The hiring process for this position was over 1 month long, It involved multiple stages: an online application with a detailed questionnaire and basic math assessment, a phone interview that was more in-depth than initially described, an observational interview, and a paid working interview.While the team seemed positive and collaborative, the role itself appears to be demanding, encompassing the responsibilities of a dental receptionist, treatment coordinator, insurance verification specialist, and patient intake. This multi-faceted nature, combined with the extended hiring process, was a significant consideration.The advertised pay range was $19-$23 per hour, with no direct dental receptionist experience required. Despite possessing seven years of transferable skills and related experience, I was offered $20 per hour. My attempts to negotiate were unsuccessful, with the explanation being a lack of direct dental experience. This felt contradictory, given their stated willingness to train and the emphasis on character and trainability.It’s worth noting that the team appeared predominantly female, and I sensed a reluctance to negotiate for higher compensation. They're prob not used to women not speaking up and asking for more.They seemed surprised when I tried to negotiate,it felt like they were unprepared to deal with salary negotiation. Ultimately, I accepted a position elsewhere due to the extended hiring timeline and the laughable pay offer.Prospective candidates, particularly women, should be prepared to advocate for their worth and negotiate effectively. The company's hiring practices and pay offer suggest an exploitive and underpaid working environment.

This job application process took over a month. It included an online assessment testing personality , a screening Zoom interview (which felt like more than just a screening since they asked about my 5-year plan and behavioral questions), reading comprehension and math skills tests, an observation interview, and finally a working interview. The team seemed great, BUT the workload doesn't match the pay. It was misleading that they said no direct experience was needed. I have over 8 years of related transferable skills and the pay they offered was really low. The whole process made it seem like the offer would be much better since it was so long and detailed, but the low pay doesn't reflect that. The team was all women except for one male manager. In the end, they offered $20. Their job listing said $19-23 with no direct experience required. Their reasoning for the low offer was a joke. My advice is, don't interview people without direct experience if you're just going to lowball them after such a long process. The workload is also really heavy for such low pay – you'd be doing the work of a patient scheduler, call router, patient follow-up, and in-person check-in all in one. They wouldn't budge on the pay, and it felt like they're not used to women asking for more or standing up for themselves . Be careful, this seems like the type of job that will exploit you. Also, the benefits they offer are bad!