3 ms·

Maybe you could explain to me why you think that's selfish. Here's why I don't see it as selfish: Hiring is expensive. My time has a numerical number attached

Maybe you could explain to me why you think that's selfish. Here's why I don't see it as selfish: Hiring is expensive. My time has a numerical number attached to it. As a tangible example, my revenue for my company is $125 an hour. I ended up interviewing 10 people for our most recent junior level hire. 2 of them were duds, immediately costing the company $250. The rest of them each spent about 2.5 hours with me: $2500. 4 were invited back, spending about 4 hours each with me: $2000. 1 was invited back to spend the day with me pair programming. I'll discount this at half price, given that I was still able to accomplish something: $500. They didn't end up taking the job offer, so I invited my second choice in for the same deal: $500. I ended up hiring them. 10 people cost the company $5,750. Read back through what I wrote, and you'll notice I said "I". I'm solely talking about my contribution to being in an interview room, not even accounting for my coworkers' contributions, nor the time spent with resumes. Now read back through it again, and replace "company" with "fellow employees". My "selfish" approach saves my coworkers money by eliminating candidates who were statistically unlikely to get the job anyway. If that's truly selfish, sign me up any day of the week. For some more context, go flip through linkedIn profiles of people with <5 years of work experience and you'll see a strong trend: (5 months) (5 months) (3 months) (7 months). Not even 2 years and 4 "full time" jobs. Going back to the hiring numbers, intro_to_hiring puts the cost of replacement equal to their salary. Now imagine my hire follows this trend. I've spent $15k on finding them, $10k on training them, $40k in salary, and now I have to spend another $80k replacing them. All of that in a span of 6 months. Sounds like a pretty one-sided deal. All said and done, I struggle to believe I'm the selfish asshole of the story.

mikeash 11y ago
It doesn't become better or somehow "not selfish" just because you bring your coworkers into it. It is ultimately the company which is lying for selfish reasons. The company lies about its requirements to save money. And you don't understand how I could think that's wrong? You seem to not even grasp what I have a problem with, since you spend your entire final paragraph talking about the perils of hiring inexperienced people. I have no problem with companies saying they want 3+ years of experience because they don't want inexperienced people. That's totally fine. Where I have a problem is when you say "3+ years" but actually want 1+ years, as you described in your original comment. Not only is that dishonest, but it selects for dishonest applicants, since scrupulous people with 1-2 years of experience will not respond to your ad, while unscrupulous people will. Again, I have no problem with experience requirements, I merely have a problem with lying about them as you said you do. If you reply, please keep that in mind, and don't explain why experience is so important, because that's not the issue.
- lloyd-christmas 11y ago
  > It doesn't become better or somehow "not selfish" just because you bring your coworkers into it. It is ultimately the company which is lying for selfish reasons. A company is it's employees. All of whom are coworkers. Acting in their interests isn't selfish, it's responsible. The things you're talking about have no effect on a stranger who has the choice whether or not to click a button on the internet and attach their resume to an email. If it's making decisions based on the interest of strangers instead of its employees, that's when I'd start reaching for the moral compass. You're saying that lying is wrong. It sure is. But this is a job posting. You're taking it WAY to seriously and literally. It's a 100 word post explaining who you are, and what you'll be doing for 3000+ hours every year* . Prior to this conversation, I would never have thought anyone cared or put value into what it said. It's nothing more than a car commercial. The details are at the dealership. An accurate and detailed description of a job comes during an interview. Your resume doesn't end up on my desk if you keep it to yourself. > Not only is that dishonest, but it selects for dishonest applicants, since scrupulous people with 1-2 years of experience will not respond to your ad, while unscrupulous people will. Why apply to Harvard if your SAT scores aren't in their range? When I was unemployed, I spammed my resume to everything that resembled a job I was willing to do, whether it was entry level or 10+ years. I'm not sure how you could possibly turn that into a debate on morality. I'd rather my name be out there than keeping it locked away until I find _The One_. If I took some misguided moral stance about my job applications, I'd be unemployed and inexperienced. I'd have thrown away the one random job that came along which actually fit my skill set, simply because of a lack of interview experience. The job hunt is about interviewing for jobs you're not qualified for, finding the skill set that those posts are actually looking for, and preparing for the next one. You don't know until you ask. This has nothing to do with morality. If an interviewee spoke of a moral stance on our job posting, they'd be at the top of the no-call list as a potential HR nightmare. * Terms may vary. Hours and pay are dependent upon experience. Other conditions may apply.

mikeash 11y ago

It doesn't become better or somehow "not selfish" just because you bring your coworkers into it. It is ultimately the company which is lying for selfish reasons. The company lies about its requirements to save money. And you don't understand how I could think that's wrong? You seem to not even grasp what I have a problem with, since you spend your entire final paragraph talking about the perils of hiring inexperienced people. I have no problem with companies saying they want 3+ years of experience because they don't want inexperienced people. That's totally fine. Where I have a problem is when you say "3+ years" but actually want 1+ years, as you described in your original comment. Not only is that dishonest, but it selects for dishonest applicants, since scrupulous people with 1-2 years of experience will not respond to your ad, while unscrupulous people will. Again, I have no problem with experience requirements, I merely have a problem with lying about them as you said you do. If you reply, please keep that in mind, and don't explain why experience is so important, because that's not the issue.

lloyd-christmas 11y ago
> It doesn't become better or somehow "not selfish" just because you bring your coworkers into it. It is ultimately the company which is lying for selfish reasons. A company is it's employees. All of whom are coworkers. Acting in their interests isn't selfish, it's responsible. The things you're talking about have no effect on a stranger who has the choice whether or not to click a button on the internet and attach their resume to an email. If it's making decisions based on the interest of strangers instead of its employees, that's when I'd start reaching for the moral compass. You're saying that lying is wrong. It sure is. But this is a job posting. You're taking it WAY to seriously and literally. It's a 100 word post explaining who you are, and what you'll be doing for 3000+ hours every year* . Prior to this conversation, I would never have thought anyone cared or put value into what it said. It's nothing more than a car commercial. The details are at the dealership. An accurate and detailed description of a job comes during an interview. Your resume doesn't end up on my desk if you keep it to yourself. > Not only is that dishonest, but it selects for dishonest applicants, since scrupulous people with 1-2 years of experience will not respond to your ad, while unscrupulous people will. Why apply to Harvard if your SAT scores aren't in their range? When I was unemployed, I spammed my resume to everything that resembled a job I was willing to do, whether it was entry level or 10+ years. I'm not sure how you could possibly turn that into a debate on morality. I'd rather my name be out there than keeping it locked away until I find _The One_. If I took some misguided moral stance about my job applications, I'd be unemployed and inexperienced. I'd have thrown away the one random job that came along which actually fit my skill set, simply because of a lack of interview experience. The job hunt is about interviewing for jobs you're not qualified for, finding the skill set that those posts are actually looking for, and preparing for the next one. You don't know until you ask. This has nothing to do with morality. If an interviewee spoke of a moral stance on our job posting, they'd be at the top of the no-call list as a potential HR nightmare. * Terms may vary. Hours and pay are dependent upon experience. Other conditions may apply.