These days applying for jobs is often stressful and it can be more frustrating to receive immediate rejection. People apply with great care, preparing their CVs and cover letters and expecting their applications to be taken seriously. One applicant, in a recent set of events, claimed that their application was rejected just three minutes after sending the email.
Taking to Reddit, the frustrated candidate said he spent hours writing a cover letter for a job at National Grid, but the application was automatically rejected by a bot.
“Spent a few hours writing a cover letter to be automatically rejected by a bot. I love the current job market in the UK,” he wrote, sharing the two images of the emails from the company.
He further said that the first automated confirmation mail came with a timestamp of 10:37 AM that read, “We are reviewing the applications and will be in touch within the next 14 days.”
Another mail came within 3 minutes at 10:40 AM, saying, “Thank you for your application to the role…After careful consideration, we have decided that we will no longer be progressing your application any further on this occasion. Thank you for your interest in National Grid Careers.”
This incredibly fast rejection left people on social media in shock and angry and many of them claimed to have had a similar experience.
One user wrote, “Yeah, did this at a website for a local mine. Spent 35 minutes signing up and uploading my resume. The website did something weird and had to manually fix it. Then, hit submit and instantly got an email that said you are not a good fit. It was a forklift/operator job and I have 15+ years of experience. Was a little mad.”
“I work in HR and the past, I’ve also done recruiting…We had a rule that we only sent rejections after two weeks, never earlier and never on a Friday. It’s devastating to get rejected immediately,” another comment read.
With the recession looming over, it is becoming tough for the youth to find jobs. In such a situation, the question always remains, is getting rejected without proper scrutiny justified on their part?
Comments
0 comment