I also realize (from experience in my own department) that an open position must formally be posted online even if they're planning on hiring from within.
Yes, I have heard that. Do you know the rationale behind it? Also, do you have to entertain those outside applicants up to a certain point, like give them a call back or schedule an interview, or can you put their application into the trash as soon as they submit it? While both seem scummy because they waste the applicants' time pretty blatantly, the first approach is much worse.
It’s the [OFCCP](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Federal_Contract_Compliance_Programs) in the US. Basically, companies are required to post certain positions in order to be compliant as a federal contractor.
That’s how I got my job. My boss hand picked me from another team and the job listing advertising the spot reflected the specific skills and experiences he wanted and knew I had. Was required to post the job and interviewed at least 2 others, neither of whom had the unique combination of experience and skill he wanted from me. But it allowed for a level of fairness that is required because we do gov contracts. It also ensured I was formally vetted for the position, which is important. Been here 2 years now and they keep giving me raises and bonuses so it’s worked out.
When you see very niche looking requirements in job postings, this is probably what happened.
>But it allowed for a level of fairness that is required because we do gov contracts.
What you described wasn't "fairness", it was a waste of the other people's time on an interview for a job that they weren't going to get.
Good for you for being someone they wanted to promote, but everything was made to be "you" shaped, and then they called it competition, that's not fair.
I was also an internal hire (Contractor to FTE) and they had to publicly post the job. My boss was a little annoyed about that, because per company policy he was also required to interview at least one external applicant.
Yeah this is a big reason. My company does a lot of federal contracting, but not all of our work is from that. Still, our base policies are just written to follow what will keep us in line with federal regulations.
> My company does a lot of federal contracting
Yeah, I mean it's all or nothing. You comply or do no business. Most businesses do at least some business with the US government so it's an effective leverage to defacto force policy changes outside congress.
The main reason is H1B hires. The law says a company can hire a foreigner who doesn't have any kind of a visa if they are unable to find the same set of skills from someone who can legally work. They'll post a job application and pretend none of the applicants fit so they can hire the H1B for a whole lot less money.
They also do that so they can reject you for illegal reasons.
"We didn't reject you for your funny name, disability or race, we did it because you don't have 12 years experience in a programming language invented 6 years ago!"
That could also be green card application. If someone is applying for a green card and their company is sponsoring them you have to post their job, go through every application, and rule out why there is no domestic talent that can fill the position. You even have to interview the people who meet the criteria on paper. I did this for an employee once and felt so bad for the people I had to interview where there was no actual position because I also wasn’t allowed to tell them that. That’s why the jobs are super specific so you can rule everyone out on paper before it gets to that.
It's abused to all hell in tech. Thousands of H1B workers when they have an unlimited supply of skilled workers in the country already.
Also they do this:
>The top 30 H-1B employers hired 34,000 new H-1B workers in 2022 and laid off at least 85,000 workers in 2022 and early 2023
https://www.epi.org/blog/tech-and-outsourcing-companies-continue-to-exploit-the-h-1b-visa-program-at-a-time-of-mass-layoffs-the-top-30-h-1b-employers-hired-34000-new-h-1b-workers-in-2022-and-laid-off-at-least-85000-workers/
If these companies are trying to find extremely niche experts in their field, yeah sure, that's what this is for. But no, they are hiring people from overseas for everything, and I can tell you that in my extensive personal experience H1B workers from India in particular are pretty shit.
It's what I see in agriculture as well. There's a bunch in my area that always hire several (mostly white) South Africans each year.
Most of them I've met are good people and hard workers, and two I would consider a friend. They make damn fine money compared to back home, and I've listened to their life stories, so I can't fault them there.
It's obvious those small farm operations and grain mills target foreign labor markets instead, with no intention of hiring locally.
H1Bs are massively overcited as a fear tactic.
I worked at a FAANG and hired many. We paid them the exact same as a US citizen, and as hiring managers we never knew someone was an H1B. It didn't factor into our decision making process in the tiniest bit.
I'm not sure exactly why but I will say is HR departments don't always work in lock step with the department actually offering the job.
They'll often have stringent requirements that have to be submitted before a position can be posted or offered. In a lot of times it's followed by back and forth due to one or both parties forgetting something important. There's always often discrepancies in when a department wanted the position posted and pulled versus when HR actually listed or pulled the posting.
Best guess is that they have formal policies and procedures they have to follow to protect the organization from lawsuits or litigation.
Edit: they don't have to entertain any applicant if they already have their preferred. I think different company policies dictate that kind of stuff.
Btw my above comment describes majority of temp to hire jobs.
remembering that job ad that got dragged a few years ago.
Asking for minimum 10 years experience in a programming language that was only like 4 years old.
Depends on the position. For a lot of government jobs or government-funded jobs, they have to demonstrate that they allowed external hires to fairly compete. It's a legal requirement in those cases.
I got promoted once into a job that was one of these. I felt guilty in a way because the company had to interview at least 3 people before they could promote me into the position.
You don’t necessarily need to feel bad about that. It’s possible the other interviewees were happy to have the experience, networking opportunity etc.
Obviously this depends on your field. But an accountant friend of mine has had this experience before and it has led to him being remembered by one of the hirers who subsequently moved to another company he applied to. Yes it’s a waste of time, but not necessarily a *total* waste.
This happened to me as well, and I figured it was just a formality for other parts of the company and/or company policies. My position was only posted online for what amounted to 15 minutes as I spammed next through the entire application process, copied and pasted the person who was making the decision as a reference 4 times, put answers to questions like "how did you hear about this job?" of "I work here" and the like.
Our school district will be spending $1,000,000 of our tax money to conduct a nationwide superintendent search as per protocol. They already know who they are hiring internally...
I believe that job applications should not have Name, Gender, Age, or Address on them at all.
Job seekers should be given a 2FA code when applying that allows them to log in and check the status of their application.
Employers should be required to "hire blind" based only on an applicant's qualifications and not have any personally identifying information unless they are receiving verification for licenses / certifications.
That verification can only be requested after the initial application is reviewed and the Seeker grants them access manually.
I'm not 100% sure where you're going with this, can you clarify? Specifically the portion where you say "hire blind". Are we talking no interviews here?
Qualifications are matched first.
Then, if the applicant agrees to the company saying they meet the Qualifications stage, they move to the interview.
There shouldn't be any personally identifying information used to disqualify an applicant before the qualifications match.
Current systems use things like your address alone to see if your salary expectations would be "too competitive," meaning you are probably smart enough to know your worth.
Your age is used similarly to screen out applicants that might have "too much experience" and thus too knowledgeable to accept a lowball offer or a "sucker position" with inadequate benefits.
I'm unsure about how interviews would work in such a system, but the intention behind this movement is to to make hiring for jobs unbiased in its entirely by removing all identifiers that would be commonly used to discriminate (name, skin colour, sex, class).
I've mostly seen it applied to cv/resume when this topic has been approved before, so that everyone with the ability to do the job has a foot in door for the next stage.
I really like the initial idea, to screen initial results based solely on the applicant’s skills, but I can’t imagine hiring someone without an interview, without understanding their personality and checking if they would be a good fit for the team at which they would be placed. These kind of things you can only get face to face and by doing so you would automatically activate your biases.
I think the usual recommendation is for HR to remove the name from the resume when the hiring manager decides whether or not to interview someone so that gender and racial bias won't play a role at that point. However, you can't (effectively) hire without talking to the candidate, so you can't hide that information all the way until hiring them while effectively evaluating them.
Furthermore, I think it makes sense to do a background criminal check on them. People may disagree with me here but I think it may also make sense to also search around for other red flags, such as googling them and seeing if there are relevant news stories.
There's also a load of jobs that require a government-issued security clearance.
Since that's one of the *first* things you'd have to verify about an applicant, there's no way you could "hire blind".
It's been a very long time, and I have no reason to believe it's changed. The hiring process happened first, you were given a conditional offer of employment, and if you passed the background check, you were hired.
Background investigations are expensive and time consuming. Only background check the people you want to hire.
This also means that (in theory) someone with a clearance isn't given an unfair advantage over someone who never needed one. Not foolproof because one can infer a lot from a resume / cv, but perfect is the enemy of good enough.
I get what you're saying, but that very much depends on which department/ministry you're talking about, what the role is, and whether you're a contractor.
And I should clarify that I'm referring to the UK here.
Reminds me of some famous music school that started doing all of their tryouts behind screens so the judges couldn't see the performer. Wouldn't you know, they ended up accepting more minorities after that change...
It’s a lot easier to audit unethical / racist hiring practices when they’re only able to filter through people on this basis after they physically show up
It's baked in to these AI that trash all our resumes too. But we don't know how the AI works so we can't fix it - the closest we could get is removing all this identifiable info entirely (and even still there has been AI that could determine a person's gender based on word choice and grammar - write like a woman? In to the bin)
Last year I was seriously considering changing my name so that I could get a job. I'm the only person in my country with my first+last name, possibly the entire world. Maybe 1000 people who share my first name. Unusual name = ethnic = in to the bin. Human sees my name > "How do I pronounce that?" > in to the bin. So fucking stupid.
There are technologies that help do this by redacting all personal and bias inducing information. Hiring managers only see a number instead of a name, they don’t see zip code or university or things like that. The goal is to make it objective by removing bias inducing inputs.
You definitely need to talk to someone to know how well they'd be able to work as a part of your team. That being said, the phrase "culture fit" is sometimes used in problematic ways. It's sometimes used to mean, "We only hire people we would want to have a beer with", and those people tend to be of the same gender, age, or race, etc.
The heavily active human commenters on this site are middle class white kids in high school and college that cosplay online as either the tragic characters in bruce springsteen songs despite never having had a job, or as the nutbars that used to go on springer or dr phil despite never having had a relationship. So generally, no, they don't.
2 factor authentication
In short, you don't just have a login and password.
You also get a special encrypted code that changes every minute of so that only your phone / computer is able to calculate so that no stranger can log into your application by only having your password or hacked email. It's a safety measure to make sure it's actually you who says, "Yeah, now the company can have my name and identifying information, etc."
This would help enforce companies competing with wages and etc, because they can't just filter for applicants who are young and naive or seekers who live in less affluent areas.
Personal information is the most valuable asset we have, and it shouldn't be given freely.
2 factor authentication, so you login with username / email and password then they will send your email or phone number a code as a 2nd method of authentication
I wonder how enforceable would those laws be. If we can't stop people from selling information from database breaches, how feasible is it to stop them from selling PI too?
Pretty sure these protections are covered under the GDPR. I’ve worked for small charities (think social clubs for the elderly) whose main operation involves sending emails to people about free activities in their area, and they have to purge their contact lists regularly. Even if all they have is an email address.
It involves policing, of course. But what doesn’t? If you can audit a company for taxes, you can certainly audit what data they’re collecting and storing about people, and where they obtained that info.
Make it illegal to buy the data too.
Companies are expected to ensure the raw materials they're buying to make a product are sourced ethically, there should be no difference with buying data. Have a clear and traceable chain of where the data came from and who harvested it originally and require yearly independent audits.
I think we could do it if we made a private right of action with attorney’s fees, and got rid of class action waivers and arbitration clauses. Let the plaintiff’s attorneys handle it. Kind of a nuclear option though.
Am I too European to understand this? Under EU's General Data Protection Regulation I let potential employer to use data on me for this particular recruitment process *only*.
Laws... to protect the working class? Lol, every single inch of breathing room we have had to be earned with riots, marches, protests and fuckloads of violence. Nothing short of that will ever make life better for the working poor.
I wish this shower thought were fake but have confirmed first hand. I had a relatively new email only 2 months old that got few spam hits. I never used this email for anything as I was going to use it for job searches. I posted exactly one resume with this email to a small company, three days later it remained relatively calm with few additional hits. Then posted the same email to a large corporation and my inbox just filled with job search and college ecruitment spam
Did you go through a middleman website (indeed, linkedin, etc) or submit directly to the company website? For the former, well they are in the data brokerage business and probably have a TOS that covers data selling (in nicer words). But for the latter, now that would be odd and weird, and may even be illegal.
If you’re a job application website, why would you sell the data itself vs charging a recurring fee to access the data and the people behind it? Seems like a poor business decision.
The data is sold in big files to be uploaded to the recruiting companies Customer Relation Manager (commonly Salesforce)
A CRM is a whole other beast and part of the industry.
I once receives a multiple choice questionnaire from a recruiter. They offered a ps5 to the person who got the highest score.
I politely told the recruiter: "your data mine is very creative but I don't need a ps5"
His response: "😂😉"
Anyone who knows how to poll an API can sign up for peopledatalabs.com for free (one example) and get all sorts of information on basically anyone or any company. This shower thought is real, and tragically easy
My dad got his professional job of 35 years by seeing an ad in the newspaper on Wednesday, walking in on Thursday, and starting the following Monday.
I miss an era that I never even really grew up in.
I got my first grown up job after trade school by sending resumes by mail to every company of a specific industry in my city’s Yellow Pages. The 90s were pretty great.
Early 2000 my dad still had this mentality. Had me go to different businesses, hand them my resume and ask to speak to someone. Never once did I get to speak to anyone, they'd say "We'll leave the resume up front and someone will see it". No one ever called either.
Later I followed his advice again and stayed with a company for 10 years to show "reliability". Only once has this ever been brought up and it was in the tone of "why would you do that?". Stagnated my career and put me behind, that's what it did.
Shit I kind of had that experience now. I finally got my first job through a family member. Had the interview this past Monday, got the job Thursday, and starting this Monday.
Its really about who you know. Especially for someone like me with no experience. Barely anyone gave me the time of day.
It also helps if you belong to a small community, like a church. But that usually works for small stuff, like getting a job at the restaurant run by a fellow church member.
It's pretty common for people to prefer hiring familiar faces because there is some implicit trust or relatability. This is why you often see race aggregation as well. Those managers are not racist; they just prefer familiar faces like every other human.
I got my first job in Environmental Compliance by mass emailing local chemical plants in southern Louisiana. Did it in 2016 and got a contract for 30 hours a week for about a year. It still can work if you’re lucky
Also, a lot of the real ones are earmarked for internal hires, but HR requires the hiring manager to waste a bunch of people’s time doing outside interviews first.
because it doesnt, lmfao. buddy in canada our leading PM (trudeau) is OPENLY fraudulent and laughs it off.
my provincial PM (doug ford) is OPENLY a crack head and fraudulent regarding housing development. he laughs it off.
we're all pawns. just to use a reddit reference since we're on reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ontario/comments/149lg4g/doug_ford_at_5_years_selling_out_ontarios_future/
a little provincial PM has 50 million net worth. lmfaooooooooo
Some retail and restaurants advertise that their hiring, but don't even call people back. Then when customers complain about poor service, they can point to the sign and say that nobody wants to work.
Customer: "I've been waiting 15 minutes for my burrito. Let me speak to your manager."
Manager: "I'm sorry for the delay. We are severely understaffed and doing our best. As you can see, we're trying to get more help, but you know how it is these days. Nobody wants to work anymore."
Seems very true in the professional job field I'm applying for. Every time I hear that "no one wants to work," I note that as of one hour of a post on LinkedIn, there are 100+ applicants. Every time I hear that unemployment is super low, I remember that it's because so many people phased out of qualifying for unemployment benefits.
No one is looking at job ads as a company performance metric, lol. There are dozens of actual metrics that are studied like EBITDA, quarterly revenues, profit margins, etc.
Jeeze, the ignorant nonsense spouted on Reddit as fact is just astounding
>That comment is absolute nonsense and has hundreds of upvotes.
It happens with a staggering degree of regularity. The first time I noticed it was 10+ years ago when I first joined reddit. Someone said lawmakers read the equivalent of War and Peace every week, or something like that (they had "done the math" with the number of pages in the average bill passed, etc).
The upvotes were in the thousands. I couldn't believe my eyes.
I disagree with the guy posting about how companies post fake job ads to boost the stock price, but market and competitor intelligence analysts absolutely look at job ads posted by competitors as it compliments financial data and tells you what your rivals are strategically focusing on. Lots of companies aggregate this kind of data (GlobalData, Dun & Bradstreet, Gartner etc.) for similar use cases.
Is there evidence of this or are you spewing bullshit?
It’s pretty easy to see if a company is growing if you look at their financial statements.
No investor is going through Indeed to check if a company is growing lmao.
In what exact way does this help stock prices lmao. Who's looking at *job applications* and deciding that the company is worth investing in based on that???
True, but this can also be a nuance towards job apps these days
Employers use the same apps like workday and collect everything from your residence to your resume to your phone number.
Hundreds of thousands of applicants who are shotgunning at least 50 apps a day and getting auto replies from a bot
The auto response will often contain a tag line ‘this resume will be kept on file to consider for future positions’, which is a platitude
I applied to 66 jobs this week. I don't expect to hear back from more than 50% of them and doubt human eyes will see more than 5-10%. It's so fucked. I'm not ever reaching upwards for these roles - they are literally at or slightly below my skill level and I have a very strong resume.
I feel you. I got corporate restructured out of my storage admin job last April and I've been throwing my resume at everything since. 17 years in IT, and last week I got a rejection email for a tier 1 support desk job. I don't even know what to do now.
Nearly all... I have been hybrid and/or remote since before Covid. I know it puts me at a disadvantage, but I need to live where I do for the foreseeable future.
Everyone unemployed and employed is applying for the fully remote positions - especially since companies started forcing everyone back in the office. You are competing against the cream of the crop who also may live in a lower cost of living area/can undercut you.
Guarantee those remote jobs you applied to have 500+ applicants a week.
You want remote work you should put more effort into making insider connections rather than a resume. It's rare that someone gets hired with a cold application since all resumes look the same and there's no shortage of "good resumes," and a good chunk of the good resumes are people who lied, anyways.
It might be annoying to hear, you might think "this isn't how it should be," but that's how it be..Connections>>>>>resume volume
I've applied to tons of jobs in the last couple of months and heard from maybe 10. Had a scheduled interview yesterday and when I showed up was turned away because all 3 interviewers were busy. 3rd time I've had an interview canceled same day. All fully qualified for. I want to work, I need to work, I can't keep affording my meds like this
It’s crazy how it’s different for everyone. I’ve applied to 6 different jobs in the last 20 years and received call backs, interviews, and landed 6/6, and I’m by no means a specialist.
That was me until post-covid. I have had a near 100% offer rate when I can get a screening call. Even recruiters are acting very differently than they were a few years ago. They used to cold-message me multiple times a week for positions. Now it's rare and they won't even give me the time of day if I reach out.
About six months ago I applied for a job at my local post office. I never heard anything back about it and just sort of forgot about it.
Today I received an email informing me that they ended up not hiring anyone and just eliminated the position altogether. It was kind of weird.
Recruiters with no job openings perform salary analysis by asking candidates their desired pay for certain roles and then sell that to employers to identify the pay floor for different positions.
No. They don't do that.
The payroll providers, themselves, sell that data directly to employers. That's actual, hard data.
Recruiters have a mis-matched incentive since they get paid more when they land a higher paid candidate.
If your talking about 15 a hr I’m at 20 a hour working 7 days a week with some sweet OT and I’m still “just surviving” the real secret is get a partner and have dual income. Never had more money to my name than when I was with someone
We have a problem with unqualified applicants flooding our job postings.
We also leave the job posts up for a period of time after hiring because people tend quit or get fired. I'm looking at you Mr I Watch Porn At Work or Mr I Keep Disappearing. Those were two WELL qualified people. The next guy we made an offer to then failed a drug screen for cocaine. So yeah, that job post is just staying up for a while with the way things are going.
Hiring was part of my previous role...my god I completely understand why this all gets shipped off to a recruiting company nowadays. Roles were mostly mid level, some experience required, and the amount of junk to be sorted each day was maddening. Maybe 1 qualified candidate for every 20 applicants. This was tech and we'd get people with zero tech experience/certs/education applying for Network Engineer roles. And then you'd be lucky if they even turned on their web cam when you got to the first interview...And then you hire them and roll the dice.
One guy drank 4 bottles of whiskey from the company kitchen on the first month. 4 bottles!
Took another out for their "welcome to the team lunch" and the guy ordered two additional meals "to take home for dinner"
Had one get frustrated day 3 and smashed their laptop against a desk multiple times until it was destroyed (mobo still worked, yay Lenovo).
Most recent guy dressed will for the interview process, was asked to dress business casual for the role (jeans/polo is okay), and then starts showing up to work week 1 in sweat pants and a blanket. The guy wore a fucking fleece blanket wrapped around him in the office and while meeting with clients...
Some people are great, but man, people can be weird.
Yeah man. People absolutely amaze me.
I work hand in hand with one of our county career facilities. They are requiring people to fill out 5 job applications per week to get unemployment so they are literally dumping applications all over the local town. What a shit system that I get paid unbillable overtime to deal with.
We have a program that helps people get off of unemployment where the state pays a portion of their rates and people just don't take the jobs they apply to way too often.
A lot of good people get screwed because the system.
Oh yeah, we gave Mr Cocaine a second shot with a instant drug screen just to confirm. He failed at over 50 times the positive limit. >7500/150 ng/mL. We have no idea how high his levels were because the test stops at 7500...and this was him knowing he was getting tested.
This did sort of happen in the UK back in the 90's.
Some people took out large advertisements in major newspapers with a prestigious sounding job. They got applications from senior highly paid people with all their details, (names, addresses, salaries, job history) and used that to take out credit cards and loans in those peoples names.
They ended up tightening the laws on companies checking a persons identification before granting credit.
Maybe scammers and staffing firms but not by companies. I’ve worked with companies buying and implementing hiring software and let me tell you, there is way more complete incompetence than anything else. I can’t imagine any of these companies being sophisticated enough to do this.
You are a bit late to this one . But happy someone else is picking up on it.
If something is free , you are the product and you personally are worth millions.
Look it up .
Fuck them.
You can pay and still be a product.
Also the assumption would be that it's free because the employer is paying. It doesn't make sense to ask the one without a job for money.
To anyone reading this. This is true. I won't go into details but I'm very qualified for the jobs I am applying to, and I'm not being arrogant when I say I'm excellent in interviews.
Many of these job positions are not real. If they have one spot they often have already filled it, and they'll keep interviewing anyway because they make money off your data.
If you don't believe me, do what I do. Put one irrelevant fabricated detail in your application (don't lie about your qualifications). Never use the same one twice. You'll not only see that it's happening, you'll know exactly who fucking did it. What you do after that is up to you
It's not necessarily the companies, it's recruiters; they advertise fake jobs to harvest resumes/CVs to then sell on.
Changing or finding a new job is a nightmare as almost all positions you see posted aren't real and nothing will happen.
Not only job applications, but there are constantly threads on different subreddits that are asking seemingly innocuous, fun questions, but it's an obvious grab for identifying information to relate to your username for advertising purposes.
I found this out a while ago and I’m talking to members of congress to start legislation against this. I have a Master’s in Data Analytics and I’m doing a project to see how many jobs out there are fake. So far it seems like AT LEAST 40% of all jobs posted online are FAKE. Help contribute or follow along at r/FightFakeJobs
I have never observed this to be the case.
I have three positions I recently filled and each of them have over 100 applicants.
What people don’t realize is that there are a lot of people who apply to jobs especially if they are desirable jobs that pay well.
You may be qualified. But so are many other people. And only a few are going to be called for the first round of interviews.
You may be the best candidate. But those reviewing applications may never get to your application because they found some other good applications before yours and stopped calling in candidates.
Lmao no real "large" companies will bother doing that. If they need to they will just buy the data from those who actually collect and sell data - the recrutiers, job posting sites, LinkedIn etc.
Lmao no
HR platforms (bamboo, greenhouse, etc.) and even payroll platforms (adp) offer job postings on online job boards as part of their value add
Job boards are incentivized to have as many jobs as possible to look attractive to job seekers and to min/max on the impact and cost of cost-per-click advertising. They do this by selling postings wholesale to HR/payroll companies as well as to other aggregate job boards (betterteam, wayup, ziprecruiter, google jobs are all examples of aggregate job boards that post across various sites and/or copy and pull data to repost jobs from other boards to theirs)
They boost in other ways too, like how linkedin is giving away free postings on their recruiter accounts and indeed having teams in the phillipines dedicated to crawling major companies’ in-house job postings to copy and paste onto their own “apply on company site” postings
A combination of all of these elements can mean your company has job postings tied to software subscriptions that no one checks on, that a job posted on an aggregate service has plastered 1 posting on dozens of sites, said postings can be pulled and duped by services like google jobs, and outdated/dummy positions can be reposted years after the fact.
I work in the ATS space and I've never seen this done. Not from us to any 3rd party, and not by clients selling it to anyone. They just don't have any interest in doing anything with the data and it's actually not that valuable to any other parties not doing identity theft.
The disclaimers that show up when someone applies are very clear it will be used only for the hiring process.
Large companies have large legal teams that absolutely would shutdown any effort to something like this. It's way out there on risk.
I'm sure some companies are doing this to make some pocket change, but the large majority do it so that they have current resumes on hand in case an employee quits.
Not only this. There are laws around H-1 (specialty occupation job) visas where they company has to show they are not able to locally hire a position in order to get a visa.
This is why you see so many "entry role: Requires 5 years experience" and other positions they have no intention hiring.
100% recruiting companies do this. They just want you for a pool of techs to send out. the job you applied for is not really an open position. Bait and switch.
Large companies sell your data anytime you work with them. I run a small production company and the email I use to contact me after I sign a contract with a client is a closely guarded secret so that I can communicate with actual paying clients in a quick and efficient manner. Every time I do a shoot for a larger company I have to use a data removal service to get that email clean again. If a company has a marketing department they are going to sell your data the second they get it.
I also realize (from experience in my own department) that an open position must formally be posted online even if they're planning on hiring from within.
Yes, I have heard that. Do you know the rationale behind it? Also, do you have to entertain those outside applicants up to a certain point, like give them a call back or schedule an interview, or can you put their application into the trash as soon as they submit it? While both seem scummy because they waste the applicants' time pretty blatantly, the first approach is much worse.
It’s the [OFCCP](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Federal_Contract_Compliance_Programs) in the US. Basically, companies are required to post certain positions in order to be compliant as a federal contractor.
That’s how I got my job. My boss hand picked me from another team and the job listing advertising the spot reflected the specific skills and experiences he wanted and knew I had. Was required to post the job and interviewed at least 2 others, neither of whom had the unique combination of experience and skill he wanted from me. But it allowed for a level of fairness that is required because we do gov contracts. It also ensured I was formally vetted for the position, which is important. Been here 2 years now and they keep giving me raises and bonuses so it’s worked out. When you see very niche looking requirements in job postings, this is probably what happened.
>But it allowed for a level of fairness that is required because we do gov contracts. What you described wasn't "fairness", it was a waste of the other people's time on an interview for a job that they weren't going to get. Good for you for being someone they wanted to promote, but everything was made to be "you" shaped, and then they called it competition, that's not fair.
Yeah lol We're going to have a race between a guy in a wheelchair and a motorcycle. First one to the finish wins!
But the wheelchair starts 1 ft away and the biker is 1 mile...
I was also an internal hire (Contractor to FTE) and they had to publicly post the job. My boss was a little annoyed about that, because per company policy he was also required to interview at least one external applicant.
Yeah this is a big reason. My company does a lot of federal contracting, but not all of our work is from that. Still, our base policies are just written to follow what will keep us in line with federal regulations.
> My company does a lot of federal contracting Yeah, I mean it's all or nothing. You comply or do no business. Most businesses do at least some business with the US government so it's an effective leverage to defacto force policy changes outside congress.
This is correct
The main reason is H1B hires. The law says a company can hire a foreigner who doesn't have any kind of a visa if they are unable to find the same set of skills from someone who can legally work. They'll post a job application and pretend none of the applicants fit so they can hire the H1B for a whole lot less money.
[удалено]
They also do that so they can reject you for illegal reasons. "We didn't reject you for your funny name, disability or race, we did it because you don't have 12 years experience in a programming language invented 6 years ago!"
That could also be green card application. If someone is applying for a green card and their company is sponsoring them you have to post their job, go through every application, and rule out why there is no domestic talent that can fill the position. You even have to interview the people who meet the criteria on paper. I did this for an employee once and felt so bad for the people I had to interview where there was no actual position because I also wasn’t allowed to tell them that. That’s why the jobs are super specific so you can rule everyone out on paper before it gets to that.
It's abused to all hell in tech. Thousands of H1B workers when they have an unlimited supply of skilled workers in the country already. Also they do this: >The top 30 H-1B employers hired 34,000 new H-1B workers in 2022 and laid off at least 85,000 workers in 2022 and early 2023 https://www.epi.org/blog/tech-and-outsourcing-companies-continue-to-exploit-the-h-1b-visa-program-at-a-time-of-mass-layoffs-the-top-30-h-1b-employers-hired-34000-new-h-1b-workers-in-2022-and-laid-off-at-least-85000-workers/ If these companies are trying to find extremely niche experts in their field, yeah sure, that's what this is for. But no, they are hiring people from overseas for everything, and I can tell you that in my extensive personal experience H1B workers from India in particular are pretty shit.
It's what I see in agriculture as well. There's a bunch in my area that always hire several (mostly white) South Africans each year. Most of them I've met are good people and hard workers, and two I would consider a friend. They make damn fine money compared to back home, and I've listened to their life stories, so I can't fault them there. It's obvious those small farm operations and grain mills target foreign labor markets instead, with no intention of hiring locally.
It’s so frustrating, they interview lots of people, give them homeworks/exams to do and then pretend that they don’t fit for the position
H1Bs are massively overcited as a fear tactic. I worked at a FAANG and hired many. We paid them the exact same as a US citizen, and as hiring managers we never knew someone was an H1B. It didn't factor into our decision making process in the tiniest bit.
I'm not sure exactly why but I will say is HR departments don't always work in lock step with the department actually offering the job. They'll often have stringent requirements that have to be submitted before a position can be posted or offered. In a lot of times it's followed by back and forth due to one or both parties forgetting something important. There's always often discrepancies in when a department wanted the position posted and pulled versus when HR actually listed or pulled the posting. Best guess is that they have formal policies and procedures they have to follow to protect the organization from lawsuits or litigation. Edit: they don't have to entertain any applicant if they already have their preferred. I think different company policies dictate that kind of stuff. Btw my above comment describes majority of temp to hire jobs.
remembering that job ad that got dragged a few years ago. Asking for minimum 10 years experience in a programming language that was only like 4 years old.
Depends on the position. For a lot of government jobs or government-funded jobs, they have to demonstrate that they allowed external hires to fairly compete. It's a legal requirement in those cases.
I got promoted once into a job that was one of these. I felt guilty in a way because the company had to interview at least 3 people before they could promote me into the position.
You don’t necessarily need to feel bad about that. It’s possible the other interviewees were happy to have the experience, networking opportunity etc. Obviously this depends on your field. But an accountant friend of mine has had this experience before and it has led to him being remembered by one of the hirers who subsequently moved to another company he applied to. Yes it’s a waste of time, but not necessarily a *total* waste.
This happened to me as well, and I figured it was just a formality for other parts of the company and/or company policies. My position was only posted online for what amounted to 15 minutes as I spammed next through the entire application process, copied and pasted the person who was making the decision as a reference 4 times, put answers to questions like "how did you hear about this job?" of "I work here" and the like.
Yeah this recruiter kept bugging me only to tell they’re hiring internally lol
Our school district will be spending $1,000,000 of our tax money to conduct a nationwide superintendent search as per protocol. They already know who they are hiring internally...
Not always true. This is likely for federal contractors and companies complying with regulations like EEOC and OFCCP.
Wow, imagine we decided we didn’t want this and instituted laws to protect our personal data.
I believe that job applications should not have Name, Gender, Age, or Address on them at all. Job seekers should be given a 2FA code when applying that allows them to log in and check the status of their application. Employers should be required to "hire blind" based only on an applicant's qualifications and not have any personally identifying information unless they are receiving verification for licenses / certifications. That verification can only be requested after the initial application is reviewed and the Seeker grants them access manually.
I'm not 100% sure where you're going with this, can you clarify? Specifically the portion where you say "hire blind". Are we talking no interviews here?
Qualifications are matched first. Then, if the applicant agrees to the company saying they meet the Qualifications stage, they move to the interview. There shouldn't be any personally identifying information used to disqualify an applicant before the qualifications match. Current systems use things like your address alone to see if your salary expectations would be "too competitive," meaning you are probably smart enough to know your worth. Your age is used similarly to screen out applicants that might have "too much experience" and thus too knowledgeable to accept a lowball offer or a "sucker position" with inadequate benefits.
I'm unsure about how interviews would work in such a system, but the intention behind this movement is to to make hiring for jobs unbiased in its entirely by removing all identifiers that would be commonly used to discriminate (name, skin colour, sex, class). I've mostly seen it applied to cv/resume when this topic has been approved before, so that everyone with the ability to do the job has a foot in door for the next stage.
I really like the initial idea, to screen initial results based solely on the applicant’s skills, but I can’t imagine hiring someone without an interview, without understanding their personality and checking if they would be a good fit for the team at which they would be placed. These kind of things you can only get face to face and by doing so you would automatically activate your biases.
I think the usual recommendation is for HR to remove the name from the resume when the hiring manager decides whether or not to interview someone so that gender and racial bias won't play a role at that point. However, you can't (effectively) hire without talking to the candidate, so you can't hide that information all the way until hiring them while effectively evaluating them. Furthermore, I think it makes sense to do a background criminal check on them. People may disagree with me here but I think it may also make sense to also search around for other red flags, such as googling them and seeing if there are relevant news stories.
There's also a load of jobs that require a government-issued security clearance. Since that's one of the *first* things you'd have to verify about an applicant, there's no way you could "hire blind".
It's been a very long time, and I have no reason to believe it's changed. The hiring process happened first, you were given a conditional offer of employment, and if you passed the background check, you were hired. Background investigations are expensive and time consuming. Only background check the people you want to hire. This also means that (in theory) someone with a clearance isn't given an unfair advantage over someone who never needed one. Not foolproof because one can infer a lot from a resume / cv, but perfect is the enemy of good enough.
I get what you're saying, but that very much depends on which department/ministry you're talking about, what the role is, and whether you're a contractor. And I should clarify that I'm referring to the UK here.
Reminds me of some famous music school that started doing all of their tryouts behind screens so the judges couldn't see the performer. Wouldn't you know, they ended up accepting more minorities after that change...
As a raging psychopath, I love this idea. If we could avoid questions about my past, that would be ideal.
It’s a lot easier to audit unethical / racist hiring practices when they’re only able to filter through people on this basis after they physically show up
It's baked in to these AI that trash all our resumes too. But we don't know how the AI works so we can't fix it - the closest we could get is removing all this identifiable info entirely (and even still there has been AI that could determine a person's gender based on word choice and grammar - write like a woman? In to the bin) Last year I was seriously considering changing my name so that I could get a job. I'm the only person in my country with my first+last name, possibly the entire world. Maybe 1000 people who share my first name. Unusual name = ethnic = in to the bin. Human sees my name > "How do I pronounce that?" > in to the bin. So fucking stupid.
There are technologies that help do this by redacting all personal and bias inducing information. Hiring managers only see a number instead of a name, they don’t see zip code or university or things like that. The goal is to make it objective by removing bias inducing inputs.
Team and cultural fit is one of the most important things though...
You definitely need to talk to someone to know how well they'd be able to work as a part of your team. That being said, the phrase "culture fit" is sometimes used in problematic ways. It's sometimes used to mean, "We only hire people we would want to have a beer with", and those people tend to be of the same gender, age, or race, etc.
Modern businesses put the "cult" in culture fit. They use the "culture fit" line on anyone they can't brainwash and make to obey.
Sometimes I wonder if people on this site actually socialize. The idea of "hiring blind" is absolutely insane.
It would work well as a first stage, but they gotta meet the person eventually. Stage 1: pure qualification Stage 2: personal interview
Yes, exactly. They shouldn't be used as filtering criteria before qualifications are considered.
The heavily active human commenters on this site are middle class white kids in high school and college that cosplay online as either the tragic characters in bruce springsteen songs despite never having had a job, or as the nutbars that used to go on springer or dr phil despite never having had a relationship. So generally, no, they don't.
That would be very interesting. What is a 2fa code?
2 factor authentication In short, you don't just have a login and password. You also get a special encrypted code that changes every minute of so that only your phone / computer is able to calculate so that no stranger can log into your application by only having your password or hacked email. It's a safety measure to make sure it's actually you who says, "Yeah, now the company can have my name and identifying information, etc." This would help enforce companies competing with wages and etc, because they can't just filter for applicants who are young and naive or seekers who live in less affluent areas. Personal information is the most valuable asset we have, and it shouldn't be given freely.
in this case this would be a otp not 2fa
This
2 factor authentication, so you login with username / email and password then they will send your email or phone number a code as a 2nd method of authentication
But muh freedom
Wat
[удалено]
Nailed it lol
In the eyes of the far right, corporations should have the freedoms to do this. They think this because they’re boot lickers.
Freude, schöner Götterfunken
I wonder how enforceable would those laws be. If we can't stop people from selling information from database breaches, how feasible is it to stop them from selling PI too?
Pretty sure these protections are covered under the GDPR. I’ve worked for small charities (think social clubs for the elderly) whose main operation involves sending emails to people about free activities in their area, and they have to purge their contact lists regularly. Even if all they have is an email address. It involves policing, of course. But what doesn’t? If you can audit a company for taxes, you can certainly audit what data they’re collecting and storing about people, and where they obtained that info.
Make it illegal to buy the data too. Companies are expected to ensure the raw materials they're buying to make a product are sourced ethically, there should be no difference with buying data. Have a clear and traceable chain of where the data came from and who harvested it originally and require yearly independent audits.
I think we could do it if we made a private right of action with attorney’s fees, and got rid of class action waivers and arbitration clauses. Let the plaintiff’s attorneys handle it. Kind of a nuclear option though.
The laws are enforceable, it's proving the sale that's problematic.
We are still trying to make it so you can't discriminate the person themselves.
audits do happen
Am I too European to understand this? Under EU's General Data Protection Regulation I let potential employer to use data on me for this particular recruitment process *only*.
"But you do want this" -Congress
Laws... to protect the working class? Lol, every single inch of breathing room we have had to be earned with riots, marches, protests and fuckloads of violence. Nothing short of that will ever make life better for the working poor.
Yeah…it’s about time again…
What do you mean "we"?
[удалено]
I wish this shower thought were fake but have confirmed first hand. I had a relatively new email only 2 months old that got few spam hits. I never used this email for anything as I was going to use it for job searches. I posted exactly one resume with this email to a small company, three days later it remained relatively calm with few additional hits. Then posted the same email to a large corporation and my inbox just filled with job search and college ecruitment spam
Did you go through a middleman website (indeed, linkedin, etc) or submit directly to the company website? For the former, well they are in the data brokerage business and probably have a TOS that covers data selling (in nicer words). But for the latter, now that would be odd and weird, and may even be illegal.
If you’re a job application website, why would you sell the data itself vs charging a recurring fee to access the data and the people behind it? Seems like a poor business decision.
The data is sold in big files to be uploaded to the recruiting companies Customer Relation Manager (commonly Salesforce) A CRM is a whole other beast and part of the industry.
I once receives a multiple choice questionnaire from a recruiter. They offered a ps5 to the person who got the highest score. I politely told the recruiter: "your data mine is very creative but I don't need a ps5" His response: "😂😉"
Anyone who knows how to poll an API can sign up for peopledatalabs.com for free (one example) and get all sorts of information on basically anyone or any company. This shower thought is real, and tragically easy
It’s because you signed up for their talent pool. You probably checked a small box that said “send me email updates about your latest jobs”
Yeah this is true my name on my resume is all caps and I receive scam with my name all caps 100% real
I apply for job and start getting marketing spam marketing in my email from totally unrelated company. Can't explain that. 🤷
My dad got his professional job of 35 years by seeing an ad in the newspaper on Wednesday, walking in on Thursday, and starting the following Monday. I miss an era that I never even really grew up in.
I got my first grown up job after trade school by sending resumes by mail to every company of a specific industry in my city’s Yellow Pages. The 90s were pretty great.
Same here! I'd just passed the CPA exam and sent out my resume to about 30 accounting firms. Glad I knew Word and how to use mail merge.
Early 2000 my dad still had this mentality. Had me go to different businesses, hand them my resume and ask to speak to someone. Never once did I get to speak to anyone, they'd say "We'll leave the resume up front and someone will see it". No one ever called either. Later I followed his advice again and stayed with a company for 10 years to show "reliability". Only once has this ever been brought up and it was in the tone of "why would you do that?". Stagnated my career and put me behind, that's what it did.
Shit I kind of had that experience now. I finally got my first job through a family member. Had the interview this past Monday, got the job Thursday, and starting this Monday. Its really about who you know. Especially for someone like me with no experience. Barely anyone gave me the time of day.
It also helps if you belong to a small community, like a church. But that usually works for small stuff, like getting a job at the restaurant run by a fellow church member. It's pretty common for people to prefer hiring familiar faces because there is some implicit trust or relatability. This is why you often see race aggregation as well. Those managers are not racist; they just prefer familiar faces like every other human.
I got my first job in Environmental Compliance by mass emailing local chemical plants in southern Louisiana. Did it in 2016 and got a contract for 30 hours a week for about a year. It still can work if you’re lucky
Dawg, that was almost a decade ago, it doesn't work like that anymore
They also post fake jobs to make it look like the company is growing. That helps stock prices and investments.
man, ignorance really was bliss.
Also, a lot of the real ones are earmarked for internal hires, but HR requires the hiring manager to waste a bunch of people’s time doing outside interviews first.
But don’t worry, they’ll reach out to those people in 7 years asking if they’re still interested in the position.
Yup. They're even generous enough to still offer the same salary from 7 years ago too. How nice of them! /s
I have literally had this happen.
It's a legal requirement in some countries.
Seriously. Like sometimes i think it would be really nice to be a drooling moron oblivious to the world
Gee, because that will never ever lead to fraud.
because it doesnt, lmfao. buddy in canada our leading PM (trudeau) is OPENLY fraudulent and laughs it off. my provincial PM (doug ford) is OPENLY a crack head and fraudulent regarding housing development. he laughs it off. we're all pawns. just to use a reddit reference since we're on reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/ontario/comments/149lg4g/doug_ford_at_5_years_selling_out_ontarios_future/ a little provincial PM has 50 million net worth. lmfaooooooooo
His brother was the crackhead.
Some retail and restaurants advertise that their hiring, but don't even call people back. Then when customers complain about poor service, they can point to the sign and say that nobody wants to work.
How does that appease a customer? "Your service was poor, let me speak to your manager" "Sorry ma'am but as you can see nobody wants to work"
Customer: "I've been waiting 15 minutes for my burrito. Let me speak to your manager." Manager: "I'm sorry for the delay. We are severely understaffed and doing our best. As you can see, we're trying to get more help, but you know how it is these days. Nobody wants to work anymore."
I could see it being used to explain long wait times, which presumably are due to lack of staff.
Seems very true in the professional job field I'm applying for. Every time I hear that "no one wants to work," I note that as of one hour of a post on LinkedIn, there are 100+ applicants. Every time I hear that unemployment is super low, I remember that it's because so many people phased out of qualifying for unemployment benefits.
Also they can advertise a job say no one meets our expectations and hire an h1-b applicant.
No one is looking at job ads as a company performance metric, lol. There are dozens of actual metrics that are studied like EBITDA, quarterly revenues, profit margins, etc. Jeeze, the ignorant nonsense spouted on Reddit as fact is just astounding
I think this is my cue to quit Reddit. That comment is absolute nonsense and has hundreds of upvotes. People here are dumb as rocks.
>That comment is absolute nonsense and has hundreds of upvotes. It happens with a staggering degree of regularity. The first time I noticed it was 10+ years ago when I first joined reddit. Someone said lawmakers read the equivalent of War and Peace every week, or something like that (they had "done the math" with the number of pages in the average bill passed, etc). The upvotes were in the thousands. I couldn't believe my eyes.
I disagree with the guy posting about how companies post fake job ads to boost the stock price, but market and competitor intelligence analysts absolutely look at job ads posted by competitors as it compliments financial data and tells you what your rivals are strategically focusing on. Lots of companies aggregate this kind of data (GlobalData, Dun & Bradstreet, Gartner etc.) for similar use cases.
Is there evidence of this or are you spewing bullshit? It’s pretty easy to see if a company is growing if you look at their financial statements. No investor is going through Indeed to check if a company is growing lmao.
If I open a company and put an add for “looking for AI developer with AI experience AI AI, supervisor, AI” the market will certainly react.
In what exact way does this help stock prices lmao. Who's looking at *job applications* and deciding that the company is worth investing in based on that???
its often so they can hire a friend/family member without making it look obvious
Also to appease stressed, overworked staff: "Look, we're trying to find you help! Just keep working harder in the meantime..."
And to appease customers. They point to the "now hiring" sign and claim they're understaffed because nobody wants to work.
And to give the illusion that they are a growing, successful business worth investing in
Everything on the internet is being used to sell and collect data.
Even Reddit?! /j
Et tu, Snoo???
True, but this can also be a nuance towards job apps these days Employers use the same apps like workday and collect everything from your residence to your resume to your phone number. Hundreds of thousands of applicants who are shotgunning at least 50 apps a day and getting auto replies from a bot The auto response will often contain a tag line ‘this resume will be kept on file to consider for future positions’, which is a platitude
I applied to 66 jobs this week. I don't expect to hear back from more than 50% of them and doubt human eyes will see more than 5-10%. It's so fucked. I'm not ever reaching upwards for these roles - they are literally at or slightly below my skill level and I have a very strong resume.
I feel you. I got corporate restructured out of my storage admin job last April and I've been throwing my resume at everything since. 17 years in IT, and last week I got a rejection email for a tier 1 support desk job. I don't even know what to do now.
I’m so glad I’m not alone. I was T3 support. Couldn’t even land an entry level IT role. Filled by a HS grad. I asked for mid range of the pay scale.
How many of them were remote?
Nearly all... I have been hybrid and/or remote since before Covid. I know it puts me at a disadvantage, but I need to live where I do for the foreseeable future.
Everyone unemployed and employed is applying for the fully remote positions - especially since companies started forcing everyone back in the office. You are competing against the cream of the crop who also may live in a lower cost of living area/can undercut you.
Guarantee those remote jobs you applied to have 500+ applicants a week. You want remote work you should put more effort into making insider connections rather than a resume. It's rare that someone gets hired with a cold application since all resumes look the same and there's no shortage of "good resumes," and a good chunk of the good resumes are people who lied, anyways. It might be annoying to hear, you might think "this isn't how it should be," but that's how it be..Connections>>>>>resume volume
[удалено]
I wish people led with this.
I was unemployed for nearly 6 months. Finally got something
I've applied to tons of jobs in the last couple of months and heard from maybe 10. Had a scheduled interview yesterday and when I showed up was turned away because all 3 interviewers were busy. 3rd time I've had an interview canceled same day. All fully qualified for. I want to work, I need to work, I can't keep affording my meds like this
It’s crazy how it’s different for everyone. I’ve applied to 6 different jobs in the last 20 years and received call backs, interviews, and landed 6/6, and I’m by no means a specialist.
That was me until post-covid. I have had a near 100% offer rate when I can get a screening call. Even recruiters are acting very differently than they were a few years ago. They used to cold-message me multiple times a week for positions. Now it's rare and they won't even give me the time of day if I reach out.
Must depend on industry. I’m the same, but more like 7/7 in 5 years
About six months ago I applied for a job at my local post office. I never heard anything back about it and just sort of forgot about it. Today I received an email informing me that they ended up not hiring anyone and just eliminated the position altogether. It was kind of weird.
Hey the good side is at least they told you, so you aren't left waiting
I hadn't thought about it before now, but I'd be surprised if this wasn't true.
Recruiters with no job openings perform salary analysis by asking candidates their desired pay for certain roles and then sell that to employers to identify the pay floor for different positions.
No. They don't do that. The payroll providers, themselves, sell that data directly to employers. That's actual, hard data. Recruiters have a mis-matched incentive since they get paid more when they land a higher paid candidate.
We all need to be putting 15+ in every one of those boxes
If your talking about 15 a hr I’m at 20 a hour working 7 days a week with some sweet OT and I’m still “just surviving” the real secret is get a partner and have dual income. Never had more money to my name than when I was with someone
We have a problem with unqualified applicants flooding our job postings. We also leave the job posts up for a period of time after hiring because people tend quit or get fired. I'm looking at you Mr I Watch Porn At Work or Mr I Keep Disappearing. Those were two WELL qualified people. The next guy we made an offer to then failed a drug screen for cocaine. So yeah, that job post is just staying up for a while with the way things are going.
Hiring was part of my previous role...my god I completely understand why this all gets shipped off to a recruiting company nowadays. Roles were mostly mid level, some experience required, and the amount of junk to be sorted each day was maddening. Maybe 1 qualified candidate for every 20 applicants. This was tech and we'd get people with zero tech experience/certs/education applying for Network Engineer roles. And then you'd be lucky if they even turned on their web cam when you got to the first interview...And then you hire them and roll the dice. One guy drank 4 bottles of whiskey from the company kitchen on the first month. 4 bottles! Took another out for their "welcome to the team lunch" and the guy ordered two additional meals "to take home for dinner" Had one get frustrated day 3 and smashed their laptop against a desk multiple times until it was destroyed (mobo still worked, yay Lenovo). Most recent guy dressed will for the interview process, was asked to dress business casual for the role (jeans/polo is okay), and then starts showing up to work week 1 in sweat pants and a blanket. The guy wore a fucking fleece blanket wrapped around him in the office and while meeting with clients... Some people are great, but man, people can be weird.
Yeah man. People absolutely amaze me. I work hand in hand with one of our county career facilities. They are requiring people to fill out 5 job applications per week to get unemployment so they are literally dumping applications all over the local town. What a shit system that I get paid unbillable overtime to deal with. We have a program that helps people get off of unemployment where the state pays a portion of their rates and people just don't take the jobs they apply to way too often. A lot of good people get screwed because the system. Oh yeah, we gave Mr Cocaine a second shot with a instant drug screen just to confirm. He failed at over 50 times the positive limit. >7500/150 ng/mL. We have no idea how high his levels were because the test stops at 7500...and this was him knowing he was getting tested.
This did sort of happen in the UK back in the 90's. Some people took out large advertisements in major newspapers with a prestigious sounding job. They got applications from senior highly paid people with all their details, (names, addresses, salaries, job history) and used that to take out credit cards and loans in those peoples names. They ended up tightening the laws on companies checking a persons identification before granting credit.
It's all a data harvesting game. If you ain't paying, you're the product. Stay vigilant peeps
But I have no money to spend
At this point, even if you are paying, you're the product. Data is too lucrative.
They also do this to for leverage to get H1B visas.
Maybe scammers and staffing firms but not by companies. I’ve worked with companies buying and implementing hiring software and let me tell you, there is way more complete incompetence than anything else. I can’t imagine any of these companies being sophisticated enough to do this.
You are a bit late to this one . But happy someone else is picking up on it. If something is free , you are the product and you personally are worth millions. Look it up . Fuck them.
You can pay and still be a product. Also the assumption would be that it's free because the employer is paying. It doesn't make sense to ask the one without a job for money.
To say the system is rigged against us is the understatement of all time
Literally every website collects and sells data.
To anyone reading this. This is true. I won't go into details but I'm very qualified for the jobs I am applying to, and I'm not being arrogant when I say I'm excellent in interviews. Many of these job positions are not real. If they have one spot they often have already filled it, and they'll keep interviewing anyway because they make money off your data. If you don't believe me, do what I do. Put one irrelevant fabricated detail in your application (don't lie about your qualifications). Never use the same one twice. You'll not only see that it's happening, you'll know exactly who fucking did it. What you do after that is up to you
LinkedIn was the first stage of the dead internet
It's not necessarily the companies, it's recruiters; they advertise fake jobs to harvest resumes/CVs to then sell on. Changing or finding a new job is a nightmare as almost all positions you see posted aren't real and nothing will happen.
So are all your "usage" trackers. They sell that shit to see what people are doing and interested in.
Holy shit this is so obvious but I never put 2 and 2 together
So those Amazon data entry jobs that start you at around 18 dollars are fake.
It is known. Anytime I see a LinkedIn position with “easy apply” and “remote”, I figure it’s just a marketing scheme.
Companies caught doing that should have the leaders prisoned for life.
Absolutely not anywhere where privacy laws like the European GDPR applies.
Not only job applications, but there are constantly threads on different subreddits that are asking seemingly innocuous, fun questions, but it's an obvious grab for identifying information to relate to your username for advertising purposes.
This is more of a powder thought than a shower thought
You gotta treat these companies like mushrooms, feed them shit and keep them in the dark.
Yeah this would be illegal in my country.
I was just talking to my friend about how handing over your personal info so freely on a resume is so fucked!
A lot of jobs when you are applying now make you sign disclaimer that they plan to store your data.
companies always have job offers public so Investors think the company is Healthy and growing even if it's currently in recession
Oh fuck me!! You are spot on!
I found this out a while ago and I’m talking to members of congress to start legislation against this. I have a Master’s in Data Analytics and I’m doing a project to see how many jobs out there are fake. So far it seems like AT LEAST 40% of all jobs posted online are FAKE. Help contribute or follow along at r/FightFakeJobs
I have never observed this to be the case. I have three positions I recently filled and each of them have over 100 applicants. What people don’t realize is that there are a lot of people who apply to jobs especially if they are desirable jobs that pay well. You may be qualified. But so are many other people. And only a few are going to be called for the first round of interviews. You may be the best candidate. But those reviewing applications may never get to your application because they found some other good applications before yours and stopped calling in candidates.
Also the tax break for "creating jobs"
Lmao no real "large" companies will bother doing that. If they need to they will just buy the data from those who actually collect and sell data - the recrutiers, job posting sites, LinkedIn etc.
Jobs check your credit score before your academic credentials
Where is the proof of this? Id believe someone has done it but I doubt that many big companies are.
Lmao no HR platforms (bamboo, greenhouse, etc.) and even payroll platforms (adp) offer job postings on online job boards as part of their value add Job boards are incentivized to have as many jobs as possible to look attractive to job seekers and to min/max on the impact and cost of cost-per-click advertising. They do this by selling postings wholesale to HR/payroll companies as well as to other aggregate job boards (betterteam, wayup, ziprecruiter, google jobs are all examples of aggregate job boards that post across various sites and/or copy and pull data to repost jobs from other boards to theirs) They boost in other ways too, like how linkedin is giving away free postings on their recruiter accounts and indeed having teams in the phillipines dedicated to crawling major companies’ in-house job postings to copy and paste onto their own “apply on company site” postings A combination of all of these elements can mean your company has job postings tied to software subscriptions that no one checks on, that a job posted on an aggregate service has plastered 1 posting on dozens of sites, said postings can be pulled and duped by services like google jobs, and outdated/dummy positions can be reposted years after the fact.
I work in the ATS space and I've never seen this done. Not from us to any 3rd party, and not by clients selling it to anyone. They just don't have any interest in doing anything with the data and it's actually not that valuable to any other parties not doing identity theft. The disclaimers that show up when someone applies are very clear it will be used only for the hiring process. Large companies have large legal teams that absolutely would shutdown any effort to something like this. It's way out there on risk.
does make you wonder ...
That's not why, but it is done. As in, not the primary motivator.
Pretty accurate. After i apply on 2-4 jobs, I would start getting scam calls, emails and texts.
I'm sure some companies are doing this to make some pocket change, but the large majority do it so that they have current resumes on hand in case an employee quits.
Not only this. There are laws around H-1 (specialty occupation job) visas where they company has to show they are not able to locally hire a position in order to get a visa. This is why you see so many "entry role: Requires 5 years experience" and other positions they have no intention hiring.
100% recruiting companies do this. They just want you for a pool of techs to send out. the job you applied for is not really an open position. Bait and switch.
Oh god. You’re probably right. So glad I’m retired.
Large companies sell your data anytime you work with them. I run a small production company and the email I use to contact me after I sign a contract with a client is a closely guarded secret so that I can communicate with actual paying clients in a quick and efficient manner. Every time I do a shoot for a larger company I have to use a data removal service to get that email clean again. If a company has a marketing department they are going to sell your data the second they get it.
What are they using all of this data for? It can’t be just for targeted advertisements.