Passed over for promotion by someone not eligible

bmwguy

Don't try and win a promotion on an advertising technicality. More experience does not mean you are necessarily a more suitable candidate. Someone liked these 2 guys for the positions so that's that.

It's what's wrong with Irish public sector in many departments equating time spent there with entitlement to more money and better roles.

You played the gender card very early in your opening post as well.

bmwguy

bmwguy wrote: »

It's what's wrong with Irish public sector in many departments equating time spent there with entitlement to more money and better roles.

That's not what's being said at all, though. The person who got the job was ineligible, full stop. The OP is entitled to more money and a better role, not because they're longer serving, but because the other guy should be disqualified.

I'm sure there were others, better qualified than both the winner and the op, who didn't apply based on not satisfying the criteria for the job.

Rules are rules. I'm slightly confused, it's this ad hoc flouting of the rules to promote whomever they so wish that people are using as a stick with which to beat the public sector.

The OP has a genuine grievance and should consult their union rep.

patsman07

patsman07 wrote: »

Absolutely agree. I'm a teacher, I know of 7 occasions, off the top of my head, where a candidate was appointed who had less qualifications and/or less experience than another candidate. All an interview panel has to do is say that their chosen candidate done a better interview.

I think the OP should be taken at her word. We don't know the ins and outs of this situation but whats the point in questioning her on her statements. It's a more beneficial discussion if we accept the statements as fact and debate from there.

So those with more experience (I. E. Who've worked there longer) should be promoted ahead of those who haven't worked there as long? Isn't this a direct contradiction to what others are saying shouldn't be happening?

The second point you make is spot on, and one which I feel should be standard when reading anything on boards.

myshirt

Unless there is any legal or regulatory reason like a Doctor or Pharmacist, "3 years post qualification experience" should really be read as "may be suitable for a person post qualified 3 years".

Essentially you are ballpark looking for someone in that space, but by no way does amount of years post qualified equate to a more competent person. I'm now an accountant but when I was a young solicitor we had people make partner by 32, people who became the 'go to' person and really worked hard to make themselves indispensable and value adding, and others who qualified at the same time as that person stay associate solicitors well into their 40's because they either weren't as good as others or were happy with their brief etc.

No conspiracy theories, just plain competence. The firm would not stay a top firm unless it promoted based on competence and ability, and this is the reason why public sector organisations can be piss poor. They promote and give pay rises based on factors that bear no relevance to anything meaningful.

noodler

eagle eye wrote: »

Yes the rules are given for eligibility and if you don't qualify then you don't get it.

This is clearly a case where management think they can get away with promoting somebody they want.

Also in the public sector cronyism is still rife and it is more likely to be the case here than it is that they think he is good at the job.

Absolute bullsh1t in my experience.

Civil service is based on the form and Interview process alone.

Cronyism seems far more likely in private sector to me where there'd be no consequences for hiring someone they like.

OP, could you type the exact wording relating to the bit about three years experience?

AndrewJRenko

myshirt wrote: »

Unless there is any legal or regulatory reason like a Doctor or Pharmacist, "3 years post qualification experience" should really be read as "may be suitable for a person post qualified 3 years".

Essentially you are ballpark looking for someone in that space, but by no way does amount of years post qualified equate to a more competent person. I'm now an accountant but when I was a young solicitor we had people make partner by 32, people who became the 'go to' person and really worked hard to make themselves indispensable and value adding, and others who qualified at the same time as that person stay associate solicitors well into their 40's because they either weren't as good as others or were happy with their brief etc.

No conspiracy theories, just plain competence. The firm would not stay a top firm unless it promoted based on competence and ability, and this is the reason why public sector organisations can be piss poor. They promote and give pay rises based on factors that bear no relevance to anything meaningful.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but years of PQE is a standard job spec requirement for many financial roles in your beloved private sector - are all these organisations 'piss poor' too?

https://m.hays.ie/Job/Detail/senior-financial-accountant-dublin-south-wicklow-en-IE_1047605?q=hays&s=%2BxReleaseDate&specialismId=FinMngtAccounting&subSpecialismId=FinMngtAccounting&_ga=2.182009511.1833150313.1500496648-860090056.1500496648&applyId=JOB_1716588&lang=en&isSponsored=N

http://www.irishjobs.ie/Jobs/Accountant-multinational-industry-background-8044849.aspx

http://jobview.monster.ie/Financial-Accountant-Job-Dublin-City-Centre-Dublin-IE-185373130.aspx?WT.mc_n=olm_sk_feed_indeed_ie

http://job-openings.monster.ie/Senior-Financial-Accountant-Dublin-Dublin-IE-CareerZone/11/185605170?WT.mc_n=olm_sk_feed_indeed_ie

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Sorry to burst your bubble, but years of PQE is a standard job spec requirement for many financial roles in your beloved private sector - are all these organisations 'piss poor' too?

https://m.hays.ie/Job/Detail/senior-financial-accountant-dublin-south-wicklow-en-IE_1047605?q=hays&s=%2BxReleaseDate&specialismId=FinMngtAccounting&subSpecialismId=FinMngtAccounting&_ga=2.182009511.1833150313.1500496648-860090056.1500496648&applyId=JOB_1716588&lang=en&isSponsored=N

http://www.irishjobs.ie/Jobs/Accountant-multinational-industry-background-8044849.aspx

http://jobview.monster.ie/Financial-Accountant-Job-Dublin-City-Centre-Dublin-IE-185373130.aspx?WT.mc_n=olm_sk_feed_indeed_ie

http://job-openings.monster.ie/Senior-Financial-Accountant-Dublin-Dublin-IE-CareerZone/11/185605170?WT.mc_n=olm_sk_feed_indeed_ie

What point are you trying to make here, that you can't walk into senior financial accountant job without some experience?

Well honestly, no ****.

BrokenArrows

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why would a recruiter do this? Why not just specify your minimum requirement - one year or two years or whatever it is? Why play games overstating your requirement and miss out on good candidates?

Because generally recruiters are a waste of space. They have no idea what they're doing and just spam out some random requirements. You should see the **** they put on job advertisements in Software Development roles which is my line of work.

A lot of jobs just overstate their requirements in an attempt to get an overqualified person to take a lower class job for less money.

I got an internal transfer a while back in my company (It was a new role a manager created specifically for me) but due to HR Rules they had to advertise the role internally to other candidates. I saw the specification that my manager sent to HR and i saw the specification that came from recruitment. Utter garbage added just to justify their role.

AndrewJRenko

Kaden Fancy Smokehouse wrote: »

What point are you trying to make here, that you can't walk into senior financial accountant job without some experience?

Well honestly, no ****.

I'm trying to make the point that PQE years is a standard requirement on my financial roles.

BrokenArrows wrote: »

Because generally recruiters are a waste of space. They have no idea what they're doing and just spam out some random requirements. You should see the **** they put on job advertisements in Software Development roles which is my line of work.

A lot of jobs just overstate their requirements in an attempt to get an overqualified person to take a lower class job for less money.

I got an internal transfer a while back in my company (It was a new role a manager created specifically for me) but due to HR Rules they had to advertise the role internally to other candidates. I saw the specification that my manager sent to HR and i saw the specification that came from recruitment. Utter garbage added just to justify their role.

Not my experience with recruiters, I have to say. Recruitment agencies - yes, waste of space - but in-house recruiters add value in my experience.

bisset

Suppose the job in the public sector is advertised as "must have 3 years post qualification on 1st may 2017 .

Anne will have 2 years 11 months experieince on that date as she took up a qualified post a week after she graduated on 1st June 2014.

Jane was at college with her and graduated and took up a qualified post at the same time.

Anne does not apply for the job as she knows that she does not have the required experience.

Jane applies and is appointed.

The union lodges a complaint that stating that she would have applied if the requirement had not specifically ruled her out.

The principle that "Appointments made in an open, accountable and transparent manner" has been breached.

In my experience in the above situation the job offer to Jane would be with drawn and the job would be re advertised. Obviously due to the passge of time that this process would take both Jane and Anne would now have more than the required 3 years experience.

F1ngers

Bobbygirl28 wrote: »

"at least 3 years post qualification experience" as a requirement which he doesn't have.
I on the other hand have 9 years post qualification experience.

Bobbygirl28 wrote: »

Also he's not better at the job than me. Nor is he worse

So, he is in the job less than 3 years and you are there 9 years and is as good as you?

Management made the right choice in promoting him imo.

Funny how?

Your sense of entitlement amazes me OP. A company owes you nothing and will put forward the best person they think will handle the job. Most people are easily replaced on comapanise and all they care about is the profit there making of you.

I used to work in a I.T company in a team of 12 and one lad who was probably the slowest at his work and less technical than others and avoided the most difficult work got promoted as another teams manager for an extra 20k a year.

Why he got promoted was
Was an excellent speaker and could talk for Ireland
Excellent at document writing
Looked like he would represent the company well and was well dressed.
Excellent at project management.

If a guy is there 3 years and doing the same work as you when your there 9 years then there's something wrong there.

I would hate management positions as wouldn't suit my personality so just have to keep up skilling to get more money.

Lux23

Funny how? wrote: »

Your sense of entitlement amazes me OP.

I think her sense of entitlement is more than justified. Nine years experience versus less than three? And seeing as she was placed second on that panel it does mean she was good enough to get the job.

OP, don't listen to nonsense like this. You know something went wrong here, you know you're qualified, so don't let the sentiments like this dissuade you from voicing concerns.

bmwguy

Lux23 wrote: »

I think her sense of entitlement is more than justified. Nine years experience versus less than three? And seeing as she was placed second on that panel it does mean she was good enough to get the job.

OP, don't listen to nonsense like this. You know something went wrong here, you know you're qualified, so don't let the sentiments like this dissuade you from voicing concerns.

Maybe she is not as good as the other person.

testaccount123

Lux23 wrote: »

I think her sense of entitlement is more than justified. Nine years experience versus less than three? And seeing as she was placed second on that panel it does mean she was good enough to get the job.

OP, don't listen to nonsense like this. You know something went wrong here, you know you're qualified, so don't let the sentiments like this dissuade you from voicing concerns.

Massive difference between public and private sector mindsets here. Major alarm bells with a candidate who has been in the same role for nine years.

Public sector people seem to think promotions should happen via a queue system instead of promoting the most capable. No wonder it performs so poorly.

Lux23

bmwguy wrote: »

Maybe she is not as good as the other person.

I disagree with this entirely. I let people on this forum tell me I wasn't good enough when I didn't get a job in an open PS competition - that the outcome of a 45-minute interview was far more indicative of my capabilities than the years of excellent work based feedback I had received. I knew in my head and in my heart that they were wrong and I was offered the next two jobs I interviewed for. All I am saying to the OP is not to listen to mean comments about entitlement because they aren't helpful at all.

Lux23

testaccount123 wrote: »

Massive difference between public and private sector mindsets here. Major alarm bells with a candidate who has been in the same role for nine years.

Public sector people seem to think promotions should happen via a queue system instead of promoting the most capable. No wonder it performs so poorly.

You know there has been a public sector recruitment freeze for most of that nine years? That would most likely explain it.

F1ngers

Lux23 wrote: »

I disagree with this entirely.

She admitted he is as good as she is, he's there less than 3 years to her 9.

She has found her level if someone with a third of her experience is as good as she is.

Lux23

F1ngers wrote: »

She admitted he is as good as she is, he's there less than 3 years to her 9.

She has found her level if someone with a third of her experience is as good as she is.

But how would she know really? All she really knows is that he didn't meet the criteria set in the job description so he shouldn't have even been interviewed. I think she is more than right to be annoyed but whether it would do her any good complaining is another thing, probably not.

testaccount123

Lux23 wrote: »

You know there has been a public sector recruitment freeze for most of that nine years? That would most likely explain it.

It wouldn't explain it, do you think nobody has left the public service in nine years? And if you were stuck in the same role for nine years why wouldn't you move to the private sector anyway?

I was consulting (e.g. going on site to do the actual work the permanent staff there are already paid to do) in a University two weeks ago and overheard a conversation of exactly this nature, a chap who was convinced it was his turn to be promoted purely based on the length of service. The mind boggles.

Lux23

testaccount123 wrote: »

It wouldn't explain it, do you think nobody has left the public service in nine years? And if you were stuck in the same role for nine years why wouldn't you move to the private sector anyway?

As a woman that would like to have children soon, I wouldn't leave the public sector as many private sector companies just don't support working mothers. I suspect that may have a lot to do with why the OP hasn't changed jobs.

testaccount123

Lux23 wrote: »

As a woman that would like to have children soon, I wouldn't leave the public sector as many private sector companies just don't support working women. I suspect that may have a lot to do with why the OP hasn't changed jobs.

Thats fine and thats your choice. Its hardly surprising when people who prioritise career get promoted first though, thats life.

AndrewJRenko

testaccount123 wrote: »

Public sector people seem to think promotions should happen via a queue system instead of promoting the most capable. No wonder it performs so poorly.

That's not the basis of this complaint at all. The basis of the complaint is that the other guy did not have experience that was set out as required in the job spec.

_Brian

Of course, there is the option that although you had the experience you just didn't do well in the interview process where this other candidate possibly excelled. I've seen instances where this was the case and so some criteria were dropped to widen the eligibility and so allow someone who interviewed well be selected..

bisset

"Of course, there is the option that although you had the experience you just didn't do well in the interview process where this other candidate possibly excelled. I've seen instances where this was the case and so some criteria were dropped to widen the eligibility and so allow someone who interviewed well be selected.."

But this would be in breach of the code of conduct for the public sector as i have already posted

mloc123

mloc123 wrote:

This is your opinion... it may not be others?

Please stop taking what this lady said out of context by highlighting only certain bits of her posts. You ignored the immediate for words "nor is he worse"

evolving_doors

bisset wrote: »

"Of course, there is the option that although you had the experience you just didn't do well in the interview process where this other candidate possibly excelled. I've seen instances where this was the case and so some criteria were dropped to widen the eligibility and so allow someone who interviewed well be selected.."

But this would be in breach of the code of conduct for the public sector as i have already posted

Well yes and no, she'd have to see her own scoring and if she's lucky , find out where she fell down in (or even better find out where he did better). I don't think the op is going to do that at this late stage.
I find with these things they need to be acted upon quickly with the backing of union advice.
I don't think the op is in a union or wants to join if I remember correctly. So if she wants to make a complaint she should be seeking legal advice to do it properly.

At this stage op I'd say forget about it.