3 ms·

Does individual defection even matter? The purpose of this isn't to put pressure on job seekers, it's to put pressure on employers. The whole idea of "policing"

by _qulr 6y ago

Does individual defection even matter? The purpose of this isn't to put pressure on job seekers, it's to put pressure on employers. The whole idea of "policing" the members seems strange to me. If you're the type of job seeker who has no objection to leetcode, you wouldn't join. And if you're the type of employer who refuses to do anything else, this would be the last place you'd look for hiring. The goal is to publicly show employers how many "refuseniks" there are. The situation right now is that refusal only happens privately and anecdotally.

abj 6y ago
You're right - individual defection doesn't matter. This is optional. The whole idea of "policing" the members seems strange to me and I agree doesn't need to be anywhere near this. "If you're the type of job seeker who has no objection to leetcode, you wouldn't join. And if you're the type of employer who refuses to do anything else, this would be the last place you'd look for hiring." This is very well said and exactly what I'm hoping for. "The goal is to publicly show employers how many "refuseniks" there are. The situation right now is that refusal only happens privately and anecdotally." This is exactly the goal and what I'm hoping to improve.
bananaface 6y ago
OP said the objective was to create a critical mass of people refusing so companies would have to adapt. That's what wouldn't work. If it's just a niche job board then that's not an issue, but it also seems like one of those things that should have been done already, probably has been, and isn't popular for a reason.
- _qulr 6y ago
  There is already a large number of people who hate audition-style interviews. They don't want to defect. A public group actually makes it easier for people to avoid defecting. It's very difficult for a job candidate to talk to employers about this when you're just some lone weirdo with idiosyncratic principles. It's much easier to have that discussion when there's a public group of people you can point to with the same principles. There's strength in numbers. Consider it a kind of "Alcoholics Anonymous" for interviews. You wouldn't say that can't work because people defect. Yes, people defect and drink again, but they joined AA in order to avoid drinking, and the purpose of the group is to help them with the goal of not drinking. And also to remove the private shame of admitting a problem, by showing publicly that it's a very common problem. This is not a perfect analogy by any means, but the gist is similar.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

by _qulr 6y ago

abj 6y ago

You're right - individual defection doesn't matter. This is optional. The whole idea of "policing" the members seems strange to me and I agree doesn't need to be anywhere near this. "If you're the type of job seeker who has no objection to leetcode, you wouldn't join. And if you're the type of employer who refuses to do anything else, this would be the last place you'd look for hiring." This is very well said and exactly what I'm hoping for. "The goal is to publicly show employers how many "refuseniks" there are. The situation right now is that refusal only happens privately and anecdotally." This is exactly the goal and what I'm hoping to improve.

bananaface 6y ago

OP said the objective was to create a critical mass of people refusing so companies would have to adapt. That's what wouldn't work. If it's just a niche job board then that's not an issue, but it also seems like one of those things that should have been done already, probably has been, and isn't popular for a reason.

_qulr 6y ago
There is already a large number of people who hate audition-style interviews. They don't want to defect. A public group actually makes it easier for people to avoid defecting. It's very difficult for a job candidate to talk to employers about this when you're just some lone weirdo with idiosyncratic principles. It's much easier to have that discussion when there's a public group of people you can point to with the same principles. There's strength in numbers. Consider it a kind of "Alcoholics Anonymous" for interviews. You wouldn't say that can't work because people defect. Yes, people defect and drink again, but they joined AA in order to avoid drinking, and the purpose of the group is to help them with the goal of not drinking. And also to remove the private shame of admitting a problem, by showing publicly that it's a very common problem. This is not a perfect analogy by any means, but the gist is similar.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]