Not only does this disincentivize HR from running fake vacancies or stringing multiple candidates on just to keep their options open, but it also solves the problem of unemployed people job-searching effectively working full-time for free. The fact that companies would have to pay to hire workers would mean they try to make the selection as short and effective as possible.
Edit: From the business POV:
- Businesses would have a limited budget for hiring so would limit process to 10 applicants and would have to pick those randomly. Less time spent on interviewing but also might miss the ideal candidate. Although the difference would fall sharply with larger pools.
- And 000s of people now stuck wo any appls at all (although better than writing fake, futile appls), and no money. Not enough jobs on the market would translate into not enough paying applications for them to be able to substitute unemployment benefits.
Edit: this post seems to have gained some traction. Do you think I should try writing to my MP and suggesting it? I live in the UK where fake interviews are a real problem right now
So then a person could make his living by interviewing for jobs he’s not qualified for and could never get? I guess that probably wouldn’t happen.
I didn’t used to hate the long interview process until I applied for a job that had me fill out like a hundred questions for background information. It was like, “Have you ever been convicted of embezzlement for an amount greater than $500?” No. “Have you ever been convicted of embezzlement for an amount less than $500?” No… “Have you ever been convicted of embezzlement for exactly $500?”
Did you know that if they can guess your crime with enough specificity, legally you have to admit to it? At least that’s what I assume, based on the questionnaire. Like, “Have you ever been convicted of violating the endangered species act while crossing state lines in a class C vehicle on a Sunday?” And I’m like, “No, but you’re so close!”
Anyway, I got the offer, but then they rescinded it when I asked for more money.
If you aren’t qualified and they have to pay for every interview, either you are being honest on your application and they aren’t interviewing you or you’re lying and you open yourself up to charges of fraud because you took money under false pretenses.
After about 10 years experience in the field, my interviews tended toward the whole day kind of thing. Different companies do it differently, but basically if you’re going to the effort of bringing a candidate to the company, might as well grill 'em for most of a workday. Some group interviews - those are pretty intimidating: a room full of people who know what they want and you guessing what it is they actually do. Mostly a series of one-on-ones, the most hostile one-on-one interviewer I ever had turned out to be the guy whose desk I was about to take over, shuffling him from a window seat back to an interior cube - he really really didn’t like me in the interview, I gently mentioned it to my boss-to-be he just blew him off “don’t worry about him, he’s always like that…”
That’s already a flaw of the current system, so no change means no new downside. People receiving unemployment usually have to prove they’re looking for work, but there’s not usually a requirement that you’re applying to things you’re likely to get.
If you call unemployment “pay” - it’s such a small amount compared to a real job it’s ridiculous, but on the other hand: you’ve got no other sources of income so: jumping their hoops is the best way to get some money coming in.
It’s weird. I was applying for an engineering tech job and they asked if I’ve ever knowingly violated the second law of thermodynamics, but wouldn’t tell me if it was a deal breaker if I had. Anyway that place burned to the ground before I heard back on my interview anyway.
I was considering “cabin toilets” for a place off grid. It came down to composting and incineration models. While I was deciding, the incineration toilet factory burned down. Apparently that was Incinolet in 1994?