this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2024
293 points (94.3% liked)
Jobs
265 readers
1 users here now
A community to discuss jobs, whether that's regarding to the search, advice on how to negotiate an offer, or just an open forum to vent.
This is not a place intended for you to post job listings.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
For those complaining that it's a terrible idea, and it may well be, have your ever been on the receiving end of shotgunned resumes?
What's a good solution to this?
Some hiring sites have started showing how many other jobs applicants have applied to via the same platform, and whether they were rejected for not meeting minimum qualifications.
Well that's lame af. But that doesn't really address my question.
They can start by rejecting everyone who doesn't appear to read job requirements.
That would absolutely be a great start :D
The problem for me isn't having to sift 100 down to 1 for a deeper review and discussion. 10,000 would be a problem, but i'd happily stop after 10 decent ones. The drivel takes no time to identify. It's the fucking HR form you have to fill out and rate and score each one on 4-5 bullshit criteria with a crappy point and click user interface. Just let me chuck them straight in the bin, or at worst send a table of the scores in one go.
For one of our roles we're allowed to have a simple online maths and stats test . That nornally weeds out the crap. we rarely get more than a handful of applications passing those. I'd have an SQL test too if i had my way.
I don't really care if catgpt gives the answer, the process of logging in to the test website at the right time and maybe doing a captcha , then making sure they can google the right thing and cut and paste is probably enough of a filter. It's probably the only skills they need too.
That said I don't know how much we have to pay for the online test service - but it should be a fraction of $20 per person - worth it for my sanity.
edit: theres probably a legal requirement or at least a policy to let people with disabilities past the test, but that's probably manageble for the small number who actually have a disability that impacts the test. I think they have to speak to HR directly, then they might get a guaranteed interview or something.
It's shitty on both ends. For those hiring they have to go through all the applicants, interviews, etc, but all the applicants are going through the same thing: applying to jobs whose descriptions do not match reality, interviews with people who already do not intend to hire them, pay rates not listed or misleading...
How do you suggest applicants deal with this? Should employers have to pay $20 per application they wish to receive?
Yeah I wish I knew, honestly. I'd hate to make Pele pay to apply. That's just a money maker for business with no intention to hire.
The idea is to cut on people who shouldn't be sending out resumes to this job posting. It's the same with public healthcare. A lot of older people go to the doctor to talk to someone. All because it's "free". The consequences being huge queues to any doctor you might want to visit. But placing a tiny fee like a dollar, automatically makes people stop and think - do I really need to go there to talk about something that has been diagnosed 50 times by now? All the stuff you talk about can be dealt with by new laws - mandating accurate pay rates that cannot be larger than a 10% difference between max and min for instance. You could force employers to state if the position is open to internal hiring too. Hell, it could even be a deposit instead of a fee - so you don't shotgun 100 job postings by not even looking at what they expect just submitting CVs.
At the end of the day, there's potential for abuse everywhere. You can curb it in some places and can't do anything in others. But just because something doesn't solve all the problems, doesn't mean it's a bad idea.
And our idea is to cut on businesses who shouldn't be creating vacancies with wild claims and a 0% chance of actually hiring someone.
The knife cuts both ways.
Yeah, that's what I said in the second part of my post. There is a way to kick them in the balls when they do that. And it could be codified in law. But we don't need everything to happen all at once. It might be good to curb the pay rates thing first, then something else, then something else entirely. Let's not ignore problems that exist though.
It's not that it doesn't solve all problems, it's that it creates problems.
The difficulties in hiring are part of the cost of doing business, like having staff on hand and you end up not needing them all that day.