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 .
OK. But I also want 20 dollars for every time a recruiter sends me job spam.
Pay me double fee every time a recruiter sends me a job post for a role that isn't actually hiring and the company is using just to ”test the job market”. A company that is always hiring should have to pay extra tax for wasting unemployed people's time.
"Am I out of touch with the world"
...
"Please stop telling me i am wrong and give me answers that support my initial idea"
His edit back pedaling is literally "it's just a thought experiment bro!"
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)
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
Poor dear is sad he has to do his job.
Linked In: Facebook for people who want to return to the office.
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.
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.
Applying for jobs and interviews should be paid time. Don't change my mind
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
I have gotten around huge coding homework during interview proceedings by telling the company that I’m also interviewing elsewhere. The homework dropped from a six hour task to a one hour task.
Some companies try to get free labor out of you during the interview proceedings.
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.
Remember to charge him for interviews when his business model falls through.
Avoid the vitriol
You first, motherfucker.
Simple solution to this problem: just don't apply in that assholes' company.
This is not a bad idea but just make it a refundable fee. Maybe larger depending on how badly they want to fill the position. Job shops would have to spend a shit ton of money to spam employers so they could focus on real applicants. If you show up, you get your money back regardless of having or not having an interview.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Unfortunately this is why I use LinkedIn. It automatically fills in the application and I just click apply - no repetitive copying of the resume.
The only reason I don't use ChatGPT for cover letters is that I won't even dignify those with a fake letter, they can get fucked.
Thought exercise lmao
I stopped using Upwork for the same reason. They wanted me to pay to be able to bid for a job.
You know I hate to say it but this isn't the single worst idea I've ever heard, it would still fucking suck though.
Although this is obviously a dumb solution, I do get what he's saying. Part of why the job market is so bad right now, is that there is a lot of people (often with the help of automation) sending out applications in bulk to companies they fail to meet even bare minimum requirements for. For example, its anecdotal, but a local company has given up on public postings because last time they tried, they received thousands of applications in a single day (most of which with no qualifications) and the ones they tried to reach out to weren't even in the country. There are a lot of ways to help filter this, but it just highlights what a mess things are right now.
Part of why the job market is so bad right now, is that there is a lot of people (often with the help of automation) sending out applications in bulk to companies they fail to meet even bare minimum requirements for.
But this is a direct result of employers actions with incomplete or deceptive job postings, bad faith interviews, and ghosting prospective candidates.
nO oNe wAnTs tO WorK aNyMoRe
Points out that companies are no longer advertising jobs.
Still finds a way to blame jobseekers.
Boot can't really taste that good, can it? Not to kink shame, but is it that you simply enjoy being stomped on?
That's the cost of the companies hiring and firing a fuckton of people at once. If they don't want that, they can give us stability. If they dont like the mass posting on their platforms, they can start having a more humane process.
Shoving it onto the consumer is just dumb. Plenty of very qualified people need to apply to hundreds of jobs to get one. Plenty of companies wasting time posting jobs they'll never fill. He didn't think this through one bit, and hiding the criticism behind "it's just a thought" doesn't make the criticism less valid.
It also tells us a lot about him for even thinking it was an idea. He's completely disconnected with the realities of job hunting and the market.
Pay $20 to apply for a fake position that was only put up to trick investors into thinking the company is growing. The fee will guarantee you an in-person interview with an unpaid intern instructed to say no all all interviewees (in person, because even if someone gets mad and attacks them - it's just an intern). Parking validation is not included.
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
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...
This is the most entitled white guy take.
if I'm guaranteed a human interview and not an AI chatbot ...yeah I would pay 20 dls as shitty as it is
I need money. Too bad I don't have any money.
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.
