3 ms·

I've seen these before. Someone is under a lot of pressure to hire/build a team. Hence the job posts. But they're not given any hiring power or budget. Hence gh

I've seen these before. Someone is under a lot of pressure to hire/build a team. Hence the job posts. But they're not given any hiring power or budget. Hence ghosting. Most companies would rather leave the job open unfilled than admit they can't/won't fill it. I mean, how do you go back to a candidate and say "I'd love to hire you but I got overruled and now you're 6 months in the hiring backlog, sorry about our internal politics." But take the job post down - never! The position isn't filled yet!

tracker1 3y ago
We really appreciate your time and effort in applying for $Position. We've decided not to move forward with your candidacy at this time. Feel free to apply for other open positions at $site.
- fbdab103 3y ago
  I will take a rejection! Way better than the application going into a black hole. My favorite is when the company remembers to clear out its inbox, and you receive a rejection for a role you applied to some 10+ months ago.
  - tracker1 3y ago
    Considering I've been applying for hundreds of jobs in the past few months, I think I'd Rather hear nothing if I never actually spoke to a person.
underlipton 3y ago
That this is widespread is a blanket indictment of America's executive and managerial classes. Maybe start laying them off.
- nebula8804 3y ago
  How? Please tell us as we desperately need an answer. They just go and infect every company. It is still generally considered an achievement to get a business degree from an elite school in some circles so the pipeline is not going away either.
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    The "easiest" (ethical) way involves a societal change to what people (and therefore, stockholers) value. Other countries do not in fact like it when a CEO needs to layoff people, and ofc other countries have protections against frivolous firings. So doing that isn't just a legal issue but a financial pain point. If the US ever had it, it needs to bring back shaming unethical business decisions. Layoffs should tank a company's share and poison the exec class in current and future endeavors, not give a tiny bump of shares and a golden parachute at best. But that's an uphill battle from what I see.
    - underlipton 3y ago
      Guerilla efforts to make their lives as much of a living nightmare as their decisions make others' might be what's left. Non-violent, targeted harassment with clear qualification (at least X net worth, at least Y layoffs, in role at Z corp) as a form of civil disobedience. Hopefully just the threat would get the ball rolling on treating the less well-off with more dignity. If anyone thinks this is unethical, so is a $2,000 plate while people are dumpster diving out back.

tracker1 3y ago

We really appreciate your time and effort in applying for $Position. We've decided not to move forward with your candidacy at this time. Feel free to apply for other open positions at $site.

fbdab103 3y ago
I will take a rejection! Way better than the application going into a black hole. My favorite is when the company remembers to clear out its inbox, and you receive a rejection for a role you applied to some 10+ months ago.
- tracker1 3y ago
  Considering I've been applying for hundreds of jobs in the past few months, I think I'd Rather hear nothing if I never actually spoke to a person.

underlipton 3y ago

That this is widespread is a blanket indictment of America's executive and managerial classes. Maybe start laying them off.

nebula8804 3y ago
How? Please tell us as we desperately need an answer. They just go and infect every company. It is still generally considered an achievement to get a business degree from an elite school in some circles so the pipeline is not going away either.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  The "easiest" (ethical) way involves a societal change to what people (and therefore, stockholers) value. Other countries do not in fact like it when a CEO needs to layoff people, and ofc other countries have protections against frivolous firings. So doing that isn't just a legal issue but a financial pain point. If the US ever had it, it needs to bring back shaming unethical business decisions. Layoffs should tank a company's share and poison the exec class in current and future endeavors, not give a tiny bump of shares and a golden parachute at best. But that's an uphill battle from what I see.
  - underlipton 3y ago
    Guerilla efforts to make their lives as much of a living nightmare as their decisions make others' might be what's left. Non-violent, targeted harassment with clear qualification (at least X net worth, at least Y layoffs, in role at Z corp) as a form of civil disobedience. Hopefully just the threat would get the ball rolling on treating the less well-off with more dignity. If anyone thinks this is unethical, so is a $2,000 plate while people are dumpster diving out back.