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.
this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2024
293 points (94.0% liked)
Jobs
314 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
if I'm guaranteed a human interview and not an AI chatbot ...yeah I would pay 20 dls as shitty as it is
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?
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.
load more comments
(4 replies)
This is the most entitled white guy take.
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.
Arent the people doing the interview on the clock. Fuck off.
What if we had smart contracts as a type of escrow for this? That way the multitude of bots applying for the jobs have to put something up, and the job poster has to put something up as like a mutual escrow.
I think the problem job posters are having is it’s never been easier to apply to a job. Bots can apply to hundreds of jobs on your behalf in minutes. Now multiply that by the thousands of applicants per job and you’ll start to see the problem. Too many applicants per job. It’s similar problem to spam filtering. There was a thought experiment about requiring emails to cost a real amount of currency to be received or sent which would theoretically reduce spam. Note, I’m not suggesting job applicants use of bots is spam, just illustrating a similarity between the two problem domains.
Companies will find some way to monetize those fees. Those multi-million executive salaries won’t pay themselves.
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.
load more comments
(14 replies)
pay a fee for an interview, sure. in the old days you'd have to do some real nepotism. what progress.
I'd like to demonstrate my new product, the Neck OsteO-Stretcher Extreme. Guaranteed to provide the discerning millionaire with superior neck alignment and length by exploiting our state of the art GRAVITY DEPLOYMENT™ technology! Now only $9,999, buy yours today!
I paid an application fee to apply for the local electrical union JATC