Sorry, what? : jobs

[-] lukstru@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

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

[-] n0clue@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

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."

Lol I apply for things like that cause what the fuck are they doing on Indeed?

[-] ximtor@lemm.ee 9 points 1 week ago

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..

[-] GoodEye8@lemm.ee 9 points 1 week ago

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.

[-] ximtor@lemm.ee 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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..:)

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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.

[-] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 6 days 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.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Aeri@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week 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.

[-] werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week 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.

[-] aquinteros@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

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

[-] AeonFelis@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week 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.

[-] Phegan@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

This is the most entitled white guy take.

[-] Marx2k@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 week ago

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?

[-] breckenedge@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

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.

[-] Marx2k@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 week ago

Well that's lame af. But that doesn't really address my question.

[-] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 week ago

They can start by rejecting everyone who doesn't appear to read job requirements.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] oo1@lemmings.world 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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.

[-] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago

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?

[-] Maalus@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago

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.

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Thcdenton@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

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

[-] rekabis@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago

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

[-] notfromhere@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 week 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.

[-] PlzGivHugs@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago

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.

[-] ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 week ago

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?

load more comments (13 replies)

[-] kevlar21@lemm.ee 2 points 1 week ago

I paid an application fee to apply for the local electrical union JATC

Jobs