cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/43241710

And everyone thought registries were only for sex offenders. If it works to punish them then why not on those who don't want to work?

top 98 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 1 point 1 year ago

They are just mad that they are all on the sex offender registry.

Grand Old Pedophiles.

  • source
  • [–] 259 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Does the bill create a registry of employers who come to interviews they schedule unprepared?

    Does the bill create a registry of employers who have jobs listed that they aren't actively hiring for wasting applicants time?

    Does the bill create a requirement to post the hiring wage range so as not to waste everyone's time?

    Unilateralism is fascism.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    How about interviewers who ghost applicants? I have literally been sat in an office for an hour and a half, with nobody telling me what's going on before I got told "oh that interviewer isn't in today, I'm not sure why he scheduled you."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago

    I had one that "got pulled into a meeting". Um, she had a meeting, with me!

    I was eventually offered the job two or three weeks later, which I declined. In that time I had accepted a position with a company that had their shit together. This one had the nerve to ask "When were you going to tell us?" after ghosting me for weeks! I said, "I just did.".

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    This would make a great website. Match job listings with this type of data. Get all job applicants on there and then set strict criteria for companies to post jobs on there. Enshitify the entire process for the companies and make them beg to have their ads shown.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Isn't this what Glassdoor started as? I remember it was a place to look up companies, find out how they tested employees, get interview tips, get salary ranges, etc. Then it got rid of anonymity and sold out and now it's just propaganda for the companies that it initially meant to review

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    the companies on glassdoor started to sue people and threatened the site, thats why its astroturfs and datamines you now in case they get sued again, they can give you thier info. its also the same time indeed removed thier forums, it was "damaging" thier reputations of preying on desperate applicants.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 96 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 96 points 1 year ago

    Uppity slave register, United States of America, 2025.

  • source
  • [–] 69 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    And what about the employers that ghost applicants?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 63 points 1 year ago

    Will that include the legislators that sleep or don't show up to work/votes?

  • source
  • [–] 48 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Ohio not beating the allegations

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 44 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Wouldn't this be super exploitable? What's to stop me from setting up a bot that auto-applies to tons of jobs on behalf of people I don't like, thus making them "skip" whatever interviews come out of that?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 1 year ago

    Small government Republicans, eh?

  • source
  • How about cops who beat people first.

  • source
  • [–] 75 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Don't wanna make a registry of gun owners though.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago

    Well, that would just be impractical, right??? I mean what purpose could there be in a register of people with the actual weapons, constitutionally-protected or not, that are most often used to murder dozens of people in a single sitting?

    Next you’ll be wanting to use that registry to make sure that certifiable crazy people can’t get a modified semi-automatic rifle and possibly attempt to keep people safe. What use could that bring?!?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 34 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    Somewhere between 1 in 5 to 1 in 3 jobs aren't real.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelwells/2024/08/13/36-of-job-adverts-are-fake-how-to-spot-them-in-2024/

    The disagreeing congressmembers should just tack on that if people are put in lists because they are required to show up to interviews that all interviews must be paid, and any any job found to be fake or misrepresenting a job lead that does not exist should have to pay each person who applied a fine of $100,000 and up to 1 year in prison like the law is for pirating a movie. Watching a digital copy of a movie that doesn't exist is surely not worse than dangling people's means of survival on a stick and trying to make money off their misfortunes.

    Thus every job posted will be required to be in one registry and proof that it has been filled. Jobs must be reported on the site for no more than 3 months and to remove it must have a 50% of the posting times notice. Each role must be listed separately if there is more than one position. Any company found to have hired someone without posting to the job registry will be fined no less than 5% of the companies value to their local communities food shelters, and have their business license removed and company dissolved of all assets and given to the local community/shelters if 2 infractions are had within 365 days.

    If people are having to apply for 200 jobs and it is common that all 200 of those applications fall through then we should be enforcing practices on businesses to take hiring more seriously, if they want people to take their posting more seriously.

    StandoutCV stated in their research "Based on these findings, we can deduce that the average person has to make 162 job applications to land a job."

    Frankly that's rediculous to assume people should be able to track 162 different job applications and ensure they keep up with every appointment, while remembering 32-54 of those jobs turn out to be fake in the first place.

    This would be to ensure professionalism, as they say is the reason for their bill.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    Maybe also post who the job goes to. Would be very interesting to see some of those jobs going to H1B Visa holders when there are "no qualified Americans to do the job" after interviewing and turning down multiple Americans.

    The fact is, though, that republicans believe companies are people and people... aren't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It would force all employees to hire legally yes. And give immediate grounds for ice to punish employers who are not hiring legally.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Unfortunately it wouldn't. There are ways to "legally" hire an illegal today and lots of companies take advantage of it, especially in agriculture and other seasonal work. EI9 reporting has loop holes that politicians aren't interested in closing.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Somewhere between 1 in 5 to 1 in 3 jobs aren't real.

    Those are rookie numbers, suppressed by the lack of ghost jobs in blue-collar industries.

    In tech, ghost jobs make up an average of about 60% across all tranches.

    That’s just shy of ⅔ of all job postings. And this is a conservative estimate.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 56 points 1 year ago

    first of all, unemployment benefits should not be tied to you showing up to a job interview because usually it follows that if offered the job you must accept if you can. so, you basically have no agency and have to take whatever shit job offered. if i get a red flag or otherwise don’t to commit to an interview i do not owe the company or its workers my notice. i will make the effort if i choose to but me being a dick shouldn’t make me lose my benefits.

    anyway, fuck this registry.

  • source
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (24 children)

    Only very tangentially related to this

    I work in 911 dispatch. Part of our hiring process is after the initial interview and aptitude test, they have applicants come in to do a job shadow with us for an hour or two. Basically just sit with us while we're answering and dispatching calls, see what the work we do is actually like, gives them a chance ask us questions, and we can kind of feel them out to see if they'd be a good fit.

    And a shocking amount of people make it to that stage and then don't show up for their job shadow.

    I'm admittedly biased, since I work here, but I feel like even if I didn't actually have any interest in the job, that would be an interesting peek behind the curtain that I'd still want to see regardless.

  • source
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    possible they found another job, which happens all the time, and some Do cherry pick, maybe i choose this job, but i will just wait for the other jobs interview or something else comes up. or they chose and apply to this job as a backup until one comes up with a better offer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    I'm sure that's probably the case, but that's kind of my point.

    Even if I landed another, better, job between my initial interview and my job shadow, I probably would have still shown up for the shadow because when else are you going to get a chance to peek behind the curtain like that?

    I may not have pursued it any further from that, but to me being able to just show up and listen to 911 calls being handled for a bit would be too cool of an opportunity to pass up. I'm pretty sure I would have jumped at the opportunity to do that even if I wasn't trying to get hired.

    But again, I'm biased, I work here and like my job so of course I think it's kind of neat.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    You should test calling it an interview and not giving details. See if it changes the ghosting percent. My guess is that for most people, a job at 911 is a last resort. Many have heard how tough it is emotionally. So they probably got another offer by then and just took it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    A lot of things vary from one agency to another, but where I work I don't think most people would consider this a last resort job. Most of us are here either because this is what we want to do or because it's a good career builder towards other public safety/law enforcement type jobs.

    For my part, if I have to work, I think this is about as good as it gets for me. I like the hours, the pay isn't amazing but it's livable, benefits are solid, and it's interesting and satisfying work.

    It's also not the quickest hiring process since they usually wait until they have a few people to run a training class, it's been a few years now but I believe I did my aptitude test and interview in mid August (same day because they were doing a hiring event, sometimes they have to get scheduled separately) did my job shadow a week or two later with another short interview, got my conditional offer around mid September, had to do a drug, hearing, and vision test and a psych eval, and class started in about mid-late October, so about 2 months start to finish.

    I have a friend who tested at the same time as me and got picked up for the next class they ran, so it was a couple extra months for him.

    And some other agencies have extra steps in the process. More rounds of interviews, really in-depth background checks with interviews with the sheriff and a polygraph test and such (thankfully the agency I work for isn't like that since polygraphs are bullshit)

    No not ideal for someone who really needs a job ASAP.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • I have friend who works for 911. And I agree that the people who do the job don't consider it a last resort. But of the people who "apply" for the job, I suspect many do simply because of the reputation for impacting a person's mental health. But the rest of what you said gives me another potential cause. Drug testing. It possible some didn't read the application in full or misunderstood some of the ongoing testing that happens as part of the job. The first interview probably enlightened some of them on the subject. That may cause them second thoughts after scheduling the shadow. I would expect it to be even more the case if the scheduling of the shadow happens the same day as the first round of interviews. But many people will see scheduling the shadow as nothing to lose, and delay deciding if they really want to go foreward until the last minute.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (17 children)

    Your basically asking people to work an hour or two for free. Fuck that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    No more than for any other sort of job interview. They're not answering calls, they're sitting there listening.

    And honestly I thought it was a great experience when I got hired, it gave me a real inside look to what the workplace culture was before I started here, and a chance to talk to and ask questions to people who are actually doing the job I was applying for instead of some HR/supervisor/deputy director type.

    And since we obviously work 24/7/365 we can pretty much make any time work for these applicants, so they don't need to take off from work or anything to come in and do it. We get a lot of them on nights and weekends.

    It's also pretty necessary to make sure people can handle it. It can get really intense at times, and seeing an incident unfold in real time is a very different experience than listening to a recording of a call after the fact. Class space to train new dispatchers is limited, and almost every dispatch center is constantly short-staffed, so we really need to make our hires count, and we lose plenty enough throughout the training process as it is, we don't want to spend a couple months training someone only to get them out on the floor to realize that they can't emotionally handle listening to, let alone actually handling 911 calls.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (14 children)

    Did you miss the part where they were not answering any calls or doing any hands on work? The shadow is for the applicant to observe and see if they still want the job.

    911 dispatch is not flipping burgers, peoples lives are at stake. They need to be on their toes and not have cold feet if they realize they can't handle the stress or are in way over their heads.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    Still work, and no one should do it for free. I worked at a lot call centers and even had an ex who did 911 calls. You don't work for free. To easy to exploit. Also heard they don't pay worth a shit compared to the trauma you experience working there. Probably why they don't show up. Its pays shit and even just watching is work. And don't try make it out as if it's easier then other type of work.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    You're still asking them to be present in a job environment. I get why you do that, but i also see why it would nark people. It's taking unpaid time for preparation for a job they may not even get.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Do you expect people to get paid for showing up to a job interview? Because that's, in essence, what it is- a second round of interviews, albeit a pretty informal one.

    And since we're obviously a 24/7 operation, there's a lot of flexibility on when we can schedule it, not like most interviews where you probably have to take time off of work for it, we do a lot of them on weekends and evenings.

    It's also a really good chance to see what the workplace culture and actual day-to-day reality of the job is like and to talk to people who are actually doing the job instead of just taking some suit from HR's word for it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    If it's two hours long, yes! I expect to get paid for that time. Absolutely.

    I have never shadowed at a new job and had it be unpaid.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    new job

    For a new job, sure, you should be getting paid. This is part of the hiring process, you don't have the job yet.

    I've known a lot of people who've gotten jobs that have had a half dozen or so rounds of interviews, how many hours does that add up to? Every other interview I've ever done was at least 30-45 minutes, so after 3 rounds or so of interviews at another job you've pretty much broken even on that.

    And with other jobs that's often spread over multiple days or weeks that you'd probably need to take time off from your current job for. I'd gladly take this hour or two on a night or weekend over that.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    This isn't an interview.

    This is live running in a work environment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    It is sitting there listening to and watching someone do the job.

    They're not answering calls, they're not entering anything into the computer, they're not doing paperwork, the most they're going to be asked to do is "hey can you move your chair a bit, I need to get into that drawer"

    In fact, if they tried to do any of those things they'd be kicked right the fuck out, that would be a whole mess of liability issues since they don't have any of the necessary training or certifications.

    They're observing to see what the job entails. They're (hopefully) asking questions to see if it's a good fit for them, and we're seeing how they react to what they're hearing and what their attitude is like to see if they're going to be a good fit.

    When I have a job shadow with me, nothing changes about how I do my job except I scoot my chair a little further to the left to make room for them, and between calls I'm chatting mostly with them instead of my coworkers or reading, and once they're done I have a short questionnaire to fill out about whether I think they're a good candidate.

    They sit there quietly watching and listening to me handle calls, and in between we just chit chat. They usually ask some questions about the calls they heard me take or the job in general (they all seem to ask what the craziest call I ever took was) I usually ask a few of my own to get a feel for them. I tell them stories about the job, crack some jokes, I point out a couple things that I think are neat (like the document we have with information about what we're supposed to do if we get a call about a loose emu- it happens more often than you'd think)

    Then after they leave I have a short questionnaire to fill out about if I think they're a good candidate or not.

    They sit with a call-taker for about 30-45 minutes listening to 911 calls coming in, then go sit with a dispatcher for about the same amount of time to listen to calls being given out over the radio the the field units, then there's a short, pretty informal interview with the on-duty supervisors and/or someone from our training department.

    They're not getting trained, they're not expected to retain any of the information or understand everything, and they're certainly not expected to be able to do the job after sitting with me. It's pretty much all about vibes. Do they like the vibe of the workplace, and do we like their vibe as a potential coworker.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    Do you expect people to get paid for showing up to a job interview?

    I don't expect it, but it is something that good employers do. When you are taking people's time for a business purpose (i.e., having them answer questions to inform you about whether they want to hire them), the business should pay. It's an initial sign of respect to someone you may soon be asking to trust that you as a business are a good place to invest their working life and aren't going to try to steal your time and labor.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    I don't know what sort of fantasy land you live in, but I've never heard of anywhere paying someone for a job interview.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    Oh, well if you haven't heard of it, it must not exist. I'm apologize for knowing something you didn't and offending you by saying it's good.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Even that article is talking about it like it's some weird new idea that's "gaining traction" (reading between the lines means that this is an idea that doesn't have traction.)

    It's also written by some LinkedIn "editor," so basically some chud whose job is to produce blog spam about the job market.

    And the only two examples he could offer are some non profit in Toronto, and another based in the UK that I don't think even exists anymore as of a year later.

    And his poll reports 5% of 3000-some responses saying this is a thing, that's gonna have some major biases because the only people who are even gonna see this poll are the kinds of weirdos who give a shit what this LinkedIn idiot says, and that sample live reflects a miniscule fraction of a percent that really can't be interpreted as a all representative of the millions of people who have had job interviews. I can't see the actual wording of how he phrased it's because I'm not gonna install the LinkedIn app, but he could also have skewed the question in a way that would include stuff like getting compensated for travel expenses to attend an interview, which is something you might reasonably expect in some cases.

    Besides that and a few people like you around the internet, I really can't see anywhere saying that this is even remotely a thing, it's something that a handful of employers might do but they're a statistical anomaly.

    Or they're a pyramid scheme offering you a $50 gift card to show up and "interview" to sell steak knives.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    Once again, I apologize that I seem to have on offended you by knowing about a thing you did not and describing it as "not expected" (i.e., uncommon) but a thing good companies do. I'm sorry you think this only exists in a "fantasy land" and that you believe only a "chud" (look up what that actually refers to) would write about a worker-friendly practice gaining traction. I can easily see why this thing that has nothing to do with you personally would trigger such an emotional response.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago

    A step towards a social credit system.

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago

    Sure. But only if there's also a registry of all employment denials that includes the reason for denial and whether they bothered to even tell the applicant.

  • source
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    If this passes…. Fuck Ohio.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Moving out of that state has been the single biggest improvement I've made in my life, ngl

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Same but with moving out of the US, ngl

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    That's my next goal but I have no idea how to get going on that

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    School and work are the easiest ways to get a visa, unfortunately. Try applying to some international schools maybe?

    But I will warn that the visa is only the start of the process, having gone through it myself. There's so much bureaucracy and physical labor and logistical hell that needs to be done afterwards.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I have >10 years experience in tech, but I feel like the market is not great for that worldwide still. Also not sure the best way to go about getting a job when most listings I see specify they don't provide sponsorship

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Doesn't Ohio already suck? I haven't been there in quite a while but it sucked last time I was there and I haven't exactly heard any good Ohio news since then.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 47 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Can we get a registry of people who have wealth in excess of a million dollars?

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Literally anyone who contributed to a retirement account for a while?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Next on job interview questions list: Do you have any physical impediment to pregnancy?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Well I have balls. Gonna be pretty hard to get pregnant

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago

    The registry is to identify people who need extra help with transport or child care so we can target additional resources to help them get hired, right? Right? RIGHT?

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    Let me guess it's called right-to-be-interviewed

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    How about a registry for policemen? Or one for politicians getting "donations" from commercial sponsors? This information needs to be made public.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    Some top notch wasting of public taxes.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    Funny kind of law to make when the US jobs report for the last month is less than that of Canada's jobs report by ~10,000 jobs.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    Its a red state so they don't have a registry of guns.

    Use this information however you will 😏

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    So whats the objective here, to make it harder for lazy people to get jobs? Like Whats the end game with that?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Because conservatives would rather spend more money than spend less to ensure that the poors struggle as much as humanly possible in hopes that they "finally get the picture" and just die.

    I mean how much is this registry going to cost to maintain and monitor? how much is it going to cost to simply set up? I guarantee you it'll be more than whatever it currently costs the state of Ohio in unemployment benefits, wellfare, whatever. As long as it's cruel, encourages poor people to either kill themselves or die or leave the state then mission accomplished I guess.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    How much does it cost to maintain an empty file?

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Screw these guys , too

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    18 comments in c/ohio@midwest.social view that post