4 ms·

Like others have said, if you want to implement such a program, then that's the way to do it. Now whether it would be good to see this as a trend for the indust

Like others have said, if you want to implement such a program, then that's the way to do it. Now whether it would be good to see this as a trend for the industry is not clear cut. Say you have only 3 weeks of vacation a year, then you can only interview with 3 companies. And that's assuming that you are willing to burn ALL of you vacation time.

michaelochurch 13y ago
Right. It's a good idea for a single company that does it. It fucking sucks if everyone starts doing it and if hire rates drop to the level (~20%) typical of in-office interviews. Anyway, the fact that it burns a week of vacation means it's going to exclude the passive job seekers, in practice. It's probably a good mechanism for filtering the unlucky/good unemployed from the generally undesirable, but the people who have jobs and might passively look around after ~3 years aren't going to bite.
- DenisM 13y ago
  Their hire rate is 66%, so you get a near 90% chance of getting a job after doing this with two different companies using the same policy.
  - jacalata 13y ago
    Not necessarily - it's quite possible that the kind of reasons that get a 'no hire' at this stage will show up consistently in this environment and consistently be a problem for employers.
  - michaelochurch 13y ago
    Weebly seems to be doing things right-- only bringing people in for the week if there's a high likelihood of hiring them-- but I don't expect that everyone would be so enlightened. That's the problem. What happens when other companies start doing this and only taking 20 or 30 percent? Now, a large amount of peoples' time is getting burned. A 1-in-3 chance of losing a week in one's job search isn't a total catastrophe, but an industry change that systematically makes peoples' job searches longer and more complex is evil. Companies can be quite inconsiderate with others' time when the job market goes weak. In 2001 and 2008 when the job market was disastrous, there were some banks in NYC that had interview processes sprawling out over 4 full days, followed by a competitive reference check (not just a basic check). Here's a gnarly ethical question, and just one that comes up. What if you bring someone in for a trial week, he performs well, and then a reference call comes in and it's negative? Do you lie to him and say he performed poorly during the trial week? Or do you tip him off about the bad reference, and risk a detrimental reliance suit (which will cost you 6 figures unless you give the bad reference's name, forcing you to choose between your own pocketbook and your source's interests)?

michaelochurch 13y ago

Right. It's a good idea for a single company that does it. It fucking sucks if everyone starts doing it and if hire rates drop to the level (~20%) typical of in-office interviews. Anyway, the fact that it burns a week of vacation means it's going to exclude the passive job seekers, in practice. It's probably a good mechanism for filtering the unlucky/good unemployed from the generally undesirable, but the people who have jobs and might passively look around after ~3 years aren't going to bite.

DenisM 13y ago
Their hire rate is 66%, so you get a near 90% chance of getting a job after doing this with two different companies using the same policy.
- jacalata 13y ago
  Not necessarily - it's quite possible that the kind of reasons that get a 'no hire' at this stage will show up consistently in this environment and consistently be a problem for employers.
- michaelochurch 13y ago
  Weebly seems to be doing things right-- only bringing people in for the week if there's a high likelihood of hiring them-- but I don't expect that everyone would be so enlightened. That's the problem. What happens when other companies start doing this and only taking 20 or 30 percent? Now, a large amount of peoples' time is getting burned. A 1-in-3 chance of losing a week in one's job search isn't a total catastrophe, but an industry change that systematically makes peoples' job searches longer and more complex is evil. Companies can be quite inconsiderate with others' time when the job market goes weak. In 2001 and 2008 when the job market was disastrous, there were some banks in NYC that had interview processes sprawling out over 4 full days, followed by a competitive reference check (not just a basic check). Here's a gnarly ethical question, and just one that comes up. What if you bring someone in for a trial week, he performs well, and then a reference call comes in and it's negative? Do you lie to him and say he performed poorly during the trial week? Or do you tip him off about the bad reference, and risk a detrimental reliance suit (which will cost you 6 figures unless you give the bad reference's name, forcing you to choose between your own pocketbook and your source's interests)?