3 ms·

I see your way of thinking. As someone pointed out already, the issue of two contradicting opinions is due to us thinking from single perspectives. Nevertheless

I see your way of thinking. As someone pointed out already, the issue of two contradicting opinions is due to us thinking from single perspectives. Nevertheless, let us see where it will lead us to: 1) I was talking from the personal experience in UK. Though, this might be conditional and post-student specific period. 2) Lead developer is getting a double value: interview a candidate, develop the product. > Turn it around, would you want to work for a company so desperate for talent that they have to pay you to come to an interview? I would like to work for a company valuing my professional time. The interview process itself is usually exciting, I learn a lot for myself by talking with inspiring people. But a day of coding is carrying by a degree less benefit to my professional and personal growth. > To me it just sounds like you don't want this job much and the best outcome for both parties is that you go your separate ways. I would rather not live in a employer's pony world where everyone dreams of working in their company. As a company, you can hire someone highly loyal, thankful, putting his soul onto company's idea and unskilled, or less loyal and more skilled. You choose the balance. It was never possible to get both of the two worlds. E: My awful grammar.

Tyrannosaurs 13y ago
It's interesting. I don't see this as an employers pony show (and I'm both someone who looks for jobs as well as hires), I see it as looking for an equitable arrangement where someone interested in a job gets together with someone interested in hiring them. Both have a need and the aim is to mutually satisfy that in a way both parties find acceptable. Paying someone who isn't sold on a job and a company to come in for a day seems to me to be the wrong solution to the problem. The persons questions and doubts can almost certainly be addressed (or not) in a far more time efficient way at which point they're in a situation where they can work out whether a day is a good use of their time. The real question seems to me to be how can we get it so that day, if they choose to attend the interview, is a good use of their time, rather than paying them because there's a high chance it's being wasted. We can value someone's time by paying for it, or by doing what we can to make it time well spent. I think we should try to do the second one rather than the first.

Tyrannosaurs 13y ago

It's interesting. I don't see this as an employers pony show (and I'm both someone who looks for jobs as well as hires), I see it as looking for an equitable arrangement where someone interested in a job gets together with someone interested in hiring them. Both have a need and the aim is to mutually satisfy that in a way both parties find acceptable. Paying someone who isn't sold on a job and a company to come in for a day seems to me to be the wrong solution to the problem. The persons questions and doubts can almost certainly be addressed (or not) in a far more time efficient way at which point they're in a situation where they can work out whether a day is a good use of their time. The real question seems to me to be how can we get it so that day, if they choose to attend the interview, is a good use of their time, rather than paying them because there's a high chance it's being wasted. We can value someone's time by paying for it, or by doing what we can to make it time well spent. I think we should try to do the second one rather than the first.