[heavyset_go]

> It's not unusual in a lot of industries for companies to not continue to interview someone who doesn't let them decide everything about the process.

To put this into perspective, some companies and agencies do group interviews, where there are a few dozen applicants for a role in a large room that are whittled down and told to go home if they don't fit some criteria. Then whoever is left is hired. There's no room for negotiation, literally or figuratively.

[WalterBright]

Many candidates interview with multiple companies. Then they whittle the list down, and break off negotiations with companies that don't fit some criteria. Then they accept the offer from whoever is left.

[heavyset_go]

I don't know any employee that has company owners show up to their auditorium and then raise their hands, respond or leave in response to the requirements the employee starts listing. I also don't know any employer that will starve, become homeless or be unable to see a doctor if they don't hire someone at the employer's desired salary. A job is necessary to live, while a new hire is a luxury that will help you become wealthier. I wouldn't say those situations are comparable.

[qmmmur]

In your reductive view of the world do you hold the distinction that one is a person seeking meaningful employment while the other is a business seeking to fundamentally change xploit someone's labour?

[civilized]

Reductive? Listen to yourself.