3 ms·

I can see why people might not like the concept but I think it's getting more anger than it deserves. From another perspective, you could also see this as bett

I can see why people might not like the concept but I think it's getting more anger than it deserves. From another perspective, you could also see this as betting on someone, which is actually kind of fun (if I understand correctly and you double your money if they're hired). If they provided accurate statistics on the amount of their candidates who end up being hired, it might not even be a bad investment. I'm curious what the legality of that is though, it seems like actual betting. I also think friends and online acquaintances might be a bigger source of 'bets' for them than former colleagues. Or even people you don't know, but they know of your work on open source projects, etc.

webmobdev 5y ago
I would game the system - I would pay my friends and colleagues to refer me, and when I get the job, I would collect the payout (after two months) from the referrers and keep it as a signing bonus and treat all my friends / colleagues to a big party. (And yes, this is very much doable when Indians are involved ;).
- kristjansson 5y ago
  Isn't that what one already does with a successful referral bonus, buy beer for all parties involved?
MrStonedOne 5y ago
It unbalances access to jobs by family wealth and creates yet another:tm: skip annoying thing if you are rich enough and/or have enough friends who are rich enough. Somebody coming out of a life hiccup like family issues or health issues is gonna have a harder time skipping the interview while also having a harder time interviewing. The return on investment aspect could just get gamed by companies being excessively selective on which candidates they allow to stay past 2 months. And finally it extends the worse thing that exists in our society: "It's easier to make money if you have money." This is what creates and enforces our class system, this is what makes it harder for historically disadvantaged groups to get a head, and such a product would just extend this, while benefiting the company. The anger is justified, such systems can not be allowed to exist.
- newman8r 5y ago
  > The return on investment aspect could just get gamed by companies being excessively selective on which candidates they allow to stay past 2 months. Exactly, so it's not like these candidates are paying to "skip annoying thing" - it's just a different annoying thing. In essence, this sort of arrangement actually puts the candidate in a less powerful position than if they'd just received a normal offer. I don't even think this is geared towards 'rich people' - I assume it's mostly aimed at colleagues who are also tech workers. It does favor people who have previous work experience (and therefore colleagues who could vouch/invest), but verifiable experience is usually a job requirement anyway.

webmobdev 5y ago

I would game the system - I would pay my friends and colleagues to refer me, and when I get the job, I would collect the payout (after two months) from the referrers and keep it as a signing bonus and treat all my friends / colleagues to a big party. (And yes, this is very much doable when Indians are involved ;).

kristjansson 5y ago
Isn't that what one already does with a successful referral bonus, buy beer for all parties involved?

MrStonedOne 5y ago

It unbalances access to jobs by family wealth and creates yet another:tm: skip annoying thing if you are rich enough and/or have enough friends who are rich enough. Somebody coming out of a life hiccup like family issues or health issues is gonna have a harder time skipping the interview while also having a harder time interviewing. The return on investment aspect could just get gamed by companies being excessively selective on which candidates they allow to stay past 2 months. And finally it extends the worse thing that exists in our society: "It's easier to make money if you have money." This is what creates and enforces our class system, this is what makes it harder for historically disadvantaged groups to get a head, and such a product would just extend this, while benefiting the company. The anger is justified, such systems can not be allowed to exist.

newman8r 5y ago
> The return on investment aspect could just get gamed by companies being excessively selective on which candidates they allow to stay past 2 months. Exactly, so it's not like these candidates are paying to "skip annoying thing" - it's just a different annoying thing. In essence, this sort of arrangement actually puts the candidate in a less powerful position than if they'd just received a normal offer. I don't even think this is geared towards 'rich people' - I assume it's mostly aimed at colleagues who are also tech workers. It does favor people who have previous work experience (and therefore colleagues who could vouch/invest), but verifiable experience is usually a job requirement anyway.