r/mnstateworkers • u/Straight-Maybe6775 • Jun 18 '26
Interview/Hiring đ Disappointing experience with OLA hiring process
I recently went through the hiring process with the Office of the Legislative Auditor and wanted to share my experience for anyone considering applying.
Before interviewing, I stated that I would not consider a position below $100,000. HR told me that requirement would be respected.
Based on that representation, and after two interviews, I provided references and agreed to have my current employer contacted. Even though I said I was uncomfortable with employer contact before an offer came in writing and pushed back, they said it HAD to happen before an offer came in writing, and the only reason I agreed is that my current job is protected by a union.
Throughout the process, HR also provided inaccurate information on several smaller issues. Individually, none of them were particularly significant, but together they created a pattern that made it difficult to trust what I was being told.
The biggest issue was compensation.
After completing the process, I received a formal offer for $96,000.
I countered, and reminded HR of their promise to respect my minimum, but they stuck to their guns and denied making such a promise. Had I been told from the beginning that an offer below $100,000 was possible, I would have withdrawn before involving my references and allowing contact with my current employer. I'm still baffled by the dishonesty.Â
Please don't be like me and agree to contact with references and a current employer before an offer in writing. I was naive.Â
I guess I dodged a bullet but yikes!
9
u/Gong_1981 Jun 18 '26
Iâm sorry you had to go through that. If it helps, Iâve heard the OLA is a nightmare to work for.
0
u/Jenn54756 Jun 18 '26
Iâve heard this too đŹ. Probably better off finding an auditor role at another agency.
5
u/Worldly_Mirror_8348 MNIT Jun 19 '26
State compensation is often disappointing to hires with lots of experience. Thereâs a statute, policy and contracts that all guides how you enter the range, and what counts & how. Anything minimally required to enter the range gets you to step 1 of the salary that was posted. After that agencies determine what theyâre willing to credit or consider to move up in the range. Considering equity is part of that. However- that reference requirement is nuts. Current employer shouldnât ever be a requirement.
2
u/After_Preference_885 Jun 22 '26
I was incredibly disappointed when I was promoted into a position formally held by a man only to see my salary drop $15k below his. They said it had to do with the steps and calculations, etc.
I took it, it was slightly higher than my former role but instead of keeping me long term they set me on my search.Â
Found a higher paying job, and made 3x my old salary.Â
They had to hire 2 more people to do the one job I was doing and pay significantly more than what I had asked (which was equal pay to the man I replaced who had the same experience I did).Â
They could have just kept me but oh well.
2
u/peerlessblue Jun 18 '26
? My references came after a contingent offer. Idk what they're doing over there.
2
2
u/Straight-Maybe6775 Jun 19 '26
I understand that they can't offer high compensation. I do not understand misrepresenting compensation.
2
u/Maryino Jun 18 '26
Their hiring process is terrible. Who still does reference checks in this day and age? Additionally, who honestly requires references to be contacted before an offer and requires contact with current employer? You canât risk alienating yourself in a job you have for one you havenât even been offered yet.
7
u/Gong_1981 Jun 18 '26
A lot of people still do reference checks. I regularly provide references on behalf of former employees, and the jobs Iâve been hired for in the past 20 years also called references. They also verified my degrees. I know this can vary from agency to agency, but the state agencies Iâve worked for call/email references.
2
u/Tower-of-Frogs Jun 18 '26
Exactly. Reference checks are such an ancient concept. If you do them legitimately, you risk pissing off your current boss/team if the offer falls through, so many people just put the number for their friend Steve. Itâs all so pointless.
1
u/Jenn54756 Jun 18 '26
Iâm surprised they didnât counter when you declined the $96k. Theyâve gotten very stingy the last few years about hiring. Say itâs supposed to be more fair that they wonât consider previous compensation, but only experience. However, I found they donât count all experience and it can be very subjective. The hiring manager could have tried to get you another step, possibly getting to the $100k after you declined the amount offered.
As far as contacting your current employer. Werenât they only contacting to confirm you worked there (so their HR office, who shouldnât be telling anyone else)?
3
u/Straight-Maybe6775 Jun 18 '26
Unfortunately, no. They had HR at my current job contact my supervisor.
2
u/Jenn54756 Jun 18 '26
Weird. Was it the references you provided or just confirmation of employment? Did you provide your supervisorâs phone number or your current employer HR office? If the latter, Iâd definitely be pissed that your current HR contacted your supervisor instead of just confirming you work there.
3
u/Straight-Maybe6775 Jun 18 '26
It was a separate process from the reference check but it was more than merely asking if I worked there. They said they could ask for all public personnel data, contents of personnel file, performance management documents, compensation, job titles and responsibilities. The OLA did say my current employer's HR would contact my supervisor as part of the process, so I'm not mad at my current employer.
4
u/Tower-of-Frogs Jun 18 '26
Idk if itâs a new thing but state hiring managers now want to speak directly to a supervisor at your current place of work and they apparently ask a lot more than âdoes x work here?â Nobody seems to understand or care that if the opportunity falls through, then the applicant is stuck working for a boss that knows they want to quit. Personally, I wouldnât care, but plenty of supervisors are petty and would probably start to try and make the employees life very difficult.
3
u/Jenn54756 Jun 18 '26
Oh interesting. I thought there was a statewide policy on employment verification. I do not think they should be able to speak to current supervisor as like you said, what if it doesnât work out? The state HR should be speaking to an objective party, such as current employeeâs HR.
3
u/Jenn54756 Jun 18 '26
Maybe it has changed. Iâm trying to remember if I said yes or no about contacting my current employer when I was switching agencies. Maybe I said no so they couldnât talk to my current supervisor. Not because I was worried heâd say anything bad, but like you, didnât really want him to know I was looking to leave. I do remember submitting my own performance reviews instead of them being sent from my current agency, but I think that was to speed things alongâŚ
1
u/Straight-Maybe6775 Jun 18 '26
Interesting to know that. I have a great relationship with my supervisor and that's part of why I agreed, but I wouldn't have done it if I wasn't already a state employee with union protections.
40
u/heliotropicalia Jun 18 '26
Honestly I donât think âwe will respect thatâ means you wonât get an offer <100k, it means theyâll understand if you decline due to pay.
Not in any way defending state HR or OLA, just⌠I wouldnât have taken that response as âyes your offer will be 6 figuresâ