4 ms·

The headline is significantly linkbaity. Courier job applicant was told to arrive 5-10 mins early for interview, arrived 4 mins early and was unapologetically

The headline is significantly linkbaity. Courier job applicant was told to arrive 5-10 mins early for interview, arrived 4 mins early and was unapologetically told to go to the next session in 30 mins.

cantbecool 12y ago
I don't know where you are from, but 4 minutes early iisn't a 'late arrival'.
- cjbprime 12y ago
  I didn't use the phrase "late arrival". I just pointed out that the OP arrived after he was told to arrive.
johndoze 12y ago
I took insult to the way I was treated after the fact, rather than the fact that I was locked out.
ethomson 12y ago
The linked article does not indicate that the applicant was told to arrive 5-10 minutes early, and it explicitly says that they were to reschedule for another day, not the next session in 30 minutes.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- semanticist 12y ago
  The linked article absolutely shows that the applicant was told to arrive 5-10 minutes early, in this image embedded in the article: http://peterk.co/content/images/2014/Jul/email.png http://peterk.co/content/images/2014/Jul/email.png "Late arrivals will not be admitted, be sure to arrive 5-10 minutes early."
  - ethomson 12y ago
    Indeed; thank you for pointing that out.
swalkergibson 12y ago
I agree with you to an extent. However, the flyer says the session starts at 6:00PM, not 5:50 or 5:55PM. Generally speaking, when someone says to arrive at a particular event 5-10 minutes early, it is simply so that everyone can be seated and things can get going at the prescribed time, 6:00PM, not that the participants should disregard the stated start time of the event. Plus, if the story that the company representative was rude is true, then that is not cool for the exact reason that the participant specified. The company theoretically lives and dies by its couriers, so frustrating them (perhaps it is a little harsh to say they treat their couriers like trash) right out of the gate is not exactly a good growth strategy.
- cjbprime 12y ago
  > The company theoretically lives and dies by its couriers, so frustrating them (perhaps it is a little harsh to say they treat their couriers like trash) right out of the gate is not exactly a good growth strategy. That depends on whether they're constrained by supply (couriers) or demand (customers). If they're demand-constrained, I think it makes sense to be very selective about which couriers they take on to ensure their customers have a great experience, and choosing which couriers to accept based on how early they arrive for their job interview seems like an excellent metric to use to attempt to differentiate between applicants you otherwise know very little about.
  - potatolicious 12y ago
    > "That depends on whether they're constrained by supply (couriers) or demand (customers)." Treating someone decently and with respect is not a supply/demand equation. Your sentence is why everyone hates us. Are you rude to your waiter because he's on the short end of the supply/demand stick? > "and choosing which couriers to accept based on how early they arrive for their job interview seems like an excellent metric" No, not it doesn't. This is cargo cult hiring, no different than hiring programmers based on how well they can reason why manhole covers are round, or why one lightbulb is warmer than the next. You can determine who is an effective courier and who isn't by having them deliver things. Just like you can determine who is an effective programmer and who isn't by having them write code. This sort of "hiring by proxy signal even though the primary signal is perfectly testable" is endemic in our industry, and apparently isn't limited to hiring devs. Tell people what you expect of them, and expect that of them. To do otherwise is shitty mind games no better than the classic Monty Python sketch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zP0sqRMzkwo&feature=kp https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zP0sqRMzkwo&feature=kp > "an excellent metric to use to attempt to differentiate between applicants you otherwise know very little about." ... and we arrive at the core of tech industry idiocy. "We don't have enough information to make a good decision" is answered by "Let's concoct logical-sounding but completely unverified proxy signals to make the decision instead of collecting more information".

cantbecool 12y ago

I don't know where you are from, but 4 minutes early iisn't a 'late arrival'.

cjbprime 12y ago
I didn't use the phrase "late arrival". I just pointed out that the OP arrived after he was told to arrive.

johndoze 12y ago

I took insult to the way I was treated after the fact, rather than the fact that I was locked out.

ethomson 12y ago

The linked article does not indicate that the applicant was told to arrive 5-10 minutes early, and it explicitly says that they were to reschedule for another day, not the next session in 30 minutes.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
semanticist 12y ago
The linked article absolutely shows that the applicant was told to arrive 5-10 minutes early, in this image embedded in the article: http://peterk.co/content/images/2014/Jul/email.png http://peterk.co/content/images/2014/Jul/email.png "Late arrivals will not be admitted, be sure to arrive 5-10 minutes early."
- ethomson 12y ago
  Indeed; thank you for pointing that out.

swalkergibson 12y ago

I agree with you to an extent. However, the flyer says the session starts at 6:00PM, not 5:50 or 5:55PM. Generally speaking, when someone says to arrive at a particular event 5-10 minutes early, it is simply so that everyone can be seated and things can get going at the prescribed time, 6:00PM, not that the participants should disregard the stated start time of the event. Plus, if the story that the company representative was rude is true, then that is not cool for the exact reason that the participant specified. The company theoretically lives and dies by its couriers, so frustrating them (perhaps it is a little harsh to say they treat their couriers like trash) right out of the gate is not exactly a good growth strategy.

cjbprime 12y ago
> The company theoretically lives and dies by its couriers, so frustrating them (perhaps it is a little harsh to say they treat their couriers like trash) right out of the gate is not exactly a good growth strategy. That depends on whether they're constrained by supply (couriers) or demand (customers). If they're demand-constrained, I think it makes sense to be very selective about which couriers they take on to ensure their customers have a great experience, and choosing which couriers to accept based on how early they arrive for their job interview seems like an excellent metric to use to attempt to differentiate between applicants you otherwise know very little about.
- potatolicious 12y ago
  > "That depends on whether they're constrained by supply (couriers) or demand (customers)." Treating someone decently and with respect is not a supply/demand equation. Your sentence is why everyone hates us. Are you rude to your waiter because he's on the short end of the supply/demand stick? > "and choosing which couriers to accept based on how early they arrive for their job interview seems like an excellent metric" No, not it doesn't. This is cargo cult hiring, no different than hiring programmers based on how well they can reason why manhole covers are round, or why one lightbulb is warmer than the next. You can determine who is an effective courier and who isn't by having them deliver things. Just like you can determine who is an effective programmer and who isn't by having them write code. This sort of "hiring by proxy signal even though the primary signal is perfectly testable" is endemic in our industry, and apparently isn't limited to hiring devs. Tell people what you expect of them, and expect that of them. To do otherwise is shitty mind games no better than the classic Monty Python sketch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zP0sqRMzkwo&feature=kp https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zP0sqRMzkwo&feature=kp > "an excellent metric to use to attempt to differentiate between applicants you otherwise know very little about." ... and we arrive at the core of tech industry idiocy. "We don't have enough information to make a good decision" is answered by "Let's concoct logical-sounding but completely unverified proxy signals to make the decision instead of collecting more information".