Am I being harsh?

[Tipex]

I don't think you are being particularly harsh, reading between the lines, I suspect you'd ignore one, or most of your complaints if the 'right' candidate turned up, someone you hit it off with straight away and think, 'yeah, I could work with him/her'.

But as you clearly haven't found someone like that, you're finding reasons to not offer them a job, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Form a personal point of view, I see no issue with being asked for extra days holiday, or what the hours and expectations of overtime etc are, if you're inflexible on those points it's better to be upfront about it, then everyone knows where they stand, rather than employ someone, and a week later they ask for extra holiday days, or say they can't stay late or whatever, and then lose them.

It's a two way thing really, you've got to be happy with them, but likewise, they have to feel you out too, and decide whether they want to work for you or not, no ones doing anyone any favours, and when you think about it, seemingly little things like those can be quite important when you spend 80% of your waking hours at work.

[tequilamockingbird]

Whilst not wanting appear sycophantic in any way......If it were my company, my money I would be shelling out, my clients I needed to satisfy.......etc. etc...

I would be equally as strict!

I think there is a problem with the 'will do'....till do' attitude. Too many seem satisfied with mediocrity.

Good luck with your (ahem) quest. Hold out for the right person, I wish I was in that field, sounds like a great opportunity.

[pingpongpo]

There's a difference in knowing your sh1t and knowing you're sh1t.

[Luke]

Just as a rough guide Chris, what sort of salary would the positions you're advertising for be.

[Paul]

My employer, has within the last year upped the standard holiday entitlement from 20 days plus bank holidays to 25. Extra loyalty days then start to accrue after 8 years service upto a maximum of 30 days holiday.

The company chose to increase the entitlement not only to compete with direct competition, but also similar roles in other sectors that were tempting employees away.

[Twinspark]

I think you're being harsh on the holidays.

I'm in the fortunate position that, although I'm on a relatively modest salary, I have done all the stuff like paid off my mortgage, don't owe for cars / bikes etc.... therefore my holiday days are more important to me than extra money.

When looking at opportunities, I always take into account the holiday entitlement and will absolutely not drop a week or more just to get a pay rise and or the possibility that progression may come faster elsewhere.

That's not to say I'm not ambitious or incredibly hard working - it's just that some of the things I enjoy doing require holidays to do them in!

[Paul]

Thats the point I was getting at.

Having what i consider the absolute basic holiday entitlement, may put off the caliber of applicants that you want from even applying.

[NewNiceMrMe]

My employer, has within the last year upped the standard holiday entitlement from 20 days plus bank holidays to 25. Extra loyalty days then start to accrue after 8 years service upto a maximum of 30 days holiday.

The company chose to increase the entitlement not only to compete with direct competition, but also similar roles in other sectors that were tempting employees away.

That's interesting Paul. Out of interest what size company are we talking about?

My holiday policy (after all, I was the one that set it) has never been raised until now. The current staff are happy with it as they know if they need an hour or two here and there they'll get it. They also know that things like illness of loved ones etc would be treated differently. For example - if your wife was really ill, or something like that, and you needed time off, they know I'll give them that and that they'll never be asked to take it from entitlement. In other words, I respect the value of families and personal health to the point I won't 'penalise' an employee for it within reason.

Again, the likes of the above has been mentioned to everyone who has been interviewed. But I'm not changing the holiday entitlement and ultimately it was only a limited number who asked.

Edited March 16, 2012 by MrMe

[NewNiceMrMe]

Just as a rough guide Chris, what sort of salary would the positions you're advertising for be.

Industry average would be as follows, based on design and not developers (developers are more).

Small companies = £21k

Medium companies = £26k

Large companies = £29k

That is excluding London, which is pretty much prerequisite.

Our offer is more than 20% above the Large company salary stated above.

However, also bear in mind that I'm receiving applications from people who, in the main are on between £19-23k and looking for the next step on the ladder OR £23 to £28k .

There is also a bonus scheme in operation, and a scheme that allows a share holding in another company I own (which the last guy who's left us owned 5% and could have got up to 20% of).

Incidentally, I did my homework when I set the holiday policy and the average days in the UK INCLUDING statutory days was 26 - which revealed UK companies breaking the law as 5 day working weeks should get 20 days plus 8 statutory days. Ours is exactly that.

[NewNiceMrMe]

Thats the point I was getting at.

Having what i consider the absolute basic holiday entitlement, may put off the caliber of applicants that you want from even applying.

I appreciate that and yes it's a valid comment, I wouldn't deny it.

However - I get 20 days holiday too and I'm not doing anything more than the vast majority of UK small businesses do - the vast majority offer 20 + 8. That's why I'm asking the size of organisation moving from 20 to 25 and increasing for 8 years service.

I look at it differently and I accept that. I reward loyalty and service with a day for every year up to 25 days, plus the 8 statutory dates, plus the flexibility I've described with time when needed and appointments, plus other items.

I guess ultimately we all have different views on values and what's important, and I must admit that it is obvious what I am saying is that if time off is a priority for a prospective member of staff, then I'm immediately discounting them and I'm comfortable doing that because it tells me they won't see eye to eye with me on certain other values.

[Twinspark]

Hmmmm, when I read your initial post, and saw that you rated it as a senior role, I wasn't expecting those kind of salaries.

If you're paying 20% above the 'large' banding, then it fits into a middle-management kind of band with my employers - which sees an automatic 25 days + bank holidays entitlement and up to 25% bonus.

(Whilst I work for a retailer, we also employ people in a variety of IT and web development roles - they're graded the same as me, which is circa what you're paying, but with that crucial 25 days holiday)

[NewNiceMrMe]

Twinspark - it's a senior role in a small company. Not a senior role in the corporate world, but as you'll also see it is well above UK averages even in large companies.

There are other benefits which are easily overlooked and you've not mentioned, such as the bonus schemes and the share holding - which could very easily lead to someone receiving a very large amount of money. Opportunities like that are reasonably easy for companies like mine to offer - but you'll rarely get that type of opportunity in a large company.

Also bear in mind that in a small company I'm not bound by the crap many others are - if I get someone incredibly valuable I'll double their wage if they're doubling our revenues or profits - and at the drop of a hat because it's the power of small businesses and recognising what value someone can bring you.

[NewNiceMrMe]

I've realised I've left a fundamental point out of this in replying to the above.

The guy who left was on more than the role would offer to an incumbant - because his rises were merit based on what he brought to my company. To put that into context, he received a wage rise every 4 months (on average) that he was with us - and that meant he left on a salary approximately 50% higher than that indicated above, plus the other benefits - and that too has been explained to all candidates. Maybe that puts my angst in a bit more context.

So, you can play pool whenever you want as long as the work gets done, air hockey too if it takes your fancy. You can take time off at very short notice if work permits. You can be off without loss of entitlement as many times as you need to be for loved ones or family issues cos you know the boss values that and would do so himself. You get a bonus scheme. You can own a share of a company that could deliver you a six figure sum on a small shareholding without too much trouble in the future. You get 20 days plus 8 days statutory. You get free McMuffins breakfasts whenever you want them (that's not a fib as silly as it sounds and as minor as it is). You can get a wage rise every few months if you're bringing in value and extra revenues and that can mean you could be on 50% more than your starting salary in very little time - and your boss won't cap your salary if you turn out to be a star, he'll reward for your effort as he's not shackled by corporate wage bands or structures. He lets you listen to the radio throughout the day, you've got a TV on and all work stops to watch the World Cup finals (completely) and similar (it'll happen in the Olympics - we'll get little done!).....oh and he bought the last guy an iPad that he told him he could keep because he valued his contribution, and an iPhone 4S too, and a Macbook Pro....

Personally, now that I've written it like that, I think they can all feck off.

p.s. oh and the boss spends £100 on Christmas presents for you, every year, without fail. Cos he's stupid like that. The only problem with the last guy was the company that has taken him is so large I couldn't get near. But I tried.

Edited March 16, 2012 by MrMe

[Twinspark]

Well, I think you're going to lose out on a lot of good candidates with your stance on holidays.

You are being very stubborn about the holidays thing - but it's obviously considered to be important to many people - it would, in my mind, make me wonder how inflexible you're likely to be on other issues, too.

What you have to consider, IMHO, is that many people will be working for large corporates complete with 25 days entitlement - they have to weigh up what's more valuable - the extra week off vs 20% pay rise - I've already stated my stance on this, as have others.

The other thing is that you may consider working for a small company to be a good thing, in terms of being able to offer progression, pay rises, stock options etc., to a good candidate... on the other hand, someone in a comfortable position with a large business will be looking at that and wondering if the pay rise is worth the gamble that the company may not be around in a few years.

Again, IMHO, it has to be a very, very good package to tempt me away from the big corporates. But I'm very conservative and like my stability and security.

[cabby]

In interview, closing when asking if they had any questions, two applicants chose to ask "What are the working hours and do you every have to work over?" as their first questions. Well as it happens our working hours are a standard 9am to 5pm weekdays and if anyone has had to work over in the last year it might be 10-15 minutes here and there, once in a blue moon - but I think it's simply ludicrous for that to be the first question from someone and it makes me doubt their commitment.

I don't know web design as an industry but I do know mine and can totally understand asking about working hours. Many employers, particularly in the current climate, are milking staff for all they are worth knowing there are limited options of alternative employment. On that basis I'd say it was an intelligent question to be asking of a potential employer.

People asking about holidays. Holidays are important, fair enough. But the way we do holidays is very simple. You get 20 days (not a lot, I know) plus statutory dates. Most applicants are getting the same from their current employers. However, we then offer an additional day holiday for every year of service up to 25 days. I think that's fair? Well the two people that get 25 days already have both asked if we could match the holidays - to which I've said no, that's that, no negotiation. It's policy and I'm not changing it. Besides which, in both cases they would be getting 20% salary rises over their current positions. However, both of them seemed disappointed at this - and frankly I don't want to employ them based on that. If they're more interested in holidays in a new job rather than a large rise and the opportunity I think it tells me what I can expect when they've got their feet under the desk.

I don't think 20 days is bad or especially good - probably about average for a new position. To try an negotiate is not unusual and to instantly eject anyone who tries is probably short-sighted. How about allowing staff to buy additional holidays? My company like many allows up to five days to be bought on a pro-rata basis.

Good luck with the search.

[NewNiceMrMe]

The other thing is that you may consider working for a small company to be a good thing, in terms of being able to offer progression, pay rises, stock options etc., to a good candidate... on the other hand, someone in a comfortable position with a large business will be looking at that and wondering if the pay rise is worth the gamble that the company may not be around in a few years..

The only thing I'd say on that is I don't see how there is any correlation between company size and stability in this day and age - because there isn't and there are millions of people on the dole who are evidence of that.

[NewNiceMrMe]

I really should stress, the holiday thing is being blown out of proportion and I haven't helped that - only 2 have raised it as a question and everyone else was on exactly the same entitlement in their current positions.

p.s. if someone said they wanted to buy holidays, and I'm just being honest here, they're not for me. Stubborn or short sighted, but it's never been an issue and if it's an issue to them then I don't want them. On that stance, yes I'm being harsh - but I've also watched other companies disappear off the horizon by not sticking to their policies and letting employees run them instead of being a fundamental cog in the 'ultimate' running of them.

Edited March 16, 2012 by MrMe

[Twinspark]

The only thing I'd say on that is I don't see how there is any correlation between company size and stability in this day and age - because there isn't and there are millions of people on the dole who are evidence of that.

Well, that's the perception.

A little background....

The role I currently do used to be contracted out to an external provider, who were considered to be very skilled in the field.

However, my employers brought this capability in-house, which is when I got the job, as they could afford more people doing the same role for the same cost as the external contract. The people working for the contractor were TUPE'd in.

A few months later, the contractor got a contract with one of our rivals - and tempted away several colleagues with the offer of a pay rise and better choice of company car.

Last month, after just 18 months, they were all laid off as the contract was cancelled.

The contractor were / are a small operator and, on the face of it, offered better conditions and better opportunities - but I wouldn't even speak with them due to my perception of risk. Seems I was right.

Anyway - that's my perception, and I'm sure a lot of people are holding onto what they have, as they consider moving to be a gamble they cannot afford - especially moving from a corporate to a smaller operator.

[NewNiceMrMe]

Again, IMHO, it has to be a very, very good package to tempt me away from the big corporates. But I'm very conservative and like my stability and security.

Tell that to RBS, Northern Rock <insert a hundred more corporates in here> staff. There's no such thing as stability and security, regardless of corporation size. In fact it could be argued that the bigger they are, the quicker and more dramatic they can fall.

[NewNiceMrMe]

Well, that's the perception.

It's not, it's a fact. How is it perception? I spent 12 years in the corporate world in a company with £1bn market capitalisation. It was no more secure than a million other small companies.

Your example is relevant to you, but it doesn't demonstrate how a large company is any more stable than a small one.

Now, if you said 'on the whole', then perhaps there is an argument, but even then I think it is highly debatable in this day and age.

[Twinspark]

It's not, it's a fact. How is it perception? I spent 12 years in the corporate world in a company with £1bn market capitalisation. It was no more secure than a million other small companies.

Your example is relevant to you, but it doesn't demonstrate how a large company is any more stable than a small one.

Now, if you said 'on the whole', then perhaps there is an argument, but even then I think it is highly debatable in this day and age.

Thing is, if I have this perception, then how many people look at what you're offering and think... loss of holiday, possibly less security, then move onto the next advert?

[NewNiceMrMe]

To be fair Twinspark I wouldn't want a designer from a corporate - because I say with complete sincerity that I know the vast majority couldn't do the job.

[garcon magnifique]

I do think there's a perception that if you're in work with a large corporate you're safer than with a smaller company. Whether that perception is accurate is another matter.

I suppose there's also the thinking that if your larger employer cuts staff you'll get a redundancy package, whereas if your small employer goes under you probably won't. Again it's a perception.

For the salary and package you're offering I think you have a right to expect quality candidates.

[Luke]

Some great replies in this post. It shows how different aspects of employment are a lot more important to some people than to others. It's a good insight for Chris to show him what people are really thinking about his job vacancies and benefits.

[NewNiceMrMe]

Absolutely.