Image description: The words “The second time podcast” in black text on a purple background. There is also a sketch of a computer and mouse.
You can listen to this podcast in a number of places:
- Spotify
- Apple Podcasts
- RSS feed (to open in your preferred listening app)
- YouTube
This website is the only place which has the script for the episode.
I know some platforms and apps have automatic transcriptions but I cannot endorse AI and will not take responsibility for their accuracy.
Episode Script:
Welcome to the Second Time Podcast. Now that the introductory and background episodes are done, these weekly update style episodes will probably be the main format and frequency going forwards.
It’s the end of my tenth week of job hunting.
I didn’t apply for much in week nine, because my chronic conditions were flaring a lot and I decided that after eight weeks of hard work, I would do only the bare minimum and focus on my health. However, also in that week, and somehow I’m calling this the bare minimum, was an initial interview or screening call.
I started week ten with a follow up interview to the initial screening I had last week. The job genuinely had some in person requirements, but they seemed to really like my resume and want to work with me. I don’t think they knew how it would work – for example, would the job be split into on site and remote tasks – but they didn’t view disability as a barrier and even though they seemed somewhat unfamiliar with remote work, they kept me in the short list.
I also liked them as a charity because they have an end date – they want to not be needed by a certain year. As someone who has the broad view that charity is a failure of government, it’s my opinion that charities should have not only a business plan, but a plan to put themselves out of business.
In the end, they went with the person who could do the in person parts of the job. Which is a reasonable rejection, because it’s a rare role where in person was an actual genuine requirement; it needed someone who could manage a physical space for work that had to be done in person.
They said they’d like to keep my resume in case something else comes up and while that’s often a line, I do think they were genuine, and they are an expanding charity, so who knows what may come it in the future.
But of course, it means the job hunting must continue. Here’s how the rest of the week went.
Before I talk about rejection emails, this is the time to clarify that I’m not someone who gets my heart set on a job. Like I said in the tactics episode, I take a volume-based, generic approach. I don’t have my heart set on a job when I apply. I just want to keep a roof over my head.
One thing I’d like to see in recruitment is more accuracy in the rejection emails. I applied for a job around the start of June and received a rejection email for it this week. No big deal, being housebound, most of my inbox is rejection emails. This email had the generic HR line of “someone had more relevant experience” which in this instance is highly unlikely to be true, because the job was a near replica of the one I finished working about four weeks ago.
I know, it’s legalistic nonsense written to protect the employer, not give feedback to the prospective employee.
But at the same time… why? Why can’t people just be honest? Honesty is an important value to me and reading these ridiculous lines in rejection emails gives me such a negative view of the company. Accuracy and honesty, how have we reached a point in society where these are rare values? This was a big issue for me last time I job hunted and it looks like it’s continuing this time too.
And now we move onto the bullshit portion of the week, where I talk about the excuses given for not letting me do tasks from home, task that can legitimately be done from home.
A recruiter sent me a job this week, so I sent my usual reply of asking if the client will let people work from home. I’m going to read you the reply I got:
“I checked the client brief and the expectation is full-time in-office attendance for the initial onboarding period (1-2 months), after which transition to a hybrid working arrangement may be offered (3 days in office, 2 remote). This is due to the need to engage with various stakeholders in the office setting, attend team meetings and liaise with management on workload, progress and feedback.”
If I’m going to be blunt, it’s an absolute fucking load of bullshit when people use MEETINGS as the excuse for “needing” to be in an office.
Here are two excerpts of job ads with more nonsense in them:
Job ad one: While {company} national office is based in Sydney, we are open to considering exceptional candidates located elsewhere in Australia, with remote working arrangements available.
Job ad two: Brisbane, Australia (minimum 50% in-office). Other locations may be considered for strong candidates.
Why do you have to be an exceptional or strong prospective employee to be remote? Can the job tasks be done remotely or not – that is the actual question.
The problem is, none of these tasks NEED to be done in person. The employer WANTS them done in person, and an employers wants are being prioritised over my needs.
This is the barrier I face in finding work. The barrier is not me, the barrier is the whims of prospective employers.
Here’s another one.
These roles are advertised as hybrid, but a fully remote option will be considered.
Then fucking advertise them as remote then? Just put two fucking seconds of thought into the job ad and make it accurate. How is this too much to ask?
And yet another where they will decide for you what is reasonable.
In-Office Expectations
{Company name} employees who are within a reasonable commute (e.g. within a forty-five (45) minute average travel time) work out of our core offices 2-3 days a week of their choosing.
It sounds like a job where you get to travel 45 minutes to sit in an office and take zoom calls. Outdated, old fashioned, and pointless. No one seems to be task-focused in recruitment. What do the tasks of the job need? Why is it so hard to expect basic standards of companies who are hiring? If people were focused on the actual needs of tasks within a job (not employer wants) I would be able to get a job much, much easier.
As I said in episode 0, in lockdown era I was part of the privileged “take your laptop home just in case” crowd, and now that non disabled people don’t need that accommodation, I am denied it. The ableism in recruitment and employment desperately needs to be addressed.
I mean, employers are so emboldened in this area that in March this year, they openly admitted to discrimination in a major news article. It’s not me that needs fixing. It’s employers and the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws who need to do better.
Anyway, those are this weeks experiences in job hunting as a disabled person. It’s frustrating that I can see the faults in the system and yet be powerless to change them. I think that’s the reason my consulting business never took off, not because the service was a bad idea, but because businesses don’t see discriminatory process and policy as something worth fixing.
Links referenced in the episode:
Recorded and edited by myself, Vanessa Smith.
Intro and outro music by Ben Dawson.
