3 ms·

If a company is not even willing to have a real person speak to you at the start of the recruitment process, what does that say about them? Or about the legitim

If a company is not even willing to have a real person speak to you at the start of the recruitment process, what does that say about them? Or about the legitimacy of that job posting? Or about the people you would be working with if you did get hired? Regardless if you get an offer or not, you will invest a significant amount of finite time in each interview cycle and if you do get an offer, you'll be investing even more time into that company. So no matter who you are, protect your time and remember that interviewing is always a 2-way street.

charcircuit 2mo ago
Are you familiar with the concept of a recruitment funnel? It is not financially worth it to personally talk with every single person that applies to a company.
- gmerc 2mo ago
  Well then it’s not financially worth it for capable people to work for that company. And of story
  - charcircuit 2mo ago
    Not all capable people are willing to reject a company because they upload their resume to an automated system than giving it to a human to talk with.
    - inigyou 2mo ago
      It's every company. If you reject companies for this, you are living under a bridge right now.
      - disgruntledphd2 2mo ago
        > It's every company. If you reject companies for this, you are living under a bridge right now. I just finished a successful job search, and only had 1 company (of maybe 50 applications) try this.
    - gmerc 2mo ago
      Americans are uniquely (c|f)ucked that way because, lol regulation would be worse
      - psd1 2mo ago
        I think it's happening everywhere, even in places with strong worker protection laws. Applicants aren't workers, and regulation is anyway laggy.
  - inigyou 2mo ago
    Well then it's not financially worth it to have a job, because every company does this because if they didn't they'd need to triple in size with recruiters. Something must be wrong with this logic because it clearly is financially worth it to have a job.
    - Pooge 2mo ago
      > it clearly is financially worth it to have a job Yes, for the company.
    - disgruntledphd2 2mo ago
      > Well then it's not financially worth it to have a job, because every company does this because if they didn't they'd need to triple in size with recruiters. Every company does not do this. I always refuse tasks like this unless I've talked to a human before hand, as unless the company has invested a little effort, then I won't invest any effort.
- tdeck 2mo ago
  That's what a resume is for.
- red-iron-pine 2mo ago
  thats what the ATS is for
- shahbaby 2mo ago
  After you've filtered down the resumes, if it's not financially worth it to put a human on the phone for the initial screen, that means you don't value the people you hire. And if the cost to do that initial screen is almost zero, it also means that you may not even have a job opening and are just testing the waters. No matter how you slice it, it's a bad look.

charcircuit 2mo ago

Are you familiar with the concept of a recruitment funnel? It is not financially worth it to personally talk with every single person that applies to a company.

gmerc 2mo ago
Well then it’s not financially worth it for capable people to work for that company. And of story
- charcircuit 2mo ago
  Not all capable people are willing to reject a company because they upload their resume to an automated system than giving it to a human to talk with.
  - inigyou 2mo ago
    It's every company. If you reject companies for this, you are living under a bridge right now.
    - disgruntledphd2 2mo ago
      > It's every company. If you reject companies for this, you are living under a bridge right now. I just finished a successful job search, and only had 1 company (of maybe 50 applications) try this.
  - gmerc 2mo ago
    Americans are uniquely (c|f)ucked that way because, lol regulation would be worse
    - psd1 2mo ago
      I think it's happening everywhere, even in places with strong worker protection laws. Applicants aren't workers, and regulation is anyway laggy.
- inigyou 2mo ago
  Well then it's not financially worth it to have a job, because every company does this because if they didn't they'd need to triple in size with recruiters. Something must be wrong with this logic because it clearly is financially worth it to have a job.
  - Pooge 2mo ago
    > it clearly is financially worth it to have a job Yes, for the company.
  - disgruntledphd2 2mo ago
    > Well then it's not financially worth it to have a job, because every company does this because if they didn't they'd need to triple in size with recruiters. Every company does not do this. I always refuse tasks like this unless I've talked to a human before hand, as unless the company has invested a little effort, then I won't invest any effort.
tdeck 2mo ago
That's what a resume is for.
red-iron-pine 2mo ago
thats what the ATS is for
shahbaby 2mo ago
After you've filtered down the resumes, if it's not financially worth it to put a human on the phone for the initial screen, that means you don't value the people you hire. And if the cost to do that initial screen is almost zero, it also means that you may not even have a job opening and are just testing the waters. No matter how you slice it, it's a bad look.