This happens a lot: I apply for a job and they ask for my complete address. Why? I would understand if they just want to know what city/town I'm in: That has bearing on how easily I can get to the office.
But why do they need to know my street address?
The only thing I can think: Indeed/LinkedIn/take-your-pick is building a profile of me based on this info, using my street as a proxy for my income, credit score, or, ultimately, for my social class.
From now on, when they ask me, I'm just going to put a rich person's address. For this one I used a Brooklyn townhouse where Maggie Gyllenhaal and one of the Saarsgaards lives.
I think they're just trying to verify that you're from a country they want to hire from and that you have a physical address. I just give them City Hall's address because it's in my same zip code and I doubt anyone's going to verify that I physically live there.
Homeless people need not apply!
Businesses are often required to do some things by mail, but also judge people's reliability based on where they live. Another atupid hurdle for people having housing issues trying to get a job so they can afford housing.
100% agree, they don't want the filthy poors to be anything but filthy and poor.
For verification purposes, a zipcode I understand but FULL ADDRESS? I think not.
Edit: To clarify, I don't agree that homeless people should be excluded.
PO boxes work
Was homeless and had a PO box. They're expensive and often many places don't accept PO boxes as an address.
Maybe we can just house them.
Ah, a systemic level solution to a specific individual's problem! (The prospective hire).
Neither the employer or the prospective employee can house all the homeless.
And yet, plenty of employers are against housing, and will even lobby against it.
Maybe we need to house the homeless, and gut corporations.
You just said the same thing. Even an altruistic employer and a well meaning prospective employer have no ability to do what you are saying
Sounds like they need to step up their game by housing the homeless in every way possible. Especially if it guts corporations.
As I said, they have zero ability to do so, as individual entities, outside of the humans involved voting, which is a default action, although.outsude this hiring scenario.
It's not a "low" ability, it's "zero". So there's no "step up" because there's nothing to step.
Work reform, and housing reform come from government action, which is achieved through activism and voting.
Edit down votes from those expressing idealistic, unfocused, unhelpful behavior. Preaching platitudes does nothing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying
A prospective hire is going to start lobbying, to change the system, to get an address, to get hired? This is what I'm talking about, y'all keep proposing efforts to create systemic change, which the players in the scenario neither have the time or ability to complete.
And lobbying is structured activism (via advocacy), which I mentioned in general.
Not if they filter out people who use p.o. boxes.
Fun fact: when I worked support for a device manufacturer I spoke with a customer who lived in a small town where instead of paying a couple of mail carriers they just gave every resident a PO Box. Every filter like that has its edgecase and I got to talk to one of them
But I do agree that it's a ridiculous thing to require. I also think it's just bots collecting data. Plenty of fake jobs on LinkedIn from my experience.
I wouldn’t say that it’s ridiculous. I am involved in hiring and administration at our company. We hire where the talent is, but knowing how much work is associated with a candidate can influence how I plan my work load. If you hire in the US, you have to set up tax accounts with the state, and sometimes municipality, that remote employees are located in… if you hire internationally… same thing only you may have federal, state/provincial, municipality accounts that need to be set up… which you have to research since every place has a different interface and policies.
Talent is talent, and we hire where we find good people, but hiring a candidate that is geographically located in a place we already have tax accounts set up is significantly easier and faster than having to set up accounts in new countries, states, or municipalities. Hiring remote can add days or weeks to the administrative lift associated with hiring and needs to be factored in or deadlines get missed and assignments drag.
To be clear, I work at a small company and wear several hats… admin/HR being a small part of my duties.
All your reasoning supports is asking for the city the person lives in.
Also, why is it your business if the candidate has a physical address or not? Making an effort to discover that looks very unethical to me.
addresses are wonky and non-uniform. You can get pretty close with ZIP codes since they were part of a larger standardization push for addresses nation-wide but there's still corner- and edge-cases for every assumption you can make about addresses in this country