OK. But I also want 20 dollars for every time a recruiter sends me job spam.
Linked In: Facebook for people who want to return to the office.
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
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.
Who isn’t serious about wanting a roof over their heads lmao.
Landlords need some soul searching and maybe a lil guillotine hairdo.
Arent the people doing the interview on the clock. Fuck off.
“Am I out of touch with the world”
…
“Please stop telling me i am wrong and give me answers that support my initial idea”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.
Remember to charge him for interviews when his business model falls through.
if I’m guaranteed a human interview and not an AI chatbot …yeah I would pay 20 dls as shitty as it is
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 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 dignity those with a fake letter, they can get fucked.
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.
Yes i mean of course, rarely anything is ever as good as it sounds. Just saying in the literal case of small fee for guaranteed interview Iam in. In the more likely case that you don’t really get a chance, e.g. just a 1min call “sorry you don’t fit” to tick the box, it’s a different matter.
But hey, he said it is supposed to be a thought experiment, no way he would wanna exploit people or anything…:)
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.
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?
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.
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.
Well that’s lame af. But that doesn’t really address my question.
They can start by rejecting everyone who doesn’t appear to read job requirements.
This is the most entitled white guy take.
I stopped using Upwork for the same reason. They wanted me to pay to be able to bid for a job.
The job quality I saw for development work was atrocious. I did not stick around for more than a day. Students asking to pay pennies for what is clearly coursework, shady businesses looking to pay laughably below market rate even in a LCoL area, etc. Complete waste of time, for me at least.
