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 woul

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)?