Or the interviewer could have acknowledged the stress this put on the applicant and actively suggested they take care of the baby, short break, no problem.
But the interviewer chose to be shitty and judgmental.
you don’t understand, every challenge your employee faces is a good chance to test them further!!
of course don’t ever try to apply this to the boss by testing their character / reaction etc when they are under stress, they’re fine at it - and testing them shows a lack of trust
always at least 2 tiers with these people
“We shamed and discarded a potential employee because he was too professional.” What a fucking joke.
I mean it’s not a leap of faith to assume that maybe the mother was looking after the baby. The interviews are scheduled, it could be easy to get someone to watch the baby. Additionally, ferberizing. And possible less probable, a neighbor or someone else’s baby.
This is more than likely a terrible company to work. They make snap judgments, and obviously the hiring person has some holyer than though agenda.
Honestly, I died inside reading the post, especially with the “true colours” and “want people on their team who aren’t afraid to be vulnerable.”
What a bullet dodged by the interviewee. I wouldn’t want to work for those fools.
You know, fuck this company and the people who run it.
for his dream job
Oh yes. I totally believe you.
This is the dream job for everyone of our employees. That is why they are always eager to work unpaid forced overtime every week.
deleted by creator
I cringed through this entire post.
And the baby’s name? Albert Einstein!
This remind me of an interview where they asked my favorite ice cream. I told then I can’t eat ice cream. They said which ice cream do I feel like. This was for an engineering position.
omg
Oh shit, I thought I was on LinkedinLunatics
God, I hate LinkedIn “influencers”. Bunch of pretentious cunts.
I almost didn’t get a job because I had a blanket covering my office chair. I am glad that my hiring manager was sensible and dismissed that feedback from the other interviewee.
They want someone who addresses problems instead of ignoring them… seems reasonable.
They should have asked the candidate about the crying baby. Maybe it was not theirs? Maybe he was so stressed he blocked it out?
Instead of being human and humane, the company interviewer acted like a robot, trying to find a catch not to hire the guy. Note: the interviewer also had to ignore the crying baby and not acknowledge it on the call! What if the baby was in danger?
Revolting. Corporate drone brain-worms.
Sounds like they want someone who can mind read.
Yeah, right. If he had taken the time to go help the baby, the employer would have said "everything was perfect until he cut out of the interview early. This showed that the candidate lacked the foresight to secure adequate childcare ahead of time.
Regardless, you know that poor guy was sitting there thinking, please stop crying, please stop crying. I can’t just pause an interview or I’ll never get this job.
