565
Companies should by law have to pay you for each interview round. (lemmy.ml)
submitted 5 months ago by to c/showerthoughts@lemmy.world
94 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 5 months ago (3 children)

I think a way forward is to make the government handle the hiring process. The companies put a fee into escrow, which is paid to the government if no hires are completed or retained.

The government interviews potential hires, anonymizes and DEIs, retains resumes and information from job seekers, creates the infrastructure for reviews to be left by people for a company's work conditions, and so forth. If a pattern of false jobs emerges, the government can prevent the company from issuing further offers for 3 or 4 months, with a heightened penalty for the escrow thereafter. If people are consistently hired and retained, the escrow penalty is reduced.

Corporations shouldn't be responsible for hiring, because they are strongly incentivized to do bullshit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

    I am not opposing but there is a big risk here.

    Essentially there are 2 customers,

    The company wants a worker, but the worker a company.

    In a current hiring process if your not a fit for the company well thats end of story… but not with a centralised third system who is hiring for many different companies where they can hire you for another company instead were you are a better fit.

    Sounds good on paper for now but.

    The government needs you to work to pay taxes. The job of the government worker is to make sure the open positions are filled. Neither requires you or the employer to be long term happy with the deal.

    Over time they will drown in crap positions that are technically legit employment but that no one actually wants and the government will get pressured to fill those positions.

    So when you walk in, and you don’t instantaneously manage to sell yourself as one of the prime few worthy of the actual decent jobs everyone wants, they will try to push you in all the shitty ones till you stop coming back.

    Then there is also you can’t really ban someone from employing someone directly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 5 months ago

    IMHO funnelling anything through a central authority is destined to lead to bottlenecks and inflexibility. I could see something similar being achieved by heavily regulating the hiring process though. And possibly involving some sort of certified 3rd party* to guarantee impartiality, that isn't the government. (*A licensing model avoids the central authority bottleneck)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent