Applying for jobs and interviews should be paid time. Don't change my mind
Jobs
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.
Im a software engineer. Im super lucky i have a good resume, and don't waste too much time compared to some (i never send a cover letter, ill just leave a dot or "i was forced to write this text").
Just to talk to 5 teams, i need to do 10 code challenges/interviews (3 hours each) and over 20 other types of interviews for the 5/10 tests i didnt fuckup. That's a week of work. People pay me several thousand dollars for this time normally.
I don't think getting paid will work. It could be that there's an amount in my total comp that is meant to compensate my time, and a direct cash bonus if i do get the job or something (singing bonus). But we know theyll just deduct it out of what they were going to offer anyway
Singing bonus only if you can perform 'under pressure'
If it makes you feel any better, HR concluded that this long interview hazing process is no better than doing one interview. We still do 5 interviews anyway because it makes us look more prestigious and other companies expect us to do it.
Don’t forget to tip the interviewer, too.
The $0 option actually just defaults to the $5 minimum
Considering the question posed was, "Am I insensitive to the world if...," I will politely say the answer is "Yes," and impolitely say, "you huge dipshit."
You are way too kind. Dipshit implies a mistake from ignorance. This guy is an ass of the greatest magnitude.
Avoid the vitriol
You first, motherfucker.
I’ve been to interviews that were literally scams. Nah man you have to provide the good faith effort on your end too.
lol so have I. Went to an interview for a warehouse job when I was 18 and it turned out to be an attempt to get me to sell vacuums that was also an amway style pyramid scheme. Fuck those people for wasting my time.
I've heard of restaurants that have applicants do a 'trial' shift for no pay, and then never call back. They manage to line up a new person every night this way.
If I found out somewhere was doing that I would report them to whoever I could
"Am I out of touch with the world"
...
"Please stop telling me i am wrong and give me answers that support my initial idea"
Thought exercise lmao
This is LinkedIn isn’t it? This exactly the trash you’d expect from tech bros choosing this as their social media platform of choice. Reminder: Microsoft owns LinkedIn & you can delete your account today (since 90% of your messages & recruitement is spam/trash).
Deleting LinkedIn is not viable.
Many companies will only hire if you also have LinkedIn and connections to previous companies. What you are suggesting would be career suicide for many industries and fields. It would be like removing your paper contributions from publications just because they're a scam. We know it's a scam. There are no other options.
The real way to use linkedIn is treat it like a virtual CV. Just enter all the important info on your profile, connect to past employers and employees who would be able to provide good reference and that's it. No need to browse through the slop trough of a timeline or actively post about your "recent meeting with some random supplier going great!" Because no hiring manager gives a shit about the social aspect.
Sure, and taking an in person interview or home assignment should be paid as well then to signal us that company is serious and it’s not a fake opening
OK. But I also want 20 dollars for every time a recruiter sends me job spam.
This is a weird post.
The first paragraph is bonkers.
The second paragraph is essentially just trying to cover his ass.
Though, from a philosophical standpoint, there isn't anything wrong with asking this. On the other hand, if it really was his position to frame this as a thought experiment, the question would have been posed differently the first time around.
This is really annoying because the purpose of philosophising on things is to be allowed to ask questions like this.
A polarising figure, Sam Harris once said in an interview "What's wrong with eating babies? If we have too many babies lying around, and we want to eat them, why can't we?"*
Some people (including Alex Jones) took that and ran with it: "Sam Harris defends cannabalising babies", even though the entire point of his statement was to demonstrate how laymen should stay the fuck away from philosophy because they cannot understand the question is designed to establish a moral foundation.
- note, the clip is satirical beyond the quote I linked, the channel is literally called "out of context"
The full interview is here for full disclosure. Though I'll warn you. You'll lose brain cells watching Cenk try to deliberately misinterpret Sam to make him look like a villain.
Time is money. Even if I don't get the job, I feel I should still get paid a minimum of an hourly wage for the waste of my time.
I need money. Too bad I don't have any money.
What if instead companies paid someone to review applications? It takes >10s to skim a resume. Even if you spend a full minute per resume and get 500 reesumes for a job, that’s less than 1 work day
And while we’re here: companies should be required to compensate people for work done for the company, which includes attending interviews and doing labor (e.g. code tests)
Linked In: Facebook for people who want to return to the office.
Remember to charge him for interviews when his business model falls through.
I stopped using Upwork for the same reason. They wanted me to pay to be able to bid for a job.
What we need is a unified set of standards for job listings and for resumes. Make it easy to see which workers and which jobs are a bad fit. Just formatting and key words would be huge.
Landlords of shitty places in areas here, where there's very little available to rent, got sick of showing places that are so bad people just noped out of them or ghosted the landlord on a very understandable fashion.
Their solution is to charge $200 for a viewing because people were apparently not serious about wanting a place.
Seems similar.
1$ to be sure to get an interview? Doesnt even sound that bad? A small fee for a guaranteed interview, rather than hoping 1 in 20 even replies, sounds fine..
But first of all, it's not going to be $1 because it means HR will do more interviews which means the cost has to cover HR to some extent, HR simply isn't that cheap. Secondly, anyone willing to get the job is going to pay that price which means your likelyhood of getting the job probably doesn't change much. And if you're already an in-demand labor then nothing changes for you because you'll be sought out even if you don't apply.
So really what you're paying for is for them to tell you that you're not suited for the position.
And because as you say, it'd never be $1, it's also a way to keep the poorest in society in their place, as if having to pay for travel, and have clean and suitable clothes, and possibly take time away from a current job just to have a superficial initial interview, never mind any subsequent interviews, aren't big enough barriers for those already struggling to feed themselves.
I might pay a small fee for a guaranteed interview. If I can get in front of someone, I usually score. OTOH, I'd never trust a company doing this, so...
Poor dear is sad he has to do his job.
I'll tell you what let's meet in the middle. Make the job application work with my auto fill and I'll put down a $1 deposit .
Exchange ideas by listening to mine, avoid criticism by labeling it vitriol.
I would gladly pay for him to briefly notice and reject me.
I get that it's annoying to have a lot of (obviously) under qualified applications, and someone has to go through them. I just don't think it's possible to solve this problem without being unfair to at least some applicants.
More context
I was part of a hiring committee for a professor job at an European university last year. The job description was clear enough that you got the vibe "this is a high profile job. Only apply if you think you really are high profile for a European university."
And we got soooo many trash applications, we rejected more than 90% in the first screening. Some obvious ones, and some less obvious ones. The obvious ones were the most annoying, because wtf is that application. One that will always stay in my mind is the application of an already established professor, which consisted only of a CV that looked like a 3 year old glued it together and someone replicated that in Power Point in 2003. I was so confused about this application, because how tf did this person think this was enough? They're an established professor! They really should know how applications work.
So yeah, I get that there are a lot of annoying applications coming in that feel like a waste of time for everyone. Asking money to apply will not help tho.
Maybe hire someone to help with the applications..? No wait, then you'd have to go through even more applications. /s
This isn't to guarantee an interview as some are saying. What he's saying is an application fee, so you don't have 90% of your applicants wildly unqualified for the job that need to be screened out every time. It's kind of the same idea of charging half a cent for every email sent to drive down junk mail, which, functionally, is what a lot of applications are unfortunately.
At some point, the screening process AND the application process are going to be so automated that it will be like the sorting hat from Harry Potter. Automate the position description, automate the screening, automate the application process (you are here), automate the interviewer, automate the interviewee...
One day you'll just wake up and without you or the company knowing, a hat will drop on your head and tell you where you work now.
Also, anyone looking for work that hasn't begun automating as much of their application process as possible should get started immediately. Applying is a volume game, especially right now.
At a minimum, you should anticipate submitting about 80 applications to get a few interviews and possibly a job. SHRM data backs this up. It's obviously less for niche or less desirable positions and more for others, but 80 is a good frame of reference. If you're looking for WFH positions in fields where WFH wasn't the norm before covid, double the number.
Landlords used this. Still do. It's discriminatory and evil. In some places there is legislation to stop it or limit its abuse.