this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2024
289 points (93.9% liked)

Jobs

250 readers
661 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
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Aeao 7 points 9 hours ago

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 .

[–] Etterra 2 points 8 hours ago

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!

[–] stoly 8 points 12 hours ago

Poor dear is sad he has to do his job.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

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)

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 day ago (1 children)

OK. But I also want 20 dollars for every time a recruiter sends me job spam.

[–] dustyData 4 points 9 hours ago

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.

[–] Treczoks 5 points 18 hours ago

Simple solution to this problem: just don't apply in that assholes' company.

[–] delirium 27 points 1 day ago

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

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 day ago

Linked In: Facebook for people who want to return to the office.

[–] AeonFelis 4 points 20 hours ago

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.

[–] JackFrostNCola 42 points 1 day ago (1 children)

"Am I out of touch with the world"
...
"Please stop telling me i am wrong and give me answers that support my initial idea"

[–] CaptPretentious 6 points 21 hours ago

His edit back pedaling is literally "it's just a thought experiment bro!"

[–] [email protected] 3 points 19 hours ago

Companies will find some way to monetize those fees. Those multi-million executive salaries won’t pay themselves.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] werefreeatlast 5 points 22 hours ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] JargonWagon 1 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

Yeah, ngl I'm entertaining myself just thinking about this concept of exchanging something (not necessarily money) between applicant and company. It creates finite number of applications able to be created which would greatly reduce the number of applications they would need to go through, but it guaranteeing an interview basically negates the time it saves for the company, however it definitely benefits the applicant.

The problem with this sort of system is that it doesn't take into effect the people who are desperate for a job and need the most help. In a system where those people are taken care of in other ways, then it'd be a sorta good system especially if it's not money being exchanged between applicant and company, but maybe rather a cryptographic token or something.

If I had to guess, I think a system like this would probably worsen the workforce as a whole.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 21 hours ago

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.

[–] muculent 14 points 1 day ago

Remember to charge him for interviews when his business model falls through.

[–] Thcdenton 4 points 1 day ago

Arent the people doing the interview on the clock. Fuck off.

[–] Aeri 6 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] aquinteros 5 points 1 day ago

if I'm guaranteed a human interview and not an AI chatbot ...yeah I would pay 20 dls as shitty as it is

[–] WoahWoah 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] bamfic 10 points 1 day ago

Landlords used this. Still do. It's discriminatory and evil. In some places there is legislation to stop it or limit its abuse.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

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.

[–] [email protected] 119 points 2 days ago (10 children)

Applying for jobs and interviews should be paid time. Don't change my mind

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] lemmylommy 77 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Don’t forget to tip the interviewer, too.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I stopped using Upwork for the same reason. They wanted me to pay to be able to bid for a job.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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..

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 54 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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."

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Cryophilia 13 points 1 day ago

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.

load more comments
view more: next ›