yet.

There might be great people working there who you will come across again in the future.

Don't feel any pressure to go back.

The deal has to be beneficial for both sides.

"You're asking for too much for me to work without pay.

Sorry but the opportunity cost for this is simply too great.

I won't be working with you."

And then you leave a bad review for the company on glass door.

Leaving a bad review is standard for a company adding 3 hours to your work day - almost doubling it if you work 4hrs a day and bumping an 8 hour day to 11 hrs - and causing you to question your employment there.

It's not revenge, it's truth.

That should be all it takes.

Question: I started working as a remote(work-from-home) intern at a very young startup.  The internship is for 3 months and I just learned I will have to attend a 3-hour meeting every night. For every meeting missed, a day will be added on to my internship completion date. This will not work out for me.How do I tell them that I won't be continuing with the internship?

How to tell company that you will be leaving after one day of joining a remote unpaid internship

You should inform them amicably that you won't be continuing with the internship.

It is considered perfectly acceptable to simply inform the company that you will, in the end, not be taking them up on their offer of an internship.