4 ms·

Personally I don't find making my tax situation more complicated doesn't help with the stress of job applications. I did a work trial last year and it added a w

Personally I don't find making my tax situation more complicated doesn't help with the stress of job applications. I did a work trial last year and it added a whole new layer of anxiety about figuring out how i'm supposed to declare ad-hoc income (which in this case was foreign, making it even more complicated). If you're used to something like the UK's PAYE system, being paid for interviewing is far from a no-brainer.

quickthrower2 5y ago
Offering a “or we give it to charity” option would have helped I’m guessing.
- andrewingram 5y ago
  In this case, given the choice, i'd just have opted to do a few more interviews rather than investing a week in a work trial. I was burning through my savings due to being unemployed for ages, so exchanging a week of my time for a charitable donation wasn't really on the cards -- i've no doubt they would have done that if i'd asked. Not to mention that I now consider mandatory work trials to be an unethical practice. The stress of an interview, but stretched to last an entire week. A week where you feel you can't make any mistakes. I'll never do another one, it's not worth it.
  - quickthrower2 5y ago
    Sorry I misunderstood or misread. For a weeks work you definitely want to be paid! I’d view a week trial as a knee jerk “skip this opportunity” signal.
milesvp 5y ago
The fundamental problem with take homes is that they produce a huge asymmetry in the cost of interviewing. The company can waste hours of random people's time without having to spend a single minute on them. So while I understand that paying someone for a take home complicates things for some individuals, some kind of contractual agreement that the company will reciprocate some amount of good faith effort is necessary to avoid abuse. Payment is basically a proof of work, and money deposited in my account is a sure way I know of that a company expended some resource on my part. I'd say that even just offering to pay standard contract rates would make me more likely to actually do a take home.

quickthrower2 5y ago

Offering a “or we give it to charity” option would have helped I’m guessing.

andrewingram 5y ago
In this case, given the choice, i'd just have opted to do a few more interviews rather than investing a week in a work trial. I was burning through my savings due to being unemployed for ages, so exchanging a week of my time for a charitable donation wasn't really on the cards -- i've no doubt they would have done that if i'd asked. Not to mention that I now consider mandatory work trials to be an unethical practice. The stress of an interview, but stretched to last an entire week. A week where you feel you can't make any mistakes. I'll never do another one, it's not worth it.
- quickthrower2 5y ago
  Sorry I misunderstood or misread. For a weeks work you definitely want to be paid! I’d view a week trial as a knee jerk “skip this opportunity” signal.

milesvp 5y ago

The fundamental problem with take homes is that they produce a huge asymmetry in the cost of interviewing. The company can waste hours of random people's time without having to spend a single minute on them. So while I understand that paying someone for a take home complicates things for some individuals, some kind of contractual agreement that the company will reciprocate some amount of good faith effort is necessary to avoid abuse. Payment is basically a proof of work, and money deposited in my account is a sure way I know of that a company expended some resource on my part. I'd say that even just offering to pay standard contract rates would make me more likely to actually do a take home.