3 ms·

Feels like candidates should be able to invoice for their time once it goes beyond a few hours. Maybe in some cases the company will respect that approach. Hey

Feels like candidates should be able to invoice for their time once it goes beyond a few hours. Maybe in some cases the company will respect that approach. Hey you want me to do 8 hours more hoop jumping? No problem that’s $60 per hoop. Oh sorry I can’t come back yet your last invoice was never paid…

lapcat 4y ago
I'm not sure this would help anything. Companies are already wasting a vast amount of time and money on the hiring process, taking their own employees off work to do interviewing. So this additional cost probably wouldn't bother them much. Most job candidates aren't looking for a temporary contracting gig, they're looking for a permanent job.
stephen_cagle 4y ago
I agree with this for a different reason. States should mandate that time spent at a job interview must be paid proportional to the average rate of the position you are applying for. This includes take home work! The reason for this is that if I know you are spending as much as you might spend for an employee on interviewing me, then I know that you are serious about this being a possibility. This also means you can't send a take home to 1000 candidates, review a few tens of them, and then hire 1. A process I think is rather common at many shops.
- gruez 4y ago
  >States should mandate that time spent at a job interview must be paid proportional to the average rate of the position you are applying for. This includes take home work! Beware of unintended consequences. One of the reasons mentioned in the article for why interviews were so long is that companies are risk adverse and don't want the risk of being saddled with a bad employee. If you mandate that interviews must be paid, the same dynamic would apply. Specifically, companies would care even more about your resume/linkedin/experience, because they don't want to waste money on marginal/inexperienced candidates.
- saulpw 4y ago
  My approach for take-home work is to offer to pair on it with the hiring manager or one of my future team-mates. This way it's mutual and I see how it'll be to work with that person as well. If that seems like a ridiculous waste of time for one of their employees, well...
miohtama 4y ago
Any candidate is free to apply at a smaller software company with likely less bullshit. Anyone is volunteering to go through the interview process.
- lapcat 4y ago
  > Any candidate is free to apply at a smaller software company with likely less bullshit. That's not my experience. Smaller companies have plenty of bullshit hiring practices too.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> Feels like candidates should be able to invoice for their time once it goes beyond a few hours They can. Since there is no preexisting contract supporting the invoice, it will never be paid or have any other effect except to guarantee that they aren’t hired, but they can invoice all they want.

lapcat 4y ago

I'm not sure this would help anything. Companies are already wasting a vast amount of time and money on the hiring process, taking their own employees off work to do interviewing. So this additional cost probably wouldn't bother them much. Most job candidates aren't looking for a temporary contracting gig, they're looking for a permanent job.

stephen_cagle 4y ago

I agree with this for a different reason. States should mandate that time spent at a job interview must be paid proportional to the average rate of the position you are applying for. This includes take home work! The reason for this is that if I know you are spending as much as you might spend for an employee on interviewing me, then I know that you are serious about this being a possibility. This also means you can't send a take home to 1000 candidates, review a few tens of them, and then hire 1. A process I think is rather common at many shops.

gruez 4y ago
>States should mandate that time spent at a job interview must be paid proportional to the average rate of the position you are applying for. This includes take home work! Beware of unintended consequences. One of the reasons mentioned in the article for why interviews were so long is that companies are risk adverse and don't want the risk of being saddled with a bad employee. If you mandate that interviews must be paid, the same dynamic would apply. Specifically, companies would care even more about your resume/linkedin/experience, because they don't want to waste money on marginal/inexperienced candidates.
saulpw 4y ago
My approach for take-home work is to offer to pair on it with the hiring manager or one of my future team-mates. This way it's mutual and I see how it'll be to work with that person as well. If that seems like a ridiculous waste of time for one of their employees, well...

miohtama 4y ago

Any candidate is free to apply at a smaller software company with likely less bullshit. Anyone is volunteering to go through the interview process.

lapcat 4y ago
> Any candidate is free to apply at a smaller software company with likely less bullshit. That's not my experience. Smaller companies have plenty of bullshit hiring practices too.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> Feels like candidates should be able to invoice for their time once it goes beyond a few hours They can. Since there is no preexisting contract supporting the invoice, it will never be paid or have any other effect except to guarantee that they aren’t hired, but they can invoice all they want.