a nonprofit kept badgering me to interview their disabled client

by Alison Green on September 11, 2024

A reader writes:

I’ve read the many times you’ve talked about how to not annoy hiring managers or badger them, but I’m wondering if I’m finding my situation a little too annoying.

We’re hiring for a very specific type of job that requires a skill set that we don’t have the time or resources to train someone on. It’s pretty clear in the job posting too! The day we put up the ad, a woman come in and asked to speak with me. It turned out she worked for a nonprofit that helps adults with developmental disabilities get jobs. She gave me the name and resume of someone, Ferguson, and told me how he’d be a great fit, etc. I took the information and thanked her. Ferguson then submitted his resume; however, he didn’t have the skill set needed.

We hadn’t replied to any applicants yet and then two days later the woman called me. I wasn’t around so she left a voicemail. In it she told me again that Ferguson was a good person for the job, and they requested that I at least interview him so I can see his full potential. On one hand, I totally get this is her job, but I felt it was a little off-putting and actually made me feel bad. Even if it gave Ferguson experience, I don’t really have the time to interview someone I know isn’t going to be a good fit. And I felt like it would give him false hope.

I was off for the rest of the week and didn’t call her back, so she left two additional voicemails stating the same thing, that they would really appreciate it if we interviewed him and it would be really great if we gave him a chance.

Am I off-base in feeling like it was a bit icky to keep calling me? I get coming in and handing me the resume, that was fine, even the follow-up phone call was alright, but I didn’t care for the pressure she was trying to put me under just to interview him. She kept stressing that this job would be important to him and that he was a really good person. Which I’m sure he is!

Should I have called her back? I feel like I would have nothing to say to her, besides thanking her. Or would it have been better to have told her up-front that Ferguson didn’t have the skill set required for the job? Do you think her approach is tanking Ferguson’s chances at a job elsewhere too? I’m torn — I admire the nonprofit and their assistance but at the same time, I’d rather not be guilted into interviewing someone!

(If it matters, Ferugson himself never contacted me. If they had asked for feedback on his resume/cover letter, I’d be happy to provide it. There’s nothing wrong with either of them; it really is the fact that he’s just not the qualified for the job!)

I really feel terrible not calling her back, but I honestly have no idea what to say especially since it’s not her applying and I’d feel weird giving her information on someone else’s status too.

Yeah, that’s not a useful way for this kind of organization to work.

The initial contact was fine. It shouldn’t have been in-person unless you made it clear that you’re one of the rare organizations that welcomes that — most find that annoying and generally won’t talk to people who try to do that — but otherwise it was fine.

I’d even be okay with one follow-up after that. In general, in most fields I wouldn’t recommend that candidates follow up on job applications — the employer knows you’re interested, it’s in their court, and they’ll contact you if they want to talk further — but in this set of circumstances, where her job is to advocate for a disabled client, sure.

But the continued phone calls and the insistence that Ferguson was a great person for the job when your ad made it clear that was unlikely to be the case was too much, and was at least as likely to undermine Ferguson’s chances as it was to help him.

I’m also concerned this organization — or at least this particular employee — isn’t particularly good at the services they’re providing! It doesn’t make sense to put resources into pushing a client for a job they’re not qualified for. And someone doing that work needs a nuanced understanding of hiring and which approaches will be effective and which won’t be, and that framing an interview as a favor is not the way to go. I have no doubt it’s difficult work, but it’s a disservice to their clients not to better target their pitches and to use strategies more likely to get someone hired.

I do think you should have called her back and told her that Ferguson wasn’t qualified for the role or sent him a note letting him know that — or ideally told her that up-front when she first showed you his resume. I hear you on feeling weird giving out information on someone else’s application status, but these were special circumstances, where she was functioning as his rep for a specific reason.

But otherwise, no, I don’t think you’re off-base.

You may also like:
{ 194 comments }

{ 194 comments… read them below }

  1. Czech Mate*

    I used to work for a Workforce Board (a long time ago and in a galaxy far far away). We once had a caseworker from a similar organization who was aggressively pushing for us to find jobs for her clients who had intellectual disabilities, even though she at times wanted them to do programs that we felt weren’t an appropriate fit.

    We eventually discovered that she was under pressure to get all of her clients graduated out of their programs and into full-time jobs within a certain time frame, which was why she was SO adamant that we needed to find placements for her clients. In her defense, not everyone is necessarily equipped to succeed in a typical workplace (rant for another time), but when your funding (and, sometimes by extension, livelihood) is tied to client outcomes, it makes sense why caseworkers sometimes resort to these weird, desperate measures.

    Anyway: yes, this is icky, and you are right to not hire someone who isn’t a good fit, but it’s very likely that this contact is desperately trying to fulfill some federal/funder obligations. That’s not your problem, but if this comes up again, you can remind them that while you support the org and their mission, you have obligations to your own company, and that includes hiring folks who meet the specific qualifications you’re looking for so that the company can continue to be effective.

    1. H*

      Exactly. And placing a vulnerable client in a job that is not a good fit while already making a poor impression isn’t likely going to foster a stable form of employment for someone who is already statistically likely to struggle to retain employment. It’s not fair to the employer but it’s certainly not fair for the client. The facade of stability isn’t actual stability.

      2. Not Tom, Just Petty*

        I thought being constantly shot down at the interview stage has to be the worst. Oh yeah, it isn’t.

      3. goddessoftransitory*

        And this helicopter approach is very infantilizing of Ferguson! He may have disabilities but that doesn’t mean he has no agency or needs this kind of pushpushpush for job hunting.

    2. Tinkerbell*

      My SIL did this job for a while. She taught some basic classes (how to shake hands, how to greet someone, really common things that her clients nonetheless struggled with) but the bulk of her job duties were to find job placements for these clients. I think in the two years she was in that role, she placed… maybe half a dozen people? There’s one local cleaning service that specializes in high-security areas and it’s much easier to get clearance for an 18-year-old than a 50-year-old (especially in a population who tend to accumulate issues with law enforcement), so they were happy to take on some of her younger clientele, but most places weren’t willing to consider someone with significant cognitive impairment even if they were 100% capable of doing the job. The insane pressure from her organization to find placement for everyone just didn’t mesh with reality, and she took a sideways transfer (and a pay downgrade) in order to get out from that mess.

    3. B*

      Frankly it would make me reexamine whether I do support this org. If this is representative of how they operate, I doubt they are very effective, or have the best interests of their clients at heart.

      1. xylocopa*

        My experience–admittedly limited–is that Czech Mate is right about “desperately trying to fulfill some federal/funder obligations.” If the non-profit relies heavily on, say, state funding, and continued state funding depends on producing unrealistic politically-driven results, with all the best interests in the world the non-profit still has to push to match those results.

        The way this person is operating is ineffective and would make me uncomfortable with the organization too–but there’s a good chance that the people in the org would prefer to be doing things much differently.

      2. Silver Robin*

        But the thing is, the org *does* generally actually care about the clients. The funding structure for these types of programs is absolutely brutal though. Grants are often for only a year and evaluate based on outcomes. On the face of it, it makes sense that an org that places folks into jobs is doing well and an org that does not is doing badly, but actually, it incentivizes this kind of awful behavior. Providers are stuck trying to play the game that funders want to keep the lights on, otherwise there is *no* support.

        Is it reasonable that funders want accountability for the money? Absolutely! But that accountability is usually based on short term metrics and therefore incentivize short cuts to boost those numbers. It is heart wrenching and so stressful for everyone (except the funder).

        I currently work for an org that has a grant agreement with a foundation that we have a long established relationship with. Everyone involved knows this grant is supposed to be funding the creation of a program that will hopefully become self sustaining over time. It was discussed and understood that it would take five years to really ramp up and stabilize. We still have to ask them for money every year, they refuse to just commit to 5 years of funding us, even though the interim applications are basically rubber stamped (we are now in year three). And we have to meet the deliverables, otherwise the funding will be reduced for next year
        Exceeding our deliverables is even worse because clearly we can perform without the “extra”, except the extra was funded by our unrestricted funds. So we are incentivized to get through as many clients as we can until we hit the grant limit and then…stop.

        But if we were to be entirely funded by donations from individuals? Those are often much more fungible (we can put them wherever, usually) and we report to the public in an annual report anyway so they know we are not wasting any of it. If you like an organization’s mission, give them unrestricted funds (as in, do not say your donation can only be used for school supplies or whatever) and help them be independent of the nonsense of grant cycles.

        (The real culprit here is the whole financial system we live in, by the way, but that is a separate topic, I just wanted to provide insight into the limited choices we have from someone on the inside.)

        1. bamcheeks*

          YUP. I currently work on this kind of programme, and fortunately my organisation has realised that the goals set by the funder are not realistic and they’re prepared to accept a certain amount of loss. So I am currently in a position where I can help people who are in the right position to be helped and I don’t have to worry too much about trying to get people who are technically eligible but aren’t really the right stage or population for our support to sign up for inappropriate help (and thereby lose their entitlement to more appropriate help because you can only have one type of help every five years.)

          But it’s a really horrible example of where the “public funding must produce measurable results” thinking gets you. I’m fortunate that the population I’m working with at the moment is truly job seeking in appropriate roles, but there are sister programmes where the “what’s best for the client” and “what’s best for the organisation” doesn’t match up nearly as well. It produces the kind of punitive or pushy mindset that’s all over this kind of activity, and I’ve decided not to bid for similarly funding in the future.

          Everyone hears “public funding must be evidence based and have demonstrable results” and thinks, yup, sure, makes a lot of sense. But it turns into some really perverse incentives, never mind the amount of money being spent on making sure money isn’t “wasted”.

          1. Silver Robin*

            Monitoring and evaluation is so important because it helps to have concrete evidence of how different approaches work. But reducing things to a single number and keeping those metrics short term… it turns into nonsense that hurts everyone.

            Another side rant I have is that positions like mine (project manager) are hard to fund because I do not do direct service. I make everything else run more smoothly and let the direct service folks focus on that, instead of grant paperwork and process development, but it is a rare funder that actually puts their money where their mouth is on “supporting capacity building” and “holistic approaches”.

            Insert Frozone’s wife from the Incredibles yelling “I AM your holisitic approach!” XD

            1. Silver Robin*

              On the other hand, if there is no Government Waste Monitoring Department, who is making sure our tax dollars are being used effectively and not, actually, on bloated nonsense?

              There was a Vox article ages ago about how the Obama administration was unique in how much they invested in ensuring they were actually funding evidence-based programming. And they only had six (6!!!) evidence-based initiatives. Which is absurd.

              If we want to know something, somebody has to be paid to produce that knowledge. And yet, nobody can seem to do that effectively either. So we end up with these awful tangles

        2. Sloanicota*

          Yeah I’m in the grant world and people want easy fixes for everything – metrics that look good and cost-effective on paper, often with unrealistically short timeframes and insufficient funding to make it happen. Nobody wants to hear that the actual problem is complicated and long term.

          1. Frieda*

            Right. It’s like the endless hamster wheel of demonstrating with metrics that your students are learning, learning, learning! while there’s a total lack of social or political will to ask questions like “Do the students have enough to eat?” and “Is the student’s housing situation safe?” and “Is the [adult] student working 40+ hours a week at their two+ jobs to make rent and tuition and pay for groceries and if so might this possibly impact their ability to learn learn learn?”

            It’s crushing to try to teach students who can hardly make it to class because of family and economic pressures. I had a young person last semester who was their mother’s only local family and who was themselves very recently divorced and when mom had a stroke they *had* to miss class sometimes to take her to her doctor’s appointments (because Mom, and STROKE) and guess what, they struggled in class. We sorted it out and the student passed my course and all their courses and graduated after many detours but for the love of God, no existing asinine measurement of learn, learn, learn! has prepared me or the student for navigating *that.*

            Ahem. Anyway. It can be incredibly complicated to move forward in life, for all sorts of reasons.

        3. MigraineMonth*

          I used to think the “effective altruism” movement was awesome. Why wouldn’t I want to maximize the number of lives that could be saved for each $100 I donated? I buy three anti-mosquito nets, that’s 1 life saved! I’m a hero!

          Then I found out that they’re only looking at lives saved; quality of life, freedom, and such were too nebulous and complicated to factor into their formulas. Also, political/lobbying donations were never recommended, because you can’t guarantee an outcome from that. So by those rules, buying flood survival kits is considered a worthwhile investment, but lobbying to prevent global warming isn’t.

          Measuring impact is important, but if you follow utilitarianism too far it gets really weird and problematic. All of which were problems before Sam Bankman Fried turned out to be a fraud and effective altruism got obsessed with the dangers of AI to future people.

          1. Orv*

            I always thought one of the flaws in Effective Altruism is, as long as the population is increasing, you always have an excuse to value potential future lives more highly than existing people’s.

            1. Can’t believe it*

              Yeah and not just future people but WAY future people. Hard to think of the children of year 5000 when we have poverty problem now.

              And like wax already said the fact EA might just be a giant money laundering scheme.

          2. Silver Robin*

            Yeah, I liked them for a while and I appreciate them for the narrow scope in which they are useful. But it was very clear very quickly that if everyone followed that logic, we would have zero social workers/non profit workers/etc and anyone struggling with anything more complex (domestic violence, lack of access to potable water, access to education, addiction, etc.) was SOL.

            They tried to deal with that by doing analysis on social impact careers, but that floundered.

          3. Media Monkey*

            i’ve never heard of the term Effective Altruism before, but at least in the UK, you donate money to a charity to buy a particular thing (the most recent one i saw was period kits with reusable sanitary products) but the small print often says that you are basically just making a donation to the overall charity and they will spend it in areas of most need.

        4. B*

          This is helpful context and these organizations are certainly often put in impossible binds. I have no doubt most of the individual people working at these places do care about the clients, and it was harsh to suggest otherwise.

          I do think it merits examination whether, structurally, orgs operating under these constraints can really have their clients’ best interests at heart, though. In a “the purpose of a system is what it does” kind of way.

          1. Silver Robin*

            “The purpose of the system is what it does” indeed; which is what my point about the financial system we exist is about. It really really sucks and it does not need to be the way that it is. But I also did not want to dive into my opinions on capitalism since that felt like an even further tangent.

    4. T.N.H*

      Important addition to your last point: You would not be doing Fergus any favors by hiring him for a role that he doesn’t have the skills to succeed in (or even pretending to interview him when it’s clear he isn’t qualified).

      1. Seashell*

        Maybe the worker was trying to get a practice interview for him or get an interview to boost his self-esteem. Still not something LW should be obligated to help with.

        1. HonorBox*

          If that’s the case, it would be much MUCH better to reach out to companies to ask about conducting mock interviews. While not everyone has the time to do that kind of thing, I’d bet more places would be willing to do that than trying to force a client into a role that clearly isn’t one that will allow them to succeed.

    5. Sheworkshardforthemoney*

      We worked with a non-profit whose goals was to place marginalized and developmentally delayed people into the workforce. The first client was functionally illiterate and had a learning disability. They tried hard but because of the nature of the work, they had to be constantly supervised and there were many basic tasks that they couldn’t complete. We struggled to fill their working hours and after a month had to release them. The second person was slightly better but again they had to be released because they couldn’t understand the work and we didn’t have the staff to supervise them all the time. It’s an excellent program but the caseworkers were overly optimistic about their clients’ abilities. It’s a disservice to their clients to place them in situations that were beyond their skillset because they become frustrated and discouraged when really there is work out there that they can do but the caseworkers just want to tick a box.

    6. Burn Out Gal*

      I was a case manager for a Homeless 2 Homes initiative, which aimed to have homeless clients off the streets to their ‘forever homes’ during the pandemic.
      It was a pilot program that upper management were under alot of pressure to prove was feasible by the funding body, and us case managers in turn were essentially trying to support, advocate and house people with very complex needs in such a short amount of time.

      It was a well intentioned initiative but with funding cuts, few resources, lack of supports, and unrealistic expectations from higher ups, the program was doomed to fail.

      1. Reluctant Mezzo*

        And then people who are against such ‘waste’ can point out, ‘didn’t work, it’s their fault they’re on the streets anyway’ which we alas have seen so often lately.

  2. Bella Ridley*

    In a former life I worked for an arm of an organization that worked to get barriered adults into meaningful, gainful employment suited to their abilities. It was incredibly challenging. And one of the most significant chokepoints we saw was employers who just flat-out did not respond to inquiries. In a scenario like this, really the best thing to do would be to make a 30-second phone call, saying “Thanks for sending along the resume. Unfortunately Ferguson doesn’t fit the requirements for this position, but I appreciate your thought into this.” If the pressure continued after that, there is space for another conversation about not pushing too much, but it sounds like this person is struggling to get their candidate somewhere and it is hugely difficult to do so. Without a response at all, they have no way of knowing whether the application was received and found wanting, or not received at all, or went to the wrong person, or any number of things that are all valuable information. This could have been solved quickly and easily with a phone call or even an email.

    1. Nia*

      She did know the resume was received and by the correct person because she went to the office and specifically asked for the LW.

      1. Bella Ridley*

        That was really more of a general comment on the type of activity, but she didn’t actually reject the resume. She took it, yes, but this could have been cleared up quicker than it was.

        1. Nia*

          I find it hard to believe that someone whose job it is to get people hired is unfamiliar with the fact that many if not most employers do not send out rejection emails unless you’ve actually interviewed.

          1. Bella Ridley*

            I’m genuinely not trying to be rude or disingenuous about this, but as someone who has done this exact job in the past, there is a difference between being an average worker applying on your own and being an advocate for a barriered individual seeking employment. The latter means that you will, out of necessity, push much harder for an actual answer, even if it is a no, because you are not only doing your best to achieve a good outcome for your client, but because you are likely struggling against metrics set by your nonprofit or government employer. Most people who do these jobs are very familiar with the hiring world because they deal with it every day. But they are operating on a slightly different plane than average.

          2. Runcible Wintergreen*

            The OP is asking for advice on what they should have done. Not sending updates on applications is the norm, and if the caseworker had asked for advice it would be a very different answer. But in this case where a hiring manager is literally soliciting feedback on what they could have done differently, it certainly seems like a good idea to just reply to an email to close the loop on the person’s application.

          3. amoeba*

            For me, the main problem is that they kept badgering OP before they had even decided whom to interview. I mean, sure, they already knew Ferguson wasn’t a good fit, but in general, they hadn’t sent out invitations or rejections yet!

            And while it might be common (not in my field, luckily!), I do feel strongly that a simple form rejection letter is really not asking too much, even if you’re not getting an interview. But maybe the OP was going to send one out, we don’t know – it was too early.

        2. Dawn*

          I think this is putting a little bit too much responsibility on the OP in this situation for something they didn’t ask to be a part of.

          1. Happy Camper*

            Yeah but with the information from someone who has done that work it would be such a simple kindness to do so.

          2. GrumpyPenguin*

            I don’t think it’s much of a big responsibility. Yes, the woman was extremely pushy, but ghosting her wasn’t very nice either. A simple polite email would have done the job.

            1. Dawn*

              I guess I just object to the implication that “you could have easily solved this” – “easily” is in the eye of the beholder, and it’s also on this social worker to, well, one, understand that the client is not qualified, and, number two, take the hint when they fail to receive any reply to their repeated phone calls. I understand and agree that it would be polite and all, but there’s an onus on both parties here, and I tend to favour the party which is not being obnoxious in the pursuit of their goals.

            2. Kal*

              I think calling it ghosting is a bit much in this case. It was like a week, and one where OP was off work for most of it.

          3. Resentful Oreos*

            From the comments left by the LW it sounds as if once the resume is received, it’s out of LW’s hands and HR is in charge. So I don’t think the responsibility is on the LW, especially if the HR policy is “leave it to us, don’t you dare contact the applicant.”

            In this case what LW might have done differently is given the caseworker the contact information for HR and explain that Ferguson (and the caseworker) has to go through them. Punt the ball to HR and let them deal, in other words. That *might* have stopped the flow of calls. OTOH the caseworker might be one of those “Get Past HR In Any Way You Can” gumptioneers.

          4. sparkle emoji*

            Maybe so, but a direct “No, because Fergus is missing essential req X” seems like it may be the only thing to shut down the repeated calls. Is it more than LW should need to do? Sure. But as others have pointed out, Fergus’ case manager is probably dealing with an incentive structure that rewards this extreme pushiness, so she won’t hear an indirect no.

            1. Dawn*

              I still don’t see that the case manager’s stressors are any of the OP’s problem, but obviously I’m in the minority here.

              1. allathian*

                You are. It’s not about who’s right, who’s wrong, or even what’s reasonable. It’s about doing what’s effective in getting the contacts to stop. And that’s telling the pushy case manager that Ferguson doesn’t fulfill the requirements of the job and that this won’t change no matter how much the case manager pushes.

                1. Dawn*

                  I said it was obvious.

                  That aside, I still don’t think that means that the OP should validate her tactics by giving her an answer. It’s like giving into a tantrum; they’ll do it again next time once they know it works.

        3. fhqwhgads*

          She also called LW 3 times while LW was OOO in a relatively short period, so, to me, Ferguson’s representative was going way overboard here in terms of the follow up. Like, “clear it up quicker than it was” by being in the office sooner? I do realize the rep didn’t have a way of knowing LW was OOO, but people do go OOO. Bit odd to presume it was a “never gonna respond unless I keep at it” situation.

          1. allathian*

            OOOs in voicemails (answering machines) used to be pretty standard when people had desk phones. And I certainly hope that caseworkers of any description aren’t required to use their own phones for work, as it’s a safety issue.

        4. NotYourMom*

          I mean, hiring managers don’t typicallly reach out to rejected clients and say that they are rejected, especially before the interview stage. The case worker really should not be following up this hard.

    2. Office Plant Queen*

      I think that contacting someone *four times* in one week is enough to warrant a conversation about pushing too much. Especially when one of those times was showing up in person!

      A short phone call would’ve been best, yes, but I think it’s reasonable for LW to not have prioritized an inquiry about an application that had been submitted all of 2 days prior when they were going to be out the rest of the week

  3. Sloanicota*

    Aw, this stinks because the intention is no doubt good and there’s certainly a need for this, but this person is going about it all wrong and not actually helping Ferguson get a job (nor are they building a pipeline for future people to be placed through this organization; they are building a pipeline to being blocked by this organization). Any chance you can share some honest, candid feedback with this organization? (Beware, you’re quite likely to be asked to keep engaging / end up on the board haha). If it was a small community or individually-based organization I might take more time to explain the issue versus if it’s a larger/more experienced one that “should know better” in which case I’d probably contact someone senior and just explain they’re annoying you.

    1. Philosophia*

      “(Beware, you’re quite likely to be asked to keep engaging / end up on the board haha).” Yep. There are still too many organizations, it seems, that won’t accept boundaries around offers of assistance.

  4. HonorBox*

    I think a quick return phone call would have been the right way to go in this situation. It either shuts down the persistent foll0w-up or opens a door to more conversation about how it is important to really dig in and review the job qualifications before submitting someone for it. It wouldn’t have had to be much more than, “in looking at his resume, he does not have the qualifications we need for this role, and we really need someone who has those.”

    It sucks for Ferguson because I’m sure he doesn’t even know this is happening, and it doesn’t help his chances anywhere if this is the way his candidacy is being presented.

  5. Sola Lingua Bona Lingua Mortua Est*

    I’ve reread the letter thrice and this is the sequence of events I keep coming up with: 1, Advocate talks to LW about Candidate; 2, LW rejects Candidate; 3, Advocate follows up repeatedly, failing to connect with LW each time.

    I would have advised LW to notify Advocate that Candidate was evaluated and not a (good enough) fit for the position’s needs and see if that stops the follow up, because Advocate isn’t taking the ghosting hints.

    1. Beth*

      I can’t tell if 2. LW rejects Candidate actually happened explicitly. We know LW reviewed Fergus’ resume and decided not to pursue it, but I didn’t see a mention of either communicating that decision to Advocate or sending a rejection message to Fergus. In fact, it sounds like LW actively hasn’t shared that info with Advocate.

      Advocate’s repeated voicemails are over-the-top regardless, but my one suggestion to LW in this would be to tell her up-front that Fergus isn’t qualified for the role. It seems like she thinks her job is to ensure Fergus is considered–and she’s going to keep pushing until she knows for a fact that that’s happened and a final decision has been made.

      1. lw*

        LW here.

        I didn’t reject him, I just accepted the resume and said thanks. Our HR said all I could say if they called again was we recieved the resume and they are under review, so I wouldn’t have had the chance anyways.

        1. Sola Lingua Bona Lingua Mortua Est*

          We may well not see eye-to-eye on this, but I see the situation as binary. Either you wanted to move forward with Candidate or you didn’t, and the second scenario is a defacto rejection. Leaving him in limbo doesn’t actually change that.

            1. Sola Lingua Bona Lingua Mortua Est*

              Perhaps not, but Advocate is following the time honored strategery of “when in doubt, make the outcome you want the path of least resistance.” There’s only two ways to handle it: communication or continued active ignorance.

              Call it a “pocket rejection” if labels are causing a hangup (cf. “pocket’ veto: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_veto).

              1. Grizabella the Glamour Cat*

                Not only does “ignorance” carry some baggage; it doesn’t even convey the right meaning for what’s going on here.
                Ignorance means a lack of knowledge or information. The word needed here is “ignoring,” which means refusing to take notice of or acknowledge someone or something.

            2. Sheworkshardforthemoney*

              That’s what is sounds like to me. We’re an academic institution and you must follow their hiring process. Our small department is unique in that we can do some of our hiring for short term casual staffing. Using nonprofits for under/unemployed marginalized workers is encouraged because it gives the school bragging rights. But at the same time it seems peformative to me because it’s on their website as “Look how progressive we are” in an almost condescending manner. I worked for a federal department that made a genuine effort to hire developmentally delayed adults in real jobs that they could do and enjoy at the same time.

        2. Zarniwoop*

          “ Our HR said all I could say if they called again was we recieved the resume and they are under review,”
          So you’re prohibited from giving people rapid feedback that they’ve been screened out? That’s an annoying policy

          1. LJ*

            Maybe they want to put together a slate of good candidates to interview first, prior to sending out rejections. There can be borderline candidates that could be screened out if the pool was particularly strong, but interviewed if the pool was weaker. It’s easier for all involved just to follow the process and not start making special exceptions because someone happens to have an advocate/social worker pestering the office.

          2. Orv*

            Where I work we’re not allowed to notify anyone until the entire hiring process is over, which can take months.

          3. Reebee*

            How is Fergus’s situation different from anyone else’s who simply doesn’t get contacted after applying for a job?

        3. siliril*

          If HR said that all you can say is the resume is under review, I would also direct any follow-ups by the women about Ferguson’s candidacy on to HR. Just a simple, “I can’t say anything more about his application status; Any further inquiries should be directed to our HR department.”

          If HR doesn’t want you to handle it, then let them handle it.

        4. Beth*

          That’s an annoying policy from your HR, and kind of ties your hands on this! In that case, no notes–you’re right that there’s no point in connecting with the advocate, given that you can’t share the information that would close the loop and tell her this is already decided.

        5. HonorBox*

          Curious about something LW: While I can appreciate that HR has their rules, this situation seems a little different. Do you think they’d have been receptive to providing a little more / better feedback because of the unique circumstance and the repetitive contacts from the advocate?

    2. Bella Ridley*

      I think the disconnect is that I don’t see at any point where the LW actually rejected the candidate. She took the resume, thanked her, and then…never replied, when a call back could have done the trick.

    3. Abigail*

      Unpopular opinion in this space: ghosting is over used a term.

      Ghosting implies that Person A and Person B have a relationship of some kind. Person A disappears without a trace and Person B is left wondering what happened.

      If the LW’s organization contacted this individual and said they will be called in for an interview and never contacted them again, that is ghosting. Simply submitting an application does not create a relationship that bears the obligation of responding.

      Even if it did, the recruiter left voicemails while the LW was out of town. The LW was not deliberately not responding to this person, they were not there to respond to this person.

      Ghosting implies a deliberate absence from a formed relationship. That is not what happened in this letter.

      1. Sola Lingua Bona Lingua Mortua Est*

        The usage I’m familiar with is “to ignore someone as if they were a ghost after previously acknowledging their existence.”

        If ignorance fits your opinion better than ghosting, I’ll stand by that wording, too, but ignorance has picked up a lot of filthy baggage that I don’t think applies here, hence ghosting filling the linguistic vacuum.

          1. Sola Lingua Bona Lingua Mortua Est*

            Of course not, but that communication is what is going to actually stop the follow ups (either explicit in the form of a response or implicit in the form of Advocate reading taking the hints from ghosting/ignorance).

            1. HonorBox*

              I think the advocate overstepped significantly, though. The communication didn’t occur because LW wasn’t able to respond. One thing to leave a voicemail. Another to leave three. The advocate doesn’t know that LW is out of town, but calling three times in a week is too much, and they should know that. I don’t have empirical data to support this assumption, but I’m assuming that most job posts are open for at least a week before interviewing scheduling starts.

              1. Freya*

                My personal guideline for any unsolicited contact is the rules here in Australia for debt collecting. If it would be illegal if I were collecting a debt, then I definitely shouldn’t be doing it even though it’s completely unrelated to a debt.

                (Unsolicited contact by telephone, for example, is limited to 3 per week or 10 per month, and attempting to contact people at work outside their normal working hours (or 9-5 if you don’t know their normal hours) is deprecated)

        2. Kelly L.*

          To me, ghosting means the person who’s stopped communicating has become a “ghost,” i.e. there’s at least an outside possibility that they’ve actually died. It’s used mainly in situations where someone just disappears from a romantic relationship without ever actually breaking up or saying goodbye, leaving the partner wondering whether they’ve been left or whether the ghosting person is genuinely Not OK. It’s overkill to use it for just not replying to a job application.

        3. Grizabella the Glamour Cat*

          Not only does “ignorance” carry some baggage; it doesn’t even convey the right meaning for what’s going on here.
          Ignorance means a lack of knowledge or information. The word needed here is “ignoring,” which means refusing to take notice of or acknowledge someone or something.

            1. Good Lord Ratty*

              It certainly is not; I’ve lived in three two countries and neither of them use the word to communicate that.

              1. Good Lord Ratty*

                Sorry, that should have said “two anglophone countries”, not sure where the “three” came from

      2. Gh0st*

        +1 Agreed.

        I don’t think OP had any obligation in this situation beyond giving Ferguson’s application a fair shot.

        In an ideal world, it’d have been good if she’d been able to accept the first call and just give a blanket, “I can’t talk about his application with another party, though I can confirm it’s been received.” However, it sounds like there were issues with timing, HR, and confusion on how to approach this that made this scenario very different from the ‘ideal world’.

      1. allathian*

        The LW clarified and said that they can’t do that. I second the other commenter’s idea that redirect all contacts to HR who are behind the policy of not allowing hiring managers to say anything except that the resume is under review.

        HR should be dealing with this nonsense, if they had to do that, maybe they’d change the policy.

        1. Allonge*

          HR likely has a good reason for this policy though.

          In general, following up often should not yield better results than keeping to the process, for one.

        2. I forgot my user name again*

          HR policy most likely has to discrimination or perceived discrimination. Directing calls to them, will most like not result in a change of policy. Writing a rejection letter or speaking about a candidate, when you do not have authorization to do so, could result in negative consequences for the company.

  6. Excel Gardener*

    I used to work for a government agency that supported people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. My understanding is that they either had them apply for jobs they were obviously qualified for or, more commonly, they partnered with local businesses who were open to hiring folks with these disabilities and then designed jobs with that in mind for the individuals. Very different than what is described in the letter.

    1. ThatGirl*

      My brother is developmentally and intellectually disabled, and yes, this is how it should work. He ultimately couldn’t find a job that was a good fit for him (some serious ADHD at work) but he did things like “roll silverware and do prep work at a restaurant” and “clean up in the dining room of a Burger King”. I don’t mean to imply those are the only things disabled folks can do, of course, just that they were in line with his skill set.

      1. Sheworkshardforthemoney*

        Exactly, we had a checklist of what was required and none of the candidates we were sent met the criteria. It’s frustrating for the candidate because they want to work and they can’t meet the goals because the agency didn’t make enough of an effort to make sure that it was a good fit.

        1. Worldwalker*

          I’m reminded of a situation, decades ago, where I was looking to buy a used car. I had several requirements; hatchback, manual transmission, cloth seats. I called a dealership that was recommended to me, stated my requirements, and the salesman checked (supposedly) and said that they had three cars that matched. I made an appointment.

          When I got there, one of the cars had cloth seats. One. That was the only requirement I told the salesman that any of them met. All sedans, all slushboxes, and 2 of the 3 had vinyl seats.

          Some people just ignore what the customer (or in this case prospective employer) says they want or need, and just push whatever it is that they have on hand and are trying to move. It could be cars, if could be people

          1. Sheworkshardforthemoney*

            I hate when that happens. I want a 4 door automatic in my price range. If the first car you show me is a 2 door sportscar that’s 10K over my budget I am walking out.

    2. Madeline*

      Yes, this is called customized employment and is the right move for some! I’m a subject matter expert in customized employment (currently developing a training for state agencies to adopt for it).

      1. ABC123*

        Genuinely curious, how custom can customized employment be?

        For example, if someone has the education and aptitude to be a behind the scenes investigator but not front line emergency services due to ASD or some other normally disqualifying condition

        Or is it only for cases more like the example listed above

        1. Kal*

          I imagine it can be as customized as the employer is willing to work with, similar to other accommodations for employment.

          I would guess that functionally it mostly ends up more like the example above, since, at least in my experience, most disability employment supports are built around and just used to helping people who had difficulty with education and employment (the ones I tried to use were completely unable to handle the fact that I had a degree and certificates but still couldn’t get a job due to my disabilities.)

    3. WoodswomanWrites*

      Yes, this was the case at a museum I used to work with. We had a formal relationship with the nonprofit serving individuals with developmental disabilities. We created the job descriptions and they provided us with the people we hired. It worked well for both of our organizations.

    4. Dina*

      I currently work in advocacy for people with intellectual disability, and I feel confident to say that this is the current best practice (or at least what we advocate for!)

    5. Tangerine steak*

      It may well be the advocate genuinely thought Fergus was a good fit for the job, and that if interviewed he’d be competitive for it.

      In my industry, it is common for organisations to have a policy of interviewing all applicants who meet minimum criteria of part of certain minority groups (pwd being one of them). This is in response to the fact that there’s ample evidence (in my industry) that shows that quotas and rules around interview (without any rules or quotas on offerings) increases the number of people with a “minority” status which are offered positions. If they appear unappointable from their application they won’t be interviewed.

  7. Not Tom, Just Petty*

    “I told them you were great. I gave them your resume. I did everything I could!”
    This is some Dickensian character crap right here.
    “Madame Stomphoopfer was not one to be trifled with. Nor was she one to bear trifles. And to Madame Stomphoopfer all obstacles were trifles. She would find employment for young Master Fergus, who after all, is well trained in llama grooming, very personable and would make an excellent employee. She would leave a trail of hellfire from the highest penthouse office to the lowest basement closet to get Master Fergus hired into the Susquehanna Hat Company as ribbon weaver.”

    1. Madame Stromphoofer*

      I agree with everything that has been said so far about this specific scenario. But are you not following up with all applicants, even if it’s a boilerplate rejection? It would be a general courtesy to do so rather than leaving them in limbo.

      1. LW*

        LW here! We are! She was calling right when we opened applications so we still hadn’t even picked people we were interviewing yet. Once that’s done, we do send out letters. :)

        1. Analyst*

          This is completely normal…our system doesn’t send rejections to anyone until the job is taken and a start date assigned to the candidate. and yes, that means I have people I interviewed a month ago I can’t cut loose yet (and that’s sometimes a good thing- I ended up needing to make another hire and someone who was originally rejected, but still an excellent candidate was hired).

          it’s not reasonable to expect to hear anything unless you get an interview.

        2. sparkle emoji*

          I saw you mentioned HR doesn’t permit you to tell the advocate Fergus isn’t a match but could you tell her you won’t have info about interviews till Date? Maybe giving her a timeline so she knows her candidate made it into the pool will pause the pushiness, and then you can reject for the missing skillset.

      2. Abigail*

        When did you last look for a job?

        When I apply for a job I do not expect any response. If I get one, that is great. If I get one and it is an invitation to continue the process, even better.

        Job searching requires residency and a thick skin. It’s better to develop those than expect this process to change.

  8. lw*

    Hi! LW here! Thank you Alison for answering my question!

    I wanted to mention a few things, I hadn’t actually told the woman we weren’t interviewing with Ferguson or anything. When she handed me the letter, I thanked her and then reminded her that he would also need to submit online. He would have gotten a confirmation email once he did! But I do think based on his skills/resume they should have known it wasn’t going to be a good fit.

    Also, when I mentioned this to HR they said I couldn’t say anything but that we recieved the resume and they were still in review. Which is what I would have said anyway if she called, I didn’t feel too comfortable rejecting him to someone else, you know?

    I do feel bad for not calling back, however. It’s a bit too late now but I honestly felt she might be too pushy on the phone with me to interview him and I didn’t want to have to lie or reject him, like I said above!

    1. Ellis Bell*

      Is it ever possible to talk about the general requirements, and maybe advice in general rather than the specific status of one application: “Hmm he doesn’t have x experience? I know that’s a must have for this role?” “Oh, yes but he’s such a nice person and really needs this job!” “Mmm, of course and he’s welcome to apply, but if I were you I’d steer him towards X as a backup..” Then at the follow up point, which is sooner than you can say anything definite: “I haven’t got any more information than I had originally, I hope my advice to look at all avenues was useful.”

    2. Florence Reece*

      I think that direction from HR gives you an easy answer, if this were to happen again (or happen similarly to someone else). Unless your HR is unusually strict, it should be fine to also say something like: “the application process is handled by HR, so all I can do now is confirm that they’ve received his application and are actively reviewing candidates. I have no other information until they finish that.” If the candidate or advocate gets pushy, just stay strong on a cordial but firm “it’s out of my hands at this point!” and end the call. You aren’t obligated to stay on a call with people who refuse to hear your boundaries!

      Ideally, if this is true, you could also say “when HR has reviewed all the candidates, he will receive a status update either way” and if pressed further or if you receive follow-up inquiries, repeat that and lean into “until the candidate review is complete, I have no other status updates to give.” And then, again, end the call if they’re being pushy or inconsiderate of your time. You can adjust that language to be as kind as you want (“unfortunately”; “sorry!”; “I understand and wish I had a better answer for you” or etc. can go a long way) without compromising what HR has told you. But you don’t *need* to soften the language either; you’re doing nothing wrong by factually reporting what you know and are allowed to share.

      I do like Ellis Bell’s idea of recommending other positions or companies that would fit him better for this specific case, but ONLY if you already have those recommendations easily at hand. That wouldn’t need to betray HR’s direction either — you could easily say “I don’t have an update from HR at this point, but I would recommend looking into XYZ [role/company]” — again, only if that doesn’t require extra work from you to suggest. It’s a kindness to help someone who’s struggling to find the right fit for whatever reason. But it’s not your job, and in this case it’s literally someone else’s job AND it’s literally your job to *not* give them the information they’re seeking.

      I think you handled it as well as you could! Coming back from less than a week off work to find two additional inquiries is A Lot. Maybe it would have been kinder to respond to her call before you were off, but I know I’m usually scrambling to finish much higher-priority last-minute work before I take more than a day or two of PTO. It’s totally reasonable to expect that a follow-up call about an application that was received days earlier could wait until you come back to work. That’s typically a low priority and low urgency task, for myriad possible reasons but particularly because the application/interview cycle just takes way more time than that. Even if the advocate believed Ferguson was a shoe-in, she should understand these norms well enough to exercise patience and use a lighter touch.

      The follow-ups while you were OOO make me believe your gut instinct was right and that she would have been excessively pushy if you returned her call. Sure, ideally you respond anyway to close the loop and be the professional in that interaction…but she’s really shooting herself in the foot there. Three calls in the span of a week is *obnoxious* and I would feel icky too, and that would squash any desire I might have had to return the first call and try to be helpful. Unfortunately, because of that, I don’t think helpful feedback about her approach and how it’s potentially hurting his chances would be received well either. It’s a shame for Ferguson and hopefully that will change, but very much not your circus or your monkeys.

  9. Dawn*

    At my former job, we had someone who was developmentally disabled who had decided that everyone in one of our stores was his friend, and also that he was employed there, kind of, and was spending the entire day there… essentially he was bothering customers (not by his presence but literally bothering them while they were shopping) and terrorizing the employees, and the manager finally had to ask him to leave and please not return.

    There’s a long story here involving his parents and a social worker but several months after this had all happened and been a pretty terrible experience for everyone involved, he decided to try again and wanted to return and the social worker wrote us an impassioned plea about how he was a “really nice man” and “he just wants to be friendly” and so on, and so forth, and someone from head office had to reach out to this woman and explain that while we were sure this was all true (we weren’t, actually, he was punitive and could get unpleasant very quickly, but) we are a business, and this is the real world, and we can’t allow someone to hang around for 8 hours a day making everyone uncomfortable simply because he’d like to.

    I sincerely appreciate the work that social workers do, but sometimes they do tend to forget that we don’t all exist in the same paradigm as they do.

    1. Just Here For This*

      Yeah, I was a caregiver for a disabled aunt with a brain injury. She was just disabled enough she couldn’t work, had enough brains and energy that she wished she had something to do. If you hired her as a greeter at WalMart, you would have to hire a another greeter to keep her out of trouble. She had psychiatric problems and refused to cooperate with every caregiver she had, or to take medication. Personally, she could be very funny, but I can’t imagine her working any where and trying to convince her coworkers that there were gerbils all over the place and ninjas coming out of the outlets. She was harmless. And as impossible as she could be, I miss her. RIP.

    2. Dust Bunny*

      We tried a hire like this at one of my old jobs and in addition to being unable to understand boundaries he was fundamentally not a nice person. It took us awhile to realize that because we thought some of his oversteps would resolve with some gentle correction, but as he got more comfortable with us more not-nice stuff came out. I’m not sure what the hiring process was but I think that whoever was responsible for his care was hoping he would become more functional, but also that they would get a break, if he had something to do. But he wasn’t good with women or POC and had to be let go.

      1. Dawn*

        I think that’s some of the case here too; he tried to be “nice” by bringing everyone donuts, etc, he generally acted friendly, but when he was stymied he did a complete 180, called in his social worker and both of his parents, and when his parents – after a considerable discussion with both of them individually – started to understand where we were coming from, he emancipated himself from them (how, I’m not entirely sure,) talked to the mall management, sat at the food court directly across from the store with his friends and stared down the entrance and employees for several hours a day, and generally continued to attempt to force his way back into our lives. He was nice until somebody said no.

          1. Dawn*

            It, uh, sticks in the mind for a reason.

            It is wild, and not a bit sad, but being in the middle of it was not fun at all.

          2. ThatOtherClare*

            In a way it doesn’t surprise me. Some (definitely not all!) intellectually disabled people have problems with black and white thinking.

            So ideas like ‘Bringing donuts will make me friends’, ‘I do belong here’ and ‘People who say no to me make me feel bad and that’s bullying and I shouldn’t give in to bullies’, can get sort of stuck in their heads as statements of absolute fact with no nuance or shades of grey.

            Black and white thinking is an extremely difficult disability to manage with severe impacts on the individual and those around them. It disconnects the person from reality, because ‘All the people who work here are my friends’ is a distortion on the same axis as ‘ALL tables are made from wood’ and ‘The outlets are full of ninjas’. Unfortunately, the first of those overlaps with common social misconceptions made by NT people with less socialising experience (a far more common problem), so people follow Occam’s razor and get stuck in an explaining/teaching loop until they realise that the idea is a fixed and unmodifiable reality distortion – not just a common misconception.

            To make things worse, black and white thinkers tend to lash out because it’s their brain’s way of defending them against the scary idea that they’re not able to perceive reality correctly.

            Imagine if a person started trying to convince you that you’re not you, you’re actually Britney Spears. You’d ignore them at first, right? Maybe eventually you’d get a bit annoyed and frustrated and tell them to quit it. Then more people get involved and it starts getting a bit weird. You’re feeling kind of spooked and on edge. Then your doctor joins in, and then your family. You’d be freaking out, right? Because you know the truth. You know what’s reality. You’re not Britney Spears. So why is everyone around you trying to convince you of something that would so fundamentally change the nature of reality and your existence?

            That’s what it’s like for black and white thinkers, except the idea isn’t ‘I’m not Britney Spears’, it’s ‘If I bring you donuts you have to be my friend’ or ‘I have a right to be in this shop’. I have a family member who suffers from this, and it’s scary, tragic and difficult for all involved.

    3. CommanderBanana*

      Sigh…somewhat related, I work with a DV shelter and we also help with employment placements/job searches/housing searches for our clients, and yeah,sometimes social workers tend to forget that we don’t all exist in the same paradigm as they do is very true.

      It would be great if employers and landlords would be more understanding of the unique circumstances that DV survivors are facing. It’s also really, really hard to convince employers to hire people with spotty job histories who need lots of flexibility and time off to deal with stuff like court and custody cases that drag on and on and to convince landlords to rent to clients with eviction histories and horrible credit ratings who may have an ex that shows up and starts damaging property or causing repeat police calls to their building.

      1. Worldwalker*

        The fundamental problem, of course, is that the employer has a business to run, and needs employees who don’t need lots of flexibility and time off. Sympathy doesn’t staff the front desk.

        1. Parakeet*

          Idea: ADA but for DV survivors. So that employers get to accommodate millions of people’s reality in the society that enables them, the company, to exist, or face legal consequences. Without laws requiring it, I’m pretty sure most for-profits wouldn’t pay taxes either. And all too many of them wouldn’t hire various groups of marginalized people. Or consider environmental impact. Or any number of other things.

      2. Empress Ki*

        Are you a landlord ? Do you want a tenant with an ex who could damage property ? I am not a landlord, but I am sure I’d choose the most reliable tenant I could find.
        What we need is more social housing for vulnerable people.

        2. Parakeet*

          In some states it’s illegal to discriminate against DV survivors in housing. And a good thing, too. It ought to be the case in every state.

          1. Dancing Otter*

            But it is not illegal to refuse to rent to people who have bad credit and a history of evictions. Nor should it be.

        3. Worldwalker*

          I’ve lived in a 4-unit building with a guy who wrecked his apartment (I helped the landlord with repairs, so I saw all the details), and another whose son attracted cops and, after he was living elsewhere, beat two people to death with a baseball bat. On, and the guy across the hall who was cooking meth in the basement. And the other one who got arrested at 3 am, can’t forget him. They all cost the landlord (just a guy who owned a small apartment building) money, time, and stress. That kind of thing is how you filter out conscientious owners and get slumlords.

          1. Dawn*

            I don’t care about landlords, but I do think – as someone who does live in one of those sorts of buildings – that it’s not fair to the other tenants to have to deal with stuff like, e.g., violent angry men showing up at all hours and shouting at the building.

    4. GrumpyPenguin*

      It didn’t work out, but at least you tried to give this guy a chance. And you gave a clear and reasonable explanation why you couldn’t keep him on.
      Lot’s of social workers I’ve met have this attitude that if you just try long and hard enough, everything will work out fine and refuse to admit when it just doesn’t.

            1. GrumpyPenguin*

              Probably Head of coffee consumption department… Sorry, my rhyme competence is already exhausted. :(

    5. ABC123*

      I sincerely appreciate the work that social workers do, but sometimes they do tend to forget that we don’t all exist in the same paradigm as they do.

      I think that is the problem in general. People think everyone lives in the same paradigm as them. (Ie YOU as an upper middle class white male always found the government helpful…)

      1. Dawn*

        True, but, a little sideways to my actual point here, which is that there are certain professions in particular which fequently fall into a trap of seeing the world through a very narrow lens. Social workers are one of those, teachers are another. I think cops as well, but in a different, worse way.

    6. bookartist*

      If he was hassling people, it would have been a greater kindness to be truthful and not sugarcoat your experiences.

      1. Dawn*

        There is a significant difference between “sugarcoating” and “being polite to someone who obviously cares about him”.

  10. Madeline*

    I am someone who trains the people who work in this role, and I can say, she’s really not doing a good job here. Knowing there’s often little training for new employment specialists and that often providers recruit people with social services background and not business background, I’m not surprised. I was especially horrified by the “he’s a good person” bit. We NEVER want to promote pity hiring. We are seeking a good fit where the hire is mutually beneficial. I would recommend reaching out to the service provider (nonprofit), ask to speak to the employment director, and share this experience in hopes the coach can be retrained. I’d also encourage the writer to consider where they may be able to consider a future fit with the organization. That role was clearly not a good fit and repeated calls are so inappropriate. But many of my best placements when I did this work came from informational interviews where we brainstormed opportunities together.

    1. bamcheeks*

      Love this answer! It’s really great to hear about a model of how this SHOULD work, not just a total mismatch of need on each side.

  11. Ms. Murchison*

    For the sake of her clients, it would probably be a kindness to inform this woman that leaving repeated follow up voicemails will probably get her number and organization blocked by a number of potential employers.

  12. GrumpyPenguin*

    I’ve been in similar programs like Fergus and I have observed several factors why they often don’t work out.
    While the casworkers are well-meaning, they often come across as overly enthusiastic and pushy to both their clients and potential employers.
    Many casworkers don’t have much experience in the “real” working world, just like people working at career centers. They can’t really estimate the skills of their clients and don’t understand what employers expect from applicants.
    But clients don’t know that and have to trust their advice, which is to apply to every job opening they can find, no matter if they are qualified or not. Just keep sending out applications, be persistant and show them you REALLY want the job.
    If the client isn’t constantly following up with the employer, some caseworkers will do it instead, which leads to the employer being annoyed and detering them from even inviting the client at all. It’s a vicious circle.

    While in these programs I used to send out so many applications but never heard back and didn’t understand why. I really wish I had found AAM earlier in my life, it would have saved me so much time and energy.

    1. Czech Mate*

      Yes, exactly this. When I was at the WIB, we noticed that a lot of caseworkers, you know, had been caseworkers for 20+ years, had never had another job, and had never hired someone for a job. We actually used to plan trainings for caseworkers where we’d have them roleplay as hiring managers to help THEM see why these behaviors could be hindrances. Actually, that’s how I found AAM–we would tell everyone to have their job-seeking clients read it!

      1. GrumpyPenguin*

        That’s a great idea! So many casworkers need this. Generally, enthusiasm and persistance are necessary for this job, but you also need to be realistic about what is possible to to achive for your clients and what not.

    2. Resentful Oreos*

      “ Just keep sending out applications, be persistant and show them you REALLY want the job.”

      Eeep. That’s exactly the Bad Parental Advice that drives so much of the commentariat batty! That’s how MY parents would have (and at times did) advise me! Looking at some other comments it seems that a lot of case workers have the kind of experience that, well, our parents did: worked long term at a job where the rules are different than in most corporate positions, and consequently, are way out of touch with how things are done now.

      1. GrumpyPenguin*

        Those “advices” just scream: Tell me you have idea about the modern working world without telling me you have no idea about the modern working world. My parents still think that losing your job is always your own fault. Urghhh…

        On a side note, where I live, many caseworkers work for the government, so their jobs are safe (not sure how the situation is in other countries). Going straight from university to a stable job that you keep until retirement doesn’t give you much experience to pass on to your clients (or kids). There are so many people getting paid to give out bad advice and useless advanced training courses it has become a whole industry.
        So alltogether, you can’t trust your parents, your teachers or your career advisers – you just have to do it by trial and error and hope for luck.

    3. bamcheeks*

      Many casworkers don’t have much experience in the “real” working world, just like people working at career centers.

      I just want to push back on this language, because working in the corporate world or whatever you are thinking of is not more “real” than working in social services or universities or whatever yoh are positioning as “not real”. Yes, you might have different timescales or working cultures or priorities, but yours are not more “real”! We also go through recruitment processes and have essential business and KPIs and targets to meet, and I honestly find it really condescending when people talk about social work or academia or government work as if it’s some kind of fake pretendg work.

      1. GrumpyPenguin*

        I didn’t mean to insist it’s fake or less challenging than other jobs. You’re right that the term “real work experience” is misleading. I would say many social workers lack understanding what work culture in different fields is about.
        On the other side, there are also many employers that have unrealistic expectations about employees and don’t consider hiring people with handicaps, whatever those may be, which is a completely different issue.

      3. MigraineMonth*

        You’re absolutely right. The issue isn’t even that the caseworkers work in government, it’s that they don’t have experience in the types of job searching they’re advising on.

        Alison has said many times that academia has its own norms and therefore her advice isn’t going to be as applicable to academic job searches as it is for for-profit or nonprofit hiring.

    4. BonjourHello*

      This! I only met one career centre representative from a post-secondary school who really went to career-related events and visited real workplaces to understand how the real working world works. Most career centre from schools weren’t equipped for the real world. The smarter HR folks work for a company rather than an educational institution.

      1. Reebee*

        Regarding your last sentence: there are good HR folks and not-so-good HR folks in all workplaces. Working as HR in a particular context has nothing to do with being “smart.”

    5. Empress Ki*

      Agree with most of what you said, but caseworkers are part of the real working world too ! Casework is very real and not easy.

      1. Worldwalker*

        But unless you’re trying to place people as caseworkers, it’s not “real”-with-quotes. It’s a specific and very focused environment that has little in common with, say, loading trucks at a distribution center, or mowing lawns for a landscaping company. Or with much else other than that specific job and environment.

  13. Resentful Oreos*

    From what LW has said in the comments, it sounds like once the resume was received, they (LW) did not have the authority to do anything more, because the next step (reject applicant or call them for a phone interview or whatever) was up to HR. So I don’t think it was LW’s fault that they did not call the agent back and tell them Ferguson was not a good fit. That was HR’s job.

    In this case, I think what LW *could* have done was call back and refer Pushy Social Worker to HR. “Hi, Jane, regarding your client, Ferguson, once he’s submitted his resume, it goes to HR. You want to follow up with them. Here is their email, here is their phone number.” And let Pushy pester HR on Ferguson’s behalf. That’s part of what HR is for.

    And I agree that the social worker was being a little too pesky and persistent and that left a bad impression. I also agree they are probably a good person trying to do the very difficult to impossible, working with folks who are hard to employ, and most likely with grant funding at stake unless they place X number of clients per month. Hence the repeated calls.

  14. Spicy Tuna*

    The only other advice I would give the OP is to make sure her voice mail indicates she is out of the office; that way, the contact at the non-profit maybe wouldn’t have called so many times.

  15. Sparrow*

    Yeah, I don’t think you’re off-base here. I also gotta say, as a disabled person with a lot of disabled friends, I am pretty confident in saying that all of us would be rather annoyed if we were working with an organization meant to get us jobs and then found out that their method of doing that was not “Hi, I have a client who would be well-suited for this job you posted, here are their skills” but instead “Hi, I have a client who isn’t well-suited for this job, but you should hire them anyway because they’re nice”. It just feels very very patronizing to me, in a way that I think most disabled people who have worked with orgs like this are familiar with.

    So yeah, I don’t think you’re off-base to be annoyed, and I think that this org (or at least this one person) is not doing a very good job at their stated mission!

    1. Wendy*

      It just feels very very patronizing to me, in a way that I think most disabled people who have worked with orgs like this are familiar with…

      That statement stood out to me because my husband and I are friends with a developmentally disabled church member who attends the same bible study group we do along with her mom.

      She is in her mid forties, and her mom does not want her diagnosed as disabled in any way.

      She has never held a job, but it has gotten to the point that she will need to work after her mom, who will turn 80 next year, passes away.

      She has been a client of several organizations and services, but none of them have been able to find her a job.

      Her mom is adamant about not having her diagnosed as developmentally disabled even though she is.

      She has not said why, but I wonder if she does not want her daughter to be patronized.

      That is understanding.

      But her not 1) having any past employment, and 2) being able to get a job is concerning.

      1. Properlike*

        Oh no. I also understand the mother’s feelings behind this. When her daughter was born, there was still little meaningful education offered for children with disabilities, and a lot more misplaced shame in the label.

        However, the label would come with legal protections and other forms of assistance, including Social Security.

        I don’t think it’s unique to the parents of the developmentally disabled. Parents of adult children without disabilities can be equally enabling.

    2. I Have RBF*

      This.

      I am disabled, but I work full time at something I have real skills in. I worked hard for those skills.

      The last thing I want is to be a “pity hire”. It makes me want to gag.

      The case worker needs to assess their actual skills and then gently pitch them for appropriate openings, like a regular recruiter. Being pushy and playing the guilt card does the disabled person a severe disservice. Yes, the case worker may need to help them navigate any necessary accommodations, but that’s after they get hired for their actual skills.

  16. Penny Wolfson*

    As the mom of an adult child with muscular dystrophy (now deceased), I can tell you that people with all different kinds of disabilities have terrible trouble finding work. My son was very disabled and very gifted and very well educated, but in his 38 years he never found suitable full time employment. A little bit of kindness and understanding goes a long way; certainly a phone call that could clarify things for everyone!

    1. Yes at last*

      Yes, this.

      I disagree strongly with Alluson and most of the commenters here.

      LW is complaining that the case worker keeps phoning, but you’ve never once got back to her with an update.

      Even if the update is ‘call HR, here’s the number?’

      You say that Fergus is unqualified for the role. Did you tell the case worker that? Did anyone?

      Of course she’s going to keep calling, anfmd if I were her manager I would direct her to kerp calling, once or twice a week, till you definitively close the application.

      1. Florence Reece*

        “Of course she’s going to keep calling, anfmd if I were her manager I would direct her to kerp calling, once or twice a week, till you definitively close the application.”

        And that would be terrible and counterproductive direction! I’m not in OP’s head but I bet if this case worker hadn’t called three times in the span of roughly a week, OP would have returned the first call when they were back at work and had a chance to do so.

        Does that tactic work for you in any other situation? If a salesperson calls you twice (or in this case, three times) in a week where you’re busy — on vacation, maybe — does that inspire you to return that call? Because that’s effectively the role this advocate is serving for this candidate: selling him as a candidate. And she’s broadcasting the message that she doesn’t really care if he’s a good fit for the job, she just wants somebody to take him off her hands now.

        1. Yes at last*

          Well, the LW was never going to employ him, so the point here is to make that decision as uncomfortable as possible.

          1. Gh0st*

            … Because he didn’t have the specific qualification needed for the role.

            Why would you want to try and bully someone into making a hiring decision that wasn’t a good fit? As some other commenters have pointed out, that sort of pity/guilt-based hiring decision is patronizing and would be detrimental for Ferguson and the hiring company alike.

          2. Gandalf the Nude*

            Toward what end?

            Her job is find jobs for clients, not to make employers uncomfortable for not hiring someone who doesn’t have the qualifications they need. Who does that serve? What a bizarre perspective.

            1. Properlike*

              I think this could be precisely the caseworker’s perspective and strategy: weaponized guilt.

              We don’t need to recreate it here. The LW does not need to feel guilty for anything. She wouldn’t if it had been a non-developmentally disabled person walking in to hand over a resume. The caseworker’s passive-aggressive approach does not automatically make her deserving of a response.

          3. sarah*

            Why? So they block the worker’s number and she can’t reach them at all the next time they have a client who might actually be a good hire?

          4. Worldwalker*

            The LW wasn’t going to employ a lot of people. Like, all but (maybe) one who applied. Would you advise all of them to “make it as uncomfortable as possible”? Probably dozens, possibly hundreds, of people? A fair percentage of them who actually have the skills needed for the job?

      2. Gh0st*

        I don’t think OP is lacking in kindness or understanding- she seems to have treated Fergus’s application the same as all the others and didn’t let the physical delivery of a resume count against him. Both of those actions seem kind and understanding to me.

        Would it have been good if she’d followed-up with the caseworker? Maybe, but only to confirm that the application had been received, which the caseworker could also learn by asking Fergus whether he received the confirmation email when he applied. Apart from that, I’m not sure why the caseworker is owed a response- OP didn’t agree to anything or solicit the application.

        Also, side-note- I disagree that continuing to call is the way to go. It sounds like your idea is to weaponize the persistent calls so that you can get a response, but that could just as easily result in the number being blocked (it’s also unkind and very adversarial). Instead, I’d suggest leaving a final message and leaving it at that.

      3. sarah*

        I know Alison has said she doesn’t care when people misspell her name, but Alluson, really? She may not care but I think it’s disrespectful.

        2. Toupeee*

          I mean, I would have assumed it was an autocorrect error compounded by:
          1. the site ads making it difficult to fix before submission (maybe they forced the page to reload too soon, for example. Ask me how I know).
          2. The inability to edit comments

          But hey, if you want to play Hall Monitor in an internet comment section then go off, I guess.

    2. allx*

      Yes, indeed. A little bit of kindness. So many of the comments here are disturbing and distressing. Thank you for sharing this comment.

    3. lw*

      LW here!

      This happened when we were still accepting applications, we don’t tell people until we hire (which we haven’t acutally yet) so no one knows. We aren’t ghosting anyone, nor am I trying to be unkind. He’ll get a letter when the process is done – everyone will.

  17. Gustavo*

    I work at an agency like this in a different role but I help oversee the supported employment to an extent. I would absolutely NOT support a job developer doing this, they are hurting that candidates chances at work and I would highly recommend you contact that agency to report the issue so that employee can have some coaching. It’s HARD to get people to take a chance on our individuals and someone hindering that makes it even harder, do this candidate and his peers a favor by reporting this job developer.

    1. Worldwalker*

      Especially because they wanted special treatment for an applicant apparently only because they’d presented him. The LW has said that nobody is notified until the hiring process is complete, then all are. Why should Ferguson be any different? Just because this caseworker is harassing the office?

  18. I'm just here for the cats!!*

    I think this person is doing a major disservice to her client. If I were OP i would call her and ask her WHY she thinks the client would be good for the job and point out specifics that he would need.

    I also wonder if she even should have said that he had developmental disorder. Typically employers and hiring managers shouldn’t know this because of bias as you can’t discriminate based on disability. Unless there was a reason to know before the application then she really shouldn’t have said anything.

  19. Danielle K.*

    my best friend does this exact work.

    that’s not how she gets her clients jobs.

    you’re right it’s off base and not helping the clients.

  20. I went to school with only 1 Jennifer*

    LW, it seems like this was all quite recent? Like, within the last 4-6 weeks? I think it would still be useful to the agency to get the feedback that their client doesn’t have the needed skill set at all (and maybe include the fact that the job posting said you wouldn’t be training for the skill, if that’s true).

  21. I Have RBF*

    So, when I was recovering from a stroke, I worked with this one agency that “placed” people in supposedly “supported employment”. I got a placement from them doing phone surveys for less than half of what I had been making, and with fewer hours.

    It was one of the shittiest jobs I’ve had in my life. We were all temps, with no sick leave, and we were treated like second class citizens. Everyone came in sick, and infected everyone else, and you got written up if you took time off because they had gotten you sick. They had us calling people who had repeatedly asked us not to call them, and other sketchy things.

    I quit after a month. I found a real job the next week.

    1. allathian*

      I’ve done the same sort of job, as an able-bodied employee.

      We didn’t have vacation or paid sick leave, either (exceptionally for my area it’s the only job I’ve worked without a contract), but it’s also the only job where no notice of quitting was necessary or expected. When I got a better job, I just told the shift manager at the end of my last shift that I quit, and I got my last pay slip in the mail a couple weeks later (usually they were handed to you at the office).

      Thankfully I never got written up for taking unpaid leave, and we were explicitly told to end the call if the person we called got abusive. I figured that at least I wasn’t asking for money, just people’s time and opinions.

  22. JourneyofMan*

    I don’t blame OP for being annoyed with the placement counselor. But it would have been quicker to email stating that applicant is not qualified , nor are they in a position to train him. Plus she should add that the frequency of contacts is not doing her agency any favors. Waiting for AAM answers seems a tad time-consuming, albeit a fun read.

  23. nikkole82*

    I would have provided the HR number, but you also have to tread lightly with these things, and I don’t blame OP for not telling them that the guy wasn’t qualified or reasons why he was not. The reason jobs don’t offer feedback is because nobody wants to get in trouble by coming across as discriminating against a candidate.

Comments are closed.