Should you do interviews for jobs you have no intention of taking?

[ubermaus 10]

A friend of mines got a job interview that they are not interested in, and its a bit of a trek to travel to the interview. Expense involved too.

 

Should they do the interview for experience or just hold fire and wait for a better opp?

[muddycoffee 10]

That is not enough information for a rational person to advise.

[willman 10]

I interviewed for several positions that i wasn't too bothered about but when you have no job then you can't always be selective.

I travelled as far as Newcastle and Bristol.

It is good interview practice and if like i was he's unemployed there's not much else to do some days.

[andyofborg 11]

That is not enough information for a rational person to advise.

 

then there will be plenty of advice offered here

[StopnSmile 10]

The question has to be asked why did they apply in the first place if they are not interested, surely that is just wasting people's time.

[andrejuan 10]

Why on earth apply for a job they are not interested in???

Then, respond to the invite?

All with no interest in the job, never mind the question "should they go to interview"

Is it about keeping their JSA intact? I know the system dictates that you have to prove you are applying for jobs to stay on benefits, but to be honest it is a waste of employers time to process all the "box tickers" at the expense of the genuine job seeker.

My opinion is, no one should feel they have to apply for a job that is not suitable for them, just to keep benefits.

However, yes they should have to apply for jobs that they could do irrespective of their expectations.

[ubermaus 10]

Why on earth apply for a job they are not interested in???

Then, respond to the invite?

All with no interest in the job, never mind the question "should they go to interview"

Is it about keeping their JSA intact? I know the system dictates that you have to prove you are applying for jobs to stay on benefits, but to be honest it is a waste of employers time to process all the "box tickers" at the expense of the genuine job seeker.

My opinion is, no one should feel they have to apply for a job that is not suitable for them, just to keep benefits.

However, yes they should have to apply for jobs that they could do irrespective of their expectations.

 

It went through a recruitment co. Now dont give me no more cheek or i will have to put my size 12 boot up yo moaning ass.

[andrejuan 10]

It went through a recruitment co. Now dont give me no more cheek or i will have to put my size 12 boot up yo moaning ass.

 

Nice one

[willman 10]

Why on earth apply for a job they are not interested in???

Then, respond to the invite?

All with no interest in the job, never mind the question "should they go to interview"

Is it about keeping their JSA intact? I know the system dictates that you have to prove you are applying for jobs to stay on benefits, but to be honest it is a waste of employers time to process all the "box tickers" at the expense of the genuine job seeker.

My opinion is, no one should feel they have to apply for a job that is not suitable for them, just to keep benefits.

However, yes they should have to apply for jobs that they could do irrespective of their expectations.

 

No one said not suitable just not interested in getting.

I applied for a job with Sky in Sheffield, the basic salary was crap BUT the potential could have been pretty good. I went for an interview to see what was on offer although at the back of my mind it wasn't the career path for me. IN the end the offer was poor and i personally thought i wasn't suitable fro the role anyway.

 

I have to admit 2 or 3 interviews that were "non critical" were extremely valuable for when the extremely favoured roles came along. Job requirements change,employers attitudes change and it is good to get a feel for the market.

[Elphi 24 10]

This happens fairly often. My final interview question for all candidate is 'if we were to offer you the job, would you accept?' Their reply and body language is often very telling and helps to make sure you get the candidate that does really want the job.

[ubermaus 10]

No one said not suitable just not interested in getting.

I applied for a job with Sky in Sheffield, the basic salary was crap BUT the potential could have been pretty good. I went for an interview to see what was on offer although at the back of my mind it wasn't the career path for me. IN the end the offer was poor and i personally thought i wasn't suitable fro the role anyway.

 

I have to admit 2 or 3 interviews that were "non critical" were extremely valuable for when the extremely favoured roles came along. Job requirements change,employers attitudes change and it is good to get a feel for the market.

 

Often for higher level positions a recruiting person or headhunter will set interviews up, even if you show a slight interest.

Its quite acceptable to research a position and decide it's not for you after you've (recruiter) has arranged a time.

 

Its weighing up pros and cons. I dont think my friend has the time to go to interview, but then again they think its good practice...

[Ha3el 10]

Is the person currently employed? If not then yes, a job is a job, can still look for something better. If the person is in employment and has just been looking for an alternative/something better then they can afford to be a bit more picky, in which case I'd say no don't bother wasting peoples time.